Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout112204 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2004 Fire Station - City Council Chambers 6:30 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order: 2. Roll Call: 3. Approval of Minutes: 4. Consent Agenda: 5. Public Hearings: A. Case #04-138 Wensmann Realty is requesting an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation of30.87 acres from R-HD (Urban High Density Residential) to C-CC (Community Retail Shopping). The subject property is located south ofCSAH 42 and west ofCSAH 21 in the northeast comer of the proposed project. 6. Old Business: 7. New Business: A. Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No.3-1 Creekside Estates. 8. Announcements and Correspondence: 9. Adjournment: 1.:\04 F1LESI04 PLAN COMMISI04 pc Agenda\AGII2204DOC www.cityofpriorlake.com Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2004 1. Call to Order: Chairman Stamson called the November 22, 2004, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Billington, Lemke, Perez, Ringstad and Stamson, Planning Director Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator Danette Moore and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Billington Lemke Perez Ringstad Stamson Present Present Present Present Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the November 8, 2004, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. 4. Consent: None 5. Public Hearings: Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting. A. Case #04-138 Wensmann Realty is requesting an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation of 30.87 acres from R-HD (Urban High Density Residential) to C-CC (Community Retail Shopping). The subject property is located south of CSAH 42 and west of CSAH 21 in the northeast corner of the proposed project. The project is referred to as Jeffers Pond. Planning Coordinator Danette Moore presented the Planning Report dated November 22, 2004, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Wensmann Realty, Inc is requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map for approximately 31 acres of land located west of CSAH 21 and south of CSAH 42. The proposed amendment would re-designate the northern portion ofthe property from R-HD (Urban High Density Residential) to C-CC (Community Retail Shopping). The subject area is a portion of the approximate 320 acre Jeffers property. In March of 2003 the Planning Commission reviewed the concept plan for the Jeffers property. The concept plan included a mix of housing units, fire station, school, transit station, nature L\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN112204.doc I Planning Commission Meeting November 22.2004 center, park, and commercial areas. The applicant is proposing the amendment to the 2020 Comprehensive Plan in order to facilitate the development of the site as commercial, which would be consistent with the concept plan previously reviewed. The staff recommended approval of the Amendment as requested. Comments from the Public: Kelly Murray representing Wensmann Realty was available for questions. This is one step to continue with the Preliminary Plan. The EA W was published and the comment ending will be December 8th. Provided there are no significant findings they will continue to proceed. The public hearing was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Ringstad: · Agreed with staffs findings. The McComb Study indicated a need for additional land to be moved into commercial areas. . Six commercial acres were re-designated in 2002 to its current designation and now we're moving it back. · Will support however want to caution this project has been a moving target with re-designating zoning until this point. The report is very complete. Perez: · The McComb Study identified 62 acres to be commercial however the staff report indicates the downtown area, the Gateway and Priordale redevelopments. So there are concerns with the placement of this. · Would like to look a little more at what is being designated "commercial" in the downtown areas. · Kansier responded with a brief explanation on Priordale and the downtown areas. These areas and uses are different and will not draw away from the Jeffers area. This project is at a major traffic intersection, especially when County Road 21 will go through. We do need to recognize there is a traffic draw. The commercial was always kept on the east side of County Road 42. The developer is doing a market study to address how this will compete with downtown. The 62 acres were primarily business office park and industrial land. One of the items stressed in the McComb Study was not to stretch out our commercial areas similar to strip malls. . Questioned the proposed movie theater. Kansier responded it was specifically discussed with the consultants. This is more of a small community "playhouse theater" rather than a movie theater. . Are there any comments from the Community Development Director (John Sullivan)? Kansier responded he is in favor of the proposal. . Agreed with the high density housing issue. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MNI12204.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting November 22,2004 . Concerned with the downtown impact. Lemke: . My concern with the competition of the downtown area was answered. . Agree with the commercial designation a few years ago and was a little bit disappointed to see it pulled out. . Support the change back. Billington: . Was not on the Board when the project started. . Like the overall design of the plan. I like the commercial aspect with the way it has been revised. A commercial base is critical to the success of a proj ect of this type. . It is noted in the report there could be concern for runoff into the wetland area. Trust the engineers have looked at this. Moore responded the engineers were reviewing the project and can be discussed at the December 13th meeting. . Likes the mixed uses on site. . Support. Stamson: . Agree with Commissioners and staff. . In the long run do not feel the commercial area will be a significant impact. There will be a need on that side of town as we develop. . The scales will be different. Look at this growing community - we're pretty well built out with the Priordale and downtown areas. . This will create a new area with different types of retail. It is a good project. Likes the cluster retail unlike neighboring communities' strip-mall look. . Support. Great use of the land and property as a whole. Lemke: . There are a lot of strip malls along County Road 42. Agree with Stamson that it will not pull away from other areas in Prior Lake. MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN MAP DESIGNATING THE PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF CSAH 21 AND SOUTH OF CSAH 42 FROM R-HD TO C-Cc. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This will go before City Council on December 6, 2004. Developer Herb Wensmann asked if the Commissioners would mind ifthe commercial area could be renamed. Commissioners said it was up to Mr. Wensmann to decide. 6. Old Bnsiness: None L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MNll2204.doc 3 Planning Commission Meeting November 22. 2004 7. New Business: A. Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No.3-1 Creekside Estates. Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report for Community Deve]opment Director John Sullivan. A copy of the report is on file in the office ofthe City Community Deve]opment. On December 18, 2000, the City Council adopted Reso]ution 00-]27 approving the final Planned Unit Deve]opment (PUD) plan for Creekside Estates. This final plan consisted of two 24-unit condominium buildings and a 54-unit senior congregate care facility. On October ]5th, 200], the City Council adopted a resolution approving, in concept, the use of tax increment financing (TIF) to assist in the development of a the senior congregate care facility on Tranquility Court, now known as Creekside Commons. On November 5,200], the Council adopted a resolution ordering the creation of Deve]opment District 3, TIF District 3-] and the preparation of a TIP Plan for the project. The Planning Commission also approved the project. The project, called Creekside Commons, consists of a 54 rental units for seniors 55 years of age and older. Construction of the project began in fall of2001, and was completed in 2002. Under the approved TIF plan, 20%, or ]], of the units were to be made available to persons earning 50% of the County median income and the rents for these units were to be consistent with the ability to pay i.e. rents not to exceed 30% of annual income for the life of the TIF District. The developer ofthe project has requested a modification to the approved TIF plan. The purpose of the proposed modification is to convert the ownership ofthe project to a Common Interest Community (CIC). This will allow the owners to ultimately transfer ownership from corporate and partnership entities to persona] ownership. The owners indicate the housing units will remain rental. This proposed modification is expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined in the Development Program for Development District No.3. Staff concludes the proposed modification to the Development Program for Development District No.3 and the proposed modification of Tax Increment Financing District No. 3-] for Creekside Commons project are consistent with the development goals for the City and that the tax increment financing plan proposed for the project is also consistent with those goals. L\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MNl 12204.doc 4 Planning Commission Meeting November 22. 2004 Questions from the Commissioners: · Perez asked where the covenants were recorded. Kansier responded at the County Recorders office. · Billington confirmed this document has not been filed. . Perez asked ifthis had been discussed with the developer. Kansier said it would be addressed before the City Council. Comments from the Commissioners: Perez: . Agreed with staff and approve. Lemke: · This really isn't changing anything but the ownership. Kansier said the owners are changed however, because it involves Tax Increment Financing (TIF) it has to go through a full scale modification. . Support. Ringstad: . Agreed with Lemke - as long as nothing else is being changed will support. It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Billington: . Has no problem but we have to be very specific in supporting it in terms of recording the covenant properly. Suspect it will be part of the City Council discussions as a condition. · Kansier said it would be helpful for the Planning Commission to make a statement as part of the recommendation. . Amend as a condition to approval. The Commissioners agreed. . Support. Stamson: · Agreed with Commissioners and staff. In 2000/2001 the Commissioners agreed this met the requirements. The change is ownership structure really does not impact the meaning ofthe requirement. The use of the property remains the same. The needs are being met. . Support with Commissioner Billington's amendment. MOTION BY PEREZ, SECOND BY BILLINGTON, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 04-013PC STATING THE PROPOSED TIF MODIFICATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. ALSO STATE A CONDITION THE COVENANTS ARE PROPERLY RECORDED. L\04 F1LES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MNl12204.doc 5 Planning Commission Meeting November 22. 2004 Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This will be a public hearing at the City Council's December 6th meeting. 8. Announcements and Correspondence: Commissioners please let staff know ifthey will be present for the second meeting in December. 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 6:58 p.m. Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MNI12204.doc 6 PUBLIC HEARING Conducted by the Planning Commission )/crvelM ~ 2.2--, .~ The Planning Commission welcomes your comments in this matter. In fairness to all who choose to speak, we ask that, after speaking once you allow everyone to speak before you address the Commission again and limit your comments to new information. Please be aware this is the principal opportunity to provide input on this matter. Once the public hearing is closed, further testimony or comment will not be possible except under rare occasions. The City Council will not hear additional testimony when it considers this matter. Thank you. ATTENDA.L~CE - PLEASE PRINT L;\DEPTWO~,(' BLA:-IKFRMIPHSIGNLP .doc