HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 27 2025 PC Minutes
1
PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday October 27, 2025
1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance:
Chair Ringstad called the Monday October 27, 2025 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to
order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners: Dan Ringstad, Michael Tennison, Doug Johnson, Christian
Fenstermacher, and Kate Yurko. Also, present were Community Development Director McCabe,
Planner Jacob Skluzacek, Assistant City Engineer Luke Schwarz, and Deputy Clerk /
Administrative Assistant Megan Kooiman.
2. Approval of Monday October 27, 2025 Agenda:
MOTION BY TENNISON SECONDED BY FENSTERMACHER TO APPROVE THE MONDAY
OCTOBER 27, 2025 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA.
VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Fenstermacher, Tennison, Johnson, and Yurko.
Motion carried 5-0.
3. Approval of Monday, October 13, 2025, Meeting Minutes:
MOTION BY FENSTERMACHER SECONDED BY YURKO TO APPROVE THE MONDAY,
OCTOBER 13, 2025, PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES.
VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Fenstermacher, Tennison, Johnson, and Yurko.
Motion carried 5-0.
4. Public Hearing
A. PDEV25-000017 – 4664 Dakota ST SE - Variance – Prior Lake B Squared Ventures, LLC on the
behalf of Prior Lake Economic Development Authority to amend a previously approved
preliminary planned unit development (PUD) plan.
Community Development Director McCabe: Introduced item 4A as a public hearing to consider
a request for a Planned Unit Development Amendment to a previously approved Preliminary
Planned Unit Development Plan for a mixed-use apartment and commercial building located at
4662 & 4664 Dakota St (PIDs 255650020 & 255650030). McCabe explained the current
circumstances, physical site characteristics, and the changes between the last approval and the
current approval. City staff are recommending approval of the Preliminary Planned Unit
Development amendment.
Commissioner’s Questions:
Ringstad: Asked if the fire department can comfortably accommodate a building of this size with
the proposed rooftop accommodation for entertainment, etc.
McCabe: Replied yes.
Tennison: Asked if this area would accommodate food deliveries and parking of a semi-truck.
McCabe: Explained the area could accommodate delivery vehicles.
Johnson: Questioned city rules regarding overnight parking and repetitive parking in public stalls.
McCabe: Explained the on-street parking rules and regulations and said the outcome of illegal
parking would be enforced by the police.
Johnson: Pointed out the busy weekend parking and questioned the exterior building principal
materials gap.
McCabe: Commented on the building material changes, stating the applicant is still proposing
use of high-quality materials.
Johnson: Mentioned the large reduction from the previous PUD and questioned why we would
set the standards at 80 percent and then reduce it to 33 percent.
2
McCabe: Replied that the scale of the building is the reasoning for the reduction as most town
center buildings are one or two stories and it is more difficult to meet the higher standard of
building materials with a five-story building; suggested the applicant would be able to provide a
more thorough explanation on this matter.
Fenstermacher: Questioned if a City Code adjustment was needed due to the feasibility of the
exterior material requirement after the reduction from 80% for a larger scale building.
McCabe: Replied that it would be good to review, but currently the City does not have different
standards for different height buildings in City Code.
Fenstermacher: Asked what the requirement for the restaurant parking was and if it was entirely
public parking only.
McCabe: Said the Town Center has a parking requirement for the residential use, but not the
commercial use. Residential uses are required to provide 1.5 parking stalls per unit, commercial
uses are not required to provide parking. The plan proposes 28 public surface stalls on the
property and 6 on-street spaces. He explained the differences in hours of operation regarding the
existing uses in the area being more 8:00-5:00 versus the restaurant which will have more
demand during later hours of the day.
Fenstermacher: Questioned the market study regarding target vacancy rates/affordable rates.
McCabe: Replied that the developer may be more familiar with demand and referenced a study
that identified strong demand for market rate rental units in Prior Lake.
Fenstermacher: Asked if the study identified a target vacancy rate.
McCabe: Replied no.
Yurko: Asked if there was a loading dock associated with the building.
McCabe: Replied there was no loading dock proposed.
Yurko: Said without a loading dock, the delivery trucks would be larger in size, due to needing
their own lift.
McCabe: Replied yes.
Yurko: Questioned if the longevity and maintenance of the building’s exterior had been
considered, especially at grade and street level due to our climate.
McCabe: Said the applicant and their architect would have a better answer on this subject.
Yurko: Questioned if the Lakefront Plaza parking was full in their compacity and how many of the
residences park outside of their parking structure.
McCabe: Replied yes as they have 84 stalls for 80 units. Explained the ratio of residents to
parking spaces.
Yurko: Questioned if there has been a Town Center parking study recently and mentioned the
high demand for parking, especially with events and having a vibrant downtown.
McCabe: Stated there was a study done about five years ago.
Yurko: Asked where residents would park, if the underground is full.
McCabe: Stated the developers have experience with this type of parking in other communities
and feel comfortable with the ratio of parking to meet the demands of their tenants.
Applicant:
Bryan Farrell: Owner of Northland Real Estate Group, address, 3106 Priest Lane, Mound, MN.
He introduced the group that was in attendance tonight and stated that their team was proud of
what they have created. He explained some of the other properties/projects they have been
involved with.
Rob Miller: Team Member Development, address, 18578 Bear Path Trail in Eden Prairie, MN.
He addressed the parking questions by using the example of the OMRY at Canterbury, stating
they were confident that the underground car park at CORA will meet parking needs.
Craig Hartman: Momentum Design Group, 2132 Kings Terrace, Woodbury, MN. He addressed
the question relating to materials, stating they want to maintain the look and feel of the previous
PUD and explained the slight change of material, stating they were looking to mimic a sail. He
3
said it is a cementitious product with a masonry base, explaining this type of look and feel for the
front of the building.
Ringstad: Asked if the cost had anything to do with the further reduction in the building materials
from what was approved three and a half years ago.
Rob Miller: Replied that it had and said they were trying to make this project a reality. He pointed
out that economics are certainly a variable to the equation but also part of it is working with radius
materials in the sale area as well.
Ringstad: Commented on the size of this building in relation to hitting the 80 percent requirement.
Tennison: Asked for feedback on how many people the restaurant rooftop patio would hold and
who would be able to use it.
Farrell: Stated that the restaurant patio/deck would be open to the public.
Hartman: Replied that there would be about 15 square feet per person; about 100 people from
an egress and a general space standpoint.
Fenstermacher: Questioned the market rate; asking if there was some kind of target that was
reviewed to ensure the project would be viable and successful.
Farrell: Replied that 5% vacancy was considered market equilibrium; therefore, if you see a
number below 5% that means there is generally more demand in the marketplace.
MOTION BY YURKO, SECONDED BY FENSTERMACHER TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING
ON ITEM 4A AT 6:40 P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Fenstermacher, Tennison, Johnson, and Yurko.
Motion carried 5-0.
Public Comment:
Shirley Gingras: Resides at Lakefront Plaza, 16154 Main Ave SE. Commented on liking the
small-town community and felt the 5-story building would change that feel. She said using the
building in Shakopee was not a good comparison, as a five-story building doesn’t belong in
downtown Prior Lake when there are already parking and delivery concerns. Commented that
only the people that live downtown understand the current parking issues and how residents take
pride in calling small downtown Prior Lake home but questioned how they can continue to call it
a small town.
Helen Rusert: Resides at Lakefront Plaza, 16154 Main Ave SE. Questioned the scale of the
building and why they were removing the penthouse units to add additional apartments, as this
will only lead to the need for additional parking. She echoed Gingras’ comments regarding
understanding parking issues only if you live downtown. She shared concerns for safety with the
daycare, traffic, lack of visibility on the road, changing materials of the building, and dropping
property values. She pointed out that some people paid more for their view of the land and now
will be looking at an apartment building.
Rob Miller: Replied the upper level apartments are still very large and the building is still
considered a luxury building. He said they have added slightly more density and tried to create
more efficient unit plans that will be a more desired. He said there is a unit count difference but
does not feel that there was any qualitative difference between what was previously reviewed and
the additions that were being proposed.
Susan Thompson: Resides at Lakefront Plaza, 16154 Main Ave SE. Thompson shared her
experience of living in other cities and how much they have changed into concrete jungles and
lost their small-town look. Thompson approved of forward progress and growth but had major
concerns regarding parking, traffic safety issues, and bringing additional people to live downtown.
Thompson commented on donations that were made and now going to be lost, citizens unaware
of the building going up and the gateway being removed. She hoped that the building would be
built, but not downtown.
4
Kathy Nelson: Resides at Lakefront Plaza, 16154 Main Ave SE. Shared concerns about parking,
delivery, and moving trucks leading to issues which will tie up public parking. She asked the
Planning Commission to be considerate of parking not just at farmer’s market time, but always.
Virgina Hamann: Resides at Lakefront Plaza, 16154 Main Ave SE. Had concerns with the dog
population, luxury apartments, bussing and parking at the senior center. She asked the Planning
Commission to consider changing the parking.
MOTION BY FENSTERMACHER, SECONDED BY JOHNSON TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC ON
ITEM 4A AT 7:06 P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Fenstermacher, Tennison, Johnson, and Yurko.
Motion carried 5-0.
Commissioner’s Comments:
Tennison: Stated that this was a challenging conversation and a beautiful building. He
commented on parking issues, moving in and out of the building, and space for moving trucks.
He said he understood the frustration of the neighbors next door; however, he did intend to vote
in favor.
Johnson: Thanked everyone for speaking and was appreciative for all the feedback. He shared
his concerns with underground parking fees, parking in the streets, and the type of building
materials due to reductions in favor of profits. He suggested that the exterior materials should
stay at the level originally approved.
Fenstermacher: Echoed the comments of his fellow Commissioners and stated that he
appreciated the comments from residents. He shared his concerns regarding parking and that it
was hard to go above and beyond what was required; therefore, he would be in support of this
tonight.
Yurko: Echoed colleagues’ sentiments, stating there were several areas that have erupted. She
shared her concerns about the number of units and adding to the already crowded space without
other issues being resolved first. She shared additional concerns regarding underground parking
stalls not being included in rent, and the reduction in exterior materials.
Ringstad: Thanked Staff, developers, and the community for comments, concerns, questions,
and answers. He commented on when this project originally started and stated he was
comfortable with the adjustments; therefore, would be voting in favor of this agenda item tonight.
MOTION BY TENNISON, SECONDED BY FENSTERMACHER TO AMEND A PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PRIOR LAKE
LUXURY APARTMENT, NOW KNOWN AS THE CORA APARTMENT BULIDING.
VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Fenstermacher, and Tennison. Nay: Johnson and Yurko
Motion carried 3-2.
5. Old Business:
None.
6. New Business:
None.
7. Announcements & Adjournment:
Announcements:
McCabe: Was not anticipating having the November 10th Planning Commission Meeting. He
acknowledged this was the last meeting for Commissioners Johnson and Ringstad and thanked
them for their service.
5
MOTION BY JOHNSON, SECONDED BY YURKO TO ADJOURN THE MONDAY OCTOBER 27,
2025, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:14 P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Fenstermacher, Tennison, Johnson, and Yurko.
Motion carried 5 -0.
Respectfully submitted,
Megan Kooiman, Deputy Clerk / Administrative Assistant