Okay, you all ready? >> Good evening and welcome to the July 6th meeting of the Prior Lake Planning Commission. I'd like to invite everyone to rise for the pledge of allegiance. 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. >> It's great to see all of you tonight. Uh I was on Prior Lake uh for the 4th of July and was having a great time before the storm rolled through and I think we might have more people here tonight than was uh at least where I was on on the 4th of July. But seriously, it's great to have all of you. We welcome our community feedback and commentary and we want to do our best to be transparent about our deliberations and our process. Um and it's my hope that we will do that this evening. So again, thank you for being here. Um, with that, I will seek a approval of the agenda. Are there any comments or agenda items or additions to the agenda from council members or commission members? >> Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion and a second to approve this evening's agenda. Is there a motion? >> So moved. >> We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. The agenda is passed. Next, we will uh seek a motion and a second to approve the meeting minutes from our June 1st, 2026 meeting. Are there any comments, additions, or deletions to those minutes? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion and a second. 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 of approving the June 1st, 2026 Planning Commission meeting minutes, please signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> I. Those meeting minutes are hereby approved. >> Agenda item number four. There are two public hearings uh on the agenda for this evening. Uh the first is PDEV26-00000017 for 14163 Shady Beach Trail uh Northeast. Before I turned it over to staff for their report, I'd like to outline how u the public hearing uh will commence. First, staff will present its report on the request or issue at hand, and planning commissioners will have an opportunity to pose questions to staff about their report. Next, the applicant, if they are in the chamber, will have an opportunity to address the planning commission, and planning commissioners can respond to the applicant with comments or questions. Following the applicant's presentation, I will open the floor to public comment. If you wish to address the commission, I'd ask that you please approach the podium, press the red button to turn on the microphone. It will turn green, so you'll know that it's on. And then I'd like you to clearly state your name and your address for the official record so that everyone has a chance to speak. We ask that you limit your comments to five minutes in length and that you make concise statements of fact pertaining to the specific application. We will keep time to make sure that everyone has a chance to speak and we can uh keep them the meeting moving in an orderly fashion. This meeting is the official public hearing and your primary opportunity to be heard on the matters. We have two uh for the um public hearing this evening. The city council has no obligation to accept further public comment and in many cases they do not. So please do not hesitate to speak. And with that I will turn it over to staff for agenda item 4A. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. Uh here is the location map for the subject properties on Lower Prior Lake off of Shady Beach Trail Northeast. Highark Builders on behalf of the property owner Jason House is requesting approval of a combined preliminary and final plat to be known as the House edition. They are proposing to subdivide the property to combine two parcels and create one lot of plus or minus 47,733 square ft. Um outlined here is lot one block one house edition. Access is currently available from Shady Beach Trail Northeast to the west. Um the comp plan currently guides this property lowdensity residential. The zoning is also R1 lowdensity residential and it conforms with the comprehensive plan land use map. Uh utilities are available and appropriately sized to serve the area. No changes to grading or storm water are proposed as part of this action. However, those requirements and grading plans will be reviewed as part of the future permit review process. The total site area is give or take 1.25 acres. There is no wetlands on the site. Property is subject to the 30% impervious surface coverage. Um maximum lot one square footage for 30% would be about 14,320 ft. No park or trails are proposed as part of the action. The development will be subject to the standard development agreement. However, trunk um and related utility service charges have already been satisfied with previous subdivisions. Uh the neighboring property uh 14143 Shady Beach Trail Northeast has private utilities that currently intersect the proposed lot one block one house house edition as you can see outlined here. Um as a requirement uh uh private utility easement shall be granted in favor of the neighbor and that shall be completed prior to or concur conc concurrently with the recording of the final plat. Uh the additional split for 14143 Shady Beach Trail Northeast is proposing to give 566 square feet um from proposed lot one block one house addition to that neighboring property. The purpose being that the driveway currently is over the property line. So, this would rectify that. Um, this will allow the driveway serving that property to be located entirely within their property lines. Uh, the additional lot split for P259300510. The applicant is proposing to complete an administrative subdivision uh to split approximately 566 square feet again from this rectangular parcel C um that currently serves as a private driveway access for these three properties that will no longer be needed for this lot 20. Um so they're proposing to remove that section of the private drive. Both of these administrative subdivisions and combinations are require consent from the adjacent property owners and shall be completed prior to or Concurren sorry concurrently with the recording of the final plat staff comments. We do have six conditions. Uh the applicant shall dedicate standard drainage and utility easements for lot one. The applicant shall submit an administrative subdivision to split indicated 566 square feet from 14145 Shady Beach Trail Northeast and combine that property with 14143 Shady Beach Trail Northeast via deed prior to or concurrent with the recording of the final plat. The applicant shall also submit a administrative subdivision application to split the other 566 square feet from P2593000510 and combine that property with lot one block one house edition via deed prior to or concurrently with the recording of the final plat. Uh, additionally, the applicant shall relocate the private sanitary sewer and water services servicing the neighbor 14143 Shady Beach Trail Northeast parcel over under lot house addition or dedicate a private easement for sanitary sewer and water services in favor of the neighbors property prior to or concurrent with the recording of the final plat. one of the two existing single family homes within lot one block one of the house addition shall be removed prior to recording of the final plat and any future proposed dwelling will need to meet all minimum uh setback and impervious requirements of prior lake city code. So, we're asking to hold a public hearing um and then provide a motion in a second to recommend the city council approval of the combined preliminary and final plat for house editions subject to those staff comments and conditions. That's all. All right, we'll move to uh Commissioner questions. Commissioner Brook, the adjacent and impacted uh properties or neighboring properties I should say. Um no no impact to their ingress, egress or any utilities around those properties. Is that correct? >> Correct. besides the relocation of those private utilities or the dedication of the easement >> and that is obviously um a mandate within moving forward with this project. >> Correct. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Rook. Commissioner Yo, >> regarding the private sanitary sewer, is that common in this area or is is there an opportunity to get that fed into the city utilities? >> Yep. So, the the sewer and the water within the public rightway are public. This is just the private service going from the main within the rightway to serve the individual lot. >> Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Smoke. >> Yeah, Jake, can you bring up uh I guess that's the one I'm looking for. Um so I drove past that and that is seem that one little corner there does seem a little weird. I see that there's a house very close to the road. It's a dirt road and then I can see that you jog in quite tight there. If I look at the ordinance, um it says that the resulting lots and I'm going emphasis on the plural uh shall conform with all provisions of the zoning code. Going forward, can we see that that uh can we imagine that that other adjacent lot will have any issues? Would this be an opportunity to correct some of those issues? I mean, we wouldn't put future planning commissioners in a position to say, "Hey, I need a hardship because and here we have an opportunity to improve or eliminate a hardship. Um, as part of the administrative subdivision request, staff would review to make sure that no property is becoming any less compliant. As part of the action, um, it would be an opportunity to maybe address the driveway setback. The minimum setback to the property line is 5T. Um, it is a pre-existing driveway. So, there would be a conversation around that. >> Anything to add? >> Yep. Uh I would just add commissioner so the lots being created need to conform to all city standards which is the case here. Uh the adjacent lots although there is an administrative lot split going on that is not included in that definition of having to conform. >> Okay. So, was it just a convenience then to have a a one for one split of what 566 >> feet or was there a complication that if they wanted to to do a a more creative split? They could not >> uh commissioners they could do a more creative split, they could provide more property, more land to the adjacent property owner. Uh that negotiation was done between >> okay >> the two private property owners and it the amounts exchanged are similar. So, I'm assuming this existing property owner did not want to lose any land area by doing the the split to get the neighbor's driveway entirely on their property. >> Okay. Most of my questions are for edification, personal edification. And I think you said that the adjacent owners on board with all the land swap and issue everything. >> Yep. They're aware of it. Um like Casey said, the discussions have been private, so we weren't involved with them. But as far as I know, Hi, Mark has prepared um the paperwork or at least the starting the paperwork for the administrative subdivision. >> Okay, that's the end of my questions. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Schmokl. Um I think my fellow planet commissioners were dancing inside my brain over the weekend, so you asked you asked all all my questions, but I do still have um maybe one maybe one or two. Um do we have a sense staff what the final layout or dimensions square footage um impacts of the proposed dwelling will be. >> So we have been provided very preliminary plans just to show that they can conform with all of the city's codes setbacks and impervious. Um, as of no means is it a final plan. So, we can't comment on that quite yet, but any kind of finished house will need to meet those minimums. >> Are you Are you able That That's good. Um, are you able to give give us a sense of what the dimensions will be in terms of square footage? >> Um, it'll be a large home, so the lot itself is going to be over an acre. I believe the the conceptual footprint provided is around 9,800 square ft >> for the for the the footprint of the home. >> Correct. Okay. >> And a related question before I go back to uh Commissioner Euro. Um, when will we have the benefit of any renderings of the the the final final just before the the ribbon goes on? Yep. The that would not be an item that would come before the planning commission. So, the request tonight would is to combine these two lots into one parcel. So all of the reviews would be done administratively through staff unless there was a variance requested which is one of the conditions of this that no variances should be requested because the new design will need to meet city standards. So it would just be administrative uh planning building and engineering review and issuance of a building permit. So I would like to go on the record saying that if if there is because things change in the building process, right, for any sort of variance that that that item does come back to us uh before final approval, >> correct? Yeah. >> Okay. All right. Just wanted to go on the record. Um Commissioner Yuro, >> I was trending on the same line there. I'm just confirming that there was not based on what you've seen thus far in preliminary plans, there is not also a need for setback or impervious surface coverage variances or anything like that at this point in time. >> No. >> Thank you. >> Any other lingering commissioner comments or questions for staff? >> All right, seeing none, I'll invite the applicant if they are in attendance to uh step to the podium and and let us know what you would like us to know about this uh proposal. Uh, thank you. Matt Eastman with Highark Builders. I'm representing um the property owners here. I think Jacob did a good job covering our basis today. I think at the end of the day, what we're trying to do is have a clean parcel and then submit something that's completely compliant with city code uh for the new construction project. >> What's your timeline on that? When do you think that that would be? Um obviously it's all dependent upon city approvals in this process. Ideally we would start construction uh this fall and then the timeline for that construction would be approximately 18 months. 18 months you said okay yes those are all my questions. Uh commissioners any questions for the applicant commissioner commissioner? >> Okay. All right. Thank you. Uh, right now at 6:17 p.m., I will entertain a motion and a second to open the public hearing. Is there a motion? So, moved. Is there a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All those in favor of opening the public hearing on this agenda item, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. Motion carries. The public hearing is now open at uh 6:18 p.m. If there's anyone in the audience who would like to approach the podium and speak to this item, please feel do so. Now, by my count, there are at least 43 people in this room. Are we sure there's no one who wants to speak on this agenda item? I'm required to ask three times. So, that was two. Are you sure there's no one in the audience who would like to address the commission? Okay. With that, I will There's no takers. I'll entertain a motion and a second at 6:19 p.m. to close the public hearing. 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 of closing the public hearing at 6:19 PM, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> I. Public hearing is closed. We'll move to uh Commissioner comments. Commissioner Schmokle. >> Yeah, I'm supportive of this. Um, I think the one comment I would have is I would hope that the adjacent property would not come to us in the future if they're a future builder or a tear down that they're asking for some changes or variances because this is a perfect opportunity to do any corrections. That's all I have. >> Thank you, Commissioner Schmoko. Commissioner Yorko, >> no comments. >> Commissioner Rook, no comments. I also have no comments um other than to echo those of Commissioner Schmoke. I do support this recommendation. And so at this uh point in time, I'll entertain a motion and a second to recommend to the city council the approval of the combined preliminary and final plat for house editions subject to the staff comments and conditions listed in the memorandum and resolution with a special note that any request for variance variances will come back before us. Um is there a motion? So moved. We have a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. I. The motion carries. Thank you. >> Next on our agenda, um I'm just guessing that's why we're all here tonight. Um the uh important topic and one that we will take um special care to deliberate um fairly. Uh this is PDEV26-000018- Tower Street Southeast land use map amendment and zoning map amendment. Uh and before we commence this discussion uh and deliber del deliberations on agenda item 4B, I want to offer a few brief comments just to keep us moving forward um in a good and appropriate manner. The question in my mind, the substantive question before the planning commission this evening is a specific one. whether the proposed change in land use or zoning for this parcel is appropriate under the city's comprehensive plan or future land use and zoning use map applicable ordinances and sound planning principles. We recognize that many residents have raised additional questions and concerns related to this proposal. Those topics, including issues such as traffic, infrastructure, public safety, environmental impacts, development timing, and other community considerations, are all important and deserve thoughtful discussion. However, many of those matters fall outside the specific land use and zoning consideration before us tonight and will be addressed through subsequent stages of the development review process. With that in mind, I want to respectfully ask that those providing testimony and members of the commission as well keep their comments focused on the zoning and land use question currently before us. Doing so will help ensure a fair, orderly, and productive public hearing while creating the opportunity to consider other related issues at the appropriate time and then the appropriate forum. Thank you. And with that, uh, I'll turn it over to staff. Thank you, Chair Fleming. Good evening, commissioners. Uh the request tonight is from Roars Acquisitions LLC on behalf of the property owner, which is BK Tower Properties LLC. They're requesting a comprehensive plan, future land use amendment to change the land use guidance from retail general business to urban high density residential. They're also requesting an amendment to the city's zoning map to reszone the property from C2 general commercial to R3, which is highdensity residential. What is not included in the request tonight, as uh Commissioner Fleming just mentioned, this action is not a site plan approval. Um the action will not approve a preliminary or final planned unit development plan or a preliminary or final plat. So, some of the discussion may overlap those bounds, but just so the public is aware, the only thing being requested is a land use plan amendment and a reasonzoning. If this item were to move forward, uh the planning commission recommendation tonight will go forward to the city council. If the city council were to approve the land use plan amendment and the resoning request, the applicant would then submit a full plan set for preliminary planned unit development approval and preliminary PUD approval. So at that time there would be another public hearing. Everyone who received a notice for this hearing would receive a notice for that hearing. in the PUD meeting would be where building height, number of units, parking, setbacks, drainage, storm water, all of those are are appropriate. I'll touch on some of that this evening because it's hard to separate the two. I realize that. So, just to provide an overview and context for the commission and the public. I will review some highle uh building proposed concepts. >> AC for that good clarification. >> Yep. So the the two parcels in question are located west of the school district office site at the intersection of Tower Street and Toronto. There are two undeveloped parcels. Uh one is lot one block two invid first edition and the other is part of outlot A on the western side. So the the school district office is proposed for redevelopment. It's not highlighted on this map because it's not part of tonight's request. The school district office is already zoned for highdensity residential. So the request to reszone and reguide is only for the two parcels highlighted in pink. So this is kind of a zoom in on the on the survey for the two highlighted parcels. Uh as far as we can tell looking back on historic aerial photographs that the city has available, neither parcel has ever been developed in the past. Uh they are guided and zoned for general business uses. The western parcel which is just under one acre is largely encumbered by a drainage and utility easement. So this roughly 1acre parcel is not developable. Uh the eastern parcel is just under two acres in size. So the future land use map the city of prayer lake comprehensive plan. It's updated every 10 years. It's a forward-looking document that guides the development of our community. everything from land use to storm water and sewer and water pipes and transportation and parks. Uh that future land use section in our land use chapter has a exhibit 3.2 which is our future land use map. Uh that's being proposed for amendment. So this is our current map which shows the subject property is guided for retail general business and then the request this would be the proposed map to guide this. I understand the colors get a little uh tough to read. Uh it would be urban highdensity residential with low density to the south and retail general business to the north and the west. Along with that would be a zoning request. So this is the current zoning map. Pink is our C2 general business. Brown is our R3 highdensity residential and there is low density residential to the immediate south. This is the current land use map showing commercial. They're requesting that this property here be changed to brown so it would be high density residential use. The developer concept plan includes a multifamily apartment building that's three and four stories tall, 166 units and again it's conceptual at this time. They are prop proposing underground structured parking and surface parking roughly a 50/50 split of both. It would equate to two stalls per unit. There are outdoor amenity areas on the concept plan as well as improvements to the pedestrian connections currently in the area with the trails and sidewalks. So again, I'm going to stress conceptual only. Uh but the the concept plan, the western side of the building is a three-story building, the southern portion is three stories, and then this uh L-shaped portion at the corner would be proposed at four stories. Here's an aerial image provided by the applicant and architect showing how the building would look on that site. And then some updated renderings. I know these are very similar uh but not exact. The developer did host a neighborhood meeting a couple weeks ago. So some of these conceptual images may have changed just slightly, but the building elements itself, the height and the setbacks have not changed. So this image from Toronto Street provides kind of a a street level view and shows the building in relation to the adjacent residential properties and how it sits a little bit lower on the site than the single family properties to the south. Here is a view from Tower Street looking towards Toronto from the west side of the building. So you can see the the lower level parking is uh partially exposed on the western facing wall and then it gradually uh disappears as you change into the grade as you get towards Toronto. Here is an image from the rear parking lot looking towards the single family homes. So we had we did receive a lot of questions on the retaining wall. It's it's difficult to see on a site plan. Is that retaining wall holding back the apartment site or the single family site? So this shows the retaining wall on the on the apartment site with a fence above. So the adjacent residential properties to the south are at a higher elevation than the apartment parking lot would be. Uh as a followup to one of the questions raised by the planning commission during the the earlier meeting in June where we considered whether to accept this PUD application. Um, a question was raised on the building height across the street. So, it's kind of difficult to see. Uh, it's kind of small font, but that building is 44 and a half ft from elevation to the peak of the roof. It's about 36 feet, three-story building from the parking lot to the roof line. The applicant also provided a comparison of the single family residential homes and again these are conceptual estimates but the grade elevation of the single family homes is around that 980 foot mark with uh building heights reaching 1,00 to,05 ft. So roughly 20 to 25 feet to the peak of the roof. Their grade would be at around a 970. So about 10 ft lower with a 35- ft wall. So this was provided to illustrate that the peak of the single family residential home roofs and the 35 foot high portion of this building would be relatively similar. Then the building increases in height to four stories by 10 ft. So that elevation at the corner would be about5 compared to the elevation across the street to the peak which is at about uh 130. So the building to the east, the existing three-story building is at a the grade is at a higher elevation to start with. So the site is currently C2, which is our general business use. So the uses that are permitted there, this isn't everything, uh, but it's most of our uses in C2 that we think would be plausible to locate there. So the the permitted uses which means a prop an applicant can come in and simply apply for a building permit because the use is already permitted would be bank liquor store service type businesses, funeral homes, a showroom, um all of our cannabis and lower potency hemp edible businesses that we were required to allow are allowed in the C2 district, a medical dental office, business services or just a general office. Prior Lake City Code also has uses which are permitted with conditions. These also would not require a public hearing, but the applicant would be required to comply with specific conditions that are identified in our city code. Maybe it's a setback, maybe it's hours of operation, screening, something like that. But there's a little bit more. Uh so state licensed non-residential appliance uh small engine repair, medical dental labs, shopping centers, community centers, motor vehicle service and repair, um outdoor sales and display, dry cleaning, nursing home, private entertainment, indoor or public surface structures, hotels. Those would all be uses that would be allowed on that site currently, provided they meet the conditions identified in our city code without needing a public hearing. We also have uses that would require a public hearing and would require a conditional use permit be approved by the planning commission. Those are adult uses, a micro distillery, cocktail room, animal handling, which would be doggy daycare, pet grooming type business. Um, convention exhibition center, motor fuel stations, gas station. Again, not likely to be a gas station on that site, but it's an allowable use. uh brew pubs, utility substations, car sales, and car wash would all require a conditional use permit. So, one of the questions that we got at the last meeting was about land inventory. Um when we're considering a reszoning, it is not something this city does often or takes lightly as to consider reszoning a commercial property for residential use. Uh we had a maxfield study completed. This was done through the Scott County CDA for all communities in Scott County. The study itself, I believe, was from 2016. They did an update in 2022, and it's currently being updated again, but it's not going to be completed until later this fall. But that identified a prior a prior lake submarket which included what is now the city of Credit River and Spring Lake Township. And that study projects commercial industrial demand for our submarket. Now, it's not an all-time projection. It is This study looked out to 2040. The update will look out to 2050. But in that study, they identified a demand for about 930,000 square feet of total commercial industrial in the city of Prior Lake. And with that, they projected approximately 92 acres of land needed to accommodate that demand. Right now, the city of Prior Lake has about 800 acres guided for future commercial and industrial uses. Uh included in that with our AUR that was recently adopted by the city of Prior Lake. So that's the alternative urban area review that was done in our annexation area and the southwestern portion of the community. There was another 35 acres of commercial industrial identified in that study from residential to commercial industrial and so when the next comprehensive plan update is approved in roughly two years that would be formalized within that plan. It is noted that most of our undeveloped commercial property, we do have um roughly 150 to 200 acres within our current city limits, but the majority of that 800 acres is in that orderly annexation area. And most of our current vacant commercial and industrial property is not served with sewer and water. The city has capacity when the utilities are extended to serve these areas, but they don't currently have a pipe. So, I can't review a building permit and issue a permit. There's a much bigger process to go through to make that buildable. >> Casey, just a quick pause. Um, if if you might please. Um, do we have a visual of that 800 plus acres of land that's guided for CI? Something you could get quickly, maybe another member of the staff could, not right now, but maybe a little bit later in the presentation. >> Yep. Yep. following the presentation uh while you're taking questions I can I can find that and have that available. Y >> thank you. >> So this subject property is adjacent to lowdensity residential development to the south. Uh it is a bit unique in that is a split commercial and highdensity residential redevelopment site. So the western half of it is guided for commercial. The eastern half is guided for highdensity residential. We did do some research to see when that was reszoned, why it was reszoned, and it in I want to say 1994, it was a request when the school district purchased what was a bowling alley. Uh it was guided as commercial development prior. The school district requested it be reszoned to a residential use because that allowed a kindergarten to operate there. So schools in our zoning ordinance are not approved in commercial districts, but they are approved in all of our residential. So it was reszoned to R3 at that time. So in addition, I I have a note on here too because the the commercial land supply that we maintain as a city has been a goal to build that land supply to provide utilities to serve that. Uh my next slide talks a little bit about why that is the case, why it is a priority for the city of Prior Lake to find more commercial industrial land and diversify our tax base. So the the top left shows the the estimated market value and these are 2025 payable numbers. 4.43% of Prior Lakes's taxable market value is commercial industrial property. Uh that compares to Savage at 13 and a half percent and Shakipi at over 26%. The net tax capacity. So this is this is estimated market value is just kind of overall what the county assessor says your property is worth divided by the classification. The net tax capacity is probably our best indicator of tax burden. So 8.73% roughly of our tax burden in Prior Lake is on commercial industrial properties where Savage is pushing 25% and Shakapi is pushing 45%. The residential improved which would be what you think of as your your single family home, your duplex, your twin home. uh that tax burden in Prior Lake is 85.7% of our levy compared to Savage at under 69% and Shaki at about 45%. Uh the apartment uses in Prior Lake. So 4% of our tax base comes from apartment uses. Savage is at 5% and Shakape is at roughly eight and a half. So high level looking at this you know when you know Prior Lake has done an excellent job at maintaining a low tax rate. Prior Lake has the second lowest tax rate in the city. So I don't want this message to feel like taxes are high because we don't have commercial industrial. All that means is a single family property owner share of the pie. Um, if there were more commercial industrial in the city, the portion that went to single family homeowners, twin homeowners, villa, everything uh would be would be less. We did get a lot of comments on traffic and again traffic is probably somewhat appropriate discussion for tonight because a reasonzoning from commercial to multifamily does invite a traffic conversation but traffic specific to the use. It would be more appropriate for a future PUD hearing if we get to that point. So, the applicant is completing a detailed traffic impact study which would be available at whatever point if there is a future public hearing on this item. Um, access circulation, rightway dedications, other intersection improvements that may or may not be needed are not part of tonight's discussion. We did get a lot of other comments too on pedestrian safety. So, we are just noting that, you know, the existing trail which is right on the back of the curb and sidewalk in that area. We had comments on kids wait there for the bus and they're right next to the street. Well, all of those things as part of this project would be redone. Um, they would be brought back further from the curb. There would be an actual green boulevard created and and better enhanced crossings and and safer staging areas for the students. So, as far as traffic, we do have some traffic counts in that area. We routinely uh every few years on our major local routes and collector roadways do complete traffic counts. So we have 2025 traffic counts for Toronto Avenue which are north and south of Tower Street and 2021 counts for Tower Street east of Village Lake Drive. So the Toronto counts show that there's 2371 combined north and south annual average daily trips. So that's how these studies are are done. They're traffic counts over a period of day or days and then they're estimated for average trips per day. And there are about 1300 combined trips north and south on the south side of Tower Street. The average speeds were not alarming at 29 to 31 miles per hour. The 85th percentile speed, which is the speed at which 85% of those vehicles were driving at or under, was 31.8 8 miles an hour uh to 35 roughly 36 miles an hour depending on the location they were going. So in staff's view Toronto Avenue is functioning as a neighborhood collector local connection. The the traffic volumes and the traffic speeds are currently acceptable. Uh a lot of the traffic comments related to these intersections or this area cannot support a multifamily development. um reasonable that's a comment we hear quite often but multifamily developments and this will be in greater detail with the applicants traffic impact study the multif family developments do not generate the traffic I think like the general public thinks they will so when we look at traffic and we look at stress on intersections in our network we look at peak traffic volumes so over a one hour period of time in the morning at the busiest time in the morning and the busiest time in the afternoon. What is this development's impact on that intersection? So overall, we would anticipate around 750 trips from this development. And these are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers trip generation manual. My assumption is that's what the developers uh the applicant study is going to reference as well. But so this development high level, not looking at this one specifically, just looking at the manual for a multi-story apartment building, we would anticipate around 60 additional trips over the course of an hour and 65 additional trips at that intersection over the course of the afternoon peak hour. So these are roughly one extra vehicle per minute going through that intersection as a result. The existing office building, just for comparison, is about half that. So, 30 trips currently on the school district site or if it was converted to another office type use. Uh, if a commercial daycare were added to this vacant property, those trips would about double during the AM peak and the PM peak because there's more people coming in and leaving at the exact same time. Uh if the office building were to remain in a commercial daycare were added, then you're at about 140 trips between the two combined uses. If the existing building were sold as a commercial daycare in converted, then you're about four times the amount of trips at that intersection as this apartment would be expected to generate. I don't want to get too deep into parking because that would be in the future, but just high level uh those are kind of some comparisons. So, policies for amending the zoning map and the land use map. Uh we have three categories in our city code. We as staff don't feel the first one applies. The second two may depending on whether or not the planning commission agrees and makes those findings. So the first one is the area as it's currently zoned is inconsistent with policies policies and goals of the comp plan or the land was zoned erroneously due to a technical or administrative error. So it wasn't zoned erroneously and it currently complies with the comp plan guidance for retail general business. So the first one doesn't apply. Uh the second two are the area has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to reszone to encourage redevelopment. And the third is the permitted uses allowed within the proposed zoning district which would be R3 in this case would be appropriate on the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties. So as far as changing resulting in the need for a land use plan and resoning um this shows the 1990 aerial on the on the left side of your screen and a current 2026 aerial on the right side. So, as far as changes in this area, when this zoning was put into place in the early 19 I shouldn't say I don't know when the zoning was put in place, but it was this way since the early 1990s. Um, Tower Street was an east west collector to Panama and then there was a north south Toronto. This was before Park Nicollet. This was before Village Lake Drive and before a lot of the other development in the area. So there was two north south connectors uh to Toronto Duth Panama and then an east west tower. And then you look at the right side and the street network changes. What that did to this area is Park Nicollet into Village Lake Drive, took this kind of straight east west connector, made Tower Street T into Village Lake Drive, and it kind of moved the commercial development to either side of Park Nichollet instead of either side of Tower. So, there were changes. Whether or not that rises to the level of resulting in the need for a zoning amendment uh is to be discussed. And then as far as compatibility, this is a kind of an overall zoning of a little bit larger area. So here's the subject property. These two pink parcels here, you can see that Prior Lake generally uses medium density and high density residential to buffer a commercial or industrial area from low density residential. We don't traditionally have low density residential immediately adjacent to single family districts. So in staff's opinion, this the planning commission could find that this is an appropriate finding as well as R3 was used to buffer the commercial area from low density on you know virtually the the rest of that neighborhood as well. So, if this gets recommended for approval by the planning commission, staff is going to recommend the following conditions to the city council as long as the planning commission concurs. So, the future land use amendment would not become effective until reviewed and authorized by the metropolitan council and approved by the city council. The zoning amendment would establish R3 as the underlying zoning unless there was revised uh by the city council which I would not anticipate. Um approval of the future land use map amendment and the zoning amendment would do not constitute approval of the combined preliminary and final plat future development plans future PUDs or other things. The applicant would provide final legal descriptions which we would need for the resolution identifying which areas are being resoneed and regided. The applicant would confirm fee ownership and owner authorization for these requests. And then the final one is approval of any future land use map amendment and resoning. staff would recommend that those are conditioned upon future city council approval of a final plat and a final PUD plan. Um the rationale behind that condition is we wouldn't want to be in a situation where this was reszoned to R3 without any supporting documents. In that case then this proposed apartment or perhaps a larger apartment would be approved by Wright. We would want what is being proposed to be specifically tied to this approval if we get to that point. So after the planning commission uh opens and conducts the public hearing, if you find that the request for this future land use map amendment and reszoning is appropriate, there is a motion and a second to approved subject to those conditions. If you find that this is not appropriate based on other findings, then there is a motion and a second to deny to recommend denial I should say. And I'd be happy to take any questions from the commission at this point. Thank you, Casey. I have several. Um, and I'll start with this one. If if you have a a Chris concise response, that's great. If not, um I know your staff could could get us the answer um within the next week or so. Um the 166 units uh give or take how many additional residents and or school age children who might attend our schools might reside in those 166 units. Uh, commissioners, we have not looked at that on our other existing buildings. Uh, perhaps that would be a good question for the applicant because they've got similar size structures in the in the area. >> Great. Thanks, Casey. Um, are there any pending commercial uh industrial development opportunities um pending right now? And if so, how many? Uh citywide. >> Yeah, citywide. >> Um yeah, we're working on two or three. So, uh we have a couple in our in our downtown core. Uh potentially one outside of our downtown area. >> And this is a related question. It's not a it's not a gotcha, but it's it's sort of puts a focus on where my brain my one out of four tonight is really sitting. We have 800 plus acres, right? Some might need some work, some infrastructure, blah blah blah blah blah, but there are 800. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. Followup to that or related to that is historically why do you think prior and I've been here 20 almost 25 years. Why have we struggled to develop more commercial and industrial entities? um high level I think a big one is access so transportation network so it's not fair to compare prior lake to shakipi we don't have you know 169 going through this the center of our community it is an interesting comparison though to see with our adjacent communities um where where we fit I think historically Prior Lake was focused on being a bedroom community and that's what the city wanted to be and that's what they became. Um now as streets and everything else uh parks show their age and need to be updated uh that's when the divers diversification of the tax base is noticed and felt by our residents. >> Okay, those are all my questions for now. Thank you Casey. Uh Commissioner Schmokl. >> All right, leading off. Okay. Um great job on the the traffic context. That was really useful. I mean I know that a daycare would really be the big ballooning for traffic. Um, you got my second question there, Brian. Um, so if it were to go to commercial instead, I mean, I know the neighborhood is objecting to residential, but it's almost like there'd be equal, if not maybe even greater objections if there this was commercial. Um, so what would a C2 building on that lot look like otherwise? height setback the neighbors that are on pond view backing up. I mean, how close would a building get to them? What would it look like for them? >> Right. So, we looked at the C2 standards for this lot because it's adjacent to residential. Anywhere that borders residential, it have to be 60 feet for the building, 20 feet for the parking space. Maximum height would be 45 feet or four stories. That'd be a pretty significant um building to place on that property. But we look at it from a standpoint of what's the maximum bulk and massing that a structure could be on that and then work away backwards from that. >> Okay. >> Um can you tell me a little bit more about that storm water drainage um easement that passes through the adjacent neighborhood and and how it might be affected by development here and maybe development either direction whether it's commercial versus an apartment. >> Yeah. So the the drainage and utility easement that's highlighted in green on your screen, there is a sewer service and a water service that run through there. >> So that serves the development to the south. So those aren't moving. Um there's an easement granted over the top. So the city would not allow for anything other than potentially parking lot to be constructed over there. So >> Okay. So, it's not like there' be water runoff that's not going to channel any water into their n their their yards or anything like that. >> Correct. Yep. They're underground utilities. >> Okay. Um and then I guess my bigger question too, can you bring up the map from the aerial view? More of a Google map. Um I think you know Okay, maybe that's what I'm looking at. No, go back to the one where the land use. Oh, that one. Perfect. No, that colorful one. Okay. So, the houses over like over there, think about it. We lost those or they've they've since been taken over by other buildings. If I think about how with my crystal ball looking ahead 20 years, 15, 30 years, that um area of land, um I guess it's off the off to the left a little bit. there are folks living along Maplehood Maplewood Street where I can see in the future someone might come and say, "Hey, let's put um commercial buildings there." So, it's almost like there's an opportunity that this commercial area could build out a little bit more and if we were to surrender some commercial space here, we might kind of hamstrung future use down. Any thoughts on that? >> Yeah, uh you're correct, Commissioner Schmok. There would be obviously an opportunity to develop commercial in the future. I don't know. I don't have a sense on >> if that's in two years or 10 years or or longer. Um there would also be the option to reszone the school district building back to commercial at some point in the future too if it was if it was needed. So, if if this project is not approved by the city council ultimately, my assumption would be the next request we would get on this property would be to reu it and reszone it for commercial because it's unusable um right now and you wouldn't be able to intensify the use at all compared to what the school district had unless it was reszoned. >> Okay. So, then the other downside is the buffer zone. We're kind of violating what would be desirable practices to have a residential a high density residential as a buffering between low density and commercial. Is that right? There's these seems to be like the two things we're kind of weighing here as far as the big picture. >> Yes, that's true. So, if it was commercial property, then you know, looking back on those slides, those certain uses that are approved by >> Wright, >> there would be no public hearing. They're just going to be construction started one day and it's going to be a commercial development. Again, maybe it's two years or 10 or longer. Um, some of those uses, the more intense ones, like auto dealership, I don't >> Yeah, >> I don't see this being an auto dealership, but that's just an example where that would require a conditional use permit. There would be a public hearing for that. >> That's when hours of operation, lighting, >> sound, that those types of things would be discussed. Um, I think that's it for my questions. I'll leave a few for the rest of the folks. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Smokco. Commissioner Yo, >> the property to the left of the two that we're discussing here this evening, um, who owns that? >> I believe that's a city of Prairie Lake parcel that's largely occupied by Wet land. >> So it is it undevelopable? >> Yes, it's undevelopable. >> Do you have a view that zooms out further to show what else is continues to the left? just confirmed >> parking lot with the trucking. >> Thank you. >> And we did confirm that was it is a city-owned parcel. >> So the city owns the parcel between the trucking company storage lot and then the two lots that are in question. >> Correct. And the city owns them because they are undevelopable. I assume wetland natural resource. Yeah, I assume it was dedicated to the city at the time they platted that subdivision. >> Is there So there's a wetland. So, um I assume there's quite a bit of storm water that comes then into that city lot from the residential and the commercial areas. >> Yes. And likely the street itself. >> Yeah. >> So, we have >> pretty depressed topography wise right there. So, okay. >> I'll ask my question again on this property. Has there been any look or consideration for mixeduse development instead of giving up all of our commercial land um to residential uses to actually combine both? >> Uh with this current developer, there has not not been any consideration more than a conversation. Um the developer was not interested in pursuing a mixeduse. They did not feel it would work well in this site. >> Okay. >> Well, maybe we feel differently. Um, >> can I tag on to your question >> please? >> Please. Um, have has anyone expressed interest in mixed use? Any developers? >> Not on this site? No. >> Not on this site. Okay. Thank you. Um, has there been uh in consideration of the uh building scale, has there been any consideration to actually break up these masses into separate structures instead of having them linear and spiny and connecting to one another? >> Um, not that have been shared with us. We have been through seven or eight different concept plans just shared back and forth between the developer and staff to get feedback. I know they this building is it's a large building, but it's smaller than they originally were hoping for. Um, at a staff level, we really pushed back on no more than three stories on the south side and the west side. We were concerned about height of the building and impact on adjacent properties. So, the developer did adjust their building to three stories on the south and the west. Um, I don't know if they have looked at two buildings on the site as opposed to one. Um, we have not seen a concept plan that shows that. Why the concern on the west with it being a city-owned wetland? >> The concern on the west was due to the building height because the site slopes down towards the west. So a four-story building on that wall was getting to be 55 57 feet tall. >> Okay. >> Got it. And then um you mentioned the 800 acres of C2 general business. Um, how many acres are left in our downtown core areas? I'm considering this zone and the other side of 13 where this is located. >> Uh, our town center area does there's occupied parcels that are candidates for future redevelopment, but there I would not say there are any sizable vacant lots ready for development at this point if that's a fair answer. So, as through our economic development authority, they're doing a lot of work. Um, you know, Chula's is a good example, a redevelopment of a property. So, that was a property that's not available. It was occupied, >> but it still resulted in a very nice uh redevelopment project. We are working with the Prior Lake Revival Group currently. Uh they'll be starting construction of their second phase building this summer. Y >> there's a couple sites out there that are available, but acreage wise, vacant land, maybe two acres. >> And how big is this one? >> Two acres. >> Okay, >> thank you. That's all. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Rook, >> Paul, quick followup. Max he site for C2 you said was how tall? >> 45 feet and four story. Okay. Or for whichever one is was Okay. And when this unique piece of property was reszoned in 94 for obviously school use, um do you think the city would have made a different decision if it wasn't a school asking for that reasonzoning? >> If it was as if the request was for high density residential development, >> correct? >> Um it was difficult to say. So the neighborhood to the south, I believe it was approved as a plat in 1992. So there was in 1994 there was probably I'm assuming a lot >> residential >> a home or two, maybe more that have already started. Um the commercial use in that area, I don't know from reading through the reports if that was a very successful bowling alley and I guess it was a lounge and bar or something at that point as well. There was discussion about reszoning these properties to R3 in the planning commission or city council meeting minutes and packets. They obviously decided not to do that, but that was consideration at that time. >> Okay. Um outside of this space, do we feel like there's uh adequate R3 developable space within the city of Prior? >> I do not. No, we've um over the last several years. So when we do we mention we talked about the comprehensive plan earlier. So the way that that works every 10 years we have to update our comprehensive plan and our future land use map needs to identify a certain amount of acreage to hit a development target that the mech council gives us. So they will tell us next year sometime you your land use plan needs to accommodate acreage for 750 multif family units over the next 10 years let's say. So we need to show on our plan that we've got 10 12 acres or whatever is required to accommodate that. If we do not have that within our 10-year planning cycle, they will not approve it. So right now in our city, I don't know that we have any highdensity residential development that's vacant land and pad ready because we've done four or five projects over the last 10 years in our last compliance cycle that have eaten up the available inventory. >> Sure. the IT study. If you can go back to that slide, please the um the projections for the AM peak, the PM peak, obviously the daily trips for the 166 unit that is based on 166 units. >> Correct. Okay. And then outside of this again kind of unique property. Do we have an area within the city where R3 so closely butts up against R1? >> Yeah. Um I would say this is very similar to the building that was just constructed on in the Jeff neighborhood. Sure. The Jeffers waterfront building. And I think that one was around 80 82 feet from the adjacent single family homes in that neighborhood. >> Okay, other questions. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Yo, back to you. >> Two questions. I'll start on this one here while this is up on the screen. So 166 units, I assume two people per unit as an average number for the apartment use. That's pushing us at over 320 residents and we assume that only six it's only going to have 61 during peak hours >> according to the manual. Yeah. So I want to preface all this again by saying this is we are not >> traffic engineers, Paul and I. Um, we just because we had so many comments on traffic, we wanted to address it. But the applicant is completing a traffic impact study. If we get to the point of having a preliminary plat preliminary PUB public hearing, the traffic study will be a major component of that public hearing. >> Yeah, >> there'll be more refined numbers. But yes, based on the the IT manual, this would be the the peak rates. >> Okay. Thank you. Um my other question is what is the vacancy rate of apartments currently built in our community? >> I do not know. >> Okay. >> The uh Maxfield again they're completing a commercial industrial demand analysis. They're also completing a residential demand analysis as part of our comp getting ready for our comprehensive plan. And that study that'll be done in the fall will have all of that information. The last study that we had, our vacancy rate was very low, under I want to say under 3%, but we've added several hundred units since then. I don't know our current units, the ones that have opened within the last year or two, where they're where they're at with their vacancy. >> And when will that study be complete? >> It should be completed at some point this fall. I just have one one question, one more question. Um, Casey and staff. Um, what tools does the Met Council have at its disposal? um if a municipality in this case us Prior Lake doesn't show adequate progress towards fulfilling their requirements per the comp plan >> uh their main as far as multifamily demand if >> they wouldn't have any recourse after the comprehensive plan is adopted and approved until the next next comp plan cycle came around. So, if we submitted a comprehensive plan that didn't amount to the necessary number of units that they're telling us we have for a demand, they simply wouldn't approve our comprehensive plan until we updated our map to add more highdensity residential land. >> Got it. >> We also need just to add commissioner sorry um this cycle of the comprehensive plan. So, it's a a long-term vision. This will look out to 2050. In the past, communities simply had to show multifamily acreage in their community, not necessarily able to be served or in the best areas. This time around, we are being told by the Met Council, you need to show each 10-year planning cycle that you can hit your low, medium, and high density targets. >> So, they're being more prescriptive, >> correct? And holding municipalities accountable. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from commissioners? All right, thank you for those really great thoughtful questions and great responses from staff. Um, if the applicant is present, uh, would you uh, please approach the podium and, um, tell us what you would like to know and then we will have some questions for you as well. >> Thank you, chair, and thank you, commissioners, and thank you, Casey, for the the good overview there. Uh, my name is Nick A. I'm with Roars Companies. Uh we're at two Carlson Parkway, Plymouth, Minnesota. Um really just wanted to cover three things. Quick overview of Roars. I was going to touch on the project, but I think Casey has that handled. Uh and then I did want to identify or just address a number of the items we talked about at the neighborhood meeting a couple weeks back. Uh and then we can get into some of the items you guys just discussed as well. Um so just high level on Roars, we are a national uh vertically integrated development, construction, and property management firm. We're based here in Plymouth. We have projects all over the country. Uh, and really like the suburban Twin Cities market is kind of our bread and butter. And so this this type of project is right up our alley. Um, I also mentioned vertical integration. We uh we develop, build, and and manage because we intend to own for the long term. And so we're really looking to put a project here that we believe in because we will be owning it. Um, on the project, I'll skip over that. Just a few things on the neighborhood meeting. Um, I wanted to make a clarification. I I talked with Casey after Um I had I had mentioned that if this project were not to move forward as is um ultimately we could still build 150 call it units and after starting the site it's probably more like 60 to 75 units on the eastern parcel like as by right uh and then the western parcels would still be commercial. So I just want to clarify that um there still could be an apartment building. It would it would be significantly less than what I initially said. Um, I think the traffic was covered pretty in-depth. Um, but to the point that I just made, um, and based on the IT stats, uh, I think if if there's a smaller apartment building and commercial there, um, there would still be significantly more traffic than what is there now. And so hopefully what we're doing here and what we're trying to get at is if we are able to develop the whole thing as an apartment project. Um we're really looking for feedback and input to make call it the lesser of two evils if you will a a less invasive project to the neighborhood while still achieving the goals that were set out to achieve. Um if that makes sense. some of the other things that we studied on the site. Um I think by right the project could be 25 feet of setback from um the property line to our building. We're currently 97 ft. Um I hope that the images with the height variations and showing that the adjacent apartment building is technically 130 ft um or sorry uh 1,030 ft tall and the high point of our project would actually be 15 ft shorter. Uh and then the piece adjacent to you all would then only actually be about 1,5t uh of elevation which is about what the single family homes currently are. Um, so I I know there were some images brought up. I think that that's a really important point of clarification there. Um, on the building height, uh, the other comments that we heard were just on the buffers between our project and the single family homes. I hope that this there was one other image that was brought up as well, uh, back here that basically showed that if you were standing in our parking lot, you wouldn't see the single family homes at all. Um, we've tried to incorporate as much green space. uh the fence and the retaining wall with the elevation changes that it would be very very minimal um or as minimal as we possibly can make it to the neighbors. Um so we hope that that is seen because again we could in theory build much closer. Um and then maybe not as relevant to today but something that we're we're doing a lot of studying on is just the environmental impacts. There were a lot of questions about the environment. Um, and I just want to clarify that we're we're going to go through all the the proper permitting processes with the city on, you know, water management um, and the overall impact that the project has. And so I don't have a lot of information today on that, but that was brought up. And so I just wanted to address that. Um, I think that's most of what I heard at the neighborhood meeting. Um, and then in terms of some of the items that were just discussed, should I discuss those now? Um there was a question about, you know, mixed use or um the amount of interest that the property has had. And as far as we can tell, the property has been listed for 5 years with the same broker. The broker's had next to no inquiries. It's never been under contract. Um and any interest that has come forward has been for multif family development. Uh similar to what we're showing now, as Casey mentioned, we've been through six or seven iterations of the site plan. I would imagine that many of those developers were looking to do closer to 200 units. That's where we started. That's what seemed to make sense. We have significantly scaled back the project to try and again make it more um of a buffer in the neighborhood. Um and so that's kind of where we're at. The mixeduse thing because the property has been for sale for over 5 years. It just doesn't if there if there's no interest there, then what what's to say that us building something is going to spark interest? I it's hard to say. Um but it's it's not really something we're interested in. Um, in terms of could this be two buildings? Um, probably not. It would just be extremely inefficient. Um, like I said, we would we would certainly lose units and we've already lost a bunch of units. Um, and it just it becomes funky and the underground parking becomes strange and this is just definitely what we view as the most optimal um, site plan. Um, and then I think the last piece that I had in my notes was the city's conducting a market study. We're also conducting a market study. Um, I just want to throw it out there that like we've done our own kind of internal homework. Um, we would not necessarily be pursuing a project if we didn't think it would be successful, if we didn't think the vacancy rates in the market were low enough, etc. Um, but we will have a third party market study available. We we'd be willing to share that. um for for the city's interest. Uh and then the same thing with the traffic study that um I had mentioned at the neighborhood meeting. I was hoping we'd have data available by today. We do not obviously um but that will be available going forward. So I think that covers everything. Um are there any follow-up questions? >> I have just just a couple >> at this point in time. >> Um in terms of the proposed number of units is are is there or are there price points a fixed to those each of those units? >> So, it's rough, but um a studio unit or a small onebedroom we call it um is around 1,500 per unit. Um the onebedroom units closer to 800 ft² is going to be somewhere in that 1750 per unit. Um the two-bedroom units are 2250 2,300 call it. And then the three-bedroom units are more like 2,700. Okay. Um, and my last comment for right now, why this location? Maybe briefly take us through sort of the internal thinking, right? And I know you did your due diligence on other >> areas in town, I'm assuming. What kept leading you back to this particular >> Sure. >> What? >> Um, it's a few things. I mean, I think generally speaking, we're very interested in Prior Lake. We think there's a lot of really exciting growth happening here. Um, there's a few things at play. One, um, you know, I've had other sites sent to me, most notably I Kitty Corner 2, the apartment that Casey was just talking about. Um, that site is available, but it's zoned for commercial. And it was a quick no. And to Casey's point, there's really no residential um land available or R3, I should say, land available uh in the city. So, this the the one parcel that we're not talking about this evening is really one of the only opportunities. Um and then given that that piece is also adjacent to two commercial lots that have had zero interest uh for uh many years um and that they're all for sale, that is also a key component. we can't just force someone to sell their land. Um, I would say those are kind of the obvious maybe key contributors. And then just the adjacencies here as well. Um, you know, we're really we're not that far off of Highway 13. There's a grocery store nearby. The schools are nearby. Um, we're not that far from the lake and just the downtown. It's a really nice place to live and quite honestly, we just feel that this property is underserved as is and would be a nice ad. I would say it would be a nice investment in the community. >> And then one final one. Um, do you have a sense of the demographic of population that might choose to reside there? >> It's Yeah, it's really hard to say. >> Okay, >> go ahead. I >> I'm particularly interested in uh kids that might attend our schools. >> I would say typically it's not many kids. Um, it's typically kind of twofold. What we've seen in the suburban area is you either have couples looking to downsize but want to stay in the community. They want to sell the family home. Maybe they have a place down south and they want a place here for the summer. Um, or it's younger couples who are not able to afford their first home, but they don't they don't want to live they want to live in a nice area. They want to live in Prior Lake. Um, the stat that we always go back to is the first-time home buyer, uh, depending on where you look, the average age is around 40. Um, and so that leaves a lot of the population looking for nice, attainable housing that is in a good location and and that's a big part of what our business plan has been is to create homes like that. Um, and so typically, not always, but typically those folks when they when they do get to the point of having young children who are school age, they're looking to get into a home. But, um, that those are kind of the two big ends. >> And I do have one more, and I promise I'll I'll share. Um, as you can see, as evidenced by all of the folks in the room tonight in attendance at at least one or two of your prior meetings, we care a lot, our residents care a lot about um, uh, what was affectionately called when I moved here in 2002, a a wonderful place to call home, right? And so, we all are good stewards of our homes and we're all collectively good stewards of our of our town. So, um, do you believe that you've been responsive um, to comments that you've heard and has some of that feedback found its way into your iterative planning >> to date? >> Yeah, I mentioned a few of them, but I I can reference them again. So, there was I think the setback from the single family homes, the height of the building, and then the buffering. Overall, those were probably the biggest, most achievable um items for us. There were a lot of questions around the dog run. Um there was desire to not have a dog run, which admittedly I was a little surprised by. Typically, that's something that the neighbors would like to see. Um but there was a request to remove that. So, as of now, we're not necessarily contemplating that. Um, and then I I would say the other comments that we received are mostly around traffic, which we are doing our best to address, but um, it's it's a little challenging when it's outside of the bounds of our property. Um, but I I think generally speaking, working with Casey and and hearing the neighborhood meeting, there have been a number of updates to the project that have made it uh, more inviting to the neighborhood. >> Thank you. Those are all my questions. Commissioner Rook, >> uh, nearest property that, um, you and team have developed to this property, where would that be? >> Probably in Shakipi. >> Okay. >> Um, 169 kind of by the Hi-Ve. >> Okay. >> And then there is, >> that's a good question. Uh, there's one in Lakeville. >> Okay. >> Um, North Lake Lofts >> approximately. And then Chanhass probably the next. >> Sorry, didn't mean to. >> Approximately how many units in those properties? >> So the Chanhass projects, there's three of them. Uh they're 125. I'm going to call it 130 and 180. >> Um Shaka is over 200. I'm not sure. I'm not positive on Lakeville. I would say typically we're in the 175 to 225 range. Got it. >> For building size, >> um do you have an estimate or do you have a historical for um impact to the tax base once a unit is built, filled, assuming high occupancy? >> Um so like gent like about how much the property would pay in property taxes. Um we're typically seeing around $4,000 per unit. >> Um varies a lot. I I admittedly we have not talked to the assessor here to know exactly. Um but yeah, I mean that's 5600,000 I think. >> Thank you. Commissioner Jüko, >> I don't um know that I have a question per se, but I did want to explore the area that um you had pulled up an image um showing the parking lot with the retaining wall here. Thank you. Um so that retaining wall that we're looking at, which the neighbors are on the neighborhood is on the other side of that, the single family um development. Y >> um that is what is that 10 15 feet off of the property line. >> The wall that we're looking at >> it's 20 it's 25 >> 25 ft with your other properties. Um how do you maintain that zone >> in terms like just general maintenance? >> Yeah. What's it going to look like for the people that live on the other side of the wall? Um it's a fair question. It's a hard it's a hard one to answer. I mean in the initial construction phase um we pose security, right? And then we have to make sure that the plants and um like the finishes there grow in and are actually like appropriate to what we put in our landscaping plans. Um, and then beyond that, I mean, I I get the concern, but I mean, we're equally as interested in having like a nice product and well really well landscaped, nicely manicured area as as the neighbors are. So, I I I hear the concern, but I guess I'm not that concerned about it. We're we have full-time maintenance where we have snowplow and um yard maintenance and const Yeah, there's there's just constant improvement being had there. I'm not concerned about it. I'm giving you an opportunity to voice to them. >> Sure. Sure. Sure. Sure. >> Um and then my um uh you mentioned the trees and how this is going to provide a buffer. Deciduous trees here in our state don't look like that year round. >> So I would recommend if you further develop some of these things, you consider some coniferous plantings. >> We we did talk about that. Um, and I know talking with staff, um, I think some of the trees in the area are a little tired and maybe not the best. Um, and so I do think there'd be some good improvement to that line of trees. >> Okay. >> I don't have any other questions for >> Thank you, Commissioner Jüko. Commissioner Smoker. Um, so my understanding then is from where we if you were sitting on the other side of that wall and retaining wall and walk towards the neighbor's house, you're saying there'd be 25 ft of land that would still be part of this complex. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And so again, I suppose those trees that look so nice and filled in would not exist there for another 20 years. So the buffer zone is really a little misleading. I think that that slide 14, the buffer zone view, those trees, it sounds like, will be gone. That's that's 20 years in the future. Am I right to make that assumption? >> You're just saying that it'll take time for the trees to grow in. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And um it's it's hard to say exactly. We have not completed a full landscaping plan, but yeah, it will take time. >> Understood. Just trying to clear that we're all on the same page on that one. Um, so you're not relying on the neighbors trees for screening or actually you would be relying really on their mature street trees for screening as they would too. >> And otherwise it would be from the corner of that building, the edge of the building. It'd be 97 feet to their property line, their actual property line. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um, and someone already asked about uh when you be first became interested in the property. You said about five years ago. >> Oh, no, sorry. I was saying that the commercial property has been listed for sale for 5 years. >> Okay. >> We probably became engaged maybe a little over a year ago at this point. >> Was it because of the district office being available? >> Yes. Once that became available, this the entire collection of parcels made it seem feasible that we could have a project on site. >> And I found it very compelling how you said talked about how the niceness of Prior Lake and we all agree. We're all here. We all very invested in it. That's why I'm on here, too. Um, >> do any of your properties in Chanhass and Lakeville, Shakabe, are any of them mixed use? You know, um, restaurants down below or is that a lot in your wheelhouse? >> Um, I would say so. Chanhass, yes. And, um, it's kind of unique situation because the city, um, it is basically the main and main of their downtown. >> Yeah. Um, and so there was strong commercial interest there. Um, you know, it's already it's not the buildings aren't built and it's already full. >> Um, we have other projects that do have mixed use. Um, for example, we have a project in West St. Paul >> that is on the main main intersection of, you know, Highway 3 and Wentworth in West St. Paul >> and it has been vacant for two years now. Um, and so we just retailers these days, it's just a different game. They want drive-thrus. They want easy in-n-out parking. Um, and they don't necessarily want mixed use unless it's in a very like urban downtown core. So, that's why I say we wouldn't really explore it here. It just it doesn't quite fit. It's not dense enough. Um, but we have done it in the past. Yes. So, Chenhasten, it's in the downtown area >> where it already has a little bit of an urban feel to it. >> Yes. >> Okay. But you don't think we're on the cusp of that? I mean, we're kind of like an Excelsure or Weisetta in the making. We're we're a few dec >> I think if we were on the main street, like the adjacent building here. >> Okay. >> That could that could make sense. But we're tucked back in a little bit more of a residential area like where this is the the boundary property, right? So, >> yeah. I'm guess I'm kind of disagreeing with you because I I do see it. I've been I was in Weisetta not too long ago and you can get a little bit off of the main drag and kind of find that Chanhassen feel. >> So I I'm finding that a little questionable, but would you be taking section 8 housing in these units? >> No. >> Okay. >> Um that's it for my questions. Thank you. >> Great. Any other questions? All right. Chair Fleming. Um I did have the land use east map pulled up too if you'd like to see that before you open up. >> I would and I have a a question for for you and or any of member of your staff Casey. So go ahead. >> So this is the current uh version figure 3.2 of our land use chapter in the comprehensive plan. the majority of the commercial property that we have left available. There's, you know, so throughout the industrial parks, there might be two acres here or four acres there, but the large chunks are going to be the Verling family property north of County Road 42 at the intersection of Crest Avenue. The County Road 42 frontage is currently guided for commercial and then the Crest Avenue frontage is guided for commercial. There's about 25 acres on the north uh side of the the main property. So, the southeast corner of that 2142 intersection is guided for commercial, but the bulk is going to be out here at the early orderly annexation area. Right now, we have sewer and water extended to the western edge of the Dr. Horton development on 170th Street. So, those utilities have to be brought down Marshall Road, um which would take a significant project to get that to happen. The council is certainly open to extending utilities if they are development driven. I don't believe there's much of an appetite of the city just to extend until we know a project is imminent. This area is changing. So this is the current land use plan. The 2050 version will be slightly different modifications. This area has a lot of plan industrial. The next version will have more business park, less industrial and more general commercial in this area. And we would have until 2050 to do that. >> Correct. Yeah. That plan will be updated um in finalized before the end of 2029, hopefully sooner. And then that will be a essentially a 2030 to 2050 plan. And this area it's going to I mean this is a lot of acreage and this is not going to be fully built out in 2050. This is long-term full buildout kind of vision for commercial industrial in that area. So the I'm not declaring this in my role. I'm just just speaking as a fellow resident, right? Um it's going to be just looking at the colors difficult for us to achieve smart prudent the right affordable balance between residential and commercial. Is that a fair statement? >> That is fair. Yep. Yeah. I think you know when when I shared the stats earlier it's not the expectation of the city of prayer lake to be at 45% like Shaki is but >> it's very reasonable to think we should be or could be closer to where Savage is you know in that low 20 upper teen kind of percentage range for commercial industrial >> which means we'll have to make some intentional purposeful decisions >> correct >> when I say we not these four people but you know through you know policy um and planning in the next 7 to 12 years. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. All right. Um it's time to open the public hearing at 7:34. Just for the record, is there a motion to open the public hearing at 7:34? >> So moved. >> We have a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion in a second. All those in favor of opening the public hearing at 7:34 p.m., please signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> Public hearing is now open. Again, if you wish to address the commission, I'd ask that you please approach the podium, turn on the red light until it turns green. Um, and for the official record, state your name and address. And we're going to ask folks to limit their comments to five minutes. We will be taking time. Thank you. My name is James. I live on Toronto Avenue about six houses down from this. So I think what I took away from this meeting is 30 years ago there was a meeting similar to this and the school district came in and asked for a kindergarten maybe and here we are because that first piece got changed to R3. I mean none of this would have happened if that hadn't happened. Is that correct? Yep. So, normally just for the audience, we'll have you ask all your questions or make all your comments, uh, direct them towards the planning commission and then following your comments, if they would like staff to address or if they would like to address, uh, they'll ask us to do that. But we don't want it to be a back and forth conversation is the goal. >> That's fair. I'll stick with what I just asked. That's it. >> Is that it? Is that it? Thank you. >> I can respond to that, chair. So, yeah. Um, in 1994 or thereabouts, it was reszoned from general commercial to R3. If that didn't happen, it doesn't necessarily mean we wouldn't be here today. It means the school district wouldn't have been there. Uh, we could have requests for reszoning or regiduing commercial property to residential or residential to commercial at any time on any parcel. We process the requests as they come in. Um, like as stated earlier in the report, it's not a regular occurrence that the city is considering reszoning commercial property for residential purposes. Um, but here we are today because an application was received and we're processing it, which requires this public hearing. Can I ask one more question? Does anybody think those people would have approved that 30 years ago if they knew there's an apartment building going to come? I I wouldn't even want to speculate what they would have thought in 1994. The community at that time, you know, was I don't know if it was 8,000 people. Okay, that's all I got. Thank you. >> 7306 Horizon Trail. Um, just a few comments. It you guys aren't traffic experts. So, why are you making up numbers that aren't valid, especially since we have a daycare facility right there on Park Nicollet that you could use as an example? Um, the next thing I wanted to make note about was turning left onto Franklin Trail off of Park Nicollet is nearly impossible at the current situation. And then also um ponds park there is such high volume that I don't think is being taken into consideration the volume of people coming and going to that park. It's backed up all the way to the park from the stop sign. So you are actually adding an apartment building that will be feeding additional turns either left or right right across from the entrance of the park. And then I just also wanted to make one more comment is right now going up that hill I don't know if you are aware of this being not a resident um people can't get up that hill. So what they do, the people that do live up that hill, they have to back up all the way to the entrance of the current um tower uh um the school district building to even get up the hill. So there are going to be a lot of challenges I think with redist you know changing the density and then obviously the the gentleman before us it just doesn't make sense and I think the madeup numbers on the IT are totally made up because we have commercial daycare facilities which are right on our street that don't even compare to what you have on those statistics. So, I'm going to thank you for your comments. I'm going to ask staff to, as I did with uh a previous speaker, take take us through your methodology so there aren't any uh misconceptions about how you did your work and the elements that you considered in coming up with those traffic counts. >> Thank you, chair. Yeah. And and I think I said at least twice during the presentation that those are highlevel estimates. The applicant is completing a traffic study and that focus would be at a future public hearing if we get to that point. The numbers are based on peak hour rates. So it's not saying 60 vehicles total during the day. It's at the peak hour there would be an additional 60 units. This is a a common topic that we've had on every apartment we've done. And what I always encourage people to do is to go out by Lakeidge Apartments or the new one gallery um the Ron Clark project grainwood. It's not the traffic impact that people believe is going to result in in the development. I guess >> there's issues right now though. Do you understand that there's issues even with the addition? Yeah. I wanted to make a point of because sir um you can't turn left at Franklin. You can't at high peak hours. So traffic needs to be addressed. Um can't go up the hill. You know, these are realities that you guys aren't taking into consideration. Thank you. >> Thank you. Who else would like to approach and share your thoughts with us? Press the green button. >> Red button. Where's the red button? Okay. Um, hi. Good evening. My name is Phyllis Bros. I live at 4478 Pond View Trail. I'm kind of the house on the western end of this proposal. I did submit my comments in writing, but now I understand tonight we just want to talk about the zoning issue. So, I do have a couple comments on the zoning. Um, it's my understanding that a building of this size needs 10 acres. Am I correct? 10 acres of land. >> Yes. staff has requested that you go through all of your comments. Okay. >> Well, that's one. >> Yeah. >> Um, this is definitely less than 10 acres. So, we're putting even with both parcels, you're putting this large building on a small parcel. Um, one of the things I came up about was where they have other developments. My neighbor and I did drive around Lakeville, uh, Shagapei and Burnsville. Burnsville is kind of an anomaly because it's by the Ames Center in in Burnsville, but the other two, they are large, but they're not by residential houses. So, the comparisons aren't really true. Um, the other thing was, uh, why are we in such a hurry? You know, it seems like that building just or that this the school building just went up for sale recently. And my question to the commissioner would be, have you given time for any other um potential developers to come in with any other proposals? My point also would be because it was discussed about for instance if there was a daycare center or whatever. Yes, there may be some traffic but it would probably be one story not four. And I would encourage you folks or and even the city walk over there and try to envision this fourstory building on that corner. It's it was just unthinkable to me. Um I also I am somewhat encouraged by the comments of Reyers um because when we attended the meeting that they held um one of the questions was if it's not approved the reasonzoning is not approved from commercial to residential on that other hunk. Um what would happen? And the answer from Reuters at that time was well we'll just build it anyway. we'll just build it higher and we'll reduce the space that we provide to the houses. So we fel I feel that we were being held hostage to the question of reszoning. Now I hear that they could only do 60 to 70 units if it were on the one plot. Would that building be four stories? Probably not. just a question. So those are some of the things that have to do with the zoning in my mind and then of course there are you know all the other ancillary issues which I presume will be taken up later. So thank you. >> Thank you Phyllis. Do you want to address the the u the the 10 acres and the um elevation? There was one more Yep. elevation height, but the the rush to completion, right? I I don't view it that way, but I understand the sentiment because it's a it's a significant event followed closely by the the sale of, you know, the beloved administrative offices. >> Yep. Thank you, chair, and thank you, Phyllis, for the questions. The the 10acre requirement, it's not a requirement for multifamily developments. It's a requirement that we have in our city code for a planned unit development. So, >> a planned unit development we have that needs to be a minimum of 10 acres, but the planning commission can grant an exception. For example, that the project next to city hall is only on a oneacre development. That's 105 units. That building was a planned unit development. They got a similar exception to all that exception did is it gets us here tonight. Um, >> so has that been approved by the commission yet? >> The exception is >> the PUB exception. So basically, as staff, we're not allowed to take an application until the planning commission says it's okay to take it. So we took the application, now we're here. Nothing has been approved. This is the first real public hearing um on this project. Um as to why now and why the rush >> uh the city has nothing to do with reviewing development proposals for this site. We are not in control of, you know, this developer over that developer. We're processing a land use application request that came in from RORS. >> It could have come in in two years or five years or or from somebody else, but all we're doing is processing what comes in as that as it's requested. >> Um the planning commission tonight is going to make a recommendation to the city council either for or against or two to two. The city council is going to consider this likely on July 14th at their Tuesday meeting. And then if the city council agrees, the city council is required to do a supermajority vote. So to reszone this property and to approve a planned unit development, four out of the five councilors need to say yes. If only three say yes, it doesn't get approved and then this doesn't go forward and there will not be a future PUB public hearing. >> Got it. >> So hopefully that helps. >> It does. That clarifies it. Thank you very much. >> You're welcome. >> Okay. So, what do you do here? >> If the green button is on, you're good. >> Okay. So, I'm Lori Nagel. I live at 17126 Toronto Avenue. And we've been thrilled living in our house and we love the peaceful atmosphere that we live in. Um, my concern or one comment, I have two comments. um whether it's 166 units or 70 or whatever, has the computation been made to figure out, okay, if there's teenagers living in this unit, say it's a three-bedroom unit, there could be two teenagers living in that third bedroom in the second and third bedroom. And is it fair to say that there would just be two cars per unit or would there potentially be three or four cars per unit? I'd like to have that u introduced into the calculus. And another one when we're talking about Shakape earlier, I'd like to know what the crime rate is at Chakapi versus Prior Lake. Um I have pretty good idea. It's a lot higher in Chakapi, but I'd like to have that addressed too. >> Just just to clarify, crime rate >> as an aggregate for the city or crime rate disagregated in proximity to high density or medium density low density >> bu dwellings. >> The town itself. >> Okay. But it sounds like they have more high density there and I'm wondering if there's a correlation to their high to their um to their crime rate. >> I'd like to have that whole topic stud. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you for the questions. Hi, my name is Steve Potter. Uh, I live at 4498 Pond View Trail. This house right here, my house is that 1,5T. That's the top. I will be looking in the bedroom of the people on the fourth floor. There's not enough trees, especially in the winter like you mentioned. to block that out. That's We're somewhat opposed. I appreciate all you uh neighbors coming out today. And Casey, you cool factual uh transmission of all your data. That was great. We are opposed. I have a petition that most of us here have signed um that has over a hundred signatures on it that are opposed to this resoning effort. Um, I've submitted it earlier today, but we got another 30 after I sent it in. So, I will be sending a um addendum to that. So, I also have the the hard copies if anybody would like them here. So, >> thank you. >> Uh, good good evening chair, good evening, commissioners and fellow residents. My name is Alex Sheer. I'm at the 4466 Pawn View Trail and I have submitted my letter to the chair. I just would like to go through some items just for the records. So I am opposed and concerned with this development for the following seven reasons. One is the impact on traffic which my fellow resident have mentioned. You put in 166 units assuming that you have two cars per household. You're talking about over 300 cars. And then that being close to that Toronto and then the pawn athletic complex during sport seasons is a nightmare. And I understand you're going to improve some pedestrian safety or whatnot, but you put in more population in that small corner. So please take a look at it at at a at a larger scale how it's impacted. And also number two is the impact on existing infrastructure. We we in a small town community, small town road undivided. And then uh this development will impact that it will impact uh our water sever emergency services. There might be special assessment in the later date. So just so so those are cascading impacts to the existing residents and also number three is the humongous size the scale of the structure. If you look at the bird's eye view it's it's huge comparing to the existing structure in the neighborhood. It's huge. No matter how you slice and dice it, it's still big. And like uh my fellow resident fell mentioned, supposed to be on a 10 acre lot. And they asked for a variance from the city to do this on a 5.5 acres. And I implore the commissioners to do not approve this variance. And number four, loss of privacy. like my fellow resident Steve mentioned that uh I think they they put up a good picture here with some trees and retaining walls and stuff like that but those trees will die when you do a retaining wall they're going to do anchor into the existing soil it will destroy the roots the tree will die there won't be buffer for the residents and there will be a clear line of sight to people privacy areas so I I implore that uh we take into that that uh privacy into account as well. And uh number five is I I like to call it like bait and switch reasoning. So when we move into Praik you know 15 20 years ago we love the small town feeling and uh we understand that the two existing adjacent properties like the P number 252690030 and 252690041 were zone commercial. We understood that. So we we put in a lot of time and effort to make the homes into our forever homes. But now that we talk about reszoning into the highdensity residential areas, apartment complex, it feels like we're being, you know, in a put in a situation where is a bait and switch and it's a kind of a, you know, took out the trust of a long-term property owners, you know, because when you move into a property, you put in a lot of investment time and money and all that. And uh another one that kind of uh relating to this number six is the negative impact on the property values because uh uh you know forcing a massive highdensity complex adjacent to uh single residential area properties uh it might you know directly compromise the desiraability of them homes and creating a significant risk of declining property values for existing home owners. And last but not least, zero relief on existing taxpayers. Like I like I said, there will be special assessment coming up. And again, I'm not quite sure on the the tax revenue coming from this uh development, but in the community neighborhood uh town hall meeting the other day, I think something around $500,000 annually on tax revenue. uh which is not a sign significant amount if you consider the impact on residents and and and the environmental impact in the area as well. Uh this de development offers no tangible benefit to the local taxpayers the existing residents who build and sustain the city. I think the neighborhood was develop was developed in the 90s and we've been here forever. So uh in instead it shift the long-term financial burden of upgrading infrastructures you know maintaining roads uh expanding schools and city services onto the shoulders of the existing residents. So for this reason I implore the commissioners to protect the integrity of our small neighborhood field uphold our current zoning standards and reject this proposal. Thank you for your time, your leadership, and continued dedication to preserving our community. >> Thank you, Mr. Ch Casey. Um, I want to revisit Oh, hold on. Uh, just just one question. Um, in your experience, why what are some reasons why cities evolve their land uses? >> Uh, well, a lot of it is it's changing dynamics of your community. So, when the zoning in this area was put in place, you know, I I guessed 8,000 people population earlier. I don't know how big Prior Lake was. I could I could look it up. Um, it was a completely different community at that time. There might have been two apartment buildings, three apartment buildings in the town. I don't know. So, the city is growing. It's a diversified housing product. So, cities, you know, cities of Prior Lake size pushing 30,000, you're going to have some apartment buildings. When I showed you the zoning map and the land use map earlier, and you see 90% of the community is yellow. That's why we have, you know, these hearings because you're, whether it's a commercial development or a multif family development, you're putting it next to lowdensity residential almost 100% of the time because there's so much low density residential in our community. So, it's it's difficult in Prior Lake. Yeah. Had they done it differently 30 and 40 and 50 years ago and planned for more commercial like I know Cher Fleming wishes they would have and had the city maintained the the large industrial parks that they had approved at one point and then they reszone them for town home developments. Those things are difficult and it it puts it on future generations to to resolve and address. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners and staff. Uh my name is Jeff Parks. I live at 4463 Pond View Trail Southeast in Prior Lake. Um, aside from all the issues that have already been raised, uh, related to traffic and potential school impacts and height, building heights and things like that, which are not necessarily related to zoning, um, I still wanted to, um, bring up apart or bring up the idea of um, appropriate um, buffering. While the current zoning is C1 um adjacent to R1, R3 in my mind is less desirable than the C1. Um and ordinarily I would rather see it go from a um high density residential to a medium density residential before getting to low density residential. Um, I know that um on this on this 170th Street that goes up to the park, there is um apartments and high density um town homes that border the other side of 170th Street to that back up to single family homes, but at least there's a street in between it. Um here there wouldn't be. It would be immediately back to back on from high density residential to low density res residential. And I'd prefer to see something that would be less dense uh in whatever form it would be, whether it be commercial or some other type of residential um in this area. That's all. Thank you. >> Thank you. Good evening. Um, I'm Robert Ericson. I live at 4562 Pond View. I'm one of I not don't want to measure sticks or anything here, but one of probably three or four properties that will have direct line of sight from my house, my windows, my kids' rooms directly into the apartment. Um, and while I'll save those comments for the city council meeting, I think there's a couple of key aspects that need to be taken in consideration as it uh accounts for zoning and moving from commercial to residential or from highdensity residential. I think one of the most interesting things about the conversation that's happened um from staff to um commissioners is this inflection point of well gee if a couple of years ago 20 years ago we would have had the foresight to not give up that residential or that commercial property maybe our tax base would be different and we are contemplating as a community the exact same problem that we are you know year after year decade after decade going through to say we are going to seed potential commercial development and move that towards more residential more highdensity residential. It's not a bell that we can unring. If RORS is going to invest millions of dollars in their construction, there is no reason to say that in 30 to 40 years that apartment building is will still be there. A business in that same time could change hands multiple times. You could have uh a lot of economic development that could occur with proper planning of this commission to say we have an opportunity to look at preserving that uh that commercial real estate, that commercial property while still meeting some of those objectives of the Met Council. I think from a a standpoint of the neighborhood in the community, we're not opposed to development. No one here has said we want to keep things exactly as they are. We are open to responsible development. And what we're seeing here is the pendulum swing from commercial property that hasn't been developed all the way to a uh high density residential with if you do the math on how many bedrooms are there, well over six or well over 300 bedrooms uh in that facility. It's not compatible with the city of Prior Lakes's 2040 vision. You're moving from a plan of making sure that we have um transition between neighborhoods of having this aesthetic uh contemplated and and and having um the existing neighbors and their property taken into account when you're making these changes. It is a sharp right turn in that. I think if we were to make any recommendation to this council, it would be to look at what we can do to drive economic development in that space. There is no there is an opportunity for the city and for this commission to go and say how can we drive the same level of investment that we saw within Chulas or other properties and drive further economic development through a mix of businesses and potentially you know residential or mixed residential uh properties. Um, finally, I I did want to call out, so there was a comment made that this is fairly similar to the Jeffers Waterfront development. >> I think the biggest differentiation between those two properties is that there was an extensive amount of planning put in place. When you look at the green space, the transitions, the traffic, it's a multi-phaseed approach that that contemplated not only the residential need, but then there's commercial and economic development that's occurring in that corner. These are those are apples and oranges. They are vastly different situations. Quite literally, you might actually siphon off and choke off all potential uh further development in that corridor by moving in this direction without maybe tearing down the village or the village lake center or seeing someone purchase the point and tear that down and put something else there. that there's very little space to drive true organic economic growth if you seed off those two properties uh in conjunction with the apartment complex. So, thank you. I I appreciate the comments particularly when you mentioned smart responsible growth and I just remind us that um maybe many of you were here when we had the economic downturn that happened between 2008 second half of 2007 8 through 2011 2012. So that um pretty much forced us to slow down slow down the process um and then COVID happened right so there have been some external forces that have caused us to have have to pivot but I I thank you for your your your comments. Who else would like to approach the podium? Dean Newman. I live at uh 4623 Overlook Drive Southeast, which is about a quarter of a mile from this proposed uh property here. Um early in my career, I used to represent developers who built uh medical facilities, clinics, mental health facilities, um even foster care homes, group homes. It seems like the property the the um that that we currently are looking at seems more suited for a clinic, a medical facility, a physical therapy rehab center or something like that. than this um out of it just seems way too large for uh the size of all those three lots put together. And I have uh so that's one of my comments. I have a question uh if maybe uh the planning staff knows how many units is the uh property across the street on Toronto. Um it's a condominium. I can't remember the name of the Does anybody have an idea how big that is? >> That would be one question that I have. Um the other thing is is as we the the numbers that were shared here earlier this evening about the um various percentages of commercial property versus residential property in the tax base. It would seem to me that it would make sense to preserve every possible piece of commercially zoned land that you have right now. That would be my recommendation. Um, and again, I have some concerns also about about traffic and just the the scale of the the building at this time just seems to be too large for the size of the the land. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Who else? off. >> Red is off. Green is on. >> Um I'm not as aerodite as everyone else has been. But my concern is the city of Prior Lake is no longer or should no longer be a bedroom community for the cities because we're now a a city. Um, we also seem to give developers waiverss and variances that the current homeowners don't get, which several people I've talked to over the years is a major concern. Um the other thing is I always wonder about the impact on on the infrastructure as fire and police which I know is not zoning and also we the city narrowed the Mushtown Street because traffic was going too fast or too much. So that traffic has a major impact beyond what it seems the planning commission seems to think. And no offense to wars, if we're going to have an apartment, another apartment complex, luxury is better than some other options. That's it. >> Could we have your name? >> Oh, I'm sorry. Mary Evansson, 17266 Toronto Avenue. >> Thank you, Mary. >> Who else would like to approach? My name is Jenny Rhyrs. Um, I am at 4654 Oakwood Circle Southeast. I'm in a very different situation than a lot of these people. I don't back up to this um development. I'm actually two roads away from it, but I have had a child that has gone through Prior Lakes softball program. Um right down the road from us is Woodridge, which is one of the fields that these kids play at. There's not enough parking for that already. So, I know we're not talking traffic, but as part of the traffic study that's going on, can we make sure that we're looking at what the parking is doing? Right now, they park along the side. They park up Woodview. Um on on Toronto, it's you can only let one car through at a time because there's parking both sides between renting and between these games. Um, I just want to make sure that that's taken into consideration, too, because 60 cars doesn't sound like a lot, but when only one car can get through at a time, it's a lot. >> Would anyone else like to approach the commission going once, going twice? I actually just said that to kind of shake the limbs a little bit, but seriously, is there anyone else who wants to share some commentary thoughts with us? Okay, I'm going to uh take a motion in a second to close the public hearing and then I've asked staff to uh respond to many of the uh comments and questions and inquiries that you all expressed just a few minutes ago. Um they may not get all of it, but they'll get most of it. Okay. Um, so with that, I'll entertain a motion and a second to close the public hearing at 8:13 p.m. Is there a motion? >> So moved. >> We have a motion. Is there a second? >> We have a motion by Commissioner Rook, second by Commissioner Euro. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. The public hearing is closed. I'll turn it over to staff. >> Thank you, chair. Thank you, commissioners. Thank you, everyone from the public who spoke and attended. Um, I'll >> do you need a sip of water first? >> Yeah, I've been just sitting here enjoying the back and forth. So, um, maybe working my way backwards the the parking, the park events. I I understand that's a concern, but that would not be included in this study. So, it's a viable comment, something that could be brought up at a future PUB meeting, but the developers traffic study would not include park events and where to where to park those. Um, the size of the building across the street, I don't know offhand, just looking at an aerial photo, maybe in the 35 to 50 range. I think those are condo units, so they're a little bit larger than the traditional multifamily development. Paul's feeding me questions here. >> Yeah, the the commercial residential that I think it was Robert, great point. That's something that we talk about at our planning commission and city council work sessions. I have been with the city of Prior Lake for almost 15 years and we have brought one commercial reszoning application through the process. So that's questions that we get often um will the city resone this commercial for residential? In my time here, we have done it one time. This is the second time we're to this point with an application. So, I don't want the community to think the city of Prior Lake is reszoning all of its commercial property for residential. We are not. Um, as far as the tax base, that's not that absolutely is a reality, but that's not something that weighs in on planning commission and city council decisions. If that was the case, the tax base generated from this apartment building is going to be far superior to any commercial we're going to see. If this redevelops as a commercial site, it's probably going to be in that, you know, 10,000 square foot range of a daycare. It might be a funeral home. It might be the gentleman who spoke about the senior care. Um, we've done those in a few areas in town. Now, I can't we can't go out and demand a senior care comes and builds a facility, but we've had good luck. Um, the one in the Eagle Creek neighborhood and then there's one up on Fountain Hills. Both of those are very nice buffers between the commercial developments and the adjacent residential. Yes, that would be a good fit here. I don't know if if there's any what the demand is in the city of Par Lake for that. Uh we'll see if we go through some more questions here. Yep. I guess I I think we've got, you know, a lot of the similar themes. If the commissioners have any questions written down that we didn't address, please feel free to to offer them up or I'm available um by phone or email or for folks to pop in and chat with too at my office. >> Great. Um let's go to commissioner comments. Commissioner. >> Okay. Um, hey, thank you all for your participation and for your passion. I mean, we're up here for the same reason because we care about our town and I love that you've been organized and your letter writing. I mean, that we did read it all and so it's it's nice to hear from you because sometimes when we sit up here on the day, we're like, well, what what does everyone else think? Thank you for giving us your thoughts. Um, so I do feel like a steward for the town. Um during my orientation last fall, I remember hearing about we are we don't have enough commercial space or commercial uh uh presence here in Prior Lake. So I'm kind of concerned that we're going to be losing some here, particularly in the town center. Um, and Prior Lake is unique in that we've got two town center areas, but you know, they're closer than you think as we get bigger, as we move beyond our, you know, our 8,000 square foot or I mean 8,000 population uh to 27 and so forth because it felt like when I was a kid that uh Brooksdale Mall was really far away and that's what it was called back then. So I I'm I'm concerned that we would be giving some of that up particularly when it has existing served water and sewer and we don't have a whole lot of that whereas most of the other spaces would be green space way out on the perimeters. Um and then if I think about in the future our the town personality that expanding um you know I think we could be at Wisetta or Excelsier have more restaurants especially if as Roor says more people coming into the snowbirds that want to downsize. Um where are they going want to go? They're want to go to restaurants and we already don't have a lot of restaurants in downtown compared to some of the other towns. So, I I'm a little concerned about getting some of that up. And we're here because of that weird little 1994 decision to get the kindergarten there. And I don't know how we would roll back and say, how could we do something different? But I'm cognizant that it wasn't intentional. And it's just a quirkiness. So, it's kind of where my my thoughts are at. >> Thank you, Commissioner Rook. Uh, as stated very eloquently by my colleague, um, I think the question before us is whether or not this is appropriate or not appropriate from a um, zoning standpoint. Um, certainly having trouble from my lens finding this to be appropriate, especially given many of the um, I'll say con current conditions of the overall um, city. And so ultimately, I think we all agree that more commercial and more desirable um businesses and entities would be um better served in our neighborhoods, in our city um as a whole. probably a clarification question for for staff um if now is an appropriate time is ultimately if the commission deemed this not appropriate could you talk through the process about the land that is currently zoned for urban high density >> uh thank you commissioner Rook planning commissioners so the property that is currently zoned high density the school district office would remain so the city wouldn't initiate a reszoning at this time perhaps Perhaps down the road when the comprehensive land use plan amendment is done, the city would look at it. Um, we would likely wait until if this project doesn't move forward until another proposal was received either for highdensity residential as a standalone site or a reszoning request to combine with for a future commercial use. So if somebody buys the building and they're repurposing it, we would be required to have a public hearing similar to this, similar notification area to reszone from highdensity residential to commercial and also to amend the land use plan from highdensity residential to a commercial use. That is going to be the more difficult part because the metropolitan council is not going to love if we get to that point seeing a land use plan amendment request come in to get rid of highdensity residential commercial in exchange for excuse me highdensity residential in exchange for commercial. If we get if we do that, we would likely need to identify another piece of property of equal size somewhere high density in the community. And that property most assuredly will be next to lowdensity residential somewhere. So just so we're prepared. >> Thanks for the clarification. No other comments from me. >> Commissioner Euro. >> No, I I I just agree with the sentiments of my colleagues here. Um I um have grown up in this community. I had a birthday party at that bowling alley, believe it or not. Rained out, rained out birthday party. Um, so um, so I know >> age or so, >> little bit. Um, so I know the, um, the area quite well. I know this community quite well and, um, I, uh, agree with my colleagues. I think that, um, there is definitely a future use for that property. I don't believe that this is it at this point in time. Um, I want to first start by saying I I appreciate I always appreciate the iterative process, right? I know firsthand how many hours um staff spends on these these proposals and these projects. Um, One of you in the audience, I don't I don't know you know you by face, but I know the name, wrote to me and suggested that I do a driveby. Um, and I had already done one like a week ago. Um but I did another one and um this is a this is a difficult one and I I don't expect all of you in the audience to appreciate the lens that we are in as factfinders um having to sift through all of the findings of fact um and having to hold what we believe is the best um evidence-based ideas or plans or proposals for the future of this city, right? It is a wonderful place to call home. Will always be that. And here's where the balance comes in. If we don't grow responsibly and prudently, keeping the legacy uh in a place of honor while being really prudent in planning for the future, we will become obsolete. I know that sounds harsh to some of you, but we are facing some external forces. some of which we know, some of which we can project, many of that which we don't know, right? And so that's that's the balance that we and then um in concert with staff, in concert with city council and people at the Met Council, Met Council will be looking will be looking and watching. In fact, they've increased their um uh their scrutiny of every every city that they have oversight for. So, this is this is a difficult one. What I'm heartened by and I hope that um the Reyers team um will continue their due diligence. You've heard all of the feedback. You've firstand I know you're taking good copious notes. Um but hanging in the balance right now, given everything that we know that we can reasonably and responsibly guess and project about um the next 12 to 18 months. The Maxwell study is not due for another several months, weeks, months, >> months, >> months. Right. Um, so, so, so you got to peek into my brain, right? Multiple layers. Um, and the one that comes down to is more intuition than science. Um, and members of of my team and Casey, Casey's known me for years, and I I have a I have a litmus test. If a proposal has anywhere between six, seven, and sometimes 19. There was a proposal that had 19 conditions, right? That's a signal to me that it's not the right time. That's a signal to me that more work needs to be done. Um, and I'm hopeful that we'll find a way to respond thoughtfully and responsibly um to the Met Council. Um, but at this at this moment in time, given everything that we know um, Insular to Prior Lake and outside of um, Prior Lake, contiguous to Shakipi and Chanhassen and Savage and Burnsville and Lakeville, um, it's not the right time now. But I'm going to be honest with you all. It's it will come back. It will come back. And so we've got to find a way again in concert with staff, in concert with the city council and other leaders in in our town to figure out how we can um have a conversation that is sustained over time. So it's not just a one-off conversation with this proposal and one-off conversation with the proposal two years from now. But this community, we're at the we're at the inflection point. We've got to find a way to have a sustained conversation over time. We have to find a way to grow uh responsibly and sustain the the honor and legacy of of our town. So, um I will not be supporting sending this on to the city council. Understanding again understanding that that it will be coming back. Something similar will be coming back. All right. So, can we put up the um the resolution? So, at this time, um we are finding that the request for the future land use map and zoning map amendment is not appropriate. So, I'd like to entertain a motion, a second to recommend that the city council deny the reszoning request from C2 general business to R3 highdensity residential and to amend the land use map from general commercial to urban high density for the property is described as lot one block two uh and first edition invid first edition and outlot a innovid first edition. So moved. >> There's a motion by commissioner Rook. Is there a second? Second >> and a second by Commissioner Schmoko. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Motion carries. >> We'll move on to an item of old business. Do we have two minute? >> Sounds good. >> Just going to stretch. One more. recess. Planning Commission is taking a five minute resays just for bio breaks and Planning Commission is now back in session. Thank you. At 8:33 p.m., we'll turn it over to staff. This is an item of old business, agenda item 5A. This is PDEV26-00000012-1703 Sunset Avenue Northwest of Variance. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh like you said, we are revisiting this variance request. Um applicant is Ryan Bigot. Uh he's requesting impervious surface variance to remove the existing home garage and driveway to construct a new single family detached home located at 17031 Sunset Avenue which is on Spring Lake. The existing home is on a non-conforming lot with a lot area of only 7,364 square ft. Uh which the 15,000 square feet is the minimum for this specific property. Lot width uh minimum is 90 ft but this lot is only 50 feet wide. So, it's um non-conforming in both lot area and lot width. The impervious surface is now proposed at 31.86%. A public hearing was held on May 18th and it was tabled by the planning commission until further reductions to new impervious were made on a vote of 5 to zero. The 60-day review timeline was extended by the applicant from June 13th to August 12th. Um so, an action will need to be made before August 12th. The applicant has provided an updated survey and plans for reconsideration before the board. Location map um off of Spring Lake here, Sunset Avenue Northwest, just off of 170th Street is a non-conforming lot as mentioned earlier uh in the R1 Shoreland District. So, the impervious surface requirement is 30%. Currently, it's at 24.61 with the existing home and garage. They were seeking a variance of 1.86% for a total of 31.86%. Here's a picture of the existing condition. Um, the home on the property does not meet uh conforming side setbacks. Uh, there's an accessory structure that does not meet setbacks as well in the front yard. And the driveway, I'll go back. Uh, the driveway is also exceeding 24 feet at the right ofway, which does not meet city standards. So, the original request, this is the survey we looked at last time, had a 22 foot wide driveway at the garage, slim down to 18 feet at the right ofway. Um, this will help make that driveway conforming. Side setbacks have been improved. Um, so that they are also conforming with ordinance. Uh, we have 5 and a half feet on this side. Um, 9.9 feet or 9.51 on this side for a total of over 15 feet. Um, and then there's also 15 feet between dwellings on either side. So, the original impervious request was for 33.11%. They have reduced that down to 31.86% primarily through a reduction of that driveway width at the garage, moving it from 22 to 21 ft. Um, they have shown the sidewalk, which can be excluded from the impervious with the three foot um on each side. The covered porch has been reduced as well. Um those are the the main changes for the reduction you see here. House plans have not changed um since the last request. The criteria, as we went through last time, variances shall only be permitted when they're in harmony with the general purpose purposes and intent of the city zoning code. Variances shall only be permitted when they are consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. They should only be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in in complying with the zoning code. Um this is used in connection with granting of a variance means the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning code and the plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the land owner and the variance if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality. And finally, economic considerations um obviously do not cons constitute practical difficulties. So staff's analysis is the overall impervious surface percentage is increasing. Um Apple originally proposed total impervious at 33.11 and they've dropped that down to 31.86. Uh the new home is proposed to have a roughly 18 1850 footprint and 497 foot driveway. This is a total reduction of 45 square feet as it relates to the front patio and 12 square feet for the driveway. The driveway is in conformance now at 18 feet at the property line. The request is an improvement over the existing condition with an increase in the ordinary high water level setback from 38 feet to 65.3 ft. It also eliminates a non-conforming driveway and improves the sideyard setbacks of the existing home. Vad is 50 feet wide and 7 7364 square feet which is substandard for the shoreland district and staffs uh would support that that is a practical diff difficulty for the property. The condition was not created by the applicant and surrounding neighborhood homes have similar limitations relating to imperous surface due to their size. So staff like I said do believe that there are practical difficulties in complying with the strict adherence to the ordinance. Uh, it's a platted lat from the 1950s, smaller in width and area than what would be approved today. The request seeks to increase impervious surface, but at the same time improve other conditions. Staff supports the request and has prepared a resolution of approval. If the commission finds a different impervious surface is appropriate, then a motion and a second to approve that amount is requested. If the commission finds that 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. Uh staff recommends approval of the proposed variance of 1.86% from the impervious surface maximum at 17031 Sunset Avenue Northwest subject to the following six conditions. The applicant shall provide a grading plan confir uh confirming all storm water drainage will be managed on their site. The variance uh the variance resolution should be recorded with Scott County. Building permit shall be obtained from the building department prior to the commencement of construction. Any sidewalk or walkway shall be 3 feet or less in width uh with 3 ft of previous coverage on both sides. The existing driveway shall be revised to be a maximum width of 18 ft within the entire boulevard area. The existing driveway shall be removed between the north property line and the proposed 18 foot driveway to provide a clear separation between the two parcels and eliminate the ability for parking within the boulevard outside of that 18t driveway area. Uh lastly, an asbuilt survey should be required following construction to ensure conformance with the approved variance. And with that, staff would have recommend a motion and a second to approve the above variance at 17031 Sunset Avenue subject to the listed conditions. Thank you. >> Thanks, Jake. I just have one question. Could you remind us what was the impervious service surface uh as originally proposed? >> Oh. Um it's >> 33 point >> uh so last time was 33.11. Uh we >> and now it's 31. >> 86. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Got it. I don't have any other questions. Commissioner Schmok, any questions for staff? >> Um, my understanding then that there was no thought of entertaining a smaller footprint than the 1849 rather more just these uh changes that might not be as durable. >> Correct. That's my understanding. Commissioner, uh, the applicant is here. If you wanted to ask if they had any conversations about reduc or changing the house plans. >> Maybe I'll wait till we're all through our questions and he can answer them at one time. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Commissioner Euro. >> Um, just wanted to call out the number five because I believe in within the 33 the original request for the 33 some percent it included uh number of square footage from the neighbors but 2 minutes drive which I think is your number five that's identified here in terms of the conditions being met. >> Yes. So, um, originally I think they're pretty close. >> The survey, the original survey that was submitted last time with the 33, it had a certain, uh, number of square footage on there that was the neighbors batuminous driveway. Existing neighbors, 35 square feet along the north property line. So, that is getting abated and resolved. >> Yep. That is I believe that is proposed for removal that 35 square feet that was on the >> Yes. >> the subject property. And so there's been an agreement that's been reached with the neighbor of some kind or that's been resolved. >> It's to my knowledge. It's another question for the applicant. >> Okay. >> And then >> yeah, come on up. >> Um answer that. >> Yeah. Go ahead. >> Well, commission, thank you for having me back. Ryan Bigot at 5042 Boulder Lane in Chaska, Minnesota. >> So, has an agreement been reached with the neighbor to resolve the batuminous the asphalt that's on this property that does not belong? >> Yes, I've talked with the owner of the property that's adjacent to the north side about removing the batuminous that extends into our property line and they're happy to do that. >> We'll do that as part of construction for them. >> So, you're going to remove it for them? Okay. And then I guess I don't know if I should continue since you're up here, but I believe at the last the other note I had on this property from our last meeting was I think there was maybe some discrepancies between if it was two or three stories because I think we had heard from someone that it was three but then in the building elevations it showed two and it looks like in the building elevations there hasn't been any changes. That's as it was shown before. And to my colleagueu's question about reducing the footprint, I guess was is there three stories in this building or not? And if not, has that been explored? >> This is a slab on grade. So there's >> so slab on grade. So just the two floors. >> Yeah. Given the soil conditions in that area, we can't essentially dig downward given the proximity of the water level. >> But you could go up another >> we could. >> Has that been explored? Um given the hook, given the roof line, we can't you know basically make a usable space on the 35 foot height requirement. Okay, >> the math's not penciling out for me, but okay, I'll work on that. Thank you, >> Commissioner Rook. >> I believe in last uh last time we saw this topic, there was concern about proximity to the other neighbor. Um did any of that change in this update? Um, no it has not. Uh, the five and a half foot side setback um actually exceeds the city's minimum standard by half a foot. Um, so they're and uh the other limiting factor, yeah, by moving the house further that way to kind of put it more in the center of the lot, it would reduce that 15.4 foot setback between the dwellings and it needs a minimum of 15 ft. Um, so you could push it a little bit over, but it's not going to be enough to really make a difference. >> Understood. Thank you. Another question. Any other questions? >> If you want if you have you have something else for >> um Ryan. >> Yes. I just um the height thing's not penciling out for me. So you have eight feet. You've got about 18 inches joist. >> Did you look at attic trusses? >> Come on up. >> Yeah. I'm having a weird conversation. >> Don't let him have all the fun. >> Come on up. Join him. >> You're the next contestant. >> Yes. >> So the house in one corner sticks out of the ground about 3 feet tall, right? And then you got we currently have 10 foot and 9 foot ceiling height, but say you lowered that down anyways. So you have three foot, you got >> eight foot height, you got >> 20inch tall trusses. So you got 10, 11, another eight. So you're at 19. And then you have the roof pitch. So here the roof comes up, that's about 8 feet. So 27. >> Mhm. So you could have seven foot ceilings maybe or room and attic trusses to do a third floor, but again the height situation with the neighbor. Now you're really going to be up there in height. You're probably going to be a flat roof of some sort or something like that to accommodate a third floor. So and then stairway, you know, restricts a lot of space on every floor as well. So you have to have four by 1620* four. You have 100 square feet consumed just by stairway per floor. So I would take away from their other floor too, their second floor. And the foot the footprint, the foundation footprint on the main floor is not all usable space. So when you look at the plan too, we we put the square footages you guys wanted on there. >> So you have on the main floor you have,68 square ft of usable living space, including an office, utility room. So utility room would commonly be used in a basement of a regular home. we can't do a basement because the water table is so high. >> So, you're not, you know, you have and then you have to, you're like, well, maybe make the utility room smaller. You can't because a furnace has to fit. You have to have code standards just to be able to get into the utility room to replace furnaces or anything of that nature. So, and we we did people everyone, not everyone, but the one of the questions would be that we didn't work towards getting down to this number. We did we have 20 plan reviews that we went through to get to this because I figured there's no sense in bringing you a 40% application or when we did the lot survey, we realized the neighbor's house is like 2 feet off the property line. So, we have to be 15t from a dwelling. So, we had to push it over towards the south to the neighbor's property on the other side that didn't want to be as close. So, we did have like literally 20 plan revisions, but I had to bring them to the city because I'm not going to waste everyone's time to to do that. So, we we did we did really work towards I mean, this house started out 700 square foot bigger on the footprint. And I'm like, no, no, no. And this isn't the first this isn't the first or second or third or fourth or fifth attempt. We we made several attempts to try to get to this point where we're at. So, um what other questions do you guys have? There was more questions, but I may have forgotten some of them. >> I don't have any. >> And not that it matters, but we could make up a Saab story. Not really a Saab story even, but his mom lives down the street. We did his house a couple years ago. So, that's what why they're trying to move to the area. They're, you know, they his mom lives down the street and they have kids and everything else. And they have two. This isn't an overly huge house. When you actually look at the usable square footage of the area, the main floor is a thousand square feet, it's not that big of an it's really, in my opinion, it's not a huge ob, you know, obscene structure. It's going to be a nice area. And we're not asking for in the 40% which if you go on the north side of Spring Lake within the last five years, several of them there are in the 40% that are new construction builds. So, we're only asking for 1.8 eight some percent, you know, we're not asking for 10% or 15% or 12 or eight or seven or five even. We're we're just asking for a small percentage. >> Yeah. And I'm just asking questions to make sure that you actually need the percentage because I've seen many of threestory homes that aren't going down and they go up and they have attic trusses and things like this. So, I want to make sure that you're able to maximize your investment as well. So, it's a win-win. Um, I just want to really understand is pushing out the only way for you to get there with what you're looking for? >> I think we'll be over the height in my opinion or we'll have to do a flat roof and or something. >> Do a 41 that later. >> I just have a just a generic question. What what's the livable uh square footage on the um >> the second floor? >> Second floor. Yes. >> Um the second >> 1658 >> 1658 >> like 2700 square. >> So 27 off. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Any other questions? All right. If we could um pull up the the recommendation. Thank you. So, at this time, I'll entertain a a motion, a second to approve the variance at 17031 Sunset Avenue Northwest subject to the listed conditions. Is there a motion? So, move. Is there a second? >> Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor uh please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Uh those anybody opposed? >> Nay. >> Uh so we motion carries 3 to one. Thank you. Um we have I see no new no items of new business. Any announcements? We have a uh working session on the 20th. Correct. >> Correct. Yep. That was going to be the only announcement, chair, that on in in place of a regular scheduled planning commission meeting on June 20th, the planning commission is going to hold a work session in the Park View conference room across the hall. >> You're you're providing dinner. >> We are. Okay. Just wanted to check. All right. Thank you. With that, any other announcements, um, comments, concerns from anyone? All right. Very good, um, meeting tonight. Thank you all for your very very good thoughtful deliberations and comments on agenda item 4B. Um with that I'll entertain a motion and second to adjurnn at 852. >> So moved. >> We have a motion by commissioner. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second by Commissioner Rook. All those in favor please signify by saying I. I. >> We are journed.