HomeMy WebLinkAbout7B - CSAH 42 & CSAH 18
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #
PREPARED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
ISSUES:
OCTOBER 2, 2006
7B
DANETTE MOORE, PLANNING COORDINATOR
PRESENTATION OF CONCEPT PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE
PROPERTY AT THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF CSAH 42 AND CSAH 18
Cardinal Development Group has submitted a 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) and R-UMD (Low to Medium
Density Residential), and R-HD (Urban High Density Residential) on the 2020
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
Historv
In 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 following was discussed:
· The general support for a unique concept in this high visibility corridor.
· The need for increased tree preservation.
· The need to provide balance between preservation and managing
responsible growth.
· How the site will address recreational needs of the new residential
dwellers.
· The need for the concept to provide benefits to the City at large that will
meet the Planned Unit Development (PUD) criteria.
Current Circumstances
Since the earlier reviews, the developer has revised the concept. The current
concept plan proposes a mixture of commercial and residential uses, including
39 town home 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 office space (3-story), and a 6.4 acre
park. Although many of the uses are consistent with those previously seen,
the locations and configurations have been modified.
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.
The site is located along a corridor that is a gateway to the City. For that
reason, staff views this as a unique opportunity for the developer to create an
innovative development, while benefiting the City at large. In light of this, the
www.cityofpriorlake.com
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
Council may want to consider the following issues while discussing the
proposed concept:
Design:
· The layout of the site plan includes many traditional suburban commercial
components, including the large open parking lot. The use of underground
parking in the office area of the site would strengthen the "Village Concept"
proposed by the developer.
Natural Environment:
· The 2030 Vision and Strategic Plan state natural resource goals including:
"Encourage green belts between developments and major roadways to
preserve the natural look of Prior Lake" and "Identify and protect prime
natural areas for preservation (Le. unique forests or topography)". The
proposed concept plan does not appear to have taken these goals or
natural features into account.
· 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 be necessary to fully evaluate the realistic
impacts. If the trees shown on the concept plan are to remain, the
developer should be aware that extensive retaining walls may be
necessary. In addition, the large older growth trees will need increased
setbacks to protect the sensitive root zones and increase their long-term
viability.
· The City is in the process of adopting a revised Tree Preservation
Ordinance. The Ordinance will require the developer to justify the
proposed tree impacts and provide alternatives. In addition, the new
Ordinance will provide the developer with added incentives for preserving
highly desirable trees on the site. The site has the distinction of containing
numerous high quality hardwood oaks (claSSified by the Ordinance as
Heritage Trees) in locations that would allow their preservation if increased
clustering away from CSAH 18/42 were to take place. Besides offering an
extraordinary opportunity to provide tree line vistas for the development,
the preserved trees would allow for substantial cost savings to the
developer in reduced tree replacement requirements.
Stormwater Management:
. The extensive impervious surfaces being proposed on the site will require
sufficient water quality treatment, rate control, and volume control to meet
stormwater management requirements. The Prior Lake Spring Lake
Watershed District has also expressed concerns related to how the plan
will meet these requirements (letter attached). Staff will fully evaluate the
proposed ponding once stormwater and impervious data has been
submitted as part of a development application.
Parking:
· Parking requirements are based on the specific land use. It appears that
the 1 ,530 parking spaces shown on the concept plan will exceed Code
requirements for the proposed land uses. Staff believes 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 and to
decrease impervious surfaces on the site.
Parks:
· A 6.4 acre open space ("greenbelt") 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 open space is removed, it appears the proposed land area
would likely meet the 10% dedication requirement. However, the grades of
the site exceed 10% and would not meet the parkland dedication
requirement without being fully graded, thus impacting the trees.
· 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
existing natural features, especially the trees. These impacts will need to
be weighted against the value of the parkland.
· Previously, concerns were raised by a councilmember related to the
residential intensity proposed by this development without providing any
active recreational opportunities. The assumption is made that the
adjacent properties will be responsible for providing active recreational
parkland. Staff agrees that the responsibility for active parks should be
shared by all developing land in this area. For the sake of limiting impacts
to existing trees, staff believes the development should minimally provide a
flat upland area for a future tot-lot in the proximity of the residential uses
(typically tot-lots comprise a 50 ft X1 00 ft land area).
· The concept plan shows trails extending through the sites open space
("greenbelt"). Staff does not believe the current grades will accommodate
the proposed trails. If the site is graded to allow for these trails, significant
trees will be lost as a result.
· At the September 11, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, the developer
discussed a conceptual area at the southwest corner of the site that would
provide for a plaza type environment with a water feature. Staff recognizes
this as a possible opportunity to save a limited number of large significant
trees in this area and create a unique park like environment. The
plaza/park area may need to be shifted to reside in the vicinity of the
existing large significant trees. In addition, this park environment could be
strengthened with the creation of a greenway area along the cSAH 18 and
cSAH 42 corridors where additional significant trees could be saved.
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
of the development with the Shoreland and Flood Plain district
requirements.
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 have included:
HICKORY JEFFERS POND NORTHWOOD
SHORES MEADOWS
Park Land: 1) 27.33 acres of 1) Park land 1) 34.74 acres of
land dedicated to the dedication of 174.02 park (5.75 acres of
City (15.53 acres acres (49.78 acres for active park, 10 acres
Minimum/ along Crystal Lake public use, excluding of preserved woods,
Required: shoreline with Jeffers Pond). 9.73 acres of upland,
(10% flat conservation and the remaining as
upland area easement). wetands and steep
is required slopes).
as parkland
dedication) Minimum = 7 acres Minimum = 21.6 acres Minimum= 6.7 acres
Trails: 2) Trail grading, turf 2) Extensive trail 2) Trail grading,
establishment, and system. topsoil, turf
construction of trails. establishment, and
construction of the
trails.
Amenities: 3) Construction cost 3) $500,000 for 3) $45,000 cash
of fishing pier. construction of a contribution for park
nature center building. amenities.
Additional: 4) Cash escrow for 4) 12.26 acres for 4) Parkland deeded
construction of elementary school site to the City and
boardwalk. and 1.29 acre fire conveyed to Spring
station site. Lake Regional Park.
5) 6.35 acre 5) Developer incurred
conservation oversizing costs for a
easement area. collector street.
6) Purchased land 6) Dedication of
outside the transit parking area.
development for the
construction of a
street connection
and incurred cost of
construction.
7) Provided storm
sewer at no charge
along Scott County
roadway (pipe and
easement).
Traditional Development vs. PUD:
· Due to the lack of detail required at the concept stage, staff is unable to
fully evaluate what Code modifications would be necessary for the PUD
concept. However, it would appear that the development would be
requesting additional units, reduction of usable parkland, reduced building
setbacks, and private streets. Staff believes that a desirable development
could also be achieved through a traditional/conventional development
layout. The rationale of the PUD criteria being met with the offering of a
nice development with the "greenbelt", main boulevard looping street, and
synergy through architecture, as described by the developer at the
September 11, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting, could largely be
accomplished through park land dedication requirements and the current
Zoning Code. When reviewing a proposed PUD, the City evaluates
whether the PUD provides benefits to the City over and above a traditional
development. In the case of the proposed concept plan, staff does not
believe that the concept provides for benefits to the City at large that would
exceed (or in some cases even meet) traditional development
requirements (parkland dedication, etc).
The Planning Commission reviewed the current concept plan at their
September 11, 2006 meeting (draft minutes attached). The Planning
Commissioners expressed general support for the overall concept and had
various questions.
The City Council may wish to ask the following questions:
1. How does this proposal meet the purpose and criteria for a PUD?
2. Are the proposed benefits equal to the proposed modifications that would
be requested?
3. Can the development be clustered in a way to preserve more of the trees?
4. If this concept is consistent with the Council's vision for the area, what, if
any, specific modifications would the Council favor?
5. Is there a way to provide more underground parking to decrease impacts
to significant trees?
6. How has the developer addressed the previous comments from the City
Council (wanting a clear benefit to the City at large and a reduction of tree
loss )?
7. How does the concept fulfill the objectives of the 2030 Vision and Strategic
Plan (greenbelts between developments and major roadways, etc)?
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
Staff does not object to the densities being proposed and the idea of mixed
use within the development. Staff acknowledges the ability of a PUD to
provide for improved development with creative layouts and a unique
opportunity to create a sense of place. The Council should consider and weigh
what this developer is offering to meet the PUD criteria compared with that of
every other PUD that has been approved by the Council.
The purpose of this item is to discuss the concept plan for the development of
the site, and to allow the Council an opportunity to voice any particular
concerns or ideas about the proposed development. This discussion is for
informational purposes only.
Budaet ImDact: There is no budget impact as a result of this concept
discussion. If the concept is ultimately approved and developed in the future,
the project will increase the City tax base.
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
No formal action is required at this time. The City Council should provide the
developer with any comments, direction or concerns about this concept plan.
The City Council's comments are not binding and the developer should not rely
on any statements made by individual Council members. However, in the
absence of direction, the Council can expect the developer will proceed in
general accordance with what they have proposed. Any future plans must be
processed with the appropriate hearings and public participation.
Reviewed by:
Frank B~"e'
LOCATION MAP
CSAH1&CSAH42DEVELOPMENT
~~ I'Y
--- 2:1r=j
?fiT I rrr \
@i
Ci~Bounda~
ISITE
"
/
\
[ II \
I 1\
= 1,1 /AI
- - I I 1\~
-~I I~
I I I
- I I
I I _
- I I
,----, !! ! =, ,
400 0 400 800 Feet
I I
N
+
()
o
z
()
m
'1J
-I'
'1J
s;:
Z
Z
m
o
o
m
<
m
r
o
'1J
s::
m
z
-I
PV',~-';II\I!.".lI-~~i'-i"".""CI\.r,..q"'.i',,"'" It.:1 - "'ge-c,'.I'l'-.:>id"9
I1VI' PI .Jr~~' r.l'l/~"/~-M't
~
, '\I>
i i~
~ '.~
I
II..
II
II
II
rl
::'.\ I
',\1"
.. I!
DDi
COUNTY ROAD 42/18
DEVELOPMENT
PRIOR lAKE, UN
I~ ~.
,
il> lr1T1J
:;: n c:: (Q)
,~ ~
~ ~ I ~ Ii'iiil
~~ 0Cl =
""
<::> E5
<::>
II ~~~
__,__ __ _____ .._ ll1t!J
_~_4',~<'_""~ ..
rlS
i
B I 8-
., Ii 8-
Ii
111!llIl ~ r
u!!!ll___h___
~
Ii i [
5
.
8-
I-
I;
ii
I-
" ,f
II
~ ,,::: 'i i
,Iii
i
r
.
.. ~i 'f 5
8-
8-
PI
i
tl J
" I
I
" [
I~ __,l
f
n J
!l I
,-
I"
i'
'.-
E ~ a
HI;
nIl<.
ii" ~I- i
Io",...~.
i~~ i
rr i
P\,.,..-.:t.\la~~\p-.;o~~\r'~~:n~.\.P"'~n\"',,t>'" ltcl - ~q'."c"\A".OId"9
Vlorr ~, ..:rrr-:' ,';/';!~"/'I.':)':~
(),
o
z
()
m
'"0
-I'
"'U
r
)>
Z
z'
m
o
o
m
<,
m
r
o
"'U ~~
s: 'CJjJ~
m' :r
Z
-I
~~
)> Iru1J
~ <S'V
=
~ C~UNTY RO~D lu18 ~ ~ -.~ "
I' DEVELOPMENT I en Iru1J ~
~ PRIOR LAKE, NN ~lIlii
~G__'_'__.__._ lI1ItJ
,,~_.,"~,._""~ ..
DD2
p \P, 0 ;'~; I J\1iJ',)t\~~r',;., o~.' nq~\'.l'..; C"\",,~,~ II c I ~ .~4~'< 1\;:r-.....~ d..~
~~r~ ~, ..:n'r;' r.l'J/l~I1I.'.?';
(fj
; ~
~ -
~ B~~
;ll ~
~S\j ~I'~!!i
;;y(
I!'~~\I
~~[(I'
~ i
~ 'ill I
:ll ;,1"
~, '\;,',1,1';1"
~ JI'f
,NI
~\:'1'
1~1..J1
i~H
':l!~\\
!\\\\~'I
1,!1\\ "
'1'\'
Jill
;iil~
),,'" ,
1('1i
'II
/1,\,1' ,-
~l '
1,111,\
I'~
,I,
.~~ \
lil"
I~~'
:l':
)11'
11,\\
,'rI:1
r1i;
III
II
.J
()
o
z
()
m
"'U
-t
"'C
r
)>
Z
z'
m
o
o
m
<,
m
r
o
~ e~
m'
z
-t
003
COUNTY ROAD 42/18
DEVELOPMENT
PRIOR LAKE. MN
~~
)> Iru1J
a:; (5'V
l:i' Ir1J1l
0:: =
~ 8
=
en Iru1J
~
~G'__'_'__'_~__ lI1ttr
.~_"."...'~..a.. ~ ..
rV"<):HI'\'t'()I<\PIUJ.f\P'lf1I'l""I\'-lI..I:l~\t1ut"l \ lei . -....~~y\W-U.O..C1
PA"'tco.utT1Jl,G'lIf>>!J,;()I.
C')
o
z
C')
m
"'tJ
-I'
"'tJ
s;
Z
Z
m
o
o
m
<.
m
r-
o
"'tJ
s::
m'
z
-I
'{0
qg
"I~
i~~
I~
!~
~
~
004 Ii
~
COUNTY ROAD 42/18
DEVELOPMENT
PRIOR LAKE, UN
si
i~
'::;,;.::;,,]
'..'...:.......'..1.
iil
;.:"
::,1
~;:~ ~Cl..d-: \;
7JJlltnllf7llll1lll1 1.1I('" wru~n....,..15It (llJlQI-UU .
.:.........., .v ~., .........~1~. -.
P~~ Office (OWf 50.000 sn OlIice 'U1der 50 000 an Retail Sa"
IBLildiru Size (SF)'
I T(lo~1 Buildirln Gross: 123824 18938 71800 'w'I.-OJJ9 l
I Total Bi~ldioo Net 90% . 111 82 17044 114<<0 n""
, T
Site D.t. Summ.ry
ReslalRflt
~SittData:
I
I Total Nwnber of Units:
I Ave~ lJnit& De.r Acnt:
'I TOIaI E:h.~I.'.'~, .~,~,~J.~-I.!!1!!}:
Dedicated P81b1nd 18ft:
R.3 Low to Mediwn D.~ (sf>>:
C-4 Genenl' B....ness Us. Isf.:
I To1al Silo Sim iii"
I
Zorina:
199
37.88
3<40..141
277.5381U OCAlal._
892.303 (15.8actHl
~,418.7o.i {32.5 .....a\_
2.388,5-46 (5-4.6 actHL
low Densi Residenlial
. h Density Residential J
287 46
240r~~~ I
I
I
Total
8.913
8.022
<9Q.46
<< 141
597;011
537.310
~- A A A A ~ A -
"
Pro sed PUD PUD j:i)ij PUO PUD PUD PUD
Parki Rates: 1 r25081 1 r220sf 1 per 250 sf 1 perSa,f 2oer~~~ 2 rdwe. 2 rdweli
TntalSla1l u1rad: 76 325 4. 178 4D 78 20:; 1471
T9taI tala Prollldld: 86 338 " 180 4D 78 aUY 1530
'"
~
"
~
o
.
'"
-<
,
~
~
'"
,
~
~
~~
~"
~S
~~
~~
~, ~
.o'~
~~
"0>
~ SITE PLAN
t) r - 1Od-d"
~
" lIil' ItWI lAP
------
-.zr-/aI?
.
.... NCRTH
o
l!/
'<
~
~
!
~
~
Bi
li
i
~
~
I>!
OJ
~
~
~
~
D)t@~OW
AUG 2 8 200
. -...
] I
J
By
[ COMM: 06047
08/28/06
CD
..-
N
..
Of-
CZ
OW
a:::E
>G.z
...O~
Z-'LJ"
::)W~
O>~
WO
OOg:
$1 IT PLAN
....
C
C
CONCEPT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
"
I
~
,
o
~~
~~
~~
--;;:>
~t
,,~
.olI:
O:!'o
<".
.."
~
~
l';
t
o
.
~
'"
I
~
;i
fI\ LAND USE PRCf'OSED PER THE 202.0 C-utvfPREHENSIVE PLAN
~ r c !Pd-{)' - - -
I~L~~l~~~_~~~~~ ~
I? !I? W lAP
!.....-_----
""""-w
-
!/f
-<
[ COMM: 06047
08~28/06
rv~@mow~~
L AUG~: 8 2006 --../1
By
CD
e
Q~
Cw
~~
~A.z
o~
..J..;
~w;::
0>;;:
wo
OQ[
LAND USE
CaMP. PLAN
-
!
NURTH
(])
N
C
C
CONCEPT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
~
:;;
~
~
.j.
~
lii
~
~
"
~
'"
~
i
~
~
~
()
o
z
()
m
'1J
-t
'1J
r
)>
Z
z
m
o
o
m
<
m
r
o
'1J
3:
m
z
-t
P\Pro je::t s\'20CJt,\O<<J47\Dr 0"'" i ngs\I-Des j gn\'3ubm: I tel - Ager,cy\DD-O'!>,dwg
[JAr!" PI (}rrJE:.J ~/'t.~/'lr70~
~)
-:1 ~
~~
~
~
"
~
;;:n
~
"~
)>
Z
II ..~
e~
OJ
'<
r-- =1
r . =:::...J
rnnJ
C5?)
iDnJ
DD3
or
~ ~ COUNTY ROAD 42/18
~ c DEVELOPMENT
-iUl
'"
"
r
l>
Z
)>
c:
G">
~
Oc
c=
. 0 0
<Xl 0
'-<c
'" <c
<Xl ..
a~
"'0
...
"
""
t::l
t::l
en
8
rnnJ
~ )
PRIOR LAKE, MN
l
7300 IlEST "7TH STREET SUTE S04 APPlr VAll.[Y, NN 55124-7580 (952) '31-4'33
.:::OP"RICdT EY eN-oj ,\RCHITECTS. NC
CIV/j
-----
\/\1///;/(/\
. ,
- "'--- -
HN:)
:)" 'iJ.Q~jtQ.. t1f() 4lil ~~,.
CCtt-1Ct lllll _-tfIU.. 'UI'IfA il<lM 1OG:liIlI iDIIS lIUtllQllQGU
.
.
J
o
II
.
.
.....
i~
"CO
:i~
~8
Nrl '3)1"1 HOllId
J.Nand01aAila
8~~i'aYOH 'A.LNnoo'
..
..
;
~~
~. ~
" L
~
~
~
~
~i
~~
-Vf(J/~ ;clOIl.J01d ""Vel
e.p.~~.".1>t - IOll''"'l~\"bJ ..cH\.eu'....,<ru.H'ffJ\ffJln\.I..ro'J\:d
c
tea
...
Z
.W
:e
c..
o
...J
W
J>
W
c
C
w
oZ
z
::5
e..
ol-
e..
W
o
Z
o
"0
.
..
~
..".
Prior .1..F Spring
Lake ~ Lake
- --
WATERSHED DISTRICT
September 20, 2006
Danette Moore, Planning Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
17073 Adelmann St. SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Re: Concept plan for comer of CR 18 and CR 42
Dear Danette:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the above-referenced concept plan. We appreciate the
ability to offer comments at the concept stage, before final decisions have been made regarding the
development approach.
The Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District (PLSL WD) understands that the proposal is
conceptual and details have not been worked out regarding stormwater management for the site.
With that said, we are very concerned about the developer's ability to meet the PLSL WD's
stormwater management requirements given the amount of impervious surface shown on the plan,
the significant amount of tree removal, and the few stormwater management areas identified.
The concept shows extensive areas of impervious surface including parking lots, roads and
buildings. While the plan does identify stormwater ponding areas and a rain garden, we are
concerned that these would not provide sufficient water quality treatment, rate control and volume
control to meet our requirements given the amount of impervious surface. As the City is aware,
achieving our stormwater management standards is critical to protecting downstream water quality
and avoiding increased flooding concerns on Prior Lake and the Prior Lake Outlet Channel.
To address our stormwater management concerns, the PLSL WD suggests that the developer look
for opportunities to reduce impervious surfaces, preserve more of the existing trees (which help
filter and abstract stormwater), and expand the stormwater management areas shown on the site.
Thank you again for the opportunity to review this concept plan. If you have any questions about
these comments, please contact me at (952) 447-4166 or slotthammeruv,oIslwd.org.
-- - -
~~
Shannon M. Lotthammer
District Administrator
(952) 447-4166 · Fax (952) 447-4167 · 15815 Franklin Trail S.E. · Prior Lake, MN 55372
www,plslwd.org · info@plslwd.org
September 11, 2006 Planning Commission (DRAFT) Minutes
B. Cardinal Development LLC has submitted a revised concept for the
development of approximately 55 acres (gross) to create a pun containing retail,
townhomes, office, clinic/medical office, and high density residential housing. This
property is located at the northeast corner ofCSAH 42 and CSAH 18.
Planning Coordinator Danette Moore presented the Planning Report dated September 11,
2006, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Cardinal Develvpment 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-LIMD (Low to Medium Density Residential), and R-HD
(Urban High Density Residential) on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
In late 2005 and early 2006 concepts for the CSAH 42 and CSAH 18 site were brought
before the Planning Commission and City Council. 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. The proposed land uses are consistent with those
previously seen, however the locations and configurations have been modified.
For discussion purposes, the staffhas 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 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. Staffhas 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 re-grading 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.
. Staffhas 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.
Stamson questioned what kind of park is the City looking at? Kansier said "Everything".
Stamson felt this issue was discussed before and this area was probably not the right area.
Moore responded.
Comments from the Developer:
Kurt Larson from Cardinal Development said they were back with a similar concept. The
following are his comments:
. A major change is removing the townhome units in the comer of the main
entrance ofthe project. The office area and residential components have basically
remained the same.
. They decided a direct loop into the project would allow better traffic. It simplifies
the traffic and segments offto the different areas ofthe project.
. Took away the retail and condos above the retail. They left the two condo
buildings.
. Everything they are doing has a "village" concept and feeling.
. The circle drive will have a median with heavy landscape.
. They have parking issues that they will work out with the staff.
. Moved a large office building located on the corner to the back for a better visual.
. Created a plaza area to save a few more trees; which is a concern for several
people.
. They have put underground parking under one building.
Comments/Questions from the Commissioners:
Billington asked for the market studies. Larson responded they did several preliminary
and is confident with the support and research they received.
Ringstad questioned if Scott County would approve the two accesses off County Road
42. Larson said they indicated they will grant the accesses.
Perez questioned the further opportunities for underground parking. Larson responded it
was tough because the office buildings are small. To do underground parking with the
two-stories are not feasible. The amount of trees being saved would not gain a lot of
underground space. Larson said it would not be economical in saving a couple of trees
versus the cost.
Lemke asked what the size of the underground parking would be - how many spots?
Larson responded 48 correct.
Stamson questioned what the parking space requirement. Larson said they were right on
the requirements.
Billington asked Larson where the major strides from the last plan. Larson said the
traffic flow has been improved. It is a better design. The medical complex is in a better
location and visibly appealing. We may have saved a few more trees.
Billington asked if there was any enhancement on safety. Larson felt the traffic redesign
would be a safety factor. You can bike and walk through out the entire project. The
neighbors would prefer trails to the parks.
Billington asked staff where the shortcomings would be. Moore responded staff was
looking for more of an articulation what the PUD benefits would be to the City at large.
Stamson asked what the modifications would be. Moore responded it has to do with
private streets, it allows setbacks to be reduced - it's only a concept.
Stamson asked if it needed to be a PUD for a mixed use. Moore responded it did have to
be aPUD.
Perez questioned if this project can have fewer parking spaces than required. Moore said
the applicant has to show parking for a future development. As long as they can provide
it in the future and show they have the space. She also explained if future parking is
considered somewhere else removal of the trees will be considered.
Stamson questioned the large amount of asphalt for the buildings. Larson said the
parking requirements are met. They do not know the specific uses at this time.
Perez asked if Larson would be willing to do more proof of parking. Larson said
"Absolutely" .
Kansier said that it would not accomplish what you're trying to do. Kansier explained a
situation and pointed out the idea is to have a permanent green space. It is up to the
developer to prove that he does not need the parking spaces. This can be accomplished
with a conventional plan versus a PUD.
Lemke questioned parking for the residents. Larson responded the condominiums will
have underground parking. Single family units have garages.
Lemke asked Larson what setbacks he would be asking for. Larson said they would ask
for setback reductions some of the retail and condominium buildings to create a "village"
feeling.
Stamson questioned what other modifications Larson would be asking for and what other
things besides the mixed-use development that requires a PUD does this project offer.
Larson responded he thought it was the mixed uses.
The architect, Quinn Hutson felt a benefit for a PUD would be an image-style quality
material and upgrade well beyond what you would necessarily have in a development.
The developer will create a "village feel" throughout the entire development. They
would also have a two-sided retail area. There would be private roads by the
condominiums. We have to follow all the engineering issues and have incorporated some
rain gardens so it's visually more acceptable.
Lemke asked if the plaza would have a fountain. Larson thought that would be the plan.
No formal action is required by the Commissioners. The following are comments from
the Commissioners:
Stamson:
. It would make sense to add the type of things in a park people would walk to - a
tot lot playground, maybe a picnic area and/or shelter to blend in with the trails.
. Like the greenway concept. It's important to save the trees.
. Does not think a ball field is appropriate in this area. A playground and picnic
area should be in this area. It's nice to have the trails but there is no place to play
for children. You need to work in some area for some kind of active park.
. Kansier noted staff did not expect the developer to have all ofthe neighborhood
park development on site. We would anticipate it would be part of it.
. Larson felt it would be difficult with the trees to put any kind of a playground in
the greenway area.
. That is what is lacking in this project - when you look at the amount of housing in
the area there is nothing - no playgrounds. It could be a while before you see the
neighboring areas develop with parks.
. The applicant needs to work in something where there is something for the people
in the neighborhood - picnic area, play area, swing set, some set of active
development.
Billington:
. One walkway runs along County Road 42, how far? Larson said he didn't know
the distances but it would be whatever the City requires.
. Larson said there would be an association who would maintain the trails and
sidewalks.
Lemke:
. Would rather see a mixed use in this area. The proposal would be visually
appealing. Would like to save more trees.
. They are on the right track. Given the topography ofthe greenbelt area, not sure
where you could squeeze very much active park.
. What are the demographics ofthe housing? Larson responded mostly single
professional, the married professional with no kids, the empty nesters, and a lower
percentage of families.
Perez:
. Agree with the mixed use comments from Commissioners Stamson and Lemke.
Like the modifications - adding more trees. It looks better than it did before.
. It's hard to get past the parking with saving trees.
. It is a gateway - like the plaza on the comer and larger pond.
. Agree with having a park with some kind of shelter.
. This looks better than the other concepts.
Lemke:
. Asked if the number of housing density was lower. Larson said no, it they were
shifted around and moved towards the back of the project.
Billington:
. Likes the way it has been redesigned. It is positive.
. There's not a lot you can do with the tree situation.
. It would be tweaked in a couple of places.
. The traffic safety aspect has been improved. The developer has made strides.
. Like it and supportive of the concept.
Ringstad:
. The traffic flow is an improvement. Like it.
. Agree with Commissioners - It's probably not necessary for a full park. You still
need a park.
. Getting close to a real quality development.
Larson said they would like to move through the process this winter and start moving dirt
this spring.
Lemke noted the large amount of oak trees near the plaza and asked ifthey will be saved.
Larson responded that was one of the reasons to have the plaza. There would be a
significant amount of landscaping and save the oaks.
This will go before the City Council on October 2, 2006.
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
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 roadmap showing
how the City wants to grow and emphasizing the importance of partnerships and relationships In that process.
~CI7.~
Deputy Mayor LeMalr called for a recess at 8:40 p.m.
RECONVENIi
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
V1ren Gor! of Gor! and Associates presented the most recent concept plan pointing out the atbibutes they are working
with In developing the site. Stated they have worked with a traffic consultant and landscapeJtree 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.
Gorl: 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.
Gorl: 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.
LeMalr: 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 little differently than at Jeffers Pond and Shepherd of the Lake.
L.Malr: Asked about zoning of the nearby quadrant that is not part of this property.
Larson: Office business park.
LeMalr: Asked ~ tt would complement this concept plan.
Moore: It is an area cited for a commercial area in the McComb Study.
Gorl: 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 b1kelwalking 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 Uke they tried
to save the trees. Hasn't been to the site yet.
Erickson: Asked what kind of medical facUity 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 WNay 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 difficuit 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 significant 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 confirmed 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 Edinborough 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 BUSIN~
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.
Dombush: 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 08-18 INITIATING THE VACATION
OF A PORTION OF THE ROADWAY EASEMENT LOCATED ON 4500 LORDS STREET.
VOTE: Ayes by Haugen. Dornbush, Erickson, LeMair and Millar. The motion carried.
Consider Approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow Private Indoor Sports Facility In the C-S (Busl-
n..1 Office Park) DIstrict.
Planning Coordinator Moore identified areas of Prior Lake that are currently zoned C-S and reviewed the pennitted
uses in a C-S 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 todays standards and
the evolving commercial or business park, or this particular use In this particular district. There does appear to be a
need to review the codes.
Dombush: Asked if this amendment would apply to all entertainment uses, or just this business.
6
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 approval 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 staffwith 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:
~
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-L/MD (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 expressed 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 October/November 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 staff why 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\MN012306.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 comer.
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\MNOI2306.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 Y2 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 development 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\MN012306.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 staff with 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 SA TC 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 ~ 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 Ucense 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.
Z1eska: 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.
VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Fleming, LeMair, Petersen and Zieska. The motion carried.
PRESENTATIONS:
Concept Plan for CRiB I 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 pam 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.
Kansler: 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 Gor! of Gor! & 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.
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 palt usage.
Larson: Replied that the goal for tree preservation is to save as much as possible. Spoke of combining the proposed one-
acre pam with palt space in future developments, and of building a pedestrian overpass over CR 42 to access other par1<s
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.
Gor!: 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 palt 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.
Gor!: 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.
Z1nka: 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 pam 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 pam can be
designated In the future and H should be buitt in now. Believes the high elevation could create something with an overlook
environment. Concerned 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, ROIs Blntner.
Public Works 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 Janine A1com. 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.
Zleska: 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 tomorrow is Election Day.
ZlHka: 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 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 LeMalr and seconded by Zieska.
With all In favor, the meeting adjoumed at 8:07 p.m.
4
PlIlnning 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 infonnation 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 appropriate 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-L/MD (Low to Medium Density Residential) on the 2020
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTES\MNI02405.doc
5
Planning Commission Meeting
October 24, 2005
The developers have submitted a concept plan for a mixed use development on this site.
The concept plan identifies a mixture of commercial and residential uses, including 64
townhome units, 80 condominium uses in two 4-story buildings, 60 units located above
the retail space, 142,000 square feet of retail space, 100,000 square feet of office space,
and 50,000 - 75,000 square feet of medical space.
Comments from the Commissioners will go to the City Council in November.
Ringstad questioned the access allowed by the County. Kansier responded with possible
points.
Perez questioned if there would be a safety concern. Kansier said staff and the developer
would have to discuss this with Scott County. This development may trigger the need
for road improvements, stoplights, and turn lanes, whatever the need may be. The
developer may be responsible for some of the costs. Ultimately we need to see several
ways in and out.
Billington questioned staffs major concerns and obstacles with this project. Kansier said
it is pretty early in the staging. The main concern is the benefits this PUD offers to the
City. Staff would like to see a market study that shows Prior Lake can support what the
applicant is proposing (in terms 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 development.
Presentation from the Developer:
Kurt Larson, Cardinal DevelvpUient, 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.e
L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTES\MNI02405.doc
6
Planning Commission Meeting
October 24, 2005
Maybe we would have to just change a few buildings. It is their intention to stay within
the land use designation and hopefully apply for a PUD.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Billington:
. Questioned the sidewalk layout and how it would connect with other
develv}-'ouents 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 COMMISSION\05 MINUTES\MNI02405.doc
7
Planning Commission Meeting
October 24, 2005
Ringstad:
. Agree with Billington that this could be a potential jewel for the community as
long as it can be done with the City gaining some benefit with respect to the PUD
process. Like to see this keep moving forward.
. How long do you think this project take beginning to end? Larson responded
about 3 years.
Kansier questioned who was going to pay for the pedestrian bridge. Larson said they are
looking into the possibility of doing it. They haven't got that far - just want to see the
viability of building it. They would entertain the idea ifit was part of the PUD.
Stamson pointed out the water tower is on the comer. Kansier said it could be possibility
worked out but the point is - neither the City nor County have the funding to build a
pedestrian bridge at that location. It's not within the budgets at all.
Assistant City Larry Poppler said the location right next to the stop lights may not be a
good area for a pedestrian bridge. It may have to go further to the east. Larson said they
do not know the safety issues and it would have to be explored.
Perez questioned the zoning west of County Road 18? Kansier said it is currently zoned
agriculture. The land use plan is some kind of commercial - maybe business office park.
Perez suggested the developer come back with the detailed benefits for the City.
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
Kansier pointed out the Commissioner handout for performance evaluation discussions.
Sometime down the road staff and the Commissioners could have a workshop. Perhaps a
joint workshop with the City Council.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTES\MNI02405.doc
8