Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout_07 06 2026 PCM Agenda_Full Packet Phone 952.447.9800 / PriorLakeMN.gov 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Monday, July 6, 2026 City Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order and Pledge of Allegiance 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of the June 1, 2026, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 4. Public Hearings: A. PDEV26-000017 – 14163 Shady Beach Trl NE – Combined Preliminary and Final Plat – Highmark Builders, on behalf of the property owner Jason Haus, is requesting approval of a combined preliminary and final plat which will combine two (2) existing lots into one (1) lot. Both single-family homes on these lots will be demolished and replaced with one new single-family detached home. Additionally, they are proposing property boundary adjustments to incorporate sections of several adjacent lots into the newly created lot. (PID’s: 259300410 & 251140024) B. PDEV26-000018 – Tower Street SE – Land Use Map Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment – Roers Acquisitions, LLC is requesting to amend the City of Prior Lake Future Land Use Map to re-guide two (2) parcels from Retail/General Business to Urban High Density Residential and to amend the City Zoning Map to rezone the parcels from C-2, General Business to R-3, High Density Residential. The two parcels, which are located south of Tower Street SE and west of a parcel addressed at 4540 Tower Street SE, do not have assigned addresses. (PID’s: 252690030 & 252690041) 5. Old Business: A. PDEV26-000012 – 17031 Sunset Ave NW – Variance – The applicant, Ryan Bigot, is requesting a variance to allow a 1.86% increase over the maximum 30% impervious surface allowance to construct a new single-family home. This item was tabled during May 18th, 2026, Planning Commission meeting (PID 254880030). 6. New Business: 7. Adjournment 1 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, June 1, 2026 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Chair Fleming called the Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 pm. Commissioners present: Bryan Fleming, Christian Fenstermacher, Sam Rook, Michael Tennison, Kate Yurko, Shelley Schmokel, and Daniel Nicholson. Absent: None. Also present: Community Development Director Casey McCabe, City Planner Jacob Skluzacek, City Planner Paul Moretto, Public Works Director Nick Monserud, and Development Service Assistant Sandra Peppin. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY TENNISON, SECONDED BY SCHMOKEL TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, JUNE 1, 2026, PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Fenstermacher, Fleming, Rook, Tennison, and Yurko. Motion carried 5-0. 3. Approval of Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY ROOK SECONDED BY YURKO TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, MAY 18, 2026, PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Fenstermacher, Fleming, Rook, Tennison, and Yurko. Motion carried 5-0. 4. Public Hearing: A. PDEV26-000006 – 14091 Eagle Creek Ae NE – Preliminary Plat, Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan, Land Use Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Easement Vacation – Pulte Homes of Minnesota LLC is requesting approval of a preliminary plat and preliminary planned unit development (PUD) plan for a 262-unit low and medium density residential subdivision; an amendment to the current City of Prior Lake Land Use Plan to Urban Low Density Residential and Urban Medium Density Residential; to rezone the subject property to Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential; and the vacation of a drainage and utility easement for stormwater purposes for a residential development is to be known as Marlow Ridge. (PID 259260010 & 253630040) Director McCabe: Summarized the request, including the proposed amendment to the 2040 Future Land Use Map, amendment to the Official Zoning Map, easement vacation, Preliminary PUD Plan for Marlow Ridge, and the Preliminary Plat for Marlow Ridge Second Addition. Public Works Director Monserud: Reported that the proposal includes a private park, but no additional parkland dedication was recommended due to existing nearby park facilities which would be within the service area of the proposed development and current City park-system priorities. He reviewed the traffic analysis, noting Carriage Hills Parkway operates below capacity and projected daily trips at full build-out total approximately 3,331. No crashes were recorded at County Road 21/Carriage Hills Parkway in the past five years, and levels of service are expected to remain acceptable. Future intersection improvements at County Road 21 and Fountain Hills may be warranted as development occurs, with an escrow contribution required. Speed study results indicated slightly elevated speeds on Carriage Hills Parkway, which staff will continue to monitor. Commissioner Discussion: Commissioners and staff discussed traffic operations, school capacity, land use, and project design. Staff noted slightly elevated speeds on Carriage Hills Parkway but stated the roadway is functioning within acceptable limits and will continue to be monitored. The school district has 2 capacity at Jeffers Pond Elementary and had anticipated this development; enrollment declines may be stabilized by new housing. Staff clarified that potential commercial uses shown in the traffic study were illustrative and that any land use changes require Metropolitan Council review. Reduced setbacks were discussed with staff noting they were consistent with recent developments and help balance site constraints and lot yield. Staff outlined PUD benefits, including wetland enhancements, additional sidewalk and trail connections, wider streets, and expanded right-of-way. Commissioners raised concerns about pedestrian safety and speeding; staff noted planned crosswalks and the potential for future enhancements based on warrant analysis. Stormwater features were described as a naturalized wetland system with vegetated buffers. Staff also addressed questions regarding density, zoning consistency, parkland calculations, and traffic study assumptions, confirming the proposal met applicable standards. Applicant: Paul Heuer: (Representing Pulte Homes,1650 West 82nd Street, Suite 300, Bloomington, MN.) Presented an infill development proposal designed to meet current housing demand while preserving about 27 acres for future business park use. He described a mix of housing types— townhomes, single-family homes, and age-restricted twin homes—to offer lifecycle housing and low-maintenance options for seniors. The project includes wetland and stormwater improvements aimed at enhancing Pike Lake water quality, coordinated with the Watershed District, as well as completing key roadway and utility connections. Heuer stated the plan aligns with City goals by supporting housing needs, enabling future economic development, and improving environmental conditions. He clarified that proposed setbacks meet regional standards and that stormwater/wetland areas would be naturalized per regulatory requirements. Commissioner’s Questions: Commissioners asked about market conditions, project phasing, setbacks, stormwater design, and future infrastructure responsibilities. The applicant indicated the project would likely proceed in 3–4 phases depending on demand, noting that while broader economic conditions are uncertain, housing demand in Prior Lake remains strong. Reduced setbacks were discussed; the applicant stated that meeting full setback standards would significantly reduce lot counts due to site topography and right-of-way requirements, and no alternative layout meeting full setbacks had been prepared. Stormwater and wetland plans were reviewed, with confirmation that the wetland will naturalize over time and include a maintenance access berm. Commissioners also asked about escrow contributions for future transportation needs. The applicant noted an anticipated proportional contribution (around 25%) toward potential future signalization at the County Road 21/Fountain Hills intersection, subject to final plat and development agreement terms, and that such improvements may or may not be required based on future traffic conditions. MOTION BY ROOK, SECONDED BY TENNISON TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4A AT 7:27 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fenstermacher, Fleming, Rook, Tennison, and Yurko. Motion carried 5-0. Public Comment: Evan Schadduck: (4841 Beach St NE) Raised concerns about townhome concentration and height along Carriage Hills Parkway, visual impacts on existing homes, guest parking adequacy, traffic impacts and future intersection design, and long-term stormwater management. Emphasized the need for development compatibility and quality. 3 Lucy Vierling: (P.O. Box 57, Savage) Provided historical context on the family’s long-term farm ownership and explained that changing conditions made continued farming difficult. Expressed support for the proposed development as a way for the property to serve the community. Denise Gaddo: (4372 Chestnut Lane NE) Expressed concern about traffic safety at Pike Lake Trail and County Road 42, questioning whether added traffic from the development will increase risk and whether signalization or other improvements will be needed. Monserud: Noted that intersection improvements are development-driven and expected with future adjacent development, when needed right-of-way and design changes can occur. HOA (Home Owner Association) President: (No listed address mentioned) Asked whether the project will be part of an HOA and raised questions about project timelines, development agreement enforcement, and transparency, based on experience with prior developments. Fleming and McCabe: Clarified that development agreements are between the City and the developer, not HOAs; financial securities apply to public improvements; and an HOA is anticipated but details are the developer’s responsibility. Emily Gores: (14699 Landau Ln NE) Raised concerns about traffic impacts on Coachman Lane and County Road 21; reduction of commercial acreage and potential tax-base effects; housing compatibility with neighborhood values; and the need for careful review of density and zoning changes. McCabe: Stated that impacts to Coachman Lane are expected to be limited; the City retains ample commercial land supply; the site has remained undeveloped for 25 years; and the project would improve infrastructure supporting future commercial development. Fleming: Stated the importance of maintaining a balanced residential and commercial mix. Olivia Sutton: (14347 Enclave Court NW) Expressed concerns about current and anticipated traffic issues at Fountain Hills and County Road 21 and requested more information on the traffic study and potential earlier improvements. Monserud: Said current traffic levels do not warrant signalization; a turn lane will be added; future commercial build-out, not the residential phase, is expected to trigger intersection improvements. Yurko: Asked whether nearby apartment developments were included in the traffic study. Monserud: Stated the study relied on observed traffic counts and did not model unbuilt developments. Amy Azinger: (14565 Surrey Lane NE) Expressed concern about removal of mature trees along Carriage Hills Parkway and asked whether significant tree loss was necessary. McCabe: Explained tree removal is tied to street and building pad placement; trees outside the project area should not be affected. Mike Vierling: (13985 Pike Lake Trail) Shared historical issues with drainage and flooding, expressed skepticism about proposed stormwater solutions, and raised traffic safety concerns at Pike Lake Trail and County Road 42. Also noted concerns about easements, impacts on neighboring properties, and boundary issues. Mike Wagner: (4116 Brougham Blvd NE) Raised pedestrian safety concerns on Carriage Hills Parkway; questioned density calculations and parking for townhomes; opposed higher-density housing adjacent to his property; and asked about stormwater impacts along Carriage Hills Parkway. Preferred lower-density development. Chris Bruhn: (4364 Chestnut Ln NE) Questioned the rationale for transitioning from low-density to townhomes and then duplexes instead of a gradual density progression. Expressed concern about parking and traffic impacts from the proposed layout. McCabe: Noted the layout reflects the developer’s plan and City code does not mandate specific density sequencing. Bob Zabel: (4421 Fox Hunt Court NE) Asked about construction impacts, potential tax increases, and landscaping/screening along Carriage Hills Parkway. Requested clarification on boulevard tree replacements. McCabe and Monserud: Stated taxpayers will not fund development infrastructure; no major service interruptions are expected; fencing is not required; and tree replacement will occur as resources allow, with park areas prioritized. 4 Lynn Slone: (4367 Fox Hunt Ct NE) Expressed concerns about increased traffic, pedestrian safety, park parking near a blind turn, and the need for adequate development parking. Asked about trail setbacks, screening, and the project timeline. McCabe: Estimated a 3 to 4-year build-out and clarified trail views will include rear yards of townhomes and single-family homes; park parking will remain unchanged. Dan Foster: (4402 Fox Hunt Ct NE) Thanked the Commission and expressed concerns about traffic, speeding, and intersection safety, particularly on Carriage Hills Parkway and Surrey Lane. Asked how the housing mix was determined and requested further City traffic review. Also asked for replanting of trees lost to Emerald Ash Borer. Evan Schadduck: (follow-up): Noted he was unsure whether his earlier questions were fully answered. Fleming: Directed staff to follow up with him. Brianna Saxton: (Bridal Ridge Trail) Asked whether taxpayers would pay for utilities; raised concerns about regional traffic congestion, speeding, crashes, and cumulative development impacts; and emphasized preserving Prior Lake’s character and environmental quality. McCabe: Reiterated that the developer pays all infrastructure costs and clarified the history of the Jeffers Pond property. Jayme Paukert: (14525 Surrey Ln NE) Expressed concern about construction traffic routing, construction hours, and traffic study accuracy, noting heavy boat-related weekend traffic not captured in weekday counts. Requested a new study covering weekends. McCabe: Explained construction hours; confirmed the study used 48-hour counters; and noted consultants usually collect data over longer periods. Fleming and Monserud: Discussed minimal cost for extended traffic counting and noted consultants typically record multiple days including weekends. Ralph Wager: Asked whether the project is already approved. Fleming: Stated it has not been approved and is the purpose of the public hearing. Applicant: Paul Heuer: Provided responses to public questions. He stated that separate HOA’s are planned for the proposed townhomes and twin homes, while an HOA for the single-family homes was still undecided. He noted that the project was not approved and, if Council acted on June 23, it would then require Metropolitan Council review before any construction could begin. The goal would be to start initial work in 2026, open model homes in early 2027, and reach full build-out around 2030–2031, depending on market conditions. Heuer stated he can provide traffic study appendices and explained that the study included residential and office assumptions, used standard growth rates, and was reviewed with City and County staff. He noted that roadway improvements depend on meeting required traffic warrants regarding tree removal. He stated that engineering needs for streets, grading, and drainage limit tree preservation, with outlots along Prior Lake remaining undisturbed. Tree removal would occur mainly for road connections, demolition of existing buildings, and limited wetland impacts. Heuer explained that Minnesota stormwater regulations require post-development runoff rates not to exceed pre-development rates and that the project design significantly reduces flows, including reductions toward the northeast and Pike Lake. He added that the housing layout reflects roadway classifications and connection points, with higher-density housing placed along busier roads, and that the mix provides a range of lifecycle housing options. Construction traffic routes would be coordinated with the City and County once the project advances. McCabe: Noted two additional public questions regarding whether the proposed townhomes would be two or three stories and how their density compares to Trillium Cove. Heuer: Responded that the Trillium Cove townhomes are three stories, while the proposed units in Marlow Ridge will be two stories with an appearance similar to single-family homes. Their overall building height will be comparable to a standard two-story home. He added that three-story townhomes typically achieve densities of 10 to 12 units per acre, while the proposed two-story townhomes were closer to 7 to 8 units per acre. 5 Tennison: Asked for clarification on the location of townhome parking and whether on-street parking was intended for residents or guests. Heuer: Explained that typical townhome developments use private 24-foot streets that do not permit on-street parking and instead rely on perpendicular guest stalls. In this project, City policy requires public streets, which will be wide enough to allow on-street parking on one side. Yurko: Expressed concern about the long row of townhomes planned along Carriage Hills Parkway, noting that closely spaced driveways may leave little curb space for on-street parking. She referenced similar dense townhome developments near Franklin Trail and Highway 21, where guest parking was provided in paired stalls throughout the streets. Heuer: Offered to prepare a plan illustrating the available on-street parking areas and to work with Planning and Engineering staff to evaluate whether additional parking accommodation would be needed. Tennison: Added that he does not see many gaps along the townhome frontage for on-street parking and compared this to similar parking issues near the park. Heuer: Agreed to review parking more closely with staff. Fleming: Asked whether staff had comparable examples for parking layouts, and McCabe stated he was not prepared with such examples. MOTION BY ROOK, SECONDED BY TENNISON TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4A AT 9:07 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fenstermacher, Fleming, Rook, Tennison, and Yurko. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Comments: Nicholson: Noted significant public concern regarding traffic and safety and stated that additional work on traffic analysis and flow was needed. Schmokel: Agreed that traffic concerns extend beyond the Marlow Ridge project and reflect broader system issues and expressed confidence in the wetland and basin design. Yurko expressed concern about the combined impacts of density, traffic, and safety, noting that t he proposed townhome density was a key factor and raised similar concerns about single-family areas. Fleming: Asked whether the proposed density falls within guideline ranges. McCabe: Confirmed that overall project density was 3.75 units per acre, within the low-density range of 2.5–4 units per acre, with medium-density areas at approximately 4.7 units per acre and low-density areas at 2.6 units per acre. He added that the site was guided for medium density and business park uses and cannot be re-guided to low density under Metropolitan Council requirements. Fenstermacher: Asked whether wetlands must be included in density calculations, and McCabe clarified that they are not; density is calculated on approximately 69 net acres and meets required standards. Tennison: Thanked staff and the public and noted concern about the reduction of business-park-guided land and about traffic speeds on Carriage Hills Parkway, requesting further review. He also supported additional evaluation of parking in the townhome area. Fleming: Requested discussion of traffic calming, signage, safety, and flow, and indicated support for the project while asking staff and the applicant to bring back parking and traffic options before final action. Fenstermacher: Commented on the quality of public communication and noted that while traffic models had limitations, they provide necessary objectivity. He stated that many traffic issues relate to the wider system and emphasized the strength of stormwater regulations and potential benefits for future commercial development, while requesting additional parking information. Rook: Acknowledged extensive public input and the Commission’s role in acting on the land use map amendment, zoning map amendment, easement vacation, preliminary PUD plan, and preliminary plat, noting that some traffic issues may be addressed in other venues. 6 Fleming: Asked whether the Commission could move forward with items 1–4 and condition the preliminary plat on additional parking and traffic review. Schmokel: Questioned whether broader traffic issues can be resolved within the PUD process. McCabe: Agreed that systemwide traffic concerns cannot be addressed through this project. He added that the City cannot unilaterally modify County‐controlled intersections and that reducing density would likely conflict with Metropolitan Council requirements. He stated that the Commission may condition the preliminary plat or require additional parking evaluation in future phases. Tennison: Asked whether pedestrian crossing lights or additional parking solutions could be considered. Monserud: Explained that pedestrian treatments require warrant analysis, and that a speed feedback sign may be more effective initially. He noted statutory speed limit requirements and Minnesota Department of Transportation authority. Yurko: Reiterated that townhome parking was a development‐specific issue needing further refinement. Fleming: Suggested conditioning approval on full exploration of parking solutions. McCabe: Confirmed that Phase 1 approval could be conditioned to require resolution of parking for future townhome phases before final plats are submitted. Fenstermacher: Added the comment and the staff comments in the May 19, 2026, memorandum, addressing parking concerns in Phase 1. MOTION BY ROOK, SECONDED BY FENSTERMACHER TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2040 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE FUTURE LAND USE MAP; AN AMENDEMNT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP; THE EASEMENT VACATION; A PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) PLAN FOR A DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS MARLOW RIDGE; AND A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MARLOW RIDGE SECOND ADDITION CONDITIONED UPON THE DEVELOPER ADDRESSING STAFF COMMENTS IN THE MAY 19, 2026 MEMORANDUM. VOTE: Ayes by Fenstermacher, Fleming, Rook, Tennison, and Yurko. Motion carried 5-0. 5. Old Business: A. PDEV26-000012 – 17031 Sunset Ave NW – Variance – The applicant, Ryan Bigot, is requesting a variance to allow a 3.11% increase over the maximum 30% impervious surface allowance to construct a new single-family home. This agenda item was Tabled at the May 18th, 2026, Planning Commission meeting on a 5-0 vote until further reductions to the impervious surface could be made by the applicant. (PID 254880030). Planner Skluzacek: Informed the Commission that this agenda item request was Tabled at the May 18th, 2026, Planning Commission Meeting. Due to the 60-day review timeline for variances, staff were prepared to recommend a resolution of denial. The applicant was able to provide staff with an extension request for an additional 60 days which will allow staff to revisit the request with the applicant. Skluzacek said this variance was being brought back to the Planning Commission for further consideration at a future meeting following updates to the plan and survey provided by the applicant. Commissioner Comments: Fleming: I'll entertain a motion based on staff’s comments to ask Council to extend this item to August 12. MOTION BY FENSTERMACHER, SECONDED BY YURKO TO TABLE THE RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE REQUESTED FOR 17031 SUNSET AVE NW. 7 VOTE: Ayes by Fenstermacher, Fleming, Rook, Tennison, and Yurko. Motion carried 5-0. B. PDEV26-000014 – 4646 Lords Street NE – Variance – The applicant, Detail Homes, is requesting a variance from the Ordinary High-Water Level (OHWL) setback of 50 feet to construct a new single-family home. This item was Tabled at the May 18th, 2026, Planning Commission meeting (PID 259350140). Planner Moretto: Summarized the updated request for rear-yard setback variances and recommended approval with conditions or if the Board of Adjustment finds the requested variance is not warranted, an approval of a denial. Commissioner Comments: Fleming: Stated he would entertain a motion, based on staff’s comments, to request that the City Council extend consideration of the item to the previously referenced August date. He then moved on to Item 5B (4646 Lower Street), noting that significant progress had been made with staff reports and narrative materials. Moretto: Reported that the request has changed since the previous submittal and that the applicant was now seeking a rear-yard variance to remove the existing home, garage, and driveway. Rook: Commented that the applicant appears to have made a strong effort to address concerns and revise the proposal appropriately. Noted that several neighboring property owners submitted letters of support. Stated he supported the agenda item. Fenstermacher: Thanked the applicant for adjusting, especially improving the setback. Highlighted that reductions in impervious surface are important and appreciated. Expressed support for the request. Fleming: Reaffirmed support for staff’s recommendation and thanked the applicant for working diligently and promptly with staff. Tennison: Expressed appreciation for the revisions and stated intent to support the variance. Schmokel: Agreed with prior comments and expressed appreciation for the applicant’s adjustments. Nicholson: Echoed the previous supportive comments. MOTION BY FENSTERMACHER, SECONDED BY TENNISON TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION FOR THE VARIANCES REQUESTED FOR 4646 LORDS STREET NE WITH CONDITIONS. VOTE: Ayes by Fenstermacher, Fleming, Rook, Tennison, and Yurko. Motion carried 5-0. 6. New Business: A. Planned Unit Development Waiver – 10 Acre Requirement – 4540, XXXX, & XXXX Tower Street SE – Consideration of a concept plan and authorizing city staff to accept and process an application for a preliminary planned unit development (PUD) plan for a project less than 10 acres. (PIDs 2500220050, 252690030 & 252690041) Planner Moretto: Introduced this concept plan that was submitted by ROERS Companies, on behalf of the property owners, ISD 719 and BK Tower Properties LLC. Moretto explained the current circumstances and conclusion, stating staff was requesting approval authorizing the City staff to accept and proceed with this application for the Preliminary PUD Plan for a project of less than 10 acres at 4540 Tower Street SE. 8 Commissioner Comments: Fleming: Requested that decisions be thoughtful given the prior discussion of commercial versus residential use. Asked staff and the applicant to evaluate options to offset the loss of commercial land. Expressed uncertainty about building height (four stories versus three) and supported further exploration of height impacts. Nicholson: Questioned whether a four-story structure would visually stand out in the surrounding area. McCabe: Stated the site sits lower than adjacent residential areas and would not appear out of scale. Noted nearby multifamily buildings on Toronto Street, helping the project blend with its surroundings. Schmokel: Expressed concern about losing additional commercial opportunity but acknowledged the lack of recent commercial interest. Noted potential challenges with high-density buildings adjacent to single-family homes. Asked whether waiting might attract commercial uses. Yurko: Asked about the height of the adjacent multifamily building on Toronto. Clarified interest in understanding height compatibility. Moretto / McCabe: Confirmed the adjacent building is three stories with underground parking. Stated the proposed project would be market-rate rental apartments. Explained that mixed-use options were explored but the applicant declined due to limited retail viability at the site. Stated mixed-use would require a PUD overlay. Tennison: Asked about the two vacant commercial lots west of the district office and whether they had been on the market long. Expressed concern about giving up additional business-zoned land. McCabe: Confirmed the lots have been for sale for about six years with limited activity. Fenstermacher: Supported maintaining as much commercial opportunity as it is practical but was also interested in potential benefits of redevelopment. Asked about Toronto Street’s right-of-way needs. McCabe: Explained that dedication of right-of-way would occur with redevelopment. Stated reconstruction could address existing alignment and trail issues, including adding boulevard space between sidewalks/trails and the street. Rook: Agreed with prior comments. Noted that half the site was already guided for high-density residential and the request would align the remaining portion. Acknowledged a preference for more commercial land but stated the proposal fits with nearby multifamily development. MOTION BY ROOK, SECONDED BY FENSTERMACHER TO APPROVE AUTHORIZING THE CITY STAFF TO ACCEPT AND PROCESS AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY PUD PLAN FOR A PROJECT LESS THAN 10 ACRES AT 4540 TOWER STREET SE. VOTE: Ayes by Fenstermacher, Fleming, and Rook. Nays Tennison and Yurko. Motion carried 3-2. 7. Announcements & Adjournment: Fleming: Reported that he, Director McCabe, and City Manager Wedel recently discussed scheduling a Planning Commission work session. The purpose would be to review completed and upcoming projects, discuss priorities and protocols, and invite the Watershed District to participate. McCabe: Noted that the work session would be scheduled separately from regular Planning Commission meetings and offered to coordinate potential dates with the Watershed District. Announced that no Planning Commission meeting was anticipated on June 15, 2026, and a formal cancellation notice will be sent later in the week. Fleming: Thanked staff and the City Council liaison. McCabe: Expressed appreciation to the Commissioners. 9 MOTION BY TENNISON, SECONDED BY SCHMOKEL TO ADJOURN THE JUNE 1, 2026, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 9:56 PM. VOTE: Ayes by Fenstermacher, Fleming, Rook, Tennison, and Yurko. Motion carried 5-0. Respectfully submitted, Sandra Peppin, Development Services Assistant Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 / www.cityofpriorlake.com 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: July 6, 2026 AGENDA #: 4A PREPARED BY: Jake Skluzacek, Planner PRESENTED BY: Jake Skluzacek AGENDA ITEM: Consider a Recommendation of Approval for a Combined Preliminary and Final Plat to be known as Haus Addition DISCUSSION: Introduction Highmark Builders on behalf of property owner, Jason Haus, have applied for approval of a Combined Preliminary and Final Plat to be known as Haus Addition. The applicant is proposing to combine one existing lot, 14163 Shady Beach Trail NE (0.79 acres) with another existing lot, 14145 Shady Beach Trail NE (0.43 acres) into one approximately 1.25-acre lot. There are additional land swaps with the adjacent properties to the north to more appropriately locate adjacent driveways within property lines. If approved, one of the existing homes will be required to be demolished prior to recording of the Final Plat as Prior Lake City Code does not permit two single-family dwelling on the same parcel. The subject property is located on Lower Prior Lake east of Shady Beach Trail NE. History The property, which totals approximately 47,733 sq. ft., is currently occupied by two existing single-family homes that front on Shady Beach Trail NE and two accessory structures. The applicant is proposing to create one parcel on Shady Beach Trail NE (Lot 1), and dedicate the necessary drainage and utility easements and right-of-way on Shady Beach Trail NE. Subsection 9-34 of City Code allows for the combination of a preliminary and final plat in one action due to the simplicity of the proposed subdivision provided: ➢ The resulting subdivision contains no more than 5 lots. The resulting subdivision will contain one lot. ➢ The proposed subdivision is located in an area where streets and utilities are in place and capable of serving the subdivision. Streets and utilities are available and capable of serving the subdivision. ➢ The proposed subdivision does not require the dedication or construction of future streets and will not interfere with the development of adjacent properties. The proposed subdivision will dedicate the necessary right-of-way on Shady Beach Trail NE, does not require construction of streets and will not interfere with development of adjacent property. ➢ The resulting lots shall conform with all provisions of the Zoning Code unless a variance has been granted. The resulting lot will conform with all provisions of the Zoning Code and variances will not be necessary. Current Circumstances The following paragraphs outline the physical characteristics of the existing site, the comprehensive plan and zoning designations, and a description of some of the specifics of the site. PHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS: Total Site Area: The total site area is approximately 1.25 acres which is proposed to serve as the location for Lot 1, Haus Addition with the dedication of necessary public right-of-way and standard drainage and utility easements. Wetlands: There are no wetlands on the site. Impervious Surface Coverage: The property is located within the Shoreland District, which allows for a maximum of 30% impervious surface coverage. The maximum impervious coverage for Lot 1 will be 14,320 sq. ft. Following the proposed combination, the larger of the two remaining dwellings occupying Lot 1 will have approximately 8,648 sq. ft. of impervious coverage, or roughly 18.12%. Access: Access to Lot 1 is available from Shady Beach Trail NE to the west. 2040 Comprehensive Plan Designation: This property is designated for low density residential on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Zoning: The subject property is currently zoned R-1, low density residential. The subject property conforms with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map guidance. Parks / Trails: No park or trails are proposed. Fees and Assessments: This development will be subject to the standard development agreement. Related trunk utility service charges have been satisfied with a previous subdivision. Sanitary Sewer / Water Mains: Utilities are available and appropriately sized to serve this area. Standard drainage and utility easements will be required around the perimeter of the new parcel. Grading / Storm water: No changes to grading or stormwater are proposed as part of this action. Stormwater requirements and grading plans will be reviewed by City staff as part of a future building permit review process. Along with this request, the applicant is proposing to complete an administrative subdivision and combination to split approximately 566 sq. ft. from the 14145 Shady Beach Trail NE parcel (PID 251140024) and combine that property with the adjacent 14143 Shady Beach Trail NE parcel (PID 251140025) so the driveway serving the 14143 Shady Beach Trail parcel is located entirely upon the 14143 Shady Beach Trail property. The applicant is also proposing to complete an administrative subdivision and combination to split approximately 566 sq. ft. from the private driveway parcel (PID 259300510) and combine that property with Lot 1, Haus Addition. These administrative subdivisions and combinations require consent from the adjacent property owners and shall be completed prior to or concurrently with the recording of the final plat. Conclusion City staff recommends approval of the request for Combined Preliminary and Final Plat subject to the following conditions: i. Applicant shall dedicate standard drainage and utility easements for Lot 1. ii. Applicant shall submit an Administrative Subdivision application to split the indicated 566 sq. ft. from 14145 Shady Beach Trail NE (PID 251140024) and combine that property with 14143 Shady Beach Trail NE (PID 251140025) via deed prior to or concurrent with the recording of the Final Plat. iii. Applicant shall submit an Administrative Subdivision application to split the indicated 566 sq. ft. from PID 259300510 and combine that property with Lot 1, Haus Addition via deed prior to or concurrent with the recording of the Final Plat. iv. Applicant shall relocate the private sanitary sewer and water services serving the 14143 Shady Beach Trail NE parcel over/under Lot 1, Haus Addition or dedicate a private easement for sanitary sewer and water services in favor of 14143 Shady Beach Trail NE prior to or concurrent with the recording of the Final Plat. v. One of the two existing single-family homes within Lot 1, Haus Addition shall be removed prior to recording of the final plat. vi. Any future proposed dwelling will need to meet all minimum setback and impervious requirements of Prior Lake City Code. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Motion and a second to recommend the City Council approve the Combined Preliminary and Final Plat for Haus Addition subject to the conditions listed in this report. 2. Motion and a second to recommend the City Council deny the Combined Preliminary and Final Plat request based upon findings of fact. 3. Motion and a second to table this item to a future Planning Commission meeting and provide the applicant with direction. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Alternative #1 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Preliminary Plat 3. Final Plat 4. Land Exchange Exhibit 5. Private Utility Services Exhibit BEING 5 FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOINING SIDE LOT LINES, AND BEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOINING PUBLIC WAYS, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED ON THIS PLAT. DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS: BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE WEST LINE OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SEC. 20, T. 114, R. 20 WHICH IS ASSUMED TO HAVE A BEARING OF S 00°11'15" W VICINITY MAP DENOTES FOUND OPEN 1/2 INCH IRON MONUMENT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED DENOTES SET 1/2 INCH BY 14 INCH IRON MONUMENT WITH CAP MARKED L.S. NO. 47481 TO BE SET IN ACCORDANCE WITH MN STATE SATUTE 505.021, SUBD. 10. DENOTES FOUND SCOTT COUNTY CAST IRON MONUMENT DENOTES FOUND SCOTT COUTNY NAIL AND DISC BENCHMARK: TOP NUT HYDRANT NORTH SIDE OF ROAD AT BEND IN SHADY BEACH TRAIL. ELEVATION = 913.62 (NAVD 88) The East 100 feet of that part of Government Lot 1, lylng South of a line drawn through a point on the East line of said Government Lot 1, 777.9 feet South of the Northeast corner thereof, and extending South 45 degrees 0 minutes West, Section 30, Township 115, Range 21, Scott County, Minnesota. AND That part of Government Lot 1, Section 30, Township 115, Range 21, Scott County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the East line of said Government Lot 1, 777.9 feet South of the Northeast corner of said Lot; thence South 45 degrees 0 minutes West to a point on the West line of the East 100 feet of said Lot, said point being the actual point of beginning of the tract herein described; thence continuing South 45 degrees 0 minutes West to a point 25 feet west of the east line of the east 100 feet of said Lot; thence southeasterly to a point on the west line of the east 100 feet of said Lot which point is 1085 feet south of the north line of said Lot; thence north along the west line of the east 100 feet of said Lot to the point of beginning. AND That part of Lot 1, Section 30, Township 115, Range 21 West, Scott County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the east line of said Government lot which lies 777.9 feet south of the northeast corner of said Government lot; thence southwesterly on a line South 45 degrees 0 minutes West, 176.78 feet more or less to a point which is 125 feet west of the east line of said Government lot; thence northwesterly from said point of departure on an extension and continuation of a line drawn through a point on the west line of the east 100 feet of said Government lot which point is distant 1085.0 feet south of the north line of said Government lot, through said point of departure, continuing 57.84 feet more or less to its intersection with a line extending south 63 degrees 0 minutes West from the point of beginning on the east line of said Government lot distant 777.9 feet south of the northeast corner thereof, thence northeasterly along said intersected line 149.12 feet more or less to the point of beginning. (Abstract property) AND That part of Government Lot 2, Section 30, Township 115, Range 21, Scott County, Minnesota lying west of the plat of Conroy's Bay: lying north of westerly extension of the south line of the North half of Lot 19, said plat and lying south of the following described line: Commencing at the southwest corner of Lot 18, said plat; thence on an assumed bearing of North 00 degrees 41 minutes 38 seconds East, along the west line of said Lot 18, a distance of 34.72 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 87 degrees 38 minutes 52 seconds West a distance of 9.09 feet; thence North 21 degrees 05 minutes 11 seconds West a distance of 15.93 feet to the west line of said Government Lot 2 and said described line there terminating (Abstract property) AND Lot 20, CONROY'S BAY, Scott County, Minnesota and that part of Lots 18, 19, 21, and the Waterfront in said plat, together with that part of Government Lot 2, Section 30, Township 115, Range 21, Scott County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the westerly extension of the north line of said Lot 19, with the west line of said Government Lot 2; thence easterly along said westerly extension a distance of 15 feet more or less to the northwest corner of said Lot 19, the same being the southwest corner of said Lot 18; thence North along the west line of said Lot 18, a distance of 40 feet more or less to the southwest corner of the north 10.00 feet of said Lot 18; thence South 89 degrees 08 minutes 21 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the south line of said north 10.00 feet a distance of 40.57 feet, thence South 49 degrees 07 minutes 44 seconds East a distance of 15.32 feet, thence South 09 degrees 07 minutes 06 seconds East a distance of 30.61 feet more or less to a point on the north line of said Lot 19, distant 72.00 feet westerly of the northeast corner of said Lot 19 (said point also being 57.01 feet easterly of the southwest corner of said Lot 18); thence continuing South 09 degrees 07 minutes 06 seconds East, along a line hereinafter referred to as "Line A", a distance of 160.43 feet more or less to a point on the southerly line of said Lot 21, said point distant 83.12 feet easterly of the southwest corner of said Lot 20 (as measured along the southerly line of said Lots 20 and 21); thence continuing South 09 degrees 07 minutes 06 seconds East to the shoreline of Prior Lake; thence westerly along said shoreline to its intersection with the west line of said Government Lot 2, thence North along said west line to the point of beginning. EXCEPT that part lying northwest of the following described line: Commencing at the southwest corner of Lot 18, said plat; thence on an assumed bearing of North 00 degrees 41 minutes 38 seconds East, along the west line of said Lot 18, a distance of 34.72 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 87 degrees 38 minutes 52 seconds East a distance of 33.85 feet; thence South 47 degrees 09 minutes 05 seconds East a distance of 20.13 feet; thence South 12 degrees 12 minutes 48 seconds East a distance of 72.81 feet to said "Line A", and said line there terminating. (Torrens property) PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PROJECT NO. 22639-30 CAD FILE 5/8/2026 DATE REVISIONS DRAWN BY 29 9 9 W E S T C . R . 4 2 , S U I T E 1 0 0 BU R N S V I L L E , M N 5 5 3 0 6 PH O N E : 9 5 2 - 8 9 0 - 6 0 4 4 ma r c u s @m n h i l l . c o m ww w . m n h i l l . c o m PR I O R L A K E , M I N N E S O T A HA U S A D D I T I O N HI G H M A R K B U I L D E R S FO R PR E L I M I N A R Y P L A T 22639-30PP.dwg SHEET 1 OF 1 F: \ _ C i v i l 3 D P r o j e c t s \ 2 2 6 3 9 - 3 0 \ 2 2 6 3 9 - 3 0 p p . d w g - 5 / 0 7 / 2 0 2 6 0 3 : 2 6 P M PLM Da t e : Re g . N o . I h e r e b y c e r t i f y t h a t t h i s s u r v e y , p l a n or r e p o r t w a s p r e p a r e d b y m e o r un d e r m y d i r e c t s u p e r v i s i o n a n d t h a t I am a d u l y L i c e n s e d L a n d S u r v e y o r un d e r t h e l a w s o f t h e S t a t e o f Mi n n e s o t a . SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 PRE L I M I N A R Y ZONING INFORMATION R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)CURRENT ZONING: (SHORELAND OVERLAY) LOTS LOTS TOTAL 1 LOT 1.096 ACRES 1.096 ACRES MINIMUM SETBACKS PER R-1 ZONING FRONT SIDE (HOUSE & GARAGE) REAR 25 FEET 10 FEET 25 FEET SITE DATA GROSS AREA (ABOVE THE 904 CONTOUR)1.096 ACRES MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENTS PER R-1 ZONING LOT SIZE LOT WIDTH 12,000 S.F. 86 FEET PROPOSED ZONING:R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) (SHORELAND OVERLAY) SHORELAND OVERLAY SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES. ON SHORELAND PARCELS THAT HAVE TWO ADJACENT PARCELS WITH EXISTING PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES ON BOTH SUCH ADJACENT PARCELS, ANY NEW RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE OR ANY ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING STRUCTURE MAY BE SET BACK THE AVERAGE SETBACK OF THE ADJACENT STRUCTURES FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH-WATER LEVEL OR 50 FEET, WHICHEVER IS GREATER, PROVIDED ALL OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT ARE COMPLIED WITH. HAUS ADDITION KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That Jason J. Haus and Susan M. Haus, husband and wife, owner of the following described property: The East 100 feet of that part of Government Lot 1, lylng South of a line drawn through a point on the East line of said Government Lot 1, 777.9 feet South of the Northeast corner thereof, and extending South 45 degrees 0 minutes West, Section 30, Township 115, Range 21, Scott County, Minnesota. AND That part of Government Lot 1, Section 30, Township 115, Range 21, Scott County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the East line of said Government Lot 1, 777.9 feet South of the Northeast corner of said Lot; thence South 45 degrees 0 minutes West to a point on the West line of the East 100 feet of said Lot, said point being the actual point of beginning of the tract herein described; thence continuing South 45 degrees 0 minutes West to a point 25 feet west of the east line of the east 100 feet of said Lot; thence southeasterly to a point on the west line of the east 100 feet of said Lot which point is 1085 feet south of the north line of said Lot; thence north along the west line of the east 100 feet of said Lot to the point of beginning. AND That part of Lot 1, Section 30, Township 115, Range 21 West, Scott County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the east line of said Government lot which lies 777.9 feet south of the northeast corner of said Government lot; thence southwesterly on a line South 45 degrees 0 minutes West, 176.78 feet more or less to a point which is 125 feet west of the east line of said Government lot; thence northwesterly from said point of departure on an extension and continuation of a line drawn through a point on the west line of the east 100 feet of said Government lot which point is distant 1085.0 feet south of the north line of said Government lot, through said point of departure, continuing 57.84 feet more or less to its intersection with a line extending south 63 degrees 0 minutes West from the point of beginning on the east line of said Government lot distant 777.9 feet south of the northeast corner thereof, thence northeasterly along said intersected line 149.12 feet more or less to the point of beginning. (Abstract property) AND That part of Government Lot 2, Section 30, Township 115, Range 21, Scott County, Minnesota lying west of the plat of Conroy's Bay: lying north of westerly extension of the south line of the North half of Lot 19, said plat and lying south of the following described line: Commencing at the southwest corner of Lot 18, said plat; thence on an assumed bearing of North 00 degrees 41 minutes 38 seconds East, along the west line of said Lot 18, a distance of 34.72 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 87 degrees 38 minutes 52 seconds West a distance of 9.09 feet; thence North 21 degrees 05 minutes 11 seconds West a distance of 15.93 feet to the west line of said Government Lot 2 and said described line there terminating (Abstract property) AND Lot 20, CONROY'S BAY, Scott County, Minnesota and that part of Lots 18, 19, 21, and the Waterfront in said plat, together with that part of Government Lot 2, Section 30, Township 115, Range 21, Scott County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the westerly extension of the north line of said Lot 19, with the west line of said Government Lot 2; thence easterly along said westerly extension a distance of 15 feet more or less to the northwest corner of said Lot 19, the same being the southwest corner of said Lot 18; thence North along the west line of said Lot 18, a distance of 40 feet more or less to the southwest corner of the north 10.00 feet of said Lot 18; thence South 89 degrees 08 minutes 21 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the south line of said north 10.00 feet a distance of 40.57 feet, thence South 49 degrees 07 minutes 44 seconds East a distance of 15.32 feet, thence South 09 degrees 07 minutes 06 seconds East a distance of 30.61 feet more or less to a point on the north line of said Lot 19, distant 72.00 feet westerly of the northeast corner of said Lot 19 (said point also being 57.01 feet easterly of the southwest corner of said Lot 18); thence continuing South 09 degrees 07 minutes 06 seconds East, along a line hereinafter referred to as "Line A", a distance of 160.43 feet more or less to a point on the southerly line of said Lot 21, said point distant 83.12 feet easterly of the southwest corner of said Lot 20 (as measured along the southerly line of said Lots 20 and 21); thence continuing South 09 degrees 07 minutes 06 seconds East to the shoreline of Prior Lake; thence westerly along said shoreline to its intersection with the west line of said Government Lot 2, thence North along said west line to the point of beginning. EXCEPT that part lying northwest of the following described line: Commencing at the southwest corner of Lot 18, said plat; thence on an assumed bearing of North 00 degrees 41 minutes 38 seconds East, along the west line of said Lot 18, a distance of 34.72 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 87 degrees 38 minutes 52 seconds East a distance of 33.85 feet; thence South 47 degrees 09 minutes 05 seconds East a distance of 20.13 feet; thence South 12 degrees 12 minutes 48 seconds East a distance of 72.81 feet to said "Line A", and said line there terminating. (Torrens property) Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as HAUS ADDITION and does hereby dedicate to the public for public use the drainage and utility easements as created on this plat. In witness whereof said Jason J. Haus and Susan M. Haus, husband and wife, has hereunto set their hand this day of , 20 . By: By: Jason J. Haus Susan M. Haus STATE OF COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on day of , 20 , by Jason J. Haus and Susan M. Haus, husband and wife. Notary Public, County, (Notary Signature) My commission expires (Notary Printed Name) I Marcus F. Hampton do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota; that this plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on this plat; that all monuments depicted on this plat have been, or will be correctly set within one year; that all water boundaries and wet lands, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subd. 3, as of the date of this certificate are shown and labeled on this plat; and all public ways are shown and labeled on this plat. Dated this day of , 20 ______________________________________________________________ Marcus F. Hampton, Licensed Land Surveyor, Minnesota License No. 47481 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of , 20 , by Marcus F. Hampton, Licensed Land Surveyor, Minnesota License No. 47481. Notary Public, County, Minnesota (Notary Signature) My commission expires January 31, (Notary Printed Name) CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA This plat of HAUS ADDITION was approved and accepted by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota at a regular meeting thereof held this day of , 20 , and said plat is in compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subd. 2. By: By: Mayor Clerk SCOTT COUNTY SURVEYOR Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 389.09, Subd. 1, as amended, this plat has been reviewed and approved this day of , 20 . By: Scott County Surveyor SCOTT COUNTY AUDITOR/TREASURER I hereby certify that the current and delinquent taxes on the lands described within are paid and the transfer is entered this day of , 20 . Scott County Auditor Scott County Treasurer By: , Deputy SCOTT COUNTY RECORDER I hereby certify that this plat of HAUS ADDITION was recorded in the office of the County Recorder for record on this day of , 20 , at o'clock . M. as Document Number . By: Scott County Recorder SCOTT COUNTY REGISTRAR OF TITLES I hereby certify that this plat of HAUS ADDITION was recorded in the office of the Registrar of Titles for record on this day of , 20 , at o'clock . M. as Document Number . By: Scott County Registrar of Titles SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEETS HAUS ADDITION BEING 5 FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOINING SIDE LOT LINES, AND BEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOINING PUBLIC WAYS, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED ON THIS PLAT. DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS: BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE WEST LINE OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SEC. 20, T. 114, R. 20 WHICH IS ASSUMED TO HAVE A BEARING OF S 00°11'15" W VICINITY MAP DENOTES FOUND OPEN 1/2 INCH IRON MONUMENT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED DENOTES SET 1/2 INCH BY 14 INCH IRON MONUMENT WITH CAP MARKED L.S. NO. 47481 TO BE SET IN ACCORDANCE WITH MN STATE SATUTE 505.021, SUBD. 10. DENOTES FOUND SCOTT COUNTY CAST IRON MONUMENT DENOTES FOUND SCOTT COUTNY NAIL AND DISC SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS BENCHMARK: TOP NUT HYDRANT NORTH SIDE OF ROAD AT BEND IN SHADY BEACH TRAIL. ELEVATION = 913.62 (NAVD 88) 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: July 6, 2026 AGENDA #: 4B PREPARED BY: Paul Moretto, Planner PRESENTED BY: Casey McCabe, Community Development Director AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT/REZONING FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF 4540 TOWER STREET SE DISCUSSION: Introduction Roers Acquisitions, LLC, on behalf of the property owners, BK Tower Properties, LLC, has submitted applications requesting a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment and Zoning Map amendment/rezoning for two parcels located west of 4540 Tower Street SE. The subject property includes two parcels generally located south of Tower Street SE and west of Toronto Avenue SE. The subject parcels are Lot 1, Block 2, Envid First Addition, PID 252690030, and Outlot A, Envid First Addition, PID 252690041. The proposed redevelopment concept plan also includes the adja- cent ISD 719 District Office parcel, PID 250220050, but the applicant is not re- questing a land use map amendment or rezoning of that parcel as it is already guided and zoned for high density residential use. The applicant is proposing to redevelop the site with a ± 166-unit, three- and four- story multifamily residential apartment building. The proposed project requires a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment and Zoning Map amendment because portions of the site are currently guided and zoned for general busi- ness/commercial use, while the applicant proposes to develop the site under a high-density residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) framework. The existing zoning of the two subject parcels is C-2, General Business and the proposed zoning is R-3, High Density Residential. The existing ISD 719 parcel is guided and zoned for high-density residential, and the two BK Tower Properties parcels are guided and zoned for general business. This report is limited to the requested Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment and Zoning Map amendment/rezoning. Should the requests for a land use map and zoning map amendment ultimately be approved by the City Council, the applicant will submit additional applications and plans related to a preliminary plat, preliminary planned PUD, and easement vacation. These future applications would be considered during a future public hearing. History The two subject commercial parcels are vacant. The western parcel is approxi- mately 0.93 acres and is mostly covered with a drainage and utility easement 2 making the parcel largely undevelopable. The eastern parcel is approximately 1.99 acres. Based upon a review of available aerial photographs, neither com- mercial parcel has ever been developed. On June 1, 2026, the Planning Commission reviewed a concept plan and request to authorize City staff to accept and process an application for a Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan for a project less than 10 acres on prop- erty located at 4540 Tower Street SE and the adjacent parcels to the west. The Planning Commission voted 3-2 to approve the PUD acreage exception and authorize City staff to accept and process a formal Preliminary PUD application for a project less than 10 acres. The Planning Commission’s prior action did not approve the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment, the Zoning Map amendment, the Preliminary PUD Plan, the final PUD plans, or the plat. Rather, the action allowed the applicant to proceed with formal application review under the PUD process. The application and review for the Land Use and Zoning change is the first step in the process. Current Circumstances The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment and Zoning Map amendment/rezoning to support redevelopment of the subject property as a multifamily residential PUD. The site is located in a developed portion of the City near a mix of commercial, institutional, and residential uses. The site is located south of Tower Street SE, west of Toronto Avenue SE, north of 170th Street SE, and near the Woodridge residential neighborhood. The applicant’s concept plan shows a 166-unit apartment building with a combi- nation of three- and four-story building elements and one level of garage parking below portions of the building. The concept plan identifies 332 total parking stalls, including 168 garage stalls and 164 stalls on Level 1, resulting in a proposed parking ratio of 2.0 stalls per unit. The concept plan also identifies outdoor amen- ity areas including a pool, patio, yard games area, dog run, and pedestrian con- nections. The applicant’s concept plan identifies the following project information: ➢ Site Area: 5.5 acres ➢ Building Area: 4.8 acres ➢ Existing Zoning: C-2 and R-3 ➢ Proposed Zoning: R-3 + PUD Overlay Standard Ordinance Applicant Proposal Maximum FAR 0.35 0.87 Maximum Density 20 units per acre 31 units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet / 4 stories 45 feet / 4 stories Parking 2 stalls per unit 2 stalls per unit / 332 stalls 3 The site plan also identifies the following setbacks: ➢ Required Front Setback: 45 feet ➢ Provided Front Setback: 45 feet ➢ Required Side Setback: 15 feet ➢ Provided Side Setback: 39 feet ➢ Required Rear Setback: 25 feet ➢ Provided Rear Setback: 86 feet adjacent to R-1 per 10-606 (10). The formal preliminary and final plat request would be reviewed separately. This report is limited to the requested Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment and Zoning Map amendment/rezoning. Commercial/Industrial Land Supply and Maxfield Study Staff reviewed the June 2022 Commercial/Industrial Demand Analysis for Scott County, Minnesota, prepared by Maxfield Research and Consulting. The study evaluated projected retail, office, and industrial demand in Scott County commu- nities and submarkets through 2040. For purposes of the Maxfield study, the Prior Lake Submarket includes the City of Prior Lake, Credit River, and Spring Lake Township. As Credit River is now a municipality, those results must be tempered, but the areawide analysis remains the same. The study projected 2021–2040 demand in the Prior Lake Submarket for approximately 350,858 square feet of retail space, 93,906 square feet of office space, and 484,914 square feet of industrial space, for a total commercial/indus- trial demand of approximately 929,678 square feet. The study also projected that approximately 92 acres of land would be needed to support commercial and in- dustrial development in the Prior Lake Submarket through 2040. Prior Lake currently has ± 800 acres of vacant land guided for future commer- cial/industrial development. The majority of undeveloped commercial property is located in the Orderly Annexation Area in the southwestern portion of the com- munity. The recently adopted Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) iden- tified an additional 35 acres of commercial/industrial property that is currently identified in the City’s Future Land Use Map. This additional acreage will be for- malized in the Future Land Use Map during the 2050 Comprehensive Plan up- date over the next few years. It is noted that the vast majority of vacant commer- cial/industrial property is not currently served with municipal sewer and water ser- vices. The Maxfield study provides useful context for the requested Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment because a portion of the subject property is cur- rently guided and zoned for general business/commercial use. The study indi- cates that there is continued demand for commercial and industrial land uses in the Prior Lake Submarket. Therefore, conversion of commercially guided land to residential use should be considered carefully and should be evaluated in relation to the City’s long-term commercial land supply, economic development goals, housing goals, and the specific characteristics of the subject site. Staff does not interpret the Maxfield study as prohibiting conversion of any com- mercially guided land. Rather, the study indicates that commercial and industrial land supply remains an important long-range planning consideration. In this case, 4 the subject property is located in an established area with existing infrastructure, adjacent residential development, and a split commercial/residential land use and zoning pattern. The requested amendment would consolidate the redevelopment area under a high-density residential PUD framework, subject to site-specific con- ditions and public benefit requirements. Staff finds that the requested land use amendment may be reasonable if the City determines that the proposed residential PUD provides a better long -term land use outcome for this specific site than retaining the current split commercial and residential guidance. However, the Maxfield study should be acknowledged as part of the City’s legislative decision because it demonstrates continued demand for commercial and industrial space in the Prior Lake Submarket. Traffic Although discussion of traffic is more appropriate during a future PUD review, staff acknowledges traffic is a common public comment that is likely to be raised during the public hearing. It is noted that the applicant is currently completing a Traffic Impact Study to support future site-specific development discussions and the traffic information below is more general in nature. City staff reviewed available traffic count and speed information for the area near the proposed Roers project. The information includes 2025 traffic counts for To- ronto Avenue north and south of Tower Street and available historic 2021 counts for Tower Street east of Village Lake Drive. The 2025 Toronto Avenue counts show approximately 2,371 combined north and southbound annual average daily trips (AADT) north of Tower Street and approx- imately 1,298 combined north and southbound AADT south of Tower Street. Av- erage speeds on Toronto Avenue were generally between 29 and 31 miles per hour. The 85th percentile speed ranged from approximately 31.8 miles per hour to 35.9 miles per hour, depending on location and direction of travel. The traffic information indicates that Toronto Avenue is functioning as a neigh- borhood collector/local connection with acceptable existing traffic volumes and speeds. The proposed redevelopment will add residential trips to the area; how- ever, detailed access, circulation, right-of-way, and improvement requirements will be reviewed as part of the Traffic Impact Study during a potential future ap- plication. Staff also notes that resident correspondence raised a concern about children waiting for the school bus near the corner of Tower Street SE and Toronto Ave- nue SE. As part of the proposed project, the trail/sidewalk connection along the project frontage is expected to be reconstructed and shifted farther back from the curb. This improvement would provide additional separation between pedestrians and vehicles compared with the existing condition. Final trail location, grading, boulevard width, curb alignment, and pedestrian safety improvements would be reviewed during future PUD and plan review. Staff recommends that pedestrian safety remain a focus of the final review, in- cluding trail alignment, sidewalk continuity, boulevard separation, intersection vis- ibility, lighting, and safe pedestrian crossings near Tower Street SE and Toronto Avenue SE. 5 City staff reviewed available traffic count and speed information near the pro- posed Roers project and prepared a planning-level trip generation comparison using generalized rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. This comparison uses extrapolated model data and generalized trips end and is only intended to provide general land use context and is not a full traffic impact study. The estimate is based on a 166-unit multifamily apartment building. For this com- parison, staff used ITE Land Use Code 221, Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise), Not Close to Rail Transit. ITE defines mid-rise multifamily housing as apartments or condominiums in buildings with four to ten floors of living space. The proposed project is expected to generate approximately 754 average weekday daily trips, approximately 61 AM peak-hour trips, and approximately 65 PM peak-hour trips. Staff also compared the proposed apartment project to potential commercial de- velopment scenarios that could be considered under the existing commer- cial/general business land use pattern. These scenarios are illustrative only and are not pending development proposals. Land Use Scenario Daily Trips AM Peak Trips PM Peak Trips Notes Proposed 166-unit multifam- ily apartment building 754 61 65 Gross trip estimate Existing 21,000 SF office building 228 32 30 Existing/use credit baseline 10,000 SF commercial day- care 476 110 111 Gross trip estimate 21,000 SF office + 10,000 SF commercial daycare 704 142 141 Gross, unadjusted to- tal 21,000 SF building converted to commercial daycare 1,000 231 234 Gross trip estimate Net new trips: 21,000 SF of- fice converted to commercial daycare 772 199 204 Gross daycare trips minus existing office trips Single-tunnel automated carwash 775 39 78 Gross trip estimate 21,000 SF commercial day- care + single-tunnel auto- mated carwash 1,775 270 312 Gross, unadjusted to- tal using 21,000 SF daycare baseline Net new trips: 21,000 SF of- fice converted to daycare + single-tunnel automated carwash 1,547 238 282 Gross daycare + carwash trips minus existing office trips 6 The comparison shows that the apartment project would generate a similar num- ber of average daily trips as a modest commercial scenario consisting of the ex- isting 21,000 square-foot office building plus a 10,000 square-foot commercial daycare. However, the apartment project would generate substantially fewer trips during the AM and PM peak hours. The 166-unit apartment building is estimated to generate approximately 61 AM peak-hour trips and 65 PM peak-hour trips, compared to approximately 142 AM peak-hour trips and 141 PM peak-hour trips for the office/daycare scenario. The difference is more pronounced when compared to a more traffic -intensive commercial scenario, such as conversion of the existing 21,000 square -foot building to a commercial daycare combined with a single-tunnel automated carwash. That scenario could generate approximately 1,775 average daily trips, 270 AM peak-hour trips, and 312 PM peak-hour trips. By comparison, the pro- posed apartment project would generate approximately 1,021 fewer daily trips, 209 fewer AM peak-hour trips, and 247 fewer PM peak-hour trips. Staff notes that the commercial scenarios do not apply pass-by, diverted-link, in- ternal capture, transit, walking, or bicycle reductions. As a result, the numbers should be understood as gross trip-end estimates for comparison purposes. Cer- tain commercial uses, particularly daycare and carwash uses, may include some trips already present on the adjacent street system. Even without applying those reductions, the comparison is useful because it shows that the proposed residen- tial project is not necessarily the highest-traffic use that could be developed under a commercial land use framework. The traffic information provided above is only intended to provide a comparison between residential and commercial uses. A more detailed Traffic Impact Study would be presented and considered during a future public hearing. ISSUES: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map establishes the City’s long -range land use policy for property within the City. Zoning is intended to implement the Com- prehensive Plan. If a proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the property’s current land use designation, a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment is re- quired before or concurrent with rezoning. The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment to support the proposed multifamily residential redevelopment. The existing ISD 719 parcel is guided and zoned for high-density residential, while the two BK Tower Properties parcels are guided and zoned for general business. The proposed project would consolidate the development area under a common multi-unit res- idential framework. The requested land use amendment should be evaluated based on whether a high-density residential use is appropriate in this location, whether the amend- ment is compatible with surrounding development, and whether the change sup- ports the City’s long-range land use goals. 7 The site is located in a developed area with existing streets, utilities, and nearby services. The proposed redevelopment may support efficient use of existing pub- lic infrastructure. The site is also located near existing residential neighborhoods, which makes compatibility, building scale, access, traffic, screening, lighting, and pedestrian connections important review considerations. Additionally, the com- mercial portion of the property is located more than 900 lineal feet from Highway 13, has poor commercial visibility and has been listed for sale for many years with no success. If approved by the City Council, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amend- ment must be forwarded to the Metropolitan Council for review. The amendment is not effective until approved or authorized by the Metropolitan Council and for- mally placed into effect by the City. Staff finds that the requested Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment may be reasonable for continued review because the site is located in a devel- oped portion of the City with access to existing infrastructure. Conversely, the redevelopment presents an increase in residential density and reduction of de- velopable commercial property. Additionally, the conversion of commercial land use to residential has not historically been supported by the city. These are im- portant factors to consider in the Planning Commission’s analysis. Zoning Map Amendment / Rezoning The applicant is requesting rezoning from the existing C-2 and R-3 zoning desig- nations to R-3. The requested rezoning should be evaluated based on whether the existing zon- ing is no longer appropriate for the property, whether conditions in the area sup- port redevelopment, and whether the proposed zoning and permitted uses will be compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood. The proposed rezoning may be appropriate if the City determines that the rede- velopment provides a better land use outcome than maintaining the split com- mercial/residential zoning condition. The use may also be appropriate if it allows the City to address site-specific issues such as building massing, parking place- ment, pedestrian connections, right-of-way dedication, stormwater improve- ments, open space, and buffering from adjacent residential areas. The Zoning Ordinance requires recommendations of the Planning Commission and decisions of the City Council on zoning map amendments to be supported by findings addressing the relationship of the proposed amendment to the follow- ing policies: ➢ The area, as presently zoned, is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan, or the land was originally zoned erroneously due to a technical or administrative error. ➢ The existing zoning was established under prior planning assumptions for the property. If the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map is amended as requested, the existing zoning designation for portions of the site would 8 no longer implement the amended land use guidance. Rezoning the prop- erty would align the Zoning Map with the proposed long-range land use direction for the site. ➢ The area for which rezoning is requested has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to rezone so as to encourage redevelopment of the area. ➢ The subject property is under contract for redevelopment and is located in an established area of the City. The proposed rezoning would allow the City to evaluate redevelopment through a planned zoning framework ra- ther than maintaining the existing split commercial/residential zoning con- dition. ➢ The permitted uses allowed within the proposed Zoning District will be appropriate on the subject property and compatible with adjacent proper- ties and the neighborhood. Compatibility with Adjacent Properties Compatibility with adjacent residential areas should be reviewed carefully. Key issues may include building height and massing, views from adjacent properties, lighting, traffic circulation, access location, screening, landscaping, snow storage, retaining walls, stormwater management, and pedestrian safety. Based on correspondence received, the adjacent property owners seem to sup- port commercial development adjacent to their property. The City of Prior Lake generally prefers to utilize medium- and high-density residential as a buffer be- tween commercial uses and lower density residential uses and does not generally guide or zone commercial development immediately adjacent to low-density res- idential uses. Approval of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment and Zoning Map amendment should not be interpreted as approval of the plat, final site plan, building plans, or final PUD development standards. Those items must be addressed through the companion plat, PUD, development agreement, and building permit review processes Conclusion The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment and Zoning Map amendment/rezoning to allow redevelopment of the subject property as a multifamily residential PUD. The Planning Commission previously voted 3-2 to authorize City staff to accept and process a PUD application for the site despite the property being less than 10 acres. Staff finds that the requested land use map amendment and rezoning may be reasonable because the property is located in a developed area with access to existing infrastructure. However, the requested change of use would be a shift in past planning practice related to the loss of commercially guided property. 9 ALTERNATIVES: If the Planning Commission finds the request for the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment and Zoning Map amendment/rezoning is appropriate, then staff recommends the following conditions. Recommended Conditions 1. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment shall not become effective until reviewed and authorized by the Metropolitan Council and placed into effect by the City Council. 2. The Zoning Map amendment shall establish R-3 as the underlying zoning district, unless otherwise revised and approved by the City Council. 3. Approval of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment and Zoning Map amendment shall not constitute approval of the combined preliminary and final plat or final development plans. 4. The applicant shall provide final legal descriptions and map exhibits for the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment and Zoning Map amendment prior to City Council action. 5. The applicant shall confirm fee ownership and owner authorization for all parcels included in the request prior to City Council action. 6. Approval of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment and re- zoning are conditioned on City Council approval of a preliminary plat and preliminary planned unit development plan. Failure to receive preliminary plat approval and preliminary planned unit development approval and rec- ord a Final Plat within 12 months of approval shall result in the resolution approving a Future Lane Use Map amendment and ordinance rezoning the property from C-2 to R-3 being null and void. 1. Motion and a second recommending the City Council approve the Compre- hensive Plan Land Use Map amendment and Zoning Map amendment/rezon- ing for the subject property, subject to the listed conditions. 2. Motion and a second recommending the City Council deny the Comprehen- sive Plan Land Use Map amendment and Zoning Map amendment/rezoning based on findings of fact. 3. Motion and a second to table the item to a future Planning Commission meet- ing and provide the applicant and staff with direction. RECOMMENDED MOTION: N/A ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Land Use Plan Map Current and Proposed 3. Zoning Map Current and Proposed 4. Conceptual Site Plan and Elevations 5. Survey Current Land Use Proposed Land Use Current Zoning Proposed Zoning R-3 High Density Residential R3 - High Density Residential C2 - General Business C-2 General Business kaas wilson architects Roers - Prior LakeNEIGHBORHOOD MEETING - BOARD 1 1 4540 Tower St SE, Prior Lake, MN 55372 06/18/2026 kaas wilson architects Roers - Prior LakeNEIGHBORHOOD MEETING - BOARD 2 2 4540 Tower St SE, Prior Lake, MN 55372 06/18/2026 kaas wilson architects Roers - Prior LakeNEIGHBORHOOD MEETING - BOARD 3 3 4540 Tower St SE, Prior Lake, MN 55372 06/18/2026 kaas wilson architects Roers - Prior LakeNEIGHBORHOOD MEETING - BOARD 4 4 4540 Tower St SE, Prior Lake, MN 55372 06/18/2026 CO FO FO FO FO F O F O UG E UG E F O F O FO FO GA S GA S lllllllll l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l N89°35'12"W 474.92N89°44'01"W 414.60 N71°45 ' 2 5 " E 3 1 6 . 1 2 N0 1 ° 5 3 ' 0 1 " E 2 5 8 . 6 9 N72°05 ' 0 1 " E 36.00 R =6 3 4 .11 Δ =2 2 °5 7 '16 "L =2 5 4 .0 4CHBRG=N 8 3 °3 3 '3 9 "E C H =2 5 2 .3 5 N0 0 ° 3 6 ' 2 1 " E 4. 6 7 R=130 2.26 Δ=11°11'00"L =2 5 4.18 CH BRG=S83°59'16 "E CH=2 53.7 8 S89°34'46"E 47.35 S0 0 ° 3 6 ' 2 2 " W 3 8 0 . 0 0 N0 0 ° 1 5 ' 5 9 " E 3 0 0 . 0 0 S89°44'01"E 51.89 N2 9 ° 0 3 ' 0 0 " E 2 4 7 . 9 0 R=2550.58 Δ=2°20'36"L=104.32 CH BRG=S75°05'19"E CH=104.31 S73° 5 4 ' 5 9 " E 39.82 S0 1 ° 5 3 ' 0 1 " W 3 7 9 . 8 4 (S71°3 0 ' 1 3 " W 3 1 6 . 3 9 ) (N 0 0 ° 0 4 ' 1 7 " W ) (N89°55'43E) (51.99) (N 2 8 ° 3 4 ' 5 7 " E 2 4 7 . 3 4 ) (R=2,547.98 Δ=02°21'55"L=105.18) (CH BRG=S75°28'12E ) (S74° 1 7 ' 1 5 " E ) (S 0 1 ° 3 0 ' 4 5 " W ) 120.06179.72175.14223.65190.95 0 40'80' ORIENTATION OF THIS BEARING SYSTEM IS BASED ON EAST LINE OF LOT 1, BLOCK 3, BROOKSVILLE CENTER 1ST ADDITION,HAVING AN ASSUMED BEARING OF NORTH 00°36'22" WEST NAME OF PLAT PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That part of Lot 1, Block 3, Brooksville Center 1st Addition, lying East of a line 300 feet West of and parallel to the East line of said Lot 1, according to the recorded plat thereof, situate in Scott County, Minnesota. AND Parcel 1: Lot 1, Block 2, Envid First Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Scott County, Minnesota Parcel 2: Outlot A, Enivid First Addition, except that part of said Outlot A contained within the following description: That part of Lot 1, Block 3, Brooksville Center 1st Addition, according to the plat on file in the office of the County Recorder, Scott County, Minnesota, described as beginning at the Southwest corner of said Lot 1; thence North 00 degrees 04 minutes 17 seconds West, record bearing along the West line of said Lot 300.00 feet to the South line of a roadway and utility easement; thence North 89 degrees 55 minutes 43 seconds East along said South line 51.99 feet; thence North 28 degrees 34 minutes 57 seconds East, along the Southeasterly line of said easement 247.34 feet to the South line of South Anna Lane, now known as Tower Street; thence Southeasterly along said South line 105.18 feet along a non-tangential curve, concave to the Southwest, having a central angle of 2 degrees 21 minutes 55 seconds and a radius of 2,547.98 feet; and the chord of said curve bears South 75 degrees 28 minutes 12 seconds East; thence South 74 degrees 17 minutes 15 seconds East, tangent to said curve 39.82 feet; thence South 1 degrees 30 minutes 45 seconds West a distance of 379.84 feet; thence South 71 degrees 30 minutes 13 seconds West 316.39 feet to the point of beginning, Scott County, Minnesota. OWNER: BK TOWER PROPERTIES LLC, A MINNESOTA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 7171 W 95TH STREET, SUITE 501 OVERLAND PARK, KS 66212 OWNER: INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 719, A MINNESOTA PUBLIC SCHOOL CORPORATION 4540 TOWER STREET SE, PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 DEVELOPER: NICK ASTA ROERS COMPANIES TWO CARLSON PARKWAY N SUITE 400 PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 LAND SURVEYOR DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING JONATHAN D. SCHUETTE, LS MINNESOTA LICENSE NO. 45352 TELEPHONE: (320) 762-1290 ENGINEER: DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING MICHAEL J. GERBER, PE MINNESOTA LICENSE NO. 56653 TELEPHONE: (320) 762-1290 FO FO UGE UGE GAS GAS l l LEGEND HYDRANT SANITARY MANHOLE STORM MANHOLE GATE VALVE LIGHT POLE CATCH BASIN SIGN DECIDUOUS TREE COMMUNICATION PEDESTAL BOLLARD POWER BOX ELECTRIC METER SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT WOOD FENCE CHAINLINK FENCE STORM SEWER LINE SANITARY SEWER LINE WATERMAIN UNDERGROUND FIBER UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC UNDERGROUND GAS LINE CONCRETE PAVEMENT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT LANDSCAPING BUILDING PLATTED & EXISTING LOT LINES EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT LINES BOUNDARY LINE EDGE OF TREE LINE OR WOODS GAS METER HAND HOLE CO PRELIMINARY PLAT 1 of 1 THIS DRAWING AND THE INFORMATION THEREIN IS THE PROPERTY OF DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING INC. USE BY THE HOLDER OR DISCLOSURE TO OTHERS WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING INC. IS PROHIBITED. IT CONTAINS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION OF DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING INC. REPRODUCTION OF THE MATERIAL HEREIN WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION OF DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING INC. VIOLATES THE COPYRIGHT LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AND WILL SUBJECT THE VIOLATORS TO LEGAL PROSECUTION. COPYRIGHT @ 2026 BY DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY, PLAN, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: PROJECT NO.: NO.DATE DESCRIPTION DATE:LICENSE #: PRINTED NAME: P: \ 0 0 0 - M I S C 2 6 \ 0 0 0 2 6 0 1 4 - T O W E R S T R E E T A P A R T M E N T S P R I O R L A K E S \ S U R V E Y \ C A D \ 0 0 0 2 6 0 1 4 - P P . D W G ## # # 3/ 2 7 / 2 0 2 6 PREPARED FOR: 00026014 ROERS COMPANIES 4540 TOWER STREET SE, PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 CWK JDS 45352 Jonathan D. Schuette DATE Surveyor's Note: 1.The underground utilities shown hereon have been located from field survey information and existing record drawings. The surveyor makes no guarantees that the underground utilities shown comprise all such utilities in the area, either in service or abandoned. The surveyor further does not warrant that the underground utilities shown are in the exact location indicated, although he does certify that they are located as accurately as possible from information available. The contractor is responsible to ensure that any existing utilities (shown or not shown) are not damaged during construction. The surveyor has physically located the underground utilities per Gopher State One Call Ticket No. 260640143, 260640414, and 260640415. 2.Subject property has 243,425 square feet (5.59 acres) more or less. 3.The survey does not constitute a title search by Design Tree Engineering and Land Surveying to determine ownership or easements of record. For all information regarding easements, right of way and title of record, Design Tree Engineering and Land Surveying relied upon title commitments, File No.: ORTE751331 and ORTE751331-1 prepared by Old Republic National Title Insurance Company with a preparation date of January 28, 2026 and February 4, 2026. 4.Elevations are based on NAVD88 Vertical Datum. 5.Topography and contours are based upon measurements taken in the field by Design Tree on 03/17/2026 1 INCH = 40 FEET VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 144, RANGE 22 N = DENOTES COUNTY MONUMENT = DENOTES FOUND IRON MONUMENT = DENOTES 1/2 INCH DIAMETER BY 18 INCH LONG IRON PIPE MONUMENT SET AND MARKED RLS# 45352, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE = DENOTES RECORD MEASUREMENT PROPOSED LOT LINE PROPOSED EASEMENT LINE ROADWAY AND UTILITY EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 194725 ROADWAY AND UTILITY EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 279259 ROADWAY AND UTILITY EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 304922 DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT PER PLAT OF ENVID FIRST ADDITION DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT PER PLAT OF ENVID FIRST ADDITION DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT PER DOC. NO A550971 FLAG POLE YARD LIGHT HANDICAP PARKING SOUTH QUARTER CORNER SEC. 2, TWP 114N, RNG 22 W PARCEL 2 PARCEL 1 UPPER PRIOR LAKE 170TH ST SE TOWER ST SE PAR K NICO L L E T AV E VILL A G E LAKE DR FI V E H A W K S A V E S E FRANKLIN T R A I L S E LY O N S AVE SE PRIORWOOD ST SE PLEASANT ST SE COLORADO ST SE DU L U T H A V E S E PROPERTY LOCATION HIGH W A Y N O . 1 3 HIG H W A Y N O . 1 3 OWNER: ISD NO 179 ZONING: R-3 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OWNER: BK TOWER PROPERTIES LLC ZONING: C-2 GENERAL BUSINESS OWNER: US POSTAL SERVICE ZONING: C-2 GENERAL BUSINESS OWNER: SARAH M PLAN ZONING: R-1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OWNER: ROBERT L ERICKSON ZONING: R-1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OW N E R : S T O N E W O O D A P A R T M E N T S L L C ZO N I N G : R - 3 H I G H D E N S I T Y R E S I D E N T I A L STUMP SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 3, BROOKSVILLE CENTER 1ST ADDITION WE S T L I N E O F LO T 1 , B L O C K 3 , BR O O K S V I L L E C E N T E R 1 S T A D D I T I O N SOUTH LINE OF A ROADWAY AND UTILITY EASEMENT SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF A ROADWAY AND UTILITY EASEMENT SOUTH LINE OF SOUTH ANNA LANE (NOW KNOWN AS TOWER STREET) 300.0 WEST LINE OF THE EAST 300' OF LOT 1, BLOCK 3, BROOKSVILLE CENTER 1ST ADDITION EAST LINE EAST OF LOT 1, BLOCK 3, BROOKSVILLE CENTER 1ST ADDITION CAP REMAINS CAP #9808CAP #154803/4" OPEN1/2" OPEN CAP #12043 PK NAIL WITH DISK CAP #15480 CAP #42309 (XXX) OWNER: BK TOWER PROPERTIES LLC ZONING: C-2 GENERAL BUSINESS OWNER: US POSTAL SERVICE ZONING: C-2 GENERAL BUSINESS OWNER: ANNA BAZAL ZONING: R-1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OWNER: MICHAEL VOELS ZONING: R-1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OWNER: ISABELLE HARDER ZONING: R-1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OWNER: STEVEN W & MARGIT POTTER ZONING: R-1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OWNER: DALE R & LINDA A PELZL ZONING: R-1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OWNER: PHYLLIS J BROZ TRUST ZONING: R-1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OWNER: CHEA SOVIRAK ALEXANDER ZONING: R-1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: July 6, 2026 AGENDA #: 5A PREPARED BY: PRESENTED BY: JAKE SKLUZACEK, PLANNER JAKE SKLUZACEK AGENDA ITEM: CONTINUED FROM MAY 18, PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE MAXIMUM TO AL- LOW FOR A NEW HOME ON A PROPERTY IN THE R-1 SD (LOW DENSITY RESI- DENTIAL SHORELAND) ZONING DISTRICT AT LOT SIX (6), SUNRISE VIEW, 17031 SUNSET AVE NW DISCUSSION: Introduction This variance request was originally introduced at the May 18 Planning Commission meeting. A public hearing was held in which two members of the public provided com- ments. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to table the re- quest until further reductions to the impervious surface calculation could be made. The application’s original 60-day timeline for review, June 13, was extended by the applicant for an additional 60 days to August 12. Ryan Bigot, the applicant, is requesting a variance from the zoning code for the con- struction of a new home. The subject property, Lot Six (6) of Sunrise View, is located at 17031 Sunset Ave NW, PID: 254880030. This is a riparian lot. The requested vari- ance is listed below: • A variance to allow 31.86% impervious surface. (Subsection 10-435(5)) Regulation Requirement Proposed Variance Impervious Surface* 30% 31.86%** 1.86% *Current impervious is 24.61%. ** Previously proposed for 33.11% History The property is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and is guided R-LD (Urban Low Density) on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The property is in the Shoreland Overlay District of Spring Lake. The existing house was originally con- structed in 1950 according to Scott County. Current Circumstances 17031 Sunset Ave NW Current Condition Side Yard Front Yard Impervious Driveway Width Adjacent Dwelling Lot Width 5 ft. 4.5 in. / 8 ft. 11 in. 64 ft. 24.61% 24+ ft. 8 ft. 10.75 in. 50 ft. 2 17031 Sunset Ave NW Proposed Condition Side Yard Front Yard Impervious Driveway Width Adjacent Dwelling Lot Width 5.5 ft. / 9.51 ft. 25 ft. 31.86% 18 ft. 15+ ft. 50 ft. The applicant proposes to remove an existing lakeside home constructed in 1950, as well as an existing detached garage, to construct a new single-family home. The new home, garage and porch are proposed to have an 1,849 sq. ft. footprint and a 497 sq. ft. driveway. The rectangular lot is 50 feet wide and approximately 7,364 square feet to the ordinary high-water level of Spring Lake; the lot is considered nonconforming as it is substandard for the shoreland district in both lot width and area. The applicant originally proposed a total impervious surface variance of 3.11%. The applicant has worked with staff to reduce the impervious surface variance to the cur- rently requested 1.86%, a reduction of 1.25%. Impervious Surface: Subsection 10-435(5) states, Impervious surface coverage for lots in all Use Districts shall not exceed 30% of the lot area. The subject lot currently contains 24.61% impervious surface. The applicant proposes impervious surface of 31.86% which is composed of the new dwelling, garage, porch and driveway. ISSUES: This project includes a request for a variance. Section 10-906 states that the Board of Adjustment may grant a variance from the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, provided that: 1) Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Code. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes of the Zoning Code. The purpose of the Zoning Code is to “Promote the most appropriate and orderly development of the residential, business, industrial, public land, and public areas”. 2) Variances shall only be permitted when they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The granting of the variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and its goal to maintain and improve physical character and identity. This is accomplished by achieving compatible relationships between different types of land uses by utilizing design standards, appropriate buffers, land use transitions, and high-quality design. 3) Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Code. “Practical difficulties,” as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Code, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Substandard Lot Width and Area: The lot is only 50 feet wide 7,364 square feet in area, both of which are below the minimum standards for the Shoreland Overlay District of 90 feet in width and 15,000 square feet in area. This narrow lot width creates an unusually constrained buildable area, especially when factoring in required setbacks. 3 Reasonable Use Consistent with Neighborhood: The applicant is seeking to construct a new home on a lot containing an existing small lakeside home built in 1950, a common residential improvement that has been made on many nearby lots. Reduction of Driveway Width to 18 ft.: The applicant is proposing to remove impervious surface related to the width of the driveway as it currently exists. Currently the driveway is approximately 24 ft. wide but is built parallel to the northern property’s driveway for a width slightly exceeding 24 ft. at the right-of-way. Their proposal will make the subject property’s driveway width conforming at the right of way (18 ft.) and side property line by providing a setback exceeding 5 ft. from the side property line. Increase of Side Yard Setbacks: The applicant is proposing to increase side yard setbacks on both sides from 5 ft. 4.5 in. and 8 ft. 11 in. into compliance for a nonconforming lot for a total of 15 ft. or greater. Not Self-Created: The unique constraints of the property, including the lot size and width were not created by the applicant and predate their ownership. These factors result from historic platting and development patterns that do not align with current zoning standards. No Alteration to Neighborhood Character: The proposed structure is consistent with the residential character and scale of surrounding properties, and it would not alter the essential character of the locality. 4) Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations alone are not the reason for the variance request. Conclusion In addition to the reduction in impervious surface coverage, primarily related to a re- duction in driveway area, the applicant has made additional revisions to the survey since the May 18 meeting based on Planning Commission and adjacent property owner comments. The applicant has reduced the area of the covered front porch from ± 97 sq. ft. to ± 52 sq. ft.; the applicant has shown a 3 ft. wide sidewalk, which does not count toward the impervious surface total if 3 ft. or more area of pervious area is around the sidewalk; and the applicant has shown a proposed deck on the rear of the structure. The pro- posed deck will not be allowed to be closer than the average setback of adjacent prop- erties (50 ft.) unless it is 30 inches or less in height. The deck, regardless of height, will be required to have ¼ inch spacing between boards with no impervious surfaces al- lowed below. The applicant could not move the home further north, as was requested during the hearing, as they are required to maintain a minimum 15 ft. separation from the adjacent structures. The new home is proposed to have an 18.7 ft. separation from the parcel to the south and a 15.4 ft. separation from the parcel to the north. City staff believe this variance is warranted and necessary to allow for construction of a new home due to the narrowness of the lot width (50 feet), substandard lot size (7,364 square feet). Other neighborhood homes surrounding the subject property have similar structures on narrow lots. 4 If the Board of Adjustments finds the applicant has met all necessary criteria and sup- ports approval of the variance, then staff recommends the following conditions: ➢ The applicant shall provide a grading plan confirming all stormwater drainage from the development will be managed on their property. ➢ The variance resolution shall be recorded at Scott County. ➢ Building Permit shall be obtained from the Building Department prior to the com- mencement of construction. ➢ Any sidewalk or walkway shall be three feet or less in width with three feet of per- vious coverage on both sides. ➢ The existing driveway shall be revised to be a maximum width of 18 feet within the entire boulevard area; the existing driveway shall be removed between the north property line and the proposed 18-foot driveway to provide a clear separation be- tween the two parcels and eliminate the ability for parking within the boulevard out- side the 18-foot driveway area. ➢ An as-built survey shall be required following construction to ensure conformance with the approved variance. If the Board of Adjustments finds the applicant has not met all necessary criteria and would like to see further revisions to reduce the impervious surface, staff recommends providing direction to the applicant related to reasonable impervious surface coverage and table the item for consideration at a future meeting prior to the review timeline deadline of August 12. ALTERNATIVES: 1. If the Board of Adjustment finds the requested variance is warranted in this case, a motion and a second to adopt a resolution approving the variance requested for 17031 Sunset Ave NW with the listed conditions or approve any variance the Board of Adjustment deems appropriate in the circumstances. 2. If the Board of Adjustment finds the requested variance is not warranted in this case, a motion and a second to deny the variance requested because the Board of Adjustment finds a lack of demonstrated practical difficulties under the zoning code criteria and direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for consideration at the next Board of Adjustment meeting. 3. If the Board of Adjustment would like additional information from the applicant about the requested variance or would like to see further plan revisions to decrease the variance request, a motion and a second to table or continue discussion of the item for specific purposes as directed by the Board of Adjustment. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: Alternative No.1 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Applicant Narrative 3. Previous Survey – May 18, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting 4. Current Survey – July 6, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting 5. Resolution 26-002PC 1 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 RESOLUTION 26-002PC VARIANCE FROM THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE MAXIMUM TO ALLOW FOR A NEW HOME ON A PROPERTY IN THE R-1 SD (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SHORELAND) ZONING DISTRICT WHEREAS, The Prior Lake Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment, conducted a public hearing on May 18, 2026, to consider a request from Ryan Bigot, the applicant, requesting a variance from maximum impervious surface to allow construction of a new home on a property located in the R-1 SD (Low Density Residential Shoreland) Zoning District at the following property, legally described as: Lot Six (6), Sunrise View, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder, Scott County, Minnesota. Address: 17031 Sunset Ave NW, Prior Lake, MN 55379 (PID 254880030) WHEREAS, Notice of the public hearing on said variance request was duly published in accordance with the applicable Prior Lake Ordinances; and WHEREAS, The Board of Adjustment proceeded to hear all persons interested in this variance request, and persons interested were afforded the opportunity to present their views and objections related to the variance request; and WHEREAS, WHEREAS, The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for the variances as contained in Case #DEV26-000012 and held a hearing thereon on May 18, 2026; and The Board of Adjustment voted 5-0 to table the variance request until further reductions could be made to the impervious surface and the request was reconsidered on July 6, 2026; and WHEREAS, The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the Comprehensive Plan. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA as follows: 1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein. 2. The Board of Adjustment hereby adopts the following findings: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Code. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes of the Zoning Code. The purpose of the Zoning Code is to “Promote the most appropriate and orderly development of the residential, business, industrial, public land, and public areas”. 2 b. Variances shall only be permitted when they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The granting of the variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and its goal to maintain and improve physical character and identity. This is accomplished by achieving compatible relationships between different types of land uses by utilizing design standards, appropriate buffers, land use transitions, and high-quality design. c. Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Code. “Practical difficulties,” as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Code, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Substandard Lot Width and Area: The lot is only 50 feet wide 7,364 square feet in area, both of which are below the minimum standards for the Shoreland Overlay District of 90 feet in width and 15,000 square feet in area. This narrow lot width creates an unusually constrained buildable area, especially when factoring in required setbacks. Reasonable Use Consistent with Neighborhood: The applicant is seeking to construct a new home on a lot containing an existing small lakeside home built in 1950, a common residential improvement that has been made on many nearby lots. Reduction of Driveway Width to 18 ft.: The applicant is proposing removing impervious surface related to the width of the driveway as it currently exists. Currently the driveway is approximately 24 ft. wide but is built parallel to the northern property’s driveway for a width slightly exceeding 24 ft. at the right-of-way. Their proposal will make the driveway width conforming at the right-of-way (18 ft.) and side property line by providing a setback exceeding 5 ft. from the property line. Increase of Side Yard Setbacks: The applicant is proposing to increase side yard setbacks on both sides from 5 ft. 4.5 in. and 8 ft. 11 in. into compliance for a nonconforming lot for a total of 15 ft. or greater. Not Self-Created: The unique constraints of the property, including the lot size and width were not created by the applicant and predate their ownership. These factors result from historic platting and development patterns that do not align with current zoning standards. No Alteration to Neighborhood Character: The proposed structure is consistent with the residential character and scale of surrounding properties, and it would not alter the essential character of the locality. d. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations alone are not the reason for the variance request. 3 3. Based upon the findings set forth herein, the Board of Adjustment hereby approves the following variance to allow the construction of a new home per the proposed survey in the R-1 SD (Low Density Residential Shoreland) Zoning District: a. A variance for impervious surface from 30% to 31.86%. (Subsection 10-435(5)) 4. The variances are subject to the following conditions of approval: a. The applicant shall provide a grading plan confirming all stormwater drainage from the driveway will be managed on their property. b. The variance resolution shall be recorded at Scott County. c. Building Permit shall be obtained from the Building Department prior to the commencement of construction. d. Any sidewalk or walkway shall be three feet or less in width with three feet of pervious coverage on both sides. e. The existing driveway shall be revised to be a maximum width of 18 feet within the entire boulevard area; the existing driveway shall be removed between the north property line and the proposed 18-foot driveway to provide a clear separation between the two parcels and eliminate the ability for parking within the boulevard outside the 18-foot driveway area. f. An as-built survey shall be required following construction to ensure conformance with the approved variance. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 6th DAY OF JULY 2026. ________________________________________ Bryan Fleming, Commission Chair ATTEST: ________________________________________ Casey McCabe, Community Development Director Commissioners Aye Nay Absent Abstain Fleming ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Fenstermacher ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Tennison ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Yurko ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Rook ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Schmokel ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Nicholson ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐