Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 01 2026 PC Minutes 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