Lakeville School Board Retaining Wall Decision Could Kill a New Housing Development

The 18 year old block retaining wall bordering ’s parking lot is holding up more than dirt these days. A recent non-decision by Lakeville's School Board to keep the wall as-is appears to be holding up developers as well.

Sedley Development Properties approached the School Board in February with a request to to allow for proper grading that enable them to proceed with a planned 50-unit single-family development known as Paradise Hills 3rd Addition. The developers say they need the board’s cooperation with the project or “higher-density” dwellings would have to be considered for the property. They contend that without that additional space, single-family homes wouldn’t be feasible.

The development company has been pressing for an answer so their plans can either move ahead or be revised, but they didn’t like the feedback they received at a recent special meeting to discuss the issue.

While the thought of additional single-family homes is appealing to the district—those homes would conceivably come with an influx of students—the district isn’t willing to part with the retaining wall as currently proposed by the developers citing a number of administrational concerns.

Lakeville North principal Marne Berkvam raised a list of concerns regarding the project in a memo to the School Board. Those concerns ranged from potential complaints from the proposed new neighbors due to noise and lighting, to parking issues, safety and security of students, and even an appeal to preserve the aesthetic value the retaining wall lends to the campus.

Berkvam said the retaining wall acts as a natural sound barrier for everything from marching band practices to honking horns. Removing the wall, she felt, would potentially lead to having to field frequent complaints from nearby residents.

From the developer’s viewpoint, those aren’t valid concerns and they feel they are doing the district a favor by eliminating a potential $500,000 expense to repair or replace the retaining wall in the future. The developers have offered to pay for all costs associated with the removal of the wall as well as provide coniferous landscaping and fencing as a buffer, pay for associated legal costs and ensure the stability of the remaining tier.

“This retaining wall issue is frankly a make or break issue for us,” said Richard Hocking an attorney who represented the developers at the special meeting. “As a Lakeville school district taxpayer, I’m confused. There’s always a public safety issue with retaining walls, and it could be less than ten years before you have to spend $500,000 to do something with that wall.”

The district has had the wall looked at but does not have replacement or repair costs on the radar as far as their 10-year capital plan.

“I’m not seeing it as an expense,” said Board member Roz Peterson. “As a taxpayer, I don’t see that as an argument.”

Board member Kathy Lewis recalled building the wall.

“There’s a reason that wall and trees are there,” said Lewis. “It’s because of how the high school is built and what we had to go through to build it. We couldn’t take down a tree. The city wouldn’t allow it. And here we are being asked to take it down when we couldn’t do it when we built it.”

Preliminary plans for the subdivision have been shown to the city, but the city washed their hands of the property border issue and suggested the developers seek out the cooperation of the School Board to provide the needed plat space. The alternative for developers is to possibly build less-desirable higher-density units such as apartments or townhomes while also having to build their own retaining wall on the backside of the existing one. Or abandon the project altogether.

If any development were to proceed without significantly lowering the wall, the resulting property line of back-to-back walls would be visually odd, according to the developers.

“It’s disappointing,” said Michael Sedley, president of the development company. “I’m confused and I’m not quite sure I understand it. They need students and most of those homes would provide students. A retaining wall typically has a useful life span of 25 years, and at 18 years old, that wall is going to be a real cost.”

Sedley felt the proposal should more than make sense.

“If they need students, and we’re offering a large group in addition to solving a massive expenditure, I don’t see a down side for the School Board.”

The board has said they would be willing to part with one tier of the wall and have asked the developers to submit a proposal that included only one-tier coming down. But the developers insist that removing only one tier does nothing to solve their grading problem and two-tiers would have to go at a minimum.

While the district also agrees that the adjacent property is important to the district and they would certainly desire single-family homes over the alternatives, they just don’t feel removing the wall is in the best interest of the property at this time.

The board did offer to assist the developers in speaking with the city regarding possible creative solutions to the dilemma but also acknowledged that anything beyond their property boundary was outside of their scope. They felt a more collaborative approach might be beneficial.

But after five months of trying to find a resolution, the developers continued to press for an answer rather than delaying the process further.

“What would be the harm in taking a vote now?” asked Hocking.

“This isn’t something we vote on,” said Board Chair Judy Keliher. “This is something where the staff is seeking some direction from the board on how to proceed. And right now, based on the input we’ve received, we’re not lowering the retaining wall.”