Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7B - Property Located in the Northeast Quadrant of CSAH 42 and CSAH 18 ~P8~ cO~~\ 4646 Dakota Street S.E. U ~ Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 ~ ~ CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: AGENDA # PREPARED BY: AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION: ISSUES: F-i:.\':::ounc!I'2003 DECEMBER 1, 2008 78 DANETTE PARR, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIRECTOR PRESENTATION OF CONCEPT PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF CSAH 42 AND CSAH18 Cardinal Development has submitted a concept plan 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. Current Circumstances The purpose of this item is to afford the developer an opportunity to share the concept with the Council and allow the Council to share any 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 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 www.cityofpnorlake.com lPh~e5~jltl4r1~! toFW{!:9&2r~424~ \Counc:i\200a of subject site). The City of Savage has indicated that they appear to have capacity and are open to considering this option. 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 and save as many significant and Heritage trees as possible? It should also be noted that an Environmental Assessment (EAW) will be required as part of any future proposed development of Summit Preserve Phase II. 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: 1108.100: 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. . 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 201 :r~p'-It Dee 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 reviewed the concept plan at their November 24, 2008 meeting (draft minutes attached). The Planning Commissioners expressed general support for the overall concept. The City Council may wish to consider asking the following questions: ~ Given the current market and the fact that nothing has happened with Phase I, is Phase II realistic? ~ How does this proposal meet the purpose and criteria for a PUD? ~ What benefit will the City public receive in return for allowing any proposed modifications? ~ Will the design of Phase II mirror the Summit Preserve development? ~ In response to the market, the City reduced land earmarked for high density residential tenfold. Is the high density residential portion of this development in keeping with tomorrow's market? ~ Will future site layout 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? FINANCIAL IMPACT: Budaet ImDact: There is no budget impact as a result of this concept discussion. If the concept is ultimately approved and developed in the future, the project will increase the City tax base. RECOMMENDED MOTION: No formal action is required at this time. The City Council should provide the developer with any comments, direction or concerns about this concept plan. The City Council's comments are not binding and the developer should not rely on any statements made by individual Councilmembers. However, in the absence of direction, the Council can expect the developer will proceed in general accordance with what they have proposed. Any future plans must be processed with the appropriate hearings and public participation. Reviewed by: vJtl.- Frank ~s, City Manager ,~ K . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24,2008 1. Call to Order: Chairman Lemke called the November 24,2008, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Billington, Fleming, Lemke, Perez and Ringstad, Community Develvpll1entlNatural Resource Director Danette Parr, Planner Jeff Matzke, Assistant City Engineer Larry Poppler and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Billington Fleming Lemke Perez Ringstad Present Present Present Present Present DRAFT 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the September 22, 2008, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. 4. Consent: None 5. Public Hearings: None 6. Old Business: None 7. New Business: A. EP08-138 Cardinal Development submitted concept plan for North Summit Preserve. Community Development and Natural Resource Director Danette Parr presented the Staff Report dated November 24,2008, on file in the office of the City Community Development and Natural Resource Department. Cardinal Development has submitted a concept plan 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). The purpose ofthis item is to discuss the concept develvpment 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. L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MNl12408.doc 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 24, 2008 Due to the preliminary nature of the concept proposal, staff is unable to comprehensively evaluate the proposal. However, for discussion purposes, the staff identified the following items for consideration: . Comprehensive Plan . Sewer Capacity · Natural Environment DRAFT . PUD Criteria Poppler gave an overview of the Comp Plan sewer plans. The developer has talked to the City of Savage who has adequate capacity to meet the needs ofproject. It was one of the main concerns for the Prior Lake Engineering staff. 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 Councilmembers. Any future plans must be processed with the appropriate hearings and public participation. Kurt Larson of Cardinal Development said he was not going into a lot of detail with the concept plan itself. The site allows for future concept and will certainly help plan their future needs. They were able to take care of the sewer and water needs for the site, an important concern for the He will answer any questions by the Commissioners. Comments from the Commissioners: Billington: Questioned Mr. Larson ifhe read the staff report. Larson stated he did and responded to the questions posed by staff on Page 3 of the Staff Report. . Worked diligently with staff on Summit Preserve and understand the requirements. . The second phase will help develop the first phase and have some of the components to make an overall successful development. . He has a strong understanding ofthe "trees". . It is an early concept and preliminary as far as a time frame. . The land owners are all willing to move forward at this time. . Billington questioned the slower market and asked Larson how he felt about development. Larson felt encouraged with their type of mixed project. Lemke: . Asked Larson ifhe was aware of any heritage trees on the site. Larson said he does not know exact numbers but is assumes there will be significant trees on the property. L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MNI12408.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting November 24, 2008 Ringstad: . Asked Larson how he felt about the "premature" comment by staff and asked if there was anything on the horizon for 2009 (Summit Preserve). Larson said something would be starting in 2009. Fleming: . Asked staff about the density for high residential. Parr responded with comments from the Met Council. Lemke: . Asked where the sewer would be coming for phase one. Poppler said it would come from the intersection from 18 and 42. Briefly commented on the Vierling property. Billington: . Commented the project is a good one and wished the developer well. DRAFT Perez: . Commented on the density - "As a city we increased our high density" and questioned if this as a city, is what we want. "We'll have to wait to see how the Met Council responds." Larson said he is willing to work with both cities on this Issue. Lemke: . Likes the concept of two units being tied together. I can see where everything can come together. Will support. Again, Larson said the sewer issue was their main concern but will work with both cities. Fleming: . Added he is okay with the concept but can't comment until he sees a final proposal. Perez: . Questioned if staff still uses the McComb Study. Parr responded staff does use it and looks at this main entrance (County Roads 18 and 42) into the community very closely. This concept plan, along with any Planning Commission comments will be forwarded to the City Council for their December 1, 2008 meeting. L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MNl12408.doc 3