We'll call this evening city council meeting to order. Uh please uh rise for a moment of silence and a flag pledge. Mr. Lowski, can you do a roll call, please? >> Michelle Vulk. >> John Burmel, >> here. >> Dan Walter >> here.
>> Joshua Lee >> here. >> Uh, next up is citizen comments. Uh, so it's an opportunity for citizens to comment up to three minutes. Uh if you plan to comment on an item that is further down in the agenda, please wait
uh for that item and comment them. But if you have any other general comments, now is the time to uh to give those. When you come to the podium, please give your name, address, and keep it to three minutes. Okay. Wonderful. So, yes, that would be a good
time to do it now. Um, so if you anybody that wants to comment, come on up. >> Good evening. >> 210th Street West, Lakeville, Minnesota. Um, I'm one of three I know for sure that are going to speak today. Um, I do have handouts that I'll give you so you
can follow. so we meet again. Um, so I've um expressed my concerns and have asked questions into the planning committee in August 7th, 2025 and again December 1, 2025 in front of the city council. To
date, no one has answered even one of my questions. No one has emailed us, called us, or even asked for a town meeting, which normally for this kind of a development, you would have some opportunity for that. So, we're very disappointed in this process.
The I have nine questions. Um, you've seen these before. The study refers to 390.3 acres yet the developer doesn't own all 390 acres. So we want to know why the study includes all those
properties. Question number two, the uh the city indicated that their proposed action document that the city reached out to the state departments, but they did not include the United States Fish and Wildlife Services and that we're asking as to when you're going to be
including those in your process because they are responsible for an active hunting ground that's adjacent to the property. The third is the traffic concerns. The staff reports did not address the traffic concerns stated below at this
time. However, the letter from Dakota County Director of Physical Development Division indicated that they should be part of this process. So, we're wanting to know is when is the city and the county going to be looking at reviewing the traffic safety for this area. The fourth is the wetlands. It was great
to see a report. We're going to talk about that in a second. Um, but also the report left out the fact it included the Vermillion River watershed, but it did not include the Credit River watershed, which several of the properties adjacent to Lennet's property, including the
wetlands on Lennet's property, flow to the Credit River as well. So, when are we going to have be more inclusive when it comes to that review? Question five, the habitat for wildlife. Um it talks a lot about the protected
species and we're hoping that you'll respect those timelines for those species not to be disrupted. We're asking that you follow that plan which is basically April 15th to September 15th doesn't allow any development. The tree preservation um again the city has
a new ordinance. We're hoping that the city enforces that new ordinance um and that will apply to the DR DNR timeline recommended um by the city for the preservation of the tree ordinance. Question seven, has any of the members
have any of you walk this land? Has the staff walked this land? I think you're going to be very surprised. 30 seconds. >> If you're 400 um acres that you're the 300 acres that you're talking about of those 200 that's actually the property
55 acres is underwater or has wetlands. Um based on my time my son also prepared an executive report that you have that talks about he's a commercial realtor and he looks at land why it should be developed how it should develop based on the landscape of the land. There's a
report in here that reflects his the recommendations from his um research. And then if you just quickly take a look, this comes right out of the report. This is how much wetlands there are on these
that that this has been thoroughly walked and researched. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. And did the city clerk get a copy of all this? All right. Thank you. three minute speaking limit. But uh anyhow, my name is Mark Zweber. Uh I
live at 1232010th Street with my wife Paty. And uh that is a 6acre piece of ground adjoining that the Lauren property. Uh this will be my 50th
year that I've owned it. Uh so um I've been in the real estate business of 40 years. I've observed and participated in the development process of the city of Lakeville. I mean um I've always been very interested in that. I developed the
corner of 25th in Kenrich which is Porter House in Plat Dentistry. uh that taught me the exacting standards the city required and everything that had to be done and it always had to be
done the city's way. Um which well never mind in this case I find it rather extraordinary that um tradition wrote its own zoning plan for this development. Um that's just
extraordinary in my mind anyhow. So, um, the adjoining property owners had almost zero opportunity for input on that zoning plan. So, um, up above the hill here, I own 38 acres
up there for 38 years. And the reason I had it for so long is because the city wouldn't bring it into Musa. Um, which probably made me a lot of money, but uh, overall it was a long time. And um I
find it interesting that tradition proposes this huge development and right away the city bends over backwards to move the Musa area. I realize Met Council has to approve it but still um you had to get started first. So uh
probably how many years ahead of schedule. Um I saw nothing in the AUR a scoping plan about water. They talked about sewer. store and water goes together obviously. So 1,400 plus housing units
I'm sure will require likely another tower and a well you know is that provided in the in the city's and how does that get paid for? Uh the nearest fire station to the west end is right across the street over here five miles.
Uh, I understand that there's one being planned for um Dodd and Cedar and I'm just wondering are we going to get a fire station out there? Okay, I'll just give me a second
or two and then um so my dad was on the school board, Leroy Weber. He was on the school board for many years, for 10 years at least. He was also 20 plus years as the director or the superintendent of buildings and grounds for the district. He built probably
eight of the schools where he was the representative for the district. And um I remember having a conversation with him about the importance of the city and the school district working together. >> Okay. So
1,400 households, how many kids is that going to be? I don't know, but a lot. Um, I'm getting the sense that the city thinks that the school district's problem is the school district's problem. But you dump that many kids
onto the onto the school district, it won't be the school district's problem. It'll be everybody's problem. So, I I would really urge you to reach out to the district and work something out so that everybody's on the same page. And maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you have been doing that, but we're not getting that
sense. So last and I'll get out of here. Um because of the wetlands and you know and that's been pretty pretty much uh well whatever I mean you've got the report but because of the wetlands and the sober waterfall area adjoining the
development in it's my experience that it's going to be very difficult to build a good housing development out on that piece of property. There are just too many wetlands. Um, but that being said, it's an it's a gorgeous piece of property. It's
exceptional. It would be exceptional as a park. Park for Lakeville, park for Dakota County, maybe even Henipin Parks. Who knows? But the the land shouldn't just be swallowed up and and it's not discarded, but I mean, it
should be put to a better use. And I don't believe housing is is that there. Hey, thank you for >> Thank you for the extra time. >> Is there anybody else that would like to public comment? Mayor Prom. Good evening, council members,
city administrator. I'm Bob Ericson. I'm representing uh the Leonard's uh 390 acre proposed development. I'd like the residents to stand who are here tonight representing that neighborhood, please.
This is just just some of the residents who've been actively involved. I want to thank the um Katie and John Gross who who hosted a large neighborhood gathering u recently. Well attended. First thing we learned is that the
residents in Scott County who adjoin this development did not receive public notice of the meeting and this for them for some of them was the first they'd learned about it um considering it started in August. That's kind of a
unfortunate uh ex unfortunate experience very quickly. We've heard a lot about the branch and farms the quality of it. It's one of the top completed plumment developments in the city and I'd give high marks as I know
you have expressed your support of the of the tradition development and families uh project. Uh keeping in mind that it was in a different school district. the geotechnical is gravel um and that there's a handful of wetlands
as opposed to the 55 55 acres of wetland on this site. Planning director Durl my was personally and professionally responsible guiding the comprehensive plan. So I don't want to give all the credit to the to the Anbecks. They they deserve much, but so
does Daryl my for managing for 20 years the every uh development as aspect uh there. Um we were hoping to be at the work session on one of your traditional work sessions a week ago uh on the 26th,
but you've changed the direction on that and we respect that. uh you might want to correct the website which still shows web uh uh shows um work sessions on the fourth Monday at 6:00 at city hall. Very
quickly um we were hoping we hope and expect uh that in the future uh when the au is brought forward to the city council for final consideration that it would be left off of the consent agenda. Previously all AUERS approved by the
city have been on consent agenda. This this situation doesn't doesn't warrant it in our opinion to be on consent. We expect the park, recreation and natural resources committee to re view the wetland uh conditions supposed and and
and express how the city will manage the singest single largest concentration of wetlands anywhere in the city of Lakeville including and that represents 55 acres of scattered wetlands. I confidence in Matt Caerty and Messor
Schmidt and uh the uh city forester um Zach Jorgensson to manage effectively the AUR aspects of wetlands and of the tree preservation. I want to compliment the city council on the recently
approved tree preservation plan that'll be very beneficial to the development as proposed going forward. Last comment is in the recent finance and commerce magazine front page article Lakeville Development. It in quotes it has the
community development stating stated getting the AUA out of the way gives OM the ability to do platting. We don't want it the AUA are to just be gotten out of the way. We want it to be a used
userfriendly valuable tool to protect the natural environment. adjoining the um soberg wildlife waterfall production area. I thank you for your time this evening. Um and again I want to thank
the grosses for for hosting the recent meeting and the interest is uh significant and the residents have not been um under various con consent agenda elements and other aspects at the
planning commission level uh haven't been very um represented their interests haven't been very accurately represented and their and their concerns have not been responded to. >> Thank you very much. Any other public comment? Thank you for
uh for those who have spoken so far as this process continues. Sir, >> name's Larry Jones, 12450 210th Street West Lakeville. My property borders this development on the north side and then
on the south side of County Road 70. have some concerns that been voiced earlier in previous meetings about traffic concerns in that area. Uh the development company approached um myself and neighbor as to purchasing our
property to put a road through County Road 70 for access to this property. I haven't seen anything new development with regard to where they would access this property to County Road 70. Obviously, the access that's there now
is a gravel road which winds all the way around. Uh so there's concern there. My second one was the previous gentleman mentioned the water tower. You had the development just north of uh Walmart there with I
believe 600 homes in that development for the previous or the existing water tower that's right by Megasttop just put a brand new business offices in on County Road 70. You've got further business development down there in
County Road 70 which is going to take more water supply. Now you want to put 1,400 homes plus because that's only that initial development of those 200 acres. That's not what they're trying to buy is my property and saw the plans to
put in another 100 homes through that my neighbors plus other uh 10 acre spots next to that. So we're talking well over 1,500 homes in there for development. First thing is electricity to supply all
those. Secondly is this year we got a notice because of the cold weather. Centerpoint Energy wanted us to reduce all our heat usage. You're going to add 1,500 homes. What's that going to do for our usage in regard to energy and stuff?
These questions do need to be answered at some point in the development of this property. Um that is uh pretty much what I have to say. It's just u the the that um oh the
last note I wanted to make was that was brought up was fire uh coverage um at the best going out uh this fire department here is 10 minutes and the national requirement usually is less
than seven minutes requirement to meet fire. Well, that would be if you went straight out on 200 uh 210th Street, County Road 70 to the end of Lakeville where I live. Uh the best you could do, and of course you can put your sirens
and your red lights on and probably make it in 10 minutes out there. That doesn't include how you would make it to the property out and back. So, we're looking at possibly having to put a fire station out there somewhere because right now
all the fire stations are located north of County Road 50. >> You do 30 seconds. >> Okay, that'll end it then. Thank you. >> Okay, thank you. Is is there any other comments if it's related to that development? something that would be a comment.
>> Hi, >> my name is Phil Curtis, electrical contractor in the area. I'm a little new to what's going on, so some of these questions might be answered already. I don't usually public speak, so forgive a little awkwardness, but um I'm curious
if there's been a population study projecting the growth that this development is needed, especially considering what they're doing over in Walmart. And can the public have a copy of this projected population study? Because that seems to be the first thing
that we kind of would want to see. Um why is this necessary? Um, another question I have is where is Scott County and Credit River Township on with this? Have you guys consulted with them? Are they partners with this? They know what's going on. Are they
aware of it? Are they here tonight? Actually talked to Scott County myself and the person that I talked to wasn't in this development. Um, so he didn't know about it, but like to know if you guys have talked to them at all. And then what's been previously
mentioned is the environmental study. We already know it's a lot of wetlands. So, you know, I live over on France Boulevard. We've got deer, we got turtles, all kinds of stuff, just what's going to happen to them because this is obviously going to be a massive
migration somewhere. So, what's the game plan? It sounds like this is still kind of in development. What are you going to do with this? Um, and then the last question is how's this being planned? to my knowledge, without all the land being owned. They don't
they don't own all this land. So, I'm kind of curious of how they even brought this before you guys without having a plan to own all the land. So, like I said, maybe there's information on that. I don't know. But just going over this the last two weeks, these are some
questions that popped in my head. Okay. >> Thank you. I appreciate your time. Thank you. I'm Katie Gross. I live on 22 um 100 Penn Avenue, Scott County area. Um we were never notified of it because we're Scott County, but literally our backyard
is where the development will be. Um, my big concern, I work with the school board. Um, and my biggest concern is where are we going to put all these kids? Especially with this referendum coming up. I I mean, from what I've talked to, the majority of people aren't
willing to even pass this referendum. So then where are we going to be at with the kids? That's one thing. Another thing is there's we have been what the top five city growth city in 10 years that it's Lakeville is changing
drastically. It's not that cute quaint city that we used to have. It's we're taking down all this wildlife. Um it's becoming overpop populated that people that once loved it for what it was is moving out because it's not what it once
was. So, as the city council members take that into deep consideration as this project moves forward that you're changing the the whole population and the feel of Lakeville and there's so many big high density developments going
on that um we really need to think about what other things could we do with this land. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Hi, my name is Cheryl Soul and I am just going to piggyback on what Katie said. Um, we are across the road from Soulberg
Refuge and we are right on uh Scott County is on this side of our driveway. Dakota County is on this side. We had no idea that this was happening like not at all until Katie let you know let us know like in our mailbox like two weeks ago.
So, I just want to say um in regards to Soulberg Refuge, it's beautiful. And I'm just telling you, if you haven't had a chance to drive through that area, it's absolutely beautiful. And I don't know, someone said make a park or whatever or I don't even know who's buying it, if
they could just like that many houses is incredible. And I'm a farm girl and I don't want to see for my kids and my grandkids. I don't want us to make the world into, you know, five houses per
acre. I would just like to keep Lakeville, at least this part of Lakeville, because there are so many wetlands and so many beautiful trees along that property. I wish you could just take a four-wheeler and just go through all that 400 acres and see what it's like. I appreciate your time and
thank you. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else with with comments on the topics that we we haven't heard commented on yet? Thank you. Yeah. >> Uh if you don't mind, I can respond to a couple things just process-wise. You're
all here. Um >> not to cut off comment. I'm sure if anybody else wants to come up, that's still the process. Um just a couple things on process. Um the January work session was cancelled. that was due to a lack of agenda items. The city council has made a tentative decision to uh try
a new process in the month of February. That's why the work sessions on the rest of the website have not been cancelled. So those can those work sessions are still on the schedule until we make a previous or a future decision based on that. So um in terms of the notification
of this um we apologize if that was the case. We'll make sure that um people get notified. Um to that extent um I have offered up to meet to have the appropriate staff meet with anybody who wants to meet. Um I spoke with um
somebody last week about that. We'd be happy to do that. If you contact us, we'll be happy to meet and answer many of the questions. Many of the questions that you have tonight, we have the same questions and that's why we don't have answers to that. And that is what the process of the AUR that's going on right
now. So public safety, transportation, utilities, schools, that's all part of the AUA process, AUAR process, which is going on right now. That is all part of this. And so once those um once that
process is done, there will be more discussion. There'll be more discussion with the city council. We'd be happy to have meetings with all of you to do that as well and go over those. So don't take the lack of answers as something that we're hiding. We don't have those answers yet. That's why we haven't been
able to answer those questions. You have to go through the AU a process to get to many of those. We know there's lots of wetlands on the property. We have a tree preservation ordinance that will be applied. So all of those will be discussed. Um and so I just wanted to um
lay out that in terms of where we are in the process. >> Thank you, Mr. Miller. Um so moving on uh to number four. Um additional agenda information. Is there any additional agenda information? >> Nothing tonight, mayor.
>> Uh for presentations, we have uh a proclamation for Minnesota school bus driver uh day and uh council member Lee. Ready to read that? >> Absolutely. Happy to.
The proclamation from the city of Lakeville for the Minnesota School bus driver appreciation day. Whereas the city of Lakeville, Minnesota, school bus drivers uh safely transport our community's children to and from school and activities each day, often in
challenging weather and traffic conditions. And whereas these professional drivers are entrusted with the safety and well-being of students on every route, providing a reliable, welcoming presence that often begins and ends at students school day. And whereas
school bus drivers are essential partners to our local and education system, helping ensure that all students can access learning opportunities regardless of their family schedule, distance from school, or transportation resources. And whereas students are
significantly safer riding in a school bus than in a passenger vehicle thanks to rigorous safety standards, professional training, and ongoing student safety education. And whereas students, school bus transportation is a vital part of our community's infrastructure and the largest form of
mass transit in Minnesota, supporting families, schools, and employers every day. And whereas the city of Lakeville, Minnesota wishes to recognize and thank our school bus drivers for their dedication, professionalism, and commitment to student safety. Now therefore, the Lakeville City Council
does hereby proclaim that Wednesday, February 18th, 2026 shall be observed as school bus driver appreciation day in the city of Lakeville. Proclaimed the second day of February, 2026, signed by Mayor Luke Helier. >> Thank you. Yeah, we certainly appreciate
our uh our school bus. That that's a huge logistical undertaking. So, we appreciate the drivers and uh the people that figure out the routes and all that. Um, next up we have our annual economic
development update. Miss Goodroad. Good evening, Mayor Me or um pleased to present the 2025 economic development report. Um before I begin, I want to have a huge shout out to Kitty Bachmeer who prepared our report each year and who prepared this presentation and is
with us this evening. Um so to kick us off, um we had a very strong year in 2025 with permit activity. Um you can see on the screen um the totals, we completed the year with a B building permit valuation of over $381 million.
And you can see how that relates to the three previous years. Um it's 123 million increase over 2024 or 47.9%. So a huge year in part um this is really due to our
partners in commercial industrial development. Private sector invested 111.3 million into new commercial and industrial park development. Um the largest project is Dakota Electric. Um their new facility that permit valued at
47.8 million. the new DEA headquarters. Um that project includes 176,685 foot office warehouse and storage building. Also includes outdoor storage constructions expected um to be completed and open in summer of 2027.
And then on the table you can see some of the other large permits um including the Lakeville 35 Logistics Center, Lake View Family Pet Clinic, Advanced Exhaust Solutions, and Chase Bank. to round out the the top permits. And yes, according to Housing First, we
did finish the year at number one again for residential permits in the Twin Cities. We completed the year with 229 single family permits, 118 detached town homes. Um little larger amount for attached town homes at 201 and three
apartment permits for a total of 73 units. And that includes the new Kenyon Green um workforce development project. new residential construction um building permit valuation was about half of our total or 46% at 174 million. I really
like to see that balance between residential and non-residential and the average building permit valuation on a single family home was 349,610. We ranked number two in total units um just behind Rosemount by one. Um, according to Dakota County, our median
estimated market value is now at 468,000. We have 26,631 households with an average household size of 2.9 units. And this map is great to see um all the little pink dots represent um building permits and where
they've been issued. So again, a lot of activity um in all the areas that feels familiar and looks familiar from when you're driving around town. Um but you can see how it's broken out in the different school districts and then some of the new activity in Ritter Meadows on
the west side of 35. Institutional was a big year in 2025 with the groundbreaking and the construction start of the first center as well as Grand Prairie Park. Um that park construction will continue. Um elements were open last year and then everything else will be able to open
this year. This is one of my favorite graphics that Katie puts together. It demonstrates all the new businesses that have either expanded in Lakeville um or have chosen um Lakeville over the past year. And again, we've seen a lot of increase in medical, pediatric, and wellness
services last year, starting with Children's Dental Care. Um they added services and expanded their facility to include orthodontics. Grow Pediatrics broke ground late this fall on a new 9200 square foot um clinic. and Metropolitan Pediatrics is expanding and
that will that new expansion will open next this year. Fitness and athletic performance businesses have opened or expanded including Lifetime Fitness, ETSs performance relocated and we've welcomed three new businesses, Pickle in the Middle, Never Sleep Athletics, and
Lake Point Gymnastics all open this fall and um early winter. We also have new medical facilities um thanks to Midwest Ear nose and throat specialist up on Buckill Road, Midwest um facial plastic
surgery and Tine Dermatology. We were able to celebrate new businesses with 21 ribbon cutings and five groundbreings. On the upper left is Wild Things, um the indoor playground, um downtown bicycles, Never Sleep athletics to name a few.
In Lakeville, we employed 21,289 people and that's as of third quarter 2025. This equates to a 33% increase in employment over the past decade. Our top employ employers are consistent with previous years including the school district, postconsumer brands, HY,
Makers Pride, and City of Lakeville. Our unemployment rate is 3.2% compared to the county at 3.8 and Minnesota overall at 4.1%. And then this is another great map that really helps um show and demonstrate all
that activity, especially with the amount of commercial industrial that's really popping out on this map. And it's nice to see that um the projects be distributed across the city. Again, these are new um buildings um new businesses as well as expansions.
And then we did finish um the year with 523 final platted lots. A big part of what Katie and I do is promoting and marketing Lakeville and all that we have to offer. And we had a really fun year last year starting last
year with um the um Twin Cities Live in your town visit. And so during the week of January 20th last year, they showed off um 20 different businesses during that whole week. And then they were here in town at Babes on January 24th. That was a great event. Um Katie continues
with the Thrive business newsletters and videos on a monthly basis. We ranked number one in the red tape index. Um this is for our permit approval speed and we are featured city in the red tape index quarterly report. Um we are also featured in the business expansion
journal and we partnered with the Lakeville Chamber to kick off the leadership Lakeville last year was the first session and that continues into this year. One of our other big sponsorships and partners is the real estate journal. The Minnesota Real Estate Journal puts on several different
programs to brokers um throughout the year and we participate in several of them as panelists, including on the Cannabis Real Estate Summit, the Industrial Development Summit, and we also host booths at many of those events where we're able to talk one-on-one with brokers. We also partner with the Real
Estate Journal and the Dakota County CDA to put on the Southeast Suburban Development Summit that takes place every May. And I think this is going to be our fourth year. So, that's a way for us to really highlight to um the South Metro Brokers all that Lakeville has to offer. As you know, in October, we
celebrated manufacturing month and we kicked that off with a brand new appreciation event um handing out gift baskets to all of our different manufacturers. They loved it. We got a great response and we'll probably be doing that again this year. And then the Mink Car um expo is something that we do
each fall. Again, that's another opportunity for us to be face tof face with brokers um during their annual event. And then we kicked off the or recicked off, I should say, the spotlight and business video. So, this is um uh part of kind of the BRE program. We
offer this um during our business retention visits to anybody who would like to have a video. Um we started this year with Sweet Harvest Foods and Hearth and Home Technologies. So, as I mentioned, the business retention expansion program started last
year, and this program is intended for us to outreach with um partners, including our chamber and our economic development commission to meet our businesses and strengthen those that we have great existing relationships with and then also foster new ones with all of our Lakeville business community. our
two BRE teams that would go out each month, we were able to accomplish 29 visits and held our first CEO roundt um with the mayor. A couple other projects um late last fall we kicked off the Cedar Avenue corridor and land use and market
analysis. This is a presentation that you'll be receiving very soon. The planning commission is receiving the presentation this Thursday. But the point of the study was to revisit the Cedar Avenue corridor where a lot of intense land use guidance occurred because of the plan for the BRT to run
through Lakefell. With that change, we needed to reassess market conditions and determine the appropriate land uses. So, this plan will then inform our upcoming 2050 comprehensive plan. and Lakeville received um recognition at the Dakota Scott Workforce Development
Board award celebration back in December. Miycopy of Lakeville received the Bob Killian Award. This is award that is um recognizes individuals or companies for their innovative and quality practices and Katie Bachmeer, economic development manager received
the Mark McGaffy friend of the lake for Lake Forest Development Award. That's a mouthful. this is presented to an individual has championed workforce issues at the lake local, state or federal level and um just a wonderful recognition and welld deserved um for
Katie. I think looking ahead this year um we've made a lot of progress with the Compass Rail effort um this partnership between Compass and Progressive Rail and the city of Lakeville um to develop the rail car storage facility. With the land use change, the zoning change, the
annexation being in place, um we will continue this effort into the new year. We are also going to be kicking off the 2050 comprehensive plan. This is a process that we have to go through every 10 years um to update this plan um really set um the uh phase for growth
and reinvestment in the community um looking out for the next 10 years. So, we do have an RFP out for that project. Um we will be starting that in March and it takes 12 to 18 months um for us to get through that. Um but even as we grow
we still continue to um have hundreds of acres available for commercial and residential development and Katie will be out Katie and I will be out there um creating those opportunities. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any questions, comments? Council
>> Council Lee. >> Um thank you uh Director Good Road. I just want to commend your team. It's a strong uh small strong and mighty uh group to accomplish all of that. Um, and some of the things that I I didn't necessarily hear you call out
explicitly, but um, I think your involvement with the chamber, schools, and uh, even nonprofits, and I I see your work happening all over the place, and you're truly just a exemplary um,
ambassadors for our city in what you do. I love the newsletter. It's very well done. Um and the way our very transparent with what's uh coming in terms of development when you go to the website and you go to the what's in its permit permit phase, what's being
developed, what was recently developed, all that information is at your fingertips, too. And I know that uh that takes time and energy to make sure that all those things are happening while you're doing the work to make that happen. So, uh just wanted to give you a huge thanks and uh congrats on all of the work this past year.
>> Thank you. Yeah, I just echo that. You guys had a huge year >> and and I the relationships that you have are incredible. The hard work. Um and it's almost like you're doing two things. Like you're creating relationships and you're doing the
actual work to to get this done. And the red tape thing always brings it warms my heart to know that, you know, we're we're just trying our hardest to remove burdens so businesses can come to our community. >> Thank you. And I appreciate your
comments. And I would be remiss um if I didn't call out other departments that we work so closely with. Our building inspections team is amazing. Um, a lot of that red tape report, um, and the accolades that have come around that is really due to the efforts of Dave
Matthews and Zach, be remiss if we didn't mention engineering. We can't do we can't produce these kinds of numbers and have these great projects without community development and engineering work together. So, um, huge kudos to our partnership. Um, we have, um, really
great departments across the city that make all this happen. But thank you, Awesome. Thank you. Uh, next up we have the consent agenda. Uh, Mr. Miller, anything you'd like to highlight? >> Thank you, acting mayor and city council. A few items very noteworthy
tonight. Item 6G and 6H are both related to the first center. That's our first responder skills training center. 6G is an agreement with the state of Minnesota. This is uh to codify the $7 million grant that we received from the state of Minnesota and we are greatly appreciative of our state legislators
for their effort getting that together. And then also on 6H is an agreement with four of our neighboring cities, Northfield, Apple Valley, Farmington, and Elco New Market who have assigned or have agreed to become capital partners. Besides some upfront funding for that,
they also have pledged five years to um uh participate in ongoing rentals and um with that comes some benefits in terms of scheduling, but that's going to provide a nice um uh cash flow for us, but also um ensure that it is that regional facility that we promised when
we were going through the development of that. And then item 6N is a resolution approving the appointments to various city council committees. And this was um as what was agreed to or discussed at your uh retreat last month. >> All right. Thank you, councel. Is there
anything anyone would like to pull for further discussion? >> If not, we'll take a I'll take a motion to it. This >> I move approval of the consent agenda. >> Second. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in favor say I. I. Anyone opposed?
Okay, thank you. Uh, next up, uh, 7A, an ordinance amendment on licensing background checks for sexually oriented businesses and massage businesses. >> Uh, Mr. Lowski. >> Thank you, Mayor and Council. The proposed ordinance amends multiple
sections of Lakeville City Code to clarify licensing, background investigation authority, fingerprinting, and consent requirements, and applicant cooperation standards for sexually oriented businesses and massage therapy establishments. All of these updates are
intended to ensure that we are in compliance with the Minnesota state statutes. >> All right, council. Any questions or discussion? If not, I'll take a motion. >> I'll make a motion. >> Go ahead. >> I move to adopt an ordinance amending
chapter 1, title 3, chapter 10, 16, and 21 of the Lakeville City Code and a summary ordinance for publication. >> Second. >> Motion and a second. Uh, Mr. Ski. Roll call, please. >> Folk, >> I. >> Burmal >> I.
>> Walter. >> I. >> Lee. >> Hi. >> Okay. Passes. And uh item B, comprehensive plan amendment and ordinance amendment. Uh Lenar. Uh so we have Steve Troski and
uh Miss Goodro. Dr. Troski. >> Good evening. Steve Trosky with LAR out of Plymouth, Minnesota. We're here requesting an amendment for a comprehensive plan and a resoning for what will be a newity of 46 single
family homes. Uh we're seeking your approval so that we can continue with our plan design and uh get to a preliminary plat stage and when approved I anticipate that we would submit that preliminary plat here within a few weeks. So after your staff presentation I'm happy to come back up and answer any
questions you have. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. So, the property in question is highlighted or outlined in yellow. It is um adjacent to Holio um west of High View and north of Heritage Drive. Um as
u Mr. Trosky mentioned um LAR is um proposing a comprehensive plan amendment. And so the comprehensive plan maps are on the left side of the page. At the top of the screen, it shows the existing comprehensive plan. The property is guided for lowdensity
residential or LDR and that allows up to three units an acre. The proposed comprehensive plan amendment is shown on the bottom of the screen of that page um right here. That is LMDR or low medium density residential up to five units an
acre. And then with that with a comprehensive plan, we always have the subsequent reszoning so they're consistent. The existing reszoning is RS3 and the proposed zoning is RST2. So although the density allows up to five units an acre, as he mentioned, the
proposal is for 46 single family lots. The property is roughly 20 acres, but only 12 acres are considered developable due to the wetlands. Now, as we go through the plumary plat process, we will finalize all of that in terms of
the um final wetland delineations, the buffers. Um it could change that 12 unit number slightly, but then we have to accommodate for storm water. And so this is the concept plan that we reviewed as we were reviewing and evaluating the comprehensive plan amendment. So it
results in a proposal of 46 single family lots with a resulting density of 3.88 88 units per acre. This is a gain of 10 lots with this amendment. So with the change to the LMDR going up to the
46 lots, um it's a gain of 10 over what the underlying zoning. But one thing I want the council to keep in mind is as we move through and have future development, everything is going to have to meet that minimum of three unit three and a half units per acre. That is the
change with the 2050 plan. So that would result in 42 lots on 12 acres. The applicant is requesting this review um and submittal to the Metropolitan Council prior to preparing the plumary plot. And so being that this is um under
a threshold of 40 acres, the Metropolitan Council will review this as an administrative review. So it doesn't take as much time as some of our amendments is after that they'll consider submitting their preliminary plat. And it's during that preliminary plat time that we'll evaluate trees,
tree preservation, we'll evaluate storm water, wetlands, the buffers and all of that. We have um asked them and um they have participated in a sanitary sewer study. Um this is something that they paid for but the city required it just
to ensure that there is capacity for this proposed development. And there is um it was determined that there's capacity to go all the way up to the medium density which that is not what's being proposed. So at the low medium is certainly um within the capacity. Um the
planning commission did hold their public hearing that was on January 15th. There were four people who did speak um during the public comment um concerns about additional traffic um impact on their properties um and there is some information in in your packet about um
the response regarding the traffic um but the planning commission did unanimously recommend approval and I would stand for any questions. >> Thank you Miss Goodro. So this is not a public hearing but uh with an agenda item I see some people still hanging
around here. So, is there anybody that would like to comment on this from the public? And again, name, address, and keep your comments to three minutes, please. >> Jerry Jerick, uh, 1984 High View Avenue.
Uh, my wife and I live just across the street, basically north of the north of the proposed, uh, LAR development. Between our property, the Hegeland property and the Peterson's property, we represent 12 acres directly affected by
this plan. We have several concerns with this concept plan that is currently presented. Overall, we feel it does not align city's long-term zoning vision for the pro properties north of
the development and it leaves major questions unanswered. First, a few years ago, we attended a planning meeting regarding improvements of Holy Oak Avenue. None of the plans shown included access to Holy Oak for
the Hegeland properties or the Peterson properties. Under this new concept plan, it's still unclear how those homes would maintain or improve access. We need clarity on how existing properties will be served.
Second, the constant plan does not consider future development potential for the properties east or east of our land. If this plan moves forward as it is as as is, those parcels be
effectively be block landlocked from ever connecting to city sewer. While they currently have access to city water from Hive View Avenue, they would be forced to rely on per private mound
systems indefinitely. We question whether that is the city's long-term um intent. Third, holding for the way currently dead ends directly at the back door of our property. We
understand growth is in in inevitable, but we know we won't be in our home forever. However, the current plan limits future options for all surrounding properties, which could reduce our value and flexibility. We
believe the sub street extending Holingford Wayade north into the Hegeland property would better align with second with with sound planning principles. We also been told our property how have now contains wetlands.
What's important to understand is that for decades this land was actively farmed. We allowed trees to grow over the the the land the last 46 years that we've lived there creating a wooded area. But there there were no wetlands
until town homes were built to the south in 2003. Those are the ones directly across the street. dirt movement at that time blocked the creek running through our land >> about 30 seconds if you >> okay I I just I'm finishing up here uh
which caused the water to back up. We simply are asking the city to consider these these and look at now I have uh I don't know if you have this over >> um to yeah >> just set it down and then I'll put it up
there. So >> as you can see this is just a rough drawing drawing of my very rough. But anyway, uh this is our the prop 12 acres we're talking about and these are the acreage here.
They have no area. If this gets built in here, this land, these properties and all this land in here will never to city sewer. Now, this is holding for way holding for way. we stub put into here
into the Hegland land property so that it would be able to hook up and give us be able to develop our our properties the way it is right now. They have a street coming up like that and you're going to get like seven lots out of there instead of 20. Thank you.
>> Hello. I am representing the Hegeland property. My address is 17025 Johnquil Avenue. So this is a map that we had an Ariel. >> Is it on? Uh >> just give it a second.
>> I just leave it sit there. >> Here we go. So, here's an aerial that we had in 2021 or 200 creek that ran that Jerry was just speaking about that ran through the property,
the holding pond on the Heritage Way. now or this I've pulled up off of the wetland national last week and here it's showing the creek going through here they call it a
river that goes over here and flows into the pond we were I signed a letter of intent and they gave me this wetland and now they're saying we have wetland here property here and ours is if you look at
here now the wetland here instead of going a stream going over here to the pond when done on their property they built a burm and you can tell by the elevation here that it goes from 114 to a th00and they
built it up so all that water is standing back here and I would like that to get corrected because we did not have wet land on our property because Now, Lenar with their drawing
is saying this here is all wet land. This wet land here, the creek should be going through here and going through here, not along our property line, saying that we have wet land. And so, I'd like to know how that's going to get fixed.
>> All right. Thank you. >> And how I'm not done with my time yet, right? >> No, you got a little time. >> So on here they are saying that our property I saw on your map you're saying 12 acres they need to have
that >> how how is plan showing that there's 42 acres there or 42 plots there. They're saying that all of this here is corridor. So they're saying our property is all drainage corridor here. So
where's that water going to drain yards? How are they going to get those yards back coming back onto our property like they did here? >> Any other comments >> stuff now or you just
>> we what we can do is staff is taking notes and they can get back to you later. Yes. On that. >> And then on another thing, they're saying that we should have a wetland corridor holding pond on our property
property where that corner unit is. >> Okay. Anything else? >> Okay. Thank you. >> Is there anybody else that would like to go up at the microphone >> and repeat it into the microphone. >> I live at 12310 210th Street West,
Lakeville, Minnesota. To your point, John, that you just got done commenting there. Are you going to get back about the previous um comments that were made in the previous conversation, the general comments, um because you said you got back individually to those people that have
spoken. I spoke personally in August. I've not received a phone call, an email responding back to any of the questions that we had. >> Yep. The the AUR is is still in process. It's Mr. Miller Mr. Miller commented on. We don't have a lot of those answers.
>> Yeah. >> Is an AR a AUR been done on this property? >> If it needs to be done and then >> so the state statute doesn't say that. Yes.
>> Okay. Is that based off the size? >> Yes. >> All right. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other comments? >> I heard everything he said. >> I'm Ann's husband. Um recognize some of
your last names. I think the Hegeland property supported some of your signage when you're running for office. So, congratulations. Um, there's still several questions that that water corridor that was already brought up. Um, my in-laws own this property for 60 years. They raised six
kids there. Their kids, their cousins hunted that property. Our children grew up there. So, the grandchildren played in that property. Um, I don't understand how it's a a corridor for for water drainage. Um, our our son and
daughter-in-law got married in 2017. We had a tent in the backyard of the property that held over 300 people. We parked probably 200 home or 200 cars on our property and on Jurich's property after a week or two of rain in October
of 17. Not a rut in the yard. I mean, it's not a water corridor. And to my wife's point, if it is a water corridor, that water's going to run down the hill supposedly to all the new homes. I don't know how that's going to be diverted. >> And and again, um like I said, they
lived there for over 60 years, built a home there. The land is as dry as my aging skin. I mean, it's not a watershed. It's not a corridor. It's developable land. And for years, when my in-laws were still alive, they had numerous homebuilders, local, regional,
national. We had signed a letter of intent to sell with the number four major home builder in the country at one time until until they discovered the Breen property in their opinion was going to cost 3/4 of a million dollars to make it buildable. But every builder we talked to was not interested in our
land unless they could also acquire the Breen property. Well, now the Breen property is acquired and for some reason the developer wants nothing to do with any of the properties adjacent to it. little and also strangely enough just today we got a call from LAR that all of
a sudden they want to talk to us. Now my fear is that we we're landlocked all of us homeowners are landlocked now with that and by doing that and and everybody we talked to at the city said that's the last thing they want to do is have homeowners landlocked. We are not we are
now landlocked and you've greatly devalued the property values of all the neighboring property. Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak about this agenda topic? >> If you come up to the microphone, you
may ask a question. >> You'll have to get to >> right up to the microphone. There we go. >> Conset plan. Who decided that the minimum is 42 lots on that 12 acres or 12 acres? Who decided that? >> Miss Good Road can probably answer that.
that it's a concept plan to determine what density could be as related to the land use amendment. So again, we haven't gone through plary plant. It's concept plan developed by LAR. So they proposed 46 lots.
>> Miss Wood, I think what you're asking, the Met Council is going to require that all development in Lakeville be at 3.5 units per acre at a minimum moving forward. So based on that, there's 12 units developable moving forward, it'll
need to have a minimum of 42 units >> that Lar gave you guys. And I know it's changed because these show twin homes and now they changed it to single family homes and they gave you this concept plan here. I do not see where they were saying that 42
part or plots will be placed on this property. They're not saying that. We are saying that if this were to come forward in the future, >> yeah, >> it would have to have at least 42 units, >> right? But but they have to show how the
roads are going to run to the city. And if they're saying the only road that's going to run through here is right here holding for to hook it up, how how are you expecting you to get 42 lots on there? >> May I?
>> Yeah, go ahead. I I believe you're referencing your property, right? Trying to >> That's not just mine because it's four and a half acres. >> You're referencing the unplatted part of all the properties to the north of what we're talking about. From what I understand, we're not saying that there
are going to be 42 lots on those properties. >> Saying here, 42 lots on 12 acres. We have 12 acres >> on this on the not your 12 acres. We're talking about this 12 acres >> and it's 12 developable acres. Yes. >> On So you're saying 42 lots on green,
>> correct? That's correct. >> That's correct. >> I was confused because you're saying >> they have 20 and I get what you're saying. >> Thank you. >> Understood her question. So I'm glad you clarified that.
>> Yeah. Yep. Um, so council any questions, discussion? >> Well, I guess I just I don't know if is there any answers or anything that you can give us tonight on some of the
questions that were brought up. >> Thank you. Um, I'm not sure I can address the wetlands and the creek. Um I'm not aware of um the wetland situation on the properties to the north um or what she um questioned regarding
Birming at Brienne. Um I will get her name and number. We'll certainly follow up. Um by no means do we want to create any situations where parcels are going to be landlocked. I don't believe that is going to occur um with the change on this property. Again, this is a land use
and zoning change at this time. Um we will be evaluating all of those things as we go through the preliminary plat um ghost platting adjacent properties to ensure we're not result no properties are resulted in any landlock situation.
Um if you noticed on the resolutions for the comprehensive plan change and the reasonzoning they take effect once we get through that plotting process. So, we want to submit to the Metropolitan Council the land use change, get that approval done, but this is all contingent on being able to get through
the preliminary plot and be able to address those other questions. >> So, those other questions come later in the process. >> Yep. But we will certainly follow up with her. >> Yes. >> On the question regarding the Burm and all of that. >> Yes. Followup to the concern about
landlocked. I I'm not um quite understanding what the concern is with landlocking considering that there's current access to roads to the east and west and that those facilities also have
water sewer. Is the concern that the way this is being developed would constrict somehow the number of developable units and then that wouldn't be a purchasable lot for LAR in the future or is it truly that
they don't have access to uh city water and utilities >> and so Matt sir Y but right now Miss Good Road is talking. We're going to keep order here and we're going to let people talk one
time and then did you want to ask uh >> Yes. I think city engineer Johnson could you address the sewer and water question? >> Uh um Mayor the uh utilities would be extended with the subsequent platting of this property that you're looking at. So
the residents are correct in that they don't have access today but as our ordinance requires that the platting of this property would also include the extension of sewer and water to their properties which at that point would allow them to be developable. Uh we have done a sewer capacity analysis as Miss
Goodro referenced and this sewer does have capacity to handle these properties and water be would be extended to serve them as well. Uh we'd be happy to meet with these residents uh to walk them through the process. As Miss Good Road said, this is all conceptual. This is not a preliminary plat application. Uh
the questions they ask, we can we can speak with them about and walk them through. Um the images that they're seeing as far as concepts and ghost plats are simply that they are not based on any wetland delineations or anything of that nature. So uh they're asking fantastic questions. They're just the
work hasn't been done on those properties because they're undeveloped at this point. Ma'am, ma'am, we've we've had our public comment time. I really want to hear uh from the council right now. >> But then my follow-up question to that because now relating to what we're
looking >> a decision on today, >> does the change in zoning change anything about how access to water would have been created if we stayed at RST2 zoning versus RST3? >> The same would be required. So there in
in that regard there's no changes here based on the density change. >> No. >> Okay. >> Correct. >> Thank you on uh appreciate that. Um another question I have just in regard to how wetlands get uh delineated and
granted it's a living creature so I imagine those things change over time. How and who determines what is delineated as a wetland and why are folks seeing that change over time? >> Thanks, Zach.
>> Uh, Council Member Lee, it's a great question. Uh, the wetlands would have to be delineated by an individual who's certified with the ability to establish that. Uh, there's three primary factors that are included in that. It's vegetation, water, and soil. uh we also
have to look at it during the growing season to confirm that those lines are accurate. It also does include a historical context review as well and uh they are able to take a look at that and see if it's you know it's a human created ditch or if it's something naturally occurring. So all of those
questions all those things would be taken into consideration at the time of delineation is completed. So all of that input and that historical context would be incorporated into that. That said conditions can change. So it's very possible that over time while there
wasn't a wetland there could be one today. However, we would look at why it was established and and look at you know with a water source and things like that. So um we can speak with that to them about that question. Uh but without a actual delineation it's it's really um
hard to be concrete in an answer at this point. >> So then a followup to that though so the delineation has not happened. what we're seeing here are >> what we expect there to be where we expect there to be wetlands but not what has officially been delineated
>> there has not I'm I'm sorry uh there has not been a delineation uh on the properties to the north at this point so uh other than looking you know at the the uh national wetland inventory uh that's a classification that's not a delineation that's it's a good resource
um Mr. Trroski could speak to do you has there been a delineation on this property? Okay. So this one the property in front of you is done. Um so that one would be completed but anything to the north of that has there's been no delineation yet that would have to be done by the property owner.
>> Thank you. I do have another but it switches it changes gears. So I want to offer >> anybody anybody else. Um okay. So then my next question is really more towards uh the developer and housing type. Um
because when considering the why for a change in density um we've we've seen how this particular parcel relates to those around it. I understand and get the transition um going from town homes to single family to you know uh phasing
it into lesser and lesser density. Um my um question though in terms of its appropriateness for this particular site is what do you plan to build? What kind of single family homes are you planning
to build in in these lots? Because there they it looks to me like a very uh specific type of home and I couldn't figure out in on your websites what kind of housing stock you're planning to put in here. So, great question.
When we look at a piece of property, um, we have a kind of a list of all the home products that LAR offers in a specific market in this area of Lakeville. We'd have a a wide range of different home products. So, we have a financial
analyst team that looks at property costs, all of those things, and they say, "Let's get started with something like this, and we think a 55 foot wide home site is appropriate." And then once we go through the platting process, our
financial folks kind of scale that back and to say, "Here's the two, three, four home products that we think are going to fit on this area." So, as I stand here today, I can't confidently tell you this model home or that model home will be
developed. They will all be single family homes. There will be no duplexes, no town homes, all single family. They will be two and threecar garages. At this point, I think that they're all going to be slab on grade villas, but something may change when we get a
little bit more into the engineering. And another one form of single family home that uh has be is becoming more popular is single or detached town homes also known as single family homes just depending on who you talk to. But that's
kind of the housing type that I'm think that I envision uh with just the uh widths of lots in something like this. Uh, so that's not a question, but that I'm I guess I'm just trying to get a little bit of confirmation that's probably the direction that we're going with
something like this. >> Yeah, our intent is to not have an HOA if we can avoid it at this particular community. There's no public amenities specifically for the community. So, we try to avoid an HOA in those situations. And because we're avoiding an HOA, that
means we're not going to hire grass maintenance and snow shoveling for the whole community at once. So, as I stand here today, we're planning to sell them individually as single family homes and then everyone would be responsible for their own maintenance and it wouldn't be
a, you know, senior community or anything like that. >> Okay. To me, the compelling reason to increase the the density slightly, which we know is just above uh the maximum for
um the previous or the current zoning for it, um is about housing affordability and and access to the housing. And so that's one of the reasons why I'm trying to drill down a little bit terms of what the housing stock is um to to inform my why for
changing the zoning so that it it provides a housing I mean we all know the housing crisis uh that Minnesota has and the need for homes. And so, uh, will this bring, uh, a needed housing type into Lakeville is ultimately the question, uh, that I'm sure analysts,
you know, when you bought the property, you have, uh, folks determine if this is going to be viable. Uh, and so that that's ultimately what I'm trying to consider and figuring out if this is the appropriate use. So,
I believe that these single family homes will start in the mid to mid high 400s. Um, again, we don't have it exactly nailed down what specific home product we're going to have. But these are not going to be $800,000 homes. They're
going to be, you know, significantly less than that. And they're also not going to be $200,000 town homes or anything like that. So our analysts have done a lot of research in the area. We've got a lot of communities in Lakeville and your neighbors
Farmington, Rosemont. And so what our analysts do is they really look at the subm market as a whole and they say, "What is performing well? What types of households want to move to Lakeville? What do we have enough of? And what do we need more of?" And that's how we
ended up with these 55 wide home sites. We determined that there's a shortage in LAR's inventory of that home product in this area. >> Thank you for the answering all all my questions. Appreciate it. >> Uh yes, >> I've got a question for Miss Good Road.
Um and it's about the Met Council density requirement. Um so that um that doesn't apply to this necessarily, right? That's future development. >> It's a good question.
um it shouldn't, but um we've been hearing from other communities that amendments that we're doing now to our 2040 plan, they are enforcing the three and a half units an acre rule >> and and that is for every project has to meet that as a minimum. It's not I I was
under the impression it's kind of an average of all. It is an average um in you know it is an overall city average but what it does mean is we have to bump up our low density threshold in order to
accommodate that overall when we study the overall plan. So that low density that for the existing low density residential land use designation that low to you know the the low and the high within that
category is going to have to bump up to be able to accommodate the three and a half units acre overall citywide for new development. But because the Met Council approved their 2050 regional blueprint or whatever they're calling it policy
plan, they are now as we're hearing um enforcing that on amendments to the 2040. >> Okay. So the um so you're not necessarily saying that that that entire
um is it the LDR zoning classification that that's going to be obsolete with the new standard by the Met Council that I mean so so >> it's not going to be obsolete but we have to increase the density within that when we do our 2050 plan. >> So that's part of the plan. Yeah. Okay.
>> And then I guess my other question is this this landlocked concept. I do think um it does, you know, as we divide and subdivide various open pieces of property, it does concern me that um what what we're leaving. And um I can
understand the residents concerns about not um wanting their property to be, you know, the the the wetland uh dumping ground for everything that's developed uh in this area. So Sherman, talk to me again about the the platting process that that is all stuff that's develop is
taken into consideration as part of the next process that's part of this. So this is literally just the land use process that we're talking about tonight. I know there's probably some confusion because we've had a lot of comment on in different stages of of uh project uh development tonight. So I can
see how that's confusing, but um Okay, thank you. I think that answers mine. >> Any other questions or comments? >> Do we feel comfortable with the level of information we have? >> Um I think the land boxing is me a little
bit, but maybe you can help me out here again. So, um, you know, this is just a concept that's up there right now, but you can see that there is a street that's stubbed that's going to the north, which would serve those properties that way. And then if you
were to expand this out further, um, one of the residents spoke about Holding Third Way, which is stubbed down that way. And so the um if you were to blow this out, you would see that that road would be in theory designed to have
access to all of the properties or able to connect those other properties. So from a landlock standpoint, unless I'm mistaken, road access is not going to be an issue. And then utility access, as Mr. Johnson stated, it's our ordinance that any development that happens, you
have to bring utilities to the property boundary. So from a utility standpoint and transportation standpoint, these properties would not be landlocked. >> Okay. >> All right. Um well, thank you for that clarification.
Um I would take a motion. I would too if I could find it. Uh acting mayor. Um move to approve a resolution approving comprehensive plan amendment and and an ordinance approving a zoning map amendment and adopt the fi
findings of fact. >> Second. >> We got a motion a second. Um Zerloski. Roll call. >> Lee. >> Hi. >> Bulk. >> I. >> Burmal. >> Hi. >> Walter.
>> Hi. and you'll work with the property owners of the ones behind there so that we get this all squared away. >> Yeah, those are I mean very good questions. >> Questions. Thank you.
>> All right. Um is there any unfinished business? It doesn't look like it. Uh new business. This would be uh what we would uh would have called a work session in the past. Um we have a piece of new business, a
draft orderly annexation agreement with Eureka Township. >> Thank you, uh acting mayor and council. I'll take this one. So, um over the past several years, we have had properties that have abued the city of Lakeville that were in Eureka Township asked to be
annexed into the city for various reasons. And uh some of those we've accepted, some we haven't. Um as we've had those happen, we staff has had discussions with Eureka Township staff and board members about the possibility of entering into an orderly annexation
agreement. And what that does is it just sets out basically standards for when properties do want to come into the city, it does not have to go through as lengthy of a process. Um it the proposal before you tonight is just a proposal. It's an agreement. You'll see there's
still some red lines on there that we have to have some discussions, further discussions with Eureka Township officials. Um, but in essence, um, this would be drawing a proposed boundary for the new city boundary along 225th Street down, uh, that goes through Eureka
Township right now. Um, it would add roughly about 600 acres of property if they all were to enter in and want to be annexed. I should add that this does not require any city any property in the township right now. If they do not want to become part of the city of Lakeville,
they do not have to. Um it would only become um when they do. The one exception to that would be if in the future Eureka Township decided to incorporate into a city um that's a separate process that they would go
through on their own. any property that's identified in this current map would then become part of the city of Lakeville. So that would be the only time that they would come into the city without being directly petitioned to us. So um
again and likewise the city does not have to accept any property at that's being petitioned at the time. So, let's say a property that currently does not abut the city of Lakeville. Maybe there's properties between it that we're not comfortable getting yet because we
need to serve it with utilities and roads. That does not mean that we have to take it when they petition. This simply sets out a process. It says if they want to, we can take it. If we want to, we can take it. Um, and it does not have to go through the normal ordinance process that we go through at that time.
So, um, we brought this before you tonight to see if this was the direction that you wanted us to continue to discuss with township officials. Uh, we've had several preliminary meetings. Um, and I know that um, we have one representative here tonight in case there's any questions um for the
township, but um, if there was any discussion um, from the council, then we would be able to go back to Eureka Township officials and and talk about the next steps. >> Council, any questions? Are we um you mentioned the non-ontig are we able to
actually if if something that doesn't border if one of these outline lots is that are are we able to have a city that's not all one >> piece >> I might ask our city attorney then >> I'm sorry what is the question >> does it if so there's some of these maps
some of these numbers on the map that are not bordering the city if if if say item say number 25 wants to join city of Lakeville but the ones in Queen don't can we I mean I know it's a it's a it's an issue with sewer and water access but are we able to
>> you are as long as it's part >> it it happens you see it less often than uh by ordinance because then you do have to touch but if it's by an access by >> um uh agreement then it would be
required. It' be more of a question of is it really realistic for someone to do that? Um >> it's more of a hypothetical. >> Think of number 14 said I'm going to >> and if you look if you look at those
parcels um you know historically we have only annexed property into the city when we know what the use is going to be. >> We've had sometimes people say you know I just want to be annexed in the city. I don't know what I want to do yet with it. We historically haven't done that. And so I would think that would be the
practice moving forward as well. >> What is what has been the township's conversation around this plan uh to date? >> Well, we've had um a couple meetings. Like I said, um the the map, as you see here, was the result of discussions that
we've had with them. As if you notice, there's a couple parcels that are north of the 225th Street border that are not included. that was at their request of the township. Um those properties have some existing tax base that they would like to preserve. And so I think that's one of the reasons why that's there.
You'll notice that we do have um a comment in our red lines um that we haven't been able to to discuss with the township yet about what if they do end up wanting to come into the city. And I think that's still a discussion we have to have with with the township. Um but
um otherwise the the draft um agreement we've had a couple different exchanges on. >> So I and and we aren't deciding anything tonight. So are you just basically looking for direction on whether you should continue those conversations? >> Exactly. >> And I should also add that this property
as you know is is adjacent to our industrial park into the airport. Um, I do not foresee any of this property or I would I would foresee this property um being used similar to the uses that are currently in that area in Lakeville, which would be more industrial in
nature. >> Since this is a question adjacent uh to this uh conversation, I'm curious where the T there's mentions in here about incorporation and becoming a city. Are are those plans
of the township. >> I don't I don't know if they've had any formal discussion about that, >> but it's at least uh at some point in their mind for it to be in this uh draft agreement. Um
but I guess I'm just wondering how that um is this impacting further discussions for folks that are not included in this uh orderly annexation. So, um it's just like any agreement. It can
always be reopened and and discussed, right? But as it states, this would be um the the limit of theation. >> Yeah. I mean to me it definitely makes sense to have this agreement especially
if the township you know a mutually agreed upon um agreement on on this topic would be helpful with expediting some of our uh business interest in that part of the the adjacent to the city.
Um, so I think for the sake of uh future businesses and current land owners that we should definitely keep going forward with it. I I appreciate the the mutual the mutual conversation and and I love
the the title orderly annexation. I I I see it would be a benefit to continue. >> I would agree and I hope we are outgrowing our industrial park soon and would need this. So Um, I know that's something that we
need, but is this this process that we're trying to put together and offer to them a more pleasing type of process instead of feeling like that we're the big city
bully and we're putting the hammer down on them. >> Well, it's it's a mutual agreement, right? So both sides would have to agree and it's it's very common across the state for cities to have orderly annexation agreements with with townships that above them. It it allows
for some planned growth. Um it gives property owners some options to know that if they want to develop um they might be able to do that. Um so but again both sides both parties have to agree to this. So um it was something that was um kind of just mutually agreed
to have that discussion. I guess I'm just feeling like in the past um people from that area have felt like we're the big dog bully and that we've gone in and grabbed
what we wanted, you know, type of thing. And I'm I'm just ask, you know, I'm just trying to see if we're kind of changing up the process a little bit to make it feel I'm hoping that it's more of an agree both both ends and we don't look
like a bully. >> I would I would hope so. And you know, I would just reemphasize that in no case have we solicited to property owners, you know, >> no, I'm not saying that >> been at a request of of them and and there have been cases where we have not agreed and people have asked to annex
and we've said no at that time. >> Yes. >> Would this be, you know, concerns come up when there is zoning uh new zoning put over a property that hasn't been acquired? Um, but in terms of long-term
planning, would this be part of a comp plan to if it's in an orderly annexation process just for planning purposes and for the property owners to know what that would likely become in terms of zoning? >> Yeah, that's a good point. And I haven't talked to Tina about that, but I'm sure
that as we um if this were in place, as we go through the next uh comp plan process, I'm sure that we would include that um with our submittal to the Metropolitan Council. >> Any other questions?
>> I'd like to see us move forward. I mean, they the people are interested in coming this way. I just want to make sure that I'm not destroying a little. So, I think this just sounds like a more
pleasant process for all of us. >> It is mutual. Yeah, that's that to me that is what stuck out. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Uh let's see here. Announcements. Our next city council meeting is Tuesday,
February 17th. And uh with that I would take a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Anyone opposed? We are adjourned.