Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 15 2015 Meeting Minutes 1 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, June 15, 2015 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Hite called the Monday, June 15, 2015 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Perri Hite, Bryan Fleming, Wade Larson and Mark Petersen; Community Development Director Dan Rogness, Planner Jeff Matzke and Development Service Assistant Sandra Woods. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, JUNE 15, 2015 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried. 3. Approval of Monday, May 18, 2015 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY FLEMING TO TABLE THE MONDAY, MAY 18, 2015 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A. DEV15-001010 – 14259 Shady Beach Trail Variance – David Steingas with Steiner & Koppelman, LLC is requesting a variance from the average required lake setback from Prior Lake to construct a new home in the (R1SD) Low Density Residential Shoreland District; PID: 25-045- 002-0. Planner Matzke introduced a variance in order to allow for the construction of a new home on property located at 14259 Shady Beach Trail NE. The property is located along the northern shores of Lower Prior Lake, east of Bayview Circle. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommended motions. He provided a location map, applicant narrative, survey stamp dated June 10, 2015 and survey indicating approximately buildable area. Commission Comments/Questions: Hite asked about the building permit application of the neighboring house to the west. Planner Matzke replied the applicant would be best to ask, but believed it was late fall. Larson asked how many feet are extending on the southeast side from the red line. Planner Matzke replied the red line is 65 feet; which leaves 15 feet of between the requested variance and what the City Ordinance allows. This 15 feet is the request for the variance. 2 Larson asked about discussions from the homeowners. Planner Matzke replied the homeowners will have some comments. He explained lining up the houses with the shoreline and the reasoning for some items on the plan, stating there may need some redesigning but the primary design is set as a focal point for the variance requests. Fleming asked what the distance is between the existing garage and the plan up to the red line. Planner Matzke stated the distance is about 12 feet and explained the garage measurements. He said they would increase this to 40 feet is what their proposal is showing. Fleming asked about conversations and timing of redesign. Planner Matzke replied they would like to work on this project this season and construction late summer/early fall. They have liked and agreed on this design before the realignment of the neighboring property; therefore wanted to try for this variance. Petersen asked about moving house as far north while maintaining the setbacks from the front of the property; they would still need to shave off a couple feet from the design of the house. Planner Matzke explained the shifting of the house so it would have a 40 foot setback instead of a 25 foot setback; they would still need to shave off a few feet to be in conformity and would still need a variance. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY FLEMING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:22 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried. Applicant David Steingas resides at 21500 Fairview Street on Lake Minnetonka in Excelsior, Minnesota. He stated he has been a builder for the last forty years. They try very hard to design to comply. He has been working on designing this home for about the last year with the Schiegl’s. Last fall the neighboring house was up for a variance; he explained a conversation with the City regarding the neighboring deck and options to get the setback that they are looking for. This was not an option for him so he is asking the Planning Commission and City Council to consider any size deck that goes on that piece of property and assist in determining dimensions. Their original design came into effect after taking with neighbors about their driveway and a fifty foot setback. They specified to have their driveway maintain the same distance back from the lake as if we would be just replacing the structure we have. They reviewed pictures of the neighborhood. Commission Comments/Questions: Larson asked what the delay for the past year of planning this house layout was due to and what the sections are on the southwestern building design. He also questioned what kind of difficulties would arise from the garage being moved rather than the front entrance. Applicant David replied client was out of town for the entire winter and when they returned the neighboring house was built and this house became a visual issue and also mentioned some driveway 3 issues. He said the southwestern building design is a sunroom. Their concerns for keeping the house in the current location was to allow the oak trees to be kept, which is why they are here asking for this variance. Hite asked if the adjoining house was not being moved, you would be at fifty feet. Applicant David replied that is correct. Fleming asked if Applicant David’s comments regarding staff suggestion to approach the neighbor and offered to pay for their deck could be repeated. Applicant David replied staff suggested us to offer to pay for neighboring deck or suggest they get a larger deck or propose to help them build a deck, to increase our setback. He mentioned challenges of designing to comply. Fleming asked if there was any conversations with the neighbors and if so were the neighbors receptive. Applicant David replied his customers may have approached the neighbors, but he suggested that not be the answer, as the answer is coming before the Planning Commissioners. He said the neighbors did want to build a deck, however believes no offers were made. Fleming stated so you would like us to impute a deck that doesn’t exist and pretend that it might exist there at some point and time; even though this will not conform with City Code. Applicant David stated they are just asking for help on setback that works for everyone. He mentioned his evaluation of five properties to give him a common setbacks to rely on and the house that doesn’t have a deck be the defined setback. He understands that we have to abide by code and go with what is existing, but is still confused on how big the deck and steps are going to be. Fleming stated that is because it doesn’t exist. Applicant David said correct, because it doesn’t exist. Petersen asked about the canopy of the oak trees in the front of the house and asked if the porch or deck would be built immediately. Applicant David replied a guess on the oak trees would be about 18 feet, with a canopy within five to six feet away; and yes they hope to build immediately. Public Comment Joe Schiesl 14259 shady beach drive. He spoke on behalf of his wife and himself and clarified the suggested comment made by City Staff relating to the deck, stating it was rejected and offered again at a later date. He mentioned the adjacent house is a speck house. He said they would like to build a home that is in conformance and similar to all homes in the neighborhood and wants to fit the requirements. He explained their surprise to the house being built and changing the setbacks. They are requesting not to be closer to the lake or bigger, just a house that fits the neighborhood with green space and safe. 4 Fleming asked could you expand and share the granular details of the safety issues. Joe Schiesl explained the dangers of the street on Shady Beach Trail and the excessive traffic. He mentioned his concerns of the new building adjacent to them including the dilemma of parking cars in the driveway, as it exasperates the visibility due to blind curves in the street. Fleming asked if there were any safety issues. Joe Schiesl replied he didn’t think so. Larson asked about the yellow home in the picture examples. Joe Schiesl replied that is the neighboring property that is being built now; he explained the street issues and concerns. Hite asked if it was a speck house and not intended for any individual. Joe Schiesl replied yes it is a speck house and it is not intended for any individual. Mark Thompson, 13165 Heritage Way in Apple Valley, MN and own the seasonal cottage that is two houses away from the applicant’s home. He has one of the blind driveways. Fleming asked where the seasonal cottage was; to the east or west of the applicant’s property Mark Thompson replied his cottage is to the west and he expressed concerns of the dangerous street, the blind driveways and the house closer to the street creates an object that is difficult to drive around. He mentioned 12 months ago they were in compliance and now they are not; he stated he was a homeowner that supports the applicant/neighbor. Robert Kelly, 14277 Shady Beach Trail. He stated he is a few houses west of the applicant’s property and totally support this variance. He shared concerns of the narrow street they live on and spoke of safety issues. They have lived here for 23 years and would like to see the house further from the road, rather than where they are proposing. He shared comments and safety concerns of the next door house. Roger Kamin, 14253 Shady Beach Trail. He is located directly east to subject property. He fully supports this request for the variance for three main reasons. He explains his reasons as safety, diminished property values and property rights. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:44P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Hite mentioned a couple of options; staff is recommending some resizing of the home, so a variance would not be required, the Planning Commission also has complete authority to deny or approve. Larson would like to consider tabling this at this time to see if there is more design options. 5 Petersen stated had it just been the timeline of the neighbor changing the distance he built that house from the lake would have been against the variance, but given the other issues including safety issues and trees he will support this variance. Fleming stated he is in support of tabling this issue as he was initially intercutting the bureaucratic rules with a very strict lens, but would like more time to be thoughtful at this time and it is compelling that every single neighbor is supporting the petition. Hite said per the report, questions, applicant’s architects and neighbors; she is in support of granting this variance. She mentioned the adjoining home being rebuilt and moved back and economic waste. She said if the homeowner to the west was here that might have changed her opinion, but it is a speck home; a speck home is empty and that is unfair to Mr. and Mrs. Schiel who are current owners, paying taxes and spent time designing their home to wait for a redesign or a deck to be built to find out what their setbacks might be, as they are the ones reinvesting in their property and community. She listened to the concerns about safety and feels they are compelling as neighbors showed signs of unfortunate incidents. She stated the house is reasonably sized on the lot in consideration of the homes on the adjoining lots. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY HITE TO APPROVE THE LAKE SETBACK VARIANCE REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT WITH CONDITIONS AS STAFF WOULD HAVE. VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Larson and Petersen. Abstained by Fleming. The Motion carried. B. DEV15-000003 – Eagle Creek Commercial 2nd Addition PUD – KRB Development, LLC is requesting a Planned Unit Development to create a mixed-use development combining retail, restaurants, and office in a cohesive site plan to allow flexibility of building types in the (C-2) General Business Zoning District; PID: 25-500-066-0. Planner Matzke introduced a consideration recommending approval of a Preliminary Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat to be known as the Eagle Creek Commercial 2nd Addition. The property is located north of County Highway 21 east of Fish Point Road along Credit River Road. He explained the history, current circumstances, site characteristics, issues and recommended motions. He provided a location map, Eagle Creek Commercial 2nd Addition Development Plans, Developer PUD narrative, Engineering Department Memorandum dated June 5, 2015 and Community Development Department Memorandum date June 4, 2015. Commission Comments/Questions: Hite asked if this was intended to be a slip entrance and was wondering if it is an interior road, not a slip road. She questioned leaving Highway 21 and going into the development and if the intersection of Credit River Road and Markley Lake Drive would have a stop sign. Planner Matzke explained the right in path and the entrances and exits in the development of this area and identified there is no direct access from 21 into the project. He explained the locations of stop signs. Hite asked about building signage having illumination. She questioned the lighting on the applicant’s narrative and mentioned it seemed vague; she asked if this would follow our sign ordinances. 6 Planner Matzke stated this could be addressed through the PUD Design Plan and explained the lighting ordinance would be followed. He mentioned if they offer up a lighting plan, we would make sure it would not impede visibility. Hite asked if it was the developments intent to state the overall parking ratio 5 to 1000 being maintained and asked for our retail parking ratio is in the City. Planner Matzke replied that is the developers design, however is very close to in proximity to what we would design individually. He explained the City’s parking ratios and stated this is in-line with the City’s continuity as a full shopping center area. Larson asked about green space and if the holding pond on the southeast corner would be part of the development. Engineer Thongvanh stated it is already existing and pointed out where the pond would be to the north that will be constructed with the development. Larson asked if they would be connected to that pond. Engineer Thongvanh replied yes all utilities have been subbed out or prepared so all storm water pipes have been put into place for this commercial development to connect onto. Larson asked if this one holding pond is significant for this one PUD. Engineer Thongvanh replied yes. Fleming asked about utility plan and the note specifying a meeting on May 21st; what is the status of those discussions. Engineer Thongvanh replied this hast to do with the maintenance of the hydrants and the water main on the site. He explained the City flushing of the hydrants and the neglect of commercial sites. He defined the maintenance agreement stating the City would maintain and flush these hydrants periodically. Fleming asked when this agreement will be put into place. Engineer Thongvanh replied this would be done before hand; before all infrastructure is in place. Petersen asked for clarification of the developer subdividing this property, leaving each property to be sold separately. Planner Matzke replied yes, these could be sold as CIC plat (Common Interest Community Plat); he explained a CIC Plat. They are looking to do a lot by lot portion with a bunch of detached buildings having their own landscaping, but will still have shared elements too. Petersen asked if there would be different upkeep for each lot. Planner Matzke suggested asking the applicant but thought it would be run like an association. 7 Hite questioned how the applicant would be guided in the design and number of pylon signs being proposed on County Road 21. Planner Matzke replied typically there is one pylon sign allowed for every lot. Staff would encourage through the PUD and could be made as a condition; to minimize signage and possibly build larger signage that they could put multiple businesses on one, much like shopping centers. This could be shown in a design exhibit. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:18P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried. Applicant Joel Cooper with James R. Hill as the project Engineer located at 2500 West County Road 42 in Burnsville, MN. He stated he is here for questions and help with clarification. Larson questioned if the office space area is a later stage of the development. He asked if a gas station would bring additional interest for other retail environments. Applicant Joel replied the eastern portion will be the last phase as we hope to work west to east. It is our hope that a gas station would bring in additional interest for other retail environments. Petersen questioned a managed share parking lot with separate buildings. He asked if these units are all being built before being sold or selling them as they are being built and if they had any perspective clients to purchase or lease these units. Applicant Joel replied there will be a shared expense association with agreements. He stated the owners are hopeful to build some of the buildings and lease them and they are not aware of any possible clients at this time but would like to see small restaurants, dry cleaning services and other common services usually in a strip center. Fleming asked the anticipated time of build out or completion. Applicant Joel responded that he is unsure, however believed that one building should be built this year. It will be market driven. Hite asked about the architectural elevations submitted being the common scene in each of the buildings regardless of when they are built. Applicant Joel replied this is the intent as of right now, the only thing that might change is if some business entity that would have their own design and logo then we would need to come for an amendment. He used Kwik Trip and fast food chains as examples. Public Comment Chris Donnelly, 16612 Eagle Court SE. Chris stated he has a petition paper signed by 22 neighbors that agree to this statement: He read the statement and mentioned some key works for this project. He said there are about 55 kids living in the development and is concerned about the safety. 8 Dan Pickens, 16538 Eagle Creek Court SE. He stated he lives down the road from Chris. He shared concerns about the exit strategy and the safety of his kids; mentioned they walk down this way to get to the parks. He echoes Chris’ comments and would like to see other options. Kristi Woods, 5374 Credit River Road SE. She stated concerns of safety, signage, round-about’s, fast traffic and walking in the neighborhood and adding this amount of retail will increase safety issues. She also stated there were a lot of children in the neighborhood. She retold an accident that happened in the round-about stating the driver could not see around the round-about. Heidi Sovell, 16257 Snell Lane SE. She said she lives right off the round-about with two small children and wanted to note she shares her neighbors concerns. She believes this to be a wonderful neighborhood with children and having this much traffic around their around their streets is going to change lives in this community. Nicole Ghylin, 16595 Eagle Creek Court SE. Nicole stated she has concerns of the exit strategies, including the stop sign across from the residential road. She stated she has lived on a cul-de-sac before and it is mistaken for a through road. Having more access at this point greatly concerns her especially with all the young children playing in the cul-de-sac. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY LARSON TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:31 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Hite asked the applicant what the plan is for deliveries and asked Planner Matzke if this question is jumping ahead of ourselves. Planner Matzke said it is usually discussed further down the road at the final review. He stated this could be added into the PUD to limit or restrict areas of deliveries. Hite asked about any traffic studies on how Fish Point is performing today with the residents and anticipated traffic with the commercial added. She stated this area has always been intended for commercial to be added here. Engineer Thongvanh explained there has been traffic studies prepared and these continues to be done. From a staff perspective we do these traffic studies as part of the Traffic Safety Committee. He stated there have been traffic studies done here. As far as the development itself, there was a traffic study done because that is why the round-about are put in. Fleming asked do traffic studies protect against anticipated buildout and volume. He mentioned this is a very critical variable in this conversation. Planner Matzke replied that the original traffic study completed for the rezoning and preliminary plat of the entire area expressed different ideas and the round-about was suggested due to forecasted traffic situation. He explained the other traffic options including incorporation of a stop sign at the Fish Point Road/Credit River Road intersection and mentioned the forecasted traffic were not supportive of stop signs. 9 Fleming asked does the County have any concerns regarding this traffic study information. Engineer Thongvanh replied that staff will continually establish traffic counts studies. The County does this same procedure on their County Roads. He mentioned he could get the counts from the study, but the use of the round-about, the streets, entrances and exits are all based on this study. Fleming would like to see these studies and asked for this study results to be provided. Larson asked about the traffic bumps and pedestrian crossing sign being added into the resolution or if it would need additional dictation by general traffic studies. Engineer Thongvanh mentioned the policy on public roads don’t allow speed bumps on public roads. He said the Traffic Safety Advisory does look at this area quite a bit for safety issues. He mentioned some safety reasoning were put in to help elevate some concerns, sidewalks, pedestrian crossings and etc. He mentioned the actual development may want to look into speed bumps in the private property area. Petersen asked if there are sidewalks or paths along the Credit River right now and if there were driveways that accessed out onto Credit River. Engineer Thongvanh replied sidewalks are on both sides and there are driveways on Credit River; on the west side only. Petersen asked Chris Donnelly if his concern was more about the round-about traffic or Credit River Road traffic or both. Chris Donnelly replied traffic in general on both Credit River and the round-about. He stated it is the only entrance /exit into the community. He mentioned an entrance/exit onto County Road 21. Petersen stated this was zoned for commercial and believe it was known a while ago. Chris Donnelly explained how all of this was approved before anyone was living here. He asked how many tickets have been issued on County Road 21 as it is a freeway and is concerned that people are going to exit off of 21 and onto Fish Point. Hite stated there are two issues in front of the Planning Commission; a motion to recommend approval of the Eagle Creek Commercial Preliminary PUD and then a motion to recommend approval of Eagle Creek Commercial 2nd Addition Preliminary Plat subject to conditions noted in our report some of which come from Staff and from the Economic Development Community Committee. She mentioned there was a lot of great dialog and we are at the preliminary stage. Because of the stage that we are in with the PUD process we know that the developer will be working closely with Staff, including the items we talked about like access, lighting, signage, deliveries. She repeated Planner Matzke’s comment of the Commission could add additional conditions for their consideration. She will be in favor of both the approval of the Eagle Creek Commercial Preliminary PUD and approval of the Eagle Creek Commercial 2nd Addition Preliminary Plat. In additions to the conditions that were noted and the materials for the Planning Conditions, she would like to add a condition that there will be no building signage that would be illuminated on the rear or north faces of any buildings or any buildings that would face homes. Pylon signs condition would be limiting nor more than four panels on each sign. 10 She offered a note to staff to really look at with respect to deliveries to the commercial buildings to do everything to mitigate impacts for the residential portion. She stated there are noise ordinances that will handle much of this, but wanted it noted as well. Exiting from the Commercial portions of this development need to be reviewed. She stated there is 76,150 less square feet of commercial and/or office space; 423 parking spaces that are shown today at the preliminary state that need to be reevaluated and the impacts to Fish Point safety as heard from residents tonight. Larson stated he would like the Safety Committee evaluate this and recommend any safety aspects that could occur or mitigate in this development. Petersen stated he is in favor to move forward but concerned about the amount of traffic on the round- about, especially if it is already busy. On the other hand the person that bought this piece of commercially zoned properties was also promised by the City that it would look like with this particular access. He believes there is enough to move forward. Fleming is supporting both items; the PUD provides a flexible approach to the development and is in harmony with our Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance and gives a change to build and strengthen the tax base. However, he has significant concerns about the traffic counts and implications for safety for small children. He believes it would be great to have some intersectionality around participation provided by the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee, the police department and also any appropriate representatives from Scott County with respect to recent traffic studies. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY FLEMING TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE EAGLE CREEK COMMERCIAL PRELIMINARY PUD SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY LARSON TO BRING APPROVAL OF THE EAGLE CREEK COMMERCIAL SECOND ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBJECT TO THE LIST OF CONDITIONS. VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried. C. DEV15-000004 – Jeffers Pond 8th Addition Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, PUD Amendment, and a Preliminary Plat – Jeffers Foundation is requesting an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, a Planned Unit Development Amendment and a Preliminary Pat to change the original PUD designation from a high density residential to a single family residential concept in the (PUD) Planned Unit Development District; PID: 25-437-171-0. Director Rogness introduced the Jeffers Pond 8th Addition Amendment. He explained the actions that are proposed for this particular agenda item. He presented a slide show explaining the original PUD plan and goals from about 10 years ago and how it effects the agenda items being presented tonight. He mentioned Outlot B and C; what was originally planned and what is being proposed now. He concluded stating the unit numbers are not changing, rather shifting were the housing and commercial will be. Planner Matzke introduced the consideration for approval of a major amendment to the PUD known as Jeffers Pond and approval of a Preliminary Plat to be known as Jeffers Pond 8th Addition. The area of consideration for the major PUD Amendment and Preliminary Plat applies to undeveloped portion of Jeffers Pond (Outlot D) located north of Jeffers Parkway, east of Parkview Lane, and ¼ mile west of 11 CSAH 21. He explained the history, current circumstances, site characteristics, issues and recommended motions. He provided slides included a location map, Jeffers Pond Original Plans from 2005, Outlot B, C, D location map, one to one development concept plan dated May 19, 2015, Jeffers Pond 8th Development Plans, Engineering department memorandum dated June 4, 2015 and Community Development Department Memorandum dated June 4, 2015. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY LARSON TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:11 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried. Applicant Kelly Johnson, one of the Directors of the Jeffers Foundation. She stated she has been to the Planning Commission before with a concept sketch and change explanation for suggestions and support from the Commissioners and City Council. The concept sketch remains the same. Petersen asked if Outlot D was the only discussion at this time. Planner Matzke replied we are discussing Outlot D, however Director Rogness was talking about the Comp Plan of the overall PUD and we can take commentary on that; SuperAmerica is another agenda item and will have other commentary for that. Public Comment Joe Crawford, 19706 Hazelnut Avenue, Lakeville, MN. He represents the Shore at Jeffers Pond and the Parkview at Jeffers Pond Associations which are next to this property. He asked the Commissioners to Table this until notice is actually given to the members. He stated it is more than just SA being added, the whole Comp Plan seems to be adjusting. He stated Parkview has not been notified of these changes. He stated the changes, including a trail behind Parkview’s homes. He said this agenda item will only benefit the next agenda item. Hite asked Planner Matzke if notice was properly given in the paper of tonight’s meeting and the agenda. Planner Matzke replied yes, we had notification sent out before the project in compliance with our Ordinances and Statues with mailing lists that we incurred with the application. We can double check to make sure the procedure was followed, but he believed it was. Larson asked if the Association is notified. Planner Matzke replied what is notified is property owners per State Statute in the notification procedure that we follow. It depends on whether the association acts as a property within the project. Joe Crawford stated the association was notified, Trailhead at Jeffers Pond for the SA issue on the next agenda item, but as the property owner of Parkview Jeffers Pond Association, the Outlot was not notified. Planner Matzke mentioned we do not have the list with us here tonight, but could definitely check this. 12 Kelly Johnson stated she has a copy with her tonight of the certified radius report from a title company that prepared this and she does have a map and mailing labels were prepared by this title company and that is what we provide to staff. It is signed by the title company. Nathan Reinhart, 3965 Station Place NW. He asked that the Council table this agenda item. He stated he didn’t know this would be coming up, only the SA station and he would like time to think how this would impact his neighborhood. He mentioned a narrative of what this area would be and suggested this is a very drastic change. He stated concerns of property values. Melissa Enger, 4798 Partridge Court NE. She stated she is just east to the Jeffers Waterfront Development and would like the Commission to take a second look at the original vision of the area as proposed by the Jeffers Development. She shared concerns from presentations that showed upscale retail and said Prior Lake has turned into a destination community and she would like the Commissioner to continue this theme. She shared pictures of The Maple Grove area called Arbor Lakes and said many people refer to this as these structures are upscale, with proper lighting, nice pavers and so on. Deb Johnson, 3970 Station Place. She bought her home in the Jeffers Pond development in 2006. She explained the reason she purchased in this area and commented on how much she liked the community. She stated they are still waiting for their upscale retail as promised which did not include a gas station. She asked this Item be Tabled as she just got her notice 2 days ago. Kelly Johnson said the drawing that was shown tonight may have went out with the public notice; was more of a sketch to show the moving some high density. She explained the shifting from Outlot D to Outlot C, the need to show how it can work within a development and that nothing is set. She spoke of their developers working with them on these concepts and how they have been able to integrate housing with retail. She explained they are not trying to trick anyone, only maintaining the density that has always been approved. She talked more of shifting and blending. Maryls Enger, 14377 Enclave Ct NW. She stated she is on the Board of Directors at the Enclave of Jeffers Pond Association. Her first family home was purchased in Jeffers Waterfront on July 16, 2005 moved in May 2006. She commented on when she first bought she thought the marketing plan was interesting and what was expected. She mentioned she does believe this proposal makes sense for the large building but what the concern is how this is developed and would like this portion of the development plan Tabled until all have a chance to look at what is being proposed. Larson stated just to clarify for the residents present here tonight to understand a little bit more; we are not going from a low density to high density and asked Applicant Kelly if she could re-iterate that Outlot D what the concept plan was originally and what it is going back to. Applicant Kelly explained the overall project is a PUD and continued explaining the process of changing as needed. She said this is the eight PUD Amendment and in this, she explained the changes in density; therefore leaving just a PUD itself and trying to fix the Comprehensive Guide Plan Map. Director Rogness stated this is correct. He gave a little background on the zoning map and explained how it shows this area as a PUD. The Comprehensive Plan, until recently, did not have any Planned Use Designation but does now called Planned Use. He explained the formulization of the plan and that Outlot D was really changing from a High Density to Medium Density; a use change only. He pronounced the two of the three actions presented that relate to Outlot D; mentioning what the third action was for. 13 Nathan Reinhart, 3965 Station Place NW explains the high density concerns and mentioned he doesn’t live in this area. He expressed his concerns of where the high density would go and whose neighborhood would it affect. He asked if it is removed now, does it have to be put somewhere else. Kelly Johnson explained how they are moving some density to have mixed use in Outlot D and how everything is moving further away in Outlot C. She spoke of the relation to tiers and how it effects different Outlots and stated she believes the density is granted per tier not for a specific location. Hite pronounced it is a concept plan and a PUD. Director Rogness explained the shifting of the density stating you have to shift density. He also explained the allocation of housing units to absorb the population growth in the Twin Cities; this is guided by the Metropolitan Council. He explained the process to when a developer proposes an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan or PUD Plan and explained the Metropolitan Council will not approve this amendment if shifting doesn’t occur. Hite asked when is this reviewed by the Metropolitan Council. Director Rogness explained the process and time frame to get to the Met Council as well as what happens after it is received by Met Council and stated there is a committee involved in this. Joe Crawford stated it is now that we should speak about the gas station and the PUD Plan Amendment. He felt the Commissioners will approve the gas station as it is already existing in the PUD Plan. Director Rogness explained how this is not a smooth process, because it has two steps; the following Agenda Item is SuperAmerica. He made suggestions to the Planning Commissioners on how to move this Item on subject to the approval of the next Item. He explained the only reasoning for having SuperAmerica on the plan is because of needed access into this commercial area and to be safe on the approval process. Josh Welch, 14459 Enclave Court NW. He mentioned his concerns being general safety and better signage on Enclave Court NW indicating a dead end road. Hite asked for clarification on the agenda items as being contingent on one another. She asked if they were to vote on item C and make their votes subject to the outcome of item D, if Item D on the agenda is voted against then the vote we would cast on C would also be vacated. Director Rogness replied that applicant Kelly might want to comment on this because what this plan is on the screen is showing about 5,000 feet of commercial on the corner; so a question for Kelly would be if this is approved with the square footage and the location of commercial and residential and the SA was not approved is the Jeffers Foundation fine with this in terms in moving forward with primarily Outlot D. Hite said in a real world, she would like to vote on Outlot D without Super America and applauds the Jeffers Foundation and the Staff for wanting to act with full transparency and add the gas station. We do want that transparency, but she asked how to close out this agenda item and move onto the next. 14 Director Rogness suggested to table this item and come back to this after agenda item regarding SA agenda item. Hite confirmed we would keep item C open and not advancing and then hear staffs report on item D. Petersen asked if we do approve everything on C; it doesn’t guarantee that it is a SA going into this spot. If we vote yes on this agenda items all we are saying is that there could be something like a SA. Director Rogness said this is correct. It has to do with the transparency; the developer has a SA application at this same time so it was included with the concept plan it here as Staff wanted to make sure it fit with access points and etc. Hite asked for the PUD plan colored slide plan that shows commercial gas station to be shown and said that there would need to be some commercial for the Met Council. Erin Duncan 14268 Enclave Court NW asked by moving forward with C, saying yes there will be commercial, does that automatically make this a gas station and is this an allowed use or change in zoning. Is a gas station a different type of use than a traditional retail store or restaurant and is there different types of commercial uses. Hite said if we approve C; there would be a commercial use where it is depicted and a gas station is a type of commercial use. Planner Matzke commented on Ms. Duncan’s question explaining there are different types of land uses as far as zoning classifications. He explained the outcomes of approving the PUD Amendment Plan, stating this commercial area could be a lot of varying uses. He explained the next Item proposes a specific land use design and type and is used in this Agenda Item because the City had the details of a plan. We would like the Planning Commission to site their approval upon this being a commercial designate area not a specific land use commercial designated area. Nothing is approved tonight as the City Council makes the ultimate approval; however tonight is the night to add commentary. The Planning Commission gives the recommendation to the City Council at a future meeting and they would be deliberating approval or denial. Erin Duncan said she wanted to make sure we are not putting the cart before the horse and would like the options to speak on Agenda Item D and see how that would affect the development. We would like the opportunity to have everything heard and make sure that something is done than to realize later that we should have spoken at a specific time. And if we speak on Agenda Item D that we won’t have done anything to change that opportunity. Hite responded that tonight there is an opportunity to be heard on both Agenda Items and said we will be done with C by the time we approach D. Rita Kern, 14340 Enclave Court NW. She moved here in 2007. She commented on the pictures shown of what was envisioned for this area is what she has been waiting for. She mentioned the trail on the pond is a beautiful area and this area is used a lot. Would like to keep it this way. SuperAmerica just doesn’t fit that image. 15 Fx Cunningham, 3962 Station Place NW. He has lived here since 2008. He loves it here and it was his understanding that when he bought this home that there would be businesses on the corner. He mentioned the business on the corner is not the objective, and explained the disapproval is the gas station when there is another 7/10th of a mile away. He stated his concerns of a gas station on the corner and is hopeful that the Commissioners take into consideration what the community needs and wants. Applicant Kelly asked if the two agenda items had been flipped and changing the concept sketch with any type of a service station, there still wouldn’t be any changes as it would not change the action. It would have just been a concept sketch that would be going to the Met Council. It just happened that SuperAmerica had been the first agenda item and them second, it really would not have changed the concept. Director Rogness suggested a solution of rewording “gas station” to be “commercial” on the plan. Jerod Gudia, 14347 Enclave Court NW. He said Agenda Item C is fine in reducing the density and explained what he didn’t understand and his concerns. He was curious if the infrastructure could handle this and if it would be a safe environment. He mentioned issues with density and stated he is fine with reducing density, but concerned with the moving the other 200 to the other parcel. Hite clarified we are talking about parcel D and the proposal is actually is to reduce the density. She repeated Mr. Rogness comments stating that density can move within Jeffers Pond or to a different development within the City limits. We are not just talking about moving density from one parcel in Jeffers Pond to another parcel in Jeffers Pond, that density could be moved to a different development in the City. Director Rogness stated it could, but it would have to be shown to the met council. Fleming asked Director Rogness if it is correct to say there is currently not a receptor parcel to achieve this. Director Rogness replied there is not a receptor parcel, however there is the Dominium Development that has 70 units that went onto a redevelopment commercial site. He stated he hasn’t asked the Met Council yet if these could be used as banked units to help reduce the density for this area. It may be possible, but he has not asked met council that question yet. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY FLEMING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:01 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY LARSON TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM A URBAN HIGH DENSITY TO A URBAN MEDIUM DENSITY DESINATION FOR OUTLOT D. VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY FLEMING TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE JEFFERSON POND PUD RELATED TO OUTLOTS B, C AND D, BUT ON THIS PLAN WOULD ASK THAT THE DESINATION GAS STATION BE REMOVED. 16 VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF JEFFERS EIGHTH ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION IN STAFFS REPORT VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried. D. DEV15-000005 – Super America PUD – Kimley-Horn and C-Store Partners, LLC is requesting a Planned Unit Development to construct a motor vehicle station with a car wash in the Jeffers Pond Planned Unit Development. PID: 25-437-170-0. Planner Matzke introduced a consideration for approval of a major amendment to the PUD for the Jeffers Pond Planned Unit Development know as Jeffers Pond on property located south of CSAH 42, west of CSAH 21 to construct a motor vehicle station with a car wash. He explained the history, current circumstances, site characteristics, issues and recommended motions. Exhibits supplied was a location map, PUD site plans, conceptual building elevation, engineering department memorandum dated June 5, 2015, a Scott County Highway Department memorandum dated June 3, 2015 and public hearing comments. Commission Comments/Questions: Petersen asked if the overhead power lines would be buried. Planner Matzke mentioned it has been discussed but still would need to be discussed with the electrical company in that area. He explained it is a County Road and would typically be one with the County. Fleming asked if approved, could we restrict hours of operation. Planner Matzke replied yes, you could recommend that condition to the City Council, however they are looking for 24 hours; the applicant is here, we could ask them. Applicant Tom Noble, Home Managing Partner of C-Store Partners, 1660 Highway 100 South, Suite 105, St. Louis Park, Minnesota. His hope is to disarm; we are not trying to jam something down the community’s throat. He explained the consistence of their development plan. He stated he is here to work with everyone and try to work out as much as we can within the rights of the PUD and neighborhood needs. He state he would like to hear comments and answer any questions Larson asked if the applicant could comment on the adjacent side where it is cut off before the end of the parcel. Applicant Tom replied our plan was in request from Jeffers Foundation to build a roadway far enough away to have circulation access into our property, but still set up the roadway for future use and extension. He defined the road, traffic planning and stated they were not privy to the original commercial planning concepts with the PUD. He stated he was glad Kelly Johnson is here to help with comments. He said they felt they were submitting a plan that is consistent and he expressed the amount of feasibility work that is put into a project. He specified the future growth need at service from Highway 13 up to Highway 42 and Highway 21 17 Fleming asked what are the variables that lead you to believe that a third gas station within a close proximity is a need and what studies were done. He mentioned driving from the Casino to the Proposed site to a Holiday Gas Station and then drove from the proposed sight towards Highway 169 and Highway 21 and drove quite a ways before he came to the intersection where there is a Home Depot and a Panera and felt there is a lot of opportunity for gas in that corridor. Applicant Tom replied they perform an internal feasibility and an external feed. He mentioned the differences between the internal and external and said there is an immediate need now that is not being met from Highways 13 to 42. He continued explaining a convenience store is a small market business, usually in close in proximity to one another and stated an unmet need is being generated from Highway 42 south to Highway 13 as indicated in the short term. He mentioned going to the north is where evolving would be taking place over time. He talked of traffic patterns and explained the area of where this station would provide services to. Fleming replied he is still not compelled as he is trying to be simplistic and have common sense; he stated he drove for five minutes between Highway 42 and Highway 21 down Highway 21 north; north of Highway 42 and there is huge opportunity. He asked what is it about this site which is in very close proximity to gas stations that are more compelling than this is long span of opportunity north on Highway 21. Applicant Tom replied his answer is traffic patterns. He explained as they evolve overtime north of Highway 42, this traffic will tend to go north/south more so than east/west. He said they are looking at the future development north of Highway 42 and the existing critical mass south of Highway 42 on Highway 21. Hite stated that she is not showing any type of favoritism or dis-favor, but Super America is a very sophisticated organization and Super America knows their motto works as well as the model works. There has been a lot of feasibility work into this and whether you want a gas station there or not, Super America already knows they will make money, otherwise they would not be here and would not have hired the engineers and submitted an application. Applicant Tom agreed it will be a successful store and stated it will serve a need. Hite said to her knowledge they are not in the business of losing money. Applicant Tom replied that is true. Larson asked when a gas station goes into an area of retail environment for commercial, what would be your aspects of additional businesses coming into the area adjacent to the gas station. Applicant Tom replied it should spur positive commercial development growth. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:25 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried. 18 Public Comment Josh Welsh, 1449 Enclave Court NW. He shared concerns regarding this planned development; Safety and signage. He mentioned the location of Enclave Court and could possibly be used for this commercial development. He mentioned his concerns are the current traffic is heavy, the “No Outlet” sign is small and hidden, thinking there is access to school or other neighborhood, additional traffic, access from 21 and fountain hills, the speed of Highway 21 and electrical pole providing eastbound obstruction. He mentioned in a four mile radius there is thirteen opportunities to visit a gas station. He stated his opinion of this Super America in this location stating that more grand things were planned for this area in the initial PUD. Applicant Tom explained the elevation with brick and materials that goes beyond the normal gas/convenience center. He said he would like to work with neighbors to make this a quality part of the community. Jon Zoller, 14401 Enclave Court NW. He stated concerns of noise and light pollution, emission and spoke of Highway 21 being a race track as well as traffic without stop lights; and asked if there was an escrow account set up for the stop light. He commented that other Cities enforce noise ordinance and would like Prior Lake to do the same. He talked about the safety issues to get in and out of Fountain Hills and stated there will always be problems with this. Applicant Tom replied at this point due to traffic counts and traffic flows through this point, Highway 21 is a fast corridor, but there is not a critical access ingress or egress issue at this time. He mentioned there might be someday and then it will need to be addressed. Jon Zoller asked what are the daily average calls from the fire station for both fire calls and emergency runs. Applicant Tom replied he does not know this, but would be a question for staff to look into. Jon Zoller stated his concerns are the situation with the lights and fire station and understands whatever is there, needs to be part of that PUD but not all PUD’s are neighborhood friendly. He asked that the Commissioners take this into consideration. Pollution, light noise and issue of traffic at the intersection. Debbie Gillespie, 3974 Station Place NW Trailhead, Jeffers Pond. She moved into this area in 2007. She explained the plan being upscale retail that can be walked to. She stated there are 14 gas stations within a 4 mile radius and that it really doesn’t matter what the station is made of; it is still a gas station. She expressed concerns of kids, safety, road blockages, wetland and crime. Greg Zeldin, 14360 Enclave Court. He stated concerns of traffic safety, impact and disturbance. He shared concerns of environmental impacts and gas spills. Deb Johnson, 3970 Station Place. She shared concerns regarding hours of operation, impact on Trailhead Townhomes with noise and light, increase in crime and litter. She doesn’t feel a gas station belongs in their residential neighborhood. Karen Anderson, 14820 Enclave Court. Karen thanked all of the neighbors who voiced opinions tonight. She stated her biggest concern is safety, due to children, bus stops and traffic. 19 William C. Pepper, Attorney, 10285 Yellow Circle Drive, Minnetonka, MN He stated he was here on behalf of Greg and Anna Zeldin, 14260 Enclave Court NW, and we ask that you either Reject or Table this application due to safety, lighting, noise, drainage, children, . He wanted to emphasize as well that northbound traffic on Highway 21 is not controlled. If approved, please look at improving this by limited to hours, lighting and screening on south or southwest side. Chrissy Krash, 3976 Station Place. She stated she was born and raised here and loves Prior Lake; she doesn’t approve of the gas station at this intersection due to safety aspects. She stated it would be a dangerous area to put an entrance on Enclave and Fountain Hills due to narrow streets and only access to Enclave and Station Place. She opposes the gas station. Randy Belair, 14352 Enclave Court. He stated he is opposed to gas station for a lot of the same reasons such as crime, but also additional reasoning such as fumes and exhaust from cars as they can pollute up to 300 feet away from the gas station; he stated health related issues due to these elements from the gas station. He also commented on restricted walking area, home values going down and burying gas tanks close to beautiful wetlands. Nate Reinhart, 3965 Station Place NW. He understands Planned Unit Development has changed, but this was something that was on the Jeffers Waterfront website back when he bought his home, which is why he bought his home. He stated there was never talk of a gas station and he probably would not have bought there if there was one. He is understanding that plans change, but is very concerned that it is a gas station. He commented on safety, one entrance, there is not an internal street, no stop light, bus stop on corner and light pollution. He asked the Commissioners to consider things such as: Proposed building on Eagle Creek with buildings between the houses and gas stations, house on the corner looking right at the gas station, townhomes directly across. He asked if the gas station could be pushed down to the corner. Rita Kern, 14340 Enclave Court NW. Rita asked for Commissioners to look at how unique Jeffers Pond area is and feels that Prior Lake can do better than putting a gas station there. She mentioned it is like a park where they walk. FX Cunningham, 3962 Station Place NW. He stated a serious issue that no one had thought of; there is a fire station and an ambulance. If they don’t go out on time or quickly, someone may die. That is a serious situation. Thank you for your patience’s and he loves living in Prior Lake. Marlyn Enger, 14377 Enclave Court NW. She addressed concerns of the overall development and the Fire Station. She commented the fire station is the most beautiful in the state of Minnesota, a gas station across from this does not fit. She mentioned how the Association in Jeffers does not allow any outside storage, yet a gas station will have outdoor storage and now we are going to allow all of this outside service sales in our development. Commissioner Hite wanted to acknowledge emails that were sent in regarding this Agenda Item: Emails from Ms. Bonnie Heineke, 3691 Jeffers Parkway NW. She does not support the development of this parcel with the gas station. Mr. Thom B. Telfer. He expressed his concerns of gas station and car wash, stating disfavor for the development of a gas station in this parcel. 20 Mr. William Prince, Vice President of Trailhead is right next to and south of the Prior Lake Fire Station, strongly objecting to the development of a motor fuel station and car wash at this location. Mr. Leonard Bjeldanes, 14275 Enclave Court. He stated in his email a strong opposition to the gas station and car wash. Kelly Johnson, Jeffers Foundation. She gave a little background information. She explained why a gas station at this location. She talked of stop lights, access and entrances. ** A list of approximately 41 people who signed a petition to prevent the building of Super America Fuel Station on the Corner of County Road 21 and Fountain Hills Drive was handed to the Commissioners at this time. Debbie Gillespie, 3974 Station Place NW. Debbie asked if there is only one entrance off of Fountain Hills into and out of the gas station. She shared concerns about traffic backups due to a left exit, left hand turn and cannot get out leaving this area to be congested in front of the fire station. Hite asked City Staff about the access issues being a one way in and out. Engineer Thongvanh mentioned there is actually two access going into this area; one at the roundabout which is a quarter access as you cannot make a right hand turn going north, or the west bound lane on Highway 42. Fountain Hills and County Road 21 is a full access. The Comp Plan shows a signal there, when warrants are met. He spoke of escrow and would be a shared agreement with the City and County and the escrow. Hite mentioned it is a concept plan, and explained the sizes of the commercial buildings and stated there is a lot of commercial square footage in addition to the residential unit, with one egress. Kelly Johnson, Jeffers Foundation. She mentioned this was discussed and gave details of the plans for the access. She mentioned in 2000-2005 while this was going through the whole EA, it was looked at and there was never a guarantee connection across this overflow channel. There is a physical burrier there to go east/west across this Outlot. Hite stated there is a lot of history here and it was probably determined at a time when none of the Planning Commissioners were serving there posts here and unsure of how much of current City Staff was employed at the City. Randy Belair, 14352 Enclave Court NW. Randy asked will a 16 pump proposed gas station, how many cars do you expect to come through this area every day. Applicant Tom, responded to Randy Belair’s question stating that his role is a third party developer for Super America; his direct answer is he doesn’t know how many cars that it will produce in a day, but have an idea based on the dispensers is that 4 islands with 2 pumps per island will be significant to meet the needs based on the feasibility work that was done. 21 Jerod Gudia, 14347 Enclave Court NW. He stated he understands that there is no guarantee that there would be the egress drainage ditch. He would also like to add that through all of this you have not heard one person say maybe this would be okay, because it is opposed. Phil Kauffman, Kimley- Horn and Associates, a Civil Engineering Design firm. He is here to help on some questions. He answered questions regarding to the architectural design of the gas station, lighting pollution, noise pollution, safety concerns, access points and environmental concerns. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO CLOST THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:15PM. VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Larson commented on the traffic flow, concerns about children and bus stop. He stated any future development that goes in this area, he would recommend the bus stop be moved. He talked of land lock and traffic counts increasing with the housing units to get counts up for the necessary stop lights to be safe. He understands both sides. Sidewalks on both sides would be nice, with these thoughts he would love to see this commercial area developed to bring business into the area. Commercial is not coming every day and right now there is a proposal from a commercial amenity, so looking at the safety issues of moving the bus stop away, getting two lanes in and out and a recommendation to the Traffic Committee. He stated, with conditions of investigating safety, he is in favor of this commercial area. Petersen stated this corner appears to be a horrible place for a gas station, if you look at this it would be better up by Highway 22, however this whole corner with the access points and flow of traffic is just not great right now and it would be nice to see some of these larger issues figured out before we put one business there, so we know how the whole thing will lay out. He is not opposed to a gas station there and understands the concerns and spoke of a buffer zone. He mentioned a concern that many had that being the lack of a controlled intersection is problematic. As the other homes move in, hopefully sooner than later, and then he would feel more comfortable with an intersection there, so right now he is not in favor of this particular project right now. Fleming stated this project has issues, there are significant concerns, more so than even with Kwik Trip, but we are constrained by decisions that were made in 2005; he stated he is reluctantly supporting the Amendment to the PUD with the following conditions and then the applicant can decide if they would still like to move ahead with the project. These conditions are as follows: limited hours of operation 5am to 10 pm for 2 years including pumps as well. After the 2 year time period, the City Council would need to evaluate, and depending on the conditions at that time, they would either remove or continue the limitation of hours of operation. Hite stated this is a hard decision as she has issues with the lack of circulation in this development and feels this does not make for good traffic flow in any development. She stated she does agree with her fellow Commissioners, the access point at Fountain Hills, we have no control over this as it is County dictated. If there is funding for a traffic light in the future, they would have to make that determination as traffic patterns change and grow and the development continues to fill out with residential. Some type of a convenience store has to go at this location only because of that access point. She agrees with the applicant being restricted in hours of operation; she is not sure if she completely agrees with her fellow Commission, but would ask the City Council to look at restrictions with hours of operation. There is a commercial use (fire station) right at this corner. She agrees with her fellow commissioner on moving 22 bus stop and this should be evaluated. She agrees with expanding the lanes so there is two lanes exiting also as it is creating a choke point. She is supporting this subject to conditions on limiting hours of operation, widening the access point from Fountain Hill and moving the bus stop and reevaluate the interior situation. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY FLEMING TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PUD AMENDMENT SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: HOURS OF OPERATION BE LIMITED BETWEEN 5AM AND 10/11PM FOR TWO YEARS WHICH THEN THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD VISIT AND CONTINUE LIMITATIONS OR LIFT LIMITATIONS, ENTRANCE INTO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT BE CHANGED TO INCLUDE TWO ENTRANCE LANES AND TWO EXIT LANES ONTO FOUNTAIN HILLS, THAT CITY STAFF REVIEW INTERIOR CIRCULATION, TO ELEVATE OR MITIGATE CONGESTION AND SAFETY CONCERNS, THAT THE CITY AND/OR JEFFERS FOUNDATION WORK WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO IDENTIFY, IMPROVE BUS STOP LOCATIONS AND CITY STAFF COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE CITY STAFF MEMORANDUMS INCLUDED IN THEIR REVIEW. VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Fleming and Larson. Nay by Peterson. The Motion carried. E. Amendments to Subsection 1102.1400 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance - Consider a recommendation to amend Subsection 1102.1400 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance related to the City’s General Industrial (I-1) Zoning Use District. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY FLEMING, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE ORDINANCE CHANGE RELATING TO THE AMENDMENTS TO SUBSECTION 1102.1400 OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE. VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried. MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY FLEMING, TO CONTINUE THIS PUBLIC HEARING TO THE NEXT PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. VOTE: Ayes by Hite, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried. 5. Old Business: A. No Old Business 6. New Business: A. No New Business 7. Announcements / City Council Updates: 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY LARSON, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO ADJORN THE JUNE 15, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Larson and Fleming. The Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 10:35p.m. Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant