Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 06 2015 Meeting Minutes PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, April 6, 2015 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Hite called the Monday, April 6, 2015 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Adam Blahnik, Perri Hite, Wade Larson and Mark Petersen; Development Director Dan Rogness, Planner Jeff Matzke and Development Service Assistant Sandra Woods. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO ADJUST THE AGENDA REGARDING TABLING ITEM 6B 2030 AND 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLANS TO A FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite, Larson and Petersen The Motion carried. 3. Approval of Monday, March 16, 2015 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, MARCH 16, 2015 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite, Larson and Petersen The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A. DEV15-001003 – Dominium Final PUD Plan – Dominium is requesting approval of a Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan for 170 unites of senior rental housing. The 2.5-acre site is generally referred to as the commercial Gateway Center of Prior Lake and is located at 5119 Gateway Street SE; PID: 25-174-002-0 and 25-174-001-0. Director Rogness introduced the request from Dominium regarding final PUD plans and development contract to develop a 170-unit senior housing project on 2.54-acres site located easterly of Trunk Highway 13 on Gateway Street and Jordan Avenue, known as Gateway Redevelopment in the General Business Commercial (C-2) Zoning District. He explained the history, current circumstances, site details, building characteristics, conclusions, issues, alternatives and recommended motions. He provided a location map, survey for administrative subdivision – Parcel A and B, Final PUD plan requirements, Table 3.8 of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and 10-year progress, City Council Resolutions and Ordinances from March 9, 2015, Draft PUD development contract, email from Kevin Busse dated April 2, 2015 and a graph showing height reduction from roof redesign. Commission Comments/Questions: Larson asked about the glare of windows and asked for further explanation regarding commercial versus residential windows. 1 Director Rogness replied he wasn’t sure of a difference; he should ask the architect. Blahink asked if Director Rogness could elaborate more on the shifting of the building. Director Rogness replied they shifted the building due to lack of room on the east side; Dominium originally had hoped to purchase about 45 feet from the adjacent lot, but was only able to acquire 27 feet. Blahnik asked if the total length of the building from east to west is the same as the preliminary drawing. Applicant Mehl said no it has been reduced by about 15 feet. Hite asked for any provisions in the contract that are nonstandard, and if so, does this happen on other projects. Director Rogness replied that the 2006 Shepherds Path housing project was similar, and staff used that contract as a template. He explained how the City Council reviews these contracts in more detail. Hite referred to the car wash site and stated she doesn’t see the need for another park that the City needs to maintain; she encouraged the city to take the fee in lieu of land. She asked if there is a fence along the south lot line. Applicant Mehl said no. Larson asked Director Rogness for considerations on a second entrance to the underground parking; he asked if there have been changes in the market industry that only one entrance is required. Director Rogness stated this would be a good question for the architect or developer. In his experience with other smaller senior housing projects, one entrance was very common. Applicant Applicant Mehl , with Dominium Development located at 2905 Northwest Boulevard in Plymouth, Minnesota. He explained that the building materials and pitched roof were designed to fit into a residential character with the small town feel of Prior Lake. He commented on the vegetation, trees and glare of the windows and the landscape plan to assist in glare. He doesn’t feel the need for an additional entrance/exit as it would be a safety concern; the drive isle is wide enough to accommodate cars going in both directions. He mentioned the one and two bedroom apartments and explained the demand for three bedroom apartments. He stated the car wash property is in negotiations; they would be open to either option, but would ultimately like to see the building removed. Blahnik asked for confirmation regarding reduction of the building height from the preliminary plan. Mathew Nugent, BKV Group located in Minneapolis.Mat replied yes and explained the reduction of the building’s height and the reasoning for the increase in unit count. Blahnik inquired about the 5 foot setback asking if the entire building was reduced by 15 feet would that mean it is 20 feet further than where it was originally planned on the east side. Nugent replied correct. 2 Hite asked about “green” features built into the structure. Mehl explained the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency tax credits program and its push for green building design. Dominium is working with an organization that takes the green community requirements very seriously; this building will be much more efficient than what is seen in other buildings. Hite asked about the underground storage for water and if it can be reused to irrigate due a lot of proposed landscaping. Mehl replied they are doing storage underground in piping, but doesn’t believe they can use this for re- irrigating the property. Hite asked if a shuttle service will be provided. Mehl replied yes, including a bus or van with a handicap lift to allow residents to get to everyday services. Petersen asked how the total height of the building was reduced. Mehl replied by the pitch on the roof as well as more of the building into the ground. Larson asked what percentage of other buildings have one entrance for underground parking. Nugent replied a vast majority have only have one entrance. He explained the issues of another ramp being potentially dangerous due to grade, the fact that engineering would not approve a discharge point that close to the corner, and security issues. Larson asked about glare of windows and if it was more typical for commercial building to have this issue. Nugent explained the percentage of glazing on the exterior of most commercial projects. He stated these windows have openings; also, a large portion of these windows are recessed. Larson asked about shrubs on the south side of the building. Nugent explained the landscaping plan. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARINGAT 6:52 P.M. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite, Larson and Petersen The Motion carried. Public Comment : th th Kevin Busse, 5101 160 Street SE. He stated his home location being on the south side of 160 Street; he mentioned his email regarding window glare issues. He shared concerns of the size of this building and the proximity to single family homes. He thanked Dominium for taking some of the roof pitch off, but had additional concerns relating to the glare from the windows and his privacy; he suggested more trees to be added to the landscaping. He referred to other community’s senior housing homes and their locations. He used an example of living across the street from McKenna Crossing to compare with his 3 new view. He asked the Planning Commissioners how they prepare for a meeting such as this and hoped they would see this from a homeowner’s perspective. th Barbara Busse,5101160 Street SE. She commented on the size of this proposed building using the Lakefront Plaza building as an example of how this does not well represent “small town”. She spoke of the shadow effect and the lack of view with a four story building with a pitched roof; this is a large building taking up almost an entire block. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO CLOSE THE PUBLICHEARING AT 7:02P.M. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite, Larson and Petersen The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Hite stated Dominium has done a great job working with City staff lowering the pitch of the building and decreasing the impervious surface area. She stated it will be great to see all the landscaping as well as the However, she does not discount the neighbor’s comments about a change in their neighborhood. She feels th the glare will be minimal and is limited to different periods of the year. She noted 160 Street is a four lane road which adds to the large buffer area. Larson stated he echoes the statements made by Commissioner Hite. His concerns have been addressed after comments by the architect regarding window glare. He said he likes the height of the trees, but would prefer taller trees on the south side. He also understands the resident’s present concerns; however, with no other residents objecting to this project, having the additional trees, and understanding the architect’s statement about glare from windows, he is in favor of this project. Blahnik is supporting this final PUD and appreciates everything that the applicant has done to appease some of the concerns with the City and neighbors. He stated the shadows cast to the north on either side of the building do not affect anyone, and there is no one present from those locations opposing this project. He stated it is an attractive building and likes the impervious surface from the existing location being reduced from 95 to 63 percent. He echoes the sentiments and comments from the fellow commissioners and will be supporting this application. Petersen stated he will be in support of this PUD and commended the applicant on a great job working with the City and working with the concerns of neighbors. He understands the neighbor’s concerns. Although his own home building experience tells him window glare is not different between commercial and residential buildings, he would not expect glare to be a problem with that amount of distance and separation. He suggested that Busse’s work with the applicant on planting trees to avoid further problems. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY HITE TO RECOMMEND THE APPROVAL FOR THE FINAL PUD PLAN FOR THE GATEWAY REDEVELOPMENT BY DOMINIUM, INCLUDING THE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite, Larson and Petersen The Motion carried. 5. Old Business: No Old Business 6. New Business: 4 A. DEV15-001007 – Jeffers Foundation Concept Plan – Kelly Johnson with Jeffers Foundation is requesting comments on a Concept Plan that would require a future PUD and Comprehensive Plan amendment to change approximately 10.7 acres from a high density apartment development to a medium density single family home concept; PID: 25-437-171-0. Planner Matzke presented this agenda item to review a concept plan for a medium density single family residential complex on a 10 acre site submitted by the proposed developer, Jeffers Foundation on a site located within the Jeffers Pond PUD south of County Hwy 42 and west of Fountain Hills Drive. He explained the history, current circumstances, conclusion, issues and recommended motions. He provided a location map, plans concept site plan, overall development plan and preliminary landscape plan. Commission Comments/Questions: Petersen asked whether the single family and medium density numbers need to add up to 3.07 units per acre. Director Rogness replied yes; this is the projection in the comprehensive plan for the City, which projects an overall housing average density of 3.07. Petersen asked if it mattered how the city achieves getting to 3.07. Director Rogness believes the Met Council would be okay with any combination; over the past ten years, there is a huge gap in the medium density achievement. Petersen asked if high density development helps make up this difference. Director Rogness replied yes, high density multi-family development helps make up the difference, such as the Dominium project. Other previous high density developments include Shepherd’s Path, Lakefront Plaza and Creekside Commons. Petersen asked how often the city’s plan is reviewed by the City and the Met Council. Director Rogness replied every 10 years. Applicant Kelly Johnson , representing the Jeffers Foundation, 2605 Stonebrook Lane, Plymouth, MN. She would like feedback on a potential change to the last undeveloped housing parcel in the Jeffers Pond Planned Unit Development. She explained the different tiers related to impervious surface. She mentioned the impervious surface calculations not only impact the subject site, but also the future commercial sites. The subject site designated in the PUD for 204 multi-family units must be developed on six net acres. This plan is not feasible; rather, she feels the market is desiring smaller lot single family homes that are being purchased largely by empty nesters and young families. They would like to offer two stories on the south side and ramblers on the north side of the cul-de-sac. She summarized her points by saying that the Foundation wants to complete the housing development with lower density, allowing a transfer of impervious surface to the commercial sites. They are serving the market with their concept design. 5 th Hite asked how long did it take from start to finish to complete Jeffers Pond 7 Addition that has similar small lot development. Johnson said approximately 15 months. Petersen asked for further information about the Jeffers Foundation and their history of ownership within the Jeffers PUD. Johnson stated she worked with Paul Oberg from the Jeffers Foundation since 1999 to plan this area, but it was Wensmann Homes that was the developer. She used to be employed by Wensmann, but she is now a director with the Foundation. Petersen asked for further information about the shortage of impervious surface. Johnson explained the give and take of planning stages and the uncertainties of the final product. She stated now they have hard numbers showing what can be transferred and used. She explained how the densities cannot be transferred inward; this does not help the commercial area. Petersen asked whether each subdivision has its own separate HOA, or all part of one. Johnson replied that most of the attached housing has separate HOAs as well as some of the single family; however, recent development does not, including the proposed concept neighborhood. Blahnik asked what they are doing to market this property and what kind of feedback have they received so far. Johnson replied this property has been listed on the market with a commercial broker since 2009 with very limited inquiries; this new concept will result in development starting in 2015. Blahnik asked if she has been in contact with City staff for potential variances in regard to the impervious surface issue. Johnson replied this is not a type of variance that they can receive from the DNR. Planner Matzke concurred. Johnson mentioned a spreadsheet of impervious surface that was developed for every building permit within the PUD. So, everyone will know what can ultimately be transferred to the commercial area. Hite asked if Outlot D has to be sold first before commercial development. Johnson replied a little of both; she explained there is a market for medium density housing right now and they have been trying to sell this parcel since 2005. It is time to be developed, which will provide further support to commercial development as well. Blahnik asked about interest or demand for high density residential, and stated his concerns about the availability of higher density for the younger generation. 6 Johnson explained the challenges with that site and high density, mentioning the difficulty of grades and how it would be more expensive for high density. Blahnik asked about the history of this particular location being designated for high density in the original PUD Plan. Johnson responded with a vision the original buyer had for condominiums for retirees; that may have not been realistic since this high number of units is difficult in the marketplace. Hite asked staff about developments like this and how do we as a commission or council help developers keep track of these impervious surfaces so no one user is taking more impervious than what has been originally planned. Planner Matzke explained the PUD tiering and the amendments that are more recent to the south. He spoke of impervious surface that has been shown and granted and the actual needs for this area. He mentioned never having a master conceptual plan for the commercial area’s needs since the future market demand was unknown at the time. Hite applauds everyone for all the work that has gone into this large PUD. She is inclined to be open- minded and to figure out the best use of this parcel. The characterization of it could change from high density to medium density, but how do we meet high density, medium density and low density and all of the various housing needs required by the Met Council? It is likely a bigger issue for the City to take a look at, including the market demand for medium versus high density housing. The city needs all of the commercial elements to be developed too. She is open-minded to do what is right to meet the housing needs and to provide the best use for that parcel, including what is needed for the commercial parcels. Petersen echoes Hite’s comments as he thinks there is not a strong market for high density, resulting in property that sits empty for the next ten years. Just because it is was designated high density twelve years ago, doesn’t necessarily make sense today. Therefore, he is also open minded to a change like this. Paul Oberg stated that Jeffers Pond it was developed with the idea that empty nesters from Prior Lake would buy at the northwest corner of the large pond. Education at Jeffers Pond Elementary would benefit from those residents mentoring the children. The Jeffers Pond Plan supports three-season trails around the pond going from the northwest to the school for significant pedestrian connections throughout the PUD. This concept plan supports more empty nesters in Outlot D as a lifestyle living choice on small lots. That is the plan if the City Council and Met Council approve this modification. Blahnik said his first reaction was to not support the removal of higher density parcels, as it appears to be planned for more senior housing. However, he doesn’t want to hold anyone hostage to this parcel as if it was actively marketing over the past years without success. In addition, with impervious surface issues and no one coming forward to demand higher density, he is open to this proposed concept plan change. They are maintaining a medium density that is getting as possible to the original goal of housing variety with the PUD. He would support moving forward with this concept plan. Larson understands that the units adjacent to this parcel are townhomes or detached units; he feels this proposed medium density would make sense and feels it would mix in well. Being able to market that retail prime spot up on Highways 21 and 42 would also be a great benefit. He only sees that more construction like Dominium projects would come to Prior Lake in the future based on aging demographics 7 and strong community appeal. He feels the housing unit count difference could be made up in the commercial density with future developments. He doesn’t see this as a problem, moving this from higher density to a lower density, especially due to the existing adjacent townhomes. Hite noted even though the Commission is not voting, the applicant has provided a layout for the medium density housing. She assumes that the developer may proceed next to apply for a PUD Amendment, Therefore, if the Commission sees something like this in the future, that should be expected based on comments provided this evening. 7. Announcements / City Council Updates: Recent City Council Discussions/Decisions  February 23 – No agreement with SMSC for extending sewer, water, and streets to Stemmer Ridge through the Menden property.  Council Retreat – discussed pole buildings and directed this back to the Planning Commission for more discussion on conditions for a CUP 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY LARSON TO ADJORN THE APRIL 6, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. . VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite, Larson and Petersen The Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:04 p.m. Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant 8