All right, I'd like to call this meeting to order. Uh, this is the um planning commission meeting of Monday, May 18th, 2026. I'd like to invite everyone to stand for the pledge of allegiance, please. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. We have several agenda items uh this evening and it's good to see all of you in the viewing audience. Welcome. Uh first we will approve tonight's agenda and then we will move forward with the approval of the May 4th meeting minutes and then I will give some guidance and some narrative and commentary on how tonight's four public hearing items will proceed. Uh right now I'll entertain a motion and a second or any comments to approve this evening's agenda. Is there a motion? >> So moved. >> We have a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. Any opposed? Seeing none, uh, that agenda item has passed. Next, we'll move on to the approval of the May 4th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Is there a motion? >> So, move. >> There's a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Any discussion? >> All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> Any opposed? The U minutes are approved for May 4th. We'll now move to our public hearing hearings, I should say. I'll give a little bit of u guidance on how we'll proceed with tonight's public hearings. Uh first, staff will present its report on the request or issue at hand and planning commissioners will have an opportunity to pose questions about the staff report. Next, the applicant, if there is one, will have the opportunity to address the commission and commissioners can respond to the applicant with comments or questions. Following the presentation, I will open the floor to public comment. If you wish to address the planning commission, we'd ask that you please approach the podium, press the red button to turn on the microphone, and then clearly state, and this is important for the record, clearly state your name and address for the official record. So everyone will have a chance to speak. We ask that you limit your comments to five to seven minutes in length and that you make concise statements of fact pertaining to the specific application or item at hand. This meeting is the official public hearing and your primary opportunity to be heard on the matter. The city council has no obligation to accept further public comment and in many cases they do not. So please don't hesitate to speak. And with that I will turn it over to I will turn it over to staff uh for agenda item 4A. This is public hearing number one. This is PDEV26-000000127031 Sunset Avenue Northwest of variance. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh the variance request is for 1731 Sunset Avenue Northwest. Uh applicant is Ryan Bego and they're requesting imperous surface variance to remove the existing home, garage, and driveway for the construction of a new single family detached home. The existing home is on a non-conforming lot just over 7,300 square feet with a lot width of 50 feet and the impervious surface is proposed at 3 point or 33.11%. It's located on the west side of Spring Lake with access provided to County Highway 12 from Sunset Avenue Northwest. It is a repairarian lot on Spring Lake um with the required maximum impervious at 30%. The variance is for 3.11% over that. Currently, the existing imperous surface at the existing house and garage and driveway is 27.25% although it's 24.6% 6% if measured to the ordinary high water level of Spring Lake. The existing condition, as you can see, the detached garage is closest to the street. Um, the house is pushed further back towards the lake. The proposed house would be pushed towards the road quite a bit, reducing impervious associated with the driveway while also increasing the setback to the ordinary high water level of Spring Lake and increasing uh the side setbacks from the existing condition. Here's a house plan elevation. It's going to be a two-story home with a partial basement crawl space with no finished square living area. The city has variance criteria to consider um with each variance. Variants shall only be permitted when they're in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the city zoning code. They should only be permitted when they are consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. They may only be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the city's zoning code. Practical difficulties is used in connection with the granting of a variance means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, not permitted by the zoning code. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances that are unique to the property and were not created by the land owner and the variance if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality. economic considerations on their own do not constitute practical difficulties. Staff's analysis of the request is that the overall impervious surface percentage is increasing. However, the applicant originally proposed impervious of 36.66% has since revised plans to lower it to 33.11%. The new home is proposed to have a 1894 square footprint with a 509 foot driveway uh for a total square footage finished living space with a two-story around 3,800 square ft. The driveway is proposed at 18 ft in width at the property line which complies with the city's maximum 24T. Uh the CR the request as mentioned earlier is an improvement over the existing conditions with the increase in ordinary high water level setback from 38 to 65.3 feet. It eliminates non-conforming driveway and improves the sideyard setbacks. The lot is substandard at 50 ft wide and 7,300 square ft. Uh the condition was not created by the applicant and the surrounding neighborhood homes have similar limitations relating to impervious surface. The Prior Lake Spring Lake wershed district recommended the applicant include storm water management best management practices. Commonly this would be achieved by the inclusion of a rain garden. Staff is not supportive or staff is supportive of rain gardens in general but not as a condition of variance approval and since historically they've been hard to track and eliminated as new owners purchase the property. Um due to this staff does not recommend the storm water management best management practices be included as a condition of approval for this variance. Staff does believe there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance as this is a platted lot from the 1950s. The home was also constructed in the 1950s with a smaller width and area than would be allowed today. The request seeks to increase imperous surface while improving other conditions. staff is supportive of the request and has prepared a resolution of approval. If the commission however finds a different impervious surface is appropriate, then a motion and a second to approve that amount amount would be requested. If the commission finds the applicant does not have a practical difficulty, then the commission should vote to deny and instruct staff to prepare a resolution of denial to be considered at a future meeting. So, first staff will request uh to open the public hearing and then we'll recommend approval of the proposed variance of 3.11% from impervious surface maximum at 17031 Sunset Avenue Northwest subject to the three following conditions. Uh that they shall provide a grading plan confirming all storm water drainage from the development will be managed on site. The variance resolution should be recorded at Scott County and a building permit shall be obtained from the building department prior to the commencement of construction. Thank you. >> Thank you for the uh report. Nice job. Uh we'll move to Commissioner comments uh for staff. Uh Commissioner Nicholson. >> The one question I would have is um the storm water drainage managed on their property. What exactly does that entail? Um, basically just ensuring that the slopes for the drainage um, run on their property, not onto somebody adjacent neighbors property and direct path towards either a lake or a storm water management basin of some sort. >> Perfect. Thank you. No more questions. Thank you, Commissioner Shimok. >> I'm wondering about other imperous surfaces. Um, I don't see a sidewalk and typically when you go down to the lake, there's a patio or even a stepping space to get down there. Uh, that seems to be missing whereas in the original impervious surface calculations, there was accommodations for all those other things that would normally be seen. >> Good question. Um, this I pulled up the survey here. So, there is no sidewalk shown in the front. A sidewalk would be allowed not counted towards their imperous surface as long as it's 3 feet or less in width. and there's three feet of imper or impervious surface on each side. Um, so if they want a front walkway, it'll have to conform with those requirements. As far as the rear patio, they would not be able to do a rear patio at this time without a redu equal reduction elsewhere in impervious since they are at the max according to the variance. Um, anything over 33.11% would require reduction elsewhere, but they would be able to do a a deck or a platform deck in the backyard as long as it had quarter inch spacing. And >> so there would be a deck with footings, but underneath it would have to be just grass or >> correct. Yep. >> Like that. Okay. >> Now, about the storm water management, I noticed that the tight um they're they're kind of tight for that existing house on the other side, which is also, as I understand, a 50 foot lot are very small, too. um is part of your um follow-on examinations. Will it kind of look to see that that because that just seems pretty narrow going to that property line to keep that swale that narrow. Are we a little worried or how would we address that we're not putting too much saturated groundwater near that footing for that other house? >> Yep. So, at time of building permit, the grading plan will be reviewed by the city engineers to ensure that the water is managed appropriately. Um they don't have the slopes listed on the survey, but they do have indicators showing where the water water is planned to drain. Um and it looks like they're keeping it, you know, parallel to the property line and then um angled toward the lake in the backyard. >> Okay. And um in our packet, we also had a comment from Troy. um can you give me a little nature of what the discussion was like between you guys because he seemed to be unsupportive of variances without some management practices which you're not you know so there's a little bit at odds there >> um I can respond to that question commissioner because I did meet with the Prairie Lake Spring Lake watershed district um o over time in the past the city would approve variances with conditions like rain barrels be installed or rain gardens or pvious pavers or different things and It's just proven to be one too much to manage and two they don't last very long. >> So we've had situations where you know a variance was approved in the mid 90s and they were required to have rain barrels. Well now moving forward it's the fourth owner of that property. They were completely unaware of this condition and a neighbor called and said they don't have rain barrels anymore. So then we're faced as staff. How do we handle that situation? do we force this property owner to reinstall rain barrels? Um, rain gardens, if they're not maintained properly, aren't going to function anyway. So, our recommendation as a staff, uh, is that variances are either approved or denied, but we don't want conditions for these best management practices included. Um, I did share that with the watershed district. They understood staff's position and supported that. Um, we did also talk about potentially having a a joint work session with some Prior Lake Spring Lake wershed district staff and the planning commission later this year to talk through these issues. >> Now, given Troy's letter, would that imply that Troy has been unsupportive of the variance and would say, "Hey, keep it at 30%." >> Um, they did not. We asked them if they wanted to, understanding that staff would not be recommending that as a condition, we asked if they wanted to update their letter. Uh, they did not. they understood the variance may be approved or the variance may be denied but our recommendation would not be to have that condition of approval in >> okay thank you >> commissioner >> thank you um couple of questions uh the property of um 7,364 square ft um in the survey it states that part of the um proposed includes batuminous driveway of the neighbors an existing driveway way 35 square ft. That's along the north property line. >> Yeah. Um the existing condition picture shows it but not very well. Um so this it looks like at one time the driveways were kind of done together and yeah that area there covered by this boat or tarped item here. Um but the driveway actually extended all the way to the neighbor's property line. They were connected. Um, so that get was the exact question again? >> Well, it's entire it's one of the line items in the proposed saying it's going to remain and stay there 35 square feet. So why would we not require that to get abated >> to the property line? >> Um, so if the neighbor at 17021 would apply for a permit, that would be a condition that they would have to remove the driveway. And if the planning commission wanted to make that a condition of approval that that 35 square feet be removed, you could make that a condition of variance approval. >> Okay, wonderful. Thank you. Um because I think that would take the request from 33.11 down to 32.6% if my math's correct. So it gets us a little bit closer. >> Yeah. >> Um not a slam dunk, but closer. Um, and then my other question is, uh, there's a total amount of square feet in the survey that, um, references, uh, it's for the proposed home as well as the porch, but it does not give a breakdown. Do you know what the square footage is of the porch? >> Uh, it looks >> versus the actual home. >> The porch should be approximately 90 ft, a little more. It's 9 by 10.8. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Yep. >> Thank you, Tennessee. >> Just curious the uh driveway width. Um how does that compare to an average twocar driveway? I mean for new builds, is that standard above standard? Less than standard >> on the lake. I think 18 is pretty standard or maximum of 24 is a little bit more standard as you get it more into the larger lot R1's. Um but we see 18 feet and it it widens out to 22 feet in front of the garage. Yeah. >> Should well accommodate two cars. >> Thank you. Commissioner Rook, >> no questions. >> And uh Commissioner Fence Detomaker, >> no further questions. >> Thank you, Commissioners. Any final thoughts, lingering questions from commissioners? >> Go ahead. >> Well, I'm our guidance has always been to ask whether there reasonable alternatives and with a 3,800 square foot house, I guess. I have to ask, isn't it reasonable to expect a smaller house that we would normally see on other small lots? Um, I mean, the the flood of 2014 is still fresh in our mind, and Spring Lake dumped a lot of water into Prior Lake that took two weeks to, you know, disperse because of the outlaw. So, as a lake homeowner, I have to kind of ask, what are we doing to prevent that from happening in the future? And I see a reasonable alternative of a smaller house. >> Thank you, Commissioner Smoke. That was my question as well, but I'll yield. That's fine. Um, so I have no further questions. Uh, does staff any staff member want to respond to Commissioner Schmuckle's query? >> Uh, yeah. commissioner as a as a planning commissioner and in this case acting as the board of adjustment. If the planning commission or the board of adjustment feels 30% is appropriate in this case, you can vote to deny the variance and request the applicant redesign the site with a 30% imperous uh structure. Thank you, Steph. Uh, I'd like to invite before we uh formally open the public hearing this evening, I'd like to invite the applicant uh to come on up and share thoughts with us regarding the uh application. There's a a red button that you can press so we can all hear you. Thank you. Please state your name and address for the record. >> Yep. I'm Ryan Bigot. I live at 5042 Moulder Lane in Chaska. Uh 55318. I guess here to answer any specific questions. I guess I just wanted to clarify for the record that it's a slab on grade um not a partial basement um as noted earlier. And need the square. I know the questions about the square footage, needing the square footage for, you know, the family, um, my wife and our two children. Any questions for the applicant? How would you um what are your thoughts about the comments that were made just a few minutes ago about um reducing the square footage of the proposed home? And I think there was another comment about removing um the driveway. How would you like to respond to that? >> I think when we submitted the permit, the driveway, you know, is owned by the neighbor. you know, we didn't understand what had been in place with them for agreement, but I think, you know, would be willing to talk with them. I think in addition, it's not 3,800 square feet. I think it's something around 3,400 ft² total. The foundation, it doesn't go over the entire garage um for the upper living space. >> Did you calculate what a size square foot house would have been at a 30% impervious? Was there any design considerations that correction? Uh we took about 3% out of the house I think as the uh city staff had indicated. Rough math I'd have to take about another three and a half ft off the back of the house. Um which would be fairly substantial when we talk about both floors kind of seeing that impact. Then >> would it put it down at a 3,000 foot house? >> Uh I'd have to do the math specifically. Probably a little under 3,000 square feet then. I have a just a follow-up question. U Ryan and Commissioner for for staff, what is the precise square current square footage of the proposed home? >> Commissioner, are you asking the livable square footage or the footprint? >> Yes. Um, livable square footage is not an item that staff requests as part of the variance application. So, I would take the applicants word for it that it's around 3,400 square feet. Okay. Any other commissioner comments, questions? Seeing none, I'll entertain uh a motion and a second to open the public hearing >> on this item. Uh is there a motion? >> So moved. >> We have a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> All those in favor of opening the public hearing at 6:22, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Thank you. The public hearing is is open. If there's anyone in the viewing audience that would like to address the planning commission, feel free to come up to the podium and share your thoughts with us. Again, please state your name and address for the official record. Matt was nichka. Address 17051 Sunset Avenue. So, the lot directly south of the proposed uh house here. Um I have a couple questions. One, when the house was being designed, um the setback on the south side is 5 1/2 ft, which is my property line and it appears to be 9 and 1/2 ft. um on the lakeside on the north side property owners um curious why the discrepancy between the two lots. >> Yep. So our on non-conforming lots within the city we allow them to have reduced side setbacks combined to 15 ft total and they can kind of work that in however they see fit. They could do 7 and 1/2, 7 and 1/2, 10 or five or any kind of combination not less than five. Um, so the five and a half foot setback does meet the requirements for a non-conforming lot. >> And then there's also a requirement for a 15 foot structure separation. So in this case, the house was shifted further south because they can meet the 15oot setback from yours and the property to the north where if this was shoved all the way to the north property line, they would not be able to meet that 15 foot structure set back from the north structure. >> Thank you. I just want to point out that discrepancy between the north property and the south property. Second question would be um on the five and a half or the 5ft setback on my property line. Is there a height um limit that that outer exterior wall can be on the setback? >> Um so 35 ft is the maximum height in that zoning district. It would have to be under 35 ft otherwise it would need increased setbacks. and additional approvals. >> Sorry. Um, thank you. And then my final question would be just for a clarifying comment. Um, the covered porch um on the plans it is that and the deck are being considered but are not included in the imperous surface. Is that correct? So the porch is being proposed and it is included in the impervious. Um there is no deck currently proposed although they would have room to accommodate for one as long as it was excluded as well from the impervious surface. So quarterinch spacing, no underpanning, no patio underneath. >> Yeah. My my closing comment would just be um my concern of the discrepancy between the setbacks on the north side and the south side. It does feel like my property is accommodating the larger buildable area because of the location and the setbacks being more condensed on the north side. And at 35 ft, that's a that's a tall um exterior wall at 5 1/2 ft. So, you know, I would ask the owner and the property propose to consider um equal distance at least between the two setbacks. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. Thank you. Looking at uh kind of what Casey said about the north, they're 17 foot right now. So if they did want to push it two feet, they'd be able to push it at least two feet. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address the planning commission on this particular agenda item? >> No one else. I'm required to ask three times. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to justice agenda item? All right. Sing none. Oh, yeah. Come on. I knew there was one more. >> Um Frank Keley. Um 16816 Marshall Road. I was just wondering about these homes that are being put on Spring Lake. They look totally out of place. These big two stories and stuff on little cabin lots. I mean, why are these getting passed? There's one that was built last year. There's hardly room for a car to park out front. That's the only comment I got, I guess. Thank you. Uh staff, care to tend to a response? >> Um yeah, I can try. Commissioner, so the the max height in our R1 zoning district is 35 ft. Our maximum impervious surface in the shoreland district is 30% impervious. And then we have standard setbacks on the side and the rear. And if property owners can meet those requirements, we issue a building permit to build those homes. Um if they can't like this is the case here or the following variance later this evening uh then they need to request variance approval from the planning commission which is what we're doing here this evening. Thank you Casey. Seeing no other uh signals for uh adding additional comments, I'll entertain a motion and a second at 6:28 p.m. to close the public hearing. Is there a motion? So moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second. We have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Seeing none, the public hearing is closed. We'll move the um commissioner comments. Commissioner Rook. >> Uh no comments. Commissioner Fencetocker, >> I too have a general issue with building such a large home with a 30% requirement. I think we're almost there. I think we can request to get it to that 30%. Especially with that covered porch I was looking at that it looked like there is some chance to get there with that with the elevation there. Whether or not that really is necessary to be added to it. So, I'd say that's where I'm sitting at. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Um, I as I was hearing the the commentary and looking over my notes earlier today, um, I have to echo Commissioner Fencer's uh, comments, I think I think we're almost there, but we're not quite there. And so I'm struck by uh sort of what I'm sensing as a sort of unanimous or at least a synergistic conclusion on the planning commissioners uh part. Um so the two items that stick out for me um are the um I I like to deal in uh specificity and so there's still some fuzziness or squibiness as I like to say around the 3400 versus the 3800. Um and so um I will be voting to deny this variance only because I want to make sure that we we can have some more informed uh conversation with specific uh specifics in mind uh around reducing the footprint of the home and then I think there's some more discussion that could be had uh regarding the driveway that's adjacent to the proposed uh construction. Uh, Commissioner Tennyson. >> Yeah, I concur with uh the comments that have been made. I I think I would also recommend that movement of a couple feet north with the house. I mean, if there's room to do it, you might as well obviously maximize that um space between the houses just to make, you know, as best you can with that property. But, uh, you know, I think given the conversations that's been had and the and the considerations, I uh plan to deny the variance as well. Um, but I I do believe it's close. I think we have an opportunity for it. Commissioner Euro. >> Yeah, I'll echo those comments. Um I think that Batuminous driveway of the neighbors um should be vacated from this property. I don't think you should have to request additional variance coverage to accommodate for um the neighbors driveway that exists on the property. So I think that should get resolved as a part of this um any request that does get approved and also for a building permit. And then back to um what someone else shared too, I think, you know, the statement of practical difficulty. And so that's why I think um providing some more information, seeing some of the further information about the um the home that's being proposed in advance would be very helpful for us to be able to take a closer look at that to really understand what kind of difficulty level we're talking about. Um that would be wonderful. I think there's some room with the front porch. I think there's also some room to create a similar architectural elevation that you're looking for on the front, but indeed maximize all that space above the garage to really minimize that surface area. It looks like your eaves are all within I didn't see any additional request for any e additional large eve overhang or something. You sounds like your sidewalks are probably 3 feet or less as well if that's not showing up in the um topography or the the survey. So um I think there's just probably some nipping and tucking to do there. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Schmuckle, >> all good additions. I don't have any more to add. And Commissioner Nicholson >> just adding I concur on the the sideyard setbacks, the ability to to push it over a few feet. I think that makes sense. Thank you. Uh staff Casey, um it it's clear that we're not ready to approve. Do you want us to move forward with the motion second to approve or would you like us to move forward with a motion a second to deny um and move forward with conversations? >> Um if if the commissioners feel that there is any impervious service variance possible if the applicant came back at 31% say would you consider that? If the answer to that is no, then you should just move to deny it this evening. If you think there is room for some level of variance in the future, then you should table the item and provide I guess the direction's already been provided um what the commission would like to see. >> Thank you, Casey. Um so I I guess I'll take a poll. I don't personally feel like I have enough information. Um I'd like to see get inside the the details. um when more work has been done to see if what the 30% actually implicates for the rest of the project. But that's my private thoughts. Um Commissioner Nicholson, are you line with that? >> Yeah, I can. We've seen a neighbor here too that's probably interested as well. >> Okay. Commissioner Euro, Commissioner Tenderson and Commissioner Rook with that. Agree. Okay. So, um, I'll entertain with that in mind, Casey, help me if I get make sure I get this right. I'm going to entertain a motion in a second to table this agenda item um, so that we can keep moving forward in an informed way and bring more detail and information back to the commission for its consideration. >> Uh, correct. Uh, so if um I think we are Oh, we don't. I'm sorry. We don't have that on on this one. So, yep. Um, we'd be looking for a motion in a second to table the item. Uh, you've provided the applicant with direction and then we would place this on a future planning commission agenda. >> Yeah, we want we want to as much as we can stay inside that 30%. But we want to understand what the implications are adverse or otherwise for the applicant and the proposed work. Okay. So, is there a motion? >> So, moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second to table this item until such time as we have a more uh sufficient information. Um, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> The motion carries. Thank you. >> Thank you, chair. Um, just real quickly, I want to make a correction on something I said earlier. Uh looking at that 17 ft structure setback, there's an also if you look closer, there's a 15.4 structure setback already. So might not be able to move it quite two feet, but there is a little wiggle room there. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thanks. >> All right. Uh next is our second uh public hearing. This is PDEV26-000014, 4646 Lord Street Northeast. This is also a variance. I'll turn this over to staff for your report. >> Chair and commission. Thank you very much. Tonight we have a variance request at 4646 Lord Street Northeast. Let's do a quick summary of the report. The applicant is Todd Molly Phillips. They are requesting a front and rear yard variance um for setback to remove an existing home garage and driveway to construct a new single family detached home. The parcel is located at 4646 Lords on Prior Lake. The existing home is non on a non-conforming lot of 89 ft front which is also on a regular lot and a lot of 13,754 ft which again the standard is 15,000. The front setback request is for 21.67 ft and the rear setback of 36.5. And throughout this uh staff report, we'll give a little more context as to what that means. For uh to orientate ourselves, um it is located on Lower Prior Lake east of uh 21 located off the Lord's Peninsula. Uh an interesting and but challenging area to develop. The particular zone in this case is a R1 single family with a shoreline district overlay. It currently has a variance for high water level setback of 33 feet. The imperous surface requirement for this particular zone is 30%. The proposed tonight is 29.7. Um, currently it's at 31.9% impervious surface. So, this would be an improvement over the current condition. The front setback um is required to be at 25 ft. The proposed is 21.67 ft with the current uh condition at 31.8 for a variance of 3.33 ft. The rear setback is required to be at 50% as an averaging. Um, as you may know, the standard setback is 75 ft. Although, if there's two homes that are on each side, you may take the short average or the average of each. And if it's 50 or if it's less than 75, you may take that down to 50 or 50 feet, in which case this is the case. It's actually less than that, but we can only go to 50. Um, the proposed is for 36.5 ft. The current setback is around 35 ft for a variance of 13.5 ft requested. Here's a quick visual of what that um particular variance looks like. Um with the 21.67 in the front, which is the garage portion, and then 36.5 in the rear, which is the closest portion of the home. There's a light gray, which is actually a little um patio space. It's not actually part of the home. So, it's it's colorized a bit different from the rest of the home. So, the 36.5 is the key figure here. We decided to put together a little graphic um for everyone so it's easier to kind of see what the implications of the setbacks are within context of what standard setbacks are, what the averaging or the non-conformity setbacks might be. And then finally, you know, kind of what that proposed is, which is where the house currently is. There's a clear space or we considered non-colorized space in the middle, bit of a triangle. That's what the buildable area would be if strict uh setbacks were in force which include the 75 foot, 25 foot and 10 foot. If we expand that a little bit and we were to include maximum aotment of space um which would be 50 feet 20 feet in the front and then again I kept the 10 um you're looking at that red the red space more space um and you know a nice size but because of the angle of which the lot is um shaped you have a pinching point and that um more easterly side and then to west expands out a bit more. The orange itself represents minimum setback areas. So I just wanted to make sure that that was correctly visualized and the context is put in place. Um for the lot itself, we have the proposed impervious surface on the lefth hand side which includes a proposed house footprint of 3,183 um square feet. Um that's that also includes our um garage space as well. In the staff report, I do tease out the differences between the two um which goes out to 29.7%. The current impervious surface of the existing dwelling is 21.9 including all um additional impervious surface features. The current home received a variance in 1978 for 33 ft from the higher water. The proposed will be in line with sight lines. So of times sight lines are concerned. So in this particular case the the orientation of the building was such the so sight lines are maintained for the other owners. The overall the impervious surface is reduced. So a little bit of context. So as we can see that Lord's point is um narrow it's constrained. It's a quasi island if you will. And so the question is well what are some other homes that have maybe similar situations or circumstances that we could draw from? So we have uh 4660 Lords which is to the east um that has a constraint of a 20 foot high water rear yard a 17t front um set back and a 32.9% pvious surface variance on 4668 which is the next house over to the east there are 48 foot higher water with a 20.5 front they actually have a variance for 15 but they have yet to take advantage of that um there's a 40 uh 4650 53 Lords. Again, a 21 ft ordinary high water with a 20 20.8 front with a 2013 variance for high ordinary water. Here's a little bit of a artistic drawing of what the home may look like. Um the concept is that it's a single story with a kind of a bonus section over the garage and it's limited to the garage with a walk out underneath. I think in my staff report we did call out the 2100 square foot um footprint with a similar sized um walkout portion. But from a bulk and massing standpoint, from a above the or uh basement standpoint, the bulk and massing is not as impressive uh heightwise as one might expect from a two or three story building. Here's a quick sketch and rendering of what maybe um the interior com um composition which includes a main level suite. Most of the living again is on the first level. So the idea is to keep a living space on the first level for main main living with that two star two stall garage and bonus room. So quickly we'll go over again the general idea of our variances here at the city. Um they should only be permitted when they're in harmony and general um generally in line with the zoning code and comprehensive plan. they may be granted if the applicant establishes a practical difficulty and that by granting this variance they propose propose to use in a reasonable manner that's not permitted and that the plight of the homeowner is not self-created. Um also they cannot um endanger the general character of the area and not not alter that essential character and economic considerations are not practical difficulties. From our analysis, the overall impervious surface percentage is decreasing. The front setback will be increasing from current home, while the rear setback is similar, if not retreating. The new home is proposed to have a first floor main living and bonus area over the garage and is a walk out. The lot is substandard in the fact that it's 89 ft wide and 13,754 square ft, which again is uh underneath the standards of the Shoreline District. We did not see the condition as created by the applicant, and the neighbor to the east is subject to similar conditions. Staff believes there are practical difficulties adhering to the strict adherence to the ordinance. This lot predates platting in this area and a smaller width and area than would be approved today. They request seeks a decrease impervious surface while also improving the site conditions. Staff supports the request and has prepared resolution approval. If the board decides that there are practical difficulties, then a motion and seconds to approved is requested. If the board finds that there isn't practical difficulties, then a vote to deny would be requested and then staff can bring back a resolution to denial at the next meeting. Also, if the additional details are necessary, the board may adjust um and t and table this item and bring back new information if necessary. With that, uh there's a request to open the public hearing. We recommend approval of the proposed variance for 13T from the ordinary high water and 3.33 ft from the front yard at 4646 Lords with the following conditions. The applicant shall be provided an asbuilt survey prior to the certificate of occupancy. The variance resolution shall be recorded and the building permit shall be obtained before commencement of construction. Thank you. If you have any questions, be happy to entertain them. >> Thank you, Paul. Uh I'm sure we will have questions. Um let's start with Commissioner Tennyson. Questions for staff. >> Yeah, I just want to >> just want to reiterate um improvement on impervious, similar on rear and improvement on front. Is that back correct? So improvement on the rear um a um reduction in impervious but a request for front and again the idea would be that it's preferable to move front and to go towards the the lake. It's always keep as far from the lake as you can. >> Thank you >> Commissioner Jüko. >> I have several questions. Um I'd just like to first acknowledge this is a much larger lot than what we are used to seeing variances like this for. So little taken back by that one. Um the uh this is a custom home. Yes. >> Correct. And um when I do the setback averaging if you were to apply it because 50 ft is the minimum but if you were to apply the 33.5 and the 49.2 two of the neighboring homes, that would put you at 41.35. Correct. >> If you were to apply a setback averaging rule rather than the 36.5 that they're requesting, >> correct? >> Was there any discussions with them about that? >> Yes. >> And hitting that number? >> Yes, we had discussion with the builder about that. What they were looking at as um context for the current building and where it was also with the adjacent properties and kind of figuring out a an appropriate line for where the buildable setback should be. um historically and looking at the context from the on the pinsil itself, it seemed like that would be an area of improvement from the existing setback. So, um we saw as an overall improvement. >> Okay. Um and then part of I think your approach that you shared was that the pinch point on the lot is on the east side, correct? Could you pull up that exhibit again? Here we go. On the east side of the property, the home is almost inside the buildable area. No. Or getting closer. To me, I'm I'm having a hard time understanding because the east side is pretty narrow um in terms of the depth of the home. The west side is the one that's really long. So, >> right. And that's uh for precisely that particular issue. the garages on the other side. So >> yeah, >> the idea was to position the garage in the portion that's wider and so to try to take advantage of the proportion of the lot as a kind of it's not really a I know what type of polygon this would be, but the idea is to position as much of the bulk of massing towards the west side >> as to try to accommodate as much of the lot um of the building on the lot on the east side. And also there's a bit of a hill on that side as well. Yeah, it just seems like it almost fits there and if that's the difficulty. Okay. Um and then um I guess if you could pull back up too, you had the variance history of other um homes in this and I hesitate to even bring this up because two wrongs don't make a right, but I do appreciate um digging up some of the past history. What were the year of the variances there for 4660 um and for 4668? >> My memory isn't uh sharp on that one, but I know they're in the 90s. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah, I have questions about the grading on the walk out. So, maybe you can bring up the picture of the two stories. Um, I'm familiar with this lot and the home that's there and I know that it from the lakeside it looks to be about four stories and it's dug into the ground. Um, I know it's really low. Um, it's probably according to the high water mark that kind of bisects their the existing staircase. So, I imagine they got water during the high years. Um because I know uh similar properties on Shady Beach got hit the same way. So I'm kind of this feels a little fuzzy like well the way they're putting it in and I the builder I love their homes. I like their homes in St. Paul but I'm wondering if they have experience here to understand the perils of what this walk out is going to look like and since we don't have grading I think we're kind of in another dangerous zone here. >> Correct. So, we did discuss some of the issues with um building next to the 907, which is the emergency flood elevation. And so, that was made clear to them that that would be something we'd require a FEMA certificate. We'd require all of the protections. Our building department is very hawkish when it comes to this. >> And so, I gave this to our building department official to just double check and say, you know, what do you think about the foundation? He's like, well, we're going to need to make sure that they have um corners on here for elevation points. And so, they have to be true. And so when this this is built, >> what would that materially mean though? Would it mean a requirement to raise it? Will it >> Well, that they show I I have to zoom in, >> but on the points it's like uh it's 910 on one of the corners, the lowest corners. So they have to be above 907. And so they have to hold a 15t I think it's a foot 15t out to make sure they can if flood comes in they can meet the crest and so all those have to be met as a part of the final grade on this as well. So when they come out, we would have them do a elevation spot check with their um different types of surveying methods and that would be checked. >> Okay. >> The other thing I I wanted to echo Commissioner Yo's comment that this doesn't seem to be a substandard lot by much. 10 inches, let's give it a foot then on the and then only about 1% of the square. So I'm also kind of like I know it's a binary thing to you know deny it or you right >> not substandard or not but I just I note that >> you know one thing that we were considering and when I think about um setbacks and kind of how we look at constraints on a lot it's you know what are the different components that make up those constraints and what is being pushed and what's being pulled. One of the big things for me is um impervious surface is a big one for me is 30% because that kind of tells us like what's developable on something because that's kind of like your proportion if you will and you have to make choices about do you want to do a pool do you want to do whatever and so in this case keeping under the 30% they've made a choice about what they prioritize as far as that and the question becomes the constraint becomes the distances between places and so the you know if there's accommodation to be done with distances between places and the 30% should be accommodatable so it's kind of one of the thought processes we're having as we're looking at Okay. Yeah, and I picked that up and that's why I got the little dissonance between the grading and then the impervious, but otherwise I love that they're bringing the numbers in. >> Thank you. >> That's all for me. >> Uh, Commissioner Nicholson. Yeah, I don't know if this more of a question or a comment, but um in thinking about you'd mentioned the sightelines were maintained and that was part evidently part of the consideration in the variance with the substandard lot. Um I I think about the in and the last discussion we had in thinking about the variance to the side setbacks that also has an impact to the adjacent properties for the neighboring properties. So I I would just hope that we are considering that as much as we're considering the sightelines. You know, in in a real world, you know, as I imagine it, one home has a bedroom that the home adjacent to it has an air conditioner outside and you know with a narrow um with that variance in the side setback then it becomes a noise issue, right? and and that also impacts the overall value of the property should it resell. So, I just wanted to make that comment. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh I have just a couple of questions and comments that either staff or the applicant can respond to when we get to that point. Um I'm wondering about the aggregate square footage of of the proposed home. Do we have a number? >> So, the total livable space is approximately 5,153 ft including the subfloor and the main floor. >> Could you say that once again, Paul? 5,000 >> 5,153 ft of livable space approximately. >> Okay. Um, in your sort of iterative conversations with the property owner, was there any discussion about decreasing the footprint of the home? And if so, how just describe what that conversation was like? >> Well, I know the original discussion with the builder was, you know, can we use the original setbacks because there's already a variance on this property. And so the the the main the the first uh interaction was with the design that included all the way up to the 33 feet. And then we discussed, you know, that wouldn't be possible because a variance typically is only covering a specific project. And so when a new project comes in, a new consideration must be done, which is why we're here tonight. And so my um suggestion to them was to try to come up with something less than what was there before. try to improve the situation, try to reduce um the setbacks as much as you can and that we take um high priority over shoreland setbacks versus other types of setbacks. Not to say that we wouldn't want to make sure we do 15 on both sides for structure setbacks and things like that because that ends up going into the sideyard issues that we're talking about before. Um but you know when they were looking at um when they started discussing the fact that they wanted to do single um floor living they didn't want to go a second story for a number of reasons the applicant can speak to that then you start dealing with a spread out footprint issue and so then my main concern then automatically clicks to are we under 30%. because then it becomes a impervious surface issue, becomes a lake impact management issue. And so that was really um our focus for those particular conversations. I I ask and at risk of editorializing a little bit here um and I I've thought about this a lot and I have and Casey you know this over over the many years that I've served on this planning commission and I u and I don't haven't drawn a conclusion but I the the my mindset around practical difficulties and the root causes of that uh some are topography and all the other sort of natural elements but in my mind um it's also the desire to have a home at a certain size. I mean that is a if we're being honest um that's an element that creates a difficulty and so that's why I'm asking about any conversations about reducing this 5,153 square foot home um and how those went. So, u, Commissioner Fence, your comments for staff. >> Can you say a little more about maybe this is a question for the applicant, but I the garage as it's spun that direction? Does that play into the setback requirements? Is there ways that that can meet the shoreline setback? Well, I think that would be a matter of um the discussion with the builder and the I know um the homeowner is here tonight, the builder is not, but um you know, I think when it comes to impacting or deciding on you know, there's obviously two variances being requested um you know, and whether and how this gets arranged or what the physical design constraints are, I'm not completely sure. Um but it's definitely a point of conversation. Commissioner Rook, just a couple of clarifying questions. There is no variance being asked for on the side of the on either side of of the unit, >> correct? >> Okay. And the current shoreland setback to the proposed is a difference of 6 and 1/2 ft. Correct. We're going from 36.5 from 33. >> Okay. I think it's 30 to 36 and a2 I think is what our document shows. >> 36.5. Yeah. >> Yep. To 30. From 30 from 33. >> From 30 to 36 and a half. So 6 and a2ver. >> So the the the majority of this um request is really on the on the front side, >> right? That would be the bigger impact from a standpoint. Yep. >> Um >> from the >> the rear should be 50. >> Oh, I see. You're talking about the the full number or this >> I'm talking about currently we the shoreland setback is 30 feet. The proposal is 36 and a half, >> right? >> The Yes, but the code should be 50. >> Yep. Understood. Understood. chair or chair if I may ask um what you're asking is the difference between current to now versus current front from now. Correct. So you're saying there's 3.5 on one side from current to what will be versus the front which would be 21 67 and it's currently 30 something >> 31.8. >> That'd be the difference between what's currently there to what's being proposed. And so the majority from the current to what is proposed is really on that front yard setback >> specifically to your example. Yes. >> Thank you. Okay. Any other questions for staff on this report? Okay. I'd like to invite the what one other question. Sorry. >> I just want to um parlay here on my colleagueu's question about the garage. Um because this is this is a pretty breathable lot and um I'm not sure the design decisions that have been made to have this kind of finger sprawling um structure there, but um so were there conversations about moving the home and any way to get it to fit within the front yard or to minimize the front yard setback? So for the front yard, um we did not have a large discussion on the front yard portion. Okay. Um one big issue that you will have in the front area is that and this is something that we could talk to our building official as well is there's a stairway that goes from there up to the top floor. So you do need a certain amount of run to get between there and then. >> Um now how that can be architecturally modified, it may be possible. >> Okay. >> Um but that's beyond my >> expertise. >> Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Uh would the applicant like to address the planning commission on this proposal? Thank you. Please press the red button and then state your name and record for uh name and address for the record, please. >> Good evening, uh Chair Fleming and commissioners. My name is Todd Phelps and my wife Molly and I own 4646 uh Lord Street Northeast here in Prior Lake. I appreciate the opportunity to speak in support of our variance application. First, I want to thank you for your time and consideration this evening and thank you as well to the city staff for working through this application with us. They've been helpful, responsive, accessible, and professional throughout this entire process. Molly and I are asking for this variant so that we can replace the existing lakefront home with a better layout um and more thoughtful design, one that respects the lake, improves the property, and fits in the surrounding neighborhood. Our goal is not to build a larger home or a more intense home. Um, our goal is to create a home that's more compatible with the site, more compliant with current zoning standards, and more appropriate for the shoreline. Our design philosophy from the beginning, our central philosophy has been to respect and embrace the lake and not overpower it. We've met with and worked with um a number of architects and designers and contractors and the first thing we said to them is this is all about the lake. The existing home on the lakeside is four stories and it dominates the shoreline vis visually. The proposed home substantially reduces that bulk and massing. Um on the lakeside, the new home goes from the existing fourstory appearance down to two stories. And on the lakeside, it goes from two stories to primarily one story with some storage space above the the uh the garage. These are meaningful visual improvements. Um, the new design reduces the massing from the lakeside and creates a much more balanced relationship with the shoreline. The architecture is intended to complement and enhance the neighborhood. We're not trying to create something out of scale or out of character. We're trying to build a home that feels appropriate for this property and respectful of the surrounding homes in the lake. So this var these variances are not about increasing size or intensity. In fact, the purpose of the request is allow the new home to be possession positioned farther back from the lake. The current home is set back 33 feet. And in fact, um, numerous elements of the home extend further towards the ordinary high watermark to include the stairwell, um, the hot tub. There's a the deck area, there's a bridge, all of that is coming out. Um, the proposal creates a net improvement in zoning compliance compared to what exists today. The new home increases the shoreline setback, um, which is improvement, an important improvement for a lakefront property. The proposal also eliminates existing sideyard encroachments. And the encroachments aren't by the current structure, but by a very large um concrete slab of a driveway that leads to a front load threecar garage. We removing all of that concrete. Um, so while we're asking for a modest front yard variance, we're also correcting or reducing other nonconformities on the property. We're also reducing the total impervious surface. Um, the project brings in the pro the property into compliance with the current impervious surface requirements which is another significant improvement over the existing condition. So taken as a whole, this is not a request to make non-conforming property worse. This is a request to make a non-conforming property much better. The better for the lake, better for zoning compliance, and better for the neighborhood. So let's talk about the unique lot constraints here. The need for the variances comes from the lot itself. This is not a standard rectangular lot with straightforward uh with a straightforward building envelope has an irregular pies-shaped configuration with asymmetrical lot lines. Um as staff showed when the shoreline setback and the sideyard setbacks and the front yard setbacks are all applied at the same time, the buildable area just becomes compressed in a way that is really unique to this lot. So the size of the lot is substandard. The topography of the lot, there's approximately a 16 foot drop between Lord Street and the ordinary high watermark here, particularly pronounced on the eastern side of the lot. Um, and then a narrower street frontage on that side. So these are these are the physical constraints that are the practical difficulties we're asking the commission to recognize. The variances allow a reasonable residential use of the property while still improving the home's relationship to the lake and the neighboring properties. So we talked about the scope of the variances that we're asking. Um again on the lake side we're actually improving it. We're moving it back. We're um on the street side we're asking for a very modest relief on the street side and I can talk there were some questions earlier. I want to address those as to the kind of the why for the design on the garage side. Um talked about the modest um So, the proposed home in our view is smaller by volume than the the the current home. The square footage is far more usable in what we're proposing. We're my wife and I um are only in our late 50s, but we designed this home for a long-term use in mind. And one important feature for us, we've experienced this with our parents, is a main floor primary bedroom, which will allow us to age in place. Um, we currently don't have mobility issues and I want to be clear about that. But I'm a former Army Infantryman. I served for eight years in the Armored Cavalry and also in the 18th Airborne Corps. And I'm mindful that mobility can change over time. watching my parents and planning a main floor primary bedroom is a practical and reasonable design choice for us here. Um that feature helps us make this a home that we can live in for a long time rather than a home that becomes difficult to use as we get older. Um the current home there at four stories has all sorts of and perhaps some of you have been in the home. It's not a home that would accommodate aging in place. It's simply not. Um and so in closing, this is a proposal from our view that is a net improvement. Reduces the visual impact of the home from the lake. improves the shoreline setback, eliminates sideyard encroachments, reduces imperous surface, and response um thoughtfully responds to the unique shape of the lot. The requested variances are balanced and reasonable is a small amount of relief needed to to allow for a better overall result and I would ask that you consider this holistically in that regard. So, for these reasons, I respectfully ask that the planning commission support the variance application. Um, thank you for your time and consideration, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Uh, we'll start with Commissioner Brookke. Any questions for Mr. Phelps? Can you just maybe talk a little bit more about that that that front side, the non-lakeside and the entrance into the garage via the driveway and what the design intent is there? So, the design intent is um and what we currently have in there is space. We're not going to install an elevator currently, but it is we do have we're going to put in a a shaft there so that um if and when we have would have mobility issues that we would have an ability to get from the main floor living down to the lake and that really pushed, you know, that element of it. Sure. Thank you, >> Fenceer. So, due to the elevator, that's what really kind of pushed it all out. Was there any other considerations to try to fit it within those setback requirements? Um yes, we you know sort of it falls into the category of maybe anything's possible. Um you know what is what's reasonable and so we there are other areas in which you know we could configure that. I I've been thinking about well we've we've spent over four months uh you know on numerous iterations of this and I've been trying to think through you know what what more perhaps we could do um and certainly open to suggestions. One thing that um has occurred to me is, you know, if the three and a half feet on the Lord Street side is problematic, um you know, is there additional, you know, I'm we're happy to do landscaping or screening or something like that. Um we've shared the by the way, we've shared these plans with with the with the neighbors. Um just talked to one tonight. and she seemed very excited about the prospect here. Um, but I mean, we're willing to work with staff, the commission, um, you know, on on trying to to minimize this, but we've really we've gone through you know, multiple versions of this. I do see on one of the floor plan ones. It looks like there's a proposed average setback line that suggests it would meet it, but there doesn't appear to match the the other site plan that you have indicating where that that shoreline setback is. >> So, is there some discrepancy between those two? >> Well, there should be no discrepancy. Um there is the average between the two, but we don't do pointto-oint averages. >> Yeah, >> that was a a visual kind of cue for sight lines, but we would take the actual distances and that ends up not being where that average is. >> That's what I'm wondering is if that played into that design difficulties. One of the things we tried to do here, and again, not it it felt to us like the current home sort of is fighting the lake a little bit more. Um, we're trying to reorient the the the floor plan to actually match the the way the shoreline goes. the current home faces more north and we're turning it a little bit more northeast to match the shoreline. And of course that then created other issues with um and one of the things we didn't we just didn't want I I didn't for us it was um uh the current home has a lot of a lot of concrete right in front of it. Um, and uh, it's sort of a lot of it's a lot of garage and a lot of concrete. And for us, we felt like that was something we were trying to get away from here. So, we really reduced, you know, the driveway um, and wanted to create more of a lake cottage type feel to it. >> I'm sure the question will come up, but I'll ask it anyway. There's questions about the the elevation towards the lake and concerns about flooding. Do you have any comments on that? >> Yeah, that's um so very sensitive to that. Um we have a place in Florida and so I'm very cognizant of uh of of flooding and and we're at the nine we're at 910 um on that corner and you know through the grading process I would I would you know we be certainly willing to go up from there. Uh I'm not going any any lower and I was uh around and very aware of the flooding that happened over a decade ago here. So, I know it can it can happen anywhere. Um, very sensitive to that. So, willing to work with the commission and the staff on that for sure. We're aligned. Commissioner Tennyson, I have no questions. Commissioner, your go. >> Um, couple questions. Um yeah, I think um part of the reason why the elevation is so low is because you're pushing so infringing so much upon the lake. Um and so if that was pulled back where the grading then starts to rise up then that would push up your home um and you'd be higher lake elevation. Um so one is kind of causing the other. Um so question uh you mentioned the lot constraints um in great detail. Um so you know them very well. So, as you looked at those lot constraints, what did that say to you in terms of what you could or could not build there when you purchased this lot? >> Yeah. Um, Cher, I mean, Mr. Um it was a close call as to and it's perhaps still is um you know whether or not we just renovate um and and leave the existing home closer to the lake than what we'll be proposing. Um, it was um it was a it was a decision driven by our desire to improve what we thought was improving the over certainly the property to create a longer term age in place um residence for us as well as um have it conform to the the better conform to the character of the neighborhood. Um, I think there's some minor things that we can do, but if it's move the home back to 50 ft, um, we'll probably renovate what's there. >> Yeah, it's been there for a while. It could stay there longer, I guess. Um, and then I agree with your primary living bedroom on the main level. Um, so I I don't have any um, you know, I think that's a a smart wise planning. Um, but I would just ask then when that was a decision that was made, what compromises did you then make to have the home fit on the site? >> Well, you'll see that there's no other bedrooms on the on the on the main floor. The other um, two bedrooms are in the basement on the walkout level. Um, that was a compromise. Okay. Um, I I think that's about it. >> Okay. >> I think that's something that's important for me is to understand what other compromises were made and hearing that there really wasn't a lot of other ones. I think there's probably some things that could get massaged in this plan to be more s in alignment with this lot. Um, and then the variance on the front yard. Is there an easement there? Question for city staff. Um, it looks like there's >> there's not >> maybe some extra frontage from what I see of a driveway line and then the street and then the property line. Is there is that for the road to get widened or is that a curb and gutter or anything at this time? >> I'm unaware of the CIP for that. >> Uh, >> yeah, >> there's no use of record. >> I would assume that's just a right ofway area. So, it's probably a 55 or a 60 foot rightway dedication in a 28 foot wide street. >> Okay. Yeah. So, because of that rightway area that you do have, um I'm I I'm not opposed to a variance consideration for the front and actually it would the closer you can get the home to the front, it's going to reduce your driveway, which is going to be wonderful for the lake and the reduction of impervious surface. So, um, the front is less of a concern for me, but the lakeside I, yeah, I have a problem with that. And I think the getting closer to the actual setback average of the 41 35 ft um is something I'd like to see um another rendition of, but thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Euro. Commissioner Smoke, >> hi. Um, so I'm a longtime lake owner, so I'm kind of familiar with that. I know what you're talking about. Um, So you talk about that overpowered the lake and yeah it it does catch your eye. Um but the grading how much of the grading did you talk about? I mean is there going to be substantial grading? How much will it be raised? Do you know? >> So it's an interesting lot because it actually is um it's lower at the street level then goes up and then goes back down. And it's also higher and I have the topographic. It probably didn't come through on the on the um but it's uh there's pretty steep slope on the eastern side. Um and we've actually been um approached by that neighbor too um with regard to improving the landscaping along that portion of it. So gradient's been a big um >> but I'm more concerned I'm more my question is really focused on the walk out. Do you know where the walk out walkout would be? So, if you're looking at the basement floor, is that going to be how many feet above where it is now? Or do you know >> it's higher than it is now? Because it's going to be set back three and a half feet farther than where it is right now. So, >> so if it says 910, you're talking a couple feet then. >> Couple feet. >> Couple feet. Okay. Um I think when I looked in the plans, the roof peak um was going to be at 946. >> Anyway, that's what I'm seeing here. The current roof roof peak is at 949. So, it's only difference from the and if you're only going to be a few feet up from the lakeside, your claim that this is not going to overpower the lake at 104 feet wide. I kind of disagree with you on that. I I think you're making a really wide and I like that it's long and thin, but I kind of disagree with it your argument that this is going to be um visual reducing the visual impact. I think it's going to work in the opposite direction. But I understand that that's not part of, you know, the equation here. I just kind of wanted to point that out. But I still I'm really concerned about the grading. I I don't know if you're a longtime Prior Lake person or if your your architect and builder is. I don't think so. But I think you're going to be in problems and I have that concern for you. >> I thank you. I appreciate that. And again, I I'm um not a longtime Prior Lake resident. Um, but I've lived in um the Twin Cities uh for most of my life except when I was uh in the army and uh until recently. Um I do have a we do have a place in Florida. We spent some time. Um but you know if if again for a condition to this we're happy to discuss additional elevations if that's a you know if that's a condition to the variance that I mean I we are 100% aligned I do not want flooding issues. Our home in Florida is a newer build that is built up. We had water in our driveway during hurricanes Helen and Milton but it did not impact our property. Why? because it was built with common sense and above what the code requires and I'm going to do that here as well. >> I have no further questions. >> Thank you, Commissioner Nicholson. No questions. >> One more. One more from Commissioner Yo. >> I'm just because I can see this survey here from the uh prior home. It looks like the prior home was around 910 911 actually. um at the base point. Is that what you guys have in the survey that you provided to us? It's on here right here, the back rear yard. So, it does look like you're comparable. I'm not sure that you're going up at all. Um it's just my my point with the 910 that you're proposing at yours. It looks like that's at the base of their deck, not the base of the home was around 911 9 somewhere around that. But I don't have a >> I've got 909 on this one. >> 909. Yeah. >> Yeah. I don't have a point drop, but based on where I'm seeing the topo hit the back side of the house. So, just wanted to bring that as I was looking while you're asking that great question. >> All right. Thank you. Anything else you'd like us to know, Mr. Phelps? >> No, thank you. >> Okay. Thank you so much. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address the commission on this? >> Any other questions for commissioners? Commissioner, I think we would look for a motion to open the public hearing. >> Yeah. My bad. >> All right. I'll entertain a motion at 7:24 to formally open the public hearing on agenda item 4B. Is there a motion? >> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second to open the public hearing. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. I. >> I. All those opposed? Any opposed? Seeing none, the public hearing is is open. Um, if there's anyone in the viewing audience that would like to address the planning commission, please feel free to step uh forward to the podium and press the red button. I'm required to ask three times. Last time I sort of pulled it out of you. >> All right. Seeing there's no one, um, I'll entertain a motion and a second to close the public hearing at 7:25. Uh, is there a motion? >> So moved. >> We have a motion. Is there a second? >> All right. The public hearing is closed at 7:25. Um, the Let's move to commissioner comments. Um, Commissioner, um, you know, my mom always told me, I'm going to digress, just pardon me, that always, it's always ladies first, right? And so I' I've been derelict in that this evening. So, uh, Commissioner Schmok off, um, Paul, I really loved that diagram you gave. It really gave a very good idea of how, you know, the constraints were for this. Um, and I Commissioner Yo, I I appreciate your comments about how, you know, yes, there's this Fingerling uh design and it looks like there could be some more tweaking to have fit into that area, but Paul made it so clear. Um, I know that my comments about the elevation are not material to the variance, but it still weighs on me and thinking if they were to consider that, how might they alter their approach? Because I I do think that they don't haven't thought that through. And if they do come to that, maybe there's a different design, but that's probably for another time. That's kind of where I sit. >> Thank you, Commissioner Schmok. Commissioner Nicholson. >> From my perspective, no concerns. However, I defer to the commissioners with more expertise on the Lakeside properties. >> Thank you, Commissioner Nicholson. Commissioner Yo. Um, yeah, I I still stand on some of my questions that I was asking earlier. Um, I'd like to see some more work done on this to improve the lakeside setback. Um, again, I I think there has to be a greater improvement there considering what depth this lot does have to offer, and I'd be more interested in seeing more of a a um variance request on the front yard um given the amount of property that is there and the reduction that would provide in a driveway. So, um, that's that's where my mind's at. Thank you. >> Thank you, uh, Commissioner Tennyson. >> Yeah, I would would certainly echo some of the comments have been said already. Um, you know, a couple of things. Uh, I mean, if I'm doing the math right, this is about a third acre lot, right? Am I doing the math right? Um, and so I think very different than the last conversation, right? In terms of the size of the house, I I think the size of the house could probably go down a little bit, I mean, to accommodate some of this. But I concur. I mean, I think find a find a way to move the elevator in the house somewhere. I mean, they got plenty of room to move the elevator. I'm sure you could obviously lose some of that set back there. There look like there's opportunity to condense some of the front a little bit. And I would uh fully support a variance in the front, right, to do some of this. So, I think there's room to move. I don't think realistically the style of home you can get to the 50 ft. I think it'd be very hard to do. So, I I think um given that, you know, again, really appreciate the visual too. That was really helpful to see. Um, so, uh, you know, certainly appreciate the improvements on the previous improvements that were made from the previous house. I just think we have a little bit more to go. >> Thank you, Commissioner Tennyson. Commissioner Rook, I would agree with most of the comments. I would say it's it's clear obviously there was an improvement from what's currently there or an intent to improve um, which which should be noted. Um, certainly sounds like a little bit more opportunity for that improvement. I agree that the 50- foot requirement probably is unattainable on the shoreland setback side. Um but appreciate the ability or the um the scope in trying to get closer uh to that requirement. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Fenceer say I really struggle with this one because I see a lot of improvement here. I agree with Paul that the impervious service is the king portion of this and I'd really like to see that that is under 30%. So kudos to you and getting those improvements. I really appreciate it. Um that being said, it does still feel like we're almost there, not quite there. Um I think about that that shoreline setback and I I defer to everybody else with the flooding. I I was here when some of it was there, but I don't live on a lake. I didn't receive anything. So, I don't really know much about it. But when I think about that setback requirement and 50 ft, obviously it doesn't work. It really doesn't. So, you think about that averaging is what I look at. And then the sighteline, I kind of think of it as kind of both need to be hit. not necessarily sighteline allows for you to hit that averaging or not quite hit the averaging. So, it just feels like there's there's a little bit of tweaking that could get there and you could meet that that shoreline requirement. Um, but I really do appreciate all you put into it. This is this looks fantastic uh improvement to what was there. So, I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, commissioners. Um, I I do echo uh all of the commentary offered. Um, and I I just want to go on record and say I appreciate your willingness to embrace our comments and our our feedback this evening. Um, and that's a great signal that that isn't always the case um from applicants andor their agents or developers. So I think um uh I'm going to suggest as I did in the previous agenda item um that we uh neither approve or deny rather we table this so that the applicant um and or the Phelps's design can continue to work with staff. Um I think were I'll just ask were you able to capture the the concerns about uh you have a good sense of what we'd be looking for in this Iteration. >> Yes, chair. >> Okay. All right. Uh with that, I will um uh entertain a motion to um delay or table this agenda item 4B until such time as the applicant and or their design and staff can come together and bring us something um that captures the sentiments and sort of the specific desires of the commission. Is there a motion? >> So moved. Is there a second? >> Second. >> All those in favor of of tableabling this agenda item till such time as the applicant and or their designers can get together with staff and bring back um the next iteration. Uh please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> No. The motion carries. Thank you. >> All right. The next agenda item is PDEV2600000013. This is 13810 Shepherd's Path combined preliminary and final plat and variance. Thank you, chair. Uh the applicants for this um request are Presbyterian Homes and Services or PHS in partnership with Senior Housing Partners or SHP. They are requesting a major amendment to the existing Shepherd's Path planned unit development or PUD plan. Uh the property is located at 138 uh 10 Shepherd's Path Northwest. The amendment to the PUD will allow for the construction of an independent living building in place of a previously approved skilled nursing facility while also adjusting dimensional standards to accommodate the proposed design. Uh here is the location at the southwest corner of Shepherd's Path and North Baron's Road. Access to the site is provided by Shephardd's Path Northwest. Specifically, uh the red outline is the site in question for the proposed facility. No changes would be taking place on the rest of the property. A similar size building was planned as part of the Shepherd's Path PUD approved in 2006, which planned for the construction of skilled nursing. Um due to the demand and market conditions, they've now changed their plans and now hope to do uh independent living as there's greater demand for that type of use. There is an existing fourstory housing structure on the subject property currently that serves 154 residents with 85 independent living, 51 assisted living, and 18 memory care units. This is the original PUD that was approved in 2006, which lays out the different phases of the plan. Uh phase one has been completed as you can see. Um phase four is specifically what this uh skilled nursing was planned for. That has now entered into phase two. Um but then there's two other remaining phases left as part of the project mostly located on the east side of McKenna Road. The PUD encompasses the entire approximately 80 acre property north of County County Highway 42 and south of North Barren Drive. Uh there is a DNR protected wetland on the southeastern portion of the lot. However, the proposed development is not planned to impact that. The site is currently zoned PUD. The 2006 PUD contemplated a three-story skilled nursing facility. Uh the maximum building height is 45 ft based on the R3 highdensity residential district. Proposed PUB amendment would allow for a four-story independent living facility with the bottom level partially exposed uh as below below grade parking. Approximately the building height would range from 51 ft and 10 in on the shorter side to 62 feet 10 in on the higher side. The building height according to city code is measured from the finished grade level along the public rightway to the mean distance of the highest gable on a pitched roof. Uh so the four occupied stories of the building would be approximately 44.6 feet in height. Uh when including that lower level parking and the mean distance to the pitched roof, that's what increases it to the 62 um feet 10 in at the highest. The applicant desires a pitched roof uh to maintain the same roof line as the existing building to further reduce the scale. Um, the proposed design also incorporates increased setbacks and high quality materials. Here's an example elevation. This is actually pictured with a flat roof. Um, but the rest of the building is accurate. Uh, so the building would be pitched like the building to the rear of that one in this picture. Here's an east and west elevation breaking down that um bottom level that's partially below grade. As you can see, on one side, it's going to appear to be four stories, and on the other, it's going to appear to be five. Here's a screenshot or a bird's eye view of the existing building, which is all in white with the pitched roof, and then the proposed building with the finished details. The proposed PUD request would increase the total building area by approximately 31,000 square ft. Uh this brings the floor area ratio to.336 or an increase of 3% which was previously approved. Uh the maximum FAR floor area ratio permitted in the R3 highdensity district is.35. So the proposed floor area ratio remains below this threshold and the applicant plans for an overall reduction in units from 80 to 72 uh bringing the density from the site down to 8.3 to 8.2 units per acre. The anticipated number of dwelling units is 72. City code requires one and a half parking stalls per dwelling unit for a total of 108. The applicant, however, proposes 86 stalls on the site, 64 structured underground, 22 surface spots for a ratio of 1.2 spaces per dwelling unit. This is based on their reasoning and logic over their uh experience across more than 60 senior living communities where the applicants data shows a parking ratio of approximately 1.2 two spaces uh which would be sufficient to meet resident, staff, and visitor needs. Additionally, many of these people um only have one car or no cars at all at this point. Um there's also a a shared parking agreement with the property next door, also owned by the applicant. The original PUD did not establish setback requirements. However, the R3 um requires front yard setbacks of 35 or 30 feet or the building height and sideyard setbacks ranging from 15 ft increasing based on height and adjacent uses. The applicants propose setbacks of approximately 65 ft along Shephard's Path Northwest and 43 feet along North Baron's Road. Sanitary and sewer are available to the property via Shepard's Path Northwest. Um, as you can see, currently they're located kind of curving through here in the norththeastern tip of the property. The applicant proposes to move the water man completely within the rightway at the city's request. Uh, but we're going to leave the sanit sanitary sewer in place um as is due to difficulties in trying to relocate that specifically. The applicant proposes to direct storm water um towards the existing storm water facilities at the center of the development. The previous approval was a very similar sized building. Um so no additional storm water improvements will be needed. Major versus minor PUB amendments. According to city code, minor amendments to PUB plan can include increases in conformity with requirements, decreases in density, leasable floor area, building height, impervious surface or required parking, and minor building additions and floor plan modifications. Uh, specifically, this is a major amendment to PUD plan due to the change in approved use classification. Other reasons for major PUDS include changes in the approved final plat increases in density, leasable floor area, building height or required parking, which are also being touched on, reductions in usable open space, and any changes that are anticipated anticipated to result in off-site impacts as determined by the zoning administrator. Amendments to PUDs are reviewed by city code um with the following criteria. providing a flexible approach to development which is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the city's comp and zoning um comp plan and zoning ordinance. Creating a sense of place and providing more interaction among people increasing economic vitality and expanding market opportunities. Providing more efficient and effective use of streets, utilities and public facilities that support highquality land use development at a lesser cost. an enhanced incorporation of recreational public and open space in the development while also preserving and enhancing desirable site characteristics, open space and protection of sensitive environmental features. The developer is proposing to amend the approved PED plan by changing a use from planned skilled nursing to independent living. The requested PED also includes flexibility related to building height, density, and dimensional standards as well as parking setbacks and open space. Uh we're recommending you hold a public hearing. Um and the applicant is present tonight and they have provided us with some material they would like to present. >> Great. Thank you, Jake. Uh we'll move to Commissioner comments. Um Commissioner Jüko questions, comments for staff. >> I'm good at this time. Commissioner Shimok. >> Okay. Um I don't know if this is in good order. I almost want to see to hear the developers comments here a little bit, but um full disclosure um I'm moving my uncle into McKenna in two weeks time and I had an aunt live there for many years. So I'm really familiar with the complex and this site. Um I'm a little I guess this is for staff. There was something in the materials that said about the request if PUD will also include authorization for flexibility. Is that dynamic flexibility? So that um there there could be other uh changes that uh the developer will have. How much latitude do they have beyond what we see right now? >> So if this PUD plan were to move forward and be approved by the city council, the actual approved planned unit development plan will be the building layout and its exact location, the building heights exactly as they're proposed, and the building materials exactly as they're proposed. So any modification there may be a minor amendment if you know a material is swapped out for another um but anything beyond that to the number of units to the parking anything else that could potentially be an impact uh will be a PUD amendment. It would come back to you. >> Okay. All right. Okay. Then it's the parking plan I was so the the one about reducing it to 1.0. I've parked there many times and I've never had problems. But I'm also wondering does that mean the current complex adheres to 1.5 which would suggest that there's an ample supply of open slots at 1.5 or is the current uh ratio for the existing uh site at 1.2 suggesting that hey a reduced ratio is going to be okay as well. >> Uh commissioner I'm not aware of what the existing facility uh has for parking or any surplus. Perhaps the applicant would have that information. >> Okay. Um, and then as far as relying on the church for more parking, this is going to be further to the east. And it's quite a trek to the church parking to get there. So, I don't know that those I'm guessing, are they 20 slots or 29? It was a little unclear how many of the extra slots bring the number up. Um, how much you can reliably rely on when someone has to in the winter walk all the way around because you can't walk through. That's a a locked uh door from the church. Anyway, that was Um, maybe I'll stop at the parking because I have a feeling I'm hearing some seeing some movement on this side. Maybe the other commissioners want to chime in on that one. >> Thank you, uh, Commissioner Nicholson. >> So, just just a comment slash semiquest. Um yeah, I would assume this project contributes to the housing density goals both at the city level and the encouragements that that are passed down from a state level. Is that accurate? >> Yep. This will be a higher density development which the Met Council is always pushing towards. And then my my other comment would be and it's it's probably less specific to this property, but there's a lot of development happening along that 42 corridor in that area. So is there a traffic study that's that's part of this development? Is kind of unsure of the mechanics of that? >> Yeah. Uh, Commissioner, so when uh Jeffers Pond originally went in and was approved in the I'm sorry, uh, McKenna Crossing when it went in in the mid 2000s, they would have done a parking study at that time and all of the streets and intersections would have been sized to accommodate a much denser development than currently exists. So, this proposal is a 72-un building taking place of an 80unit building. Um, there will be minor adjustments in the amount of traffic for independent living versus assisted living. Uh but the campus envisioned you know several more build uh high density residential buildings as long as well as commercial development. So the local street network and intersection should be able to accommodate this development. >> Okay. Thank you. No more question. Thank you commissioner. >> Thanks for coming back to me. Um question on the in terms of like economically speaking the difference between a skilled nursing facility versus an independent living. Are there impacts that we should know about that would be kind more economic impacts to the surrounding community with the shift in use? >> Um so this shift in use primarily from skilled nursing to assisted living. um kind of a reduction in overall building costs per square foot um as you're seeing a lot of the I think more central kitchens and stuff being maybe case. >> Yeah. Are you asking commissioner on impacts off-site impacts or actual construction costs of this property? >> No, no, offsite like to our community. Are there impacts to our community um that that I assume skilled nursing there's going to be more employees that would be present that would be coming into our community probably cars that would need to be parked and it kind of ties into the parking questions too. I assume this is independent living. Do they have vehicles? Will there be tenant vehicles that are parked there or do they not? >> Yep. So, uh I don't know exactly what the ratio would be, but you're correct. Skilled nursing would bring, you know, more staff to the facility. Independent living is going to I mean, these it'll be a department building essentially for 55 plus that will have vehicles and they will travel in it >> get groceries in our community and support our restaurants and other businesses as well. >> Yeah. >> So maybe a shift there for more of a 24hour in terms of the ripple effect to the community versus maybe more of the um people that are coming to work for their shift. >> Correct. Great. >> And then um I know because when we were looking at um one of the other unit uh developments here um there was an emphasis on uh move in move out and how that was going to be accommodated with the site plan. Are you feeling good about that layout that's being proposed in terms of access and everything else? Understanding there'll be a lot of movers coming and going with this apartment style living. >> Yep. The applicant did demon demonstrate turning radiuses for basically a semi-truck. Um okay, so no worries. They're accommodating even fire trucks, garbage trucks, moving vehicles. >> Great. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Tennyson. >> Yeah, my questions are probably more for the applicant, but I'll just throw them out there to start and we can uh close it out with the applicant. But um so this piece about their uh it's the parking again I guess with their other communities. I'd be curious. I mean I'm pretty familiar with Presby um at least used to be really familiar with them but um in some of their communities I know are in kind of areas where there's a lot of like places to walk and things right like here you can't really walk to any place to eat or you know shop or anything. So I'm just kind of curious like how that how that comparison because it's not really apples to apples right? Um but maybe um because the unit it looks if I'm reading it right the units are actually larger. There's less units but it's a larger building. So are they making um you know is there some on-site restaurant or something like that that kind of solves for some of that? >> There are some on-site um amenities. Sure. >> Say uh there's that roof. They have a roof deck. Um they also have a a grade level patio in the back that's pretty substantial. and then um different amenity rooms throughout the floors. Uh the exact uses the applicant can get in better idea of those. >> Thank you. >> I have no questions at this time. Uh Commissioner Fence up here, >> just to be clear with the height, they're matching the other building. That's why we're getting much more in height. >> Yep. The sight lines line up still. So from a visual impact, you'll, you know, you'll think they're the same height um just based on the roof lines >> and that's a primary driver to the increase in height >> and the grade level on that side allows that partial below grade level. >> Thank you, Commissioner Rook. >> Uh no, no additional questions. >> All right, great. Um would the uh applicant like to approach and share thoughts and comments with us, please? Feel free to press the red button and then state your names um and addresses for the record. >> Good evening. My name is Marissa Geyser. I'm with Presbyterian Homes and Services at 2845 Hamlin Avenue North in Roseville. I'm joined by Chris Palitch from BKB and >> we're at 222 North Second Street, Minneapolis. Thank you. We have a presentation, quick presentation that we'll pull up here. There we go. Awesome. Well, first and foremost, thank you all for your time tonight. We really appreciate it. Um, as we're noting, this is an expansion of an existing campus, so we're already a part of the Prior Lake community, but wanted to reintroduce ourselves to the group here. So, Presbyterian Homes and Services, we are a nonprofit faith-based organization, and really what we do is summed up by our mission, which is honoring God by enriching the lives and touching the hearts of older adults. So, we do that through a variety of housing um offerings as well as services. As you can see here, we've been in business for about 70 years, and we have over 60 communities primarily here in Minnesota, but we also have a few in Wisconsin and Iowa. Um, we have over 11,000 homes uh across our portfolio and employ almost 8,000 employees. Uh, and importantly, we really view ourselves as long-term forever owners and operators. Once we join a community, we really look to invest there um and build within the community. So, with that, we're really excited to bring this next phase um forward to you all and talk about the next uh the next expansion. So, our request here, as noted by city staff, is a PUD amendment to the Shepherd's Path PUD. Um, we're looking to construct independent living in the place of what was previously contemplated as skilled nursing. And then, as was mentioned, the additional flexibilities that have been outlined in the application. So quickly just to kind of touch on the the campus history and evolution. This change from skilled nursing to independent living as was noted in the in the previous uh presentation is really driven by the market and how senior living has evolved over the past 20 years since the original PUB came to be. So 2006 was the original Shepherd's Path PUB that always contemplated a multi-phase senior living approach. Um, so phase one is McKenna Crossing as we know it today. That's our independent living, assisted living, and memory care community. And 19 almost 20 years later, we're here and excited to talk to you about this next expansion. And kind of what we've shown conceptually here in the in the diagram is as these 20 years have evolved, we've seen an increased need for independent living. residents are looking to move into these communities earlier, stay longer, and really build that community aspect so that as they age and they require additional services, they're already in the community that they're going to be, you know, aging into. So, there's that additional community comfort element that you're able to add services and things on as you age within McKenna Crossing. So, as I mentioned, phase one, you can see here on the screen, um, is 154 homes. So that's 85 independent living, 51 assisted living, and 18 memory care. That it's also home to what we call our town center. So really this is the heart and soul of the campus. That's our dining. So we have a commercial kitchen, large dining spaces, our salon, theater, club lounge, our community room that also works as a chapel. Um and then that connection to Shepherd of the Lake church as well. So a lot happening here that the proposed expansion would also tie into. And then as was noted, the design is a four-story building with one level of below grade parking. And it does have that hip roof, which we think just kind of contributes to that more residential feel. Um, and you'll see in in our proposed design as well for the next expansion. So, quickly, as we've talked about, we really view this as the next logical phase of this community vision. Again, 72 homes, 86 parking spaces, and we can talk more about the parking um in a second here. As was noted, we're proposing four-story building with one level of below grade parking. And because the site slopes down towards Shepherd's Path, you'll note that that is why we're having that partially exposed lower level. Um, one thing we're really excited about is the physical connection to this existing campus. So, we are proposing a tunnel to be built that will connect the two buildings so residents have a safe uh accessible and uh climate controlled way to get to our dining facilities and all of the rest of the town center. Um, in addition, this specific expansion will have a variety of wellness and community spaces that can serve this uh specific building as well. So, kind of a balance of connecting into the existing town center and amenities and also adding a few more the building placements. Um, we did take great care to pull the building back as far as we could from Shepherd's Path, acknowledging that even though it's per building code a four-story building, the perception is that it it looks more like a five-story building from Shephard's Path. So, we pulled it back 65 ft, which is just over the the height of the building itself to really try to reduce that perceived scale. As noted, also, we are matching the height line, the the roof line of the existing campus as well. so took great care to to make sure we're not adding any additional perceived height over what is already there. And I'm going to hand it off to our architect to talk about all of the good work he's done. Thanks, Marissa. In the image you're seeing here, uh this is from coming down uh Shepherd's Path. Here you're seeing the main corner of the new expansion portion of the building. the at the lowest level we have a lobby and that's the glassy corner that you're seeing. So not all the first floor is necessarily parking. We have a an entry at that point and that goes with the 22 surface stalls that we have. Above that is a screen porch that connects to the amenities that you're seeing at level two. And then we have a top floor amenity as well where you're seeing the the trellis and we're kind of envisioning that that maybe has very soft lighting on that in the evening. And how we're looking at this is this will be as as you come in off of 42 and you you make the right that you're you're going to see this as kind of the first piece. We don't want it to necessarily overwhelm the main entry of the campus, but we want to be complimentary overall to it. And that that's really where the design has has gone that we want to be uh complimentary to the existing. We didn't through discussions we didn't want to match. This building's you know being built 20 years later. There's some differences in in the approach overall, but we took into account a number of the existing architectural language items that the existing campus had, including the the pitched roof. Um, and we'd match the shingles that there are darker shingles on it now. There used to be kind of a reddish roof, if people remember from years back on it. Uh, we're articulating the corners in a strong way and adding additional glass in the corners. There's expressed bays on the existing building as well as well as balconies and decks. And then uh the the other piece with it as well is really trying to continue to focus on stitching the campus together through the materials. And through the materials, we are utilizing a a ca an architectural cast buff stone similar to the existing building. And we're utilizing white windows, white trim in in some of the places and and then as well as the balconies as as mentioned before. And then you can see that there if you saw the photo before, this is definitely a little bit more of a a modern pallet. Not you know, not not a contemporary building by any means, but just a little bit more of an updated pallet. The view this is Oh, go ahead back please for just a moment. Th this is the this is the the taller side of the building. As mentioned, we do slope down the hill. So, we do have the one side that is fully exposed. The the other sides start to tuck into the side of the hill a little bit more. You can see, as I'd mentioned, the the corner expressions where we have the bronze material with the glass surrounded by the the the stone on each side as it's coming up and then bays kind of working through the middle to express a variation within the massing, create visual interest. And then you can see the the parking garage entry as well. This about mid building here. And then lastly, these two slides are from the north side here. Uh the the bottom right really kind of shows the the connectivity between the two buildings. And as mentioned, we're again complimentary um and and really looking at that roof line connection. And then the the top left is showing a a glimpse into the courtyard as well that we'd have a a resident courtyard. And again, all the amenities would be shared between the buildings, but be outdoor trellis and grill stations and gaming places and and other aspects like that. >> Touch on parking a little bit. I'm sure there will be additional questions that we're happy to to discuss. Um, as was mentioned, we have over 60 communities primarily here in Minnesota. Um, largely suburban campuses as well. And really what we found is that that 1.2 two ratio is what we see to meet the need of our independent living residents as well as the staff that supports them and any guests and visitors. So, we um you know try to size everything appropriately so that we're able to preserve as much green space as possible but also provide adequate parking for residents and those trying to visit them. Um, we did incorporate as much structured parking as we could to try to pull everything from surface below the building wherever possible just to minimize that visual effect of, you know, large parking lots. We also uh provided as part of our application proof of parking for the northern portion of the site. Right now, we're preserving as green space. Should additional parking be required by the residents, we are more than happy to construct that at a later date. Um and then as as noted, we do still have that shared parking agreement with Shepherd of the Lake Church. Of course, noting that is quite a distance to walk. So that would be more for special events or things where there might be a slight influx of visitors. And just to kind of close out, I think um we like to ground ourselves in what we're bringing to the community. First and foremost is increased housing options for residents of Prior Lake. not only today, but as the population continues to age, we really see a strong need um and desire from from local residents. We also pride ourselves in promoting local economic vitality. So, to a previous uh commissioner's comments, our independent living residents are still very active. They like to get out in the community and support uh business as much as possible. And we really view this as the next phase of the plan campus vision. So, with that, uh, we respectfully request the approval of our PUB amendment, um, and look forward to answering any questions. >> Great. Thank you. Thank you so much. I have, um, maybe a serious question, maybe a not so serious question because we do live in Minnesota. >> Yes. >> So, the tunnel you spoke of um, will that be heated? >> It will be. >> Great. Um, and then, uh, I appreciate the rationale on how you arrived at your ratios for parking in in the the sites here in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa. Have you ever run out of parking? Have you ever not had enough resident parking? >> I would say the only time in my experience that we have is in a more urban context where cities require even lower parking ratios. So, below that 1.0 0 um ratio. Otherwise, we really haven't seen any issues. >> Okay, great. Great. Um other commissioner comments, Commissioner Tennyson. >> Uh no real comments. I think you answered the questions that I had. Um and it sounds like you're leaving space for additional parking if I heard right. So, I think I'm good. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Rook. >> Thanks for the comprehensive overview. No questions. >> Commissioner Fence Demacher, >> no questions. Commissioner Yurto, >> couple of questions. Um the tunnel um that you mentioned, will that be used for anything else, utilities or anything else? Will that be primarily just a passage tunnel? >> Primarily a passage tunnel. There will be low voltage connections to the main campus as well just to provide continuity throughout the community. Um as was noted. So the staffing for the the existing community is much more intense than an independent living. So staff will be able to use the tunnel as well to get between buildings should they ever um need to to service those in the expansion, but mostly uh traversing. >> I want to add to that a little bit more that the the tunnel is finished space. So in the lower level of the existing McKenna Crossing is the fitness center, a uh the the movie theater and and other aspects. And that's where the dining the dining room is. As you turn come around the corner, the grade drops and the dining room opens up to the lake. But all of this will be finished space and connecting the two. So >> So the tunnel will connect below grade up to from one building to the next building. >> Yes. >> Okay. Understood. Thank you. Um thank you for the presentation. It's very helpful to see all the good work that's gone into this. Um question on the parking. I didn't see a part a plan for the parking that is going to be under the building. Is was there a layout at all? Does it go under the courtyard? >> It does. >> Okay. >> So, it extends so it's essentially the perimeter of the building and then it does go underneath that um enclosed courtyard on the west side. >> Correct. >> Not enclosed wrapped around courtyard there. >> Okay. Um and then question for the access. So, there's one point of access in and out of the parking for our vehicles. >> There's two. Chris, do you want to talk about that? Yeah, there's an existing one to the south. >> Yep. Yeah, the existing one is it's going to tie into the existing one on the south. >> And then there's the one at midb block as well. If you're seeing the two >> for access into the >> Oh, into the parking garage. No, there's just one at 86 or at see excuse me 64 stalls. Yes. One is more than adequate. Yeah. >> And so um could you just talk me a little bit? Were there certain considerations that have been made for sightelines for pedestrian vehicle safety? you had some other senior living facilities that have not been accommodating for that where there's been safety concerns from the parking garage trying to exit and everything. So, could you just talk a little bit and how confident do you feel that this layout is going to not have any issues there? >> We're feeling pretty good about this layout right now. Um, at the bottom of the site, you can see where the the concrete stops for the drop off of the lobby area and and then on the far side of the site is where the or towards the roadway is where the sidewalk is. So if people are either from the community or outside the community walking around the site, they're they're brought more out to the street edge. So they're not coming right out at where the garage entry door is is happening. So there'll be plenty of sight lines at that point. >> And then the elevation change from being inside the parking garage to then making their way from inside the garage to then being crossing through the parking lot right there. Um that is >> it's basically flush. >> Flat. Okay. Yes. Great. Thank you. Um and then one other question. Uh were there any considerations for solar orientation with either uh the elevations showed pretty regular architectural um language um regardless of the solar orientation. So I'm just wondering if there's certain considerations for either the common spaces or the dwelling units. Well, what I will answer is that the courtyard we we when we studied it, we were looking at it maybe either being south facing or west facing. And with the connectivity to the existing building and the sight lines from all the other units, we chose that west facing courtyard and felt like that's going to provide a good amount of light into the center of the space overall. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Schmukl. >> Love your complex. I love these designs. Uh a little bit more about the parking then. Uh do you know 1.5? Is that what currently is at McKenna? >> Yes, that's actually a great question. So the previous phase had about 20 stalls above the 1.5 ratio. So there's a little bit extra parking provided in that first phase understanding that there's more staff needs um and things like that. So there's as you noted um I've never been there where the parking lot has been completely full. So there is some sufficient um overflow parking there as well. Yeah, I tend to find a spot right where that new entrance is going to be. That's generally where I get midday. Okay, so it's above 1.5 now. So that's why it feels so nice and open. >> Um I love that. Then you answered my question. So where it's shaded up there, that's the earmarked for if you do need to future proof it, that's where you would put 22 more spots. >> Correct. >> Would that bring it up to 1.5 then? You did need that. >> Okay. Uh, do you need more spots for skilled nursing if you were to move to or enhanced assisted living, which I know the parliament, I know that the fourth level up there is enhanced. You need more because I know the ratio is double for staff. >> Yeah. So, the staff intensity is is much higher there. Um, >> the the compromise is that there are fewer residents that have their own cars in skilled nursing. So, it does kind of balance a little bit. It's hard to compare apples to apples, but I would say regular traffic for a skilled nursing would be more intense because you've got staff coming and going. >> Okay, that does make sense. Um, >> I can I can add I I would say what we see typical is probably eight stalls per unit when it is more of like an assisted living. So, >> did you what was it >> point8 stalls per unit on assisted living? So, it is a little bit a little bit lower that we see versus an independent living at like 1.2. >> Okay, that's really helpful. I noted in the materials that the median resident age right now is 87 which that shocks me it's that high. Is that still true? Is that accurate? >> So for McKenna Crossing it is 85. >> 85. >> Um across our portfolio is 86. So pretty pretty close. >> So with a bigger complex and noting that market conditions have changed in a little baby boom it's going like this. >> Do you anticipate having uh a need to attract younger residents trying to get that 55 and above? >> Absolutely. I think that is what we're seeing. Um, as new residents are looking to move into our campuses, they're coming to us younger and younger because they do want to move in and stay longer. The the issue that we're having here at McKenna is we just don't have enough space to accommodate all of those people. So, we certainly see that. >> So, then you might get into another parking snafu because the 55 year olds, you know, I don't want to go where my husband wants to go. I want to go someplace else. Not to put myself in the age group, but um um and then as far as the comment on the movein challenge, I have concur. There are challenges right now. It's very difficult. I'm trying to figure out where the heck we're going to get a truck or a trailer and so I would say yeah, you do have some problems at least in the existing and I don't see how that's accommodated here. Um cafe, are there any cafes? Are they going to be public? Will the outside uh folks be able to come in or is this purely for residents? So the cafes in the existing building um accommodate guests and visitors as well, but primarily serve our residents. Yeah. So they're accessible. >> Yeah. Because I know the one between the two the church, you know, outsiders can come in. If we wanted to meet for coffee, we could without having a visitor. >> Yep. >> Or not being a visitor. Okay. >> Um can you provide a little bit of history on the post uh phase one changes because I know third and fourth floor were independent originally and then I'm glad because Now you have assisted living and enhanced assisted living which for my board members is kind of like that next tip next to nursing level. You're not in the hospital but you're just about there. So I love it. Um I know that some of the design uh the the the floor plans were changed to accommodate that. Um any thought into this is now that you had that experience under your belt what has been thought for this in case you had to make that decision again in 101 15 years? >> Yeah absolutely. I think um we've definitely considered that as our residents continue to age, more people are looking for assisted living services. Um one component that has also changed in the past 20 years is that we as an organization provide inhome health as well. So independent living residences can have those services brought directly to their unit as well. So that gives a little bit more flexibility to provide additional levels of care. But beyond that, as you noted, we've expanded our assisted living and enhanced assisted living um to be able to accommodate that as well. And so we've seen um those are primarily full, but there is a little bit of capacity. So um we feel very confident that these additional units would be able to be uh accommodated within the existing mechanic crossing community >> or I suppose phase one area would just kind of expand to have that. >> Exactly. It would happen within the phase one most likely. >> All right, I think that takes care of my questions. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thanks. >> Thank you, Commissioner Schmogle for the good questions. Uh, Commissioner Nicholson. >> Yes. Uh, trailing off those questions, you use the term next phase, right? This is the next phase. Are there additional enhancements or improve or improvements, you know, that you you're long-term planning for, but we're not seeing here? I would say so across east across the Shepherd's path there were the subsequent phases that would be more brownstones additional independent living. Um right now we're focusing on the physical connection to the the town center because we've seen that proven out to be really important. So no plans for those future phases as of yet. But we'll continue to monitor you know how much demand there is and would always pursue more if if the demand is there. >> Of course. No more questions. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Nicholson, and all my fellow commissioners for the really great questions. Are there any any thoughts lingering for anyone? >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I will entertain a motion and a second at 8:13 p.m. to commence the public hearing. >> Is there a motion? So have a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. Any opposed? Seeing none, uh, public hearing is closed. Um, so let's move to commissioner comments. Commissioner Rook, no comments. >> Commissioner >> no comments. >> Commissioner Tennyson. >> Yeah, just a couple things. I would just say excited to see some additional opportunity for community members to age in place. Um, as a previous nursing home administrator, um, love the move to the independent living. It's a far improvement from, I think, um, the original plan, at least in my opinion. Um, and, you know, intend to approve. Thank you, Commissioner Euro. >> No comments. >> Commissioner Schmok, >> I think it's well thought of. I'd like the future proofing and so I'm I'm in support of it. and Commissioner Nicholson >> seems like a very positive addition to our community. One of the comments I would make is just considerations around the city services thinking about the average age being 85 86 years old you know thinking about the the fire department paramedics. >> Thank you. I too will be supporting uh the proposal. Um, I don't like to talk about aging. Um, but this has been a great forum for me to start embracing what's the what's going to happen with me someday. But, uh, um, all seriousness, it's a very, very thoughtful plan. I appreciate all of the efforts that you all have put in into this. Um and we look forward to continuing to be a great place to call home for those of us who are and others who don't know us yet who are going to be um inquiring about these sorts of these facilities. So thank you very much. I'll entertain a motion. One is if I may one point of order. >> Sure. >> Did we open the public hearing? >> Oh >> I think we got a little ahead of ourselves. >> Got ahead of ourselves. I'm so excited about it. Um, is there anyone? >> I'll take a motion in a second to open the public hearing. Thank you. >> So, move. >> Is there a motion? >> Second. >> We have a motion in a second. Uh, Commissioners Tennyson and Fence Democra. All those in favor, please say second by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> All right. Is there anyone in the viewing audience who would like to address us on this issue? >> See, I knew it. Okay, I'm required to ask three times. So, going once, going twice. >> Good feeling. >> Going three times. Okay. I'll entertain a motion now to close the public hearing. >> So, move. >> We have a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> A motion and two seconds. Great. All those in favor of closing the public hearing, please signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> Any opposed? >> All right. Um, now we'll move to commissioner comments. Anybody want to change? >> No. >> Expand. Okay. Now, I'll entertain a motion um and a second to approve uh the combined preliminary and final platin variance P de DEV2600000013 13810 Shepherd's Path Northwest. >> So moved. >> We have a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Seeing none, the um the motion carries. All right, we'll move on to our final public hearing of the evening. This is PDV26-00000081390 170th Street Northeast. This is a preliminary plat with preliminary plan unit development and variance. >> Chair, commission, thank you very much. Well, we're at the end. Here we go. So, tonight before you do have an application for Campbell Shores Plimary PL Shorland Planned Unit development and a variance and um you know this is probably be a little bit complicated so we'll try to go through it and we'll we'll take it slow and go through the points. So, quick summary, the applicant is Pinnacle Family Homes. They're requesting a preliminary plat Sherland PUD and a variance for Campbell Shore single family home development. The property is located at 1390 170th Street East. Um for this particular application, we are requesting a consideration of a variance for open space. Um we require 50% open space as a part of this process and based on a number of issues that we'll get into today. The request is for 47% due to public services installation. Um again a PUD um request they're requesting a PUD to allow for a platting of 62 units which including which includes an adjustment of dimensional standards to accommodate the proposed design. To get our bearings a little bit the piece of property is located north of 170th Street and west of Marshall Road at 17 or 17th County Road 17 that is. It's adjacent to Campbell Lake which if you are familiar it's uh just west of Spring Lake. So, it's a it's kind of a new lake for the city. So, it's something to take a look at and to notice. A little bit about the site characteristics. Um, Campbell Lake is an natural environment lake um to the west with sloping topography. As a part of this lot, there's 2.38 acres of wetlands throughout the development. Marshall Road and um border the eastern and southern portions. To that, there's wooden shoreland and standard trees that are located to the south. And a portion of lot extends west to wooden open spaces whereby the rest of the lot include agricultural fields that make up the majority of the development. According to our 2040 comprehensive plan, it's designated low density residential. The plan requires um 2.5 units per acre. Um so we're looking for that as a standard for development. And prior lake zoning map zones this say as R1 residential which in addition to that it's zoned shoreline overlay district. Now, natural environment lake is kind of a newer item here to the city. I know we have a couple, but it's been a while since we developed those. So, we wanted to go over kind of the differences and standards for those particular lakes. These particular lakes have the higher standards. Um, because of this, a PUD becomes more necessary to do any development around these types of lakes and particularly when we comes to the comprehensive plants uh standard densities. So for reference, standard R1 zoning requires 12,000 square feet lot size with a standard 252510 setback. So that mean front rear 25 side 10 per service for regular R1 is actually zero and widths are 86 ft. Um for a general development lake such as Prior Lake, we require 15,000 square feet um plus 25 ft for front, 75 rear for our repairing lots with a side of 10. Now we go into our impervious surface of 30% and a 90 foot um width. For our natural development lake, it goes up quite a bit. For our lot area for repairarian lots, we require 40,000 square ft, 20,000 for non-reparing. This includes a 25 front and 150 rear on repairarian lots side yards of 10 and 30% previous surface. For a width, we require 125 ft of repairarian width as opposed to 100 ft of non-reparing. for the proposed because of um a number of reasons and we'll talk about how this PUB standards and how the tiering system works and there's a bit of detail there. The minimum uh that's proposed is 8,622 with an overall um development average of 19,600. So that means there's quite a variance within this particular um PUB request. The front lot or front was 25 feet with a a proposed 150 for repairarian lots side of one seven and a half feet per side 30% impious surface on average. Now this is something that we'll need to talk about a little bit as well because each tier has 25% for tier wise but then you still have your 30% per lot but that can be kind of spread out over the averages of lots based off of sizes. So we'll talk about that. In addition to that, the request is for a minimum 65 foot front but with a average of 70. So, here's a graphic of what this looks like and kind of a little bit of time to take this and kind of see what you can see. We have a number of uh um exhibits like this. So, we'll be able to see this a couple different times. Uh again, 62 units of single family homes that are proposed on this particular lot. Um, in addition to that, something to take note of is there's large protected open spaces along the shoreland. And that's something to really pay attention to as we look at the PUD process, especially shoreland, is the give and take. And so, where is the high quality, where is the open open land, where is it being um proposed, and how does it impact the rest of the lake, which is really the point. So, as you can see, um quite a bit, the setbacks are enormous on the lakeside. So about the shoreline PUD, the shoreline PUD allows or requires tiering methodology for density. Each type of lake, whether it's general development, recreational development, or natural environment, has a tiering standard that the applicant must follow. In this particular lake, since Campbell Lake is a natural environment, it has four tiers, which is interesting because actually it's 320 ft per tier. So when you get to the third tier, you're at 960. So technically, it's three tiers. A developer may choose to remove lots from one tier and move it close from the lake and move them away from the lake in order to gain more density somewhere else in a different tier. In addition to that, the applicant must find 50% open space on the site and that's going to be the subject of our variance. Um, again, as a part of this, the natural area protection is required as a part of the PUD. Again, 62 units are proposed in this particular piece of land. In tier one, there's 19 units allowed based off of its um space and amount of acreage that it has. Of that, the applicant is proposing to only use 13 of those. So, there's far less density towards the lake. They're removing six units and transferring instead to a different tier, tier two. As part of tier 2, you're allowed to have 22 units. They're proposing 27. So as such, the applicant is choosing to utilize five of those units and place them into tier 2, therefore leaving one additional unit available. In tier three, three units or 18 units are allowed, but they propose 19. So again, they're using that final credit to put towards the third tier. That being said, um the remaining of the 62, that's 59. So the remaining three will be outside the shoreland. They don't count. So there's a graphic that we'll show you that will kind of show you where that blue line is and how it's outside which will create another issue that we'll show. Each tier will have a maximum of 25% impervious surface with a lot flexibility for imperous surface. Again, we're going back to that each tier must have 25% overall the tier, but within each lot you can have up to 30% or a mix that equals an average of 30. This again talks about the parcels we know greater than a 30 average from the shoreline maximum. Again, that 30 is somewhat important to make sure we maintain that 30% average. A large majority of the significant trees will be preserved. The tree preservation survey identifies moving approximately 30% of caliber inches, which is less than 35%. Therefore, it doesn't trigger our um tree removal and replacement ordinance. in that there's also additional subdivision trees and plantings that will be installed as part of the overall um subdivision design. So again, that will be in addition to so there will be quite a few. So that includes things like your tree in the front, tree in the back, two trees, three on the side if it's a corner lot, things like this. One of the great features of this is that there's a trail along Campbell Lake in addition to other connections that uh attach the citywide trail system. This includes a trail underpass project under county road 17 as a part of a Scott County intersection project. In addition to that, there's a lake trail that will act as a buffer to natural preservation areas and act as a significant PUB benefit. Again, when you see that trail, you know, over there, not for me, over here, you know, this is more my this is theirs. Um, the applicant also requests a variance as a part of this um project. The applicant is requesting reduction from 50% open space to 47. And as we discuss here, we'll we'll discuss how and why and why this uh happened in the grayish darker green area. That may be difficult to, you know, sus out exactly where the darker is, but it's toward the north western portion. That's going to be in conservation easements along the shoreland. And so that's going to be an easement that cannot be built upon. You know, disturbances will be highly limited and protected. And um that enco encompasses all the shoreland area. So really a great um environmental benefit. The light green which includes outlot B and uh A as well as a space that's more towards the central portion will also be open space as well. That's includes a large portion of um the southern portion of the lake which will be put into open space. There's a blue line you might see in the lower right hand side that is actually the end of the shoreland. Those areas that are in that space actually can't count towards open space even though they're being dedicated as open space. So if one were to have included that which you can't um the site would be 50%. But because of that we cannot include it and we'll go into more of that how we've discussed with the DNR why and how that is. The reason for um a couple of reasons why they can't shift the um open space somewhere else is that there's actually a lot of constraints on this property due to a the needed water um management facilities that have to be put on this particular spot and has to be put in a very specific spot which um includes a portion that would otherwise have been allowed more units. So another unit would could have gone to culde-sac and be repositioned. Um because this is a government project, variances based on government action can be added as a part of a practical difficulty. So we're creating a difficulty that they have to address and so this is the reason for the reduction of 40% to as opposed to 50%. Again the area outside the blue cannot count towards open space. So other if not for that there would be 50 and topography cannot ex uh accommodate the shifting of lots offset from the storm management project. Usually what you would do is just maybe make it smaller within that culde-sac or try to transfer units somewhere else. But because of the topography and the credit system, it's really difficult to make those changes if not impossible. Um the open space again is based off of topography and public need. Um a bit about kind of the process and how we kind of came to this conclusion and why the choice of a variance is being um sought as opposed to maybe trying to use a PUD process to do this or go within the PUD process. City staff and the DNR met on April 20th, 2026. At that meeting, the DNR recommended a variance approach. They also recommend recommended prioritizing high quality open space over quantity. Um staff had reviewed the developer's proposal and based on the DNR's feedback, we came up with this recommendation. The shoreline is protected in this particular scenario with large easements and a trail that acts as a physical boundary. Large amounts of trees are preserved and there will be no buildings near the lake. And so because of these reasons, the, you know, staff's mind is that you're getting high quality over quantity. You know, as opposed to like trying to find an extra couple an acre that's kind of in a pit somewhere, we're finding high quality next to the lake. Again, as we discussed before in the previous application, um we do have standards that we review as it comes to PUDS both in chapter 10 but in article 4, but also in a subsection of um our shoreline ordinance, which includes things like a flexible approach to development within the comprehensive plan and zoning code. Creating senses of places such as great open spaces and um trails and paths. Um increased economic vitality. um providing more efficient use of use of streets, public facilities and high quality land use at lesser costs. For example, enhance incorporation of recreational open spaces which were really is the meat and potatoes of this is trying to create that high quality open space and preserving enhancing desirable characteristics of that open space for the protection of the environment which I think um through this project we start to attain. In conclusion, the developer is proposing to build 62 units of f single family homes near Campbell Lake in the Shorland Overlay district which includes a PUD um pre-plat as well as an open space variance. This request also includes a little bit of flexibility with the dimensional standards as we talked about. So, it's you know that's kind of the precipice of the the PUD process. For tonight, we request the holding of a public hearing and a motion and second to recommend to the city council approval of the Campbell Shores PUD and preliminary plat and to approve a variance to the 50% open space requirement as listed. If there are any questions, please let me know and we'd happy to have a public hearing tonight. Thank you. >> Great. Thank you, Paul. Uh, very nicely done. Um, could you go to the slide where you spoke of the dark green the easements? I just have a question sort of informed by um an earlier public hearing this evening. So we look at the green I could you just put your pointer on the the rear lot line like maybe go one up right there. So am I to understand that no building can happen in the green? >> Correct. >> Which means that a resident could not well could come to us and say I want I want to build a a deck that encroaches on that lot line and we would say sorry um it's unbuildable in perpetuity. >> They wouldn't even be able to request it. It would be a conservation easement. >> Perfect. That's all I needed to know. Okay. Um, Commissioner Rook, I think I understood this clearly, but just to verify that blue space, which we cannot count, if included would push this up to 50%. Correct. Obviously, it can't be included. >> And without it, we sit at 47%. >> Correct. Thank you, >> Commissioner Fitzmoker. You mentioned the density requirements was 2.5. What were we getting out of this? supposed to be 2.81. >> 2.81. So 2.5 is the minimum and 2.81 >> that' be our comprehensive plan standard. Correct. >> So it's a balancing density requirements with shoreline beauty requirements with storm water requirements with transportation requirements. Okay. >> Correct. >> Commissioner Tennyson. Sorry, I I know you explained this. It's just getting late in the evening. Um, why can't you use the gray area again? >> It lands outside of the shoreline definition. >> Okay. >> So, once you hit the thousand foot, everything outside that falls off. Okay. >> Um, usually in cases like this, that would be, you know, arguably a benefit because they can get three units without having to impact the shoreland credit system. But in this case, it actually doesn't really benefit because they need that >> extra 3% which they can't utilize. >> And so, this is where the >> the request comes in. Thank you, Commissioner Jüko. >> Um, just a couple questions. Um, do we have other planned unit examples like this with repairarian lots that we've set other similar precedent with? >> Uh, the closest example to this, Commissioner Euro, would probably be Pike Lake Landing uh, north of 42 because that is also a natural environment lake. And did they also have a variance for their >> uh we did not do a variance to the 50% but it was a very similar lot sizes and proposed impervious coverage per lot and per tier. >> Okay, great. Um that's helpful. Thank you. I'm familiar with that development. Um the conservation easement, will that allow um for can homeowners have docks that go out to the body of water? >> It would not be practical. No, because you would have to you wouldn't be able to build on there. So, no, you wouldn't be able to have docks. >> So, they would be able to have a a dock, which is temporary. >> The idea would be you would put out like a kayak. Yeah. >> And you would kind of self >> launch your own kayak or something like that or a canoe. I was so my other question was is there like a community dock thing somewhere? I'm just wondering what that act that connection between the residents and then the lake within this conservation easement between what does that look like? >> It would be open space and kind of self-managed natural environment. There would be certain things you could do based off of whatever the underlying agreements or so for example buckthornne maybe or invasive species or management. I mean the last thing you want to do is create a dry space things like night. >> Yeah. Okay. I did have to look it up. I'm familiar with prior lake quite well but I did not know where Campbell Lake was. Do you know there's two in Minnesota? There's one up by Biji as well. Um it looks like this one's about six and a half feet deep. So, um, that kind of answered some of my other questions about what types of things go on this lake. Um, and then my last question, um, was just the, but I think I just found it because I was looking for the topography to just understand what the topography was from the shoreline to the some of those those homes. It looks like it's a much higher water elevation level than what we're used to with the 904 here. And Yeah. Okay. Correct. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh, Commissioner >> Schmuckle, I see that the developer is constructing the trails. What's the plan for maintaining them, repairing them, replacing them in the future? >> They would be city maintained. >> City. Okay. And most of my other questions you took care of there. Um, maybe for my future education, um, open space preservation in the shoreland district. What's the intention? Is it to be wildlife buffer, aesthetics, um, humanly usable. All of the above. >> It is a tradeoff um that the city does with the developer and the DNR um to preserve and to maintain high quality open spaces and basically to be as a development buffer between things that need to be protected such as environmental lakes. Um >> so when we're evaluating it, we're evaluating along some of those criteria then. >> Correct. Um and this is a good example of analysis of how this would look um you know with the idea that this is a newer lake for development in the city of Prior Lake. Um whereas you know if we look at Prior Lake specifically that's been developed you know >> to all ends for a long period of time but that's also considered a general development lake. So it's expected and you know we understand that's a a lake that people are going to put docks on and have nice boats and things like this. Whereas a lake like like this, it's more more valued for its pristineess and its value to the natural environment. And that's kind of what this PUD is trying to encompass is how can we move those homes back, still create value for people and for the new homeowners, but also how do we, you know, allow that state to remain such so that it stays there for as long as possible. >> Okay. And then, uh, my last question is, are they aware that there's a snowmobile trail that kind of goes skirts uh, Campbell Lake? and what is that the implication for this? >> That's a fantastic question for our developer. Um, >> okay. >> Again, we can double check with them. >> That's it for me. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Great. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Nicholson, >> I'm just curious the the practical management of the conservation easements. So, in thinking about a homeowner wants to begin cutting the grass a little further each year, right? So, how do we establish the the borderline of a conservation easement and manage that? >> One moment, please. >> Yeah, I can answer that question. Um, so we have numerous conservation easements here in the city. Some that are maintained by us as the city and some by the wershed. So, kind of how we treat those is we do monitor those, inspect those um pretty regularly and then if they are violations, then it would be dealt with through code enforcement. So, they are required. Um, we also place signage out there as well, kind of indicating the boundary of these conservation easements so residents are aware. Um, and then kind of just do regular inspections to make sure they're maintained. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Wonderful. Um, at this time, uh, I'd like to invite the applicant address the planning commission share your thoughts with us. if you would please press the red button and then state your name and address for the record. >> Good evening. My name is John Anderson uh 14832 Estate Avenue Southeast in Prior Lake. I represent Pinnacle Family Homes uh out of 1 16154 Main Avenue in Prior Lake. And Rod just Brian Rodmacher uh with Pinnacle Family are here in the audience as well if they have any specific questions they could answer. Um, basically, uh, we're proposing a 62 lot single family subdivision, uh, called Campbell Shores. It's on the shores of Campbell Lake at the intersection of 170th Street and Marshall Road. And in that case, we've got a lot of discussion we've had with staff, the county, the DNR, the watersheds on this project. It's been work going on for quite a time. And, uh, you know, those we've got a lot of kind of partnerships we built to get this project to where it is. Uh, one of the big ones, uh, we've been dealing with is the the open space that you see, uh, on the map that's up on the screen right now. And there's some reasons for it that I want to touch on here real quick as well. Uh, the area in the blue area, which is outside the shoreland area. You know, if we didn't have to worry about the future roundabout at Marshall Road and 170th, we could probably extend that culde-sac and just butt that up and add two lots to that culde-sac and then add take two lots somewhere else. Uh we can't do that because we did work together with the design with the county uh to help give them rightway for their roundabout to provide rightaway on Marshall Road and 170th. There's also a trail underpass in that area that's going to be there. And we're also providing ponding on our site for that future roundabout that's needed. If we were not developing this property, the county would have to come in potentially purchase land from one of the neighbors, whether it was this property or a different property, and build their own pond. But since we're working together and coming forward at the same time as their planning process, we worked together, created a pond in that area, created the underpass right away, also extending a trail along both those roadways for future extensions to the north and to the west. Um, so basically we're kind of restricted, which I heard earlier tonight, the practical difficulty. We have a practical difficulty that if we did add them lots there and put the the open space for our variance somewhere else on the site so we could get to 50% the county couldn't do what they are planning to do with their roundabout construction which is scheduled for 2027. So there's a reason why we're where we're where we're at and overall as was mentioned we are going to be over the 50% number if you include that area um outside the shoreline. So that's the reason why the variance, you know, it's a true practical difficulty definition of what we're looking at there. Um, as far as the uh the wetlands go, there are some minor impacts on this site will be dealt with, you know, through the county. We've been doing a joint uh uh situation with that. There might be some impacts along kind of the west end as 170th Street gets built further to the west along the Campbell Lake area. So, those have all been looked at and they're basically for roadway purposes and and things of that nature. Um basically the uh timing uh we are looking at to construct this in one phase. Uh that would go forward uh potentially later this year or maybe next spring depending on you know the city's looking at 170th right now and constructing that further to the west for a future growth area. Uh so there's some discussions with that we've been having with the city as well to try to figure that out from a cost standpoint, cost sharing all those different things. So, the timing of the ultimate final plat and final phase is a little up in the air, but we do expect it here, you know, in the near future. Um, the uh couple of the other things that uh we that I mentioned are heard here tonight. Uh on this green map, there's a couple other little areas that I just want to point out. It's got trail connections that we're putting in there. So, um, Paul did mention we're putting a trail all the way around the lake area, but up between lots kind of there. There's a trail corner that goes all the way out to sidewalks within the streets. There's another one over on the east end off the culde-sac that'll tie into the future trail on Marshall Road. So, a sidewalk will be a sidewalk, a crossing there to the sidewalk which will tie into the trails into the sidewalk system. So, all those will tie together so people can make loops and different things versus backtracking, stuff like that. Um, there was a question about a deck in the green area where we've designed this so all our uh lots that back up to these open space areas or conservation easements have more than enough depth to build the house. Uh, that was something that we based our criteria on. We had to have a certain amount of front set back buildable area and set backs to the rear for soded areas before we even touched the conservation easements. So, we should be able to build houses on all these lots with no issues in anyone trying to encroach into those conservation easements. Um, a couple examples of other projects that are very similar to this. Um, I had worked on both of these. The Hickory Shores neighborhood, which is kind of south of the Tractor Supply Store, has a very similar design where they did a those are both uh Crystal Lake and Rice Lake are natural environment lakes. So, they had very similar criteria what they did there. And in that case, they also built a trail system around the lake. Um, so people can walk out and then tie into the neighborhood. This will be a very similar design of that. And so one example was that and uh this has a mixture of conservation easements and outlots. The stuff on the south side of the lake are going to be outlots that'll actually be deeded to the city of Prior Lake. Another example um and this kind of ties into our open space variance as well was the Spring Lake Ridge plary plat. It was approved about five years ago. Um I was involved with that project. It never got built because it got approved the same week as CO shut the whole world down basically and that project kind of fell apart due to the COVID thing and the banks not performing and different all sorts of different stuff. But in that case, we had a very similar situation where we had a sliver of land that was outside the shoreland area. And we also in that case, the DNR recommended doing the instead of doing a variance, do a PUB that was a different DNR representative that's that's there today. But in that case, we had like six I think it was five or six areas that were outside that counted towards the 50% open space dedication. So that's where we I actually came up with this idea to try to include that because we knew we had the constraints with the county ponding and trail system that will be going in that area kind of uh just outside. So overall that was approved by the city. It never did go forward to final plat. Um but that was basically the same exact situation as what we're dealing with here. Um so yeah in conservation easements and how do you establish those boundaries? I've done a couple other projects. the Aspen Ridge project last year that was developed and then the um River Place one over by Clary Lake where they had conservation easements. In those cases, the Aspen Ridge one's pretty new, the the one by Clearary Lake is built out now, but we have signage that's put up on the lot lines and then people know where that line is. And in in the River Place one, there's been no issues at this point, you know, for encroachment. Aspen Ridge is still just starting under construction right now, but it has been done in numerous instances in the city. So, it's something that's very common and can be handled. So, so with that, that's a that's a real quick um well, one other thing I'd like to mention. So, these are going to be single family custom houses. Um Pinnacle Family Homes will be the main builder in this neighborhood and they've built a lot of homes in the community in the past. And we expect home prices to probably be in that 750 to probably, you know, upwards of a million million two range. You know, there'll be some on that lake, especially that culde-sac that'll be pretty nice lots, you know, with the size. I mean, the biggest lot in there, I think, is 68,000 square feet, which is, you know, an acre and a half um on a city lot, which is a pretty big lot for us who are in water type of lot. So, um so yeah, so that's where we're at. Uh we're excited about this site. We're really happy with how the design turned out. Uh we do show a future kind of ghost plat where the culde-sac on the east is. There's two uh uh existing residences in that location. Um, so that does show how that could be extended in the future and potentially developed uh to kind of finish that area off. Um, as we know the Marshall Roads, not they're not going to get a street access out there from the county or through the county. So, we do have to provide internal access out there and then we do go out to 170th with with our main access point. Um, I will I would like to point out the open space kind of on the west end there. It's kind of a long sliver along the south side of Campbell Lake. that is usable area and there has been talk about a trail system that'll be run around 170th that could tie in there. Maybe that's a spot for a future trail head for the community, for the city. It will be city-owned land so they could potentially put something like that there. Um, you know, if it wasn't for the shoreland area, you could actually fit houses in there and build lots in those locations. So, uh, there is a possibility for some future type trail head or who knows what in the future, but guess I'll leave that up to you guys. So, with that, I guess I'll uh take any questions. >> Great. Thank you, John. Good to see you again. >> Yes. >> Um, Commissioner Nicholson, questions for the applicant. No questions. Commissioner Schmokl, >> no questions. >> Commissioner Euro, >> just a couple. Um, would another one be the Jeffers waterfront over by station two? >> Uh, that Yeah, I believe there's a trail system around the >> I know that trail system. Well, so that's why I'm ask that one. Yeah, it's very similar in terms of Yeah, I'm you can see their backyards and there's kind of like a little sign then and also in terms of natural grasses and >> Yeah, looks still looks beautiful. >> That's a very you I've walked those trails and it's nice to walk through that area. >> Yeah, the view is great. Um, is there a crossing at all that's going to be planned over Marshall Road? I'm wondering about how this integrates into the Spring Lake development. >> Uh, a crossing on Marshall from our site, you mean? Yeah, if I see how it's how the trails are going to tie in to Marshall to the trail that runs north south, but is there any >> there's an underpass in the roundabout that's planned for uh want that area. There'll be an underpass under Marshall Road >> that'll be a pedestrian. So, >> we we have a that's that open area that's gray on there that there's an opening there and that's why we have restrictions. We just can't put lots in that area. So the underpass will be there and we have to make sure the grades work and the elevation has to be enough so the ponding area doesn't flood out the underpass and all sorts of different things that we work with them on. So >> Okay, great. I didn't understand that was for pedestrians. I thought it was some kind for the trail system versus over the road itself. >> Wonderful cuz I love roundabouts um for vehicles but they are terrible for pedestrians. So I'd love to see that that move was made to accommodate that. Um, and then inside the development itself, um, is there any is there a park that's planned at all or, uh, any other community amenities outside of the water shoreland? >> Um, the community amenities would be the trail system and the open space and and maybe city staff. I think the park is planned for on the other side of Campbell Lake or if I'm not mistaken. Yeah, this uh this is part of the area that's currently in the city of Prairie Lake, but our growth area and our annexation areas are west. And there are neighborhood parks planned on the west side of Campbell Lake and also potentially another larger regional park in this to serve this neighborhood as well. >> Okay. Thank you. >> This this trail system would tie into those parks eventually when they get developed. >> Wonderful. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Tennyson. I have no questions. I don't have any questions. I have a a comment. Um I love the plan. I think it's really really great. I think it's um great great great use of space. Um and it honors what's important to us, you know, as a um planning commission. I know that this uh city council would appreciate it as well. So, I'll be supporting it. Um Commissioner Fence Damacher. >> No other questions. Commissioner Rook, >> no questions. >> All right. Thank you, John. >> One last comment I forgot to mention. We are also adding a right turn lane on 170th Street into our development. It's not there now, but that will be added as part of the construction. So, >> great. Awesome. With that, I'll entertain a motion and a second uh to commence the public hearing at 8:51 p.m. Is there a motion? >> Do we have a motion? We need to open the hearing. >> A motion to second to open the public hearing. >> So moved. >> Second. Is there a second? >> Second. >> All right. We have a motion to second to open the public hearing. Thank you. At 8:51 p.m., all in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. Anybody opposed? None opposed. We'll open the public hearing at 8:51. There's anyone in the viewing audience remaining that would like to address the planning commission required to invite you three times. Going once, going twice, going three times. Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion and a second to close the public hearing at 8:51. >> So move. >> We have a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. Anyone opposed? Seeing none, the public hearing is closed. Um, Commissioner Rook, >> no comments for me. Plan to support. >> Greater >> commend balancing all the different requirements from multiple different directions. Um, I I too think this looks great, so I'll be supporting it. >> Thank you. Um, just to add on to my previous comments, um, really nice job. I'm really impressed with how you just really addressed all the different dimensions and layers of this of this proposal. So, thanks for that. Again, I'll be supporting it. Uh, Commissioner Tennyson. >> Yeah, just excited to see a new community coming and uh, appreciate all the work you did with the county and city. >> Commissioner Yurko, >> I'm in support. Thanks. Great work. >> Um, Commissioner Schmuckle, >> I really like that. prioritized high quality open space. You know that we go by open, you know, raw numbers a lot, but really what's the goal we're going for? And I think you hit the goal. >> Um, so I'm I'm really supportive of this, too. >> Uh, Commissioner, um, >> Nicholson. >> Nicholson, thank you. It's late. It's so late. >> Yeah, I think it's a fantastic project and fully supportive. Awesome. Thank you. So, I will entertain a motion and a second recommending the city council approve the Campbell Shores PUD uh and preliminary PL and approve a variance to the 50% open space requirement. Is there a motion? >> So, moved. >> We have a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor, please signify by saying I I. >> Anyone opposed? >> Wonderful. Recommendation passes. And now I'll entertain. Is there any old business? >> No old business. >> No old business. >> Right. No new business. I'll entertain a motion in a second to adjourn at 8:53 p.m. Is there a motion? >> So moved. >> And a second. >> Second. >> Thank you. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. Anybody opposed? >> Great. Motion carries. We are turned.