HomeMy WebLinkAbout7A Cardinal Develop Concept
4646 Dakota Street S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PREPARED BY:
7A
DISCUSSION OF CONCEPT PLAN FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED IN
THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF CSAH 42 AND
CSAH18
DANETTE WALTHERS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
& NATURAL RESOURCES DIR~CTOR
_YES X NO-N/A
SEPTEMBER 22, 2008
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION
Cardinal Development has submitted a concept plan (attached) for
approximately 96 acres of land located in the northeast quadrant of CSAH 42
and 18, just north of the future Summit Preserve development. This property is
presently zoned A (Agricultural) and is designated as C-CC (Community Retail
Shopping) and R-LD (Low Density Residential) on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Map (attached map).
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this item is to discuss the concept development of the site, and
to allow the Planning Commission an opportunity to voice any particular
concerns or ideas about the proposed development. This discussion is for
informational purposes only. The developer will introduce and elaborate on the
proposed concept.
Due to the preliminary nature of the concept proposal, staff is unable to
comprehensively evaluate the proposal. However, for discussion purposes, the
staff has identified the following items for consideration:
Comprehensive Plan:
. The concept proposal does not provide detailed enough information to fully
determine the proposed density on the site. However, in any case, the
concept as proposed would require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
address increased density on the site. Currently, the Comprehensive Plan
Map has designated approximately 56 acres of the site for C-CC (Community
Retail Shopping) and approximately 40 acres for R-LD (Urban Low Density
Residential, which allows 0-4 units per acre). Even as part of a PUD
(Planned Unit Development), the concept proposal as presented would
1:\08 files\08 concepts\summit preserve phase ii\p~:~fyofpriorlake.com
1
Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245
require a High Density Residential designation on the Land Use Plan. This
site does not currently include that designation.
Sewer Capacity:
· City staff has met with the developer regarding the need to address
insufficient sewer capacity at the site at the present time. A sewer extension
to the site is anticipated in the future from the west (Vierling property), at time
of development of adjacent land. In the meantime, City staff and the
developer have discussed the idea of extending sewer through a cooperative
agreement with the City of Savage from the collective northern boundary of
Prior Lake and Savage (northernmost point of subject site). The City of
Savage has indicated that they appear to have capacity and are open to
considering this option (letter attached).
Natural Environment:
· While the site has considerably more open treeless areas (utilized for
agricultural purposes) than the Summit Preserve site, there are still significant
stands of contiguous trees on the site (particularly on the west side of the
site). Does the developer intend to design the site layout with this in mind?
Planned Unit Development Criteria:
· It is likely that the developer will want to utilize a PUD designation to allow a
mixture of uses, private streets and other modifications to the Zoning
Ordinance. The purpose of a PUD is stated in Section 1106.100 of the
Zoning Ordinance:
1106.100: PURPOSE. The purpose of the Planned Unit Development District
(PUD) is to offer an alternative to development as outlined in the
residential, commercial, and industrial use districts of this
Ordinance. The PUD District will and to provide for greater flexibility
in the development and redevelopment process as compared to
development under the definitive and precise requirements of the
conventional use districts. The PUD District must demonstrate that
the particular areas to be developed can offer greater value to the
community and can better meet the community's health, welfare,
and safety requirements than if those same areas were to be
developed in a single purpose zone. The PUD process provides
for a joint planning/design effort by developers and City officials.
Development in a single purpose Use District establishes maximum
limits within which developers must perform. The Planned Unit
Development may be multi-purpose in nature so that not only may
it be residential, commercial, or industrial, but also it may contain a
combination of these uses. It is not the intent of this Section to
allow for reductions or waivers to the standard Use District
requirements solely for the purpose of increasing overall density,
allowing the use of private streets or allowing development that
otherwise could not be approved.
1:\08 fi1es\08 concepts\summit preserve phase ii\pc report.doc
2
· Section 1106.501 states the required standards for a PUD as follows:
1106.501
Required Standards. The City shall consider a proposed PUD
District from the point of view of all standards and purposes of the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan to achieve a maximum coordination
between the proposed development and the surrounding uses, the
conservation of woodland and the protection of health, safety and
welfare of the community and residents of the PUD. To these ends,
the City Council shall consider the location of the buildings,
compatibility, parking areas and other features with respect to the
topography of the area and existing natural features such as
streams and large trees; the efficiency, adequacy and safety of the
proposed layout of internal streets and driveways; the adequacy
and location of green areas; the adequacy, location and screening
of parking areas; and such other matters as the City Council may
find to have a material bearing upon the stated standards and
objectives of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. In reviewing a
PUD plan, the City Council must also consider the compatibility of
the development with the Shoreland and Flood Plain district
requirements.
The Planning Commission may wish to ask the following questions:
~ How does this proposal meet the purpose and criteria for a PUD?
~ What benefit will the City receive in return for allowing any proposed
modifications?
~ How will the design of Phase II mirror the Summit Preserve development?
~ Will future site layout take incorporate existing stands of existing trees?
~ What does the developer envision as a realistic development timeframe?
Will the market support this concept in that timeframe?
~ What would constitute premature development of the site?
ACTION REQUIRED:
No formal action is required at this time. The Planning Commission should
provide the developer with any comments or concerns about this concept plan.
Neither the Planning Commission's nor the City Council's comments will be
binding and the developer should not rely on any statements made by individual
Planning Commissioners or Council members. Any future plans must be
processed with the appropriate hearings and public participation.
This concept plan, along with any Planning Commission comments will be
forwarded to the City Council on October 6,2008.
ATTACHMENTS:
Concept plan, narrative, and letter from the City of Savage
1:\08 files\08 concepts\summit preserve phase ii\pc report. doc
3
r:iH~di al
if.ltt11b -:':
IUI !l'z (A
WII!if~1 L1
}J tffl'l R
ii!thI'I Q)-:t
I!IPHh j E
tt tiiSH 0. ~
~J,,:
4
'"
c:
o
~
c:
0>
"iij
"
o
"
'"
::J
"
c:
III
..J
~ u !
i ~ ~ j~ · i ~ i It ~
~ -f ~ i ~ ~ ~ g ~ CI) ~~
~ o.~ ~ ~.. ~! ~ 8"! ~ l~
-~ ~ -~ ~ ~ 1 i s ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ GO g~lJ
! ~ ~ r 'ii ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ C3 !! ~ g.~ 3 d!i 0
; j I ~ ~ j ~ ~.~ f ~ ~ 1 ~ j ~ ] I~!
~:;)o~<<i~()~t-~~O~Ulcn j () S
~~~~ .~~~~~ 0 ~~~ G~~~~~
JII! 1III ~II ~IIJ I ~
Summit Preserve Phase II
Summary
The concept design of Summit Preserve Phase II is very preliminary and would require much
further analysis to complete a more detailed plan with regard to city ordinances on density,
parkland, market conditions, etc. This concept design was completed to determine the
potential of development and feasibility. Also, please find attached a review of the City
Ordinance as it relates to premature development as established in Section 1002.600 of the
Subdivision Ordinance.
Summit Preserve Phase II consists of the following:
Office/Retail 247,000 square feet
low Density Housing 18.6 acres
Medium Density Housing 1.1 acres 14 units/acre
High Density Housing 3.2 acres 22.5 units/acre
High Density Housing 1.1 acres 32 units/acre
Thank you for your consideration.
SUPPLEMENT TO APPLICATION OF CONCEPT REVIEW
This Application is made jointly by Cardinal Development Group LLC, and Frank
Muelken, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Kathryn Marshall McCune with respect to
three parcels ofland located in the Northeast Quadrant ofthe CSAH 42/18 Intersection in the
West Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 24, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County,
Minnesota.
There are three parcels involved in this Application. A 55 acre parcel owned by the
McCune Estate; an 11 acre parcel owned by Roy and Barbara Erickson; and parcels comprising
approximately 30 acres owned by Calvin and Beverley Chadwick.
The parcels are surrounded by land that is either developed or in the process of receiving
development approvals. On the North, the parcels abut the City of Shakopee and the developed
plat of Whispering Oaks. On the East, the parcels abut the City of Savage and the developed plat
of W oodhill 2nd Addition. On the South, the parcels abut the developed plat of Windsor Estates
and land that is currently being reviewed by the City of Prior Lake as a mixed-use development
to be known as Summit Preserve.
The McCune, Erickson and Chadwick parcels are the last remaining parcels to be
developed in the Northeast Quadrant ofCSAH 42/18. As such, their development is essential to
the completion of road and utility systems that are currently stubbed to the northerly, easterly and
southerly property lines. It is the belief of the owners that the parcels are right for development
notwithstanding an issue relating to sanitary sewer capacity that will be discussed in this
Application.
The Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance, at Section 1002.700, requires a determination as to
whether or not a proposed plat is premature. For the reasons set forth below, the owners believe
that it would be appropriate to proceed with development of the parcels consistent with the
concept plan set forth in this Application.
1. To the knowledge of the owners, based on consultation with qualified engineers,
adequate storm water facilities either exist or can be constructed on site to accommodate surface
or subsurface water retention and runoff necessary to comply with best management practices
and law in the development of these parcels.
2. To the knowledge ofthe owners, based on consultation with qualified engineers and
the City of Prior Lake, there are adequate sources of water to serve the parcels when developed to
their maximum permissible density without causing an unreasonable depletion of existing water
supplies to surrounding areas.
3. To the knowledge of the owners, there is adequate access to roads and highways
necessary to serve the subdivision. CSAH 18 runs along the westerly boundary of the land, and
preliminary contacts with the Scott County Highway Department indicate that at least two full or
I
partial accesses will be allowed onto CSAH 18. At least four public roads currently are stubbed
onto the northerly and easterly boundaries of the property from the Whispering Oaks, W oodhill
and Windsor Estates subdivisions. The proposed Summit Preserve PUD will have at least two
direct connections into the southerly boundary of the land. Development of the land in this
Application is necessary to properly complete the traffic patterns between the existing approved
or pending subdivisions and the CSAH 42/18 intersection. The proposed subdivision will not
create additional traffic volume that would be hazardous or detrimental to public safety or
welfare.
4. The owners have been informed by the City of Prior Lake that there is not adequate
sewer capacity at the present time to serve the land and that such capacity will not exist until
development of the Vierling property that lies westerly of CSAH 18. The owners have contacted
the City of Savage, which currently provides sanitary sewer service for both the Whispering Oaks
and W oodhill subdivisions and have been advised that there is adequate capacity to serve the
three parcels of land involved in this Application assuming they are developed for residential and
retail purposes consistent with the existing comprehensive plan. A December 27, 2007, letter
from the City of Savage confirming the availability of service and the willingness to allocate a
portion of the available sewer capacity to the land involved in this Application is attached.
Routing sanitary sewer through Savage would require the construction of either a temporary or
permanent lift station, which the Applicants believe is economically and practically feasible. It is
believed that the benefit that will be derived from continuing orderly development in this
quadrant of the CSAH 42/18 intersection using available sewer capacity from the City of Savage
out weighs any potential benefit that would be derived from delaying development until the
development of the Vierling property to the west. It is not, at this point in time, certain as to
whether, or if, the Vierling property will in fact be developed. It is not certain that extending
sanitary sewer under CSAH 18 to the Vierling property will in and of itself be feasible. It does,
however, appear that there is available sewer capacity in Savage that will not otherwise be used
and the actual cost and feasibility of a temporary or permanent pumping station (relative to a
future connection to a gravity system within the Vierling property) can be evaluated in
connection with a subdivision application involving the McCune, Erickson and Chadwick
parcels.
5. The concept plan is consistent with the Prior Lake Comprehensive Plan and the
allocation of uses between residential and retail type development. There is adequate access,
utilities, drainage, water and available sewer capacity for the property to develop consistent with
the objectives set forth in the current comprehensive plan.
6. There is adequate space within the land to provide appropriate recreational facilities.
There are adequate schools, police and fire protection and other public facilities to serve this
land.
7. The owners have had several discussions with City of Prior Lake staff concerning the
development of this land. The owners are unaware of any inconsistency with current capital
improvement plans with the exception of the need to evaluate the impact of the proposed lift
2
station to route sanitary sewer to the City of Savage sewer lines. However, based on preliminary
analysis by consulting engineers who have provided input for the purpose of this Application, the
use of a temporary or permanent lift station is economically feasible both from the standpoint of
initial construction and long term maintenance, repair and replacement.
In summary, the owners request favorable consideration by the City Council on this
Application for preliminary concept plan approval and a determination that the parcels of land
covered by this Application are ready for development based on the use of sewer capacity
available in the City of Savage.
3
City Offices
6000 McColl Drive, Savage, MN 55378-1800 Telephone: 952-882-2660 Fax: 952-882-2656
December 27, 2007
RECEIVED
Bryce Huemoeller
Huemoeller, Bates & Gontarek PLC
16670 Franklin Trail, Suite 210
P.O. Box 67
Prior Lake, MN 55372
JAN 0 2 2008
Re: The Estate of Kathryn Marshall McCune
Dear Mr. Huemoeller:
I have reviewed your correspondence dated December 10, 2007 which outlines the recent discussions
that have taken place between the City and your office related to the McCune property located in Prior
Lake near the northeast quadrant of CR 42/18 intersection. It is my understanding that the City of Prior
Lake does not have sewer capacity to serve anticipated development within this area at the present time.
Prior Lake is therefore interested in discussing the potential of a sanitary sewer service agreement by
and between the City of Prior Lake and the City of Savage to service this area.
Based upon a preliminary review of the conceptual land use and development pattern within proximity
the subject parcel, we believe that adequate sewer capacity exists within our system to accommodate the
development. Consistent with our past practice, the City of Savage would be willing to participate in
discussions with the City of Prior Lake to develop the terms of an agreement for providing sewer
capacity to the subject parcel providing that there is no adverse cost impact or undue burden imposed
upon our constituents.
Given the conceptual nature of our discussions, additional design and infrastructure analysis will need to
be undertaken before any formal consideration on behalf of Savage City Council can occur. We are
always open to working with our neighbors in the spirit of cooperation and partnership.
Sincerely,
~.' .-.-...........'.
~~
Barry A. Stock, City Administrator
BAJmk
E-mail: comments@ci.savage.mn.us Website: www.cityofsavage.com
I I
~
a
-,
II
I ~
1--
I
.t- -
w
~
\
\
9
!
o
~
~
,f""" .:-
· I r ·
I .
1 .... ~
-
,r- .. i 1
I .) 1
"....- ....
M I [~ J
....,
-
- --...,
- -....
L
-~
....
..
"'-..
, I 1 ,
....JL _
01
'-,
I
L _
- ,
. ,..
\
\
,
"
!
o
- ..
. ,I
, - ....
- I ~ :
-~ -~
F-: -...- - -,- --r --,- - -.
I I I I I
I I 1 I I
I I I I I I
I I 1 , I ,
I I I I I
I I I I I I
I
I '-""r-----~r__
I I /
NO)> ~:::O)> -.J:::O)> <DO)>
0,,:;0 CX>m:;o -.Jm:;o N,,:;o
O"m O'>~m (I)~m (I)"m
(1)0)> (I))>)> c_)> co)>
cm~ Crw :::orN :::Om~
:::OCJ1' :::0- ,,- . ~~.
.
"ON ~OO1 )>Oeo
)>^w O"en O<D~
O"N m^~
() w mIl_en m,,-
m - _(0
(I) ~ (l)O~ (l)o~ (I) .......
~meo ~ ~
~ w ~meo f::.~en ~
en )>~en r en
r '"'" rO,"," r-.J'"'" r '"'"
r rCX> (I)^- (I) -
(I) - (I)^- ~
~ ~ N
. 0 ....... 0
en . )> ~
w
)> )> (') )>
(') (') (')
~ ~ ^
~
~ ~^
i a~
E
Zc....
o III
O~~)
CD III I
0':< NO)> ~s:)> CJ1-:;: I )> ~- I )> ~r)> ~r)>
g~. i ~,,:;o ~m:;O 0'>_ GJ :;0 ~N_:;o roO:;o roO:;o
N-GJ
N"m com (l)wIm (l)CfI~ ~~~ . ~m
00 (1)0)> Zo)> Cm )> ~ )>
...... CD Cm~ OJ~oeo C~o....... oen 001
:::OCJ10 ~m(O (l)Om. OJOm. m m
(I) Z · Z' Z'
~w' -(I)w C:::oZ01 (I):::oZ~ (I)~ (1)01
O^N )>-w :::0 ~ (I) _~ C~(I)en -N -N
m ~ O~w "I~N :::Ol~~ ~w ~.......
~w )>w~en "w~~ ~~ ~Cn
(I) ....... I~ OO'>I~ )>O'>Iw I(O I01
~ ~ oen o ~ O~ 001
0 mCoen mCO-
r en c'"'" -ZC'"'" _ZCW Ceo C)>
r '"'" (1)- N-(I)- ~~(I)N (I)' (I)'"'"
(I) -~ w~_~ -w --
- Z. (I)(I)Z~ O'>(I)Z)> Z)> Z~
~ GJ~ Cw GJ )> (1)- GJ (') GJ(') GJ?
....... )> CN W
)> (') :::ON (') :::o!'J )>
"c "CJ1
(') )>Z )>C (')
0-
m~ Oz
(I) m-
~
- (I)
)> -
0 )>
- 0
-
~.w
50",
(1)0",
~ ~m
o!!l}>
:":Q)-'
!"<g.
3(1)-.
::1-
::I c: ~
01(1)-
O1::1!"
~o-
O~::I
......::rfl
"0
::r
Qj'g
X !l!
0> 0>
...... ......
~~
~~
NCO
u,~
NN
0>0
-...10