HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6
CITY OF LAKEVILLE
PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES
January 17, 2019
Chair Kaluza called the work session to order at 6:20 p.m.
Members Present: Chair Pat Kaluza, Vice Chair Jason Kelvie, Karl Drotning, Scott
Einck, Brooks Lillehei, Jason Swenson, and Jeff Witte
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Planning Director Daryl Morey, Associate Planners Kris Jenson and
Frank Dempsey, and Daniel Licht, TPC
Others Present: Jim Kellison, Kelco Services and Dennis Cornelius, Amcon
Construction representing the Fleet Farm property
2040 Comprehensive Plan Discussion
Mr. Licht presented his January 9, 2019 planning report, highlighting the comments
received during the six-month adjacent jurisdiction review period, which ended on
January 3, 2019, and the five property owner requests for changes to the 2040 Land
Use Map and MUSA Map. Regarding the Piston Pete’s property (PID 220310007014)
and adjacent properties fronting CSAH 70, staff recommends the Ploog property (PID
220310006030) immediately adjacent to the west of Piston Pete’s also be guided
Warehouse/Light Industrial.
The Planning Commission asked the following questions:
• Why does it take eight years to remove property from the Agricultural Preserves
program?
• Are there other properties in Farmington enrolled in Agricultural Preserves that
trunk sanitary sewer must be extended through into Lakeville?
• What is the timeline for completion of the 2040 Comprehensive Pla n and the
subsequent Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map update?
• How long does the Metropolitan Council have to review and act on the City’s
formal 2040 Comprehensive Plan submittal?
• What is the Render property (PID 226460000050) north of Fleet Farm proposed
to be guided?
• Is there adequate buffer between Piston Pete’s and adjacent properties fronting
CSAH 70 to the single-family neighborhood to the north?
• The Planning Commission noted appreciation for Dakota County working with the
City on access to Piston Pete’s and adjacent properties from CSAH 70.
Planning Commission Work Session Minutes – January 17, 2019 Page 2
• Is there any plan to notify property owners surrounding the five properties that
have requested land use changes, especially the Mills property?
• Requested clarification on the Thomas property currently in the Agricultural
Preserves program and the location of the planned extension of trunk sanitary
sewer in this area of the City.
• Does the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan include the optional economic
competitiveness policy
• Does the City have a solar related policy and/or ordinance?
The Planning Commission expressed support for staff’s approach to address the
Metropolitan Council’s comments on the Agricultural Preserves program as well as each
of the five property owner requests, as amended by staff related to Piston Pete’s and
adjacent properties fronting CSAH 70. The Planning Commission further indicated that
development of the multiple family use of the Mills property would need to occur after the
adoption of a CMU related zoning district following approval of the 2040 Comprehensive
Plan.
The work session adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Daryl Morey, Planning Director
3601 Thurston Avenue
Anoka, MN 55303
763.231.5840
TPC@PlanningCo.com
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Daryl Morey
FROM: D. Daniel Licht, AICP
DATE: 9 January 2019 (revised 24 January 2019)
RE: Lakeville – 2040 Comprehensive Plan update; Comment responses
TPC FILE: 135.01
BACKGROUND
Minnesota Statues 473.864, Subd. 2 requires that the City of Lakeville undertake a decennial
review of its Comprehensive Plan to coincide with the review of regional system plans. The
Metropolitan Council has established the ThriveMSP 2040 Plan as the basis for growth and
development within the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. A draft of the 2040 Lakeville
Comprehensive Plan was completed in June 2018. The update process also requires that the
City provide the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan to surrounding communities and affected
jurisdictions for review and comment prior to proceeding with the process to formally adopt
the documents and submit them to Metropolitan Council. This review period is now complete.
The purpose of this memorandum is to update the Planning Commission and City Council as to
additional property owner requests and substantive comments effecting the polices of the draft
2040 Comprehensive Plan.
Exhibits:
▪ Revised MUSA Staging Plan map
▪ Revised 2040 Land Use Plan map
▪ Property owner request maps (6 pages)
▪ Summary of Review Comments
ANALYSIS
Agriculture Preserves. Metropolitan Council provided one substantive comment that has
effect as to the polices of the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan related to properties enrolled in
2
the Agriculture Preserves program. The Agriculture Preserves program is established by
Minnesota Statutes 473.H to provide a means to protect long-term agriculture operations
within the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area from encroachment by urban development by limiting
the City’s ability to zone, assess, value, or take property. There are approximately 200 acres of
land located east of Cedar Avenue where property owners have voluntarily enrolled in the
Agriculture Preserves program. An owner may withdraw a property from the Agriculture
Preserves program, but doing so requires an eight year waiting period before any change in
land use can occur.
In accordance with Minnesota Statutes 473H.17, the allowed density of a property enrolled in
Agriculture Preserves cannot exceed 1 dwelling unit per 40 acres. The draft 2040 Land Use Plan
guides these parcels for various future urban development served by sewer and water utilities
as part of the Cedar Avenue corridor. Metropolitan Council is requesting that the City modify
the draft Land Use Plan to designate the property for agriculture uses limited to 1 dwelling unit
per 40 acres.
However, the City (and Metropolitan Council) benefit from defining the type and intensity of
future land uses that will occur upon these parcels in terms of land use compatibility,
estimating transportation volumes, determining sewer and water utility system sizing, and
compliance with the density objectives for the Cedar Avenue corridor and City overall. To this
end, City staff is proposing to address the parcels enrolled in the Agriculture Preserves program
as follows:
▪ MUSA Staging Plan. The properties currently enrolled in the Agriculture Preserves program will
be designated as a special category for MUSA staging as shown on the attached map. As long as
the properties remain within the Agriculture Preserves program, the properties will not be
considered to be within the MUSA. Development density will be limited to 1 dwelling unit per 40
acres under this designation. Termination of the Agriculture Preserves enrollment by the
property owner will trigger the property being added to the MUSA effective eight years from the
date the enrollment was terminated.
▪ 2040 Land Use Plan. The 2040 Land Use Plan is proposed to be modified to show the properties
currently enrolled in the Agriculture Preserves program with an Agriculture Preserves Overlay.
The Agriculture Preserves Overlay is to be established to allow for a continuation of agricultural
uses and rural residential development at a density of one dwelling unit per 40 acres. The
Agriculture Preserves Overlay will continue to be implemented through the AP, Agricultural
Preserve zoning district. The AP District will also be modified to function as an overlay district.
By establishing the Agriculture Preserves Overlay on the Land Use Plan and the AP Overlay
District on the Zoning Map, the City will maintain the urban land uses guided on the proposed
2040 Land Use Plan and Zoning Map update to anticipate and plan for future development
when initiated by the property owner.
The changes necessary to address the 200 acres of the Agriculture Preserves program will
require modification to the land use absorption, transportation, and utility forecasts. The
location of the Agriculture Preserves properties is also somewhat problematic for staging future
development as the Farmington Interceptor trunk sewer that serves the central portion of the
3
Cedar Avenue corridor will need to be brought through these properties to allow for planned
development within the area.
Property Owner Requested Changes. The City received the following requested changes to the
MUSA Staging Plan map and/or 2040 Land Use Plan map:
▪ Boatman (SE quadrant of Dodd Blvd./Hayes Ave.):
o Proposed: M/HDR north of future 179th Street and LDR south of future 179th
Street
o Request: MDR north of future 179th Street and L/MDR south of future 179th
Street
o Comment: City staff supports the requested land use change. The requested
MDR uses north of future 179th Street will be more compatible with existing
single family dwellings located north of existing Dodd Boulevard. The requested
L/MDR uses will be consistent with the L/MDR uses to the south being
developed with Avonlea.
o Recommendation: MDR north of future 179th Street and L/MDR south of future
179th Street
▪ Mills Properties LLC: (NE quadrant of Kenrick Ave./173rd St.)
o Proposed: Commercial
o Request: HDR
o Comment: The property owner has submitted a concept plan for development of
the 8.3 acre subject site with a 200 dwelling multiple family use. The resulting
density would be 24 dwelling units per acre. The concept plan also includes
certain flexibilities related to off-street parking and building height that the City
has contemplated be limited to more intensive transit-oriented locations. The
subject site meets the criteria as it is within one-half mile of the Metro Transit
park and ride facility on northbound I-35. A multiple family use at this location
would also serve as more of a transitional land use along 173rd Street, which
provides access to an existing single family neighborhood to the east.
o Recommendation: CMU
4
▪ Kniefel (south side of 205th Street west of Keystone Avenue):
o Proposed: Urban Reserve guided for rural use
o Request: MUSA
o Comment: The property owner requests the property be included in the MUSA
and be guided for urban uses. The Engineering Division has reviewed the sanitary
sewer collection plan and determined that the parcel can be served by gravity
sanitary sewer.
o Recommendation: MUSA and guide for M/HDR consistent with existing and
planned urban land uses
▪ Piston Pete’s (north side of 215th St. (CSAH 70) east of Jacquard Ave.):
o Proposed: Office Park
o Request: Warehouse/Light Industrial
o Comment: Piston Pete’s is an existing major auto repair use. This use is not
allowed within the OP land use designation or corresponding O-P, Office Park
zoning district. The subject site and those to the east extending to Dodd
Boulevard access 215th Street (CSAH 70) directly and will be affected by future
expansion of this roadway. The requested change for the subject site (and those
to the east to Dodd Boulevard) will allow for a continuation of the existing uses
and development of uses compatible with these uses.
o Recommendation: W/LI for subject site and properties east to Dodd Boulevard
▪ ISD 194 District Office. (210th St. east of Holyoke Ave.)
o Proposed: Public and Quasi-Public
o Requested: Office/Residential Transition
o Comment: ISD 194 is in the process of relocating its existing administrative
offices from this location. City staff contacted ISD 194 officials to propose
changing the land use designation of the site to Office/Residential Transition to
provide opportunity for reuse and/or sale of the property. The proposed
Office/Residential Transition land use will be consistent with the existing church
use to the west and compatible with the high density residential use to the east.
ISD 194 officials have agreed with City staff’s recommended land use change.
o Recommendation: Office/Residential Transition
5
CONCLUSION
The Planning Commission will review the comments received regarding the draft 2040
Comprehensive Plan, including the requested changes outlined herein, at their meeting on 17
January 2019. City staff will also present this information to the City Council at a work session
on 28 January 2019 for their consideration. Upon receiving direction on the comments related
to the Comprehensive Plan and requested changes, City staff will finalize the documents of the
2040 Comprehensive Plan for consideration by the Planning Commission at a public hearing for
a recommendation to the City Council, action by the City Council to adopt the 2040
Comprehensive Plan, and submission to Metropolitan Council.
c. Justin Miller, City Administrator
David Olson, Community and Economic Development Director
Zachary Johnson, City Engineer
John Hennen, Parks and Recreation Director
210TH ST W
215TH ST W CEDAR AVEDODD BLVDIPAVA AVE162ND ST W
HIGHVIEW AVEHOLYOKE AVE185TH ST W
K
E
N
W
O
O
D
T
R
L FLAGSTAFF AVEPILOT KNOB RD170TH ST WDODD BLVDDODD BLVD175TH ST W
Expansion Area "A"
Expansion Area "B"
Agriculture Preserves
Urban Reserve
Rural Service Area
0 1 20.5
Miles
CITY OF LAKEVILLE
2018 Comprehensive Plan
2040 MUSA Staging Plan
Source: City of Lakeville
Date: 1/9/2019
Rural Density Residential (1 per 10 ac.)
Low Density Residential (Less than 3 units/acre)
Low/Medium Density Residential (3-5 units/acre)
Medium Density Residential (4-7 units/acre)
Medium/High Density Residential (5-9 units/acre)
High Density Residential (More than 9 units/acre)
Manufactured Housing
Office/Residential Transition
Corridor Mixed Use
Commercial
Office Park
Airport
Warehouse/Light Industrial
Industrial
Public and Quasi-Public
Parks
Restricted Development
Water
Cedar Corridor
Agriculture Preserves
±
CITY OF LAKEVILLE
2040 Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Map
Map Date: Jan 9, 2019
±
Rural Density Residential (1 per 10 ac.)
Low Density Residential (Less than 3 units/acre)
Low/Medium Density Residential (3-5 units/acre)
Medium Density Residential (4-7 units/acre)
Medium/High Density Residential (5-9 units/acre)
High Density Residential (More than 9 units/acre)
Manufactured Housing
Office/Residential Transition
Corridor Mixed Use
Commercial
Office Park
Airport
Warehouse/Light Industrial
Industrial
Public and Quasi-Public
Parks
Restricted Development
Water
Cedar Corridor
Agriculture Preserves
D OD D B L VD (C S A H 9 )CEDAR AVE (CSAH 23)Boatman Property
1 7 5 TH ST
HAYESAVE
±
Rural Density Residential (1 per 10 ac.)
Low Density Residential (Less than 3 units/acre)
Low/Medium Density Residential (3-5 units/acre)
Medium Density Residential (4-7 units/acre)
Medium/High Density Residential (5-9 units/acre)
High Density Residential (More than 9 units/acre)
Manufactured Housing
Office/Residential Transition
Corridor Mixed Use
Commercial
Office Park
Airport
Warehouse/Light Industrial
Industrial
Public and Quasi-Public
Parks
Restricted Development
Water
Cedar Corridor
Agriculture PreservesJOPLIN AVEMills Properties LLC
I-35CSAH50KENRI
CKAVE173RD ST
175TH ST
170TH ST
±
Rural Density Residential (1 per 10 ac.)
Low Density Residential (Less than 3 units/acre)
Low/Medium Density Residential (3-5 units/acre)
Medium Density Residential (4-7 units/acre)
Medium/High Density Residential (5-9 units/acre)
High Density Residential (More than 9 units/acre)
Manufactured Housing
Office/Residential Transition
Corridor Mixed Use
Commercial
Office Park
Airport
Warehouse/Light Industrial
Industrial
Public and Quasi-Public
Parks
Restricted Development
Water
Cedar Corridor
Agriculture PreservesKEYSTONE AVEI-35205TH ST
Kniefel/Meyen Properties
207TH ST
KEOKUK AVE
±
Rural Density Residential (1 per 10 ac.)
Low Density Residential (Less than 3 units/acre)
Low/Medium Density Residential (3-5 units/acre)
Medium Density Residential (4-7 units/acre)
Medium/High Density Residential (5-9 units/acre)
High Density Residential (More than 9 units/acre)
Manufactured Housing
Office/Residential Transition
Corridor Mixed Use
Commercial
Office Park
Airport
Warehouse/Light Industrial
Industrial
Public and Quasi-Public
Parks
Restricted Development
Water
Cedar Corridor
Agriculture PreservesJACQUARD AVEDODDBLVD(CSAH9)215TH ST (CSAH 70)
Piston Pete's & CSAH 70 Properties
±
Rural Density Residential (1 per 10 ac.)
Low Density Residential (Less than 3 units/acre)
Low/Medium Density Residential (3-5 units/acre)
Medium Density Residential (4-7 units/acre)
Medium/High Density Residential (5-9 units/acre)
High Density Residential (More than 9 units/acre)
Manufactured Housing
Office/Residential Transition
Corridor Mixed Use
Commercial
Office Park
Airport
Warehouse/Light Industrial
Industrial
Public and Quasi-Public
Parks
Restricted Development
Water
Cedar Corridor
Agriculture PreservesHOLYOKE AVE210TH STHOLT AVEISD 194 District Office Property
1City of Lakeville Comprehensive Land Use PlanDraft Response to CommentsJanuary 3, 2019Agency Topic Section Comment ResponseEdit Complete?Dakota County Land Use PlanCommunity PerspectivesThe Land Use Plan, page 18, directs future development to pay particular attention to using land in a manner that respects the matural environment and to incorporate policies and best practices that mirror the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's GreenSteps Cities program. GreenSteps best managment practices for waste management provide an additional resource to consider.Dakota County Land Use PlanCommunity PerspectivesIncorporating waste and recycling considerations during development, such as:* Recycling stations in high pedestrian traffic area being planned* Encourage recycling and organics recycling, as appropriate, during new and redevelopment projects* Encourage standards that allow adequate space (indoor and outdoor) for recycling and organics recycling collection, as appropriate (business, multi‐unit dwellings).MAC Land Use PlanCommunity PerspectivesAirlake Airport: First paragraph, first sentence, the 2035 Airlake Airport Long‐Term Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the MAC Board in April 2018.MAC Land Use PlanCommunity PerspectivesAirlake Airport: Second paragraph, last sentence: The 118‐acre annexation was completed in March 2018. The annexation is shown correctly on the existing land use plan on page 75.MAC Land Use PlanLand Use, Public and Quasi‐PublicSecond sentence, the 2035 Long‐Term Comprehensive Plan for Airlake Airport recommends a number of improvements at the facility…MAC Land Use PlanLand Use, Public and Quasi‐PublicConsider updating this section to describe the recent (2018) annexation of a portion of Airlake Airport property.
2Agency Topic Section Comment ResponseEdit Complete?MAC Land Use PlanLand Use, District 6Third bullet item, the 55 and 60 DNL noise contours are shown in the 2035 Airlake Airport Long‐Term Comprehensive Plan for advisory purposes but are not linked to any requirements for noise attenuation or mitigation. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) considers the 65 dB DNL contour as the threshold of significance for noise impact. As such, sensitive land uses ‐ such as residential ‐ around airports that are within 65 dB DNL contour or greater are considered incompatible by the FAA. The FAA also requires homes within the 65 dB DNL contour to be tested to determine if the interior noise levels are greater than 45 dB in order to be approved for sound insulation. Aircraft noise impacts will be further evaluated during the upcoming environmental review for the proposed airport improvements. If, during the environmental study, it appears that the future 65 DNL noise contour would encompass residential land uses, MAC will work with the City to develop an interior sound‐level testing program to determine if the structures would be eligible for sound insulation.Met CouncilSolar Access Protection and DevelopmentNatural ResourcesStaff recommend a solar policy or goal in the Plan related to updating the solar zoning ordinance every two to three years to make sure the ordinance is in line with new best practices and technological advances. A supporting solar strategy for such policy or goal would be to enroll in the following cost‐free programs, which are designed to provide planning, technical, and policy assistance to local Minnesota governments:* U.S. Dept. of Energy's SolSmart Program* MN GreenStep Cities Program* Xcel Energy's Partners in Energy Program* Xcel Energy's Community Energy Profile ReportMet Council Aggregate Resources Natural ResourcesThe Plan needs to include a map depiting the aggregate resources geologically present within the City, consistent with the Council's aggregate resources inventory information contained in Minnesota Geological Survey Information Circular 46. The information should be overlain onto a Future Land Use Map, as indicated in the Special Resource Protection section of the Council's Local Planning Handbook guidance.Met Council ForecastsThe Plan needs to provide a table with sewer‐serviced numbers for population, households, and employment, for 2020, 2030, and 2040.
3Agency Topic Section Comment ResponseEdit Complete?Met Council ForecastsThe Plan needs to include a description and inventory of land supply for future development and redevelopment. Both mid‐term land supply (2017‐2030) and long‐term land supply (2017‐2040) do not appear sufficient to accommodate the 5,300 (2017‐2030) and 9,000 (2017‐2040) new forecasted households. Without additional details, it is unclear whether redevelopment in Lakeville will accommodate the additional 2,550 and 1,900 households (2030 and 2040, respectively) needed to support the City's forecasted growth.Met Council ForecastsThe Plan needs to include the 2020, 2030, and 2040 forecasts assigned by transport analysis zones, or portions of TAZs within the City boundaries. The Transportation Plan Update chapter describes the efforts to allocate forecast by TAZ, but the allocation were not included in the Plan.Met Council ForecastsThe Plan needs to include some measure of employment‐bearing land use intensity. Although the City qualifies low or high intensity land use types in the land use descriptions, there is no mention of an overall intensity measure (i.e., Floor Area Ratio or jobs per acre).Met Council ForecastsAdvisory CommentsParcels currently enrolled in the Agricultural Preserve program should be guided as Agriculture on the future land use map. Additional details regarding this point is made under Land Use comments. If these parcels are enrolled, not only should these be designated on their Future Land Use map, it reduces the amount of land available for development and will further negatively impact the land supply calculations.Met Council Land Use Land UseThe Plan needs to provide minimum and maximum allowed densities for all residential land uses. The Low Density Residential needs to have a minimum density and the High Density Residential needs to have a maximum density identified.Met Council Land Use Land UseThe Future Land Use map identifies a Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) land use category and a Cedar Corridor overlay. It seems that the residential density requirements in the CMU designation (minimum of 26 units per acre) is more restrictive than the Cedar Corridor overlay (minimum of 8 units per acre), and several of the residential categories are also within the Cedar Corridor overlay. Please provide additional clarity regarding the residential development in this area and how the Cedar Corridor overlay residential density relates to the underlying guided land uses.
4Agency Topic Section Comment ResponseEdit Complete?Met Council Land Use Land UseThe Plan identifies the CMU category as a mix of residential, retial, service, and office uses. The Plan also needs to defined an expected share of residential and non‐residential uses, including a maximum allowed density for residential development.Met Council Land Use Land UseThe Plan guides land for Office/Residential Transition, but it is unclear what types of residential uses are allowable within this category. The Plan needs to define the types of allowable residential uses for this category , establish the residential/non‐residential mix of uses, and provide an allowable residential density range.Met Council Land UseCommunity PerspectivesThe Plan seems to reference annexation of the rest of the Airlake Airport (page 101) into the City of Lakeville, but there are no official orderly annexation agreements in place with Eureka Township, nor is it clear whether Lakeville has undertake annexation by ordinance proceedings. The Plan needs to provide additional discussion regarding the timing of annexation plans.Met Council Land Use Land UseThere are six parcels in the City of Lakeville, along the eastern boundary with the City of Farmington that are currently enrolled in the Agriculture Preserves Program. These properties need to be identified on the Future Land Use map and must reflect a land use designation with a maximum density of 1 unit per 40 acres, as required by state law. Except for one of these properties, the other five have not intiated expiration from the program.Met Council Land UseDensity CalculationsProvide the net developable acreage for each residential land use that are planned to support development or redevelopment within the planning horizon. It's okay to exclude wetlands and natural water bodies, public parks, and open space, arterial road rights‐of‐way, and natural resource lands protected by local plans and ordinances from area calculations. Stormwater ponds, utility easements, local roads, and local rights‐of‐way cannot be excluded from ara calculations.Met Council Land UseDensity CalculationsThe average net residential density for your community must be consistent with the density requirements for your community designation of Suburban Edge, which is 3‐5 units per acre.
5Agency Topic Section Comment ResponseEdit Complete?Met Council Land UseDensity CalculationsThe Low Density Residential category on the Future Land Use map identifies the density range as 3 units per acre and above, when the Plan identifies this category as less than 3 units per acre on page 93. As noted in the Handbook, the Council uses the lowest allowable density for each residential district in evaluating the Plan's consistency with the Council's density policy. Nevertheless, the Low Density Residential category needs to include a minimum allowable density that is not zero..Met Council Land UseDensity CalculationsUse the lowest allowed residential density from land use ranges in your calculations.Met Council Land UseStaged Development and RedevelopmentProvide a table of staged development in 10‐year increments that includes future land uses, area in acres, density ranges, and total residential units by each 10‐year time increment (now‐2020, 2021‐2030, 2031‐2040). It is unclear how much land is actually available for development in these increments. For expample, the Corridor Mixed Use in this table has 207.5 acres identified in 2020, an then the same acreage through 2040. This implies that this district will be entirely developed by 2020 with no additional development throught 2040. But that implication is inconsistent with the intent described elsewhere in the Plan.Met Council Land UseAdvisory CommentsThe Existing Land Use map identifies the "Undeveloped" land use category twice, with the same color.The map included an "Undeveloped" and "Undeveloped/Agriculture" category. The categories have been amended to be "Undeveloped" and "Agriculture," each with it's own color.YesMet Council Land UseAdvisory CommentsThe Existing Land Use table on page 73 defines the total acreage of land in the City as 24,389 acres. Metropolitan Council's data from the 2016 land use analysis lists the total acrage as 24,271 acres.The 2018 annexation of 118 acres of land for Airlake Airport brings the City's total acreage to 24,389.N/AMet Council Land UseAdvisory CommentsThe Plan mentions the allocation of 1,414 affordable housing units on page 88. The City should be aware that this allocation is for 2021 to 2030 and the City needs to provide opportunities for development of these housing units, as opposed to actually developing them.Met Council Land UseAdvisory CommentsThe total acreage of land uses in the 2040 Land Use Plan table of page 103 differs from the Existing Land Use table on page 73 by 2 acres. Since the City does not seem to have any annexation agreements in place, these two totals should match one another.
6Agency Topic Section Comment ResponseEdit Complete?Met Council Land UseAdvisory CommentsCouncil staff offer a minor clarification of the Plan's statement that the communities needs to meet a mean net density of at least 3 dwelling units per acre overall (page 93): Thrive MSP 2040 land use policies for a Suburban Edge community has an overall minimum density expectation for Suburban Edge communities of 3‐5 units per acre.Met Council Land Use HousingInclude a narrative analysis of existing housing, the number of housing units affordable to households with incomes by AMI category, the number of publicly subsidized housing units by type, and the number of existing households experiencing housing cost burden by AMI category. These figures can be found on the City's Existing Housing Assessment.Met Council Land Use HousingAs noted in the land use section above, the 2040 Land Use Plan table on page 103 is not clear to determine if enough high‐density acres are guided to support the City's allocation of affordable housing need. Specifically, if 183 additional acres of high density residential land are expected to develop or redevelop between 2021 and 2030, then the allocation is being adequately addressed from a future land use perspective. However, the Table could also be interpreted as showing that only 28.6 acres (183‐154.4) additional acres of high density residential land are expected to develop or redevelop between 2021 and 2030. This would result in a minimum number of high density units of just 257, much below Lakeville's allocation of 1,414.Met Council Land Use HousingThe Plan idenitifies three land uses within the minimum dwelling unit per acre density high enough to support Lakeville's allocation of affordable housing need: High Density Residential at 9 units per acre, Corridor Mixed Use at 26 units per acre, and half mile of Cedar Ave corridor at 8 units per acre. As noted in the land use section of this letter, it is unclear how the Cedar Avenue Corridor overlay relates to the density of the underlying land uses in the district. Please note that for each land use, staff look for three values to make sure that the projected housing need section plan is complete: minimum dwelling unit per acre of land use, acres of land uses expected to develop between 2021‐2030, percent of residential land in the case of mixed use designation.Met Council Land Use HousingThe housing tools described under Implementation section on page 160 need to identify the context in which they will be used and how they are tied to existing and projected housing needs identified elsewhere in the Plan.
7Agency Topic Section Comment ResponseEdit Complete?Met Council Land Use HousingLand Acquisition for Affordable New Development is no longer an active program. The City can instead pursue funding through the Consolidated RFP by Minnesota Housing or Livible Communities Act programs through the Metropolitan Council instead.Met Council Land Use HousingThe Plan needs to include more context for intended use of CDBG money in cooperation with Dakota County CDA in the city. The % AMI households targeted with this tool should also be identified.Met Council Land Use HousingList the specific public programs, fiscal devices, and other specific actions of Dakota County CDA to meet the need of rehabilitating aging property and any other community needs identified. Include in what circumstances this would be used (specific property conditions, aras of the community, to serve households of a sepcific AMI, after a City resolution or policy is passed, etc.) and what role the City would play in their use (advocate, apply, administer).Met Council Land Use HousingFor more information information on how to create a complete and consistent implementation plan, including examples, please refer to the Linking Tools to Needs resource in the Local Planning Handbook.Met Council Land Use HousingThe Housing Needs by type table on page 87 has 2017 in the title, but 2016 in the source. Please clarify from which year this information is derived.Met Council Land Use HousingSome widely used tools to address housing needs are not included. To be consistent, tools must be acknowledged, and the Plan should state if, and if so when and why, it would consider using them to address housing needs: (See comment letter for list of housing tools)Met Council Land Use HousingTo be considered consistent, household % AMI (i.e. above 80% or below 60%) must be specified for Low‐interest rehab programs.Met Council Land UseAdvisory CommentsCouncil Staff encourages the City to consider an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) policy or allow them as a permitted use.City ordinance permits Accessory Dwelling Units by administrative permit in single family residenital zoning districts.N/AMet Council Land UseAdvisory CommentsThe Plan mentions placing medium and high density residential near industrial land uses. Staff gather that in context of other goals, the Plan seeks to locate workforce housing near job sites. However, staff encourage the City to consider environmental justice concerns and ensure that residents are safe from sites of pollution.Met Council Land UseAdvisory CommentsFor the map of home values, consider changing the value for 80% AMI to $243,500, which is the home value the Metropolitan Council has determined is affordable to those earning 80% AMI in 2018.
8Agency Topic Section Comment ResponseEdit Complete?Met Council Land UseAdvisory CommentsLocal Fair Housing policies do not mean that Cities should or can manage or administer Fair Housing complaints. A local fair housing policy rather ensures the City is aware of fair housing requirements with regard to housing decisions and provides sufficient resources to educate and refer residents who feel their fair housing rights have been violated (this can be as simple as having links to resources ont eh City's website.) The Metropolitan Council will need a Local Fair Housing Policy as a requirements to draw upon Livible Communities Act (LCA) awards beginning in 2019. To learn more, please review the following resources: (see comment letter for details).Met Council Land Use ImplementationDefine a timeline as to when actions will be taken to implement each required element of your comprehensive plan.Met Council Land Use ImplementationInclude a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for transportation, sewers, parks, water supply, and open space facilites. Specify the timing and sequence of major local public investments. The CIP must align with development staging identified in other parts of your plan and include budgets and expenditure schedules.Met Council Land Use ImplementationThe two zoning districts RM‐2 and RH‐2 that are shown on the 2018 Zoning Map are not described in the Plan. Additionally, the RAO‐Rural/Agricultural Overlay District, FP‐Floodplain Overlay District, and S‐Shoreland Overlay District are not shown on the map.
DESIGN/BUILD | CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT | GENERAL CONTRACTING
6121 Baker Road , suite 101, Minnetonka , MN 55345 | Tel: 651.379.9090 | Fax: 651.379.9091
Email: custserv@amconconstruction.com | Website: www.amconconstruction.com
City of Lakeville
Attn: Daryl Morey- planning Director
20195 Holyoke Ave
Lakeville, MN 55044
December 17, 2018
Subject: 2040 Comprehensive Plan Re-Guidance Request (Neighborhood Planning District
#1)
Mr Morey:
Project Description:
Amcon Construction is submitting an application relating to the proposed 2040 Land Use designation
for lots 1,2,3 North of 173rd St N and lots 4,5 south of 173 St N. currently guided as Commercial C-3.
We are requesting that Lakeville consider re-guiding Lots 1,2,3 to “High Density RH-2” use. We are
requesting an opportunity to present our request for Re-guidance at the January 17th & 28th workshops
with the Planning Commission and City Council.
Project Description:
Our client currently has a Purchase Agreement for the two parcels and is interested in construction of a
market rate 200-unit apartment on the north parcel and future commercial development on the south
parcel. We are targeting breaking ground late summer of 2019 on the north parcel subject to successful
approval re- guiding the property to an RH-2 designation. Construction of south parcel is slated for a
later phase in the process.
The proposed building (North Parcel): (see site plan exhibits)
The proposed building for the North parcel is a four story apartment building, consisting of 200 luxury
market rate units with underground parking. The construction of the building consists of 4 stories of
wood frame apartments over a below grade concrete parking structure. The total gross proposed
building’s foot print is projected at 64,500 sf. Proposed parking will consist of 440 parking stalls with 235
on-grade stalls and 205 stalls provided within the building. The overall parking ratio will be 2.2stalls per
unit. This ratio is below the 2.5 zoning ratio but given the close proximity to the Kenrick Ave park and
ride and our experience with past project parking demands we feel this parking count addresses the
proposed project’s needs. Included with the site plan exhibits is an alternate plan that does demonstrate
the ability to achieve the 2.5 parking ratio on the property per the zoning criteria.
The buildings will use high quality, long life-cycle materials associated with contemporary apartment
construction and will comply with Lakeville’s current zoning criteria. A number of different materials,
textures and colors will be incorporated including brick, glass, siding, prefinished metal trim, decorative
concrete masonry and architectural panels. The building façade features varying parapet heights and
plane changes along with contrasting materials and colors to help provide an appropriate scale for the
building.
DESIGN/BUILD | CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT | GENERAL CONTRACTING
6121 Baker Road , suite 101, Minnetonka , MN 55345 | Tel: 651.379.9090 | Fax: 651.379.9091
Email: custserv@amconconstruction.com | Website: www.amconconstruction.com
Site design (north Parcel) :
As part of our site plan development, we have attempted to be sensiti ve to the residential neighborhood
through the following design features:
Positioned the building as far west on the site as possible to maximize open space
between the apartment structure and the adjacent single family area.
The on grade parking area is incorporated into the horse shoe foot print of the building
in order to screen parking from the residential area.
There is no parking planned along the east side adjacent to the adjoining residential
neighborhood. The intent is to minimized hardscape development along this side of the
project in order to offer a dense landscaping screen consisting of vegetation and
berming. We understand that this approach does not provide sufficient parking to meet
the current zoning criteria. However, if necessary to achieve the required parking ratio
this area can be developed with additional parking as delineated in the enclosed proof
of parking concept plan.
In addition to screening the on grade parking the “U” shaped building layout adds
interest and reduces overall appearance of length & scale of the project.
The overall height of the proposed north building may require a conditional use permit
based on existing and new site grades. However, the overall impact of the height of the
building will incorporate stepped conditions to reduce massing and positioning on the
site will result in site shadow patterns not impacting neighboring residential properties.
Positioning the building has taken in consideration the city of Lakeville’s master plan for
upgrading traffic circulation on Kenrick Ave and adjacent commercial properties.
The Proposed Use of North and South Parcels:
The North Parcel offers a unique location for high density housing given its’ proximity to
the Kenrick Ave park and ride (less than ½ mile), shopping, grocery, restaurant,
pharmacy, convenience store, projected future services, city parks, city walks, and
immediate access to a major freeway. We understand that the proposed project
reflects an increased density over the current RH-2 zoning criteria, but given the ease of
access and variety of immediate services this site is uniquely suited for the increased
density with minimal impact on the neighborhood.
the project will have minimum impact on the adjacent neighborhood traffic. Although
the proposed high density housing is adjacent to the single family homes the impact of
increased traffic generated by an apartment complex will be limited given the amenities
available to the site are primarily west, south and north of the impacted neighborhood
and are readily accessible by established primary traffic feeders.
The proposed re-guiding of the property to RH-2 provides an enhanced transition from
the single family residential property vs currently guided commercial activities.
Specifically, the north parcel currently zoned C-3 has limited access along Kenrick Ave
which will results in directing commercial traffic towards the residential areas on 173th
in order to access the site. The multi-family use of the site will dramatically reduce auto
DESIGN/BUILD | CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT | GENERAL CONTRACTING
6121 Baker Road , suite 101, Minnetonka , MN 55345 | Tel: 651.379.9090 | Fax: 651.379.9091
Email: custserv@amconconstruction.com | Website: www.amconconstruction.com
and truck traffic pattern associated with commercial use and will mirror traffic patterns
similar to the existing residential neighborhood peaking during the morning and evening
commute periods.
The site development plan for multifamily will introduce aesthetically pleasing
landscaping over the entire property in addition to the a 100 ft plus landscape and
sound buffer further benefiting the existing single family properties.
The introduction of residential type of building material will enhance the aesthetic
transition from the existing residential zone to the commercial zoning along Kenrick Ave.
Although the south parcel is slated to remain C-3 we want to introduce this parcel as
part of our discussion on the re-guiding of the north parcel. This site currently has
several issues that will impact the ultimate land use and requires further understanding
regarding the current wetland conditions and the impact of the proposed improvements
along Kenrick Ave before a firm site concept can be developed. However, as a
continuation of the discussion regarding a transition buffer between the residential
properties to the east, this parcel, given the anticipated wetlands bordering the east
side of the site in addition to the current wetland owned by the city, will provide an
opportunity to tie the landscaping/sound buffering offered on the east end of the north
parcel to extend south along the entire east side of the south parcel providing a
contiguous sound and visual buffer to the residential neighborhood from the
commercial development and I-35W to the west.
Proposed City actions requested:
Revise the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan to reflect RH-2 land use designation for the
North Parcel vs current Commercial C-3 land use designation
Consider amending the current zoning guidelines to maximize the density for this high density RH-2 use
from the current density of 1 unit per 2500 sf ( 17.42 units per acre) to a density of 1 unit per 1800 sf
(24.2 unit per acre) as reflected in this request.
The key objective of this request is re-guiding the property to a RH-2 designation and consider adjusting
the site density for a higher density as noted.
We anticipate requesting rezoning of this Lot to RH-2 with an understanding that as part of the approval
process this site zoning designation would be further enhanced to the density requested. Based on this,
we are requesting re-guiding the north site to RH-2 with a condition to limit the density to 200 units
given its’ unique location/proximity to support amenities that can support this level of density with
minimal community impact. We understand that this density may be contrary to the intent of softening
the impact of housing density adjacent to single family zoning but feel that if the re-zoning approval to
RH-2 with a maximum density restriction noted the project will contribute to achieve both the city’s
housing goals and the address the project’s objectives when consideration is given to the significant
buffer area incorporated into both sites.
We understand that the re-platting and re-zoning of the parcel are conditions of this design solution
which will need to be addressed thru the normal site plan approval process with the city. The key
DESIGN/BUILD | CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT | GENERAL CONTRACTING
6121 Baker Road , suite 101, Minnetonka , MN 55345 | Tel: 651.379.9090 | Fax: 651.379.9091
Email: custserv@amconconstruction.com | Website: www.amconconstruction.com
conditions we ask that you take under consideration are Re-guiding of the North Parcel land use to RH-2
vs C-3 and consider a subsequent increased density request thru the planning/council process. We are
hopeful our proposed measures addressing the context of the building and compatibility of increased
density based on the surrounding available services are sufficient for considering re -guiding the
properties to RH-2 with restrictions on the proposed density.
Our market study for Lakeville and this site specifically support the proposed density and demand for the
product we are proposing. We share a common goal with the neighborhood in that we intend to create a
project that is thoughtfully laid out, visually appealing and respectful to the surrounding community.
We look forward to a thoughtful discussion about the site and the potential benefits of its development .
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Dennis Cornelius
Amcon Construction Co. LLC
±
City of Lakeville
2040 Landuse Plan
Neighborhood
Planning Districts
1 2
7
3
5
4
6
Districts
Property Parcels
I-35KENWOODTRL(CSAH50)
185TH ST (CSAH 60)185TH ST
1 6 2 N D S T (CSAH 46)
2040 Land Use Plan - District 1
JUDICIALRDKENWOODTRL(CSAH5)±
Orchard Lake
Kingsley Lake
2040 Land Use Plan
Rural Density Residential (1 per 10 ac.)
Low Density Residential (>3 units/acre)
Low/Medium Density Residential (3-5 units/acre)
Medium Density Residential (4-7 units/acre)
Medium/High Density Residential (5-9 units/acre)
High Density Residential (+9 units/acre)
Manufactured Housing
Office/Residential Transition
Corridor Mixed Use
Commercial
Office Park
Warehouse/Light Industrial
Airport
Industrial
Public and Quasi-Public
Parks
Restricted Development
Water
Cedar Corridor
Map Date: June 15, 2018
17296 Kenrick Ave, Lakeville, Minnesota 55044Lakeville Luxury ApartmentsDecember 17, 2018VICINITY MAPSITE-RH2SITE-C3S I T E NOTESFLEET FARMFIRE STATION #3METRO TRANSIT PARK & RIDE123123
17296 Kenrick Ave, Lakeville, Minnesota 55044Lakeville Luxury ApartmentsDecember 17, 2018SITE MAPNORTHSITESOUTHSITEFLEETFARMCUBFOODSMETRO TRANSITPARK & RIDERH-2C-3
PONDLANDSCAPE BUFFERINFILTRATIONPONDPROPOSED APARTMENTS4 STORIES200 UNITSLOT #1LOT #2LOT #3LOT #5LOT #4100'LANDSCAPEBUFFER17296 Kenrick Ave, Lakeville, Minnesota 55044Lakeville Luxury ApartmentsDecember 17, 2018S I T E D A T ANORTH SITEAREALOT #1 3.57AC (GROSS) - 0.78AC R.O.W (EXISTING) = 2.79AC (NET)LOT #2 1.73AC (GROSS) - 0.15AC R.O.W (EXISTING) = 1.58AC (NET)LOT #33.90AC (GROSS) - 0.00AC R.O.W (EXISTING) = 3.90AC (NET)TOTAL 9.2AC (GROSS) - 0.93AC R.O.W. (EXISTING) = 8.27AC (NET)BUILDING COVERAGE 64,500 G.S.F.BUILDING HEIGHT 4 STORIES (APPROX. 45')APARTMENT TYPESSTUDIO 20 (10.0%) (486 GSF)1 BEDROOM 120 (50.0%) (793-1,012 GSF)2 BEDROOM 52 (26.0%) (1,152-1,251 GSF)3 BEDROOM 8(4.0%) (1,529 GSF)TOTAL APTS 200PARKING SUMMARY205 GARAGE PARKING STALLS235ON GRADE PARKING STALLS440 TOTAL STALLS (2.2 STALLS/APT)IMPERVIOUS COVERAGEBUILDING 64,500 SF (18%)PARKING97,183 SF(27%)TOTAL161,683 SF (45%)SOUTH SITEAREALOT #4 3.69AC (GROSS) - 0.37AC R.O.W (EXISTING) = 3.32AC (NET) (APPROX .47AC WETLAND)LOT #50.78AC (GROSS) - 0.00AC R.O.W (EXISTING) = 0.78AC (NET)TOTAL 4.47AC (GROSS) - 0.37AC R.O.W. (EXISTING) = 4.1AC (NET)K E N R I C K A V E1 7 3 R D S T WCONCEPT SITE PLAN
PONDLANDSCAPE BUFFERINFILTRATIONPONDPROPOSED APARTMENTS4 STORIES200 UNITSLOT #1LOT #2LOT #3100'LANDSCAPEBUFFER17296 Kenrick Ave, Lakeville, Minnesota 55044Lakeville Luxury ApartmentsDecember 17, 2018ENLARGED CONCEPT SITE PLAN
17296 Kenrick Ave, Lakeville, Minnesota 55044Lakeville Luxury ApartmentsDecember 17, 2018BUILDING CONCEPT
PONDLANDSCAPE BUFFERINFILTRATIONPONDPROPOSED APARTMENTS4 STORIES200 UNITSLOT #1LOT #2LOT #3LOT #5LOT #4100'LANDSCAPEBUFFERPROOF OF PARKING17296 Kenrick Ave, Lakeville, Minnesota 55044Lakeville Luxury ApartmentsDecember 17, 2018S I T E D A T ANORTH SITEAREALOT #1 3.57AC (GROSS) - 0.78AC R.O.W (EXISTING) = 2.79AC (NET)LOT #2 1.73AC (GROSS) - 0.15AC R.O.W (EXISTING) = 1.58AC (NET)LOT #33.90AC (GROSS) - 0.00AC R.O.W (EXISTING) = 3.90AC (NET)TOTAL 9.2AC (GROSS) - 0.93AC R.O.W. (EXISTING) = 8.27AC (NET)BUILDING COVERAGE 64,500 G.S.F.BUILDING HEIGHT 4 STORIES (APPROX. 45')APARTMENT TYPESSTUDIO 20 (10.0%) (486 GSF)1 BEDROOM 120 (50.0%) (793-1,012 GSF)2 BEDROOM 52 (26.0%) (1,152-1,251 GSF)3 BEDROOM 8(4.0%) (1,529 GSF)TOTAL APTS 200PARKING SUMMARY205 GARAGE PARKING STALLS295ON GRADE PARKING STALLS500 TOTAL STALLS (2.5 STALLS/APT)SOUTH SITEAREALOT #4 3.69AC (GROSS) - 0.37AC R.O.W (EXISTING) = 3.32AC (NET) (APPROX .47AC WETLAND)LOT #50.78AC (GROSS) - 0.00AC R.O.W (EXISTING) = 0.78AC (NET)TOTAL 4.47AC (GROSS) - 0.37AC R.O.W. (EXISTING) = 4.1AC (NET)K E N R I C K A V E1 7 3 R D S T WCONCEPT SITE PLAN - PROOF OF PARKING
PONDLANDSCAPE BUFFERINFILTRATIONPONDPROPOSED APARTMENTS4 STORIES200 UNITSLOT #1LOT #2LOT #3100'LANDSCAPEBUFFERPROOF OF PARKING17296 Kenrick Ave, Lakeville, Minnesota 55044Lakeville Luxury ApartmentsDecember 17, 2018ENLARGED CONCEPT SITE PLAN- PROOF OF PARKING