Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 November 21 2016 PC Meeting Minutes Draft 1 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, November 21, 2016 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Fleming called the Monday, November 21, 2016 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Bryan Fleming, David Tieman, Mark Petersen, William Kallberg, and Dan Ringstad. Also present were Director Dan Rogness, Planner Jeff Matzke, Development Specialist Casey McCabe, Project Engineer Nick Monserud, and Development Services Assistant Sandra Woods. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2016 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg, and Ringstad. The Motion carried. 3. Approval of Monday, November 7, 2016 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2016 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, and Ringstad; Abstained by Kallberg. The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A. DEV16-000007 – Shepards Path – Lake Ridge Apartments - Major PUD Amendment – Lake Ridge Apartments, LLC is requesting a major amendment to the approved Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan to replace a soccer dome and hockey rink with a proposed 151 -unit market rate apartment building. The site is located on 10.5 acres at the northwest corner of the County Highway 42 and McKenna Road intersection. The property is designated as Urban High Density Residential (R-HD) on the 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. PID: 25-452-005-0. Director Rogness introduced the request for a major amendment to the Shepherd’s Path Final Planned Unite Development Plan. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommended motion. He presented an approved PUD Plan and Land Use Program (2006), Shepherds Path Addition Plat (2006), Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Map, Lake Ridge Apartment project plans, Lake Ridge Apartments unit design / underground parking, Traffic report by city staff, and a letter from SMSC dated October 27, 2016. Commission Comments/Questions: Kallberg questioned the timelines of a hockey rink proposal and second hockey rink expansion and commented on Prior Lake Hockey Association having plans for a hockey rink and their efforts to raise funding. He talked of the timing of SMSC second rink. Planner Matzke said it was similar timing and talked about getting recreational opportunities to the north side of Prior Lake. He commented on Dakotah’s second ice rink installation and agreed on the timing. Tieman asked about building restriction in effect for detached garages on a unit development and if there were any code requirements on these detached storages in our City Code. 2 Director Rogness replied the applicant explained the storages are a desire of current renters and suggested we ask the applicant about the design aspect. He said what is required of the applicant in the construction of the detached storage and stated they would need to meet building code requirements. Petersen asked about the SMSC letter and the storm water management and asked if they have specific concerns and answers. He questioned the reasons why the City of Prior Lake and SMSC have concerns. Director Rogness explained the storm water management requirements and said Project Engineer Monserud has reviewed the preliminary storm water management and commented on what is required. He said staff will keep SMSC in the loop. He asked if they can be grandfathered in by the old studies. Project Engineer Monserud explained from an engineering standpoint how this conceptually meets what Shepherd’s Path Development was looking for. He explained the progress in the engineering design and commented on past storm water management rules being less strict than our current rules. He said they cannot be grandfathered in. Petersen questioned the maintenance of McKenna by the City and by the SMSC. Director Rogness commented on future meetings with the SMSC, who is currently maintaining what areas of McKenna, working together, requiring some memorandum of understanding, traffic impac ts on McKenna, continuing dialog and stated we don’t have a conclusion to this, this evening. Petersen questioned if the sidewalk was a sidewalk or bike path and if there was room for a larger path. Director Rogness replied it is a sidewalk and is unsure of the measured size of the sidewalk; however, it can be looked into having a path width. Petersen asked if the impervious was reducing; from sixty-five percent to thirty-five percent. He commented on the hockey rink/soccer field hard space. Project Engineer Monserud said the presented plan shows it will be less hard space/impervious area. Ringstad commented on the storm water management stating it is a legitimate concern to address and explained the final plan and approval process. Director Rogness agreed with Commissioner Ringstad. Fleming commented on the traffic study; noting the SMSC references and wanted to make sure that subsequent conversations are strived to reconcile the discussed numbers. He questioned the outdoor storage lockers. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING ON 4A AT 6:36P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg, and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Applicant: Peter Stalland, applicant/developer; owner and operator of this apartment project. He pointed out he is here tonight with the architect for this project. He commented on the apartments being market rate with no subsidy from government entities or financing. He mentioned the support this project has from the surrounding neighbors, representatives and organizations. Fleming asked about the outdoor storage, security and if they considered having a storage in the underground portion of the building. Peter explained the storage they will have underground. He stated his experience is that tenants would need additional storage and explained that each apartment only has one parking stall and may be in need of additional enclosed/covered parking. He commented on security stating that each unit and each tenant will be able to have some secure storage with electric garage door opener and lock. Fleming asked if there is a plan for any type for recreation/party room for the residence. Peter replied yes and explained the layout and construction material of the entrance, courtyard, party room, fitness room and kitchen area. He stated there is not a pool as the YMCA is across the street. He pointed out the benefit of the YMCA being the Children program/preschool. Fleming questioned the range of rent and what kind of research has been done or will be done that will give us a sense of what the future rent range might look like five or seven years from now. Peter explained the projections and finances for this project in relations to rent level. He said it is dependent on the economy. 3 Fleming said we don’t know what is going to happen in the next five years, but said he is pleased to hear that he has thought of this and is on the record for us. Ringstad asked about rent; rate increases and/or lower rent. Peter talked of supply and demand, raising rent, and being a good landlord or owner; he talked on specials, but said it is based on the economy. He explained how rent is calculated and who he worked with to come to a reasonable rent conclusion appropriate for this area. Ringstad asked when would they like to start construction and how long of a construction period is it. Peter said this spring when road constrictions come off and then approximately one year for a completion date. Petersen asked about meeting with the SMSC regarding their concerns; would this be a consideration? He asked would you be open to the idea of talking with the SMSC. Peter explained their attempts to meet; however, would be willing to talk with them. He pointed out when he got the letter, they did re-orientate the project. He explained how the project started, the changes that were made and why these changes were made. Petersen asked if they have done other projects nearby and if so is there success stories that we can use as an example. Peter said we are under construction for a one hundred and fifty units right now in Maplewood, Minnesota; however, it is not finished. Petersen asked if this is the only one in Minnesota. Peter replied yes, most of them are out west. Tieman questioned the appearances of the detached garages and asked for the details around the design of the garages and what the plan is to build them. Peter explained the garages materials, roof line, pitch and color would all be the same as the big buildings. He explained the landscaping around the garages as well. He commented on who would see the garages/storage buildings. Kallberg mentioned the proximity of the YMCA and asked of concession deals for the tenants to get special membership rates or daily use for swimming or other activities as part of the plan. He questioned if the garages could be used for craft/woodworking shop and if so what kind of power outlets and capacity would there be to support this. He questioned space heating and if the power supply would be adequate for heat and/or welding equipment. Peter said yes there would be deals for the tenants. He explained the electrical connections and said commented on craft/woodworking shops and said he would need to know if someone was interested in this option as it would be a case by case basis, as it would need to be in code with the building inspector. He said he would consider heat and explained what power supply would be to the garages. Fleming asked staff if there was lighting in the plans for the parking lot. Director Rogness explained there was a lighting plan submitted in the staff report and explained the lighting impacts. He commented on what Mr. Stalland had mentioned earlier about redesigning their original plan and gave the reasons why they redesigned. He said the lighting impacts are minimal to any impacts surrounding this property. Public Comment: Mike Leek, Tribal Planning Manager with SMSC, (2330 Sioux Trail NW). He clarified a couple of comments stating the SMSC does not oppose either the PUD Amendment or the proposed use and stated the actual concerns the SMSC has including traffic, the original PUD study, travels going north on McKenna Road, maintenance of McKenna, impact on long term maintenance, an agreement, drainage to the west and the finalized and approval of storm water management plan. He asked for conditions to be placed on the approval suggesting the storm water management plan be provided to the SMSC to review and share comments. Petersen asked about the property to the west; is there future plans for that area right now. Leek said no plans for the wooded area; they strive to preserve/enhance these areas. He said it is his understanding after two short months; is that is not area that is proposed for development. 4 MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 4A AT 6:57 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Petersen, Kallberg, Tieman and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Kallberg said he does see the need for rentals based on the Maxfield report. He commented on units in the area, location, hockey rink need diminished and athletic fields. He said this would be a good addition to the area and with keeping with the other facilities on the adjacent properties; the church, the YMCA, senior housing and future housing to the easterly parcel seems to be a good plan. Tieman said overall seems like a good addition to the community. It is a good addition to the community and is needed based on the Maxfield study overall. The layout looks good, the design looks good; therefore, he has no concerns. Ringstad stated he agrees with his two fellow commissioners that he has no major concerns. He commented on the redesign being a terrific project and congratulated the applicant. He commented on the traffic study not showing a difference, but as a courtesy to SMSC do an additional study as this project moves towards Council and for council approval just to verify that there are no surprises. Petersen said he agrees with his fellow commissioner’s sediments and stated this is a really good place for something that is needed in Prior Lake. He commented on stipulation of the sidewalk, reconfiguration to address some of the SMSC concerns, the final storm water plan, no issues on the traffic count. He stated he is in support of this. Fleming said he would be supporting the amendment, with addition of comments as it conforms well within our R-3 (High Density) Residential District. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT FOR SHEPHERDS PATH FINAL PUD PLAN RELATED TO OUTLOT A TO INCLUDE A ONE-HUNDRED (150) UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT IN PLACE OF A SOCCER DOME AND HOCKEY RINK WITH CONDITIONS LISTED AS FOLLOWS: 1. FINAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE FULL SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS AS IDENTIFIED IN SUB-SECTION 1108.900 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. 1A.) THE SMSC WILL HAVE THE OPPRORTUNATEY TO THROUGHLY REVIEW AND OFFER COMMENT ON THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AS SOON AS IT BECOMES AVAILABLE 2.) EXISTING SIDEWALK ON THE WEST SIDE OF MCKEENA ROAD; SOUTHERLY OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH NORTH BERENS ROAD SHOULD BE EXTENDED TO 42. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg, and Ringstad. The Motion carried. B. Amendments to Section 1107, General Performance Standards of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance Relating to Signage – Consider amendments to Section 1107, General Performance Standards of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance to allow signage which identifies the location of a business or industrial park along a designated county or state highway and may also include identification of individual businesses located within said business or industrial park. Specialist McCabe introduced the request to consider amendments to section 1107 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance related to signage. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommended motion. He presented proposed amendments to Section 1107 of the Zoning Ordinance. Commission Comments/Questions: Petersen questioned the “only one sign per park”. Specialist McCabe replied yes, only one sign is allowed per park. Petersen said some of the parks are long and narrow; could we allow signs at both ends and if not, why. Specialist McCabe replied we could be open to that. He explained the expense with extra signs of this size. He said he wouldn’t be opposed to allowing two; however, there would need to be some language 5 adjacent to an entrance at that point because we would not want multiple signs. It is a business identification sign for individual businesses. Petersen questioned if this is a concern. Specialist McCabe said no. Petersen asked what about fifteen feet tall; is that kind of a standard or where did that number come from. Specialist McCabe explained the standard height in our industrial areas and the size. Petersen said he didn’t think that would be ridiculously high and asked why only County Roads and State Highways. Specialist McCabe explained where this is specific to and why only County Roads and State Highway Districts. He gave examples of where they already have joint identification signs. Petersen asked if the City has the right of refusal. Specialist McCabe explained what would be approved due to meeting our sign ordinance. He said it is based on height, area, type and etc. that we would be approving; not based on appearance. He said we do have lighting standards and other items in our ordinance already. MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO CONTINUE THE OPEN PUBLIC HEARING ON 4A AT 7:10 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg, and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Public Comment: None. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 4A AT 7:11 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg, and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Ringstad said he will support the proposed change tonight; whatever we can do to help local businesses out by creating better identification benefits everybody. Petersen said he was on the EDAC when a lot of this surveys were being done; he said he knocked on a lot of doors and got an earful on more than one occasion so he will absolutely be supporting this. Tieman definitely supports this; every other community does this and said we should do the same. Kallberg said he agrees and said it is a reasonable request. He said there are three commercial areas that have a northeasterly corner of Prior Lake; County Road 42 and Highway 13, each of those have some form of a sign that identifies what is there and a name of the area. He said another one just to the east of the target area there is a business park there as well that has a type of sign like that identifying a name and who is there. He said it is a reasonable request. Fleming is supportive of the request for all of the reasons that were included in the staff report and by his fellow Commissioners. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE APPROVED AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 1107 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AS PROPOSED OR AS MAYBE FURTHER AMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT 7:14 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg, and Ringstad. The Motion carried. 5. Old Business: A. Comprehensive Plan Discussion – None. Director Rogness 6 6. New Business: A. 2016 Accomplishment & 2017 Goals – Planner Matzke mentioned the work session of the City Council to go over the 2016 Accomplishment and 2017 Goal. He said the Commissioners are all invited to attend; please RSVP our department so we can get a count for participation. He said it will be a work session with all the advisory committees, economic development parks advisory, planning commission where you give your reports of the accomplishments from the past year and your goals for this year. In addition to that we do need a representative of the planning commission to make that statement. He said Bryan did this statement last year. Fleming said he would be there. Director Rogness mentioned the meeting will start said that it starts at 5pm . Fleming offered to speak at the meeting and asked if there is need for motion Director Rogness said yes. Fleming asked the Commissioners if they had an opportunity to view the accomplishments and goals. He said he did note an email that the fellow Commissioners also recommended that we lift as an accomplishment the proactive step that we took to go visit the community; those two communities being Chaska and Excelsior. He said it would be important that as a way to inform our thinking and future planning on the Comp Plan. He asked if the Commissioners are in an agreement with that and asked if there were any other reactions or feed back to the accomplishments or the 2017 goals. Kallberg questioned other visits and if we would like to mention this as our 2017 goals in some fashion that we could echo what we have do ne this year. Fleming mentioned to Director Rogness that we have talked about two other cities; being Stillwater and White Bear Lake, however, the visits don’t need to be to those communities. He said we are interested in exploring as many communities as possible just to round out and shape our thinking. Motion and a second to approve the revised list for 2016 and goals for the 2017 as proposed by RINGSTAD, seconded by PETERSEN at 7:17 VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg, and Ringstad. The Motion carried. 7. Adjournment: MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO ADJORN THE MONDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:18 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Petersen, Kallberg, Tieman and Ringstad. The Motion carried. Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant