HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 PC May 1 2017 Meeting Minutes rough draft Reduced
1
PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, May 1, 2017
1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance:
Commissioner Fleming called the Monday, May 1, 2017 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to
order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Bryan Fleming, Dave Tieman, Mark Petersen,
William Kallberg and Dan Ringstad. Also present were Liaison Zach Braid, City Planner Jeff Matzke,
Development Specialist Casey McCabe, Engineer Larry Poppler, Project Engineer Monserud and
Development Services Assistant Sandra Woods.
2. Approval of Agenda:
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, MAY 1, 2017
PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried.
3. Approval of Monday, April 17, 2017 Meeting Minutes:
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, APRIL 17, 2017
PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen and Ringstad. Abstained by Kallberg. The Motion carried.
4. Public Hearings:
A. PDEV17-000003 – Trillium Cove – Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Planned Unit
Development – Pulte Homes of Minnesota, LLC is proposing a preliminary plat and
preliminary planned unit development (PUD) plan for a single family residential
subdivision. The subject property is located south of County Road 42, north of Lower Prior
Lake, east of Rolling Oaks, and west of Ferndale Avenue NE. PID’s: 250520130,
259250272 and 259250271.
Planner Matzke introduced the request to consider an approval of a Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit
Development (PUD) Plan to be known as Trillium Cove. The subject site is located south of County
Highway 42, west of Ferndale Avenue, and north of Lower Prior Lake. He explained the history, current
circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommended a motion. He presented a location map,
development plans dated march 23, 2017, applicant narrative dated march 23, 201, Engineering/Public
Works Department memorandum dated April 21, 2017 and Community and Economic Development
Department memorandum dated April 24, 2017.
Engineer Poppler explained the planning plans; stating the site has a lot of topography which makes
this a challenging site. He commented on the wetland, storm water and explained where the flow of water
would go. He explained the utility plan connections; stating the entirety of completion of Rolling Oaks is
in the decision stage. He commented on being in discussions with the neighborhood. He explained the
best approach if this doesn’t go forward would be to still bring the sewer and water down Rolling Oaks to
connect to this development limiting redundant pipe. He explained the Row Way connections. He
iterated the question of a City project should occur with Rolling Oaks or we allow the pipes to be built
underneath Rolling Oaks and wait for a later date to complete Rolling Oaks. He stated a meeting date
to meet with the neighbors.
2
Planner Mazke highlighted a few more things; landscape plan and tree replacement. He commented on
the conceptual home plan examples; single family homes that are multi-level, single level living, and
townhomes. He iterated that this was a PUD, (Planned Unit Development) and explained the difference
from between a PUD and a Preliminary Plat. He commented on the preservation of the wetland and
parkland, trail, public park, sidewalk connections, innovated site design, increased safety views, mixed
housing options; HOA, installation of sewer and water being developer responsibility and connection of
Carriage Hills Parkway. He said the PUD benefits are weighed against some of the criteria; offer flexible
approach, create a sense of place, increase mentality, transportation options, options for life -cycle
housing, enhancing some of the public open space opportunities, preserving and enhancing some of the
characteristics of sensitive and environmental areas and they offer some high quality compatible designs.
He stated they met with the developer numerous times on this project in the last few months ever since
they designed their conceptual plan for the site; they continue to make modifications to City Staff
comments and he said the developers have held a neighborhood meeting.
Commission Comments/Questions:
Fleming said he noted the one neighborhood meeting with another meeting that will be held next week.
He asked if that utility topic will be the first meeting between Staff and the residents.
Engineer Poppler replied this meeting is just for Rolling Oaks, not for any of the other utility connections.
He commented on the two prior meetings for Rolling Oaks and stated there will have a third to talk more
about what should be done in terms of total improvements to Rolling Oaks or not.
Kallberg questioned the reduced setbacks of the building; compensation for the fact that the units per
acre are affected by the large wetland and the wetland area is being included in the calculation to get the
number of dwelling units being in the low-density area range with the smaller setbacks.
Planner Matzke said yes, he is correct; and explained the open space areas, wetlands, storm water
ponds and general parks open space preservation. He commented on one of the modifications that is
requested.
Kallberg said there has been a lot of controversy about Rolling Oaks and potential costs to property
owners due to their large lots and asked what will be the impact of connection along Rolling Oaks and
County Road 42 on future costs.
Engineer Poppler replied the improvements proposed by the developer to bring the utilities down a
portion of Rolling Oaks reduces the amount that they would have to front if we did a City project at some
point.
Fleming questioned how much the reduction would be.
Engineer Poppler explained what the savings was three to four years ago.
Tieman asked about phasing. He said he knew they were doing the overall grading plan to start;
however, Carriage Hills Parkway being part of phase two of the project and connected.
Engineer Poppler explained their phasing and grading and the lack of connections and the utilities;
stating they are proposing to grade the entire site as one and the street and utility installation for the
future phases later.
Petersen explained why the Commissioners don’t have a lot of questions.
Ringstad asked the difference between a high-quality wetland versus regular quality wetland.
Engineer Poppler explained the differences stating it has a unique vegetation.
Planner Matzke added as preservation it could offer credit savings as well for the saving of a wetland.
He explained how they rate wetlands; on quality basis, based on the credit of replacement. He said this
one is one of the more unique and quality wetlands that we have in town.
Ringstad questioned the improvements on Rolling Oaks; meeting next week, the cost savings,
improvements coming down Rolling Oaks and what is the process for the timing and further
improvements on the remaining. He asked if this goes to City Council on a later date?
Engineer Poppler explained the process of working in conjunction with the developer back in 2014. He
said when the developer stopped working on that project, the City stopped working on the City part of the
project per the City Councils request until a development project got further along. He commented on
timing.
3
Applicant:
Developer Paul Heuer, (Pulte Homes 7500 Office Ridge Circle, Eden Prairie, MN). He introduced his
team and commented on the need to develop these two properties, the timeframe it has taken,
hopefulness in finding a way to make this work and the times that they have met with Staff. He said he
was not giving a presentation tonight, due to previous presentations; however, would like to give a verbal
update. He presented a video, gave a verbal update regarding the concept plan; stating it didn’t change
at all. He explained his background of building neighborhoods and said he feels especially proud of this
one.
Fleming questioned the fifty-nine engineering comments and fifteen comments for a total of seventy-four
significant comments pertaining to grading, hydrology and wetland so based on your ability to address
comments and conversations with Staff and asked did you feel like the remaining seventy-four can be
addressed timely.
Developer Heuer yes.
Ringstad asked for prices on the three different products that he has.
Developer Heuer gave the amounts for the single-family homes, single level, and the ROW homes.
MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 4A AT 6:37
P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried.
Public Comment:
Lyn Spieker, (14226 Ash Circle NE) She read a letter explaining her time in Prior Lake in the North Shore
Oaks Neighborhood. She commented on the informational meeting, meeting with Staff and shared
concerns of traffic, lights, tree inventory, storm water runoff, parks, Sandpoint Beach and boats. She
asked if a traffic study has been conducted, has the city considered the impact of the four hundred and
sixty-eight new dwellings in the three new developments on Sandpoint Beach, additional monies be
allocated to maintain and improve the infrastructure at Sandpoint and Prior Lake Boat Access and has
this impact been under consideration and if so, how will the City and Minnesota DNR work together to
alleviate it.
Tim Connors, (14113 Ash Circle NE) He asked if the narrow Ferndale road would be widened, He
questioned the time frame of each phase.
Fleming said that after the public hearing the staff and applicant will answer all the questions.
Pat Simpkins, (5266 Carriage Hill Road NE) He explained his location and shared concerns the Lot
dimensions and property values with lower priced homes adjacent to their property.
Gordon Erickson, (14071 Rolling Oaks Circle, NE) He commented on the meetings being unofficial, the
residents having three options, being charged like a developer, petitioning, no good solutions for them,
being backed into a corner, the City Code, developer bringing the road up to City standards, developer
loop holes, Outlots F and G development, opportunities to finish off Rolling Oaks, expensive tab and the
difference between 2013/2014 and now, who will benefit from the infrastructure going down Rolling Oaks,
the difference in their ten properties and how many are going to hook up. He mentioned a statement
regarding non-abutting properties and their benefits/charges. He talked of raw deals for the neighborhood
with no benefit to the neighborhood. He presented and read off a signed petition from the neighbors and
would like the developers to bring the roadway up to city standards. He questioned why am I as a resident
required to bring the roadway up to the standard when the developer doesn’t have to.
Kurt Stone (14111 Rolling Oaks Circle) He agreed with the prior speaker and neighbor, Mr. Erickson.
He said he talked with Gordy and has been to the meeting. He said t he last meeting left him angry. He
explained the location of his property and where the sewer and water would go through. He commented
on stubs on the sewer, NBCA fees, physical hook up prices, additional fees, unsure of what fees are for
unless he was a developer and he is not; he is a homeowner, interest in Rolling Oaks Circle, being
railroaded and intimidated three years ago and kicking the can down the road. He talked of the City
looking at improving the infrastructure of Prior Lake and help with some of the costs. He said this is a lot
of money and asked what can they do.
4
Joe Zieska, (5316 Hampton Street) He commented on Ferndale and County Road 42 not having
concrete curb and gutter and would like to see that be a condition of the developer, public safety, access
to neighborhood, width of Ferndale, phasing of this development, long cul-de-sac, one in and out, phase
two happening in a timely manner and setting a condition of part of phase. He asked how the width of
Ferndale compares to the city standard minimum street width, the maximum length on a cul-de-sac, what
happens if the economy goes bad and phase two never happens,
Fleming said he has the same question regarding the economy; he said I think everyone knows that we
are due for a market correction; the question is will it be the third quarter of 2017 or the first quarter of
2018, but it is coming and that is a relevant point.
Developer Heuer asked for help from Ryan on the first question regarding a concern of storm water and
flooding and said he believe the question was; what in regards to the existing pond in North Arm park.
He said they have asked the same questions as they don’t want to flood anyone. He said he asked Ryan
numerous time to make sure that things are no worse.
Developers Engineer Ryan Bloom, (7699 Anagram Drive, Eden Prairie). He explained working with
storm water management with the ponds for the site and offsite ponds as well; making them existing
conditions better. He commented on working with City Staff for getting the precise amount of water
without discharging any pollutants, water is treated, total runoff and infiltration is all within the City
standards.
Developer Heuer said the next question was about timing of the phasing; He explained phasing, phasing
of construction, regional transportation improvements, primary collector street, condition of approval in
phase two, separate projects, development project and public improvement process, State Statue 429,
and different timelines. He presented a graphic and said in what happened during the timeframe of
2013/2014. He mentioned his approach with the city this time, different options, different routes for
sanitary sewer and water, where the sanitary sewer is currently, neighborhood meetings, asking the
neighbors preferences of location of sanitary sewer and the response, watermain with two options and
best benefits to the neighborhood. He said they thought they were doing what the neighborhood
preferred. He commented on the benefit from the sewer and water and the limit on what they can do as
a developer too, as them building the public road is not right.
Fleming mentioned one more question that either Mr. Heuer or Staff could answer regarding traffic
studies.
Developer Heuer said in studying the Scott County transportation plans they have been building out
county road 42 to the ultimate design so when cities design their trunk sewer system and their trunk water
system and when the County designs their trunk transportation system, they don’t design it based on
current traffic they look at the projections they look at every property is zoned how much traff ic each of
those properties are going to generate and they design their transportation network based on those
ultimate scenarios. This is a vacant piece of property, yes, but it was planned to be developed and the
County Road 42 corridor was designed to handle this traffic, ultimately we are required as part of this
work to build a new intersection at Meadowlawn Trail and County Road 42 which is intended to take the
traffic for this whole region and addition we are required to shut down the intersection of Rolling Oaks
Circle and County Road 42 to make it right in and right out, that doesn’t mean that the residents from our
neighborhood are going to go through Rolling Oaks Circle, it is really the opposite as if anyone wants to
take a left it will bring all the traffic from the two neighborhoods east and west of our neighborhood through
our neighborhood to get to the intersection that may or may not have a signal at Meadowlawn Trail and
County Road 42. So he thinks these facts are important to keep in mind in terms of the design of the
trunk systems, the fact that these are two separate projects and the fact that we been choosing to go
down Rolling Oaks Circle because we thought that is what we heard from you folks that this is what you
wanted us to do.
Engineer Poppler said Mr. Heuer said it well; the transportation system along County Road 42 has been
planned for this traffic in this development, we have planned through our comprehensive plan for the
connection of Carriage Hills, we planned for the north/south collector roadway to this development and
we see the traffic from this new neighborhood utilizing these larger collector systems instead of vice versa
where they would be using Rolling Oaks or Ferndale primarily; it would be the opposite, the people would
be going to the full access off of 42.
5
Fleming said just to underscore the reality of the two separate processes, is accurate. The public
improvement process is not under consideration tonight, the fidelity of that is/or the legality of the fairness
of that, with that said all five of us are always interested in hearing about implications of what may occur
later and that does give us insight as to how we deliberate on the items before us and what direction or
suggestions we might get to staff as projects are moving forward. He would like to take a view on this
the two processes are separate but hearing from neighbors and residents and understanding what those
intersections of concerns are, do help us make good decisions.
Jeffrey Boller, (5311 Carriage Hill Road NE) He asked where Carriage Hills, where they are proposing
to put through connects to Carriage Hills Road what kind of intersection is that going to be and how would
speed be controlled through the neighborhood that I live in.
Developer Heuer explained the properties are narrow and said there is not a lot of flexibility of connecting
A and B; the east and west side so we are connecting it with a straight line and recognize that traffic
speeds may be a problem once the last connection is made so we proposed a mini roundabout that will
calm traffic down.
Gordon Erickson, (14071 Rolling Oaks Circle, NE) He said Mr. Heuer is right; two separate projects,
forget the public improvement process to 429 and concentrate on this one right here. The residents of
Rolling Oaks Circle will wake up at 7am to 7pm listening to heavy equipment tearing up the road putting
it back in and we gain zero benefit, we don’t even have a reasonable opportunity to hook at a reasonable
cost because of the way the city is approaching this. Some input the city is writing its own destiny on this
there is two thing the city has wanted forever; Carriage Hills Parkway since the 80’s, the Boldger and the
Griffith family have stopped it at least three times as it was not time to develop. The City wants Rolli ng
Oaks off gravel. All the city has to do is ignore the catch 22 the loop hole in the system and say this is
all legal and legit and what do we get… we get carriage hills right now and rolling oaks get sent to the
sidewalk and a year or two later they get rolling oaks off the 2 percent gravel road its brilliant if you’re just
a schemer.
Bob Scheeler, (14254 Ash Circle NE) He said he lives on the dead end of Ferndale Avenue. He said
his family moved into this community when his kids where in diapers; today his grandkids are in diapers
and growing up. I have been going through this my whole life and I don’t have any interest in going any
farther, struggling to fight what has been proposed decade after decade. Someone please come and
buy my property; he is sick and fed up and ready to move on. And for the poor people on Rolling Oaks,
my heart is broken for them, expected to pay hideous amounts that they cannot afford. You brought it
up a million dollars to complete that little tiny section almost a million bucks. I would encourage the city
for many years because this is prime pristine golden wetlands. If the city wanted to do a beautiful favor
for future generations, buy this property and turn it into a pristine park where prior lake will become a
destination for everyone in the metro area and not develop it. And again, who wants to buy my property.
I have had it.
Jim Speaker, (14226 Ash Circle NE) He said he is still wondering what is happening to the pond that is
at the end of Ferndale. He said he understands that water gets treated, but he noticed all the trees are
marked around this pond which is the park. Are they destined to come out due to the water going up or
what is going to happen? He said he understands that it will be treated but what is the impact to the park.
Developer Heuer said the level that the pond will bounce to under a one-hundred-year storm will be like
what it is now. He asked his engineer; higher, lower or back to back?
Developers Engineer Ryan Bloom replied, back to back one hundred year storms and said we are
going to be lower than what is there now.
Developer Heuer said it sounds crazy; the reason is because the large pristine wetland requires a certain
amount of surface water to get to it to remain hydrated, so we had to have a balancing act but in this case
the correct ended up being best for both cases. We have more water going into the wetland which keeps
it hydrated and we have less water going to the existing pond in the park; therefore, back to back one
hundred year storms the elevation of the water is lower than it is now. Sounds crazy but that is how the
actual engineering is done in this case.
Developers Engineer Ryan Bloom said they did inventory the trees, even along that wetland but none
of the trees that were inventoried off of our property counted for the calculation and when we are out
6
there inventorying trees we don’t know exactly where the property line is until we get back into the office,
but all the trees were marked, but doesn’t signify anything.
Developer Heuer said it is part of the project, we have some land up against the existing park, somewhat
step and heavily wooded and we could preserve a chunk of trees on our development and to give that
chunk of land to the city to basically expand that park.
Tim Connors, (14113 Ash Circle NE) He said his question wasn’t answered regarding the road not being
answered; what is your plans for Ferndale and if you widen it, he is not paying for it. It runs right parallel
to my property and road is not made to carry heavy traffic and that will be a heavy traffic road.
Developer Heuer asked for a graphic from Planner Matzke and said he was unsure of what the width of
Ferndale is. It looks like a typical residential street that is paved and is connected to other typical
residential streets that are paved. The major roads in this area are not Ferndale, it is Meadowlawn Trail
going down the central part of the site, its Carriage Hills Parkway and County Road 42. The traffic once
this development is built is going to change, often time there is fear of traffic from the new development
going elsewhere; and as he referred earlier because of the closing of the Ferndale in the Rolling Oaks
Circle intersections to be right out and right in only it changes everything. He said you will see some
traffic going up Ferndale from our development, for those people that are going to be taking a right turn
and because you cannot take a left turn anymore you will be driving down Ferndale and connecting into
our development as well. He said everything about the traffic in that area is going to change but it is all
going to be better overall with Carriage Hills Parkway connected and with the centralized intersection and
Meadowlawn going up to County Road 42. But Ferndale is intended to be a local residential street and it
is like the streets we are connecting to; they are all local similar streets.
Tim Connors asked if it would ease the traffic having two ties into Ferndale, because right now there is
sixteen homes in the neighborhood and everyone knows everyone, so would there be less traffic.
Developer Heuer said he could not claim that there would be less traffic; he said what he was trying to
say is the traffic patterns will change because there are so many connection points there will be
difference.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 4A AT
7:18 P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried.
Commission Comments/Questions:
Kallberg said this is a difficult decision to make; he said he has been in a similar situation years ago in
Spring Lake with sewer and water down the mile-long dead end street. He said there were sixty homes
to share that, not ten. He said it wasn’t quiet as significant. He said one of the things that he would like
to mention is the assessments for infrastructure and improvement cannot exceed the increased value of
your property and results from that improvement. He asked if that is still correct.
Engineer Poppler said yes that is still correct.
Kallberg said I know one person on the street that I lived on when the project was completed asked
when he got his money; well not until you sell. He said the developer had shown us two options for
bringing in sewer and water to get that westerly connection to the sewer system from 140th under 42; the
watermain connection into the project and he understands that when push comes to shove they are
willing to do that and would hope that there is some solution to get sewer and water to Rolling Oaks, but
doesn’t know that a serious need as they have large lots, private septic and wells that are apparently are
serving them well. He said there will be some future costs to them to maintain that. He said his feelings
are that we need to find a solution that will satisfy everybody, the sewer and water projects were in Pr ior
Lake system are important, no matter how much land you have, sooner or later something must go to
the lake and you are close to the lake. So we encourage sewer and water to some of these older
developments but we can’t just put this huge burden on the property owners and he would have to support
this project only to the extent that the developer either find a different route in as suggested or find a way
to make the residents of Rolling Oaks not suffer beyond their means to get sewer and water through their
street.
7
Tieman said as Comissioner Kallberg stated this is a difficult decision, with a lot of elements to this
project. He said he thinks the developer has presented a good option in order to develop the plan, the
property is pretty unique as described affecting a lot of people on both sides east and west as well as the
lake itself on the south side, so all these things need to come into factor and he thinks from everything
we seen they have taken these things into account and have done their part for developing this property
the proper way. He stated he is in support of this project, he said it is the right thing for this piece of land.
He said we need to address the Rolling Oaks group and take them into factor and help them out anyway
we can because they are getting the tough end of the deal.
Ringstad said one question for Staff regarding all the site work that will be done immediately as relates
to the future phasing of the project. He asked in 2009/2011 we seen the housing industry crash; and is
there a letter of credit that the City will be asking for posted by the developer to ensure that if phases two
and three don’t get built in a timely fashion or what is talked about tonight or in the future that there is
some way to protect the undeveloped piece of land to restore it through a letter of credit, posted for
security.
Engineer Poppler replied tonight is the preliminary plat. There is another step called the final plat where
we work out the details on what the first phase is and what security needs to be in place to ensure that
things happen. The next phase with the final plat when they are building the roads and utilities would
have that discussion on what is fair.
Ringstad said trees were talked about; there is a very detailed tree replacement plan; albeit, maybe not
perfect for the ones in the audience tonight and like the eighty acres the way it looks. He said the look is
going to change, tree replacement plan has helped to mitigate some of the trees that will be taken down
for the homes, streets and that type of thing. He said he thinks that Chair Fleming counted seventy-four
details yet to be worked through. He stated he does support this project; it appears to be well thought
out, our neighbors on Rolling Oaks still have some very legitimate concerns that we all have touch on
and he said for everyone in the audience it will be a concern for the council and others going forward
also. He would like to hope on going discussions will be fruitful and will continue with the neighborhood.
He said there are benefits to the City with respect to this PUD. He said overall he will be supporting
moving this forward tonight, but again there is some unfinished business and details that need to be
worked through as you get toward the final platting process.
Petersen said he concurs with fellow Commissioners; he feels the pain of the Rolling Oaks large
assessments as he just went through a large assessment a couple of years ago and it is a painful process,
but he said saying no to this project is not going to solve the Rolling Oaks problem. He said turning this
area into a park is not the question for us the question before us is; is this a decent plan. He said this is
a good plan; it benefits Prior Lake and even though it is painful for some of the people close by, it is
unfortunate, but believes it is a well-though out, well-developed plan on a difficult piece of property and
he stated he will be in support of it.
Fleming said he too will be supporting the PUD; it does squarely meet the nine point threshold in Section
1106 of our zoning ordinance and am also going to be strongly echoing his Commissioners with respect
to the issues and comments raised specifically about assessment. The costs and burdens of those so
as some of you know of me this is an opportunity for the developer and neighbors and staff to not just
have more dialog but to really extend positive regard amongst one another and lets figure out if there is
a viable option that keeps the fidelity of everybody’s role and responsibility in place. He said he knows
that there are at least three City Council members in the room tonight and they are keenly inter ested in
furthering this dialog and coming up with a solution that reflects that we are being good stewards of our
resources and that we are honoring all the concerns and voices that are shared with us tonight.
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLANNED FOR TRILLIUM COVE
SUBJECT TO THE LIST OF CONDITIONS OR OTHERS THAT MAYBE ADDED OR MODIFIED BY THE
COMMISSION INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CURB AND GUTTER BEING INTERGRATED INTO
THE PLAN AND NARRATIVE AT 7:29 P.M. REGARDING ITEM 4A.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried.
8
B. Expansion of a Nonconforming Restaurant Use – Consideration of an amendment for
approval of an Ordinance Amending Section 1102, Use District Regulations, of the Prior
Lake Zoning Ordinance as Subsection 1102.1600, expansion of a nonconforming
restaurant use, related to hours of operation and outdoor music at Charlie’s on Prior.
PID’s: 251020220, 251020060.
Specialist McCabe introduced the consideration of recommendations of a proposed amendment to the
city’s Zoning Ordinance related to Subsection 1102.1600 Expansion of a Nonconforming Restaurant Use,
related to hours of operation and outdoor music at Charlie’s on Prior. The subject property is located at
3950 Green Heights Trail SW. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and
recommended a motion. He presented prosed amendments to Subsection 1102.1600 and proposed
amendments to Subsection 1102.1600.
Commission Comments/Questions:
Petersen asked about the eight holidays; eight events, not just dinner music, correct.
Specialist McCabe explained the holiday hours are for extended hours of operation; so instead of closing
the deck at eleven, they may close at twelve and inside instead of twelve it would be one o’clock for hours
of operation. He said the dinner music is on twenty days where they can select an event such as grooms
dinner that they may want to have music for on the patio.
Tieman said he remembers these discussions well and glad they are moving forward
Kallberg confirmed that regardless of which option we may recommend; it still stand that the Council can
review these extended hours in the event of efficient complaints or they determine that there are too
many complaints, that still stands.
Specialist McCabe said yes the council does have the ability to review this ordinance at any point down
the road if there is issues with hours of operation or with dinner music.
Applicant:
Jeff Petschl, (3856 Green Heights Trail SW) He said he is owner of Charlies on Prior and his partner
Mike is in the audience as well and his general manager Ben. He said they have two winters under their
belts and are heading into our second summer; we have learned as gone through and are figuring out
what works and what doesn’t and thankfully so far with regards to hours it is working well and besides
the one hiccup that we had in the beginning of last summer with a band speakers, not our speakers,
music has well as Specialist McCabe confirmed with the police. He said they are h opeful that they can
move forward with option A and will continue to be good managers and operators and if there are issues
we will address them quickly and very seriously.
MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 4A AT 7:37
P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried.
Public Comment:
Lylod Erbaugh, (17291 Marshfield Lane SE) He said he is here to speak on support of the Amendment
to section 1102. He said Charlies on Prior is a welcome addition here in our community; from the original
design discussion, addition of the parking area, construction and operation of the restaurant and marina,
this management group has done an excellent job of dealing with the city, the community and the
occasional comment. He said the Planning Commission has worked with this group to establish hours
of operation and other paramotors in dealing with music and other issues. Charlies had responded by
meeting these commitments in a professional and carrying manner. Members of the Charlie’s on Prior
team are also involved in other ways here in Prior Lake; it is a pleasure for me to work with Jeff Petschl
on the EDAC and with his wife as a member of Prior Lake/Savage School District facilities task force. He
said he appreciates their involvement in the quality of this management team that has made sufficient
9
investment and brought operational excellence to Prior Lake. He is hopefully that this Amendment A is
supported.
MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 4A AT
7:40 P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried.
Commission Comments/Questions:
Kallberg stated he is in support of Option A as they have demonstrated that they follow the rules that
have already been established and it seems like an unnecessary burden and expense to have to come
back every year to simply change the year date in the ordinance; so long as they continue to comply with
all requirements and don’t bring the Council to exercise their right to change everything again due to
complaints.
Tieman said he gladly supports Option A.
Petersen stated he too supports Amendment A.
Ringstad stated he will be supporting Amendment A, as well.
Fleming said he also will be in support; this feels like a keeping exercise, but an important one.
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO BE RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE OPTION A AMENDING SECTION 1102 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY
CODE AS SUBSECTION 1102.1600; EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING RESTAURANT USE AS
PROPOSED OR AS MAYBE FURTHER AMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT 7:42 P.M.
REGARDING ITEM 4B.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried
C. General Industrial Use District – Ordinance Amendments – Consideration of certain
amendments to Subsection 1102.1403 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance to allow Motor
Vehicle Sales as a Use Permitted with Conditional Use Permit in the I -1, General
Industrial Use District.
Specialist McCabe introduced the request to consider amendments to Subsection 1102.1403, Uses
Permitted with Conditional Use Permit, of the City of Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance to allow Motor Vehicle
Sales as a Use Permitted with Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the I-1, General Industrial Use District.
The property is located at 16720 Welcome Avenue SE. He explained the history, current circumstances,
issues, alternatives and recommended a motion.
Commission Comments/Questions:
Ringstad asked how does this relate to other municipalities in the area as far as allowance of motor
vehicle sales in the I-1 District with a CUP.
Specialist McCabe said Staff has not done a comparison with surrounding communities. He said he
would like to note that currently in the City of Prior Lake motor vehicles sales are only allowed in the C-2
General Industrial so this would provide one more option.
Petersen questioned if they were in the C-2 would they be able to have items such as string lights etc.
Specialist McCabe replied most of these conditions are current conditions that we have in place for C-
2; the Planning Commission when they review conditional use permit applications can review these
conditions and if they feel there are others that need to be imposed based on the type of lot it is on or the
surrounding properties, they will have that opportunity.
Petersen asked about parking regulations/parking spots; if all parking spots are filled up with cars, are
they considered parking spots.
Specialist McCabe said the C-2 section did have several parking stalls that need to assigned and
designated for employees; in this case in the I-1 District the applicant does not anticipate much if any at
all customer traffic. He said visiting of this site would be maybe one or two at a time so we don’t require
10
specific customer parking. He said that is something the Planning Commission could add today or
evaluate as permits come in.
Kallberg said this amendment would apply to all such properties or businesses, correct; not just this
one?
Specialist McCabe said correct; all properties within the I-1 District. He said City Staff did receive a
request a few months ago from another resident looking to do a similar operation, not to the same scale.
He said if you sell more than five vehicles per year you need an auto dealer license; so the other business
was looking to purchase cars, pick them up and sell them; but, we were not able to sign there dealership
license due to not a current allowed use in that district. He said so you are correct Mr. Kallberg, this
would be for all I-1 District in the City.
Kallberg said he was curious to the number of vehicles that are already on site. He said he cannot
believe they are all waiting for repair/service; however, the property is so nicely screened for the casual
passerby, probably wouldn’t notice this and it is a huge improvement to a property a block to the south
that looks like a junk yard. He said hopefully we can do something about that.
Applicant:
Alexander Silko, (16720 Welcome Avenue SE) He said him and his wife are the owners and they opened
in 2015. He said he was applying for a dealer’s license and his was different than local dealerships due
to his customers come by appointment only and they cannot accept people on a walk-in basis. He said
they only have one person at a time by appointment. He said fifty percent of the cars go out of state as
they advertise online. He said trucks will pick up the car and go or the owner that purchases the car
takes the car. He said on the site they have small repairs and would be hopeful to have another building
to do professional painting as this service is off site. He said they would also like to put a fence around
the whole property as well so the people across the lake have a good view.
Kallberg asked if the sales of vehicles are incidental to service and repair, correct.
Silko said yes; at the beginning, we considered a body shop; but, decided on maintenance and repairs
for customers.
MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 4C AT 7:53
P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried.
Public Comment:
None.
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 4A AT
7:54 P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried.
Commission Comments/Questions:
Ringstad stated he agrees with Staff recommendation; seems like this provides a little more flexibility
within the City and he will be supporting the motion tonight.
Petersen said he agrees; given location, looking at the aerial view he doesn’t see a downside to this;
therefore, will be supporting as well.
Fleming stated he will be supporting the amendment to the Subsection 1102.1403.
Tieman said he also supports this and support local community business; makes sense.
Kallberg stated he also supports the alternative one.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO RECOMMEND TO OUR CITY COUNCIL
THE APPROVAL THE AMENDMENTS TO SUBSECTION 1102.1403 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
AT 7:56 P.M. REGARDING ITEM 4C.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried
11
D. Recreational Equipment Storage – Ordinance Amendments – Consideration of certain
amendments to Subsection 1102.700; Residential Performance Standards, of the Prior
Lake Zoning Ordinance related to Storage of Recreational Equipment.
Specialist McCabe introduced the request to consider amendments to Subsection 1102.700, Residential
performance standards, of the Prior Lake zoning ordinance relating to storage of recreational equipment.
He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommended a motion.
Commission Comments/Questions:
Kallberg said are we to assumes or do we need to specify that if the storage unit is within five feet of the
side yard rear that the six-foot-high fence is on that property line which it is five feet from or just screen
from the street.
Specialist McCabe asked for clarification; if there is a six-foot fence on the side or rear property line the
recreational equipment could be stored right up against a fence. He asked Commissioner Kallberg if he
was asking if the fence was not yours and is your neighbors?
Kallberg replied yes; and said the fence would be towards that side or rear lot line, which the item is
stored within five feet, not just a six-foot fence to screen it from the street. He said if we are going to be
five feet from the side yard lot line then the fence must be on that property line which it is five feet, it is
not just somewhere on the property.
Specialist McCabe replied correct, and explained the fence would have to be screening the actual
recreational equipment.
Kallberg asked does it have to be screened on one side or two sides or four sides.
Specialist McCabe replied his interpretation; if there is a fence on the side property line and the
recreational equipment was on that fence it didn’t matter that there wasn’t a fence on the other side.
Tieman asked if City Code Section 606, Junk; what exactly is City Code 606.
Specialist McCabe explained City Code 606; relating to junk vehicles, nuisance, vehicles considered
junk if not licensed and are not operable. He gave an example of a camper or snowmobiles or a four-
wheeler that is recreational equipment but if it is not licensed or operable it would be considered junk per
our ordinance, not recreational equipment.
Petersen said so a fish house needs to be licenses; he asked would that be every year license.
Specialist McCabe said he doesn’t have a fish house; therefore, not sure.
Ringstad said he does have a fish house and yes it does need to be licensed every year.
Petersen said so theatrically if we have a winter like this last warm one and no one gets their fish house
out on the lake they could be in violation of this; even though they didn’t use it in the seasonal year they
would still need to get it licensed.
Specialist McCabe replied yes.
Applicant:
None.
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 4C AT
8:02 P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried.
Public Comment:
None.
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 4A AT 8:02
P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried.
Commission Comments/Questions:
12
Kallberg said he has no further comments and does support this agenda item.
Tieman stated he has no concerns.
Petersen said he does have a concern about the license; the fence makes sense, but the license could
possibly be accomplished with different wording; examples would be the fish house scenario and
questioned in a college student had a car in his parent’s driveway and would need tabs even though it is
not driven for a year, but mentioned he feels the fish house would be more likely; not in support of that
particular language.
Ringstad said he will be in support; the comment on Commissioner Petersen concern he said largely
while this may not solve every issue but will take the junk cars that are cluttering up the yards and give
the code enforcement officer some immediate power to deal with it. He said it might not be perfect one-
hundred percent, but ninety-eight to ninety-nine percent of the time.
Fleming stated he is in support of the recommendation to move on this agenda item on to the City
Council.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO RECOMMEND TO OUR CITY COUNCIL TO
APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO SUBSECTION 1102.700 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AT 8:05 P.M.
REGARDING ITEM 4C.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Ringstad and Kallberg
Nay by Petersen. The Motion carried
5. Old Business:
A. PVR17-0001 - 14332 & 14342 Watersedge Trail NE - Variance – Copper Creek Real Estate
Group, Inc. is requesting variances regarding setbacks and impervious surface to construct one
new home on each parcel (Two Homes Total) in the R1SD (Low Density Residential Shoreland)
Zoning District. PID’s: 251190070 & 251190080.
Planner Matzke reintroduced the request of variances from the minimum lake setback, maximum
imperious surface, minimum lot width, and minimum lot area for a property located along the northern
shores of Lower Prior lake, west of Trunk Hwy 13, south of Rutgers Street NE. the properties each
currently contain a single-family home. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues,
alternatives and recommended a motion. He presented a location map, existing survey dated June 15,
2015, proposed survey dated march 13, 2017, proposed house rendering and Breeggeman letter with
attachments.
Commission Comments/Questions:
Fleming said he would like to post questions to staff and if the developer/applicant would like to present
anything new; i.e. anything we have not considered beyond the submissions emailed last week. He said
on march 20th we spoke about modification to the sidewalk dimensions and a rain garden is that correct?
Planner Matzke said that is correct.
Fleming asked Planner Matzke how many conversations took place, not including email exchanges,
between March 20, 2017 and today.
Planner Matzke replied between March 20, 2017 and April 17, 2017 he believes he had a conversation
with Mr. and Mrs. Breeggemann on separate occasions on the phone. He said he highlighted in the
report a conversation with Mr. Schweich on April 27, 2017 and today he said he had a conversation with
Mr. Breeggemann.
Kallberg said he confused about lot dimensions; it appears that the original platting was three fifty foot
lots and Parcel A had two of them and Parcel B had one of them and so the measurements that are
shown on the proposed show that there is going to be a sixty-foot lot and a ninety-foot lot, but we are
taking ten feet away from the one-hundred-foot Lot making it ninety and the fifty becomes sixty but on
the… he said he was trying to reconcile the seventy-five and seventy-five. He said he guesses that is
measurements to the middle of the middle lot.
13
Planner Matzke explained the history of the survey’s lot lines, what the applicant is proposing and the
conditions of the homes already on the properties. He pointed out the existing Lot line and how they are
going to shift that. He stated one of the conditions would be a plat waiver.
Kallberg said additionally there was recommendation earlier during the staff report to gain by eliminating
the four-foot sidewalk and suggested a reduced footprint to gain some other impervious surface and
sidewalk. Does the rain garden as proposed equal that 200 or so square feet of impervious surface and
secondly is the raingarden that small and desirable to the City; who has to operate it and maintain it and
if the City is expected to maintain it then they would have to provide an easement for access because
those things need to be dredged out every so many years by some schedule that is followed and he said
his conversations with Pete Young our Water Resource Engineer, they don’t really like small raingardens
as they are too much bother and they aren’t properly maintained and they become useless in time.
Project Engineer Monserud said he would like to shed a little light on this subject; he briefly looked at
the calculations that were submitted today and on a real general consensus it looks like something would
fit; as mentioned by Commissioner Kallberg, we do discourage these small raingardens whether they are
publicly or privately maintained, as it typically falls on the city to keep them forever and it is a great
maintenance; therefore, it is our preference that they not put in a raingarden. He said the way it is shown
on the property line there would also need to be some form of a Home Owners Association to make sure
both property owners are contributing to the maintenance of that.
Tieman asked if there were any other raingardens on the property line anywhere else in the city.
Project Engineer Monserud said we have; there are two places that have raingarden, both driven by
there is nothing on the site so they added more than thirty-five hundred square feet of impervious area
which kicks them into our small site storm water requirements so they had to provide something and they
do have a home owners association.
Applicant
Gregg Schweich, (Copper Creek – 14198 Commerce Avenue NE) He explained he has researched
some of the past variance and information that he would like to share with the Commissioners. He
commented on the March 20, 2017 Commissioner Hearing; there was no public or neighborhood
opposition and we also received a letter over the weekend from a neighboring property owner supporting
the variance.
Fleming asked about the letter and if it met the deadline of Friday.
Schweich said no it did not.
Fleming said then we do not have it and said it was just one letter.
Schweich reference the property 14354 Watersedge and explained the raingarden that was installed
and the process it went through with Staff, Planning Commission and City Council; then approved. He
referenced an additional property; 6364 Conroy Street and its impervious surface issue and explained
how that was mitigated. He explained the redeveloping of the two properties and their improvements and
commented on the improvement to the neighborhood and asked for approval as other City of Prior Lake
Commissioners have done in the past, including his two examples he outlined tonight and said the
proximity of our properties are in our opinion have very similar circumstances. He commented on their
engineering firms calculations, the raingarden as an option for approving the variance request and the
City Engineers comments.
Kallberg stated he doesn’t have any issues with the side yard setbacks but is puzzled to why the house
is not squared up with the property line and equalize the side yard setbacks rather than skewing, as if
you square them up it would increase the side yard setback on both sides on both properties. He doesn’t
think he can accept the raingarden as substitute for reduced impervious surface.
Hank Breggemann commented on a letter sent to the Commissioners, purchase of the property, lacking
current setbacks, high impervious surface percentage, mitigation, reducing and improving setbacks. He
explained the turning of the homes; being the view out to the lake. He compared their lot and home size
with the Lot and home size down the street; 14380 stating they are similar.
Fleming asked for additional comments from staff and for Planner Matzke to add/offer for clarification for
the consideration for 14380 Watersedge Trail.
14
Planner Matzke explained the property down the road that was stated to be similar to the current
proposed property; stating there was a variance request that came before the Planning Commissioners
in 2015 and explained the differences in the lots, stating that it is a little wider across the front of the
property and similar and maybe even a little smaller in the building pad area; the other comment he said
he would make is the proposed building area for this proposed property, square footage for the home is
two thousand four hundred and twenty five square feet and the building pad proposed for the lot in
question is two thousand six hundred and fifty one square feet leaving the proposed property house
footage larger even though this lot is a smaller lot. He said he understands the reasonableness which is
the Planning Commission’s decision to make. He gave the reasoning why the comparison. He said the
applicant is correct that this property is approximately seven hundred square feet larger.
Fleming asked about the square footage of 14380 Watersedge.
Planner Matzke said two thousand four hundred and twenty-five square feet.
Fleming said and the proposed.
Planner Matzke replied two thousand six hundred and fifty-one feet.
Commission comments
Ringstad said a few weeks ago he voted to decline this variance request as he will be doing tonight.
The raingarden options that we heard about, doesn’t believe long term is a good solution; what it is going
to do is put the burden on the City and the City Staff to constantly check and maintain and to be honest
planting raingarden after raingarden to avoid impervious surface requirements is a long-term solution for
this City. He said these lots are being developed and the proposed development shows impervious
surface dropping significantly which it; redevelopment is an opportunity to hit the compliance of thirty
percent and a smaller house albeit, the applicant and the homeowner not wanting to do so is an option,
smaller house could be built to get within that thirty-percent. He said reducing it from a high number that
is three point seven percent above what the thirty percent is something he cannot support tonight; again
as he did on March 20, 2017.
Petersen said he was in favor of the variance last time and is again not based on comparisons from other
pieces of property as that is not the way to go because it is a bad president as each one is completely
different. He said he does appreciate and it is worth noting that it went from well over fifty to close to
thirty and he believes that is worth consideration. He said splitting the lot making a large and a small lot
into two more medium sized lots does help the neighborhood and is worth some consideration of the
three point seven variances. He said he will be supporting.
Tieman said he supported the variance last time and will continue to support it; he does think there has
been good faith there trying to reduce the impervious surface and meet all the setback requirements. He
said he doesn’t support the raingarden idea; it was fine as it was prior with the impervious at three point
six.
Kallberg stated he agrees with Commissioner Ringstad the raingarden is not the solution and we need
on that big of a house on that size of a lot.
Fleming said thank you to Staff for your updates and comments. He said he hoped that we would be
further along in the reduction of the impervious surface and he we are not substantially; therefore, he
cannot and will not be supporting the variance for impervious surface and will be finding of facts that the
Staff laid out in 1108.400 Subsection 4 to be included in the record. He stated there are three resolution
tonight.
Resolution Number 2
MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
LAKE SETBACK VARIANCE, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE VARIANCE, LOT AREA AND LOT WIDTH
VARIANCE REQUESTED FOR 14342 WATERSEDGE TRAIL.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried
Resolution Number 1
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
LAKE SETBACK VARIANCE, LOT AREA VARIANCE REQUESTED FOR 14332 WATERSEDGE TRAIL.
15
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried
Resolution Number 3
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION DENYING THE
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE VARIANCE REQUEST AT 14332 WATERSEDGE TRAIL.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Kallberg and Ringstad.
Nayes by Tieman and Petersen. The Motion carried.
6. New Business:
No New Business.
Planner Matzke updated the Commissioners about the next meeting, May 15, 2017 and a
discussion regarding the 2040 Comp Plan.
7. Adjournment:
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO ADJORN THE MONDAY, MAY 1, 2017
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:43 P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried
Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant