1360 Lone Oak Road

Said the medium-density framing misrepresents his view from Eagan Avenue: he sees large lots, not apartments, and worries headlights and traffic will tank his quality of life.

Listed unresolved questions — fire access, wetlands, lift station, traffic, trees, wildlife, lake health — and urged the council not to kick the can down the road.

Suggested designing for a school bus turnaround, noting ISD 196 requires one and children otherwise would be picked up on busy Lone Oak Road.

Lifelong Eagan resident and angler urged holistic thinking about wildlife and the sensitive, mercury-affected lake, and asked whether the townhomes would be rental or owner-occupied.

Said the steep site makes medium density a stretch, worried about guest parking on narrow Poplar Lane, and suggested the city consider buying it for a park or keeping it agricultural.

Argued the city is stretching its own rules, citing the PFAS fish advisory postcard versus claims of improved lake health and estimated 40% impervious coverage against a 25% DNR limit, illustrated with a Stretch Armstrong toy.

A 21-year Poplar Lane resident who cited five comprehensive plan policies he says the proposal violates, including special areas, municipal services, lake preservation, and compatibility — and mentioned a neighbor interested in buying the property.

Said the developer hasn't truly listened, challenged claims about the turning lane and the 300-foot buffer (saying it's 30 feet), and demanded the developer fund the needed studies before more meetings.

Urged the developer to build elsewhere, noting plenty of turnover near the former Viking stadium site, and called the wooded property a 'God gift' that can't be replaced once torn down.

Flagged a blind spot on Lone Oak at the proposed driveway, narrow Poplar Lane parking that blocks Metro Mobility and emergency vehicles, and many unresolved loose ends; asked whether forwarding this now is even responsible.

Questioned how single-level living works with dug-out basements and asked why this site is being pushed when other open properties exist in Eagan.

The longtime property owner said she was never notified when the land use designation changed years ago and disputed that the pond is a true wetland, calling it a drainage holding pond for nearby parking lots.

Father of an adjacent homeowner, he opposed the redesignation, citing the property's difficulty, drainage toward his daughter's lot, tree loss, and suggested an R1-S pocket neighborhood alternative instead.

He asked why the wetland line, sanitary capacity and a full traffic study hadn't been done before the density request, and questioned what happens to the two orphan parcels south of the lake.

He argued the zoning should stay R1 because every adjoining property is single-family, and asked the city to keep the neighborhood as it is.

Living across Lone Oak for two decades, he said residents bought there for space and large lots, and questioned adding traffic to a road the county just rebuilt to reduce it.

She raised concerns about fire truck turnaround space, guest parking overflow, kids walking to school near Pilot Knob, and snow plowing.

She described the lake's wildlife and her habitat restoration work, arguing the development's impervious surfaces would degrade water quality in Le May Lake.

Jen Conroy's neighbor shared her wildlife concerns and asked how much medium- and high-density housing a small lake can absorb before it's too much.

He argued the property's odd shape and shoreline rules make higher density inappropriate, that the proposal doesn't fit a neighborhood surrounded by low density, and that it benefits only the seller and developer.

She disputed the developer's tree-preservation claims, questioned the 25% hard-surface limit, warned about narrow internal roads and missing cul-de-sac turnarounds, and cited a 1986 council promise that the land would stay R1.

A 30-year resident and economist, he argued the comp plan targets density for special areas — not this site — and cited safety, lake impacts, compatibility and home value expectations.

He briefly stated the school district would not approve the proposal and endorsed his neighbors' objections.

She reiterated February concerns, emphasizing the narrow street with a care home on Poplar Lane and the danger of emergency vehicles and Metro Mobility vans getting through with overflow parking.

He said he was told more than 20 years ago the area was firmly R1, and warned about turning onto Poplar Lane from busy Lone Oak if 30-40 more homes were added.

She asked what positive effect the project would have on the neighborhood and whether it would raise or lower property values.

She agreed with her neighbors and stressed pollution in the pond would only worsen with more building, urging the commission to use its authority to stop it.

She and her husband support development of the land but asked why it can't happen within the current low-density parameters respecting the neighborhood and environment.

He described being prohibited by the DNR from using machinery for a lakeside erosion repair, and questioned how a project of this scale could meet the same environmental scrutiny.