Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 February 17 2015 Meeting Minutes Unedited - Rough Draft UNEDITED!! VERY ROUGH DRAFT PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, February 17, 2015 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Hite called the Tuesday, February 17, 2015 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Adam Blahnik, Bryan Fleming, Wade Larson and Mark Petersen; Community & Economic Development Director Dan Rogness, Planner Jeff Matzke and Development Service Assistant Sandra Woods. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY , SECONDED BY LARSEN TO APPROVE THE TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2015 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Larson and Petersen The Motion carried. 3. Approval of Monday, February 2, 2015 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO TABLE THE MONDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2015 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Larson and Petersen The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A. DEV15-001004 16030 Eagle Creek Avenue SE Katherina Yurko is requesting a variance from the minimum front, side and lake setback to construct a new single family home located at 16030 Eagle Creek Avenue SE. PID: 25-096-036-0. Planner Matzke introduced the requested variances from the minimum lake setback, side yard building separation setback, and minimum front yard setback in the Low Density Residential (R-1) zoning district. He explained the current circumstances, site details, issues, conclusions and alternatives. He provided a resolution, location map, survey and floor plan dated January 30, 2015. Commission Comments/Questions: Blahnik asked about the setback from the ordinary high water mark and if it is the upper second floor decking that is extending out another ten feet. Planner Matzke replied that is correct; upper level decks have to be attached to the building per the building code and is then part of the structure, so the ten foot upper level deck would be forty-two feet from the lake; the actual house itself is fifty-two feet. 1 Blahnik asked is the reasoning behind the fifty foot setback from the ordinary high water mark is due to potential flooding. Planner Matzke replied correct; the fifty foot setback is an esthetic thing to allow for green space between structures and the lake and this property is out of the flood plain elevation of prior lake; it is set about half Fleming thanked Planner Matzke for the great report and asked about the concept plan and how often does the concept plan change to the point where a new variance application would be applied for. Planner Matzke reassured that there are not many applications that change that. He said that we stress to the applicant to at least define their footprint of their house design because that is how/what they are getting these variances for, if they change the layout of the interior of their home, that can change without the foot print changing and has no bearing on their variance approval one way or the other which is why we label them as conceptual, as if they move a window, they can do this and it has no bearing on the variance. Rarely do they change though, they stride rather to keep the footprint the same. Larson asked the distance between the property line and the frontage road on the property. Planner Matzke replied it is about 25-30 feet and the distance from the garage to the frontage road is a total of almost 48-50 feet when you are factoring in where the proposed garage would be at this point all the way to the frontage road; typical right-of-way areas on a local street would be 8, 10, no greater than 12 feet wide, therefore this is an exceptionally wide right-of-way. Blahnik asked what the size of the proposed building is. Planner Matzke replied about 1,500 square feet as a footprint. Petersen questioned the setbacks to the lake being measured from the point closest to the house where the in cove is and asked what the in cove is measured at. Planner Matzke replied about 10 feet. Applicant No comment at this time. MOTION BY FLEMING, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARINGAT 6:20P.M. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Larson and Petersen The Motion carried. Public Comment : Jon Frank, 16020 Eagle Creek Avenue SE; home to the north of proposed variance request. Mr. Frank stated concerns regarding the proposed house size and height as well as the lot width between the two properties. He mentioned the difficulties of the narrow lots and stated his lot is terraced and wanted to know how this new proposed neighboring house would tie in. He suggested flipping the house plan as there is a lot of room to the south and therefore this would leave no issues or encroachments on his lot. He mentioned he does not have a garage but has been working for 15 years to get a variance and stated this proposed plan may eliminate him from getting a garage on that side of his lot. He talked about back fill and rain water runoff and if the garage is where it is proposed it will compromise both lots and will 2 cause headaches for them both. He would be against moving this plan any further to the north, as he can already see into the house now; moving closer would make it worse. He stated the neighbor to the north of him and himself have been trying to get garages and working the angle, therefore we would like the same consideration as we have our extra items sitting out and have had some vandalism and would not be able to get something worked out on his end. Fleming asked Mr. Frank if he has applied for a variance. Mr Frank stated when he purchased the house there was a draft put together and has kept this draft over the years but has not had extra money to purchase a garage. He stated his lot size is a lot smaller than the lot and his yard is not as limited as his neighbor. He said his own lot is already exceeding hard surface from the previous owner, therefore the only place to get a garage is where the old county road was and stated that he believes that when the new county road was built; the county never vacated the old county road back to the city, so that the city cannot grant us a variance to build on this lot and this has always been an obstacle for us. He was told to hire an attorney and a survey and he cannot afford this. He is hoping when issues like this arise it will also help him and his neighbor get things rolling stated he was concerned about the terracing in his lots as there is not terracing on the south side. He would like to see the building pushed further south and believes you should only need one garage, not two. Fleming thanked Mr. Frank for his thoughts and said he would like to share his thoughts, but is not speaking for his fellow commissioners as he stated the issue of the elevation three stories versus two and would be a possible impediment to your navigating your property terraced landscaping and blocking of the sunlight and is reminded that one thing he appreciates about city government, particularly Prior Lake, is that we are a community that welcomes multiplicity of perspectives and opinions and has really enjoyed this in his time here as a Prior Lake resident, however as a statuary body we have to be really mindful of property rights which are grounded in statute; and stated he understood his concerns, this issue needs to be really careful about that balance between preserving property owners unalienable right with the perspective in the concerns that are shared with neighbors. He hoped that as the petitioner moves forward with the project that there would be opportunity for some dialog, but is a little uncomfortable with this tension shared here. He wanted to share that property rights are grounded in statute and consider them very seriously. Petersen asked Planner Matzke why the buildings cannot be moved further to the south; is there some elevation that is not shown. Planner Matzke explained due to preservation of the trees and the grade change (topography), it would make it more challenging to move to the south of the lot. He explained the driveway issues due to the grade change and stated drainage is reviewed by engineering and would give a better explanation of this, but this way is more efficient for drainage. Petersen asked in the opinion of the staff is the better plan then inversing where the garage would be on the south side. Planner Matzke replied it is an easier plan to work with from the topography area and the applicant would have to put in more tree replacement due to tree removal, as there is some significant evergreen trees there and elimination of quite a few of them would need to occur to inverse this plan. Also they would need to 3 eliminate or work around the existing garage that is in the front of the lot basically to put the driveway the other way around. Mr. Frank stated there is trees on both sides and the trees to the south are straggly pine cone trees and pe is an issue as there is not a dramatic change between my lot and the lot to the south. You could move some dirt over on his lot on the north side there is a five foot retaining wall between his yard and the applicants lot, with two terraces there holding the front of his yard in together and worried if there was a garage there would he be standing on top of a garage to mow his lawn. He mentioned sight lines and how his house is on the edge and now putting a garage further up to the east and closer to the edge and asked where he would put a garage then. If approved, what are the chances of our house getting approved for a consideration for a garage? Petersen asked about the setback on the garage as the variance is on the house being too close to the next door piece of property; the setback technically is within where it should be. Planner Matzke replied that is correct; the proposed garage is 5.2 feet according to the survey and it would have to meet the 5 foot minimum at that area, therefore it does meet the setback. Mr. Frank asked you are talking about the property line to the east Planner Matzke replied from the shared property on the side; from your shared property line to the garage. Mr. Frank said so the runoff from that will fall between his retaining wall and the garage, which would be dead space without any sunlight; leading to nothing growing in this area, washing out everything that is growing in there and further this would make his life miserable. He is not concerned about the east or west or towards the lake or street, rather to his property line, when there is a ton of room to the neighboring house to the south of them; at least 10-15 feet off of their property line, the current owner is 10-15 feet off of that property line as well, there is thirty feet on that side, go use it. north. He said he is just stating his opinion. Fleming stated he needs to underscore for you and said he hears Mr. Franks concerns, but he thinks it is a little presumptuous and maybe a little disrespectful to presume what a property owner should do with his or her property. He stated he is not intending a disrespectful conversation rather stating facts with Mr. Frank referring to the nature of the trees being scrawny; he stated there is a threshold of respect for property rights which are grounded in Statue and hoped that there could be some form of dialog between neighbors at some point in the future and would like to underscore for Mr. Frank that the applicants are the property owners and it really is on them to decide how, when, if and at what cost or price point they want to make modifications to their property. Mr. Frank putting this in front of you and I am just giving my opinion. That is all I am saying. Fleming replied okay, and I am reminding you of what our function is as a Statuary Governing Entity is. Mr. Frank replied not a problem. Fleming thanked Mr. Frank. 4 Larson asked Mr. Frank about the location of his retaining wall on the rear of the property, as it appears very close to the property line. Mr. Frank stated the retaining wall is right on the property line. Larson asked Planner Matzke to familiarize the Commissioners the regulations for retaining walls. Planner Matzke explained the retaining walls regulations and stated this is not uncommon; especially referred to Commissioner Flemings comments how property owners work together on redoing retaining walls, reviewing topography if retaining walls need to be redone as they meet there failure areas, thirty to forty years down the road and need to be replaced. Generally you do have property owners getting together to figure out what they should do to better the grade situation or erosion control situations and etc. The City does get involved with those grading/building permit when these walls are in need of being redone; and in this case if the retaining walls were reconstructed, most likely it would take a building permit to do so, but would be allowed to be put back into the same placement as they are existing nonconforming retaining walls. Applicant Applicant Katherina Yurko , acknowledged Mr. comments, stating they do understand his concerns as they have similar concerns themselves with the existing garage that is on the property and the desire to preserve the existing structure, rather than needing to apply for a shed permit in the future; as storage becomes an issue with lake property. She suggested to continue any communication with Mr. Franks and any property owners further to the north about the desire of moving forward with some kind of an joint agreement with the City to entertain the idea of us keeping our garage and then be able to seek a variance or an use of private property agreement together to deal with some of the garage issues that are along that street. Another item she would like to address are some of the comments about drainage. With the current property between ours and Mr. Franks the drainage actually goes right into Mr. Franks corner of his house on the property line and we were aware of this the first time we walked the property and as such we planned the house and pulled that back and incorporated retaining walls in the site design to allow for a swale and drainage to happen on her property or on the property line to mitigate the issue that is currently in place with drainage between the two properties. Also the trees along the south that she is trying to preserve are twenty plus some evergreen trees that add character of to Prior Lake, which is their reasoning and desire to try to persevere these trees and not destroy the drip line of these existing trees as well as to not change the character of the property or neighborhood, especially for the homeowner to the south, because they did site their house and set it back further from the property line d and remove the trees that they have become accustom too. Applicant Robert Yurko added as far as the community and working with Mr. Franks it is important to work together and coming into the neighborhood or street, they would like to bring a nice house and add character to the street and be friendly neighbors and have fun. He stated they put a lot of time and consideration into how this design works and made sure the drainage was proper, which was on the top of their list. There is additional costs involved in the retaining walls that we accepted to put in. The lot has very interesting topography, and stated he is not an architect, but said Mrs. Yurko is; therefore a lot of work was put into this to make something beautiful. ything that will jeopardize 5 effect the ability for neighbors to not be able to get their garages, however from the reports seen here this should not affect neighbors at all. He asked Planner Matzke for verification on the effects of his plans eliminating neighbors to not get garages of their own. Planner Matzke stated Mr. Frank, would most likely need a future variance request because of the small shape of his property. The location of the garage, being 5 feet from the property should still be able to place a garage somewhere in his a front yard, ve much of a front yard even to place the shape of a 22 x 22, which is the smallest garage you can make, in there without being in the right-of- way so some private use public property agreement or something along those lines would have to insure as well. Garages have been routinely approved for variances when a property lacks a garage, if there is placement; usually the best possible place for a garage on small lot is usually approved in past history by the Planning Commission just because that is an amenity that most properties have these days. The biggest challenge for placement for a garage for this neighbors is the right-of-way situation; which would have to get cleared up for the legal title and paper work and things of that nature, but is a separate issue from this request right now. Applicant Robert Yurko stated his garage has the same issues that the neighbors are face and he will also have to seek an agreement to keep the garage and is not a guaranteed. As it stands right now the frontage road is a no parking, which makes parking a nuisances, therefore keeping the garage will help with the parking and storage to keep the drive clear for cars. The focus today is the front and side variance. The first thing he loved about the lot is it feel lik trees. He stated they put a lot of work and thought into this plan and he appreciated what John had to say; he stated they would like to be good neighbors and work with him and would like to keep dialog open about the lawns that need to be mowed, low spots or water runoff neighborhood and not get along with neighbors. Blahnik asked if it was a two story with a walk out basement Applicant Katherina Yurko replied yes, it is a two story with a walk out basement which is the same as the house to the south; the neighboring house does sit much higher than ours though, and we intentionally have done more of a craftsman style with lower ceiling heights to minimize the height of the home so it will be a midway roof point between the house to the south and Johns house to the north and also they intentionally did pull the house of the face back and still are only requesting the variance for the deck on the rear side to make sure any views that either neighboring home has out of their side would still be preserved and have those views and their house would not be blocking those views. Blahnik asked about the retaining wall in the front yard of Mr. Franks property; as it appears to only have only 2-3 feet between the retaining wall and the actual boundary line, is that retaining wall treated as the boundary line. Applicant Katherina Yurko replied she is not sure how he currently maintains this area, from previous statement given by John, it is her understanding that he has to walk onto the proposed property to maintain his two feet and his two feet further south, due to the way that house was built as close to the property line as it is. She stated any retaining walls on the on the face of their proposed house would still be pulled back another five feet from that. 6 Blahnik replied correct, and stated if there was reference to the retaining wall being the boundary line and was noticed on the back of the house on the west and then on the east of the house in the front yard it looks as if the retaining wall is 2-3 feet actually north of the boarder and asked how this has been treated. Applicant Katherina Yurko said that is correct and the elevation of the garage will slope down considerably from the street level; therefore it will trellis down and have created a swale to allow drainage to drain to the south on their property. She stated they will not be building up 4 feet to match the retaining wall as theirs is going to continue with the natural slope of what is currently there, as there is some minor infill there to get the apron in front of the garage. She stated the retaining wall is to the north of the driveway. She said this will overlap about 5-6 feet where the neighbors is ending and theirs is beginning. She stated they have had a civil engineer look at all of this including the grading and the retaining wall when they did the survey to work with them on the design and helped set the height of the home and all the floors and elevations and the garage. There will be a slight slope down from eagle creek and all the trees will be remaining on the lot line with a little bit of trimming, as they would like to leave as many trees as possible. Applicant Robert Yurko stated they want to preserve the lot as it stands and put a modest lake home on this lot. They looked through a lot of houses and chose a house to take up less of the lot, lower roof line and are trying to be good neighbors as they go through this process and they went through surveying companies, and civil engineers to work out. This house was thoroughly thought out for preserving nature, having working drainage and being good considerate neighbors. Larson stated the pin points that he liked are the swales that are controlling the water that may or may not be an issue that is not currently being solved with the property on the north side and the applicants are willing to work with the neighbors and want to be good neighbors, so the five foot that is allowed in our ordinance that they are abiding by the 5.2 actually, and the preserving of the trees, as Prior Lake is committed to preserving trees. He stated the biggest issue the right-of-way; he asked Planner Matzke if this is currently owned by the County. Planner Matzke replied that is one question we will have to look into with the right-of-way situation and if there is an application or joint application by neighbors or something on the matter for the right-of-way area. MOTION BY FLEMING, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO CLOSE THE PUBLICHEARING AT 6:59 P.M. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Larson and Petersen The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Blahnik stated he will be supporting this variance with the three specific variances; the setback 8 foot variance from the ordinary high water mark, which is usually fifty feet but the actual structure of the house is fifty two feet with exception of the upper deck that is what creates the 8 foot extension into the 50 foot setback and is consistent with the neighboring properties of the 46 foot setback problems with this. The 3.4 foot setback between structures is the subject of discussion at this public hearing with the neighbor to the north, however the actual setback from the side yard is consistent with the ordinance so the only reason why this is triggered is because the property to the north is only two feet from the boundary line which creates the problem with this particular property. It appears in the diagram 7 that the house itself is in the same footprint on the northern portion on the old property so that the northern line of this house is in line with where the old house was it is just the garage that is extending a little north about 4 foot but appears after discussion that it is the best location for the house but is seen as a 4 foot issue, but because it is consistence with the average side yard setback, the only problem exists because of the property to the north being two feet from the boundary line and thinks it is reasonable to bring the 3.4 foot variance on the north of the property there as far as distance between the two structures. The 6.8 foot variance from the front yard is reasonable given it is still 50 feet from the road itself with issues with the realignment with the road, with the normal distance is 20 feet given this and the abandonment of the road so to speak does not pose any problems, therefore for these reasons and practically difficulties do exist on this property and the proposed house is not a huge house and is not unreasonable and is consistent with wealth fare of the community and for these reasons he will be supporting this variance. Fleming is supporting this resolution; the report and finding are appropriate and comprehensive and thanked Jeff and staff for this research. He would like to add that the granting of the variances are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City Subdivision Zoning Ordinances and will not result in allowing any uses of the property that is not permitted in the zoning district. Petersen is in support of all three variances back the dip in the shore that the setback from the lake is not an issue. The reason the variance is needed for the side is because of the structure on the other and the variance asked for on the front seems reasonable given the unusual right- of-way situation. MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE THE VARIANCES AS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Larson and Petersen The Motion carried. B. DEV15-001003 Dominium/Gateway Shopping Center Redevelopment Dominium is requesting to amend the 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan from Community Retail Shopping (C-CC) to Urban Planned Unit Development (PUD) at 5119 Gateway Street SE, referred to as the commercial Gateway Center of Prior Lake. PID: 25-174-002-0 and 25-174-001-0. Director Rogness introduced the consideration of a recommendation to: (1) Amend the 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan from Community Retail Shopping (C-CC) to Residential Urban High Density (R-HD); and (2) Amend the official zoning map to rezone from General Business (C-2) Planned Unit Development (PUD) by approving a preliminary PUD Plan. He explained the physical site characteristics, site plan, building characteristics, conclusion, issues and alternative motions. He provided a location map, an amended comprehensive land use plan map, official zoning map and preliminary PUD plans. Commission Comments/Questions: Blahnik stated he understands the proposal to convert this to a residential urban high density, but since the planned project would exceed the number of units per square foot area; and asked if the two motions could be explained further. Director Rogness replied he understand the confusion as it is easy to think the comp plan urban high density should be followed with a zoning of our high density; the high density residential from our 8 comprehensive plan states net density is between 7.1 and 20 units per acre maybe allowed where developments with higher density and those with a mix of housing styles will primarily be realized in planned unit developments and therefore what this statement is saying is two things; 1.) the high density residential comprehensive plan land use generally supports 7.1 to 20 units, but does recognize there are cases where it could go higher, but stays at that high density residential land use; the only way they can maximum density so that is part of the deliberation this evening is it correct and does it fit with the neighborhood and in terms in changing from commercial to that high density residential. Reads from Blahnik asks the first motion converting is to residential urban high density would be a prerequisite to considering whether to approve the PUD. Director Rogness replied correct. And if the comprehensive plan change is approved by the council it will still go to the met council for review and approval as well; since it is over 100 units it would have to go through a full review and a full Met Council review as well and it would need to be approved with the Met Council as well. Larson asked about the underground parking with one entrance into the facility on the northeast side. Director Rogness stated they are proposing more than one entrance one on the west side as an optional entrance as well; however this has not been in full discussion yet whether this one is warranted and accepted by the City as it is in close proxcimity to the intersection and usually an entrance/exit is not typically that close to an intersection. Applicant would be better to ask. Applicant Applicant Ron Mahl, Senior Developer with Dominium. Ron thanked the Planning Commission for arranging this meeting and Director Rogness for review of their plans as well as presenting the staff report. He explained the history of Dominium and stated they are experienced with this type of housing all over the United States, however most of their new construction is in Minnesota, where they have constructed many of these 4 story developments around the Twin Cities in the last 2 years. He addressed the underground parking issues and questions about the entrances stating they do have issues with the location of the entrance/exit due to the intersection as well as the topography of the site, as the entrance/exit would have a steep grade and this causes concern with anyone and especially seniors. The east side of the development entrance/exit would allow everyone to come in having safer topography without intersections. He stated it is a double loaded parking lot with a very wide area in the center with 2 lanes of traffic in the center allowing easy traffic flow. He stated they chose to have only one entrance/exit at this time for safety reasons. He mentioned the neighborhood meeting that was held last week to be good neighbors and explain what was being proposed and had about 5 residences show. He said there were concerns expressed and they would like to work through as they go through their finalization of their design process. He mentioned some of the ideas that was brought up and explained each one including; landscaping, building height, schools on the sides of the property with cut through property including th behavioral issues with children and lighting and traffic on 160 Street. He explained how they are excited about the opportunity to provide new senior housing development in Prior Lake and said it offers affordable price point and living options. He stated the prices of rent as well as the sizes of the apartments. He gave existing retail space percentages and other suggested areas for Senior Development options as County Roads 13 & 42. He explained the building materials as class A materials, as they like to own things for the long run designing buildings to last. There will be lots of common areas, party rooms, 9 management offices for on-site staff, quality fitness, salon, card and craft room and lots of outdoor recreation space that would come off the common area/party room that is centrally located. He explained the senior demographics and how seniors would like to be near the younger generations and families. He expressed key factors being traffic counts and how this effects the option to catch the visibility on the corner as it is a gateway to downtown and feels this would be a great entrance into downtown. Fleming thanked the applicant for the thoughtful presentation and asked in the use of methodology used were they able to determine of this population how many truly desire to live in independent living. Applicant Ron replied by history of the last two developments with outcomes of waiting lists for occupancy, with new developments about 50 percent already leased out. He explained typically applicants are usually coming from a single family home and have lots of decisions to make therefore leading to a longer move in than a general occupancy, but is very confident that this will be no different then their other senior buildings that are in already occupied. The overall demographics of baby boomers are just growing and we think this independent living offers a lot. This is a very independent living; it is a market that is not being yet met. Fleming asked what the estimated time of building completion time would be. Applicant Ron responded a building of 156 units on the quick end it could be 14-15 months, given Fleming asked about his best guess based on trends from the industry development on how quickly rates will rise for residents. Applicant Ron replied the interesting fact about the section 42 program is which is truly work force housing affordable type of development therefore the rent is set by the County (or HUD) and is based on County incomes; they will go up or down dependent on what the area medium income are. For the last two years the rental rates have stayed flat due to the economy. Rates are set at for 60 percent of the area meeting income and right now $900.00 to $1,200.00. He expects them to go up about 1.5 percent by next year. The nice thing about the Section 42 program is it goes up and down or stays flat with the economy and the area medium income. On this development because tax credits are used, they will sign a land use restricted agreement with Minnesota Housing Finance Agency that will stay with this property for a period of 15 years and will stay at the same rates determined by HUD; at the end of the 15 year compliance period for affordability, many times the credits are syndicated; we put more tax credits on it and sign it up for another 15 years, sell the tax credits and do rehab on the units. He stated they are long term owners, they will own this for 15 years, however in the event that they ever did sell it within the 15 year period that land use restriction would stay with the property. Petersen asked about employment opportunities and if there is even a day shift, night shift and landscaping, etc. Applicant Ron replied initially there are a lot of jobs that are created through construction of the development. They try to hire local subcontractors; they are not a contractor they hire general contractor and subcontractors to do the work. For long term for a project this size there would be a staff of a manager, two full-time leasing agent and possibly a third part-time leasing agent, full time maintenance person (4- 5 people) and other part-time jobs that come about through this such as people who teach exercise classes, 10 yoga, salons, etc. A lot of types of uses that spin out off of this which produces about another 3-4 full time jobs. Petersen asked about wages and if they are minimum wage positions. Applicant Ron said Dominium is a big company with 500 employees; all employees get the same benefits and there is not a lot of positions that are at minimum wage. Petersen asked about security and/or security staff or security plan. Applicant Ron replied a place like this probably would not have a full time security person on staff; they are designed with security in mind. The front doors and garage entrance are fobbed which allows us to know who is coming and going. There is camera systems throughout the property as well as the common areas. He stated there is not a lot of crime seen in these types of properties. He stated they do credit and criminal background checks on every resident, whether it be an affordable project or a high end market rate project; they are treated all the same. He stated their background checks are pretty impressive; as they have a professional management company prepare these. Dominium is really two companies as they are a development company and a management company and all work together in the same office so there management team in in the same office as the people working in the development aspect and will be with the property for the long term. If there is any issues in say 3-4 years, you could call him and he could get you in touch with the right management person to deal with whatever is going on. Recommendations can come from police teams throughout Minnesota on how we manage properties as well. Blahnik stated noted from staff mention that Dominium is currently in a purchase agreement for the accusation of this property, which is currently owned by Wells Fargo and did it go through foreclosure; is that why it is being held by the bank. Applicant Ron responded that is his understanding that Wells Fargo inquired the property in a foreclosure situation. Larson asked about if there would be a woodworking shop and asked for descriptions on some listed rooms as well as Wi-Fi in the library for internet. He stated concerns of room layout, patio doorways and garage spaces and would like City Council to look into the second entrance/exit into the garage for safety reasoning. He asked about storage of personal items such as bikes and asked about different forms of labeling on the plans in the garage as well as the building and if parking spaces were going to be occupied by support beams. He was curious to how many elevators there are that would go from the garage to facility. Applicant Ron replied the woodworking shop is under consideration, typically this would be in an underground parking area; the design process is very arduous which involves property management, assets management and development team; it would be easy enough to do in the underground parking area and are considering that. He explained additional common areas explaining some listed rooms such as exam room, parcel room and craft and card rooms. He stated Wi-Fi in some common areas are part of the development. He described the doors to the patios and/or decks and mentioned the plans are a representation of the direction for a footprint; the units are always evolving. He mentioned the locations of secure storage units as well as bike parking racks. He explained the labeling as parking spots and trash/recycling shoots and stated the support beams would be in some parking spaces as it needs to hold 11 the lid up. He showed where the two elevators would be located and explained there was a door to get to the common elevator for move in/outs. Larson thanked the applicant regarding his proposal for senior housing in Prior Lake and from his observations he would be in favor of having the PUD and the higher density taken care of for a recommendation to the City Council and to forward onto the Met Council. Fleming asked staff about how many businesses are already on the property currently and what is the best practice protocol for notice to those three businesses of when they want to relocate. Director Rogness replied there are currently three; the thrift store, the pizza store and the shoe shop. He stated the protocol for notices is completely up to Dominium as there are a lot of approvals that need to occur before this project can go through including public financing that they will be requesting from the City Council, therefore they will be working with the existing tenants as this moves through the process. He stated Dominium needs to get through all approvals and close no later than in June of this year. Applicant Ron stated all the businesses were invited to the neighborhood meeting, one business did show up and are very much in support to the change of the development. He said they are meeting with Wells Fargo broker this week to start coming up with a formal plan to let them know of where they are in the want to get too ; they wanted to get through a few City meetings to get a feel of how things are going. MOTION BY FLEMING, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARINGAT 7:56P.M. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Larson and Petersen The Motion carried. Public Comment : th Kevin Busse, 5101 160 Street SE. He stated he is located on the south side of this project in-between the car wash and the first set of quad homes that is located across the street. He thanked the commissioners for taking public comment on this tonight and thanked Dominium on having the meeting last week; as he got a lot of the questions answered and some extra research completed before tonight. He stated concerns of sight lines, size and safety; he reviewed the concept plans of the building stating it is four stories, however it is really taller than that due to angles and peaks on the east and west sides, leaving the building well over four stories; more along the lines of five stories top to bottom, maybe higher. He explained the surrounding neighborhoods and ages of these neighborhoods and stated he is not thrilled to be in or out of el it fits into the older neighbor. He used Parkwood Apartment buildings as example of a three story building and stated to stack two of these buildings on top of each other to get the overall height of this new construction. He drove around and looked at multi story building in Prior Lake as well as other communities and one thing stands out, three stories is pretty much the normal height on all multi story buildings. Dominium stated to change their project to a three story building would not be viable for them. He used Keystone, Creekside Commons, Lakefront Plaza are all three story buildings and none are located by residential neighborhoods. Mckenna Crossing came closest height wise, but still nowhere close to single family residential neighborhoods. News report about proposed three story for a neighborhood in Carver which is causing controversy because of size and location. He repeated comments made on this news report about property 12 values will commonly go down when this size and type of a building gets put into a neighborhood. If we were here tonight for someone building a mansion in the neighborhood, he doubts it would even be considered, however this size of a project would make a mansion look small. He commented on how a building this size would scare the heck out of his father, a past fire chief, because of the size in perpective to the nearby homes and other buildings in the area; especially off the back of the building. He shared concerns of infrastructure going through older pipes, schools concerns and scaring seniors, no security person on duty, security barriers and general safety. He was receptive to this idea originally, but after reviewing more he feels this is not right as the City slogan states, people come to prior lake for the small town feel, this project is not small town. MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO CLOSE THE PUBLICHEARING AT 8:05 P.M. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Larson and Petersen The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Blahnik asked staff if there is a height limitation on these four stories. Director Rogness replied yes, it is four stories or 45 feet in height, whichever is less, they measure at a certain level of pitched roof line. It really does seem to be five stories, however they are measuring it correctly and in accordance to our ordinance. The height that they are going beyond in the R-3 is about 5 feet 6 inches. Blahnik asked if you take the actual height closer to the five stories is that type of pitching in height common in buildings of this sort. Director Rogness replied it is and residential and the lakefront homes are the typical examples to where they have steep pitched roofs and measurements are at certain points roughly half way for these; this standard of measurement is common from city to city. Blahnik asked if this goes through, amending know if the project will go through and between now and then we will still have those businesses at the go through do we go back and amend it back to the current comp plan. Director Rogness replied we talked about this at staff level and we put in a similar example on Fountain Hills (Elander) it was held back at the Council level when it got to the ordinance for rezoning, it was stated to be published after approval is received from the Met Council and therefore it was held back, as it cannot be rezoned until the comp plan process is through. The final PUD, Met Council Review and it will take prematurely rezoned and have to go back. Blahnik will be supporting this request from the applicant. He stated it is a large building being four stories, however the four stories is consistent with our ordinance allowances in a high density residential area and really are looking at a five foot difference than what is allowed and what is being proposed. The current location does have four quality busine6sses are already in there, however there is a large run down parking lot and the current business do not utilize the parking. He stated concerns expressed for teenagers drinking and smoking, are the same concerns we have now and most likely will continue into the future. 13 The building is a beautiful structure and would be a nice addition to our town in the particular location. He feels it would increase the economic vitality of the area and support long term economic stability by strengthening the tax base and job markets; it would provide opportunity for life cycling for our senior residents in the community and as indicated it would preserve and enhance desirable site characteristics by constructing this building in this area. In amending the official zoning map, this area has changed to such a degree that it would be in the public interest to rezone to encourage redevelopment as being proposed and further this proposed building is compatible with adjacent properties which the properties to the south are currently zoned urban high residential. He does share concerns with the neighbor with this large structure in front yard, however there is no sun blockage and it is not a big a wall it is a nice looking building. Fleming stated he will be supporting this but not without reservations about the concerns from Mr. Busse. He thanked Mr. Busse for his job of completing his own diligence and provided context. As a former educator and school administrator he hopes Dominium can find a creatively way for intergenerational challenges that a lot of communities face with youth that and resorts to behavior that is less than optimal and does not conform with the small town feel which is what lets us all call Prior Lake a nicer place to live. The application and the findings do give us a sense that this will comport with a flexible approach to development and is in harmony with our comprehensive plan. He hopes that Dominium takes to heart the very articulated concerns shared by Mr. Busse this evening. Petersen stated he is in agreement with his fellow Commissioners and feels it may not be a perfect fit, however it is not a bad fit and possibly even a good fit and it is certainly an improvement. He stated given ty. He stated he did a little research on the applicants and has confidence that they will be making this a decent project of this with an excellent addition to our community and will be supporting this. Larson stated he did see the project that was done in Crystal for Dominium that was converted from a school to a high density facility. He made mention of the waiting list being lengthy and feels this is a much needed utility. He stated he understands neighbor concerns, however looking at the practicality of the roof and how it is designed it should have less issues with snow. He stated in review of the issues with the neighboring school, he feels having full time facility that will be on duty and is aware of this situation and will be taken care of. He is in favor of the PUD as well as the reclassification of the area. His concerns to the city council are the parking entrance/exit on the other side of the facility, a recommendation for additional handicap parking and working out relocation of current businesses to stay in Prior Lake. He due to concerns. MOTION BY FLEMING, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO RECOMMEND AMENDMENT TO THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FROM COMMUNITY RETAIL SHOPPING (C-CC) TO RESIDENTIAL URBAN HIGH DENSITY. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Larson and Petersen The Motion carried. MOTION BY FLEMING, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO RECOMMEND PRELIMINARY PUD PLAN AND CORRESPONDING ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FROM GENERAL BUSINESS (C-2) TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Larson and Petersen The Motion carried. 5. Old Business: 14 No Old Business 6. New Business: No New Business 7. Announcements / City Council Updates: 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY FLEMING, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO ADJORN THE FEBRUARY 17, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Larson and Petersen The Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:24 p.m. Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant 15