HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 - 2.24.25 PC Minutes
1
PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday February 24, 2025
1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance:
Chair Tschetter called the Monday February 24, 2025 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting
to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners Jason Tschetter, Dan Ringstad, Michael Tennison, Michael
Pasquarette, Doug Johnson, Christian Fenstermacher, and Kate Yurko were present. City Council
Liaison Victor Lake, Community Development Director Casey McCabe, Assistant City Engineer
Luke Schwarz and Deputy Clerk / Administrative Assistant Megan Kooiman were also present.
2. Approval of Monday February 24, 2025 Agenda:
MOTION BY RINGSTAD SECONDED BY TENNISON TO APPROVE THE MONDAY
FEBRUARY 24, 2025 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA.
VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Tschetter, Fenstermacher, Johnson, and Tennison.
Motion carried 5-0.
3. Approval of Monday, December 9, 2024, Meeting Minutes:
MOTION BY JOHNSON SECONDED BY FENSTERMACHER TO APPROVE THE MONDAY,
DECEMBER 9, 2024, PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES.
VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Tschetter, Fenstermacher, Johnson, and Tennison.
Motion carried 5-0.
4. Public Hearings:
A. PDEV24-000017 – 17801 Fairlawn Ave – Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Planned Unit
Development – On behalf of the property owner, Roberta Grube, Distinctive Land Development
LLC is requesting approval of a preliminary plat / preliminary Planned Unit Development plan for
development of a 46-lot low density residential subdivision to be known as Aspen Ridge at 17801
Fairlawn Avenue, Prior Lake, MN 55372. (PID 119100120)
Director McCabe: Introduced the public hearing to consider a request for a Preliminary Plat and
Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan. McCabe explained the current circumstances,
physical site characteristics, and the Preliminary Planned Unit Development plan. City Staff is
recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat and preliminary planned unit development.
Commissioner Comments:
Yurko: Asked about the lot line extensions through the wetlands and if increasing the lot are increases
the value. Asked if the additional land area would have an impact on property taxes.
McCabe: Larger lots are more attractive and tend to have a higher value. Staff is not sure how the county
will evaluate the area of the lot that is considered unbuildable or in the easement.
Ringstad: Questioned if there is going to be improvements to 180th and what would the developer’s
contribution cover.
McCabe: Stated Spring Lake Township does not support improving 180th Street so the city would have
to decide if we would take the 180th improvements as a standalone project. The developer will contribute
half of the street improvement costs for one-half the street width based on the frontage of their property.
Tschetter: Question the order of approval and if everything is ready to go. Questioned the lot sizes and
extension through the wetlands.
McCabe: Commented on the annexation of the property being previously approved by the City Council,
subject to approval of a preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan. No further administrative work needs
to be done. There is not much impact due to the extended property lines through the wetlands. The
previous developer proposed to have all stormwater ponds and wetlands in an outlot and this developer
2
is proposing to dedicate conservation easements over the ponds and wetlands; no impact to developable
area.
Applicant:
John Anderson Representing Distinctive Land Development: Explained the history of project and
other successful projects Distinctive Land Development has completed in Prior Lake. Discussed the
changes his team has made from the previously panned project. Discussed the change in the number of
lots and the reasons for the extension of the lot boundaries through the wetlands and ponds. Discussed
the price range for this new development and that they expect to start construction this spring.
Yurko: Asked about the setback on corner lots.
Anderson: All setbacks on lots meet city code requirements.
Tschetter: Asked about architectural design and if they will have multiple builders on the project.
Anderson: Explained there may be multiple builders and there will be specific design requirements that
must be met.
Tschetter: Asked about architectural design requirements.
Anderson: Commented on standard architectural design processes and there will not be the same color
and façade next to each other.
Tschetter: Confirmed that no variances are expected to be requested.
Anderson: Correct.
MOTION BY TENNISON, SECONDED BY FENSTERMACHER TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON
ITEM 4A AT 6:22 P.M.
VOTE: Ayes, Ringstad, Johnson, Fenstermacher, Tschetter, and Johnson.
Motion carried 5-0.
Public Comment:
Kelly Steffans, 3344 Windfield Way SW: Was at the last hearing in the fall. Questioning why Windfield
needs to be a through street. Discussed concerns with the project such as traffic and flooding/drainage
concerns. Proposed idea of a speed bump or some other means to encourage drivers not to cut through
Windfield Way.
Tschetter: Asked if there are any new concerns based on the current design that differed from those
expressed last fall.
Steffans: Commented on proposing ideas to address the concerns.
Doug Dunning, 4877 Beach Street NE: Questioned if it is common to allow lot sizes and setbacks that
are smaller than the city’s minimum requirement.
Tschetter: This is the unique part of a planned unit development. There are lots being proposed to be
approved in different sizes for different uses. Commented on the wetlands and other issues that make a
standard subdivision difficult in this area.
McCabe: Commented on the requirement to meet a minimum of 2.5 units per acre in order for the city
and developer to receive a sewer extension permit from the Metropolitan Council.
MOTION BY JOHNSON, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4A
AT 6:29 P.M.
VOTE: Ayes, Ringstad, Johnson, Fenstermacher, Tschetter, and Johnson.
Motion carried 5-0.
Commissioner Questions and Comments:
Tschetter: Commented on the history of this development and thank the developer for following through
to get the project completed.
3
MOTION BY FENSTERMACHER, SECONDED BY JOHNSON TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINNARY PLAT AND PRELIMINARY UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A
DEVELOPMENT KNOW AS ASPEN RIDGE AT 17801 FAIRLAWN AVE
VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Tschetter, Fenstermacher, Johnson, and Tennison.
Motion carried 5-0.
B. PDEV25-000001 – 4893, 4913 & 4931 Beach St. NE – Registered Land Survey – On behalf of
the property owners, Roy Stromme is requesting approval of a Registered Land Survey to revise
property lines on three parcels located at 4893, 4913 & 4931 Beach St. NE (PIDs 253310050,
253310041, & 253310031)
Director McCabe: Introduced the public hearing to consider a recommendation of approval for a
registered land survey, RLS, at 4931,4913, and 4893 Beach Street Northeast. McCabe explained
the current circumstances, physical site characteristics, and proposed plan. City Staff is
recommended approval of the RLS with the following condition of approval: Registered land
survey shall be recorded at Scott County within 90 days of approval by the City Council.
Commissioner Comments:
Yurko: Asked if there were any bluffs on these lots.
McCabe: No bluff conditions on property.
Johnson: Asked if the proposed lot widths on Tracts A and C would be conforming.
McCabe: Yes.
Tschetter: Question why the applicant wanted this change.
McCabe: The applicant owns all three parcels and have their home on the center parcel. They would like
to have a larger lot for their home if they decide sell the two exterior parcels.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY JOHNSON TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4B
AT 6:36 P.M.
VOTE: Ayes, Ringstad, Johnson, Fenstermacher, Tschetter, and Johnson.
Motion carried 5-0.
Public Comment:
None
MOTION BY TENNISON, SECONDED BY FENSTERMACHER TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON
ITEM 4B AT 6:37 P.M.
VOTE: Ayes, Ringstad, Johnson, Fenstermacher, Tschetter, and Johnson.
Motion carried 5-0.
Commissioner Questions and Comments:
None
MOTION BY FENSTERMACHER, SECONDED BY JOHNSON TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE OF THE REGISTERED LAND SURVEY AT 4931, 4313 AND 4893 BEACH ST NE WITH
THE CONDITION THAT THE REGISTED LAND SURVEY WILL BE RECORED AT SCOTT COUNTY
WITHIN 90 DAYS OF APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL
VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Tschetter, Fenstermacher, Johnson, and Tennison.
Motion carried 5-0.
4
5. Old Business:
None.
6. New Business:
A. Consider the Proposed Disposal of City-Owned Property in Spring Lake Township – Consider a
recommendation to the City Council related to the Reconveyance of Forfeited Lands to the State
of Minnesota and adopt findings as to compliance of the proposed disposal with the
Comprehensive Plan. (PIDs 119090270, 110110010, 110110020, 110110030, 110110040,
110110050, 110110060, 110110070, 110110080, 110110090, 110110100, 110110120,
110110140, 110110110, 110110190, 110110200, 110110220, & 110110240).
Director McCabe: introduction item 6A and spoke on the history and current circumstances of
the property. McCabe also gave the commissioners a brief description of Prior Lake City Code
related to disposal of property. City Staff are recommending approval of the disposal of City-
owned property in Spring Lake township.
Commissioner Questions and Comments:
Yurko: Asked when the property was acquired.
McCabe: This property was acquired in 2010.
Fenstermacher: Confirmed Scott County doesn’t conduct the maintenance and asked about the
timing of this item.
McCabe: That is correct regarding the county. The timing is in conjunction with the requirements
of the orderly annexation agreement, which required this process to be initiated within six months
of that agreement.
Tennison: Is there any reason the state wouldn’t agree with the recommendation.
McCabe: We do not expect any issues with the state agreeing with the request.
Tschetter: Confirmed the city’s intent would be to forfeit our rights to the parklands back to the
state. Then they will be claimed as Spring Lake Township parcels. They are currently out of the
city boundary but owned by the City. Are there any additional responsibility or requirements from
the city’s perspective?
McCabe: County staff is aware that Spring Lake Township would like these parcels. The county
will receive the parcels from the city then transfer them to Spring Lake Township. This removes
any requirements the city has regarding liability and maintenance with the parks.
MOTION BY TENNISON, SECONDED BY FENSTERMACHER TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION
FINDING THE PROPOSED DISPOSAL OF THE CITY-OWNED PROPERTY IN SPRING LAKE
TOWNSHIP IS WITHIN COMPLIANCE OF THE CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Tschetter, Fenstermacher, Johnson, and Tennison.
Motion carried 5-0.
7. Announcements & Adjournment:
MOTION BY JOHNSON, SECONDED BY TENNISON TO ADJOURN THE MONDAY
FEBRUARY 24, 2025, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 6:46: P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Tschetter, Fenstermacher, Johnson, and Tennison.
Motion carried 5-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Megan Kooiman, Deputy Clerk / Administrative Assistant