HomeMy WebLinkAbout8A - Concept Plan CR18 / CR42
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
NOVEMBER 7, 2005
8A
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING DIRECTOR
PRESENTATION OF CONCEPT PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE
PROPERTY AT THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF CSAH 42 AND CSAH 18
I ntrod uction
Cardinal Development Group has submitted a concept plan for approximately
45 acres of property located at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of
CSAH 42 and CSAH 18. This property is presently zoned A (Agricultural) and
is designated as C-BO (Business Office Park) and R-UMD (low to Medium
Density Residential) on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan land Use Map.
The purpose of this item is to discuss the concept development of the site, and
to allow the City Council to voice any particular concerns, issues or ideas
about the proposed development. This discussion is for informational
purposes only. The developers will present this concept plan to the City
Council.
Current Circumstances
The developers have submitted a concept plan for a mixed use development
on this site. The concept plan identifies a mixture of commercial and
residential uses, including 64 town home units, 80 condominium uses in 2 4-
story buildings, 60 units located above the retail space, 142,000 square feet of
retail space, 100,000 square feet of office space, and 50,000 - 75,000 square
feet of medical space.
For discussion purposes, the staff has identified the following issues:
Comprehensive Plan:
. The McCombs study indicated the need for considerably less R-HD
property and considerably more commercial property. For this reason the
City Council deliberately reduced the amount of R-HD designated property
on the recently adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan. This concept would
not be consistent with that plan.
. The development of multifamily buildings on the site, even as part of a
Planned Unit Development, requires a High Density Residential
designation on the land Use Plan. This site does not currently include that
designation, so an amendment to the land Use Plan would be required.
Design/Natural Environment:
. This site is heavily wooded. The design does not seem to make any
attempt to preserve any of the wooded areas.
Parks:
. A one acre public park is identified in the northwest corner of the site. The
www.cityofpriorlake.com
'\ Pfic5nei~82i.'4411.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
standard parkland dedication requirement for a site of this size is 10% of
the net area, or approximately 4.2 acres in this case.
Planned Unit Development Criteria:
. The developer is suggesting the use of the PUD 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.
. 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
140TH ST NE
HAMPTON
."
~
m
;0
~
z
m
1000
I
LOCATION MAP
CSAH 42/18 PUD
~
Iii
II!
o
co
"'"""
I
<(
en
o
~
~
~
Q
;0
o
1000 Feet
I
N
+
c
co
-
a.
~
0-
(I)
U
O-c
co 0
~()
cO
.2 =>
100.
uN
O~
....J..........
CO
~
I
<C
en
()
'--!:--'-~-~~jl,-t
~~-~,r-~i
LJ
w -
&i !Z...j
Z W <(... ..
~~~~~II
it UlIDO ::s
~ ~~~ ~
I
I
I
I
I
IE
-L
Bl0S9UUIW '8}181 JOfJd
~t(O"'ON'6.:Ioi ~'BlJ"'.'''(J
..,..." I ~ ~
,__"^ ._~ tl ..- I;
! ~.~~
'}Q'-'l"'l".l.,' -
"'1 JO ....1 ~\ ....,..... \""I'ot".II' ii! .;.
... iO;:;~J.O~,::=~~; ~ .... ~ ~
~:...;~:' =.~=~ Iii " ~ S
~.,d ...., ,.....' Rm..." R......... I ~ ~ ~ ~
~.....
i ·
I~
and
81.. I Z~ aVOH A.LNnO:>
~'V~ ..
I ti~ )
I' /
'----------------------~ ...h~ -. ---f... -'-
I _"":1.
I __.... t~1
I . / '. '. ': ..' 1,
,....... y~. . ,.()...~/..~..~..-;- -. -...~l.r'.~~~
/ Ii ...-c":-i I IT
I. .I.IL' ~7\ ~ ~7 ~ . .:--tTT
.1 . ;/.;-- '".. .. I . 1/
~ ~1.:._ ~~Gf~7' I
~:~ J . . '
;I
1ILONl-r'9';SJ oNnljle Hln,bsi
~~---=-
w z
&i !Z-,j
z w OIl( Il. ..
!l!Zl!l!::li:I~
lI!tffil~ ~
illS'" !!l!ilS g
_ u
e~oseuu!... '8>181 JOfJd
~~~.. 'ON's... """'1'0(1" '.'.0
''''''''''1 ~8 ~-
'-, -'"-~ I .. - ~ Ii"""
i~.~~ ·
~"O_,,:;~=,~,:;"~: I , .......
'......,...'0..,. ."..."'1""'"'.... '. III " ..
_,"~'M.O",^_"_'O ~.I Ii u ~ <C
~rm~~:;~'=;J~ ~ Iii?i S I
~~d.'41'''''~m..,J;qo>''''''1 ~ ~ ~ ~
and
8.. I Zt avo~ AJ.NnOO
~\ooii'i')--
~I
~
",; ~ ~
11"! n i: i i! i
,da!!lH:dl
L :i!idH
iillllll;HL
Iii 1!' ~
Hi
v ~o@ G.-\:l-TellOIl>lIll~1Il 0 go
. 'j ~ W i': a
. ~.,~. ~ <lGJ.!i}
~u_ · ~ + /
I u_u_u_u_u~_____ / ---t--.
i / \\~
/)
I
I
;;1
~I
~~
I
I
I
I
I
IE
_-L
~~
/
(
1
\
1\
\1
\~,
I
I
I
I
~llON H't'SJ aNn~8 Hlrl"Sr
1ll.'UN H"V'SJ ONnos Hinos
="
'-~l
---~-----~]-
===- {:o
6l <Jl
- , -
~
the complete
CADD SUPPORT
RENDERINGS
PHYSICAL MODELS
SPACE PLANNING
County Road 42/18 PUD Proposal:
OCT I 8 2005
Site Location: ~.___..
The proposed site for the PUD lies in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of county roads
18 and 42. This location along county road 42 is the first significant intersection in Prior Lake as
one approaches from the City of Savage to the east. Therefore, the PUD proposed at this location
would serve as a gateway to the City of Prior Lake, while respecting the scale of Downtown Prior
Lake. The purpose of the proposed PUD would be to enhance the cityscape while creating a node
of interest at this important intersection.
Site Data:
The proposed site is comprised of 5 parcels that are currently zoned agricultural. The total area
considered for the PUD is approximately 45 acres.
~~~ _~fr---. /~UJ-
~--TI I~ ~ ~Jf-l
.1-l1LL~ \\r~4W
~ ~ IIII rr. /,LL
III r ......... / fL ~=3=0
II~Shakopee~Q..-...ill I J
~/ IlTTlI \. 'J / / rT ~ / I I I 111"\
/C"
I Prior Lakel ~
~ Savage ~
~~~~
~v~
~.~
;: / fA'\-,
~ - - ~)~
7r L .rrfL
CSAH 42
II I ~ V..J \\ \ \ III T I I M 11111 I ~ \- :.t
1II11 ~11n1 ~~ III I II I "I WI/ilL f ::::::r;~~~
I II - ill \-r\\~ ~ III f ~""'A/. l.L.Jr.--
=t.;r- == ~ ,\\\. ~~..(:--, 'I - r-~~ Tn
~; ~~EE~a~ \) v~ 'lo" ~:: A~
:... "J _ - l::t::LJ ~ ~ " L't......n' y _ "
-.
I
,- -
CD
-
z:
<(
tI)
o
r-
r-
l-
I-
I--
4633 1st Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55419
Tel: (612)-232-9539 Fax: (651)-305-6884
Email: vgori@yahoo.com
----, --,._.__....._"._,-.....,._._._._'---.----~....-
b....-
~@f1~ ~ ~~~@@~(jJ~<e~
the complete arc>hil:
CADD SUPPORT
RENDERINGS
PHYSICAL MODELS
SPACE PLANNING
Master Plan Concept:
Connection to Prior Lake via a
Pedestrian overpass over County Road 42.
The Master Plan concept comprises mainly 6 components:
. One story Retail Boutiques with possibly up to 4 stories of Condominiums above
. 4 story Luxury Condominiums
. Attached townhouses
. Office buildings with a park and ride at the entry to the site
. Medical outpatient clinic.
. 1 acre of dedicated Parkland as shown in the Conceptual Site Plan.
As can be seen from the illustration above, approximately one acre of the site will be dedicated to
parkland per the City of Prior Lake request. The retention pond serves as a landscape feature and
will be incorporated into the overall landscape design.
Zoning:
. The Current Zone for this site is Agricultural.
. The City's 2020 Comprehensive Land Use Plan shows the western two-thirds (+/-) as
4633 1st Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55419
Tel: (612)-232-9539 Fax: (651)-305-6884
Email: vgori@yahoo.com
~-~---'--'-'-^,,--'~-'",-"'-~-~~~-~-----'._"~'~'-~_._'---------,..,-
........ @J@~D ~ ~~~@@D~~~~
~ the com pie t e .,,~Jj;~4.f:~"~;.
CADD SUPPORT RENDERINGS PHYSICAL MODELS SPACE PLANNING
guided for CommerciallBusiness Office, with the remainder guided for Low to Medium
density residential.
. The Proposed Development consists of features and benefits compatible with the
requirements needed for consideration as a mixed use district.
Utility Connections:
. Sanitary Sewer will be served from an existing sanitary sewer main located near the
intersection of Crest Avenue and Cedarwood Street NE. A manhole will be constructed
over the existing main, and the sanitary sewer will extend north, and installed under
County Road 42 by jacking the line under the roadway.
. Water will be provided from the existing stub located about 300 feet west of the
intersection of County Road 42 and County Road 18/Crest Avenue. Water will be extend
to the east and installed under County Road 18 by jacking the line under the roadway.
Transportation:
. Access to Phase-l of the site is proposed to be approximately 1,160 feet north of the
intersection of County Road 42 and County Road 18. This roadway will be a public
collector road, constructed per City standards and requirements. This roadway will be
constructed along the north side of the development. Phase-2 construction will include
extending this collector road east and northeast. Eventually this road would connect to
1381h Street in the City of Savage. Phase-2 will also include constructing an access to the
site from County Road 42, at the intersection of County Road 42 and Aspen A venue. In
addition, a local road will be constructed near the southeast comer of the development,
which would ultimately provide another connection to the City of Savage, at 14151 Street.
Storm Sewer:
. Ponding will be provided onsite to promote water quality and to provide rate control.
The proposed design of these ponds will limit the discharge to be handled by a 15" storm
sewer pipe that would be connected to the existing storm sewer installed with the County
Road 18 improvements. With the ponding, the discharge from the site will not limit the
capacity of the existing storm sewer system needed for the drainage of County Road 18.
. Wetland Impacts will be mitigated per the City's standards, and per the requirements of
the Wetland Conservation Act.
4633 1st Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55419
Tel: (612)-232-9539 Fax: (651)-305-6884
Email: vgori@yahoo.com
Page 1 of 1
Danette Moore
From:
Sent:
To:
Shannon Lotthammer [slotthammer@plslwd.org]
Wednesday, October 26, 2005 8:38 AM
Danette Moore
Cc: 'Jim Eggen'
Subject: CSAH 42/CSAH 18 PUD Concept Plan
Hi Danette -
Thanks for the phone call yesterday regarding the CSAH 42/CSAH 18 PUD concept plan and permitting
coordination. I appreciate you adding me to the DRe e-mail list! Here are our comments on the concept plan:
. The stormwater management plan for the development will need to incorporate volume control along with
water quality and rate control (the concept plan info. from only mentions water quality and rate control).
Since this project is within the Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District, a permit will be required from the
District prior to grading. We'd be happy to meet with the developer to discuss the District's volume control
requirements and ideas for incorporating volume control into the site design.
. It is generally the District's preference that increases in density beyond the City's Compo Plan designation
be avoided, due to the additional stormwater management challenges (especially volume control) of
higher-density development. The District ~ supportive of projects that "group" or "cluster" development in
one area to permanently protect open space elsewhere in the watershed and enhance stormwater
management/volume control; however, this concept plan does not appear to employ such an approach.
That's all we have on the concept plan. If you have any questions about these comments, please let me know.
Thanks again!
Shannon
Shannon Lotthammer, District Administrator
Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District
15815 Franklin Trail SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
slotthammer@plslwd.org
952-447-4166; www,plslwd.Qrg
10/26/2005
r
SCOTT COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION
l~tt
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT. 600 COUNTRY TRAIL EAST. JORDAN, MN 55352-9339
(952) 496-8346. Fax: (952) 496-8365. www,co.scott.mn.us
LEZLlE A. VERMILLION
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
October 26, 2005
Danette Moore
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Concept Plan . CSAH 42 and CSAH 18
Dear Danette:
We have reviewed the concept plan and offer some preliminary comments:
. In order for access to be approved, a detailed traffic analysis shall be required before preliminary plat approval
by the City. I have attached a copy of the County's Traffic Analysis Process that will need to be followed.
. The proposed access onto CSAH 42 across from Aspen A venue will require the installation of right and left
turn lanes on CSAH 42. The existing left turn lane is not standard and would have to be constructed to current
County standards.
. The minimum right-of-way dedication for CSAH 42 shall be 100 feet from road centerline, not section line.
The minimum right-of-way dedication for CSAH 18 shall be 75 feet from centerline.
. We recommend public access is provided to the property that is north and west of this property. This will help
with site circulation and future CSAH 18 access issues.
. Any change in drainage entering the County right-of-way shall required detailed stormwater calculations to be
submitted to the County Engineer for review and approval.
. No ponding, berming, signage, or landscaping shall be permitted in the County right-of-way.
. Noise will become an issue as traffic levels increase on the County roads. Noise attenuation is the
responsibility of the City and developer.
. A pedestrian path should be included in the site plan along CSAH 42 and CSAH 18.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We would like to attend any meetings you may have with the developer
in the future. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
~~
Craig Jenson
Transportation Planner
Planning Commission Meeting
October 24, 2005
DRAFT
,
. Pick d up his own students at school and saw several b es running. Did not
seem 0 be an issue. Now we're talking one and a ha football fields away with
fumes. don't see the issue there.
. Hard to s what the traffic would be by the appl" ant.
. Based on tH information I will approve with tIt additional backup alarm
condition.
Stamson:
. The applicant has d e a great job in IJritigating the situation.
. The 2030 Vision is w t I envisione for Deerfield and that is modest exterior
storage. I still feel this 1 not an a ropriate use for that zone. Would love to see
Mr. Busse have a site in P . or L, e to store the buses but just don't think this is
what I had in mind for the i l,JStrial park.
. Vote against. /
MOTION BY BILLINGTON,Y RINGSTAD, APPROVING
RESOLUTION 05-19PC APP OVING A . ONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW
OUTDOOR STORAGE IN H 1-1 ZONINd'QISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE LISTED
CONDITIONS, INCLUD G IF BACKUP A~S ARE USED THAT THE BUSES
BE BACKED IN TO T STALLS AT NIGHT\
Vote taken indicate ,ayes by Billington, Ringstad a~Perez. Stamson nay. MOTION
CARRIED. \
There was a b . f discussion on the appeal process. Moore oted the appeal must come
from someo who lives within 350 feet of the subject prope
A recess as called at 7:35 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:38 .m.
\.
6.
None
\
'\
~
New Business:
;1(.
A. EP 05-208 Cardinal Development Group has submitted concept plan for the
development of approximately 45 acres to create a PUD containing retail, attached
townhomes, office, clinic/medical office and high density residential housing. This
property is located at the northeast corner of CSAH 42 and CSAH 18.
Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated October 24,2005, on
file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Cardinal Development Group has submitted a concept plan for approximately 45 acres of
property located at the northeast quadrant ofthe intersection ofCSAH 42 and CSAH 18.
This property is presently zoned A (Agricultural) and is designated as C-BO (Business
Office Park) and R-L/MD (Low to Medium Density Residential) on the 2020
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTES\MNI02405.doc
5
Planning Commission Meeting
October 24, 2005
The developers have submitted a concept plan for a mixed use development on this site.
The concept plan identifies a mixture of commercial and residential uses, including 64
townhome units, 80 condominium uses in two 4-story buildings, 60 units located above
the retail space, 142,000 square feet of retail space, 100,000 square feet of office space,
and 50,000 -75,000 square feet of medical space.
Comments from the Commissioners will go to the City Council in November.
Ringstad questioned the access allowed by the County. Kansier responded with possible
points.
Perez questioned if there would be a safety concern. Kansier said staff and the developer
would have to discuss this with Scott County. This development may trigger the need
for road improvements, stoplights, and turn lanes, whatever the need may be. The
developer may be responsible for some of the costs. Ultimately we need to see several
ways in and out.
Billington questioned staffs major concerns and obstacles with this project. Kansier said
it is pretty early in the staging. The main concern is the benefits this PUD offers to the
City. Staff would like to see a market study that shows Prior Lake can support what the
applicant is proposing (in terms ofretaiVoffice, medical and high density residential).
Staff would also ask for a very thorough traffic study because of the access limitations at
the site.
Billington questioned an EA W -type of approach. Kansier responded the site is not big
enough to require an EA W. There are some wetlands on the site but nothing staff does
not encounter everyday. Those issues would be addressed at the time of development.
Presentation from the Developer:
Kurt Larson, Cardinal Development, 3720 Knollridge Drive, felt this is an ideal location
for a gateway into Prior Lake and are very excited for the project. Larson spoke on the
concept of their project fitting into the "Vision" for Prior Lake. It's a small town, yet
growing community. There would be a medical clinic, general offices, retail, and
condominiums - a village type environment. Trails and walkways would be incorporated
throughout this project. Their preliminary research states there will be a high demand for
this project.
Viren Gori, the lead architect for the project distributed colored proposed layouts. Gori
wanted to address one concern of the City regarding allowing a higher residential density
to allow for more green space. The overall density would still be R3. Two Hundred and
six units would be allowed for the entire project where they propose 204 units. They
need a PUD designation to enable to increase the density of each building thereby
creating more open space and more of an opportunity for open space, parks and trails.
L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTES\MNI02405.doc
6
Planning Commission Meeting
October 24, 2005
Maybe we would have to just change a few buildings. It is their intention to stay within
the land use designation and hopefully apply for a PUD.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Billington:
. Questioned the sidewalk layout and how it would connect with other
developments and County Road 42. Gori explained their idea of connection with
the existing residential areas including a walk-over (pedestrian) bridge on County
Road 42.
. Billington pointed out safety concerns that go along their pedestrian movement
idea. Gori agreed and said there were still a number of issues to be addressed.
But conceptually they want to connect with the other developments.
Perez:
. Questioned the benefit of this PUD to the City. Larson said the City is ending up
with a user friendly area. There would be less control by using a regular zoning.
It would have greater open space for everyone.
. Questioned the parkland of 4.2 acres. Larson said if the project was done
conventionally it would have a park area of 4.2 acres. They would designate an
area to the north knowing other parcels will develop and make up part of a central
park. There would be a cash contribution for what is not used.
. Larson also stated there were a number of details to work out with the walk-over
bridge.
Billington:
. There would be a huge benefit to the City in a tax base. The project could have a
lot of merit.
Perez:
. Questioned the developer on the tree preservation. Larson said initially they are
dealing with the concept and feel there are a lot of trees they can save.
. What is the benefit of housing above the retaiVcommercial? Larson said their
research indicates it will work. Probably not as much housing on County Road 42
as buildings back off of 42.
Stamson:
. Could you detail the retail besides a coffee shop? Larson responded there would
not be large retail because there won't be a base to support it. It would be more
boutiques, food and wine market, art gallery, a fitness store - destinations. They
have had informal talks with medical clinics and other professional offices that
are interested in the area.
L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTES\MNI02405.doc
7
Planning Commission Meeting
October 24, 2005
Ringstad:
. Agree with Billington that this could be a potential jewel for the community as
long as it can be done with the City gaining some benefit with respect to the PUD
process. Like to see this keep moving forward.
. How long do you think this project take beginning to end? Larson responded
about 3 years.
Kansier questioned who was going to pay for the pedestrian bridge. Larson said they are
looking into the possibility of doing it. They haven't got that far - just want to see the
viability of building it. They would entertain the idea ifit was part of the PUD.
Stamson pointed out the water tower is on the comer. Kansier said it could be possibility
worked out but the point is - neither the City nor County have the funding to build a
pedestrian bridge at that location. It's not within the budgets at all.
Assistant City Larry Poppler said the location right next to the stop lights may not be a
good area for a pedestrian bridge. It may have to go further to the east. Larson said they
do not know the safety issues and it would have to be explored.
Perez questioned the zoning west of County Road 18? Kansier said it is currently zoned
agriculture. The land use plan is some kind of commercial- maybe business office park.
Perez suggested the developer come back with the detailed benefits for the City.
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
Kansier pointed out the Commissioner handout for performance evaluation discussions.
Sometime down the road staff and the Commissioners could have a workshop. Perhaps a
joint workshop with the City Council.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTES\MNI02405.doc
8