Good evening and welcome to the April 6th meeting of the Prior Lake Planning Commission. I'd like to uh on behalf of all of the planning commissioners tonight, I feel like I'm in a sea of good company um tonight like to invite everyone to uh 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. We have uh two public hearings uh that I will read some instructions for uh just in front of those two public hearings. But before that uh we have agenda item number two which is the approval of the agenda and then that will be followed by the approval of our February 2nd, 2026 planning commission meeting minutes. Uh at this time I'll seek approval of the agenda. Is there a motion and a second to approve this evening's agenda? >> So moved. >> We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All those in favor of approving tonight's agenda, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. Our agenda for this evening is approved. Next, we'll move to the approval of the February 2nd, 2026 meeting minutes. Is there a motion and a second to approve those minutes? >> So moved. >> We have a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Thank you. All those in favor of approving those minutes, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Our February 20 February 2nd, 2026 meeting minutes are hereby approved. Next, we'll move to our our public hearings. We have two of those this evening, and I want to go ahead and read the uh read some opening comments about how those two public hearings uh will commence. First, staff will present its report on the request or issue at hand and planning commission commissioners will have an opportunity to post questions or comments about the staff report. Next, the applicant, if there is one, will have an opportunity to address the commission and commissioners will 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. Address, press the red button to turn on the microphone and then clearly state your name and address for the official record so that everyone will have a chance to speak. We ask that you limit your comments to 5 to seven minutes in length and that you make concise statements of fact pertaining to the specific application. This meeting is the official public hearing and your primary opportunity to be heard on the matter. The city council has no obligation to accept further public comment and in many cases they do not. So please do not uh hesitate to speak. And with that I will announce the per the first public hearing. Uh this is item 4A per the agenda. This is uh PDEV 26-0000004 17599 Richwood Court Southeast. This is a combined preliminary and final plat and easement vacation. Messenbring construction and engineering is requesting approval of a combined preliminary and final plat to be known as Ridgewood Court consisting of two single family lots. The request also includes vacation of an existing easement adjacent to the property PID 25353003. So, I'll turn it over to staff. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, the location map for the subject properties, you can see they're at the intersection of Mushtown Road Southeast and Pon Parkway southeast. Uh, so as the uh the chair mentioned, they have applied for easement vacation along with combined preliminary and final plat. The properties are currently undeveloped and were both platted as outlots uh for the adjacent Woodward Estates fourth edition and Parkwood Estates developments. The applicant is providing to subdivide the property. It's about 2 and a half acres um into two lots, 159,000 ft, one just under 52,000 square feet. Uh, as you can see here, there are concept houses shown on the plans with 45 by 45 building pads, enough to accommodate a a typical home. Uh, the easement vacation, they're proposing to vacate drainage and utility easements within outlot A of Parkwood Estates. Uh, the city's standard 10-ft drainage and utility easements were dedicated over this southern parcel in 2021. Um the city's standard drainage and utility easements were not dedicated over the northerly parcel when that was platted in 1998. The applicants are proposing to dedicate necessary drainage and utility easements on the final platwood court. Um so this is detailing the current easements in place. A basic management glass wetland is located on the site. that requires a buffer strip with a minimum width of 15 feet and an average width of 30 feet. Much of the property is encompassed by the wetland area. Um, a developers agreement will also be required with the Prior Lake Spring Lake wershed district for the establishment and recording of the declaration for the conservation easements. The property is currently designed or designated by the 2040 comp plan for lowdensity residential. The zoning the subject property is currently zoned R1 lowdensity residential and the subject property conforms with the comp plan uh land use map guidance. There is an existing trail along Ponds Parkway uh which must be extended to the far northerly property line. Access to both lots will be available from Ponds Parkway souththeast to the east of the property. City utility work will need to be completed before or concurrently with this project and notice to proceed with construction will not be issued until city work is underway. Um there's going to be a shared sanitary sewer service for the proposed homes which will be private to the existing manhole on Ridgewood Court Southeast. An agreement will be required between the two properties for responsibility maintenance of the shared manhole and the sewer service um to the existing manhole in the street. Utility easement shall be provided in favor of lot two across uh lot one for the proposed water service coming off of Ponds Parkway. And there is a need for future grinder stations to accommodate the sanitary sewer service for the lots. These should be shown outside of any kind of drainage and utility easements proposed on the plan. storm water meets the threshold for treatment. Um, however, proposed new impervious is going to be greater than 3500 square feet. So, the applicants will need to meet city storm water requirements for rate and volume management. Um, they need to approve this through a storm water management storm water management report um and may potentially be required to add a small rain garden to accommodate the increased impervious. An NPDS NPDES permit is also required for the site as it exceeds one acre of disturbance prior to construction and all drain drainage slopes shall be a minimum of 2%. The swale near the home on the northern parcel will need to either have a drainage and uh utility easement dedicated for drainage or be graded to direct water down the property lines within the current proposed drainage and utility easement. calculations should be provided modeling the existing 100red-year 10-day snow melt event to determine if the wetland is landlocked or not and storm water requirements and grading plans will be reviewed by the city staff as part of future building permit review processes. So, our recommendation to the the board tonight is to hold a public hearing. Um, and then we would recommend a motion and a second to recommend city council approval of the easement vacation along with the combined preliminary and final plat for Rididgewood Court subject to the comments listed in the attached Rididgewood Court review memorandum dated um 32626. I'll move to commissioner uh comments at this point in time. I'll I'll lead off with just a couple of uh questions. Again, staff, thank you for that the good plan and the accompanying visuals. Um I'm wondering about two things. I'm wondering about the tree plan, grading and tree plan. uh what we can expect, what what residents can expect. Um and then my second wondering is the storm water management report. Could you help us understand when in the context of the project that that report will be forthcoming to plan commission? So number one would be the tree and grading plan. What does that give us a sense of um how that will occur and when? And then also item number two for me the storm water management report. When could we expect expect an update on that? >> Uh, Commissioner, there has been a tree inventory submitted along with the plans. They show removal um that does not exceed 35%. Um, you can see that a lot of the trees being removed aren't considered significant trees as well. Um, so they are making an attempt to save trees in the area, especially the more mature heritage trees that they do receive credit for. Uh then the second part of your question, the storm water management report in what stage of the development would that be done? >> Yeah. So we would be looking for the the storm water management report is going to vary based on what ultimately is proposed on the site. So a larger home, more impervious surface may require a different level of of ponding or water collection. So at the time a building permits submitt, we would be looking for a storm water management report based on what they're proposing to actually construct on the site. Thank you. Um, our community has a long history of of being wetted to trees in the environment, so I wanted to make sure that we got that on the record. So, thank you, staff, and I appreciate having a sense of the timing for storm water management report. So, I'll move to other commissioner Nicholson. Questions or comments for staff? Not at this time. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Smokeok. >> Um, yeah, I just wanted to ask, um, because of the wetlands is taking up such amount of space, um, I just want to have some reassurance that the lots that will remain that can be buildable that they can have a sufficient size house and I'm understanding that that is true, right? >> Correct. Yep. Um, there is no concerns about the lot sizes on staff's end. Uh, both lots will be able to accommodate a good size house. uh the conceptual building pad showed that 45 by 45 ft. However, they would probably even be able to fit a larger home if needed. >> Okay. And then my second question is in regard to the rain garden, which I understand would be coming later when you know a little bit more about the houses. Um whereabouts might that be? Lot one, lot two. Is there a sense of where it would likely land? >> At this time, I don't think there's a proposed location. Um, however, they would have to separate it away from the wetland. >> Okay, that's probably where it seems a little dicey about that. >> That's it. Thank you. >> All right, I'll move to the other side of the D. Commissioner Rook, questions or comments? >> Are there any potential impacts on the neighboring properties due to the easement vacation? >> I'm sorry. Can you repeat that? >> Yeah. Will there be any any impacts to any neighboring properties based on the easement vacation? >> No, the easement is contained to the subject property. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Fster Mucker. >> More one question more procedural, I guess, when it comes to typical planning requirements. An outplot, does that typically get a perimeter drainage utility ement? >> Um, not in every case. uh more recent plats we would show the city standard drainage and utility easement on an outlot. Um the the southern lot does have that drainage and utility easement and I can't was that a 2018ish uh subdivision. The other one was from the mid to late 90s and did not include an easement >> because without without platting you can't build on that out lot. So you would need to plat regardless and you' get a perimeter drainage util at that point as well. >> Correct. So, generally on an outlot, if it's the standard 10-ft easement, it doesn't matter what they ultimately propose on that lot. It's still going to include that 10-ft drainage and utility. In this case, they're shuffling the property lines around a little bit. So, the existing easement, if we did not vacate, it would be essentially going through a building pad. So, the final plat will grant the city and the public the necessary easements. So, the ones previously granted would not be necessary. >> Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Tennyson. >> Yeah. The only question I had, could you repeat the piece about the trail extension? I just was trying to make sure I followed that. >> Yeah. So, the plan show a trail. Um, it kind of cuts off before it gets to the northerly property line. So, that's just one of our engineering comments that it must go all the way to the north. Make the connection. >> Thank you, Commissioners Tennyson, Mr. Mocker, and uh, Commissioner Yuro. >> No questions. Thank you. Um, those are all of our questions and comments. Uh, would the applicant, if they are present, uh, like to address commission, >> please press the red button and then state your name and address for the record. >> Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Uh, my name is Jennifer Hascamp. I'm the owner of Swanson Hascamp Consulting. Uh we're an urban planning firm and I help the Messenbrinks with their entitlement. Uh our offices are at 550 Vandelia Street in St. Paul, Minnesota. Um so I thought I would take just a couple minutes to answer a couple of the questions that came up um as part of your discussion. Uh and then I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have. Uh part of our application process has included included uh preparing some of the storm water reports already. Um and our engineers have gone back and forth a couple times with your city engineer uh with respect to what will need to happen uh in terms of storm water management on the site. Uh from what it looks like at this time, provided that we are meeting certain uh square footage requirements, we may not need those additional BMPs, which in this case would actually be a good thing just because of how the site was laid out with the original plat. Um, so we are working to try to minimize the impact on both the wetland, the area, making sure that we're meeting all applicable setbacks, and then making sure that the drainage that we do provide there actually goes to where it needs to go, um, for lack of a better way of saying it. So, uh, when I spoke to our engineers before the meeting, uh, they said that I think we're on our last iteration, we've, I think, submitted two sets of plans since this memo was drafted. Uh, and so we've checked off the majority of of the items that are on your engineers list. Um so with respect to that uh the idea is obviously to minimize the impact but also to meet all of your standards uh with respect to the storm water. The second piece has to do with uh your questions regarding the tree removal. Uh and I I spoke with your staff about this a while back as well. Uh the the intent is that these will be customuilt lots or houses. Uh and so we don't know exactly where those footprints will go. Uh conceptually we wanted to show it to demonstrate that we can comply with all your setback requirements that there's adequate space for those homes. Uh but the footprint itself might vary. Obviously it's probably not going to be a perfect square as you see on the plan. Uh and the idea is to minimize the number of trees that are removed. So instead of giving you a pie in the sky, we we did an estimate of what we think those tree removals would look like. But obviously the goal is to retain as many of those trees as possible. Uh, and we will know more once we have those custom uh, designs for each lot. Um, so I I won't belabor anything else because your staff did a great job. If you have any additional questions, I am happy to answer them. Uh, and if I can't, obviously I can get those from our our engineer. >> Thank you. I have no questions. Are there other commissioners that have questions? >> All right, seeing none, thank you. >> Thank you. With that, I will entertain a um motion to open the floor for public comment. Is there a a motion and a second to open the the floor for public comment? >> So move. >> We have a motion and a second. Thank you. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. All right. The floor is open for anyone in the viewing audience that would like to address the planning commission on this item. Thank you. Please remember to press the red button and say >> right there. >> State your name and address for the record. Thank you so much. >> Um my name is Mike Hennessy. I live at 4662 Parkerwood Drive Southeast. So, um I have two two basic points I I've been learning since I received this then I came which I was kind of wondering about. Then I came over and I got this more information from courthouse here. Um basically um first point concerns uh sound abatement. So, um, you know, if you take a look at some of the homes that like are on 190th, there's one home on 190th. It might even be Credit River. Uh, the guy's got his house close to 190th. It's so close. What they had to do was uh he he he put in a burm. Okay. If you go to the to Legends Golf Course, you'll see it there. And in this particular property, three doors down, uh, one of the new owners bought or put put in fencing, so there's no there's no gap. So I haven't asked him why he did it that way, but maybe it's because of uh, you know, concern about uh, sound abatement. Um, and so when I see this plant here, um, you know, the one that's closest to Mushtown, maybe that person when they get in there and they might realize, you know, it's getting noisier and noisier. I'm going to put in a fence or a burm. Okay, I could see something like that happening. So, is that such a good idea? Maybe, maybe not. Which leads to my second point is a better idea is to have this be just one property and then this would be the house. Okay. The one the one that's more to the north would be uh their primary residence. And then this would be some kind of an out building like a garage detached garage which could double uh as uh as sound abatement and that would kind of mirror what is done on the other side of the road in the sense they have a bigger lot. Uh Spring Lake Township has bigger lots. So those are my two main points. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome. The same instructions. State your name and address for the record. So, where's the red button? >> Oh, it's green already. Okay. Hello. Uh Jim Barker. I live at 4665 Parkway. Um here in Prior Lake, uh across the street from Mike. um about three houses up from that open lot which has been open for 29 years since we built our we built our house. We've gone through this before. Um the end house in Ridgewood went through the same sort of the same sort of process. My I think the couple questions that I had the one is this feels a little rushed with what's being laid out to move forward. Um Nessenbring sat on this for 29 years and I know was a bit behind on property taxes as of last fall. Um so just wondering you know is are we is this going at the right pace or are we really rushing to get that lot that lot filled and I hadn't thought about Mike's comment about should it be a two lot two houses on the lot or one but it just might be worth some reconsideration as you move forward. We know something's going to go in there. um it's better than having them come in and pay the extra money and fill in the the the wet space and move forward, which is what they did when they put the one house in on on on Ridgewood. But, uh just, you know, be judicious in the in the process moving forward and don't don't rush this if it feels like it's rushed. For me, as somebody who doesn't I deal with data and technology, I don't I don't deal with with civil engineering. But, uh I think you just need to take your time as you move forward with things. So, but thank you. You're welcome. >> I'm wondering if uh any of my fellow planning commissioners and or staff have any response. I'm I'm especially interested in this notion of it feeling rushed and and pace. 289 years is a a long time. Um and so I also understand that um intention versus impact can be two totally different things depending on what perspective you're holding. But uh Casey, would you care to enlighten us? >> Sure. Uh thank you, chair, members of the commission, and thank you to the members of the public with the questions. Um in response to the the timing of it, um I don't believe uh Messenbr construction owned both of these parcels until within about the last year. So one was included in the uh adjacent plat on the east east side of Ponds Parkway. Um, let me look there quickly in the uh Parkwood Estates neighborhood. So, Messenbring did own the northern lot and I we have had staff discussions with him over the years about doing one home on there. Uh, the southern lot, the Parkwood Estates became available um sometime last year and was acquired by me and Brink and then he pursued this two lot proposal. Um, as far as as one lot or two, that's really up to the developer. um what they prefer that you know this is a two and a half acre piece of property with probably over one acre buildable. Our standard lot size that we're seeing right now in Prior Lake are about 8,500 to 10,000 square feet. So the idea of two lots on 50,000 square feet of buildable area does not seem like a lot to staff. Um, and then as far as the the noise barrier, that would, you know, ultimately be up to a resident if they wanted to do a burm or a fence along that property line. There are going to be utilities within the boulevard. So, they would need, if there are utilities in the ground, they would need to stay out of any drainage and utility easements, that kind of 10-ft setback area. But, if a resident chose to put a a fence for some noise uh control in their sideyard, that would be something that is allowed in our city code. >> All right. Thank you so much, Casey. Um, are there any additional commissioner comments or questions? >> Commissioner. >> Um, Casey, in that regard, if let's say a burn were to go up, um, then they would have to look at the drainage. I assume again, if there was something topograph with the topography that was modified to force something like a noise barrier. >> Correct. >> Great. Thank you. I don't see any. At this time, I will entertain a motion in a second to close uh the public hearing unless there's is there anyone else in the I'm sorry. Come on up. Talking about pace, right? And the plan commission chair blows it. >> Feel free to No, no, no. You're good. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Looks like it's on. >> Good. Uh Dan Rogers, uh 17588 Jet Circle Southeast. Um so a couple one question clarifying question. I think I heard um they'd be accessed from Ponds Parkway, correct? So the driveways would be there. Has safety been thought of there on baseball nights, softball nights, big weekends? That road is busy. Um the trail has numerous numerous kids walking, scootering, biking, and I mean I I would just be concerned with their safety because they're going back and forth from what I call a gem of power of Prior Lake. Those two parks are beautiful and people love them. there's tons of traffic that go through there on the busy nights and weekends. Um, so I I would submit that that is a a safety concern to have driveway access crossing that trail, that sidewalk, if you will. Um, and then selfishly, I purchased my lot three years ago knowing that those were out lots and that's what I would have out my back door. So, I would, you know, if if it was maybe accessed from forgot the name of the road on the other side. Um, and it was pro that would probably only access one one home, but I would I'm sure that the trees would remain here if they're only going to do 35% but you know they'll be clearing the front side or Ponds Parkway side I'm sure. Uh but my main point is safety. I would argue that that is um taken away from safety from that gem of Prior Lake right there with if you just monitor it on a weekend and I'm sure some of you have there's a lot of kids walking and scootering and biking. That's all I have. >> Thank you, Mr. Rogers. Any commissioner comments questions? >> Is Pawns Parkway a through street or are they does it both north dead end into a park and the south dead end to Thomas Ryan Park? I'm not familiar with the geography there. Sorry. >> Yep. So, uh, from the south, Ponds Parkway goes along the the west side of Ponds Park and then kind of loops around the north side of the park and then dead ends into a parking lot. But there is also a street that tees into it uh which is 170th Street. So there is an there is an exit. If you were to go north on Ponds Parkway, you can get out going west on 170th. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. Is there anyone else in the viewing audience? Yep. >> Hopefully the green light is still on. Please state your name and address for the record. >> Um Anastasia Rittering. I live at 17620 Jet Circle. Um I do just want to echo what Dan was saying. The all the kids from our neighborhood and beyond use that path to get to the park right now. And if there were driveways coming through, I am a little, excuse me, concerned about just cars in general pulling in, pulling out. Right now, we can let our kids kind of go and watch them as they go until they arrive at the park. And um yeah, I mean, the safety is I would agree with Dan. I would like to see something um as far as safety goes. Just any thoughts or plans on if we're going to how that path is going to go. That is all. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else? All right. I appreciate the um the comments um and the sincerity be behind those comments. Thank you very much. Casey, would you like to maybe address um uh what I heard anyways that the primary concern of of safety and how those considerations have informed u the planning process uh up to this point in time and how they'll be integrated as considerations as we move forward? >> Yep. Thank you, commissioners, planning commissioners. Again, thanks for the the question. So, safety is a hard one because you know, prayer like everybody wants our community to be safe. We have hundreds if not thousands of these situations around the community where driveways back out, you know, and there's existing trails and sidewalks. Um, with two single family homes, we would expect all of our single family homes, it's generally 10 vehicle trips per day. So that's one trip, you know, to and from school in the morning counts for two trips. Uh, you run to the grocery store, that's two trips. You pick up the kids, two more. Take them to soccer, two more. So between these two homes, we would be looking for, you know, probably 20 vehicle trips each day on average. So again, like every vehicle trip proposes uh proposes a risk. Um I understand the concerns. I assume that is heavily used by scooters and bikes and kids in and out of the park. Um, but we have, like I said, this situation all over the community and it's very difficult to design neighborhoods and and build homes if we wouldn't allow driveways to cross sidewalks and trails. >> Thank you, Casey. And my my assumption is that when and where appropriate um signage or helpful signage could be considered just to make sure that uh people are um really making it making an effort to to be to be safe. >> Yeah, that's a fair point, Commissioner. Especially in this situation where if children in the neighborhood are used to this trail, um that they they'll be aware that there's driveways approaching. And I'm sure the homeowners or whoever ends up living in these homes will be very aware that there's an active trail on the edge of their driveway as well. >> All right. Thank you. other commissioner >> along the same lines. Uh maybe you already said it, but there is no parking allowed on Pawns Ponds Parkway. That can also assist in safety. >> Uh correct. I I don't believe any parking is allowed on this portion of Ponds Parkway. >> So there's nothing to block those >> sight lines. >> Sight lines for anybody pulling in out or coming down Pawns Parkway. >> Correct. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Fitz marker. Commissioner, go. >> What's the condition of the trail currently? I understand it's not continuous throughout the both of these parcels. Do you know what the condition is? Um, I don't know the condition off my top of my head, but I believe the plan is to relocate the trail further west into these lots to create more of a green boulevard area, green space because currently the trail sits on the edge of the curb. So, it'll be shifted back 68 feet and it'll be a new trail constructed. >> Has there been any consideration of moving the trail to the east side of the road? Um there has not >> where there is all backyards. >> Not that I I don't I'm not aware of any discussion or consideration for that. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Any other thoughts, commissioners? All right. Uh, with that I'll entertain now. I'll entertain a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there a motion? >> So move. There's a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> There's a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Any last questions or comments for staff commissioners? All right. Seeing none, um I will move to um recommend uh approval of a combined preliminary and final plat to be known as Ridgewood Court consisting of two single family lots. Uh the request also includes vacation of of an existing easement adjacent to the property. Uh for the record, this is P2535303. And as always, um, I have confidence and I think the planning commission as a whole has confidence that staff will take note of all of the questions and comments generated tonight at the public hearing and as appropriate integrate um, that thinking and as they are collaborating um, with Jennifer and her team to move this uh along. Um, is there a motion and a second? We did, did we? My bad. We need a vote to close the public hearing. So, uh, we had a motion and a second. All those in favor? >> I >> I. >> Motion carries. Public hearing is closed. Now, we'll move I'll do it I'll do it one more time. Um, I'll entertain a motion in a second to approve the combined preliminary and final plat to be known as Ridgewood Court consisting of two single family lots. This request also includes vacation of an existing easement adjacent to the property. Um, and for the record, this is P253530. Is there a motion? >> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Great. Thank you. >> Now, we'll move to agenda item uh 4B. This is also a public hearing to consider amendments to the Prior Lake City Code section 10-168 related to motor vehicle sales uses uh specifically allowing motor vehicle sales without inventory as a permitted use with conditions. I'll turn it over to staff for their presentation. >> Chair and commission, thank you very much. Um tonight we have a uh kind of staff initiated uh suggestion for a ordinance change to our city code. Um here's a quick summary kind of the 30,000 foot view here which is um dealers require licenses to operate a dealership in the state. This as a part of that application process the dealer is required to conform and to confirm the zoning rights that they're going to be located in and prior lake. That means that other dealerships require cups for motor vehicle sales, which are cups that are related to inventory. So, it's making sure that cars are put in the right spot, making sure that the activity of monitoring and activity of selling that inventory is maintained and controlled. In certain cases though, this is becoming more prevalent recently. Um, some auto sales operations don't have inventory at all, and so their operations are more of a office use. And so, um, what we're taking a look at is how can we better accommodate those sorts of opportunities within the city to fill up some of our, um, you know, commercial spaces and spaces that could really benefit from this type of operation and not be an impact on our community. And so, we're looking at providing a new, um, definition which includes a permitted with conditions where it's appropriate. And so, this amendment is meant to address that issue. Excuse me. And so for today, we are looking to propose an amendment that clarifies regulations on motor vehicle sales, particularly when it comes to sales without inventory on site. This is to ensure consistent zoning application and also a more streamlined process with our applicants that come in that don't have inventory um associated with that operations on site. And uh we're looking to make it sure that it's compatible with surrounding uses. So again, we're seeing an increase in requests for this office-based auto sales use. Um again, businesses operate without vehicles on site and so the impact is much less than what we would have with the normal um automobile dealership. Again, as we went over on our summary, these require licensing um verification. It's done at the staff level. So, we have to sign off on a document and as a part of that, they have to go through a cup process. And so, the idea is well, how do we make this more clear, more straightforward for those that want to do that? And so, you know, we did talk a little bit about um we're seeing some of those requests come through. Um there's two that we've done recently that have gone through the CUP process. In 2025, we had True North um truck and auto. This is off of Bowden. And so, they're um basically more of an international outfit where they import from Canada and other places. And so, they never see the inventory itself. It gets goes straight to um the the um auctions. And so, they'll never see a car there. It'll never pass through their offices. but they have to have a physical location so that they can be audited and so that their records can be observed by the state. In addition, we had in 2024 traditional equipment leasing that was a um a business where they sold RVs and vehicles of that nature and they mostly to folks that live down south um in Florida and Texas and they have lots of uh clients who live in Prior Lake and places like here and they do their snowboarding down south and so they never bring the vehicles back up here. They go down there to service them. they go down there to do that sort of um operational things and they just need an office space to do the admin stuff. And so that's really what this particular ordinance is focusing on. Um the problem with the current ordinance is that it's designed around the traditional dealership model. Um it assumes that they're going to be displaying automobiles and our code does really well for that because what we're trying to do in our code right now is control the on-site making sure that it's compatible and that we don't have an effect out beyond the border property of the the business. Um, currently this does not address office only sales and creates uncertainty and inconsistency when that arises. So there the applicant's wondering, well I don't have cars, why am I going through the cup process? Well, this helps to address that issue. So our proposal is to create a new use called motor vehicle sales no inventory. And this recognizes the office-based sales model and operates under those standards and improves administrative clarity and gets rid of some of the ambiguity with the applicants and what they do and what they need to do to get their office business done. Our proposal is to provide this as a permitted with conditions use within our town center. Again, for a business standpoint, from a office use, commercial and a C1, C2, and C3. um mostly operating much like a a hospital records administration type thing um an industrial one which I don't know if we'd see a lot of that but making that available because those sites often are appropriate and don't cause any impact beyond what a normal industrial zone would do as a part of the key conditions for being privileged to use this um permitted with conditions is that they would not be allowed to store or display vehicles outside no overnighting of inventory from From a permanent standpoint, all operations are inside an enclosed building. So, they wouldn't go out and, you know, try to make a sale of a vehicle on the floor. They would have to come inside the building and that's where they conduct their business. No repair, servicing, or detailing on site, meaning that if they have to do that, it has to be at a professional detail location somewhere hopefully in the town where they'd go do that. and that um in all other respects they need to be in compliance with our regular parking standards. Meaning that if we have a rule for on street parking, they would have to maintain and make sure they're within the laws of that for say their um clients or for their um their workers. Let's see here. In addition to those, we do have a standard that we would use where there'd be um no use of parking areas. So places where an employee or a um a customer would do a transaction, they couldn't use that for parking spaces for any inventory. So not only is it not allowed specifically, you couldn't do that anyways. Limited presence for vehicle pickup and delivery. So this would be for temporary it gets dropped off, you quickly go pick it up um with like a a scheduled pickup, if you will. Um, no ord or public addressing system. So, no loudspeaker where your bill has to come check on the customer. Um, no loading restricted um or loading would be restricted in all residential sweets streets and then test driving subject to applicable law. So, if you go to pick up the vehicle, you take it around the block. You just have to make sure that you're following all of our applicable laws to that. So, again, the idea is that this lower intensity, this is lower intensity than the regular dealership model. that minimizes noise, lighting, and traffic and impacts that a normal dealership would have. It's consistent with office types uses, and it helps to adapt to the different involving business models. For tonight, um staff requests that you hold a public hearing and consider that public input. In addition to that, staff recommends a motion and a second recommending approval of the proposed amendments, particularly section 10268 and 10185 to the Prior Lake City Council to the amended code. With that, I'd be happy to take any questions you may have and uh we would like to have a hearing tonight, please. Thank you. >> Thank you so much. Um so, while you were presenting the report with all of that great detail, just for kicks and giggles, I put into Google um my question was what types of motor vehicles are there? Um, so there are passenger cars, sedans, coups, hatchbacks, convertibles, wagons, SUVs and crossovers, including crossovers, sport utility vehicles, and crossover or CUVs, trucks and commercial vehicles, pickup trucks, vans, minivans, semi trucks, commercial trucks, motorcycles and three-wheelers, motorcycles, moped, scooters, auto rickshaw, three-wheeler, and then finally specialized vehicles. So, off-road ATV, recreational vehicles as we know them as RVs or campers, and then construction of farm equipment. So, I just want to just clarify that we're talking about passenger vehicles. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> All right. Great. I have no other questions. Um, other commissioner comments or questions? >> Commissioner, >> um, I just have a comment. I think, um, uh, I think clearing this all up will be very helpful. Um, I do think there's some verbiage in there that I would really like to see tightened up. Some use of words like limited. What does that mean? Right? You have an issue that comes up. Well, it says it's limited. And so, there's just some of those words I'd like to if we don't have those defined already somewhere in the code as to what that really constitutes or stands for that we tighten up some of those language absolutely pieces. >> We can take that on adisement. Thank you. Appreciate that. Great. >> Commissioner Nichlson, any comments? Thank you, Commissioner Smoke. >> Um, I just had some clarifying questions which I think I've already gotten answered. Um, you're expanding it to other areas of the zoning then that inventory would have and there was one part about one part one part about neighborhood commercial C1. It seems like we only have two areas in town that are C1s by the 4221 intersection south of Eling and then also I guess Bowden is the other one cited. Do we envision anything else where it might be neighborhood commercial because now we might see a blend of residential and commercial where things might and maybe that's something down the road but I just want to bring that up. >> I think it's >> is a new zone to be added for just this. Well, so we have yeah, that new type of use would be included within that C1 zone. I think it's worth taking a look at and seeing, you know, what how we open up that zone to either different types of possibilities and keep that in mind as we go forward. I think that's >> because I know at Spring Lake, the Spring Lake Township area, we're going to be looking at in the new plans. Maybe we'll have more C1s out there. >> Correct. And I think as we start to push down to the expansion areas, we keep that in mind that as we zone that be careful about how we're zoning it and the intentionality of that and so that when we do like we do now as we're discussing this particular ordinance amendment, we see how that kind of plays out within the different areas. So yeah, that's very wise. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Rook, any questions or comments? Are there other cities or jurisdictions that have gone to this model that we are aware of? >> To be fair, I haven't done a lot of research in that particular area, but based off of my knowledge of working in different cities, I've never seen anything quite like it. >> Okay. >> Um mostly because they look at the traditional model, it's been kind of how it is. They want to sell on site, but I think because of um some of the unique characteristics of our community whereby we have folks who do travel down south and other places. is a popular space for that sort of activity and they want to be close to somewhere at home and they know that they can trust somebody within the city and I think that's something to take advantage of. >> Great. And this idea of tightening up the language I think I agree with but is there this 24-hour movement rule is there any way that there could create opportunity that somebody could you know kind of fall within that loophole and kind of skirt the intended spirit of the rule? >> I think it's worth thinking about as far as like intended versus unintended consequences. I think the the spirit of that particular option was to provide for an opportunity to uh complete the transaction if you will as they go to do their paperwork. They can grab the vehicle and go. Um obviously a person could try to abuse that sort of system and I think maybe it's worth taking a look at before the final but um I think there's also we have review as well. We can see if that's becoming habitual. >> Um and if it is that becomes a code enforcement issue. um you know, if they're if they're violating the the conditions of the permitted use, they could lose their ability to do that. Sure. >> So, that would put their business in jeopardy and that would put their license in jeopardy. And that's a lot to risk on, you know, playing games with with where your car is for 24 hours. So, I would hope that in the spirit of this ordinance amendment that we're allowing the potential for additional freedoms within that zone that they wouldn't jeopardize the whole thing. >> Sure. Great. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Finster. >> No questions, I'd say. >> And finally, uh, Commissioner Tennyson. >> Uh, no questions. Just I think makes a lot of sense with, you know, a new business practice. We got to change the the rules associated. So, >> all right. Thank you. All >> in favor. >> Thank you. I I have just have one sort of cosmetic question. So in the in the the slide presentation it references section 10-268 but in the agenda it's referenced as 10-168. Is it 268 or 168? >> 268 would be the correct >> 268. >> Okay, great. Um, I don't see anyone in the viewing audience who would like to address the commission, but I'm required to invite the public audience three times for for the record. So, um, is there anyone in the public audience who would like to address the commission on this agenda item number four be? There is none. So, um, we will yet still open the public hearing. Is there a motion and a second to open the public hearing? >> So moved. >> Have a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All those in favor of opening the public hearing, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Anyone opposed? So the public hearing is now open. There's no one in the viewing audience who wishes to address the commission. So I'll take a motion and a second to close the public hearing at 6:51 p.m. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? So moved. >> We have a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and two seconds. All those in favor of closing the public hearing, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Anyone opposed? >> Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing um at 6:52 on agenda item 4B and then move to any commissioner comments. Any additional commissioner comments? I'll take one here. >> I just I just want to comment that I to kind of commend you to find an opportunity to open more commercial into town. I I think that's a great This is really creative and is a good move. So, I'm definitely supporting this. So, >> thank you, Commissioner Fster Mucker. Any other commissioner comments questions? I might have a question come. Do you foresee there's other I mean this is part of a just changing times in business right evolution at its best. Um do you foresee any other industries like that that would impact the community and the city that you're looking at in the code? >> Uh potentially this one is a little unique in that when they get their dealer license they come to the front desk with a piece of paper that we need to sign saying it's either permitted or it's conditional use. >> Yeah. So we don't have to do that with with many other businesses, but there may be similar ones coming down the road. >> Yeah. No, I get it. Thank you. >> Great. Thanks everyone. With with that, I'll entertain a motion and a second to approve uh considering amendments to the prior city code section 10-268 related to motor vehicle sales uses allowing motor vehicle sales without inventory as a permitted use with conditions. Is there a motion? >> So move. >> We have a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Anyone opposed? None opposed. Uh, so the motion carries. We'll move to agenda item five, which is old business. Is there any old business? No old business. Um, I did speak with Casey before the the meeting uh kicked off officially about new business. This isn't on the agenda item, but some of you might be aware. I certainly am um due to a conversation I had with Casey about two two and a half weeks or so ago, but we seemed to be getting some good traction and movement on the portion of the Verling uh PR Verling site. Um when I moved here in 2002, that was the just the question that kept coming up when when when what what and where. So, I'm going to just turn it over to Casey to just give us some a brief over of what's seems to be in motion. This is not a discussion item uh for us to approve, but I just wanted us to be aware of what's what's in in motion. Uh yeah, thank you uh chair. Specifically for the Verling family property, we have received an application from PY Group and they are proposing a residential development where they would construct Fountain Hills Drive from where it currently terminates all the way to County Road 21, uh, new intersection, turn lanes, and things at County Road 21. And then they're proposing four different types of single family residential homes be south of the Fountain Hills Drive extension and north of Carriage Hills. So, it's a mix of single family attached, kind of a row home style, um, sidebyside town homes, a villa product, and a more traditional single family detached as well. So, we've, uh, we're working through our review. We hope to have that to the planning commission hopefully next month for preliminary planned unit development, preliminary plat. And it also involves a comprehensive land use plan amendment. We're not changing any land use designations, just shuffling them around within that development. So, yeah, hopefully you'll see that in May. >> Great. >> Awesome. >> Thank you, Casey. Um, with that, I will entertain a motion, a second to adjourn uh this meeting at 6:55 p.m. Is there a motion? So, moved. >> We have a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. No one's opposed are they? >> All right, great. We are turned. >> Thank you.