HomeMy WebLinkAbout8B - CR 42/CR 18 Development16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
FEBRUARY 6, 2006
85
DANE'I-rE MOORE, PLANNING COORDINATOR
PRESENTATION OF CONCEPT PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE
PROPERTY AT THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF CSAH 42 AND CSAH 18
DISCUSSION:
Introduction
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-L/MD (Low to Medium
Density Residential) on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
History.
On October 24, 2005, a concept for the site was brought before the Planning
Commission (minutes attached). On November 7, 2005, the developer shared
the concept with the City Council (minutes attached). In response to the
Planning Commission and City Council comments, the developer has revised
the concept for consideration.
The purpose of this item is to discuss the concept development of the site, and
to allow the City Council an opportunity to voice any particular concerns,
issues or ideas about the proposed development. This discussion is for
informational purposes only; comments by the City Council are not binding on
subsequent City Council action on a project. The developers will present this
concept plan to the City Council.
Current Circumstances
The current concept plan proposes a mixture of commercial and residential
uses, including 82 townhome units, 140 condominium units (4-story), 60
residential living units located above retail space, 80,000 square feet of retail
space, 96,000 square feet of office space (2-story), 50,000 square feet of
medical clinic space (3-story), and a 4.9 acre park.
ISSUES:
For discussion purposes, the staff has identified the following issues:
Comprehensive 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:
· When meeting with staff, the developers described this proposal as a "New
Urbanism" development. According to the website www.newurbanism.or,q,
"New Urbanism promotes the creation and restoration 'of diverse, walkable,
www.cityofpriorlake.com
~ . 30 / Fax 952.447.4245
compact, vibrant, mixed-use communities composed of the same
components as conventional development, but assembled in a more
integrated fashion, in the form of complete communities. These contain
housing, work p/aces, shops, entertainment, schools, parks, and civic
facilities essential to the daily lives of the residents, all within easy wa/king
distance of each other.'
The proposal includes some elements of New Urbanism; however, it does
not seem to meet the intent of this design. The Congress for New
Urbanism (www. cnu.orq) suggests applying the following criteria to
determine whether or not a project is in fact New Urbanism:
· Rule out any project that is gated, that lacks sidewalks, or that have a
tree-like street system, rather than a grid network. The project as a
whole should connect well with surrounding neighborhoods,
developments, or towns, while also protecting regional open space.
· Rule out "single-use" projects that are just housing, just retail, or just
office. The various types of building should all be seamlessly integrated
-- from different types of housing, to workplaces, to stores.
· The project should have a neighborhood center within that is an easy
and safe walk from all dwellings in the neighborhood. Buildings should
be designed to make the street feel safe and inviting, by having front
doors, porches, and windows facing the street -- rather than having a
streetscape of garage doors.
· The project, and particularly the neighborhood center, should include
formal civic spaces and squares.
· Finally, there is the "popsicle test. "An eight-year-old in the
neighborhood should be able to bike to a store to buy a popsicle,
without having to battle highway-size streets and freeway-speed traffic.
Natural Environment:
· This site is heavily wooded with significant trees. For this reason, it is
understood that any development of the site will impact trees.
Nevertheless, the site also lends itself as an opportunity to utilize
innovative site planning (clustering, etc) that would preserve the sites
natural features.
Parks:
· A 4.9 acre public park is identified in the north central portion of the site.
The standard parkland dedication requirement for a development is 10% of
the net area. Net area is established by removing wetland area and
existing public right of way from the gross land area calculation. The
developer has indicated he has subtracted both the existing County road
right-of-way and future County road right-of-way to obtain the net land
area. The staff does not believe the net area provided is accurate;
however, even using this calculation, the proposed parkland dedication
requirement is only 0.2 acres more than would be required under a
conventional development. The City is anticipating a park in this portion of
the City that would provide for a combination of active and passive park
uses. Providing for an active component to the proposed park may be
problematic due to the topographic grades that currently exist. Any
regrading of the area would impact existing trees. The topography of this
L:~06 F tt,,,ES",,06 CONCE?T'S\~ 8~42 Projecf\cc report2,DOC
site could also provide an outstanding overlook to the north as it is one of
the highest elevations in Prior Lake. The concept plan does not seem to
take advantage of this amenity.
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 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
L:\06 FILES\06 CONCEPTS\lB*,4,2 Pr~ec~'\cc report2,DOC
of the development with the Shore/and and Flood Plain district
requirements.
On December 22, 2005, City staff met with the developer and discussed the
comments received from the Planning Commission and City Council at the
time of the original concept. At that time, staff stated that it may be beneficial
for the developer to consider incorporating the following in any future concept
submittal for the site:
· Consider revising the concept to provide increased clustering of the
structures or a reduction in the number of structures, which would
provide for increased setbacks, buffering, and increased corridors for
tree preservation areas.
· The need for a concept plan that realistically reflects the anticipated
tree loss once the grading of the site has taken place.
· A market study that supports the developers assertion that a demand
will exist for the proposed uses.
The staff does not believe the concept plan, as proposed is consistent with the
PUD criteria. That is, what benefits are offered over and above those required
under conventional Zoning Ordinance requirements? Some examples of the
benefits provided to the City by approved PUD's, or by other concepts, include:
· Preservation of natural areas, such as heavily wooded areas, lakes,
and wetlands.
· Dedication of public land in excess of that required by the ordinance.
Jeffers Pond, for example, dedicated a fire station site and a large
amount of park. A recent concept plan includes purchase of privately
owned land outside of the development for the construction of a street
connection.
· The construction of public facilities over and above the required public
improvements. For example, a recent proposal includes the
construction of a fishing pier.
The Planning Commission reviewed the current concept plan at their January
23, 2006 meeting (draft minutes attached). The Planning Commissioners
expressed general support for the overall concept.
The City Council may wish to ask the following questions:
1. Is the development plan, including commercial and high density residential
uses, consistent with the Council's vision for this site?
2. Does this proposal meet the purpose and criteria for a PUD?
3. Are the proposed benefits (0.2 acre additional park area and pedestrian
bridge) equal to the proposed modifications that would be requested?
4. Does the proposed development provide adequate transition to adjacent
land uses?
5. How will the proposed development meet the parking needs generated by
the sites users?
6. Can the development be clustered in a way to preserve more of the trees?
7. If the proposed pedestrian bridge over CSAH 42 were cited as on of the
L:06 F fL,~,,~;}~,0(;, CQ?4CEPTS\18.-42 Proiect~cc report2, DOC
reasons for supporting the flexibility of a PUD, would it be necessary in the
final site plan in order to allow for the ultimate approval of the project?
Does the developer intend to build the bridge, or at a minimum, escrow the
necessary funds?
If this concept is consistent with the Council's vision for the area, what, if
any, specific modifications would the Council favor?
How does the proposed High Density Residential fit with the 2030
Comprehensive Plan?
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
Bud. qet Impact: 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.
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
At the January 23, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, the developer offered
an alternative site plan (attached). The alternative option provides exclusively
for business office and residential townhome uses. It appears that the
proposed alternative site plan would still require PUD approval (private streets
with reduced widths, etc).
p~ocessed
Rev~
~ B°Y~ Mtager
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
with the appropriate hearings and public participation.
L:',06 FILES'~06 CONCEPTS' 18-42 Projec~,,cc report2.DOC
Location Map
CSAH 18/42 PUD Concept Plan
N
CADD SUPPORT
the complete
RENDERINGS
arc h it · ct u ra I s u:p p;or~?~:~~~
PHYSICAL MODELS SPACE PLANNING
County Road 42/18 PUD Proposal:
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 6 parcels that are currently zoned agricultural. The total area
considered for the PUD ' 54.8 acres.
Oroposed site
County Road 42
4633 1st Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55419
Tel: (612)-232-9539 Fax: (651)-305-6884
Email: vgori~yahoo.com
CADD SUPPORT
the complete
RENDERINGS
Master Plan Concept:
a r c h i t · c t u ra I s up p o r,t S~q~;,t~;_~.~
PHYSICAL MODELS SPACE PLANNING
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
· Villa style condominiums ,~
· 2 story Office buildings
· 3 story Medical outpatient clinic
· Greenway and tree preservation area (approximately 5 acres) that serves as dedicated
parkland.
Zoning:
· The Current Zone for this site is Agricaltural.
· The City's 2020 Comprehensive Land Use Plan shows the western two-thirds (+/-) as
guided for Commercial/Business 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.
4633 1st Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55419
Tel: (612)-232-9539 Fax: (651)-305-6884
Email: vgori~yahoo.com
CADD SUPPORT
the complete
RENDERINGS
PHYSICAL MODELS SPACE PLANNING
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-1 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 rec~, irements. 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
138th 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 Avenue. 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 141st 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
CADD SUPPORT
the complete
RENDERINGS
a r c hit · c t u r al U.p p o rt?i~ ~i~ ~!~
PHYSICAL MODELS SPACE PLANNING
Summary of housing densities within the R-3 medium density housing portion of the
proposed site:
R-3 Zone of the proposed site is primarily used for the following building types:
· Cluster. housing. (Attached townhomes)
· Condominium buildings
· Villa style townhomes
· 3 stories of housing above Retail
Net acreage designated for the R-3 zone: 28.2 (1,228,392 sf)
Total number of units allowed = 10 per acre = 282
Total number of units provided -- 282
5.
5.
6.
Net site area for the R-3 zone:
(Gross area less area for arterial streets and public sidewalks)
Area of roads, parking and sidewalks:
Total Building footprint areas are as follows:
· Attached townhomes
Condominium buildings
· Villa style townhomes
Area of retention ponds:
Area of dedicated parkland:
Usable open area provided: (deduct total of 2,3,4 & 5 from 1)
Usable open area required: 282 x 600sf
1,228,392 sf
350,282 sf
28,800 sf
41,868 sf
95,000 sf
130,400 sf
216,000 sf
366,042 sf
169,200 sf
Maximum FAR allowed in the R3 zone: 0.35
FAR provided: 165,668 sf/1,228,392 sf= 0.135
Summary of areas within the C-5 'Business Park' Zone:
2.
3.
4.
Net site are of the C-5 'Business Park Zone: (18.5 acres)
Gross areas of building footprints:
Maximum FAR allowed in C-5 district: 0.5
FAR provided: 303,085 / 807,067 -- 0.38
807,067 sf
303,085 sf
4633 1st Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55419
Tel: (612)-232-9539 Fax: (651)-305-6884
Email: vgori~yahoo.com
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 staff's 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 of retail/office, 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 EAW-type of approach. Kansier responded the site is not big
enough to require an EAW. 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 MINUTESWIN 102405.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 retail/commercial? 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 COMMISSIONk05 MINUTESWIN102405.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 if it 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 adjoumed at 8:10 p.m.
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSION~05 MINUTEShMN102405.doc 8
VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Fleming, LeMair, Petersen and Zieska. The motion carried.
City Council Meeting Minutes
November 7, 2005
Fleming: Asked about the process and timeline involved for contesting the three charges listed in the development con-
tract.
Pace: Assumes that the cooperative efforts of SCALE and BATC will address the subject of money in escrow in the topics
they address and differences may be resolved that way rather than through litigation.
Fleming: Asked what the anticipated timeline would be.
Pace: Replied that it could take as much as a year.
MOTION BY FLEMING, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 05-18'1 APPROVING THE FINAL
PLAT AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THE CITY'S STANDARDIZED DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR WlLD'S
RIDGE NORTH.
VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Fleming, LeUair, Petersen and Zieska. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Consider Approval of a Request for an Off-Sale 3.2 Malt Uquor License for Narayan Gas and Groceries.
City Manager Boyles presented the request for license and noted that the first time a liquor license is applied for, a public
hearing is required.
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY FLEMING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Fleming, LeMair, Petersen and Zieska. The motion carried.
The public hearing opened at 7:11 p.m.
No person addressed the Council pertinent to this matter.
MOTION BY FLEMING, SECONDED BY LEMAIR TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Fleming, LeMair, Petersen and Zieska. The motion carried.
The public hearing closed at 7:12 p.m.
Comments:
Fleming: Will support.
Petersen: Will support.
Zleska: No comment.
LeMair: Noted that the new owners have cleaned up the property and that previous owners of the property had received a
citation for underage sales and wondered if the citation remained for the facility.
Pace: Replied that individuals who violate the law are prosecuted, not the business.
LeMair: Thought the owners would want to know if this is something that would impact the business.
Haugen: This is the process for a liquor license, and the license goes to the individual, not the business. The background
check has already been done so there is no reason to deny.
LeMair: Clarified that it is a brand new liquor license and any sanctions would follow the previous owner.
MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECONDED BY LEMAIR TO APPROVE THE ISSUANCE OF AN OFF-SALE 3.2 MALT LIQUOR
LICENSE FOR NARAYAN GAS AND GROCERIES,
VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Fleming, LeMair, Petersen and Zieska. The motion carried.
PRESENTATIONS:
Concept Plan for CR181CR 42 Development.
Planning Director Kansler presented the concept plan for the property at the NE quadrant of CSAH 42 and CSAH 18 which
includes residential and commercial zoning. She noted concerns that staff has with the concept plan; and that several
2
City Council Meeting Minutes
November 7, 2005
benefits could be considered at this location including saving wooded areas, taking advantage of the elevation and dedicat-
ing additional park land or amenities, that would make it desirable to the City. No action is required at this meeting.
LeMair: Asked how many acres of the proposed development are planned to be residential and the planned density.
Kansier: Replied that the narrative indicates about 20 acres as residential with 200 units.
Developer Kurt Larson of Cardinal Development Group thanked the Council for the opportunity to present the concept
and stated he believes the concept has character, style and quality and fits into City's vision. Noted that consumer demand
has been for urban living in the suburbs and this plan would provide for a state-of-the art medical facility, art, retail, and a
village with walking and biking paths.
Architect Viren Gori of Gori & Associates commented that even though the 'buckets of housing' are intensive, overall
the development density will be within ten units per acre which he believed to be within the parameters established for a
medium density residential zoning in the 2020 comprehensive plan. Stated they want to preserve as many existing trees as
possible.
Comments:
Fleming: Stated this plan represents a nexus between what we are trying to preserve and managing responsible growth.
Asked Kansier if the amenities and uses being proposed differ significantly from concept plans for Jeffers Pond or Shep-
herd's Path.
Kansier:. Replied that the concepts are similar- Shepherd's Path has senior housing, and Jeffer's Pond has residential
space above retail space.
Fleming: Asked what is planned to preserve wooded areas and area for park usage.
Larson: Replied that the goal for tree preservation is to save as much as possible. Spoke of combining the proposed one-
acre park with park space in future developments, and of building a pedestrian overpass over CR 42 to access other parks
near the lake.
Fleming: Noted that it is important for the community to have access to various venues to accommodate diversity, so
would not want to duplicate developments.
Gori: Reiterated that the plan is for medium density residential, to keep as much of green space as possible, and the
amenities are intended to create village environment where people can have community living.
Petersen: Stated that a park of one acre does not meet the City's ten percent requirement and asked if they intend for the
adjoining property to make up the difference.
Larson: Replied that when other parcels are developed, the dedication of park land from those areas would make up the
total requirement.
Petersen: Asked about the main street configuration for driving and parking space.
Gori: Replied that there will be a median to allow parking in front of retail and to integrate parking with pedestrian paths.
Zleska: Asked staff about the R1 density parameters.
Kansler 3.6 units per acre.
Zieska: Noted that this is in the comp plan for Iow to medium density and that there should be more park land with such
high density. He questioned how the neighboring property would relate to high density and noted that it is not the responsi-
bility of the Sand Point neighborhood to provide park amenities for this neighborhood. Also expressed concem over the
loss of trees.
LeMair: Asked about the anticipated average price per unit.
Larson: $250,000 to $400,000.
LeMair: Noted that he agrees with comments of other council members - more park space is important. One acre of park
is insufficient and four acres is the ordinance requirement. Suggested that additional park acres would be desirable as a
PUD. Problems arise when there is not enough space for the kids. He likes the location for high density, but agrees with
the need for tree preservation.
Haugen: Likes the walkable neighborhood and the urban village concept. Is cautious about assuming more park can be
designated in the future and it should be built in now. Believes the high elevation could create something with an overlook
environment. Concemed with tree preservation and retaining the mature trees. Clarified density and the 2030 comp plan.
Kansier: Reviewed the density specifications for R1 - R4.
Haugen: Asked how this concept plan fits into medium density.
3
City Council Meeting Minutes
November 7, 2005
Kansler: Replied that this concept plan would fit into high density in both the 2020 and 2030 comprehensive plans.
Haugen: Asked if there are a target number of jobs intended to be created.
Larson: Replied that he does not, but believes it will be significant. Reiterated the advantages of the synergy of the com-
ponents of office/mixed use as it transitions into housing and Iow density.
Proclamation Recognizing Youth Appreciation Week in Prior Lake.
Mayor Haugen read the proclamation declaring Youth Appreciation Week from November 7 - 18.
Introduction of Water Resources Engineer, Ross Bintner.
Public Works Director Albrecht introduced Ross Bintner who has accepted the Water Resoumes Engineer position.
Proclamation of Chemical Health Week in Prior Lake
Mayor Haugen read the proclamation declaring Chemical Health Week in Prior Lake from November 14 - 20 and intro-
duced Janine Alcom. She spoke of activities that will be conducted in the schools and around the community for Chemical
Health Week, and encouraged members of the community to wear red ribbons of support during that week.
OLD BUSINESS:
There was no old business brought before the Council.
NEW BUSINESS:
Consider Approval of a Resolution Amending the Comprehensive Plan for Approximately 5 Acres of Property Lo-
cated North of CSAH 42 and West, East and South of McKenna Road.
Planning Director Kansier reviewed the agenda report that is requesting a change in the comprehensive plan to redesignate
approximately five acres from R-HD (urban high dens~ residential) to C-CC (community retail shopping). Proposal is con-
sistent with McComb's Study recommendation to designate more acreage as commemial area.
Comments:
LeMair: Seems consistent with what has been done in the past and will complement Shepherd's Path.
Zleska: Asked if it would be zoned Cl or C2.
Kansler: Replied the zoning is PUD.
Zleska: Stated this is a good lit with how Shepherd's Path has evolved over the past two years.
Petsrsen: Stated Shepherd's Path was a good plan to begin with, and is expanding into better things.
Fleming: Likes the concept and is glad the project is back on line.
Haugen: States this is consistent with conversations about commercial development
MOTION BY FLEMING, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 05-182 APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE 2020 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF
CSAH 42, EAST OF CSAH 83, AND WEST OF CSAH 21.
VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Fleming, LeMair, Petersen and Zieska. The motion carried.
OTHER
Haugen: Reminded viewers that tomorrow is Election Day.
Zleska: Noted that the Downtown Dazzle is scheduled for December 2.
LeMair: Announced that registration for youth wrestling is underway at the high school.
Boyles: Announced that a special Council meeting is scheduled for November 9 at 5 p.m. to canvass the election results,
and that residents can watch election results on Channel 15 Tuesday night. Also announced that City offices are closed on
Friday, November 11, in observance of Veteran's Day.
Oster: Advised that City residents can access the City or Scott County website for detailed precinct-by-precinct returns.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further comments from Council members, a motion to adjoum was made by LeMair and seconded by Zieska.
With all in favor, the meeting adjourned at 8:07 p.m.
ALTERNATE CONCEPT
TOTAL SITE AREA: 54.8 ACRES
ZONING PROPOSED PER THE 2020 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
ZONING PROPOSED PER THE 2020 PUD CONCEPT PLAN
COUNTY ROAD 42 / 18 PUD ZONING DIAGRAMS
PRIOR LAKE, MN NOT TO SCALE
NORTH