Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 July 8 2019 PC Meeting Minutes DRAFT 1 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, July 8, 2019 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Fleming called the Monday, July 8, 2019 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Bryan Fleming, William Kallberg, Dan Ringstad, Jason Tschetter and Liaison Zach Braid. Absent were Commissioner Dave Tieman. Also present were Community Development Director Casey McCabe, City Planner Amanda Schwabe and Community Development Services Assistant Sandra Peppin. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD, TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, JULY 8, 2019 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Kallberg, Ringstad, and Tschetter. Tieman absent. The Motion carried. 3. Approval of Tuesday, May 28, 2019 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY KALLBERG, TO APPROVE THE TUESDAY, MAY 28, 2019 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Kallberg, Ringstad, and Tschetter. Tieman absent. The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A. Driveway – Amendments to Prior Lake City Code – Consider a recommendation to the City Council to amend Sections 104 and 1107 of the City Code relating to after the fact fees and driveway permits. Planner Schwabe: Introduced a consideration of a recommendation to the City Council to amend Sections 104 and 1107 of the City Code relating to after the fact fees and driveway permits. She explained the current circumstances, alternatives and recommended a motion. She presented an ordinance. Commission Comments/Questions: Tschetter: Questioned the “after the fact fees”. He asked if this amendment is being altered in the overall fees section and if this is the common language that we are referring to now. Planner Schwabe: Explained what is being done in the first section (Section 6) regarding “after the fact” permits and said this will clarify what the cities fee schedule is. Tschetter: Asked is this part of the fee schedule section. Planner Schwabe: Responded, it is part of the general provision, yes. Tschetter: Questioned if this is would be common language for any “after the fact” permit violations. Planner Schwabe: Replied, yes that is correct. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY KALLBERG, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4A AT 6:07 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Kallberg, Ringstad, and Tschetter. Tieman absent. The Motion carried. Public Comment: None. 2 MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY KALLBERG, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4A AT 6:08 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Kallberg, Ringstad, and Tschetter. Tieman absent. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Tschetter: Complimented Staff’s research to find unique edits in our code language. He said he thinks clarifying codes is a great example of us continuing to improve the City Code of Ordinances. Ringstad: Stated he will be supporting the proposed changes. Fleming: Said he is supporting the proposed changes and complimented Staff on this update, especially with the attorney review on the language. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD, TO RECOMMEND AMENDING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 104 AND 1107 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE RELATED TO AFTER THE FACT FEES AND DRIVEWAY PERMITS AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE SECTION 104; WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAINS PENALTY PROVISIONS AT 6:09 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Kallberg, Ringstad, and Tschetter. Tieman absent. The Motion carried. B. Appeal Process – Amendments – Staff recommends removing this item from the agenda. Fleming concurred. 5. Old Business: No Old Business. 6. New Business: A. PDEV19-000019 – 16840 Highway 13 South – Concept Plan – Concept Plan for a consideration of a future re-zoning application on the property located at 16840 Highway 13 South from R-1, Low Density Zoning District to a R-3, High Density Zoning District with future residential attached townhomes and a Conditional use Permit to allow a Group Daycare/Nursery School Facility to be constructed. PID: 259021040. Planner Matzke: Introduced a presentation of the Faith Lutheran Church at 16840 Highway 13 South Concept Plan for future townhomes and a child care facility to be added on the existing Faith Lutheran Church property. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, and recommended a motion. He presented a location map, PUD Concept Plan and Church and Child Care Narratives. Commission Comments/Questions: Tschetter: Asked about the initial read on traffic concerns for Five Hawks, Panama and the interchange with Highway 13. Planner Matzke: Mentioned research for traffic volumes especially in coordination of a State Highway, the impact of the intersection with the level of townhomes being considered and the amount of traffic not drastically changing due to the current school across the street. Tschetter: Commented on need for trails/sidewalk in this area and mentioned this would come up on the final plat. Planner Matzke: Said a trail/sidewalk is something we will consider with the project. Tschetter: Asked if the developer decides to move forward, will this come back for final plat. Planner Matzke: Replied correct, and explained the platting and rezoning processes, stating this plan would need a re-zone application. Ringstad: Questioned if the process and procedure of a preliminary plat would come through at the same or different meetings. 3 Planner Matzke: Replied the applicant can do either/or on this case. He explained the timing of project meetings, applying for a rezoning, what a future zoning at R-3 (High Density) outcome could mean for this property, the platting process, and stated it would have to come back through the Planning Commissioners for a specific land use type. Fleming: Asked about the Comprehensive Plan submittal to the Metropolitan Council and about any implicating thoughts they should have regarding this concept plan. Planner Matzke: Said that the 2040 Comprehensive Plan is currently under review by the Metropolitan Council. He explained how the outcome of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment being presented to the Commissioners before and after the 2040 Comprehensive Plan is reviewed by the Metropolitan Council, stating they do expect comments back from the Met Council shortly. Kallberg: Shared concerns regarding access being directly off their parking lot, the process of connecting the daycare parking lot with church parking lot providing overflow parking, traffic, drop off times coinciding with school drop off times, buses and the number of students being brought in by private vehicles; asking, if that would create somewhat of a problem. Planner Matzke: Suggested asking the applicant if they have some thought on these aspects as they move forward with their plan. Applicant Roger Toomey: Resides at 7656 Cress View Drive, Prior Lake, MN. He said they purchased the property 52 years ago and he explained their vision to expand the church. He said they have only used about 50 percent of that expansion space. He commented on their 50th anniversary, building the fellowship hall, upgrading, next mission, growth of the church, partnership with Prior Lake, outreach, business needs, further mission work for the church, senior and childcare work well together, building a daycare center, prior childcare facility, advertising and said they want to help build a relationship as they fulfill their mission of outreach. He stated this first step is a great opportunity to grow their mission allowing them to help themselves, the city, and the community. Fleming: Asked about the education program and how many congregants/community members will take advantage of the childcare facility. Toomey: Explained the outcome in numbers and religious backgrounds of attending children if the daycare was built, stating it would be a great opportunity. He said the key is the opportunity to have senior citizens helping with the center and commented on the amount of people that were at the senior center last year with no religious involvement. He spoke of how many services were presented per week and if they got more people, they would have a second service. He explained the path of moving along and the growth gate, stating we want to do this ourselves; however, cannot need additional financial support as the codes and compliances are monumental. Fleming: Asked what ages of children you plan to serve at the daycare facility. Ryan Carlson, Co-owner of New Creation Child Care Centers: Stated they were approached to partner with this opportunity. He explained the ages of the children that would attend this daycare. Fleming: Asked if this plan would be in line with state guidelines around teacher ratios and requirements. Carlson: Said absolutely and commented on this being the 11th location in the Metro. Kallberg: Commented on the size of the building and asked if that is typical of their operation. Carlson: Stated the size they typically average at is 9,000 and 12,000 square feet; so, this would be one of the larger facilities. Kallberg: Commented on the 6 townhomes meeting the entity requirement for this zoning, zoning changes and the zoning practicality to have only 6 townhomes. Carlson: Explained how many townhomes were on the initial drawing; however, were hoping for more. They wanted to evaluate the setbacks and see how many can fit in the area. He commented the upgrading the townhomes, the townhomes being desirable properties, amount of land needed and having an extra acre. He explained how they came up with the lay out of the land, where the church, daycare and vacant land is currently and said the townhomes would make a good buffer neighbor for the existing townhomes. Kallberg: Asked the price range of townhomes. 4 Carlson: Explained the price range being around $300,000, a double car garage, 4 bedrooms and at 1,800-2,000 square feet in total size. Ringstad: Asked if the church would be selling the daycare facility land. Carlson: Replied yes and explained who would be involved with the curriculum and what the curriculum would be based from. He commented on not looking to rent space and how to grow in our community. He explained their options and decisions that is best for their mission, reinvestments and the community as well as desirable spaces in Prior Lake. He explained th eir thought processes and steps in building which also included how to make the building more attractive for the community. Ringstad: Asked if they selected a developer for the plan at this time. Carlson: Replied on having a lot of preliminary conversations but haven’t finalized. He said they need to have the zoning change first, but they do have interested builders already. Tschetter: Thanked the applicant for 50 years of active involvement in our community and said he appreciates their efforts to reach out to neighbors. He commented on the importance of continuous outreach, to solicitate this commercial use, and to get a good idea of the long-term vision that was presented tonight. He suggested to think about connections and encouraged the applicant to look for these connections into the community. Carlson: Commented on the hours of operation being 6am-6pm, with most of the traffic being 6:30-7:30am and then 4:30-6pm. B. PDEV19-000020 – 17040 Sunset Avenue NW – Concept Plan – Concept Plan for a consideration of a future preliminary plat, final plat and PUD (Planned Unit Development) to be known as Spring Lake Ridge single family lots. PID: 259080022. Planner Matzke: Introduced a presentation of the Spring Lake Ridge Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plant for a low-density residential PUD on a 65-acre site submitted by the proposed developer, Winkler Land Company LLC. He explained the history, current circumstances, and issues. He presented a location map, PUD Concept Plan and Developer Narrative. Applicant John Anderson: Resides at 14832 Estate Avenue SE and is representing the Winkler Land Company. He mentioned the owner, Mr. Winkler is here in the audience. He pointed out the amount of lots and the location of the PUD Concept Plan they are proposing, stating this is not a final plan. He touched base on different subjects regarding this plan such as annexation, lots, sewer and water, assessments, planned for development, size of property/lots, wetland/floodplain, open spaces, high water area, cattails, association-maintained land, tree preservation, lake and street access, pricing of homes, PUD’s, Shoreland District rules, boat slips, meetings with Spring Lake Association, lake/shoreline, proposed trail, gated area/private area, trees, water quality, lift stations, picnic tables, and rest rooms. He pointed out the amount of people in the audience tonight and felt most were here due to traffic and boat slip concerns. He explained their timeline and future steps, mentioning they have talked with builders, but don’t have any locked in yet. Fleming: Pointed out that there are 68 people here tonight and stated this is an important topic for us and he appreciates that Mr. Anderson has actively had some engagement with the community members. He asked for comments to be reserved from the audience and for Mr. Anderson to listen to comments and questions. Ringstad: Asked Mr. Anderson to comment on the meeting with the Association. Anderson: Mentioned some of the feedback from the Association and said it was more of an informational meeting explaining information regarding the lakeshore, cattail area, dock connection, lake depth, the point off the northeast of the area and fluctuation of the lake. Ringstad: Asked for more information on how the boat slip conversation/discussion went. Anderson: Commented on being in and knowing of the Spring Lake Estates area. He explained his timing with meetings and stated it is a good thing to be ahead and try to resolve some items 5 and get word out about their plans. He said the Association didn’t give specific direction one way or the other at this point. Ringstad: Asked if there would be deeded access for each lot that guarantees or awards rights on the deed, like other associations have done within the city, if the full 100 slips were to be granted. Anderson: Explained dedication of the boat slips regardless more than or less than 100 boat slips; stating it would be a first come, first serve basis to the residences as they move into the neighborhood. He explained his thoughts on the slips being controlled by the association and the process of transferring the boat slips. Ringstad: Asked Staff if there would be a park dedication fee for a PUD development that would also come before the Planning Commission and City Council. Planner Matzke: Explained the park dedication fee, the park dedication process and how much it costs per lot. Ringstad: Commented on the five benefits of the PUD that is laid out in the report and said he would like to see these benefits being beefed up a bit. He commented on decision of the City Council outcome regarding this concept plan, and the lifestyle housing benefit for the developer versus the benefit for a PUD. He commented on attention for meeting the criteria for a PUD. Kallberg: Commented on his first reaction to this concept plan, living in Spring Lake Township, Spring Lake Estates uproar for a certain number of boat slips, and asked if this area of measurement is where the cattails are. Anderson: Replied correct on the location of the cattails. He stated they checked with the DNR and based on the OHW (Ordinary High Water) of Spring Lake that is what the line illustrates. Kallberg: Confirmed the location and asked if that area is not navigable water. Anderson: Said correct, that is cattails. Kallberg: Mentioned the congestion for people trying to get to their boats. Anderson: Explained the type of docking system and location. He commented on the public trail system that would assist in helping with congestion and mentioned the conversation they had with City Staff on this subject. Tschetter: Said he doesn’t see any type of community/neighborhood parks in this plat or adjacent neighborhood parks and asked if a park is a consideration in their concept. Anderson: Said parks were looked at. He commented on the requirements for a neighborhood park in this area. He mentioned a park location further south where it would serve a future annexation/development area, rather than this specific property. He explained how it was considered and it didn’t go that direction due to the way the plans were set up for the city. Tschetter: Asked about shifting in the future three-phase approach with the plan they are proposing today due a concept plan versus coming back for final plans phase by phase. Anderson: Said correct. Tschetter: Encouraged Mr. Anderson to comment on some potential material changes in this plan so it we understand how we would envision this playing out as part of the PUD proposal. He stated he appreciates the approach they are taking in being collaborative with neighbors. He expressed concerns about both the park and the ability to articulate an approach that people can believe in. Anderson: Addressed the comment from Commissioner Tschetter explaining the phasing procedure and the work they have done with City Staff for the last 6 months. He explained their reasoning for wanting to do the concept plan rather than skipping this step and said the preliminary plat would have the whole 100 lots; however, the final plat would come back for each individual phase. He commented on the phases, timelines and explained how the phases can change as the market changes, stating this is just a draft idea right now. Tschetter: Said there still is a lot of discussion regarding the boat slips. He thanked Mr. Anderson for starting that process early. Fleming: Echoed commissioner Tschetter point of unpredictability of the timing and questioned the intention to insulate and protect their investment in three years. He commented on respect to lifecycle and underscored staffs comment in the report stating the terms of the benefit not to allow a short-term expedient decision based on current market values, but that some deep thinking 6 needs to be done on who in our community in terms of arrange of ages and income level can have access. He said he is interested in the vision for the westerly parcel that is not part of this and asked if they have thought about the westerly parcel and if so what are the thoughts and timing on that. Anderson: Replied that they have discussed the western parcel as it is the same owner as the proposed property. He explained the initial discussion with the owner regarding the land on the easterly side of the road, stating right now it is not part of the plan. Fleming: Asked about boundary changes for schools, enrollment compacity, and stated he would like the precise number of enrollment projections for the school district in this development area for the 2021/2022 school year. He encouraged the applicant to be in touch with City Staff and the school district for a sense of implications for the children living in the development. He echoed comments from fellow Commissioners regarding the outcome of cultivating conversation and the attendance at tonight’s meeting with the appreciation to continue to do so, as the thoughts, concerns and comments from residents are heard. Anderson: Responded on a few points regarding life cycle, price point for the single-family homes, school enrollment and explained his experiences with his children attending Prior Lake Schools. He commented on this annexation area being included when the elementary school boundary lines were redesigned, considering this a future growth area and agreed to get more detailed numbers on that specific capacity, enrollments of elementary etc. Fleming: Said he would appreciate that. Anderson: Commented about different product types, lots price points, types of byers and explained his experience in life cycle homes. He said the timeline of when a home would be ready to move into and reiterated the time line phase up to 2025. Fleming: Stated he would like to see more granular enrollment data. He mentioned the implication for bond referendums or net-tax capacities, as it is related to density and how density impacts school enrollment. He concluded by thanking the Commissioners for being here tonight and withstanding a passionate conversation and a passionate topic out in the community. He encouraged Mr. Anderson to keep the engagement alive and moving forward. Anderson: Thanked the Commissioners and explained their plan on more public hearings as they move forward. Fleming: Thanked Staff and members in the Chambers for coming out and letting us know about your compassion and concerns. Announcements: • Next Planning Commission Meeting is scheduled for July 22, 2019. o No public hearing items schedules for this meeting. o No old or new business. 7. Adjournment: MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO ADJORN THE MONDAY, JULY 8, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:19 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Kallberg, Ringstad, and Tschetter. Tieman absent. The Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Sandra Peppin, Services Assistant.