Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 June 19 2017 Meeting Minutes rough draft reduced 1 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, June 19, 2017 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Fleming called the Monday, June 19, 2017 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Bryan Fleming, Dave Tieman, Mark Petersen and William Kallberg; Absent were Dan Ringstad. Also present were Planner Jeff Matzke, Director Casey McCabe, City Engineer Larry Poppler and Development Services Assistant Sandra Woods. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, JUNE 19, 2017 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen and Kallberg. Absent Dan Ringstad. The Motion carried. 3. Approval of Tuesday, June 5, 2017 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO APPROVE THE TUESDAY, JUNE 5, 2017 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen and Kallberg. Absent Dan Ringstad. The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A. DEV17-001008 – Haven Ridge – Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD – MI Homes of Minneapolis, LLC is proposing a preliminary plat and preliminary planned unit development for Haven Ridge within an (A) Agricultural Zoning District consisting of approximately 54 acres, and includes 133 single family homes and 16 acres of private open space. The subject properties are located north of County Road 42; directly east of County Road 18, south of Whispering Oaks Trail. PID: 259240020 & 259240010. Planner Matzke introduced the request to consider approval of the Haven Ridge Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development Plan know as Haven Ridge, to be developed as a 133-lot, low density residential subdivision. The subject site is located north of County Highway 42 and east of County Highway 18. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommended a motion. He presented a location map, development plans dated May 19, 2017, applicant Narrative, Engineering/Public Works Department Memorandum dated June 12, 2017 and a Community Development Department Memorandum dated June 13, 2017. Engineer Poppler explained the grading plan and the utility plan, Planner Matzke explained the landscape plan, tree preservation and the trails and parks. He commented on the PUD purpose and PUD benefits vs. modifications. 2 Commission Comments/Questions: Kallberg asked what is the definition of significant trees. He commented on letters to the editor regarding trees and asked what we are doing to compensate for that. Planner Matzke explained the definition of a significant trees and what is required by the developer with the trees over the course of the entire project. He explained the difference between forest and undergrowth, developer tagging/surveying every tree, what trees need to stay or replaced, our tree preservation ordinance, adjusting grade levels, preserving trees in clusters in certain corridors and heritage trees. He stated with any type of grading in a development there will be a significant number of trees removed. Kallberg asked if the age of the tree is taken into considerations. Planner Matzke said it is through the grading system. He explained the grading system including the age of trees. He stated arborist go out and do the tree inventory. Tieman asked about the water supply with a 12-inch main coming up; is that upsized based on Summit Preserve or just for this project. Engineer Poppler replied it is done by for the region. He explained how this is decided on and the location of the where the line is and where it connects. Fleming commented on the number of trees listed and asked is that enough trees, or can we require additional trees or additional caliber in inches. Planner Matzke said through the Planned Unit Development the Planning Commissioners or City Council can require more trees/caliber in inches if they feel additional screening or etc. is needed; however, this current proposal does meet our requirements through our tree preservation ordinance. He explained the wooded area. Fleming asked how many storm water basins would be needed for the project. Engineer Poppler replied there is a series of storm water and infiltration basins as part of the plan. He commented being dependent on the size of the area, choice of the developer and stated this time they have a bit of room under the power lines, which is a lower area of the site. He said it is not how many ponds, rather the volume needed of the ponds to keep the rates under control. Fleming asked Engineer Poppler if he felt the specification of the ponds are adequate as proposed. Engineer Poppler replied we do have some comments in our hydrology memo, and we believe they will meet the hydrology section of our public works design manual. Petersen asked about the concept plan and the four-foot setback; is there language stating that the HOA would maintain this and not the City. Planner Matzke said yes, these setbacks would be on the private lot, therefore being private or HOA maintained through that. He explained what happens at the final stages with the PUD agreement. He commented on the setback being successful in other locations. Petersen asked if the applicant has seen the list/memo of requirements and if there would be any issues. Engineer Poppler explained what it means to Haven Ridge, if work doesn’t progress. Applicant Applicant John Rask with MI Homes, 941 Northeast Hillwind Road NE, Fridley, MN 55432. He said he is here tonight with Jason Biederwolf, MI Homes Director of Land Development. He stated they were here in January with their concept plan. He shared a short presentation and the site plan. He commented on change of transportation connections, number of lots, different styles/types of homes, association maintained yards, maintenance easements, tree preservation requirements and privacy and open spaces. Fleming explained the importance of trees and open spaces to the Commissioners as well as our community and stated the anticipation of recommending additional caliber inches for this PUD moving forward. He commented on the conditions/comments from engineering and planning and asked if they were confident that these can be worked out. Applicant Rask said yes, we are. Tieman asked if the homeowners can they remove trees and plantings from their yards. Applicant Rask said no they cannot, that is up to the association. He explained the association’s rules stating this is specified by certain language in the association. 3 Kallberg commented on the homes along the power line easement mentioning that screening out the storm water ponds is a suggestion/consideration he would like to see. Applicant Rask said they would consider that. He explained the utility easement for the power lines and the restrictions, allowances, planting zone, incorporating landscaping, easement on the east side, understory trees/bushes and screening between homes. He said if the Commissioners would like to put in a condition they would be glad to follow it. He said the final plan would give more detail; however, still intend to do more and focus on public spaces and would be glad to show what the rear yard situations would look like. MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING ON 4A AT 6:38 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen and Kallberg. Absent Dan Ringstad. The Motion carried. Public Comment: Matthew Johnson, (8844 Whispering Oaks Trail, Shakopee, MN 55379). He explained his property is adjacent to the project and thanked the Commissioners for voicing opinions regarding tree removal. He commented on a stretch of trees benefiting the community and would like as many of the old growth trees preserved along the power line and the trail system. He mentioned how preservation of the trees would enhance screening and he stated concerns of runoff and explained the outcome of large storms. He asked for consideration of the plan to not create run off into their neighborhood. Jim Rinnich, (13791 Kensington Avenue NE). He said him and his wife Dawn have lived here for eleven years and have dealt with drainage issues for eleven years. He questioned the drainage getter better or worse and was concerned with the new residents having the same issue. He stated the cannot use the shower and the washing machine at the same time as there is not enough pressure. Engineer Poppler said this is one of the higher points of the City and explained a proposed water booster station and mentioned the water pressure should improve within the next nine to ten months. Rinnich said this will help the existing homes as well. Engineer Poppler said yes, your area is part of the pressure zone as well. Rinnich said thank you, outstanding. Petersen questioned Staff regarding current or future basins in the area where holding ponds are under the power lines and if this would help with water run o ff. Engineer Poppler explained the run off and basins. He said the new hard surfaces that are created add to runoff, but the basins correct that as a part of our review. Petersen questioned if there is no standing water right now. Engineer Poppler said yes. But a lot more would infiltrate now. John Anderson, (14832 Estate Avenue). He said he works with Winkler Development and talked about future development for the eleven acres in the southwest corner of the property and would be willing to work with the developers on runoff. He said they are in support of this current development. Jay Johnson, (14453 Raven Court NE). He mentioned he was here to speak on behalf of Trillium Cove but could just touch base on this one too. He commented on a survey done in 2005, 2011 and 2014, housing growth, City Council and Planning Commissioners lacking concern for residents, too much acreage being developed, open spaces, Trillium Cove’s final plat, and moving trees out at 7am. He read a letter he sent to the Mayor and asked the Commissioners who lives in Prior Lake. Fleming replied you must live in Prior Lake to be on the Commission. Johnson questioned how many Staff members live in Prior Lake. He continued to read the rest of his letter to the Mayor emphasizing on the need to listen to people of Prior Lake and to put a moratorium on building. He commented on the outcome of the 2005 and 2011 surveys, the fact that City Hall doesn’t appreciate the residents, reasons for prior Mayor being voted out, overpopulation, losing that “something special” about Prior Lake, and said show us that we didn’t choose poorly at the poles and stop the building. He suggested the plat to not be approved and mentioned the lack of concern he sees. Mark Thompson, (9048 Whispering Oaks in Shakopee, MN). He commented on concerns of trees, trees being tagged, privacy bearer, tree line and property lines being clear before any trees are removed and asked for preservation of the natural scenery. 4 Eve Easterly-Gilder, (14240 Ash Circle NE) She said they are right by Trillium Cove. She mentioned some questions that keep getting asked without answers. She commented on lack of trees, strong wind blowing over stuff, fire hydrant, bike path, driveway, cul-de-sacs, neighbor backing into the intersection and taking care of the new people that are coming in. She said why are you taking the cul-de-sac and explained these are the questions since January with no answers. Fleming asked when and whom did you talk to. Easterly-Gilder said she posed her question originally here when we came in for questions. She has posed it to Engineer Poppler. Fleming asked when did this question get presented to Engineer Poppler. Easterly-Glider asked Engineer Poppler, when is the last time I have had a conversation with you; it was within the last month. Fleming asked Engineer Poppler if he could comment on this. Easterly-Glider said this is a very small road and there is no place to widen this road at all. She commented on Engineer Popplers comments back to her and she asked if this public hearing was for Trillium Cove. Fleming said this public hearing is for Haven Ridge. Esterly-Glider said when you start taking down the trees, why would you think to take out anymore. Fleming asked if that was her third concern, the trees. Esterly-Glider said yes. She explained why she moved her from Bloomington and commented keeping Prior Lake beautiful by keeping the trees, not continue to build, keeping Prior Lake special and if we want people to move into Prior Lake then the trees need to stay. Tim Conners, northeast. He said he was Trillium Cove affected and commented on how many homes would be in this area, questioned future population in Prior Lake, new schools, referendums, who is going to pay for all the extra families moving in, high taxes and being retired. Fleming asked about population studies and asked Staff if Maxifield is available on the website. Planner Matzke said yes there are studies on our website, but was unsure of which one is available. He stated the Maxfield study is on our document center. If anyone needs help we can help them locate these studies. Conners said he is asking the Commissioner’s; as each of you should be able to tell me how many homes you want in prior lake; if you cannot tell me this, you should not be on the Planning Commission. Fleming said we have a statutorily define responsibility to responsibility manage growth in our municipality. Petersen said we cannot tell the property owners they cannot build houses here, we don’t have that power. He said you are concerned about your private property, they also have property rights. Conners said they paid taxes and he understands that. He is talking about one addition after the other and a never ending until every square inch in Prior Lake has a house on it. Petersen said we don’t have the power to tell somebody…we can only say if it is this a good fit for this; we don’t have that power to… if you followed what happened in Lake Elmo, they fought against the Met Council and they lost. Met Council says what the population is coming in. Conners asked so what is the population Petersen said we don’t have those numbers but can get those to you. Kelly Thompson, (9048 Whispering Oaks Trail). She said they back up to the power lines and she was wondering if these trees along the powerlines will be removed for the drainage ponds or paths. Applicant Rask said there are no trees under the power lines that we will be removing for our own benefit or purpose of construction, the power company comes in and maintains those. We did an ALTA survey and often times when they are doing the tree study to make sure they are not impacted for grading and explained how the forester goes out to survey the trees for identification. The area of the ponding is within the easement and we are restricted to plant. We would not be removing trees for the ponding. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:03pm on ITEM 4A VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen and Kallberg. Absent Dan Ringstad. The Motion carried. 5 Commissioners comments Kallberg stated it seems like we focus a lot on tree removal. We need to keep in mind that the owners of the property have the right to develop it in an appropriate manner. He commented letters to the editor of this becoming parkland; now, let me ask why doesn’t someone buy that land and make it a park. If the city buys it, it will go on your tax bill, if the property is developed in some useful manner it will add to your tax base, thus helping to at least control your real estate taxes. He said he does have som e information for the person regarding population estimates. He explained the population and population forecast and the goal of the 2040 Comp Plan stating it adds up to about 510 additional population per year over the period of 30 years. He said the long conditions that are attached to this are pretty strick. We have had some additional questions about trees, questions about defining the property line and feels the property line is defined by the power line easement and think with this he would propose d that this project go forward. Tieman commented on this development he is hearing two concerns: maintaining of the trees especially on the north edge and he believes the developer will do this and the other is the stormwater retention ponds, which should help the situation and he knows the City Staff will follow through with this. He sees no reason why this should not go through he believes it will help the area. Petersen said he believes this is a good plan for the area. He likes how they dealt with the large awkward shape of the gas easement and on the north side of the property. He said it seems like the drainage and he is concerned about the drainage and would like staff to work with some of the residents; it would be nice to get someone from the city to go out there on the ground and see what is going on. He feels that the basins will take care of this but would like the comfort. He said it is in support of this and is recommending this to move on to the City Council for approval. Fleming said he will be supporting the prelim plat and added a condition on the trees he would like to see at a minimum a range of 10 to 15 percent increase of trees, if we can find a way to do so. He said he thought he heard discussion about trees and back yards. He sa id he will echo the tree comments on the development on the and preservation of that buffer. Finally, to the residents we do hear you and will invite you to any of our comprehensive planning dissuasion that take place and offer your thoughts in that form. MOTION BY PETERSEN. SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT AND A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) FOR HAVEN RIDGE SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS OR THOSE CONDITIONS THAT MAYBE ADDED OR MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT 7:10PM ON ITEM 4A VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen and Kallberg. Absent Dan Ringstad. The Motion carried. B. DEV17-001022 – Trillium Cove – Final Planned Unit Development – Pulte Homes of Minnesota, LLC is proposing a final planned unit development within a R1 Use District to construct 207 homes consisting of 90 single family homes, 52 single level homes and 65 townhomes. 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: 250520130, 259250272 and 259250271. Planner Matzke re-introduced the request to consider the Trillium Cove Final Planned Unit Development Plan. The subject property is located south of County Highway 42, west of Ferndale Avenue, and north of Lower Prior Lake. He explained the history, current circumstances, physical site characteristics, issues, alternatives and recommended a motion. He presented a location map, development plans dated May 26, 2017, Engineering/Public Works Department Memorandum dated June 13, 2017 and Community & Economic Development Department Memorandum dated June 13, 2017. Commission Comments/Questions: Petersen said overall there is very little change from what we originally saw and pointed out the area of what the resident was referring to with the cul-de-sac. 6 Planner Matzke said yes and he pointed out where the area was, Ferndale and Ash Circle, and stated there is little change. Tieman based on that same question Ferndale Avenue has been referred to as a small street, is this going to be adjusted at all. Engineer Poppler explained the width of Ferndale and stated narrow, but still a local roadway. He also explained the main portion of traffic locations, proposed roads also narrow, and how the connection of the north and south collector road to the intersection proposed at County Highway 42. Petersen asked if Ferndale is a right in right out. Engineer Poppler said yes, converted to a right in right out. Tieman said this would be typical width of the street in the community. Engineer Poppler explained the typical street widths (32 feet) and stated in environmentally sensitive areas such as this unique wetland we go down to the 28-foot width and Ferndale is close to that width. Kallberg asked what the contribution to the Rolling Oaks sewer and water project, is that truly significant and what will be the requirements for those properties to connect, would they be able to delay for if they wish or is there a time limits on that. Engineer Poppler explained the different options for Rolling Oaks if we cannot get a city project underway. He commented on the one year hook up criteria, waiver for that if the septic system meets the compliance and the timelines involved with the waivers, as well as the other options if the City project doesn’t move forward. Kallberg questioned the portion of Rolling Oaks at the developers expense/City Project. And said the assessment was brought up at the last meeting regarding not exceeding a certain number and asked if this will be applied in this case. Engineer Poppler explained the difference between the development bringing in sewer and water in comparision if it was a City Project with the developer contributing to our project. He mentioned when the public hearing would be on that project (July 24, 2017) Applicant Applicant Paul Heuer, (with Pulte Homes 7500 Office Ridge Circle Eden Prairie MN 55344). He said what you see before you tonight are the first phase of the Trillium Cove Development the only change that he is aware of is a staff mentioned of preservation of additional trees. Petersen asked if we approved to recommend to the City Council to pass some of the conditions; would the requirements be met Applicant Heuer replied we worked through almost all those items already. MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING ON 4A AT 7:24 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen and Kallberg. Absent Dan Ringstad. The Motion carried. Public Comment: Alisa Weintraub, (5284 Carriage Hills Road) She said she grew up in Michigan and shared concerns of being a good neighbor with the construction company. She explained her situation with the construction company has not been good as she has been blocked in her driveway, almost sideswiped by a skid loader and felt that to be unacceptable. She wants to know what the plan is to be a good neighbor while this construction is going on. Fleming asked who she made her concerns known to. Weintraub said right now. Fleming said only right now. Weintraub explained it just happened on Friday morning when she was blocked in and she has a photo and asked if they would like to see the photo. Fleming explained how he would like her to handle this now and with an email correspondence to City Staff. He said to Engineer Poppler and Planner Matzke to make sure we provide email addresses so we can have this memorialize. He asked alias if there was anything else 7 Weintraub said right now that is her main concern, but mentioned Carriage Hill Parkway and the traffic plan. Her main concern however is being a good neighbor with the construction company and if it will get better or worse as it has only been a short time period. Fleming said he agrees and asked the applicant if he could explain how this will be mitigated. Applicant Heuer said this is the first he has heard of this and doesn’t know the facts behind it. He mentioned looking into this. He explained the quality of his experienced workers and contractors; however, is disappointed to hear this and suggested reaching out to him to work on what can be done and how it can be avoided. Fleming added once you have had that conversation and a plan has been worked out; if you could send to Director McCabe and Planner Matzke in a week to 10 days from now and let them know how things are going. Bob Scheeler, (14254 Ash Circle SE) He handed out a paper and said his wife and him live adjacent to the Trillium Cove along Ferndale Avenue. He explained his handout and asked if anyone knew the trees were being removed. He explained his Father’s Day stating he couldn’t mow due to debris in his yard from the new development. He showed a couple of larger items that were in his yard. He said he has a lot more on the side of his property if anyone was interested in stopping by. He mentioned his convertible in his driveway and offered to point out where he lived. Fleming asked to go back to the slide for Mr. Scheeler to point out where he lived. Scheeler explained where he lives and continued with his comments on his convertible; stating there were more smaller chunks in his convertible and even more chunks of debris when he decided to put the top up. He commented on the fire hydrant, walking path, the woods and his driveway all being a few feet apart from each other. He shared concern of people walking on the path while the wood chipper wa s being used on the development as debris was being flung from the chipper. He commented on the City immediate response as he was concerned for children’s safety. He explained the second concern he had is where Ferndale avenue is being extended and was c oncerned about the comment from the City Engineer’s answer. Fleming said that is a good question. He would like to make sure before you continue; one question he has which is very significant to him is do we have a notice requirement to communicate when important parts of the project are taking place and he asked does staff have the status of the street connection or at what point of the process should that be settled business; street connection. Engineer Poppler explained Ferndale Road alignment amendment finalization and the steps to get to a final approval. He commented on the grading plan and reviews, trees along this wetland, definition of where the roadway connection will be and saving some of the trees, flagging of certain trees and what the flags means. Fleming explained some mailings might be mistaken for junk mail and suggested a way to communicate better and have more information on projects. He suggested an easy click information on our City Website, leaving us not caught in this loop of residents not having enough information and feeling like we don’t care. He said he would be following up with staff on that afterwards. He asked about the notice what is the requirement and what can we do to make that better for issues for significant work bei ng started. Engineer Poppler said there was notice during the public hearing for the preliminary plat and preliminary PUD. After preliminary plat approval, you can grade the sight and then macerating the entire site and then explained the first phase to the final plat; however, as part of a grading permit there is no notice requirement. Fleming gave an example of when he built his home and was lacking in information and how that made him feel; on the flip side of that if I have lived in my home for years or decades and have grown accustom to what it is like and even thought I have this general awareness that a development is going in, but the morning I wake up and there is stuff on my lawn or trees are gone, that is going to trigger a response. He said he might be asking us to go a couple of steps above and beyond but we don’t want to lose the goodwill of our citizens but the issue here is we are not communicating well or timely. He would like the record to show that there is a little bit more that we can do to recognizes and empathize with the sense of change and loss that our residents are feeling. 8 Scheeler shared concerns of backing out of his driveway, his workshop at the edge of his property, staff unsure of where Ferndale Avenue is going to go, easement, bicycle path, asphalt up to the entrance of his workshop, lack of easement for him, trying to be a good neighbor and stated his house is up for sale as he lost both sale he did have on it due to the new development activity. He said don’t underestimate the power of the trees, pond and beauty which Prior Lake need to keep. Fleming said he wants to echo the invitation to Mr. Scheerer and the rest of the public to attend one of our Comprehensive Planning Meetings. He said this has been one thing he has wanted and has been saying for 14-16 months that I want us to be engaging with our community, more frequently. He shared the invite to please come and join us at the meetings. Lynn Spieker, (14226 Ash Circle NE) She handed out a paper and said last time she spoke with us on this was at a hearing on May 1st; the preliminary hearing on Trillium Cove. She would like to make some comments; she said she talked with Jeff Matzke last Friday and she is deeply concerned. She shared her concerns as safety, wood chipping and debris flying. She said anything that you can do to help address what is going on with the project as it moves forward would be most appreciated. She shared three quotes and referenced them to the Lochwood, Summit Preserve and T rillium Cove. She commented on how these three developments are all less than a mile and explained the amount of acreage of tree removal. She asked for more creative ways to take care of the area. She said she is understanding of the Met Council increasing density; however, said there are other places to move forward with. She said your challenge going forward is to find a more manageable approach to preserve the natural beauty of our city for the future generations. Jay Johnson 14453 Raven Court NE. He said this is the only open debate and would like the Mayor to join us sometimes. He asked who in the City of Prior Lake handles rezoning? Or who approves rezoning? Planner Matzke said all zoning applications goes through the Planning Commission and then goes through the city council Fleming said and more broadly we are guided by Statue, Met Council. Planner Matzke said yes and explained there are State Statue stipulations, Met Council stipulation and the Comprehensive Plan that is approved by Met Council. In this case, it is the 2030 Comprehensive Plan that is active. Johnson said basically what your saying is met council… do we have a lawyer in prior lake; when we spoke with Mark I think Ham Lake didn’t lose they settled and that is a big difference between losing to Met Council. He said his point is when the farmers bought the land it was agricultural land and it was zoned agricultural and when I moved in to my house trillium cove was zoned agricultural and he said he realized that zoning can change, somewhere this got changed in the last three years. Tieman mentioned that Commissioner Fleming talked about the 2030/2040 Comprehensive Plan defining future zoning. He said the 2030 plan actually has this whole area marked as… Johnson said do you or do you not have the power to not recommend the change in zoning. Fleming said he is going to push back respectfully because this honestly feels like an attack and he personally doesn’t appreciate it. We just spent an hour before this meeting talking with the broadly recommended group of citizens that volunteer their time and last week we did the same thing. This is a very broad perspective about the bringing in of roads, right in and right outs and trees. He said when it boards on personal attack he needs to stop this conversation. He understands his concerns, but has to call it when it gets to be a personal attack. Johnson said when the preliminary plat came out it did include anything past the Carriage Hills Road, now it includes about a block past which was not in the original preliminary plat plan. It cut off before Carriage Hills. Fleming asked if we have the first iteration somewhere. Planner Matzke said this is the same preliminary plat as the preliminary design, he is unsure of which location. Johnson said it is south of Carriage Hills. Planner Matzke said they are not indicating anything south of Carriage Hills Road is just the location map set to the PID. Johnson pointed out how Carriage Hills comes across. 9 Pm said that is the current location of the property boundaries. He explained they are outlots and the developer is leaving this remnant of property for the property owners south of Carriage Hills Road and is not factored into the PUD at this time. Johnson asked would they need to go through the preliminary plat again then. Planner Matzke said yes that is correct. Johnson apologized but just had questions about who gets to develop it. Tim 14413 thanked the commissioners and said it is a difficult job and he knows that the commissioners have a heart for the people who live in the city. He asked if Ferndale must connect where Bob’s driveway is. Engineer Poppler asked if he was suggesting perhaps another cul-de-sac. Tim pointed out where he would like a connection and stated his concerns with the connection through the new addition of Trillium Cove; appearing as it ends in a cul-de-sac. Engineer Poppler there is a road reconnection. Tim said do you really need that connection when there is already a connection to our neighborhood. He continued to share concerns of the location of the street connection and where the cul-de-sac is. He mentioned the park system behind Bob’s house that is growing our state flower. And asked if h e would like to get a copy of the preliminary plat showing the house locations. He is unsure of the five-foot setbacks. Curt Stone, (14111 Rolling Oaks Circle). He thanked the Planning Commissioners and said he was at the meeting some weeks back when the Planning Commission approved the preliminary plat for Trillium Cove with recommendations that amenably solution be found for Rolling Oaks Circle residents; he said he appreciates that as well as his neighbors. He said the point he would like to make is voluntary contribution from Pulte Group. He shared concerns of physical costs of putting pip in the ground, street improvements, and clarification on the Voluntarily Contributions. He commented on the project being interwoven. Engineer Poppler explained the 2013/2014 amount, the City Project contributions, and the amount up’ed by the developer. He commented on how the project went away and explained the Voluntarily Contribution would be and what it included. He explained the other contributions, where we are at today and this is being brought to the July 24 City Council for a public hearing. Tim said if we all follow what Engineer Poppler said we will be all ears and we will all be there and meeting with Engineer Poppler again because as a group we are very concerned about the impact of these assessments. He explained this is a hardship and how will this affect their properties. Engineer Poppler said there will be another neighborhood meeting on either July 12 or 13 or talk through in person the proposal and the plans on where sewer and water would land on rolling oaks circle. We will have more details then to talk to you and your neighbors in person. Scheeler explained the letter that he passed out if you and asked for a certain page to be put up on the screen. He mentioned praying and begging for no variances on the new homes and they have large lots and keep the upkeep of their land. He explained the letter to the editor and said they were thinking outside of the box. He commented on how hard we work, not everyone in agreement, against development, Prior Lake to stay georgous, welcoming committee at his church, forest, lake, trees, flying debris, confirmation of why they moved here, preserving everything, saving the forest, value of the lake property, New York Cities Central Park, property values and Prior Lakes growth. He closed his memo with stating that we want our current leadership to be forever remembered and graciously thanked to save this priceless property for all future generations to enjoy. MOTION BY TIEMAN , SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO CLOSETHE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:13PM ITEM 4A VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen and Kallberg. Absent Dan Ringstad. The Motion carried. COMMISSION COMMENTS Petersen asked about the item of having a culdesac is a feasible thing what is the main obstacle against that. 10 Applicant Heuer presented a map. Fleming asked for the need for the access. Petersen said if there is need for the access is it for emergency access; what is the reason. Applicant Heuer explained the reason for access is to get emergency vehicles into homes easier instead of having a lot of dead ends. He said there is another reason as well, due to connectivity. He explained the right in right out at County Road 42 and other connections that th is would aid to, the minimum requirements on cul-de-sacs and movement of traffic. He commented on their goal to satisfy the City. Petersen said if this passes he would highly recommend someone from the organization to go out and talk to the homeowner and walk and look to see what option there are. This is obviously this is tough, people have lived there for a long time, enjoyed the greener, the nature and it is going to look a lot different, it already does look a lot different. He said he disagrees when he hears that Prior Lake is turning a blind eye to green spaces as they cannot be everywhere. He talked about green spaces in parks and said there is a balance. He said you can argue where the green spaces should be but it comes down to they cannot be everywhere; Overall for the city, this is a good fit and he will be supporting this PUD. Fleming said he will be supporting the PUD and to echo what commissioner Petersen said; it is extremely difficult, as a fifteen year resident of Prior Lake, to balance competing forces; some that we don’t have control over and some we don’t. He said we don’t have control over the number of people who choose to drive the nightmarish Higheway 169 south, but does drive it because he loves living here. He said the seven-county wide area is growing. He explained when he built his home in 2002, Scott County was the second fastest growing county in the nation and we slipped a few notches, but his point is we can’t erect barriers to growth that is naturally occurring because people are living, but what we can do is a better job communicating our understanding of how change feels and do a better job of communicating when these changes are about to happen. He suggested more voices around the planning table as we are on a strick time line to develop and submit comp plans to the state of Minnesota. He reiterated that all of us here have really vigorous conversations and disagreements during the sessions; we understand, we get it. He gave a personal experience of loss and said it is a small in comparison, but does have a commitment as a Statuary defined body to do our best job and hear what residents are saying make scents of view projections of balance, not just for us but for thousands of people whom want to live in Prior Lake, so we have to balance all of that. He wants everyone to know that none of us take this job likely. He said we want to be responsive to the concerns to the impacts but we also want to build a community that won’t lose too much of its small community feel. He said the PUD does meet our nine-point threshold; for the record, again he will be supporting this and staff has heard his comments about facilitating a better communication plan to respect to this project. Tieman stated he keeps looking at the google earth map picture of Prior Lake and looking at how much green space there actually is in prior lake; it’s a great city. He said he would love to save the space the way it is, but if we want to have people live in this community ; let’s make the best of the development. This is a good fit, good use, they are maintaining the wetland they are trying to minimize the tree loss as much as possible and he supports this project. Kallberg suggested to staff; he drives south of county road 83 and south of 42 there is a sign for information on this project, here is the website that will tell you everything you need to know about this project, rather than go to the City Website and click four times. One click will get you to a dedicated website; this is a good method of communicating. He commented on being in Prior Lake for twenty-one years; 16 of that in Spring Lake Township and was on the spring lake water lake board dealing with countless environment issues to protect and preserve the environment and that is what we need to deal with on this board. He commented on why people move to prior lake; natural forest and other features, and stated that we, as the City of Prior Lake, need to make it possible for people to live here and this is what happens, trees get cut down. He talked of the trees and the person that counted all of the acreage, because this is a 92-acre parcel and look at the parcel there is maybe only 40 acres of trees and explained how some of these trees are going to die from growing wild, we are putting in new trees that are vital and healthy that will hopefully be maintained in better fashion than the trees that are left to grow wild. He stated he is supporting this for those reasons. Commented [SW1]: 11 Fleming asked if all the suggestions got noted. We must be careful of the boundaries. He sees a click or one, two clicks somewhere on the website listing the projects with hyperlinks an overview of the project. He made suggestions of what kind of buttons to have on t he website. And you as staff can work it out. He said to Paul that he would like comments and the emotion and passion behind the comments and that he will keep those top of mind as the project moves forward. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT TO THE LIST OF CONDITIONS AS PRESENTED IN THE REPORT AND SUGGESTIONS FOR KEEPING THE PROJECT MOVING FORWARD IN A RESIDENT FRIENDLY IN TERMS OF COMMUNICAITON. At 8:30 pm on ITEM 4B VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen and Kallberg. Absent Dan Ringstad. The Motion carried. C. Amendments to the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance – Consider an amendment to Subsection 1107.2200 (Architectural Design) of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance related to architectural design standards. Director McCabe introduced the request to consider an amendment to subsection 1107.2200, Architectural Design, of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance related to the use of insulated metal panels as a primary exterior building material. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues and recommended a motion. He presented a proposed amendment to subsection 1107.2200. Commission Comments/Questions: Petersen asked about the proposed panels finish and questioned why the smooth finish would not be permitted. Director McCabe explained the finishes allowed and not allowed; however, if the Planning Commissioners would allow different, we could add this in to the amendment. Petersen said he doesn’t see that they would have to have the aggregate. He asked if someone wanted to build a pole building but wanted to use the new proposed installed panel, they would be able to do that. Director McCabe said we define the pole building in our ordinance definition and this is not allowed without a conditional use permit in the industrial district. Tieman said it would be nice to have a decorative finish to give it a little design, otherwise looks great. Kallberg said commissioner tieman may be alluting to how much of the build could be smooth finish and limited to how much of the building could be smooth finish. Could we include that; limited the amount that can be allowed Director McCabe said yes, it would be up to the commissioners and staff could review this before it goes to the city council; strike out/revise Fleming stated strike the whole first bullet; stucco aggregate stone or similar finish. He said we have had a good discussion. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING ON 4A AT 8:39 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen and Kallberg. Absent Dan Ringstad. The Motion carried. Applicant: Dan Stanley, (5833 Meadowlark lane with Stanley and Wencl) He said he was here for any questions. Petersen asked what is his input on the smooth exterior and if it would be too restricted if we don’t allow a smooth finish? Stanley said there are architectural panels that are smooth typically on high rises versus professional building; used more for trim on a professional building. 12 Petersen asked what kind of panel are they using. Stanely explained his panels by butler that looks like stucco, no exposed fasteners, it would be accented and contrasting colors on windows and cap flashing wall panels. Petersen said wall would be all stucco. Stanely said yes; stucco like finish. Petersen asked if it has been Mr. Stanely’s experience that if smooth metal finish is fairly unusual for anything but high-rises. Stanely said typically you want to keep the panels up above the ground to prevent damage. Public Comment: MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO CLOSE AT 8:42PM ITEM 4A VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen and Kallberg. Absent Dan Ringstad. The Motion carried. Commissioners comments. Petersen said he is favor of recommending this amendment with striking the first bullet point in the proposed amendment on the staff report. If someone wanted to use a smooth finish, there would be no need for a variance. Fleming will be in support the amendments and sending them on to the City Council with the modifications as discussed. Tieman agrees with fellow Commissioner’s; looks like a good change. Kallberg does support and including a variety of textures and colors; staff would range of decision making on regulate designs. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS TO SUBSECTION 1107.2200 (ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN) OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARD AS PROPOSED WITH MODIFICATIONS AS DISCUSSED AT 8:46pm on ITEM 4A VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen and Kallberg. Absent Dan Ringstad. The Motion carried. 5. Old Business: No Old Business. 6. New Business: July 3rd canceled Change in august 7. Adjournment: MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO ADJORN THE MONDAY, JUNE 19, 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:46 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen and Kallberg. Absent Dan Ringstad. The Motion carried. Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant