HomeMy WebLinkAbout7B - Cardinal Dev.Concept Plan C.R. 18 & 42
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PREPARED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
7B
DISCUSSION OF CONCEPT PLANS FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
THE NORTHEAST INTERSECTION OF CSAH 42 AND
CSAH18
DANETTE MOORE, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO-N/A
SEPTEMBER 11, 2006
INTRODUCTION
Cardinal Development has submitted a revised concept plan for approximately
55 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), R-UMD (Low to Medium Density
Residential), and R-HD (Urban High Density Residential) on the 2020
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
I n late 2005 and early 2006 concepts for the CSAH 42 and CSAH 18 site were
brought before the Planning Commission and City Council (minutes attached).
At that time, the Planning Commission and City Council expressed interest in the
concept, however, did ask for clarification on the benefits that would merit
Planned Unit Development (PUD) flexibility and how additional trees could be
saved.
Since the earlier reviews, the developer has revised the concept. The current
concept plan proposes a mixture of commercial and residential uses, including
39 townhome units, 20 twinhome units, 140 condominium units (3 and 4-story),
71,600 square feet of retail space, 11,000 square .feet of bank space, 8,913
square feet of restaurant space, 82,562 square feet of office space (1 and 2-
story), 60,000 square feet of medical clinic space (3-story), and a 6.4 acre park.
Although many of the proposed land uses are consistent with those previously
seen, the locations and configurations have been modified.
DISCUSSION
For discussion purposes, the staff has identified the following issues:
Design:
. The layout of the site plan includes many traditional suburban strip mall
components, including the large open parking lot area. The use of
1:\06 files\06 concepts\18-42 project\pc ....l'v.13.doc
www.cityofpriorlake.com
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
underground parking in the office area of the site would strengthen the
"Village Concept" proposed by developer.
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. Staff has
concerns related to the viability of tree preservation once grading has taken
place. A tree inventory and preliminary grading plan will need to be done to
fully evaluate the realistic impacts.
· The concept proposes 1,530 parking stalls. It would be beneficial to utilize
increased underground parking for the office uses and allow for additional
land area to create a greenway buffer adjacent to CSAH 18 and CSAH 42 for
the preservation of significant trees in these areas.
Parks:
. A 6.4 acre public park is identified in a northern and central portion of the site.
The standard parkland dedication requirement for a development is 10% of
the net area. Once the net acreage is established and the proposed square
footage for the ponding area in the northern most part of the parkland is
removed, it appears the proposed park will likely meet the 10% dedication
requirement.
. 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 grading that would occur to accommodate the roads, building
pads, parking, and ponding would significantly impact the exiting natural
features, especially the trees. These impacts will need to be weighed against
the value of the parkland.
. Staff has concerns about the intensity of this proposed development without
providing any active recreational opportunities. The assumption is made that
the adjacent properties will be responsible for providing active recreational
parkland. We agree that the responsibility for active parks should be shared
by all developing land in this area. However, some of that active land should
be included in this site. Especially due to the higher consideration of
residential uses.
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:
1:\06 files\06 concepts\18-42 project\pc report3.doc
2
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
conseNation 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 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.
1:\06 files\06 concepts\18-42 project\pc report3.doc
3
The Planning Commission may wish to ask the following questions:
~ How does this proposal meet the purpose and criteria for a PUD?
~ What benefit does the City receive in return for allowing the proposed
modifications?
~ Has the Developer completed a market study to assure the desirability of
these uses in these quantities?
~ Is there a way to provide more underground parking to decrease impacts
to significant trees?
~ How has the developer addressed the previous comments from the
Planning Commission and City Council?
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.
The Planning Commission's comments will not be binding and the developer
should not rely on any statements made by individual Planning Commissioners.
Any future plans must be processed with the appropriate hearings and public
participation.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Applicant Narrative and Concept Plan
3. Conceptual Building Elevations
4. October 24, 2005 and January 23, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes
5. November 7,2005 and February 6,2006 City Council Minutes
1:\06 files\06 concepts\18-42 project\pc report3.doc
4
LOCATION MAP
CSAH1~CSAH42DEVELOPMENT
@)
ISITE
"
/
"----
City Bounda~
-
-yr:-
-'-1-1
_1-
=j-i
F?"mf
42
--------------- -------
I ;n-
(' I II -
\" II
"~l II -"
f(\\"'. I) /)~
400 0 400 800 Feet
I I
N
+
eN,.,
7300 WEST 147TH STREET SUITE 504 APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124-7580 (952) 431-4433
ARC/fITECTS
COUNTY ROAD 42/18 DEVELOPMENT - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NARRATIVE:.
August 28, 2006
The County Road 42/18 Development is planned as a high quality mixed-use project that will attract the
public as well as the surrounding neighborhoods to the area. The site is situated in a prominent location
that is a highly visible entry into Prior Lake and bordered by CSAH 42 and CSAH 18, both significantly
traveled regional circulation corridors. The development will include a balanced mix of residential,
medical, office, bank, restaurant, and retail businesses, which will serve the surrounding residential areas
as well as the northern portion of the City of Prior Lake.
This development located on the northeast corner of this intersection is comprised of 54.8 acres of
mostly undeveloped land, all of which is currently zoned agricultural. The City's 2020 Comprehensive
Land Use Plan shows the western two-thirds of the site as slated for Commercial and Business Office use
(C-4) with the remaining eastern one-third slated for Low to Medium Density Residential (R - 3) as shown
on the attached Comprehensive Guide Plan. The property has significant contours, many existing trees,
and some minor wetland areas.
The development is designed with an urban village concept providing a main tree lined boulevard with
on street parking and buildings brought close to the street allowing for the vitality of two-sided retail and
convenient pedestrian access. Sidewalks and trails are generously provided throughout the development
to provide for ease of pedestrian and bicycle circulation between the new retail, commercial and
residential. These trails are also extended out into the adjacent land uses connecting the whole area to
encourage and foster neighborhood activity. The trails are further enhanced as they connect to and travel
through thee 5.1 acre wooded park and greenway belt. This wooded land preserves the native trees and
vegetation of the higher elevation on the central north portion of the site and connects down to the retail
area and off to the residential areas to the east. This park also abuts areas to the north that are master
planned by the city to include additional park and recreational areas.
The proposal is for a mixed use planned development organized around a main boulevard street that
loops through the central part of the site. Buildings are placed close to the boulevard on either side to
create a more intimate, village feel. Access to the four main components, office, retail, residential, and
designated park/greenbelt, is located off of the main boulevard. The main medical and office building
components are located on the western corner with high visibility from the intersection of County Roads
42 and 18. The retail element is contained all within the main boulevard loop in the middle of the site.
A secondary smaller office component is located in the southeastern corner to help transition and buffer
from the retail area to existing residential areas. The proposed residential area is located in the northern
half of the site with the high density located in the north, the medium density in the northwest corner,
and the)ower density in the northeast corner to buffer any existing residential areas. The designated
park/green belt is located at the north boundary of the site and runs diagonally through the site to the east
along Royalton Avenue. It also buffers the high density area from the rest of the site and neighboring
areas.
P:\PROJECTS\2006\06047\TEXT\CITY REVIEW (SITE. CUP)\PROJECT NARRA TIVE.DOC
Aesthetically the project takes its visual cues from the small towns and villages of the Tuscan region of
Italy. This architectural flavor is developed through the use of varied building heights, stepped fa~ade
massings, vaulted openings, and a mixture of mansard and square hip roof accents. The main materials
further emphasize this style with the use of a variety of stone, stucco, and slate tile finishes as shown in
the project's concept image sketch. These quality, low-maintenance surfaces and upscale detailing
reinforces the pedestrian friendly village feel and help to attract the mix of boutique retailers, medical
and professional offices as well as the new and nearby residents.
The main Commercial Business Office section of the development is proposed to consist of a four-story
medical clinic, three two-story office buildings, and a one-story bank. The buildings area situated to
create a significant visual axis diagonally off the CSAH 42 and CSAH 18 intersection allowing for a
vista including a nicely landscaped plaza, pool and fountain, and the preservation of several important
mature trees in that area. This landscaping started in the plaza is extended down the center ofthe entire
office quadrant with the inclusion of an environmentally sustaining raingarden feature. The one and
two-story office buildings are in the outer ring with the four-story office rising in the north side of this
quadrant visually drawing the attention of those passing the site. There is a second small section of
office uses on the southeast edge ofthe site along CSAH 42 and adjacent to the single family residential
to the east. This use includes a bank and two small one-story office buildings which were selected for
this area since they are a relatively low activity, quiet, 8 to 5 type of business which, along with some
additional landscape buffering, makes a good transition to the residential neighborhood.
The retail area consists ofthree one-story buildings and two restaurants. These buildings are positioned
close to the boulevard and envisioned as having a scale and massing that allows for a pedestrian friendly,
village atmosphere. The south facades of the retail are visible from CSAH 42 allowing for the retail
tenants to attract the passerby into the site and provide visual orientation queues to guide the newcomer
to their desired destination as they enter the central boulevard. The parking is arced around the retail
area and surrounds a large pond and multiple trails. The restaurant locations along with their outdoor
patios take advantage of the central water feature and natural areas.
The multi-family residential uses are located on the northern portion of the site adjacent to other
residential uses and within the higher contoured areas. The low to medium density residential is
comprised of twin townhouses and row townhouses on the ease and west. The higher density residential
consists of two four-story condominiums set at the top of the site behind the main greenbelt and tucked
into the edge ofthe wooded parkland. There are also two three-story condominium buildings providing
the border to the north side of the central boulevard opposite the retail. These buildings would overlook
the street and have direct access to the sidewalks, again reinforcing the pedestrian nature ofthis village
area and encouraging residents to walk to the developments' amenities.
The main access to the site will be located at the intersection of County Road 42 and Aspen Avenue with
the addition of a stoplight. A secondary right-in, right-out access will be provided along County Road
42 halfway between County Road 18 and Aspen Avenue. The adjacent residential areas will have access
directly to the site off of Royalton Road to the east, with a second and third entrance from the north and
northwest boundaries of the site for future develv}lment.
P:\PROJECTS\2006\0604 71TEX1\CITY REVIEW (SITE, CUP)\PROJECT NARRA TIVE.DOC
Parking is provided around each use to meet the ordinance requirements. In the larger buildings
including the medical offices and the four condominiums were the building size allows, underground
parking is provided to maximize the available greenspace on the site. The parking lots are softened by
multiple landscaped islands, the central raingarden within the office zone, and by curved layouts that
reduce the long sightlines associated with rectilinear arrangements. There is a moderate portion of
parking indicated as future proof of parking along the pond at the retail area where the quantity of stores
will allow for some efficiencies in parking needed. This proof of parking provides for additional green
space and tree preservation in an area directly fronting CSAH 42 while still providing the available space
needed to increase the stall quantities to the ordinance levels if ,despite our anticipations, the need arises.
Public utilities exist around the periphery of the development and will be extend into it to meet the
projects needs. The sanitary sewer will be served from an existing sanitary sewer main located near the
intersection of Crest Avenue and Cedarwood Street. 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 Roads 42 and 18. Water will be extended to the east and installed under County
Road 18 by jacking the line under the roadway.
Stormwater management is particularly important for this development and special attention has been
placed on creatively meeting the needs of the development and the two watersheds crossing this site.
First, multiple ponds located strategically around the site will promote water quality and provide
stormwater rate control. To further build on the sustainable design approach, the second tool
incorporated into this project's stormwater management design is raingardens. These depressions within
the flow line of stormwater runoff are planted with water tolerant perennials that help settle runoff
particles and encourage water infiltration into the ground. During heavier rains the capacity of the
raingarden are met first and then they overflow into the NURP ponds where the water is further cleaned
and quantities controlled. While any development of open and wooded land will reduce the natural
infiltration rates, the proposed stormwater design of these ponds and raingarden areas will limit the
discharge to an amount that can be handled by a IS" 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. The impact to wetlands will be minimal and will be mitigated per the City's standards,
and per the requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act.
In summary, this project will be an excellent addition to the services, residents, and lifestyle available to
the citizens of Prior Lake. The site is appropriate for a Planned Development approach because it allots
for the mixed-use and provides essential flexibility for the development of a village concept for this
project. The flexibility ofthe PD allows for the creation of a contiguous designated park and greenway
that creates a connection through the middle of the entire north half of the side, which would not be
feasible with individually developed smaller lots. This preservation of wooded land provides a
significant amenity to the new and existing residents in this area as well as to all Prior Lake residents.
Secondly, the flexibility in reduced building setbacks is essential for creating the pedestrian feel of the
central boulevard and village structures. Also by allowing a portion of higher density residential
P:\PROJECTS\2006\060471TEX1\CITY REVIEW (SITE, CUP)\PROJECT NARRA TIVE,DOC
housing, while maintaining the sites overall average density as set in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan,
more land can be designated for park space as a beneficial trade-off. Finally, this development
incorporates significant upgrades in the consistency of design, quality of materials and an upscale
building aesthetic throughout the entire site that would not be likely without the Planned Development
approach.
P:\PROJECTS\2006\060471TEX1\CITY REVIEW (SITE, CUP)\PROJECT NARRA TIVE.DOC
PV"<>,;~;ls\1~v;.o~"'I\y'O'.""~$\!-P..; gn\,~~b"" II, I - "ge~~j\W-.? ~"g
!JMf' f'I()frr:; 1m/~~/t~
~. f !~
I
L
P
II
II
f
Ii i I!
i
.
H
;I~ I I' n
1 II
" i i- '"= i -
! II
.
i ~ i I- ii I !
:
---- .---
I
.. f
!I I
" ~ 8' a
IE
f
II i
'~'i ,I
~~ I
()
o
z
()
m
'1J
-i
'1J
>
Z
Z
m
o
o
m
<.
m '.
r-
o
~, @)~
Z
-i
'~ :==.=)'
it> I1'111J
a:; @
.... InnJ
ClD =
g 8
JDlIlST141Il4SWITSol1E5lMM'lUVlIIl.lV,1II5Ol24-_II$2)4.Jl-4433. .
r.;",,-..c"e'''''.' AIII;>.r>.".. ""
001
'"
;;t COUNTY ROAD 42/18
;> DEVELOPMENT
~ PRIOR lA.t<E, l.lN
" L ")1
~'1;.'~:~~!I;,/~/,'::f:;;t' 0"-'''0;'\1-''.'' g"\';'~b'" 11< I
Age'c1'W-l7Id"Q
()
o
z
()
m
'1J
-i
'1J
>
Z
Z
m
o
o
m
<.
m
r-
o
~ ~~
m
z
-i
~~
l> InnJ
a:; (5'?)
~ _ r.::::-=1
ClD =
COUNTY ROAD" !/18 g 81 ~
DEVELOPMENT en InnJ ~
PRIOR lAKE, loiN L ---' ) ....
7JIXI18'141fl1S111lE'SII'1:~M'I'I.[VAU.l'.1II5!1.15I011$2)",-MJ) .
.:00_..' ~y c~~ AIIO.'tC". ~c_
002
Pl/'ro:.:I.\l()<,)f,\f)f,QA7'.j;'o'.' ~<;,\'-j;>..;g~\';~b"';llcl - "'9."q\i~-&"O"g
!.1M'!" 1'1,')1'11";' 1JI!J/"t'-/l(}1Jf.
(ijj
i~
, '~
I
,~
'~
:<1
i~
I
()
o
z
()
m
'1J
-i
'1J
>
Z
Z
m
o
o
m
<
m
r-
o
~ @)~
m
Z
-i
IW
'<
:==.=11
InnJ
~
l>
c:
en
l'f'
0<:
ihnJ
=
1JllOmTm~SlIIl 9.Ill_ IA'UYIUE1'.llII~'2+-"" (lJ5,2IUI-4W. .
.:_"~"Cfj"Arrc..'''..",,
003
i COUNTY ROAD 42/18
~ DEVELOPMENT
PRIOR LAKE. lAN
~ 8
<=>
en InnJ
l.~
"!''''~O!.CI.\u..~f_I"~\f-P..19"\~ltt,,1 - At...cy~,1Iw9
1Mtf: ~ I1"J/tII/'UW
~
~ ~
! ~
~
~
~
~
n.
o
z
o
m
"tJ
~.
"tJ
~
Z.
m
o
o
m
<.
m
r-
o
'1J
3:
ma
z
~
DD4 Ii EP42f18
i!i
n
~~
......""'........""'......-r'.-... ....
_,..,_~lIfC,. .
Planning Commission Meeting
October 24, 2005
. Picked up his own students at school and saw several buses running. Did not
seem to be an issue. Now we're talking one and a half football fields away with
fumes. I don't see the issue there.
. Hard to say what the traffic would be by the applicant.
. Based on the information I will approve with the additional backup alarm
condition.
Stamson:
. The applicant has done a great job in mitigating the situation.
. The 2030 Vision is what I envisioned for Deerfield and that is modest exterior
storage. I still feel this is not an a}l}l~V}l~~ate use for that zone. Would love to see
Mr. Busse have a site in Prior Lake to store the buses but just don't think this is
what I had in mind for the industrial park.
. Vote against.
MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, APPROVING
RESOLUTION 05-19PC APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW
OUTDOOR STORAGE IN TH 1-1 ZONING DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE LISTED
CONDITIONS, INCLUDING IF BACKUP ALARMS ARE USED THAT THE BUSES
BE BACKED IN TO THE STALLS AT NIGHT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Billington, Ringstad and Perez. Stamson nay. MOTION
CARRIED.
There was a brief discussion on the appeal process. Moore noted the appeal must come
from someone who lives within 350 feet of the subject property.
A recess was called at 7:35 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:38 p.m.
6.
Old Business:
None
7. New Business:
)
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 of the intersection ofCSAH 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.
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 develv}lment 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 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 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 develvpment.
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 proj ect.
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:\OS FILES\OS PLAN COMMISSION\OS MINUTES\MNI0240S.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:\OS FILES\OS PLAN COMMISSION\OS MINUTES\MNI0240S.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 corner. 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:\OS FILES\OS PLAN COMMISSION\OS MINUTES\MNI0240S.doc
8
Planning Commission Meetings
January 23, 2006
have been adhered to." prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. Based on the
findings, staff recommended a}l}lHNal of the variances.
Perez asked staff to show where the borings were located. Matzke pointed out the
locations.
Billington asked if there were any questions on the engineering report. Poppler
responded this report had the required information staffwas looking for.
The public hearing was closed at the January 9,2006 meeting.
MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO APPROVE THE
VARIANCES AS REQUESTED WITH STAFF'S CONDITIONS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. #05-220 & 221 Manley Land Development, Donnay Homes, and Cardinal
Development Group submitted an application for Preliminary Plat and Planned
Unit Development to be known as Northwood Meadows for 136 single family
residential homes on 34 acres. The site is located south of CSAH 82, north of Spring
Lake Road/CSAH 12, west of Northwood Road, east of Howard Lake Road/Co. Rd
81, and in the vicinity of Hawk Ridge Rd.
Planning Coordinator Danette Moore, stated the applicant has requested this item be
continued until the meeting on February 13, 2006. This time will allow the applicant to
conduct a neighborhood meeting and provide staff with additional information. The staff
has sent a mailed notice of this delay to the owners of property within 500' of this site. A
new notice with the February 13th hearing date will also be sent.
MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY PEREZ, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC
HEARING ON THIS ITEM TO FEBRUARY 13, 2006.
Votes taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
6.
Old Business:
None
7. New Business:
-----0
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 Coordinator Danette Moore presented the Planning Report dated January 23,
2006, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN012306,doc
3
Planning Commission Meetings
January 23, 2006
Cardinal Development submitted a revised concept plan for approximately 45 acres of
property located at the northeast quadrant of the intersection ofCSAH 42 and CSAH 18.
This property is presently zoned A (Agricultural) and is designated as C-BO (Business
Office Park) and R-LIMD (Low to Medium Density Residential) on the 2020
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
On October 24,2005, the concept was brought before the Planning Commission. At that
time, the Planning Commission "~'}lJ.essed interest in the concept, however, did ask for
additional details on the feasibility of the pedestrian bridge and for clarification on the
benefits that would merit Planned Unit Development (PUD) flexibility.
On November 7, 2005 the developer shared the concept with the City Council where
some of the discussion included the following:
. The need for increased tree preservation.
. The appeal of how the development would provide a walkable neighborhood
within an urban village concept.
. The need to provide balance between preservation and managing responsible
growth.
. The need for additional park land on the site, versus assuming surrounding future
developments would meet the needs created by this development.
Since the OctoberlNovember concept was reviewed, the developer has revised the
concept. 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.
Poppler explained the City would like to see a ball field area as well as a playground
structure area for this project. There really is not enough flat area for a ball field with
what the applicants proposed, therefore staff would like to see the parkland adjacent to
some flat area at least to the property to the north. The City needs something that fits
with a ball field for the future. Staff can construct a playground with the parkland they
are proposmg.
Stamson asked staffwhy a ball field is needed in this heavily wooded area. Poppler
responded it probably wouldn't work in this area but when the adjacent property to the
north develops, the proposed area would be ready to develop a ball field at that time.
Staffhas concerns with the feasibility of the pedestrian bridge. Scott County is not sure
this is an area where a bridge should be constructed. They are not sure an abutment in
the center of County Road 42 would be appropriate. They would have to expand the
entire corridor with a bridge, which would be quite expensive. Another concern would
be the existing stop light very close to the bridge. City Staffhas concerns with the
feasibility of the bridge at all. The cost of the bridge would be substantial and a lot of site
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNOI2306,doc
4
Planning Commission Meetings
January 23, 2006
amenities could be done in this area for the cost of the bridge. It would be more
appropriate than the bridge itself.
Stamson asked what kind of amenities staffhas in mind if they didn't have a bridge.
Poppler said the cost of the bridge could be a Million Dollars and questions if it would be
used so close to the intersection. People would probably cross at the intersection anyway.
Staffhas concerns ifit is appropriate.
Moore said the County had concerns with placement. Obviously there has to be a center
structure that would come down in the public right-of-way, not that it couldn't happen
but there are a number of large obstacles. Would it make more sense to take that money
and roll it over and decrease density preserving more trees?
Moore reviewed a list of questions for the Commissioners to consider with this proposal.
No formal action has to be taken at this time.
Commissioner Ringstad excused himself from the discussions as he has a business
relationship with some of the parties involved in this matter.
Kurt Larson, one of the partners, gave an overview of the revised proposal which
included the following comments:
. This is a difficult piece to develop as two major county roads intersect the corner.
There are three accesses established by Scott County. Two other accesses are
required by the City.
. The topography is very diverse - a sixty foot elevation difference.
. There are stormwater ponding issues because of the topography. Not a lot of
options.
. Two small wetlands will not be impacted.
. Some of the medical clinic/office facility area has been reduced. The density is
still lower than the City's requirements.
. In relation to the tree preservation, there is a possibility of a greenway passage.
They believe they can save between 15 and 20 percent of the trees on site.
. They have looked at the pedestrian bridge as a concept in the beginning of this
project with the idea it would be good for the City. The County is not opposed to
it. They have concerns about the streetlights and the height. Larson stated they
consulted with a pedestrian engineer, indicating it would be very feasible to build.
They do not have a cost back on it yet. They have checked into this possibility of
Federal monies for a bridge. It requires the City and County be on board with the
same concept. He agreed it will be a very costly bridge and as a developer, that's
not a cost they will want to bear by themselves. However, Larson did not feel the
bridge should be ruled out.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN012306.doc
5
Planning Commission Meetings
January 23, 2006
Questions from Commissioners:
~ Billington asked the developer ifhe knew the distance to the easterly residential
developments. Larson pointed out the neighboring developments. The lots are
standard, probably 150 feet.
~ Billington questioned how this PUD project would benefit the City. Larson
distributed a draft conventional subdivision that could be on this site. It would
have a higher density for townhomes and office/commercial product. The benefit
of a PUD in their opinion is that they are creating a product with more synergy,
balance, and better transition from product to product versus what could be done
with a conventional subdivision. The grading is also minimized, they would save
more trees and the City could have a 4 acre park to the north.
~ Perez asked if a marketing survey was done. Larson responded one was done last
summer which indicated the multifamily condominium living is very much in
demand. Currently, the have strong interest on the medical side though the office
park, residential, restaurant services and personal services - banking, salons, etc.
Larson said they are very confident on the retail side as well.
~ Billington asked the developers if they feel this project is complementary to the
Jeffers Pond project. Larson said it would be similar, but not near the size.
~ Billington asked if there were generous allowances for walking trails. Larson said
they have several sidewalks and a trail.
~ Perez asked if there were more opportunities for clustering. Larson said they
could cluster more single family homes but it would take away from the project.
~ Perez questioned where they could cluster housing and preserve more trees.
Larson pointed out an area.
~ Perez asked staff if they felt there is a specific area for clustering. Moore said
nothing specifically, just overall. Certain areas are tricky because of the wetlands.
~ Perez asked the Engineering Department if they had enough information to see if
there are any other issues. Poppler said there is not enough information at this
time, especially the streets. Staffis a little concerned with some of the tight
streets to the east. Hard to tell what the right-of-ways and actual street width
would be. Staff needs more information.
~ Lemke questioned the land to the north. Viren Gori, architect for the project, said
the land is currently zoned C5 with a very large wetland on the site.
~ Billington asked if staff had other concerns other than what was expressed.
Moore said not at this time.
~ Billington asked what kind of time frame they were looking at. Larson said they
would like to start this Fall with a 2 ~ to 3 year completion.
~ Larson said he would like some feedback on the parkland, tree preservation and
the project concept itself.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Billington:
. Okay with the plan. The developer made good strides.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNOI2306,doc
6
Planning Commission Meetings
January 23, 2006
. Barring any unforeseen engineering problems or regulatory bodies that would
have an impact, I would support in a general way.
Stamson:
. Like the overall concept and the mixed use. The development is much better
mixing the retail with some residential and commercial office. This is a better
overall concept for a PUD than just going with a traditional development.
. As far as parkland. Weare always screaming for parkland with ball and soccer
fields. There is a value, especially with this heavily wooded space to have some
kind of walking trails and preserving the trees and wetlands. Similar to Jeffers
Pond. The neighbors wanted to keep the area natural. It is a good idea to preserve
the natural area for a park. There really isn't a good site for a ball field.
. Could expand the ridge of trees. Comfortable with the trade off of preserving
more trees and creating some good walking areas.
. Overpass -like the idea but not married to it. If the developer obtains Federal
funds it might make sense, but I wouldn't go overboard in trying to cram one in
there. With the residential develvputent on one side and retail on the other, it's
nice to have an overpass but not sure it is worth the high price. There will be
pedestrian traffic and County Road 42 is only going to get harder to cross.
. Big supporter of mixed uses. Did a good job.
. The eastern side transitions well to the neighboring homes.
. Overall supportive.
Lemke:
. Agree with Stamson's comments.
. One benefit to the City is the alternative of a standard subdivision. It preservers
4.+ acres. I think sharing the green walkway to the north would be something I
would be looking at in the future.
. The overpass would be nice for access, not particularly good for asthestics.
Would like to see some transition.
. I would like to see a trail once they cross the road instead of a parking lot. Larson
said they would have a bike trail whether there is a bridge or not.
. Like the mixed use of retail and housing.
. Like the concept and would like to see the next stage.
Perez:
. Over all it is a good plan. Agree with some of the concerns from staff - the idea
of clustering and additional tree space.
. I would like to preserve more trees.
. Would like to see a little more information.
Billington:
. Is there a sidewalk on the south side of County Road 42? Staff said there is.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNO 12306.doc
7
Planning Commission Meetings
January 23, 2006
Lemke:
. Questioned the height for buildings. Moore said with the PUD process the
applicant can go up to a 4-story building.
Billington:
. Questioned if the project is a frame-type construction. Gori responded it would
be and briefly explained the style.
Moore asked for clarification - the Commissioners felt it met the PUD criteria.
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
The Tree Preservation Task force has been formed and a Planning Commissioner should
be on the committee. Get back to staffwith the representative. The first meeting is
February 15th.
Invitation to Scott County's Comprehensive Plan - two Commissioners are asked to be
on the committee.
The joint workshop with City Council is scheduled for February 6th.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN012306,doc
8
City Council Meeting Minutes
November 7, 2005
VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Fleming, leMair, Petersen and Zieska. The motion carried.
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 05-181 APPROVING THE FINAL
PLAT AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THE CITY'S STANDARDIZED DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR WILD'S
RIDGE NORTH.
VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Fleming, LeMair, Petersen and Zieska. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Consider Approval of a Request for an Off-sale 3.2 Malt Uquor Ucen.. 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.
YOTE: 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.
Z1t1ka: No comment.
LeMalr: 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.
LeMalr: 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.
LeMalr: 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.
YOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Fleming, LeMalr, Petersen and Zieska. The motion carried.
PRESENTATIONS:
Concept Plan for CR181 CR 42 Development
Planning Director Kansier 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.
LeMalr: Asked how many acres of the proposed development are planned to be residential and the planned density.
KInsler: 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 Vlren Gorl of Gorl & 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 ,.:,:..I,)Jng trees as
possible.
Comments:
Fleming: Stated this plan represents a nexus between what we are trying to preserve and managing responsible growth.
Asked Kansler if the amenities and uses being proposed differ significantly from concept plans for Jeffers Pond or Shep-
herd's Path.
Kansler: 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 o....,:,,,s to various venues to accommodate diversity, so
would not want to duplicate developments.
Gorl: 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.
Gorl: 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.
KInsler 3.6 units per acre.
Z1eska: Noted that this is in the comp plan for low 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 concern over the
loss of trees.
LeMalr: Asked about the anticipated average price per unit.
Larson: $250,000 to $400,000.
LeMalr: 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: Ukes 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.
KInsler: 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 low 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 Blntner.
Public Worts Director Albrecht introduced Ross Bintner who has accepted the Water Resources 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 Janlne Alcorn. 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 density residential) to C-CC (community retail shopping). Proposal is con-
sistent with McComb's Study recommendation to designate more acreage as commercial area.
Comments:
LeMaIr: Seems consistent with what has been done in the past and will complement Shepherd's Path.
ZI_ka: Asked If it would be zoned C1 or C2.
Kansler: Replied the zoning Is PUD.
Zleska: Stated this is a good fit with how Shepherd's Path has evolved over the past two years.
Petersen: Stated Shepherd's Path was a good plan to begin with, and Is expanding into better things.
Fleming: Ukes 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 tomonow Is Election Day.
Zleska: Noted that the Downtown Dazzle is scheduled for December 2.
LeMalr: Announced that registration for youth wrestling is undelW8Y 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 0....0_ the City or Scott County website for detailed precinct-by-precinct returns.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further comments from Council members, a motion to adjourn was made by LeMair and seconded by Zieska.
With all In favor, the meeting adjourned at 8:07 p.m.
4
City Council Meeting Minutes
February 6, 2006
State of the City - Mayor Jack Haugen
: Mayor Haugen delivered the State of the City address, citing the 2030 Vision and Strategic Plan as a roaclmap showing
how the City wants to grow and emphasizing the importance of partnerships and relationships in that process.
BeCE~
Deputy Mayor LeMair called for a recess at 8:40 p.m.
RECONVENE;
The meeting reconvened at 8:55 p.m.
Concept Plan for CR 42/ CR 18 Development
Planning Coordinator Moore identified Issues for discussion and noted that a PUD disbict must demonstrate that the
uses to be developed can offer greater value to the community and better meet the community's health, welfare and
safety requirements than if the same area were developed as single-purpose use. Stated that staff does not believe the
concept plan as proposed is consistent with the PUD criteria, Kurt Larson of Cardinal Development Group, and
Vlren Gor! of Gor! and Associates presented the most recent concept plan pointing out the attributes they are working
with In developing the site. Stated they have worked with a traffic consultant and landscape/tree consultant; and met
with the County and grading engineers, Noted a central park theme with 4.9 acres of woods and that the greenway
could be continued on to property to the north. Stated they anticipate that housing will be upscale, with villa and con-
dominium housing.
Comments:
Millar: clarified the location of the highest spot and which areas are treed or clear; and that condos would be on the
highest spot on the hill, etc.
Larson: Will provide both a view of Prior Lake and downtown Minneapolis, which Is why they were positioned there to
comply with previous Council comments that asked for an overlook. Noted that at ground level there would not be the
long-range view because of the trees.
Millar: clarified that Larson believed there was no advantage to have the highest elevation as part of the park area.
Larson: Affirmed.
Millar: Asked for clarification of what would be in the center of the park area.
Gor!: Bike paths through the area, picnic tables, etc.
Millar: Asked what the best access would be for the citizenry in general to access the park.
Gor!: Identified the access points on the map.
Millar: Asked if the proposed retail is restaurants.
Gor!: Affirmed.
Dornbush: Asked what the price point would be for the homes and condominiums.
Larson: Villas will start at $350,000 and condos will start at the same price point and move upwards to $700,000.
Dornbush: Asked if there would be any change in grade for the path through wooded area.
Larson: Replied that it would be mostly natural.
L.Malr: Asked if there has been market analysis completed on the housing side and if there were concerns about
competing with Jeffers Pond and Shepherd of the Lake.
Larson: Replied that there are many people seeking to get into this corridor on the retail side and that facilities are
planned to be done a litUe differently than at Jeffers Pond and Shepherd of the Lake.
LeMalr: Asked about zoning of the nearby quadrant that is not part of this property.
Larson: Office business park.
LeMalr: Asked if it would complement this concept plan.
Moore: It Is an area cited for a commercial area in the McComb Study.
Gor!: Clarified that retail is planned along Hwy 42, but to access the commercial areas, people would have to go
through the residential area so they want them to be complementary to each other.
LeMalr: Asked if the blkelwalking bridge Is eliminated from this plan.
4
City Council Meeting Minutes
February 6. 2006
Larson: Replied that it is not part of this proposal.
LeMalr: Stated it may not be feasible on that road for that location. Stated he likes the plan and It looks like they tried
to save the trees. Hasn't been to the site yet
Erickson: Asked what kind of medical facility Is planned.
Larson: Replied that it would be a clinic with day surgery and radiology center.
Erickson: Stated that he envisions that comer to be an opportunity for a multi-story, class-A office building or corporate
headquarters building that could be an anchor and it should be very attractive for bringing In businesses that would pro-
vide places for people to work here rather than downtown.
Larson: Concurred and pointed out the plan for two-story office buildings on the plan.
Erickson: Commented that a building could be more stories high and reduce the footprint and leave more trees.
Should be a showpiece building.
Larson: The plan shows some examples of potential examples of architecture that could be used on the site, but a
primary concern will be to have architecture that is synergistic, looks good and is complementary to all the buildings.
Millar: Asked if there are limitations on height.
Moore: Replied that with a PUD there Is flexibility, whereas R4 is limited to four stories.
Larson: Said they are proposing not to exceed four stories in height. Agrees that this location is an important piece for
Prior Lake. Stated that there will not be a great deal of grading.
Erickson: Need to look very closely at the plan because this is one of the top locations in the south metro area to be
developed.
Dornbush: Stated she liked mixed use and the layout. She is concerned about preservation of the heavily wooded
area. Concerned about losing the look of the comer with the topography and mature oaks. Concerned that it appears
the building to the west would completely take out the trees. Suggested that the buildings be shifted tlN8.y from the
comer to preserve trees.
Larson: Concurred the trees would come down.
Dornbush: Would be more in favor of raising the height of the buildings and clustering them closer to be able to pre-
serve the comer.
Larson: Noted that raising the height of the building would not reduce the amount of parking that is required. Noted
that preliminary designs provide for as much underground parking as possible but there would be need for surface park-
ing.
Dornbush: Referred to the 2030 vision regarding natural resources to protect unique natural areas In the City.
Larson: Pointed out the weUand areas they would stay out of as well as protected forest area.
Dornbush: Noted the two-year goal of the 2030 vision encourages green belts. Commented that she likes everything
else about project, just would like to see a way to retain the mature oaks on the hillside and provide a green belt.
Larson: Stated he understood the concerns, but it would be difficult to save anything on the comer and still be able to
get in business buildings with access.
Millar: Asked about access from CR18.
Larson: replied that the County will have a future access at some time.
Haugen: Asked if building higher would preserve some of the trees.
Larson: Replied that there are not as many signlflcent trees on that comer and the central park area was selected to
save because there are more significant trees there. Believes that to modify the buildings to save a few trees would
result in a very low percentage of trees being saved.
Haugen: Asked if anything can be done to create view from the wooded park that could be a benefit to the City for the
public.
Larson: Replied that having the green belt continue to the north for trail opportunities would provide a fair amount of
trails and have a natural feeling, and the northern part would have a view to the valley.
Haugen: Agreed that is positive, but wants to know how they could create something for the public that would allow
them access to the view.
Gori: Replied that a community room or rooftop deck could straddle two buildings. Perhaps It could be owned by the
City and rented out for functions.
5
City Council Meeting Minutes
February 6, 2006
Haugen: Affinned his personal acceptance of that idea and noted that he understands there are limitations of how far
they can go with tree preservation.
Millar: Expressed desire to tour property with the developers.
Erickson: Suggested making it a group tour.
Haugen: Replied that would have to be posted as a meeting.
Larson: Reiterated that the proposal is creating a neighborhood with a lifestyle that is in demand of walkable neighbor-
hoods, paths, and community living.
Millar: Noted that people are sensitive to losing the trees and green space that we have.
Erickson: Clarified what area would be the medical building and confinnecl that remaining space is for office buildings.
Larson: Asked if the concept fits with what Council is looking for.
Erickson: Asked If townhouses and condos were desired. or more single-family homes.
LeMalr: Believes it is a busy comer and not conducive to single family housing.
Larson: Noted that it will be some kind of commercial site on this location and this Is a transition to single-family resi-
dential areas.
Erickson: Referred to the Edlnborough indoor park, ice rink and restaurants.
Larson: Replied that is more suitable for more urban areas.
Haugen: Summarized that the Council would like to visit the property, but not all at once.
Larson: Commented on the definition of a PUD as an alternative method for developing and that a conventional devel-
opment might not allow mixed use or save as many trees. Believes that having this PUD providing its quality of life Is a
benefit to the City.
OLD BUSIN9Ii
Consider Approval of a Resolution Initiating the Vacation of a Portion of the Roadway Easement Located at
4500 Lords Street.
Public Works Director Albrecht Identified conditions that are needed to maintain roadway and utilities and stated that
staff believes a vacation for this area of the roadway is feasible. Stated that a public hearing on the vacation would be
March 20. 2006, at 7 p.m.
Comments:
Erickson: Stated this appears to be a win-win situation.
LeMalr: Applaud staff efforts to resolve the situation.
Dornbush: Complimented the Ferguson's and staff for finding a resolution.
Millar: Apologized to the Ferguson's that the initial problem occurred and commended staff for finding a solution.
MOTION BY DORNBUSH, SECONDED BY MILLAR TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 06-18 INITIATING THE VACATION
OF A PORTION OF THE ROADWAY EASEMENT LOCATED ON 4500 LORDS STREET.
VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Dornbush, Erickson, LeMalr and Millar. The motion carried.
Consider Approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow Private Indoor Sports Facility In the C-5 (Busi-
ness Office Park) DIstrict.
Planning Coordinator Moore identified areas of Prior Lake that are currently zoned C-S and reviewed the permitted
uses in a C-5 zone. Noted that this proposed facility would be described as private Indoor entertainment and such use
is currently allowed in C-4 zones with conditions, Staff is proposing conditions for this proposed business use.
Comments:
Millar: Asked for clarification of the public need to amend the zoning.
Moore: Noted there was previous discussion considering whether codes need to be updated for today's standards and
the evolving commercial or business park. or this particular use in this particular dlsbict. There does appear to be a
need to review the codes.
Dornbush: Asked if this amendment would apply to all entertainment uses, or just this business.
6