Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout092319 PC Meeting Minutes 1 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, September 23, 2019 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Fleming called the Monday, September 23, 2019 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Bryan Fleming, Dave Tieman, William Kallberg, Dan Ringstad, Jason Tschetter and Liaison Zach Braid. Also present were Planner Jeff Matzke, Planner Amanda Schwabe, Assistant Engineer Nick Monserud and Community Development Services Assistant Sandra Peppin. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY KALLBERG, TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2019 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Ringstad, and Tschetter. The Motion carried. 3. Approval of Monday, September 9, 2019 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY TIEMAN, TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2019 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Ringstad, and Tschetter. The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A. DEV19-000024 – Jeffers Parkway NW – Planned Unit Development Major Amendment – United Properties, on behalf of the property owner, Jeffers Foundation, is requesting a Major Planned Unite Development Amendment to allow the Construction of a four-story senior cooperative housing development known as Applewood Pointe containing ninety-nine units within a PUD (Planned Unite Development) Zoning Use District. PID: 254371690. Planner Schwabe: Introduced the consideration of a Major Amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan for Applewood Pointe on Outlot B, Jeffers Pond 1st Addition, located in the southwest corner of the CSAH 42 and Fountain Hills Drive NW intersection, along Jeffers Parkway NW. She explained the history, current circumstances, issues, and recommended a motion. She presented a location map, applicant narrative, existing conditions, PUD plans, architectural plans and shadow study, WSG (Engineering/Public Works Dept.) Memorandum dated September 13, 2019, Pioneer Engineering Transportation Memorandum dated September 16, 2019, Community Development Department Memorandum dated September 18, 2019 and public comment email. Commission Comments/Questions: Fleming: Asked staff if they felt confident that the applicant would meet the conditions. Planner Schwabe: Replied yes, staff is confident and explained the process of how Staff works with the applicant to meet the conditions/standards. Kallberg: Commented on written comments, the traffic entering/exiting on 42, and shadows from the building. Fleming: Asked what the new number is regarding the traffic count. Assistant City Engineer Monserud: Explained the details of the traffic studies for this area and commented on the 2004, 2015, and the latest traffic study update in 2019 all showing a decline in the number of daily trips when compared to the original traffic volume. Tschetter: Asked an administrative process question regarding the original PUD Plan and the timing on discussion. Planner Schwabe: Explained the recommendation and the future processes for this plan. 2 Applicant Dave Young: With United Properties at 651 Nicollet Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota. He thanked the Commissioners and Planner Schwabe for the opportunity to be here tonight, assisting them and for the thorough report. He explained what United Properties is about, the products they offer, the amount of locations currently with senior housing, what a senior cooperative is, the demand for senior housing, site plan, context images, traffic, examples of existing Applewood Pointe complexes, shadows, and the plan for this project. Fleming: Asked what happens to the mortgage after the homeowner passes away. Young: Explained different ways of setting up the title and how the mortgage would be handled after a resident passed away. Tschetter: Questioned what kind of activity their community members would participate in towards the broader Prior Lake activities and social events. Young: Replied every community tends to take on their own personality. He explained different communities and the programs that are often adopted by residents. He commented that retired adults living in this type of co-op typically volunteer and want to stay active. Ringstad: Asked if the spouse of the deceased would need to move if they were younger than 62. Young: Replied he would like to check; however, believes the legal documents are set up so the spouse would be allowed to stay. Ringstad: Asked what the unit price is for the units. Young: Responded they haven’t established pricing for this community yet. He shared examples of other cities and gave a suggested price per square foot. He said the other communities are about $375,000 - $400,000/unit. Ringstad: Quested a monthly association fee tied to the units that is payable to the master association including garbage, utilities, etc. Young: Explained that it is not an association, as it is a co-operative owned and governed by every resident in the co-operative. He also explained what is covered in this fees/debt, the operating budget and a replacement reservoir. Ringstad: Asked what the approximate fee would be, based on some of the other communities set up by him. Young: Explained the range amount and what it included. Ringstad: Questioned if this fee also included real-estate taxes. Young: Replied yes it does include real estate tax. He explained an example of what the monthly fees would likely be, stating there should only be three fees; monthly fee, electric bill, and a HO6 insurance policy. He said everything else should be taken care of as part of the monthly fee. Ringstad: Asked the timeline from beginning to end for a sellout. Young: Explained presales, final financing, construction timeframes, and said the last four units were sold out prior to buildings opening. He gave an example of one of their other locations in Eden Prairie. Tieman: Stated his concerns about the traffic and the visibility of the entrance on Jeffers Parkway. He asked Mr. Young to express how they plan to make the entrance visible. Young: Responded that they will be working with the Engineering Department and Staff to adjust for traffic safety. He said if we must remove some landscaping, they would do this for safety reasons. Kallberg: Questioned the age restriction with a forty-year mortgage and asked will they ever be able to pay the mortgage off. Young: Explained the math on the life of the property versus the life span of the resident. MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4A AT 6:35 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Ringstad, and Tschetter. The Motion carried. Public Comment: Paul Oberg, CEO, CFO and the director of Jeffers Foundation who owns the property. He explained how he became involved with the property, the timeline of his ownership, the history of the Jeffers Foundation and the need to go forward. He explained the pond, trail system, conservation easement, history of the property, design of Jeffers Pond, school district, how the plan has always included 3 lifecycle housing, which includes senior housing options, the overall concept for the development and he closed stating he has no personal interest in this property, but to sell to a senior co-op was his goal so that they may get to enjoy the lake. He shared his liking of the proposal and the characteristics of this senior co-op. Fleming: Thanked Mr. Oberg. Alejandro Trevino: Resides at 3524 Cove Point Circle NW. He stated he is a lawyer and is here tonight with his wife and neighbors. He said they live in Cove project and he explained his experience in purchasing his current home. He thanked Mr. Oberg for what he has done with Jeffers and commented on meetings with his neighbors, making the comment that all his neighbors are against this. He shared some major issues shared by him and his neighbors including building height, loss of view, construction being an eye sore, already having tall buildings around them including the YMCA, senior living building and Shepherd of the Valley Church. He commented on height of this proposed building, the variance of 4 additional feet, shadow casting, the loss of sunlight, Outlot B higher in elevation than homes to the southeast of this proposed building, and images of perspectives 1-4 with no perspective 5 which could be from the Cove. Fleming: Asked staff to address the elevations. Planner Schwabe: Explained the report comment regarding the anticipated average height not to exceed 54 feet. Stated that the 54 feet includes the 4-foot increase indicated in the report. Fleming: Confirmed the “as proposed” variation in height includes the 4 feet. Planner Schwabe: Said correct, as proposed by the developer today the building height would be 54 feet from the average grade, as defined by city code. Trevino: Said as proposed today and asked if that could change. Planner Schwabe: Replied that the Staff report and the request this evening is based off the submittal by the applicant. Trevino: Commented on density and the purchase of their house in 2016 versus the 2019 proposal, the 2015 plan that included townhomes with some retail, density per acre, traffic, trips per day math not working out, Fountain Hills, and Jeffers Parkway streets over populated, safety of cars pulling in and out, dangerous turn, curvy windy road, bad views, driving skills as we get older, property values, guarantee values of neighboring homes, studies from United Properties regarding the impact of single family homes or townhomes that are around Senior Co-op’s, noise, pickle ball courses, city having a plan that states that his PUD is to provide a flexible approach to development which is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance, high density living where the Cove is and changing the plan since the purchase of his home. He asked if there has been any values analysis of neighboring properties to senior co-ops and closed with a plead to vote tonight to not allow this project to go further or at least table so we may get some additional information that will allow us to have a better understanding of this plan. Karen Heinke: Resides at 3588 Cove Point Circle NW. She commented on the outline that was presented and said she would be the one affected the most. She commented on seeing wildlife in her pond, being too close to a 4-story building right out her window, she reiterated and agreed with what Alex said and thanked everyone for their time. John Champine: Resides at 3596 Cove Point Circle NW. He said he is a neighbor to Karen and shares her same concerns. He commented on the bigger picture, zoning changes versus changing the entire area, being the shepherd of the land for Jeffers Foundation, the general corner being defined as commercial units with light pollution, topography study, the size of the land, traffic point, families in Cove Point, twin homes with traffic, environmental issues, topographic fit, and expressed which studies should be a requirement. He would like staff to take these inputs into account regarding lighting, light pollution, topography, topographic fit study, and get more information available for the citizens and then revisit this topic. Bruce Peters: Resides at 3572 Cove Point Circle SW . He explained his location, shared his main concerns being height, setbacks from the property lines, and natural beauty of the area. Sharon Sweeney: Resides at 3524 Cove Point Circle. She said she echoes everything that has been said so far and commented on the original plan showing all the water is being included with Jeffers Foundation area. She shared concerns regarding the wildlife disruption of the pond and losing the pristine nature of the wildlife. 4 Lynn Champine: Resides at 3596 Cove Point Circle. She stated she comes from experience of having sold real estate in Prior Lake for the last 27 years, she commented on the property values reducing with the project. Virginia McDonald: Resides at 3695 Jeffers Parkway. She explained she is directly across from the proposed land. She commented on a lot of amount of people being put into this property, height of building and traffic. She said she likes where she lives; but, would like to see something less big put into that little piece of land. Lynn Collins: Resides at 3620 Cove Point Circle. She said she is the one warrior and is in favor of this proposal. She commented on being an aging senior and doesn’t want to be put into an area that she is not familiar with and stated when she is a senior, she would like to be around all the amenities. She said if this doesn’t go into this property something else would and explained Jeffers Foundation is about building homes within nature. She said we need to consider the bigger picture and where seniors belong in our community. Pat McPherson: Resides at 3580 Cove Point Circle NW. She explained her location, why she bought her property, what she would be looking directly at, a different spot for this facility not in her backyard, land is too small for this building, property values, moving if this goes through. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4A AT 6:26P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Tieman, Kallberg, Ringstad, and Tschetter. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Tschetter: Commented on the communities’ concerns on the height and the traffic. He shared his comments of sensitivity to the loss of view, rights of property owners to develop their property and said he doesn’t know if those two perspectives will ever reach a mutual understanding. He encouraged the residents to reach out to the traffic safety committee and the local police department, stating this is not the only street with traffic concerns or speed limit/safety issues. He commented on what could go in this location and stated we need to be thoughtful about the direction that our community is taking and the types of development that we are attracting. He shared an experience of a family friend that lives in an Applewood Pointe property and stated his thoughts on how well it is managed which leads him to believe that Applewood Pointe is representative of what Prior Lake would be looking for in our community. He said he does believe that the spirit of the proposal is in line with the nine requirements that we are asked to evaluate these recommendations and proposals against. He has no other concerns. Ringstad: Mentioned the comments about nature and wildlife being affected with the thought of what is present will be going away. He stated this would be the case regardless of what would end up developing on this property. He said the property has always been slotted for development including the nature aspect being affected. He commented on traffic with traffic studies showing this community having the least amount affected per plan, what could have moved into this property including a commercial development that was proposed in 2005 and said life cycle housing has always been part of the plan and part of Jeffers site, leading to the accomplishment of life style housing. He said he agrees with Commissioner Tschetter and thinks the requirements laid out in the Staff report are accurate and he will be supporting this tonight. Tieman: Stated he feels there is a need for this in the community. He said he agrees it is a big complex on a relatively small piece of land; however, additional senior living spaces is something that our community needs. He said it is a good use for this property, makes a lot of sense, and doesn’t feel it will add to the traffic. He said he feels it is a good use for this property and he does support this. Kallberg: Said there have been a variety of proposals for this lot over the years some of which would be less desirable in terms of commercial, which would generate even more traffic. He mentioned his thoughts on traffic, stating he cannot imagine there would be additional traffic from this project and suggested traffic calming even though he doesn’t feel traffic would go southerly through this project with County Road 42 being a better option. He commented on the number of units, stating we are down to 99, what was proposed to go into this property several years ago, vacant/undeveloped land, 5 how this would not be disturbing wildlife because the pond is staying, any other proposal not being any different to this one, wetland not being built on and what it would cost to fill and replace the wetland would not be worth it. He stated this project was outlined and presented very well by Mr. Oberg as it does meet a need that was suggested in a study by Maxfield some years ago. He confirmed the buildings across County Road 42 and the one downtown are for senior living; however, all these senior living buildings have a different focus than Applewood as it is a co-op. He commented on Grainwood’s income restrictions and stated Applewood does not have these income restrictions. He said Applewood is attractive from what they have seen from the existing Applewood Pointe projects. He said he supports this project. Fleming: Stated he will be supporting this project and is compelled by some of the Statutory requirements that have been met, such as 1106 of the zoning ordinance with the 10 criteria/conditions being meet. He irritated what Commissioner Ringstad said previously regarding this being a core, central element of the vision that Mr. Oberg also shared with us. He said as an educator, who is a semi-retired school administrator, he is deeply compelled by the notion of having generations and folks from all ages interacting and engaging with each other to add an additive spirit in our community. He quoted the definition of eye sore and stated he doesn’t view our moving ahead with our thoughtful vision, that includes life cycle housing, as a thing that is very ugly. Tschetter: Said he would like to encourage Mr. Young to work with the designers and Staff regarding the feedback from today, as well as to work with neighbors in the community to ease the position of the structure in regard to the southwest corner, with both the height concerns as well as the lighting, noise, traffic and any other view concerns. He asked Mr. Young to take these items in to consideration as you continue to proceed with the project. Fleming: Added a third condition being, a robust photometric study commissioned and submitted to City Staff for their review. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY KALLBERG, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE MAJOR AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) PLAN FOR APPLEWOOD POINTE ON OUTLOT B, JEFFERS POND 1ST ADDITION WITH THE THREE LISTED CONDITIONS. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Ringstad, and Tschetter. The Motion carried. B. DEV19-000025 – Parkhaven – Conditional Use Permit – Terry Forbord of Parkhaven Holdings LLC, is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow grading and excavation in excess of 400 cubic yards within a A-SD (Agriculture Shoreland) Zoning Use District located at 4234 140th Street NE. PID: 259230070. Planner Matzke: Introduced a consideration of a conditional use permit resolution approval to allow grading and land reclamation in excess of 400 cubic yards at 4234 140th Street NW. The subject site is located north of County Highway 42, east of County Highway 21, and west of Pike Lake. He explained history, current circumstances, issues, and recommended a motion. He presented a draft resolution, location map, applicant narrative, and a project plan dated August 30, 2019. Commission Comments/Questions: Tschetter: Asked for clarification on having the site conditions, tree inventory and other materials to ensure that we have the tree replacement plan and no material be lost that would be needed for the concept plat or proposed plat for this parcel. Planner Matzke: Explained the tree preservation plan, tree replacement and said the applicant will be proposing that replacement as well as posting security until that replacement occurs. He explained the location of where the replacements would take place per our tree ordinance. Tschetter: Clarified that there is no other development on the property other than the grading which presumably is basically preparing it for commercial development. Planner Matzke: Correct and explained the process of balancing the grade for this area. 6 Applicant Terry Forbord: Resides at 4960 Sussex Place, Excelsior, MN. He commented on the pleasure of working with the City and Staff, managing an entire sight, watershed area, sight development, working with staff, season outing is challenging, grade now and get it ready when doing the residential area. Kallberg: Questioned if the balance of material is what they are trying to achieve at this point. Forbord: Explained the balancing is always important in any project; however, the primary focus was the efficiently and the effectiveness of doing these simultaneously. He commented on the mobilization component of getting properties ready is quite extensive, and the conveniences of doing the job once rather than twice to get everything under control. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY TIEMAN, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4B AT 7:52 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Ringstad, and Tschetter. The Motion carried. Public Comment: None. MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY TSCHETTER, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4B AT 7:52 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Ringstad, and Tschetter. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Tschetter: Said this is consistent with what we had discussed, seems like an appropriate use of resources as well as a better overall plan for the site. No concerns. Ringstad: Stated the eight CUP criteria have been met. He said he really has to place all his faith in the Engineering Department as he is not an Engineer, after reading through their assessment and plans, he will be approving this tonight. Fleming: He said in addition to the eight criteria, he has full confidence that the six listed conditions will be meet and met with full fidelity; therefore, he will be supporting this item. Tieman: Stated he will be supporting this item. He said it makes sense and he appreciates the logical approach to only mobilizing once, leaving less damage to the overall area. He thanked Mr. Forbord. Kallberg: Said he was quite aware of the Prior Lake outlet channel running through this property and would like to make sure that it is being properly protected. He said they have outlined a long list of conditions of well as the City Engineering Department; however, it certainly does make sense to mobilize your grading operation once and prepare the site while developing your residential areas. He said he will support this agenda item. MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY KALLBERG, TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW GRADING AND LAND RECLAMATION IN EXCESS OF 400 CUBIC YARDS AT 4324 140TH STREET NW WITH THE SIX LISTED CONDITIONS. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Ringstad, and Tschetter. The Motion carried. 5. Old Business: A. DEV19-000023 – Faith Evangelical Lutheran Church – Preliminary Plat, Re-Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment – AMCON Construction on behalf of Faith Evangelical Lutheran Church is proposing a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Re-Zoning and Preliminary Plat to separate one existing parcel into three parcels and to rezone the parcel from R-1, (Low Density Residential) Zoning District to a R-3, (High Density Residential) Zoning District to allow for future townhomes an a Child Care Facility on the property at 16840 Highway 13 South. PID: 259021040. 7 Planner Matzke: Re-Introduced the consideration of a conditional use permit resolution approval to allow grading and land reclamation in excess of 400 cubic yards at 4234 140th Street NW. The subject site is located north of County Highway 42, east of County Highway 21, and west of Pike Lake. He explained history, current circumstances, issues, and recommended a motion. He presented a draft resolution, location map, applicant narrative and Traffic Memorandum, a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment exhibit and a new Creations addition site plans. Commission Comments/Questions: Kallberg: Questioned if the school refused to have a sidewalk on the east side of Five Hawk in hopes that it would discourage crisscrossing up and down the block. Planner Matzke: Replied that is correct and suggested Assistant City Engineer Monserud would better answer this question regarding mid-block pedestrian crossing and the conflict it presents. Project Engineer Monserud: Stated we do avoid mid-block crossings at all possibilities. He said the Traffic Safety Committee does have an evaluation flow chart and criteria that need to be met to warrant cross walks and very rarely would we see a mid-block cross walk meeting those justifications. Applicant Tieman: Asked on the hours of operation it says 6:30-4:30PM. Tiffany Simon: One of the owners of New Creations Childcare and said there hours of operation will be 6:30 AM – 6 PM. Commission Comments/Questions: Kallberg: Said it appears that the responses to the earlier comments are satisfactory and the items on the list will be resolved. He commented on the timing of the current Comp Plan application and the delay in approval. He said he is in support of this now. Tieman: Stated all our questions have been answered satisfactorily and will be supporting this. Fleming: Said he will be supporting this. He stated he did note the nuances of the timing of the Met Council. He said all in good order. Ringstad: Stated he will be again supporting this. He said he voted to approve this a couple weeks ago and that has not changed for him. Tschetter: Commented for the record that it is important for Faith Lutheran to continue to be a steward as we go through the development process and look to divide this parcel and is important that they continue to maintain a strong role to bring the community together and respond to the feedback and the comments that we heard at our last meeting. He encouraged the applicant to reach out to the community members that raised concerns and to continue to encourage them to look for ways to bring the community together, so this project doesn’t divide the community/neighborhood. He said the townhomes that are designated for the northern portion of this parcel are consistent with the adjacent properties, it creates a consistent purpose/place on Five Hawks, and the presents of a daycare center is consistent with the intentions/needs of the community/neighborhood. He said he has no concerns. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM AN URBAN LOW DENSITY (R-LD) TO AN URBAN HIGH DESITY (R-HD) DESIGNATION, RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A ZONING AMENDMENT FROM A R-1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT TO A R-3 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT, AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE NEW CREATION ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Ringstad, and Tschetter. The Motion carried MOTION BY TSCHEETER, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO APPROVE A FIVE-FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE PARKING SETBACK REQUIREMENT. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Ringstad, and Tschetter. The Motion carried 8 6. New Business: No New Business. • Announcements: o Next meeting will be October 14, 2019. ▪ Two public hearings are scheduled. • One Ordinance Amendment and One Variance. 7. Adjournment: MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO ADJORN THE MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:10 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Ringstad, and Tschetter. The Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Sandra Peppin, Community Development Services Assistant.