HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 May 15 2017 PC Meeting Minutes
1
PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, May 15, 2017
1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance:
Commissioner Fleming called the Monday, May 15, 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,
Community Development Director Casey McCabe, Project Engineer Monserud and Development
Services Assistant Sandra Woods.
2. Approval of Agenda:
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG
TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, MAY 15, 2017 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried.
3. Approval of Monday, May 1, 2017 Meeting Minutes:
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG/RINGSTAD TO APPROVE THE MONDAY,
MAY 1, 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. PDEV17-001012 – 5035 Beach Street – Conditional Use Permit – Cindy Langer is
requesting a Conditional Use Permit to add approximately 10,350 cubic yards of fill to
various low spots that are susceptible to flooding. PID: 251350050
Planner Matzke introduced the request to consider a Conditional Use Permit to allow grading and Land
reclamation in excess of 400 cubic yards at 5035 Beach Street NE. The subject site is located on the
Northwest shores of Lower Prior Lake, South of County Hwy 82. He explained the history, current
circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommended a motion. He presented a draft resolution,
location map and project plan dated February 27, 2017.
Commission Comments/Questions:
Petersen asked if there are any wetlands in this area.
Planner Matzke replied there is not. He said it was looked at, especially in the low point, to see if it was
a wetland in years past and it was indicated it was not a wetland.
Petersen asked if there is concern about runoff; where it is going.
Project Engineer Monserud replied we are; one of the conditions is they need to provide some sort of
agreement or proof that the neighboring property is okay with the directing of the water
Petersen questioned if the neighboring property needs to sign off on this.
Project Engineer Monserud replied absolutely.
Petersen asked if there is a procedure; we don’t ask or inspect where the fill is coming from or what it is,
do we allow them to dump whatever they want there.
Project Engineer Monserud replied we don’t and said because this would likely be future building pads
in the long run they will need to think about what they put down that will support future foundations.
2
Petersen said if someone would want to build a house in the future they would have to get not only a
survey but some type of soil samples
Project Engineer Monserud replied likely, yes.
Kallberg said he was recalling a similar situation several years ago, probably not the same property;
however, on the days on the W atershed the board was issuing permits, this application was to fill below
the ordinary high water of Prior Lake and noticed that the existing elevation is 898 and the ordinary high
water mark is 904, so that would be six feet below the ordinary high water. He asked is that a condition
that still exists and is enforceable by the DNR.
Planner Matzke replied the project was reviewed by the DNR in the years past as well as this project;
they provided that they were okay with the comment because there is an in essence of bridge there
between land bridge of 904 higher in this area that when it does provide for this area as a low point , but
doesn’t flood even when the elevations of the Prior Lake gets to the 904. He said you don’t have
inflatration of water in this area; there is a clay barrier and there is a bridge, they don’t see it as part of
the lake. So for that reason they didn’t provide a comment and in years past were fine with the comment
of filling this area.
Applicant:
Richard Langer, (10530 202nd Street West, Lakeville, MN) He said this is the same permit we pulled two
other times; we haven’t been able to obtain the fill, we have been trying to manage the fill projects so that
we can try to get it all done in one shot to minimize the impact on the neighbors and also have trying to
get it coordinated in the spring or fall so there are less youths out in the street with bike and such. He
said they were close last year working with Hentges, which is a large contractor that does a lot of work
for the City, unfortunately the timing didn’t work out for the project. The highway 13 project was where
we were going to get the fill and it was mostly sand, so it was good fill.
Fleming asked how he was feeling about his confidence level to be able to get it done this time.
Langer explained he was more confident last year than this year; stating they have been meeting with
some engineering companies and contracting company’s. He said his engineer is here tonight. He said
the impact on the neighborhood has been zero as nothing has been filled so far, more of an administrative
burden on him to try to line this up; so we can get it done in a week or two opposed to all summer long is
the goal.
Diane Lynch, (Prior Lake/Spring Lake Watershed District Administrator and are located right here in City
Hall). She said the reason why she was up there is to say they have reviewed this proposal several times
and Mr. Kallberg has recalled correctly that it came to the Watershed District Board in 2012. She said
two years ago when we reviewed it in terms of what the impact is on the flood plain and our concerns
about removing the opportunity to have flood storage there; we just reviewed it again today and we are
comfortable that it does meet the obligations of the 2012 encroachment policy, but would like to say that
the District and the City embarked on a two year flood study to look at opportunities to mitigate flood
damage in the future and one of those things was to try to obtain more flood storage and we are looking
in the upper watershed for flood storage, it is difficult because it is agricultural land and there is a big
price tag to that. She said they are in support of any opportunities that we can take to get additional flood
storage so we like to ask the land owner to seriously consider that and as the plan moves forward.
Petersen said when you say flood storage are you assuming some sort of pond within that piece of land.
Lynch said yes that is correct.
MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 4A AT 6:15
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 6:16
P.M.
3
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried.
Commission Comments/Questions:
Ringstad stated it appears this has been approved two previous times, and wished them the best of luck
in 2017 and the endeavor. He said it does meet the conditional use permit criteria and he will be
supporting.
Petersen said he will be in support of the Conditional Use Permit; however, would like to encourage them
to figure out how to store a little extra water on there because that is preventing some to runoff from
reaching the lake, the more project we do like that the less likely we will have f looding in the future.
Fleming stated he too will be supporting the recommendation; he recommended to insert one word in
condition number two; as it reads now the clean-up of fill material as result of spills of general
transportation of fill on any public road shall be the responsibility of the applicant. He said he would like
to add the word timely between the and clean-up…
Tieman said he also supports this; no issues that, good improvement and is hopeful they will get it done.
Kallberg said his earlier comment displays how he feels about it and said the applicant must be very
careful about any materials spilled on Beach Street because there is a huge project going on to the
abutting to the northerly, easterly and a huge wetland enhancement project with that and the vehicles
that are doing that project park on the cul-de-sac and both streets. He said he appreciates Ms. Lynch’s
comments; it would be a great little storage pond and he guesses the solution to that would be the
Watershed or some other governing body would need to buy the property or purchase a long-term
easement for that and is unsure if Watershed is prepared to do that. He said some of these things are
just not feasible from a tax payer’s perspective; he will support this.
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO APPROVE THE BEACH STREET
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO THE LISTED AND SLIGHTLY MODIFIED CONDITIONS
ON 4A AT 6:20 P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried.
B. PDEV17-001009 – 21 & Duluth – Variance – Greystone Construction is requesting
approval of variances related to Dimensional Standards, including a variance from the
Maximum Side Yard Setback of 10 feet and the Minimum Floor Area Ratio of 0.5 to
construct a one story commercial building. PID: 259021270.
Community Development Director Casey McCabe introduced the consideration of a resolution
approving a variance from the maximum side yard setback of 10 feet, a variance from the maximum front
yard setback of 10 feet and a variance from the minimum floor area ratio of 0.5 to construct a one story
commercial building located in the TC (Town Center) Zoning Use District. The variances would allow a
one-story commercial building located at the southwest corner of the CH21 and Duluth Avenue
intersection. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommended a
motion. He presented a location map and proposed site plan.
Commission Comments/Questions:
Tieman asked about the twelve point one foot setback is supposed to be less than ten correct on the
front yard setback.
Director McCabe said yes the maximum allowed is ten; so, they are requesting a two point one foot
variance from that.
Applicant:
Greystone Construction said nothing to add unless there are questions.
4
MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 4B AT 6:26
P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried.
Public Comment:
None.
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMANTO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 4A AT 6:27
P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried.
Commission Comments/Questions:
Ringstad stated he thinks the five variance points are laid out; Director McCabe did a very nice job in
speaking to why these variance requests makes sense for this piece of land a little bit further away from
downtown for traffic reasons; therefore, he sees no downside and will be supporting.
Petersen said he also doesn’t see a downside; the variances make sense and there are no huge
changes; so, he will be in support.
Tieman stated he supports the changes and will make this a useable property.
Kallberg said he said he had to read this a couple times to make sure it wasn’t a typo maximum versus
minimum, as we usually are going the other. He stated he does appreciate the long setback from Duluth
Avenue as it is a very difficult intersection as it is for making a left turn from Duluth onto Eagle Creek and
we have a lot of places in this town where that is a problem. He mentioned the raingarden and asked if
it is going to be city maintained or property owner maintained as it is a very nice sized raingarden.
Project Engineer Monserud said it would be owner maintained.
Kallberg asked if that would be documented somewhere.
Project Engineer Monserud said yes, there will be a maintenance agreement.
Fleming stated he too will be supporting the resolution; for the record, it does meet the five point threshold
for 1108.400.
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION APPROVING
A VARIANCE FROM THE TEN FOOT MAXIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK, A VARIANCE FROM THE
TEN FOOT MAXIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK AND A VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FLOOR
AREA RATIO OF 0.5 IN THE TOWN CENTER ZOING USE DISTRICT AT 6:29 P.M. REGARDING ITEM
4B.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried
C. PDEV17-001005 – Fountain Hills – Prior Lake Storage – Conditional Use Permit
Amendment – Archer LLC received approval of a Conditional Use Permit on March 6, 2017 to
construct a Self-Storage Facility within the C-3, Business Park Use District at 4400 Fountain Hills
Drive NE. The approved Conditional Use Permit required concrete wall panel construction.
Archer LLC is requesting an Amendment to an Approved Conditional Use Permit to allow for the
use of metal wall panels. PID: 253630010.
Planner Matzke introduced the request to consider a resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) Amendment to allow a revised exterior elevation plan for a self -service storage facility within the
C-3 Business Park Use District at 4400 Fountain Hills Drive NE. He explained the history, current
circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommended a motion. He presented a location map,
previously approved exterior elevation, newly proposed exterior elevation, building examples of metal
wall panel product and color renderings of site exterior.
Commission Comments/Questions:
5
Ringstad mentioned the increase of inquires regarding this type of product and asked if cost one of the
driving forces with this product in comparison to some of the materials that are approved for this district.
Planner Matzke said the applicant could answer that for you as they have considered this to some degree
with their contractor; but feels it is as well as it appears to be a material that would be a little more
financially feasible for them and does offer the flexibility of presenting some of the architectural design
standards and durability of some of the other product. He said we as a City Staff don’t have the expertise
to analyze fully to incorporate into our ordinance; further research if directed by the Planning Commission
or City Council would assist us in the answer.
Tieman asked if there were any specifications as far as IMP panel specs or anything like that on this
proposal.
Planner Matzke said they did provide some other specifications on the panel of it and as far as being
used other materials in other applications, it looks as if other cities have accepted this material; we just
would like to take a look into some of those specifications and talk with other building experts to see what
the long term durability and quality of the product is. He said we have used it in our industrial park
already; does it mean we should use it in other areas is what we would want to look at before we just
make a blank approval of something along those lines or in certain types of applications or certain types
of land uses; that is what we would do if we were directed to.
Kallberg said in addition to discussing the construction cost; he asked if the applicant could tell us about
the reduced operating cost, heating and cooling costs. He said the staff report mentions many times the
quality of insulation and that it provides compared to the concrete or mason tip up panels.
Applicant:
Todd Mohagen, (Mohagen Hanson Architecture and Interiors, 1012 Oak Center Drive, Wayzata, MN)
Kallberg restated his questions as about the construction costs and reduced operating costs.
Todd said they have been using this product for the last five years and it’s kind of a new product
compared to what is common with metal panel as most of the metal panel has been non-insulated; done
on the inside, this is a composite panel, metal on the outside closed foam on the inside and then a metal
skin on the inside also. He said it is a composite panel and in some Cities, they treat it as a composite
panel not a corrugated metal which is some of the other cities definitions for that material. He explained
what they like about it; efficient insulating the exterior as this was originated as the material for
coolers/freezer with very similar technology. He said it is a more consistent insulation barrier in
comparison to precast as there are areas of concrete that are all the way through. He explained the
makeup of the panel and the construction of it. He explained the floors being supported by the barring
wall without being a barring wall system. He said it is more effective on a cost perspective. He explained
the design flexibility and scheduling and associated costs and paint durability.
Tieman asked the design criteria that they are looking at for this application/appearance of the building;
textures.
Todd said vertical ribbing, a flat panel, explained the texture, style, glass and signage.
Petersen said just out of curiosity his understanding is that it is a SIP insulated panel, correct; but it is
not structural as the floor joist would be held up by a wall that would be built on the inside of these panels.
Todd explained it is basically on a ten by ten grid on the inside; so, the walls themselves creates the
different storage units and are essentially barring walls for the floors.
Petersen asked what holds up the roof
Todd replied they would be held up by the walls.
Petersen said so these are just the skin that goes on the outside.
Todd said that is correct and that is why it is an effective use of this product.
Petersen asked if it is metal framing or wood on the inside.
Todd replied it is metal.
Ringstad said they were here not so long ago and approved with the tip up panels. He asked was this
on your radar a couple of months ago and if so what changed in the last couple of months.
Todd replied just different design considerations along the way. He said when they came in, it was for
the use and didn’t focus that heavily on the exterior; it was always in the mix, but it was not decided at
that point.
6
MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 4C AT 6:48
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 6:49
P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried.
Commission Comments/Questions:
Kallberg question to Staff; he said he did enjoyed the tour and one of the things we saw and compared
was in Industrial Park where we saw these types of exteriors and that initially and the people that have
previously built of masonry exteriors were not to happy about it. He asked have there been any other
opposition to changing this requirement or changing the rules now.
Planner Matzke explained anytime that we have had two different ordinance amendments to our
architectural design criteria since the original building of the Industrial Park that were constructed in tip
panels and we have fairly stern and strict architectural design manuals and there is comment about it
and is asked if that is now approved by the city but part of the feedback is another reason for the initiation
of why the council years ago wanted to take a look at our architectural design guidelines were for. So
we hear from both sides; we actually decreased some of the standards so we could allow for some other
structures at one time and that was future increased again through our architectural design ordinance
amendments. He said We have fallen on a very good ordinance now, as far as the design of the building
that the design of the building not just the material type. He explained the old ordinance was driven by
the material type and we still have that to some degree, but we promote and give clarity to the style fo
the building that we want too. He explained some options.
Kallberg said technology changes, design changes. He said one question for the applicant and asked
what is the nature of this structure; what holds everything up.
Todd explained the floor is concrete and explained the walls and ceiling; including wind loading, pressure
points and how it transfers.
Tieman said he is very familiar with these systems in the industry and approves the CUP change and
encourages the City Staff recommend to set a secondary motion for investigating this entire policy
because it is the future.
Petersen said he agrees and is a very legitimate way to build a commercial building and it is more and
more popular and would love to come visit upon being built. He stated he is in support and believe we
should look at ordinance again and possible amending.
Ringstad agrees with the prior comments, with the city looking at the product for the future and with the
change that is in front of us tonight it is a great looking building and is in support of both.
Fleming is in support of the CUP with the one condition. He said the CUP does meet the eight-point
threshold to 1108.202.
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG/RINGSTAD TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW AN EXTERIOR ELEVATION
PLAN FOR A SELF-SERVICE FACILITY WITHIN THE C-3 (BUSINESS PARK) USE DISTRICT WITH
THE CONDITION THE EXTERIOR ELEVATION PLAN A300 AS SUBMITTED WITH THE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ON MARCH 6TH IS HEARBY REPLACED WITH EXTERIOR ELEVATION
PLAN PREPARED BY MOGHAN HANSON ARCHTECTURES SUBMITTED AS A300 AND STAMPED
DATED MAY 5, 2017 AT 6:57 P.M. REGARDING ITEM 4C.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried
7
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY TIEMAN THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECT
CITY STAFF TO INVESTIGATE THE ALLOWED USE OF THE METAL WALL PRODUCT AND METAL
PANEL WALL PRODUCT IN OTHER INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL ZOINING DISTRICTS A ND
POSSBILY INCORPORATE IT INTO ARCHITECTUAL DESIGN ORDINANCE 1107.2200 AT 6:57 P.M.
REGARDING ITEM 4C.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried
5. Old Business:
No Old Business.
6. New Business:
No New Business.
7. Adjournment:
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO ADJORN THE MONDAY, MAY 15, 2017
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 6:58 P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried
Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant