HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 9, 2001
/
y
fk
-:...
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, APRIL 9, 2001
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Public Hearings:'
A. Case Files #01-008 and 00-009 (Continued) Centex Home is requesting a preliminal)'
plat and Conditional Use Permit for 38.9 acres of vacant land located on the west side of
CSAH 83, ..Y4 mile south of CSAH 42, in the East Y2 of the NW Y4 of Section 28,
Township 115 North, Range 22 West. The proposal is to create 54 single family lots and
to approve a Conditional Use Permit to allow a cluster development of68 townhouses.
B. Case File #01-012 A Zoning Ordinance Amendment to permit accessory structures on
Island developments.
C; Case File # 01-014 Shepherd of the Lake Church is requesting a zQne change for the
property located in Section 22, Township 115 North, Range 22 West, Scott County.
5. Old Business:
A. Case File #0 1-025 Steven and Susan Balaam are requesting a vacation of a 10 wide
drainage and utility easement for the property located at 6096 150th Street.
B. )001-2006 Capital Improvement Program review.
6. New Business:
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
L:\OI fiieslO 1 plancomm\Olpcagenda\ag040901.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 4474245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
/
.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 26, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, MARCH 26, 2001
1. Call to Order:
Chairman V onhof called the March 26, 2001, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Stamson and
Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, City Engineer
Sue McDermott and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood
Criego
Lemke
Stamson
V onhof
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the March 12, 2001, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
Commissioner V onhof read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case Files #01-005 & 006 Pavek Family Investments Company/Hodgson
Trust is requesting a Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary Plat to be known as
Regal Crest to allow a cluster townhouse development consisting of 25.58 acres to be
subdivided into 78 lots for townhouse units on the property located on the west side
ofCSAH 21 approximately ~ mile north ofCSAH 82. (Continued/rom the February
12,2001 meeting)
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated March 26,2001
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Pavek Family Investments Company and Hodgson Trust have applied for approval of a
development to be known as Regal Crest on the property located on the west side of
CSAH -21, 'l4 mile north of CSAH 82. The application includes the following requests:
. Approve a Conditional Use Permit for a cluster development;
. Approve a Preliminary Plat.
The original proposal called for a cluster townhouse development consisting of a total of
78 dwelling units on 23.81 net acres, for a total density of3.3 units per acre. The
proposed development includes 20 dwelling units in 6 four-unit buildings, 48 dwelling
1:\0 I files\O I planeomm\O I peminutes\mn03260 I.doe 1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 26. 2001
..
units in 16 three-unit buildings and 10 dwelling units in 5 two-unit buildings. The
development also includes private open space.
The Planning Commission considered this request at a public hearing on February 12,
2001. The staff and the Planning Commission identified several issues pertaining to this
development. The Planning Commission tabled this item until March 12,2001 to allow
the developer the opportunity to address the outstanding issues. The developer then
requested this item be continued to March 26, 2001 to allow additional time to address
the issues. Owners of property within 500 feet were notified of the new hearing date.
The staff and Planning Commission originally identified 10 issues at the last meeting.
The developer responded to those issues.
The major outstanding issue pertaining to this development is the staff recommendation
for the elimination of certain units. This has an effect on the design of the site. However,
it is possible to allow this application to move forward with a specific recommendation to
the Council. The design issues, including the number of units, the landscaping and tree
preservation plans, and the submittal of building elevations must be addressed prior to
City Council review. On that basis, the staff recommends approval, subject to the
following conditions:
1) The plans must be modified to remove the unit identified as Lots 6, Block 1, 2nd
Addition.
2) The landscaping plan and tree replacement plan must be modified to meet the
minimum ordinance requirements. The landscaping plan must also be prepared and
signed by a registered landscape architect. In addition, an irrigation plan must be
provided.
3) Provide building elevations, including all sides of the building, and floor plans for
all proposed building styles.
4) The plans should be revised to combine more ofthe driveway openings, especially
on Jeffers Pass.
5) Address the following comments from the City Engineer:
(a) Submit a wetland replacement application.
(b) Provide an additional low point on Jeffers Pass, north of Thatcher Lane, to
direct runoff into the southwest wetland on the property.
(c) Maximum slope of grading in maintained areas is 4: 1. Some graded areas are
shown with a greater than 3: I slope. Provide retaining walls as necessary to
create 4: 1 slopes in maintained areas.
(d) Refer to the Prior Lake Design Manual for preparation of plans and
specifications.
( e) Look at alternative ways of connecting to the existing sanitary sewer.
L:\OI files\OI plancomm\OI pcminutes\mn032601.doc 2
Planning Commission Meeting
March 26. 2001
(f) Catch basin 15 is located in a driveway. The driveway location must be
moved.
(g) The intersection of Lauren Lane and Jeffers Pass must be constructed in
Phase 1 to eliminate the need for a temporary cul-de-sac.
(h) The developer must obtain temporary construction easements where off-site
grading is occurring. These easements must be provided to the City prior to
issuance of a grading permit.
(i) The street grade shall not exceed 2.00% for the first 100' approaching the
intersection with C.R. 21.
6) Address the following comments from the Scott County Engineer:
(a) Provide a right-turn lane, designed to County standards, on CSAH 21 at
Jeffers Pass.
(b) Remove the existing driveway on CSAH 21 and grade to match right-of-way.
(c) Obtain permits from the County for any work in the County right-of-way.
7) Obtain a permit from the Watershed District.
8) All necessary permits from other agencies must be obtained and submitted to the
City prior to final plat approval, or prior to approval of a grading permit.
Comments from the public:
Peter Knaeble, Civil Engineer with Terra Engineering representing the developers, Don
and Damn Pavek, said they have made substantial revisions to the plan. They removed 4
of the units and saved 112 additional trees based on Staffs and the Planning
Commission's recommendation. Knaeble concurred with all of staff s conditions except
the first condition regarding removal of the last unit. The concern is a portion of that unit
encroaching into the existing 20% slope. Their calculations indicate 530 square feet of
encroachment. Knaeble felt it was an insignificant encroachment into the area and it is
not reasonable to remove that unit. He respectfully asked the Planning Commission to
omit that recommendation to the City Council. Knaeble pointed out the adjoining
Wensmann's 1st Addition development has encroachments into the 20% slope.
Criego questioned Knaeble on staffs recommendation on reducing the driveways.
Knaeble responded the developer did combine some driveways and were working with
the architect and staff. Criego then went on to explain Wensmann's plat and why the
Planning Commission made the decisions Knaeble referred to in his statement.
Dan Metzger, 2130 Windsong Circle, pointed out Scott County Public Work's letter to
the City indicating they would support any additional effort made by the developer or
City to explore alternative locations for access to this development. Metzger did not feel
Scott County's access guidelines were correctly used. He also felt Scott County was
evasive and omitted sight line guidelines in their letter to the City. The Windsong
residents feel the access is still dangerous and requested the developer identify alternative
accesses that meet the road specifications.
L:\Ol files\Ol plancomm\Ol pcminutes\mn032601.doc 3
Planning Commission Meeting
March 26. 2001
Kansier reiterated the concern on the 720 feet not having the distance is mitigated by the
fact there are two southbound lanes on County Road 21, which allow people to pass a
slower vehicle.
Metzger felt the entrance to the development should be on the crest of the hill where
people can see in both directions. The matter should be looked into.
Don Pavek, Pavek Family Investments, indicated at the last meeting the hardships of
eliminating units. Pavek pointed out there is a lot of open space and the encroachment
should not a real big issue. His other concern is the parkland dedication requirement.
The cash amount is the same as in previous reports but this reports includes an additional
$850. Kansier explained that this development is subject to the previous parkland
dedication requirements. The City recently adopted new parkland dedication
requirements. The previous ordinance had two parts, one initial dedication at the plat and
a second payment with each building permit. The new study requires a far higher
dedication. Under the new study one would pay around $1,600 per unit. Pavek said this
was never brought up in any of the previous staff meetings and he had budgeted $33,254.
The floor was closed at 7:05 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
. Agreed with the developer. He made significant changes to the plan and removed
the unit to the north. 530 feet into the slope is a small issue. He started with 80
units now it is down to 74.
. Allow the developer to keep the units.
. It is a good plan.
. Not sure about the access. The County has more control over that. They are
saying it is where it should be.
Criego:
. Agreed with the plan. It is a good layout.
. Like the reduction to 4-unit buildings and the idea of saving as many trees as
possible.
. The plan as laid out is ideal for this piece of property. Back it 100%.
. .Concerned with the traffic issues. There is a conflict with the County's
guidelines. City Engineer Sue McDermott responded the road is not medium to
high volume. It is a low volume non-continuous street. With that consideration,
the guidelines are 1/8 mile. The County saw it as low volume as well as the City.
When this connects to the leffer's property there will be an increase in volume. At
the development stage it is low volume and after the connections take place it will
be medium volume. Metzger is correct in his calculations. For an undivided 4-
lane street the spacing is 1/4 mile. Eventually the County will eliminate access
onto County Road 42 with medians. When the development is full the access will
L\Ol files\Ol plancomm\Ol pcminutes\mn032601.doc 4
Planning Commission Meeting
March 26, 2001
be at Lord Street and this access will eventually be eliminated to right-in, right-
out.
. Dan Metzger said today, County Road 21 does not have a median. It is a
problem.
. Does the City see any issues with the access? McDermott felt the City should go
by Scott County Public Works' letter and guidelines. The County did the study.
Access has to be allowed to this property.
. McDermott pointed out the County's property on the map. She felt it would be
difficult to create some sort of access at this point. The land to the south is
privately owned. The County did not mention their property in the letter.
Stamson:
. Concurred with fellow Commissioners - the development has improved. It is
very mce.
. Appreciate developer's efforts to remove some buildings as requested to preserve
more trees and open space.
. The encroachment is small and insignificant. Support allowing that unit to
remam.
. The access is not ideal but there are no reasonable alternatives.
. Concurred with the balance of staffs recommendations and support forwarding to
the City Council.
Atwood:
. Agreed with Commissioners' comments including the encroachment onto the
steep slopes.
. Not comfortable with the access. The County stated in their letter, they would
fully support any effort made by the developer or the City to explore alternative
accesses. There could be some energy put forth to explore another access.
. Would not support this request. There has not been enough effort into changing
the access.
V onhof:
. Agreed with Commissioners regarding the staffs recommendations.
. The developer has made substantial improvements and complied with all
recommendations.
. The encroachment of 520 feet is not significant. Comfortable leaving the unit.
. The access is a difficult situation. Ultimately Lord Street will be the superior
access.
. Do not know of a better access at this point or what the solution would be.
Open Discussion:
Stamson:
. Maybe there should be a requirement that Jeffers Pass not connect to the
Wensmann property until the improvements are made to Lord Street. That retains
L:\Ol fiJes\O J plancomm\OJ pcminutes\mn032601.doc 5
Planning Commission Meeting
March 26, 2001
the fact that this is not a non-continuous street until the extra connection has been
made. Next year or the year after there may be a significant increase in traffic and
would hold it down. The trouble is that a development is created with only one-
way in and out. There is a trade off.
Atwood:
. The County seems eager to explore alternatives to this development.
. Questioned the time limit. Kansier said the problem with exploring an alternative
access is property ownership. Ifthe developer owned the property it would be
different.
Criego:
. The property owned by the County is not even mentioned. That tells me they are
not interested in using that particular parcel or they know it is not large enough to
be used. The County is saying maybe the developer and City should look at it.
What about the County? The answer is, they feel the existing access is
acceptable. Believe the County's conclusion is the road is safe.
Stamson:
. The County's piece ofland does not even go up to the Lord Street access. The
property to the south is privately owned land.
. Does not see exploring eminent domain by putting a strip through someone else's
property in order to put in a street.
Rye explained the adjoining Jeffer's property access.
Atwood:
. Sounds like all the Commissioners are concerned with the access, but do not feel
there is a viable option.
. Criego made good points on behalf of the County.
. Her take on the County's letter is that the engineer was having a bad week and did
not research the issue.
. Agreed with Metzger's concern for traffic.
Criego:
. The County is very strict. They take the time and energy to look at the issues. If
they found a problem they would tell the City. You cannot prohibit development
-of a property when there is a development going to take place. The access is in
place.
Rye said the County is not bashful on suggesting alternative access or just saying "No".
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PRELIMARY PLAT SUBJECT TO
THE CONDITIONS #2 THROUGH 8 OF THE STAFF REPORT EXCLUDING ITEM
#1 WHICH IS REMOVING THE BUILDING ON LOT 6.
L:\OI files\OI plancomm\Olpcminutes\mn032601.doc 6
Planning Commission Meeting
March 26, 2001
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
The earliest this item would go to City Council is Apri116, 2001.
B. Case File #01-010 - Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community is requesting
a Conditional Use Permit to allow grading and excavation for an access drive to
Mystic Lake Casino on the property located on the west side of CSAH 83,
approximately % mile south of CSAH 42 and ~ mile north of CSAH 82.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated March 26,2001,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (SMSC) is proposing to grade and
excavate approximately 10,000 cubic yards on the property located on the west side 0
CSAH 83, approximately % mile south ofCSAH 42 and 'l4 mile north ofCSAH 82. The
purpose of this excavation is to create an access drive to the Mystic Lake Casino. Section
1101.509 Grading, Filling, Land Reclamation, Excavation requires a Conditional Use
Permit for excavation of more than 400 cubic yards.
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit request, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Prior to beginning any work on the site, the applicant must obtain approval of the
wetland mitigation plan.
2. Prior to beginning any work on the site, the applicant must obtain a permit from the
Watershed District and from any other agency as required. Copies of the approved
permit must be submitted to the City.
3. An Irrevocable Letter of Credit, on a form prepared by the City and approved by the
City Attorney, is to be submitted prior to the recording of the resolution. The amount
of the LOC is for 125% of the cost of the landscaping. Bids or estimates for the
required landscaping must be submitted to the City for review and approval.
4. The excavation must be done according to the approved plans.
5. The clean up of gravel as a result of spills or general transportation of gravel on any
public road shall be the responsibility of the applicant.
6. Hours of operation are 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. Monday through Friday (weekdays) and
8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon on Saturdays.
7. Watering for dust control shall be done on an as needed basis or within 24 hours
written notice from the City. Such notice shall be transmitted by facsimile to the
applicant. Dust control includes the entire project area and is not limited to roadways.
Water for dust control shall be provided from an off-site source.
8. The CUP is valid for one year, but is revocable at any time for noncompliance with
any condition contained herein. At the expiration of its one (1) year term, the
L\OI files\OI plancomm\OI pcminutes\mn03260l.doc 7
Planning Commission Meeting
March 26,2001
property owner may make application to the City to renew the CUP. The initial
approval of this CUP does not create any right, in law or equity, to the renewal
thereof. Any renewal of the CUP is subject to City Council approval and is to include
any information as requested by City staff or the City Council that would aid the City
Council in determining whether the excavation activities conducted pursuant to this
CUP created any adverse impacts to the health, safety or welfare of the City or its
residents.
Atwood:
. Questioned the Letter of Credit. Kansier explained the landscaping escrow and
requirements. It is a tool for the City to ensure the requirements are met.
Stamson:
. Does this become a public road? Kansier said it would not.
Comments from the public:
Stan Ellison, representing the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, presented the
layout ofthe road and extensions. Native grass will be planted in the medians. Maple
and Basswood trees will be planted along the roads. Other trees being removed will be
replaced with a broad spectrum of species on the trust land. It will all look natural. A
number of impacts have been addressed. The Community feels there will be many
benefits to this road. It will decrease traffic on County Road 83. The intention is an
alternative to County Road 83. If County Road 83 ever needs to be worked on, it will
provide alternative routes. This will also allow additional water mains to tribal
subdivisions. Ellison understands the Letter of Credit, however the applicant is not a
developer, it is another government. He felt the issue is not that the Community could
not afford it, they can. It is another government and should be treated as that, not another
developer.
Mike Witt, Environmental Specialist with the Shakopee Mdewakanton Community
Sioux, spoke with Water Resource Coordinator Lani Lechty from the City and other
government agencies that are satisfied with the wetland impacts.
The floor was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
. Questioned the future plans relating to the northern property and east of the
proposed road. Ellison responded it will be a vegetated cover in the short term.
The long-term plan is for institutional use. There are no details at this time.
. How does Staff want to address the government-to-government Letter of Credit?
Rye said there may be a valid point. Will explore with the city attorney.
. The plan is fine with no problem removing the Letter of Credit.
L:\O 1 files\Ol plancomm\Ol pcminutes\mn032601.doc 8
Planning Commission Meeting
March 26, 2001
Stamson:
. Concurred with Criego.
. Should explore Letter of Credit issue and remove it if possible.
. Move forward.
Atwood, Lemke and V onhof:
. Agreed with the comments.
. Request the Letter of Credit issue be reviewed by the City Attorney.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO THE STAFF REPORT
CONDITIONS EXCLUDING ITEM #3 REGARDING THE LETTER OF CREDIT TO
BE ADDRESSED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AND BASED ON THAT DECISION
GOES FORWARD.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
C. Case File #01-017 - Mark Crouse is requesting variances for impervious
surface and the ordinary high water mark for the construction of a deck on the
property located at 15507 Calmut Avenue.
There were no comments from the public.
V onhof read a letter submitted by Mark Crouse requesting a continuance of the hearing to
April 23, 2001.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING
TO APRIL 23, 2001.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
D. Case Files #01-008 and 00-009 Centex Home is requesting a preliminary plat
and Conditional Use Permit for 38.9 acres of vacant land located on the west side of
CSAH 83, ~ mile south of CSAH 42, in the East % of the NW ~ of Section 28,
Township 115 North, Range 22 West. The proposal is to create 54 single family lots
and to approve a Conditional Use Permit to allow a cluster development of 68
townh~uses. (Continuedfrom the March 12, 2001 meeting)
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented a letter from Centex Homes requesting a
continuance to April 9, 2001 to give the developer time to address the issues.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO CONTINUE THE MEETING TO
APRIL 9,2001.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
L\OI files\Olplancomm\Olpcminutes\mn032601 ,doc 9
,
Planning Commission Meeting
March 26, 2001
5. Old Business:
None
6. New Business:
A. Case File #01-013 - Wensmann Realty is requesting a vacation to an existing
10 foot wide drainage and utility easement in Wensmann's First Addition on CSAH
82.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated March 26,2001,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
This easement is located in the western portion of Wensmann 1 st Addition, and is
included within Lot 4, Block 1, Lots 29-32, and 37, Block 5, and Lots 4, 10, 11,30-33,
Block 6. The easement was originally platted in The Wilds 4th Addition.
Wensmann 1 st Addition was platted in 2000. This existing 10' wide easement was not
vacated prior to the final plat approval, so the easement encroaches into the buildable
area of the new lots. The vacation of this easement is necessary to build on the affected
lots.
The necessary easements were included in Wensmann 1 st Addition. There is no public
need for this 10' easement. Vacation of the easement will allow construction on the new
lots. The Planning staff therefore recommended approval of this request.
Kelly Murray, representing Wensmann Realty said it was partly their oversight when
platting and should have been taken care of at that time.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
. The public goal has been served.
Criego:
. No problem and recommend approval.
Atwood, Lemke and V onhof:
. Agreed.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE PROPOSED VACATION OF THE EASEMENT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
L:\OI files\Olplancomm\Olpcminutes\mn032601 .doc 10
Planning Commission Meeting
March 26, 2001
B. Case File #01-018 - Shamrock Development, Inc. is requesting a vacation to
an existing 10 foot drainage and utility easement across Outlot A of The Wilds
Second Addition.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated March 26,2001,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Outlot A of The Wilds 2nd Addition was originally platted in 1996. A 10' wide drainage
and utility easement was platted along the south property line of the outlot. Shamrock
Development is in the process of replatting this outlot, along with the property to the
south, as The Wilds South. Although the majority of the outlot is identified as parkland,
there are some lots included within this area. The existing easement will encroach into
the buildable area of these lots.
The Planning Staff recommended approval of the vacation.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
. Concurred with staff.
Lemke, Criego, Stamson and V onhof:
. Agreed.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL VACATE THE 10 FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE UTILITY EASEMENT
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF OUTLOT A, THE WILDS 2ND ADDITION.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
Rye distributed the proposed draft Capital Improvement Plan 2001-2006 for future
discussions. Any clarification or questions call staff.
The joint City Council/Planning Commission workshop on April 2 will be relating to the
downtown redevelopment design.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\Ol files\Ol plancomm\Ol pcminutes\mn032601.doc
11
,
.
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
4A
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AND A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE
O'LOUGHLIN PROPERTY
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
--
APRIL 9, 2001
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
Centex Homes and John O'Loughlin have filed an application to develop the property
located on the west side of CSAH 83, l!4 mile south of CSAH 42, in the East Y2 of the
Northwest l!4 of Section 28, Township 115 North, Range 22 West. The request includes
the following:
. Approve a Conditional Use Permit for a cluster development;
. Approve a Preliminary Plat.
The Planning Commission originally considered this request at a public hearing on March
12, 2001. The Planning Commission deferred action on this request until the City
Council acted on the proposed rezoning of the property. At the same time, the Planning
Commission and the staff identified some of the outstanding issues with the original
proposal. Among other items, these issues included the proposed parkland, the need to
extend proposed streets to adjacent properties and the 20% slopes on the site.
On April 2, 2001, the City Council approved the rezoning of this site to the R-2 District.
The applicant also submitted revised plans on March 30, 2001.
The original proposal included 122 dwelling units on 33.87 net acres, for a total density
of 3.6 units per acre. This development included 54 single family dwellings and 68
dwelling units in 17 four-unit buildings.
The revised proposal calls for a mixed-use development consisting of a total of 116
dwelling units, for a total density of 3.42 units per acre. The proposed development
includes 56 single family dwelling units and 60 attached dwelling units in 15 four-unit
buildings. The development also includes private open space and a public park.
l:\Olfiles\Olcup\centex\centex pc3.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
(
.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Total Site Area: The total site consists of 40.43 acres. The net area of this site, less
County road right-of-way and wetlands, is 33.87 acres.
Topoeraphy: This site has a varied topography, with elevations ranging from 1,000'
MSL at its highest point to 912' MSL at the lowest point. The high point of the site is
located in the southwest comer of the site. The site generally drains south towards the
wetland located at the northwest comer of the site. The property also contains areas with
slopes exceeding 20 percent. Section 1006.605 of the Subdivision Ordinance states that
whenever possible, slopes of 20% or greater should not be disturbed and should be
retained as private or public open space.
Veeetation: This site has been actively farmed over the years. There is a stand of streets
located along the south boundary of the property, and along the west boundary of the
property. The project is subject to the Tree Preservation requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. The applicant has submitted an inventory of the significant trees on the site,
which identifies 151 caliper inches of significant trees. The Tree Preservation Ordinance
allows removal of 25% of the total caliper inches for grading and utilities, and removal of
an additional 25% of the total caliper inches for building pads without tree replacement.
Removal of additional caliper inches requires replacement at a rate of 1/2 caliper inch for
each caliper inch removed.
Wetlands: There is a 4.3 acre wetland located at the northwest comer of the site. The
plans do not indicate any disturbance of this wetland.
Adjacent Land Use, Zonine and Comprehensive Plan Desienation: The property to
the west and south is Shakopee Mdewakanton Trust Land. The land to the south is
developed with residences and businesses, while the land immediately to the west is a
wetland mitigation area. To the north of this property is vacant agricultural land, zoned A
(Agriculture) and planned for Hospitality General Business uses. To the east, across
CSAH 83, is The Wilds golf course and residential development, zoned PUD and planned
for Low to Medium Density Residential uses and Hospitality General Business uses.
Comprehensive Plan Desienation: This property is designated for Low to Medium
Density Residential uses on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The property
also meets the criteria for the extension of the MUSA.
Zonine: The site is zoned R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential). The City Council
approved this zoning district on April 2, 2001. The R-2 district permits a maximum
density of 7.2 units per acre.
Shoreland District: The southeast comer of the site was also located within the
Shoreland District for Mystic Lake. On February 27, 2001, the Council adopted an
ordinance removing this land from the Shoreland District.
1:\01 files\OI cup\centex\centex pc3.doc
Page 2
.
,
Access: This property is accessed from CSAH 83. The access point is located across
from the entrance to The Wilds.
PROPOSED PLAN
Density: The plan proposes 116 units on a total of 40 acres. Density is based on the
buildable acres of the site, or in this case on 33.87 net acres. The overall density
proposed in this plan is 3.42 units per acre, which is within the limits of the R-2 district.
Lots: The preliminary plat consists of 56 lots for single family dwellings and 60 lots for
the townhouse units. There are also 2 lots for the common open space, a park and one
outlot.
The single family lots meet the R-2 standards. They range in size from 8,060 square feet
to over 25,000 square feet, with lot widths from 62' to 80' at the front building line. The
developer has not identified a purpose for Outlot A, located in the northwest comer of the
site. This outlot has no access from a public street or from any public property.
The proposed townhouse lots are "envelope" lots encompassing the building footprints.
The common area for this development is also platted into 2 lots.
Buildin2 Styles: The proposed plan calls for 2-story single family dwellings, ranging in
size from 1,700 square feet to 2,400 square feet. Each dwelling would also include an
attached 2-car garage. Some of the wider lots can accommodate 3-car garages.
The proposed townhouse units consist of 4-unit buildings. The townhouses are designed
as 2-story, slab-on-grade buildings with double car garages. The exterior materials are
brick and vinyl siding. There are no porches or decks included with the townhouse units,
although each unit has a patio.
Setbacks: The plan proposes the minimum 25' front yard and rear yard setbacks and 10'
side yard setbacks for the single family lots. For the townhouse portion of the
development, the plan proposes a 25' setback from the front property line, a minimum
25' rear yard setback, and a minimum 20' building separation (foundation to foundation)
between the townhouses. The plan also notes a 30' setback from any wetland and storm
water pond.
Lot Covera2e: The R-2 district allows a maximum ground floor area of 0.30. The
ground floor area proposed in this plan is 0.12.
Useable Open Space: The R-2 district also requires a minimum of 600 square feet of
useable open space per unit for cluster developments. Usable open space is defined as
"required ground area or terrace on a lot which is graded, developed, landscaped and
equipped and intended and maintained for either active or passive recreation or both,
available and accessible to and usable by all person occupying a dwelling unit or a
rooming unit on the lot and their guests. Usable open space has a minimum dimension of
30 feet. RoojS, driveways and parking areas do not constitute usable open space."
1:\01 files\Ol cup\centex\centex pc3.doc
Page 3
.
.
The density calculation for this proposal indicates over 9,000 square feet of open space
per unit (including the single family dwellings). Neither the calculations nor the plans
indicate where the usable open space for the townhouse development is located. This
must be identified on the plans to ensure the minimum dimensions and to ensure the
space is, in fact, usable, and does not consist of steep slopes.
Parkin~: The proposal provides at least 2 spaces per dwelling unit, which is consistent
with the minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements. Based on the site plan, each single
family home and townhouse unit will have at least a 2-car garage.
Landscapin~: Section 1107.1900 lists the landscaping requirements for this
development. There are two different types of landscaping required for this development.
First of all, perimeter landscaping is required for the townhouse portion of the
development with buildings consisting of 3 or more units at a rate of 1 tree per unit or 1
tree per 40' feet of perimeter, whichever is greater. In this case, the length of the
perimeter requires 69 trees. In addition, 2 front yard trees are required for each single
family lot. Comer lots will require at least 4 front yard trees. The single family portion
of the development requires a minimum of 120 front yard trees. Staff calculations
indicate a total of 189 trees are required for this development.
The developer has submitted a landscaping plan that identifies landscaping for both the
single family and the townhouse portion of the development. The proposed plan provides
for a total of 177 trees, which is less than the required minimum. In addition, the plan
does not provide at least 2 front yard trees per lot for the single family portion of the
development. The plan also does not indicate whether an irrigation system will be
provided.
Tree Replacement: As noted above, the applicant has submitted an inventory
identifying 151 caliper inches of significant trees on the site. Based on the grading plan,
the proposal removes 15.2% for grading purposes. Based on this number, no tree
replacement is required. However, the plan does indicate removal of some trees that are
within the grading limits of the site. There are 4 trees (48 caliper inches) located along
the west property boundary that appear to be affected by the grading on this site.
Although the grading plan indicates protective fencing, it does not appear likely that these
trees will be unaffected by the grading. Including these trees, the proposal removes 71
caliper inches, or 47% of the significant caliper inches for grading. This would require
replacement of approximately 17 caliper inches, or 7, 2.5 caliper inch trees. The
landscaping plan must identify the replacement trees.
Si~ns: This site plan identifies a project monument signs at the access to this site. No
plans or elevations for this sign have been submitted.
Li~htin~: Street lights will be provided on the public streets.
Streets: This plan proposes three new public streets. Street "A" is a 1,450' cul-de-sac
extending from CSAH 83 to the west side of the property. Street "B" is a 675' long cul-
1:\01 files\O 1 cup\centex\centex pc3.doc
Page 4
de-sac extending from the south side of Street "A" to the southwest. Street "C" is a
1 ,000' long through street extending north from Street "A" to the north boundary of the
plat.
Section 1 006.202 of the Subdivision Ordinance limits the maximum length of a cul-de-
sac to 500 feet. All of the cul-de-sacs exceed this length. The developer has not
submitted a request for a variance to this requirement; however, the grade and other
physical constraints limit the possibilities for eliminating these cul-de-sacs.
In addition, Section 1006.200 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that streets shall
connect with existing or dedicated streets, or provide for future connections to adjoining
unsubdivided tracts of land. In this case, the land to the west consists of a wetland
mitigation area, so it is not practical to extend a street to the west property boundary. At
one time, it was thought to be possible to connect a street to the south providing access to
the SMSC property. However, we have since learned this connection would require
elimination of an existing lot in the SMSC community. The connection, therefore, is not
practical. The street to the north has been extended to the north property line.
Sidewalks/Trails: The plan provides a sidewalk along the north side of Street "A" from
CSAH to Street "C", and then along the entire length of Street "C".
Parks: This plan includes an 8.21 acre park, which includes the wetland and a storm
water pond. The net area of the park, less the wetland and pond, is 3.32 acres. The
grading plan also indicates that much of the parkland will be graded with slopes greater
than 30 percent.
The minimum land dedication requirement for this development is 1 0% of the gross land
area, or 4 acres of dry upland with undisturbed topsoil and slopes not exceeding 1 0
percent. The proposed park area does not meet this minimum requirement. There are
two options available to meet the minimum requirements. One option is to require a cash
dedication of $1,685.00 per unit, or a total of $195,460.00 for the entire development. A
second option is to eliminate some of the lots along the north side of Street "A" to create
a more usable park area. This would probably not equal the entire required 4 acres, and
so a cash dedication would still be required to make up the difference.
Storm Sewer: The plan proposes a series of storm sewer pipes and catch basins that
direct runoff to a NURP pond located on the north side of the site, east of the existing
wetland.
Utilities: Sewer and water services can be extended to serve this property from the
existing utilities located in Wilds Parkway and CSAH 83.
ISSUES:
There were several outstanding issues pertaining to the original proposal. These included
the following:
1:\01 files\Ol cup\centex\centex pc3.doc
Page 5
1. The property has not been rezoned from the A (Agricultural) district. The City
Council will not make a decision on this rezoning until April 2, 2001, at the earliest.
2. The plan does not provide for the extension of streets and utilities to the adjacent
undeveloped properties. As noted earlier, it is not practical to extend a street to the
west; however, the street must be extended to the north. It may also be possible to
provide a connection to the SMDC property to the south.
3. Three of the four proposed cul-de-sacs exceed the maximum length of 500 feet.
4. The proposed parkland consists primarily of a wetland, a storm water pond and steep
slopes. The remaining area is a narrow strip of land that will not provide a usable
park.
5. The plan does not address the issue of slopes 20% or greater. This plan does not
make any attempt to preserve those slopes.
The developer submitted revised plans on March 30, 2001 to address these issues. The
following analysis is based on the revised plans.
ANALYSIS:
Conditional Use Permit Plan: The proposed CUP must be reviewed in accordance with
the criteria found in Section 1108.202 of the Zoning Ordinance. This section provides
that a conditional use shall be approved if it is found to meet specific criteria. These
criteria and the staff analysis of compliance with these criteria are set forth below.
(1) The use is consistent with and supportive of the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The Low to Medium Density Residential designation allows townhomes and cluster
housing up to 10 units per acre. This development is consistent with those goals, and
with the policy to provide a mix of residential housing styles.
(2) The use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals and general welfare
of the community as a whole.
This use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals and general welfare of
the community. The use is consistent with the adjacent development.
(3) The use is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and
the Use District in which the Conditional Use is located.
As currently shown, the proposal does not meet the minimum requirements for
landscaping. Whether or not the proposal meets the requirements for usable open
space is also questionable. Once these requirements are addressed, the use will meet
the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
(4) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities,
services, or improvements which are either existing or proposed.
The developer will install all utilities necessary to serve this site. The sewer lines
have the capacity to serve this site. The proposed NURP pond and storm water
1:\01 files\O 1 cup\centex\centex pc3.doc
Page 6
sewer system will be designed to accommodate runoff from this site. The need for a
park in this area has also been discussed. As currently proposed, the parkland
identified on this site does not meet minimum requirements. Modifications to this
design will be necessary to meet parkland dedication requirements.
(5) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the use and enjoyment of
properties in close proximity to the conditional use.
The use will not have an adverse affect on adjacent property.
(6) The use is subject to the design and other requirements of site and landscape
plans prepared by or under the direction of a professional landscape architect,
or civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota, approved by the City
Council and incorporated as part of the conditions imposed on the use by the
City Council.
A civil engineer has prepared the plans. The landscape plan must be prepared and
signed by a registered landscape architect.
(7) The use is subject to drainage and utility plans prepared by a professional civil
engineer registered in the State of Minnesota which illustrate locations of city
water, city sewer, fire hydrants, manholes, power, telephone and cable lines,
natural gas mains, and other service facilities. The plans shall be included as
part of the conditions set forth in the Conditional Use Permit approved by the
City Council.
The plans have been prepared by a civil engineer and reviewed by the City
Engineering Department. Some modifications are required, and will be made prior
to approval of the final plat for this site.
(8) The use is subject to such other additional conditions which the City Council
may find necessary to protect the general welfare, public safety and
neighborhood character. Such additional conditions may be imposed in those
situations where the other dimensional standards, performance standards,
conditions or requirements in this Ordinance are insufficient to achieve the
objectives contained in subsection 1108.202. In these circumstances, the City
Council may impose restrictions and conditions on the Conditional Use Permit
which are more stringent than those set forth in the Ordinance and which are
consistent with the general conditions above. The additional conditions shall be
set forth in the Conditional Use Permit approved by the City Council.
The suggested conditions and modifications for approval of this plan are listed
below, and must be incorporated into the plans prior to final approval by the Council.
Section 1102.403 (1) lists the specific criteria for a cluster development in the R-l
district. These criteria are discussed below:
a. Cluster housing shall meet the following minimum requirements: (1) No more
than four dwelling units shall be incorporated in a single building; (2) The density
of development shall not exceed the density allowed in an "R-2" Single Family
Residential Use District; (3) This subsection shall not be applied to conversion of
1:\01 files\OI cup\centex\centex pc3.doc
Page 7
existing dwelling units into cluster housing but may be applied to site clearance
and redevelopment. Existing units may be incorporated into new development
plans when such units are not converted or added to; (4) There shall be 600 square
feet of usable open space for each dwelling unit.
The proposal meets most of the above criteria. The usable open space must be
identified on the plans to ensure the minimum requirements are met.
b. The applicant shall clearly demonstrate through the application and site plan that
a superior development would result by clustering. The presence of a superior
development shall be determined by reference to the following criteria: (1) The
presence and preservation of topographic features, woods and trees, water bodies
and streams, and other physical and ecological conditions; (2) Suitable provisions
for permanently retaining and maintaining the amenities and open space; (3)
Locating and clustering the buildings to preserve and enhance existing natural
features and scenic views, aesthetically pleasing building forms and materials,
addition of landscaping to screen development, recognition of existing
development and public facilities, and consistency with City goals and plans for
the areas.
This site is suitable for cluster development due to the topography and wetlands on the
site. The townhouse portion of the development attempts to preserve as many of the
steep slopes as possible by moving the homes away from CSAH 83 and designating this
area as common open space.
Preliminary Plat: There are engineering issues pertaining to this preliminary plat that
must still be resolved. The major engineering issue pertains to the grading design, which
includes 3: 1 slopes in the backyards of several of the dwellings. The maximum slope in
maintained areas is 4: 1. This plan must be redesigned to meet this design.
Another issue is the need for parkland in this area. There are very few opportunities for
parkland on the west side of CSAH 83. This site is also limited due to the existing
topography. If a park is deemed necessary, the plan should be revised to eliminate some
of the lots on the north side of Street "A" to provide a more usable area.
Staff Recommendation: The following outstanding issues pertaining to this development
include the following:
1. Eliminate lots along the north side of Street "A" to provide a more usable park area.
If it is determined a park is not required at this site, the park should be platted as
common area or a part of the proposed lots.
2. Identify the usable open space for the townhouse development on the site plan and
provide the necessary calculations to determine the minimum requirements are met.
3. Eliminate Outlot A since there is not access to this outlot.
4. Revise the landscaping plan to meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements. An
irrigation plan for the townhouse portion of this development must also be submitted.
5. Include the necessary replacement trees on the landscaping plan.
1:\0 1 files\Ol cup\centex\centex pc3.doc
Page 8
6. Provide plans and elevations for the proposed monument sign.
7. Submit homeowner's association documents for the townhouse development.
8. Provide a name for the proposed subdivision.
9. Provide street names for the public streets.
10. Address the following comments from the Engineering Department:
(a) Provide a grading plan at a scale I" = 50' or larger.
(b) Show OHWL for DNR wetland #158w.
(c) Provide revised storm water calculations, along with a drainage boundary map.
(d) Coordinate runoff from C.R. 83 with Scott County. The County has a NURP
pond shown on the SE comer of the property on their preliminary plans.
(e) Provide an access road to the NURP pond for maintenance purposes with a slope
:S 8%, and a width of 10'.
(f) Maximum slope of grading in maintained areas is 4: 1. This affects the entire
grading plan. Redesign to 4:1 slopes or use retaining walls as necessary.
(g) Check backyard swales in Block 3, eliminate/minimize where possible. Try to
eliminate backyard catch basins where possible. Several side and back yard
swales appear to be outside of drainage easements.
(h) The pads on Lots 41 & 42, Block 3 must be 1 foot higher than the E.O.F.
(i) Extend water main along the western part of the property to the north property
line for future looping.
(j) The water main from the connection at Wilds Parkway extending through to the
north end of Street "c" should be 12" in size. The City will pay oversizing costs
through the Development Contract.
(k) Eliminate the 8" water main loop along C.R. 83.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
At this time, the Planning Commission should make a recommendation on the proposed
CUP and Preliminary Plat. The Planning Commission must also make a decision on a
variance to the maximum length of a cul-de-sac for Streets "A" and "B".
If the Planning Commission feels this proposal can go forward to the City Council at this
time, approval should be subject to the condition that the major issues listed above are
addressed. Some of these issues can be addressed at the final plat stage. The major
design issues pertaining to the CUP must be addressed before the proposal can be
forwarded to the City Council.
If the Planning Commission feels the major issues should be addressed before the
applications proceed to the Council, a motion to continue this discussion is necessary.
1:\01 files\Olcup\centex\centex pc3.doc
Page 9
In either case, the applicant must submit a signed waiver to the 60-day deadline for
action. If the applicant fails to submit this waiver, the Planning Commission should
forward this matter to the City Council with a recommendation for denial on the basis the
plan does not meet minimum ordinance requirements.
AL TERNATIVES:
1. Recommend approval of the CUP and the Preliminary Plat as proposed or subject to
conditions noted by the Commission.
2. Recommend denial of the request on the basis the proposal is not consistent with the
provisions of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance.
3. Table this item to a date specific, and provide the developer with direction on the
issues that have been discussed.
EXHIBITS:
1. Location Map
2. Reduced Copy of CUP and Preliminary Plat Plans
3. Developer's Narrative
4. Minutes of March 12,2001 Planning Commission Meeting
5. Engineering Comments
6. Scott County Engineer Comments
7. Finance Director Comments
8. SMDC Comments
] :\0 1 files\O 1 cup\centex\centex pc3.doc
Page 10
Property
LOcation
~
.J-.,
Location Map
I ,--;
N
A
.
1000
o
1000 2000 Feet
I
I:ENTEX HOMES
Minnesota Division
,? ':.:~ r? n ~\, ,7 ~:;:
- -. - --- ---~~-
'2400 Whltewater Drive
Suite '20
Minnetonka. MN 55343
i .
January 26,2001
. JA N 2 6 2001
.. ,~.
. i :!;
Phone: 952-936-7833
Fax: 952-936-7839
Jane Kansier
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
:; !;i
, ,
; .,'/ j
---------~. i
--- !
Dear Jane Kansier,
Enclosed is a check in the amount of $2070.00, a property owner's list, location map and a preliminary
plat and a conditional use permit application. I have also attached a copy of each application with Mr.
O'Loughlin's signature as you have requested in the past. Pioneer Engineering should have delivered the
preliminary plat and other pertinent plans to your office on Friday January 26th. Made part of my submittal
are the building plans for the 4-unit row townhome and the foundation-planting plan.
The following is a description of information requested in the application requirements:
RezoninQ
An application for rezoning has been submitted to the city for review. The rezoning request consists of
removing the property from the shoreland district and rezoning the property to R-2 (Single Family)
consistent with the city's comprehensive land use plan designation of Low/Medium Density Residential.
Proposed uses, density. lot size, acreaQe
The preliminary plat subdivides approximately 40 acres into 54 single family homesites and 68 townhomes
homesites. The overall density of the two products is 3.2 units per acre which is well below the allowed
density in the R-2 District of 7.2 units per acre. The single-family lots have an average lot area of 13,225
square feet and the townhomes are at approximately 2397 square feet.
HousinQ type, desiQn, and architectural stvle
The single-family homes will all be a 2-story design. Square footages will range from 1700s.f. to 2400s.f.
Rather than having the garage dominate the front of the home, the home is designed with living space
above the garage so the garage becomes part of the home. The architectural style is eclectic with most
homes having front porches, Customers will have a variety of brick and stone to choose from that can be
incorporated into the home by either accenting detail or acting as the primary elevation treatment. Given
the topographical condition of the site a variety of walkout, daylight and full basement lots will be available.
Again, because of the grade change on site. some of the lot conditions will be side walkouts or daylights.
The row townhomes are currently designed as slab on grade buildings. We are researching the possibility
to offer some of the buildings as full basements with walkout conditions next to the pond. Both the single
family and townhome product will include a minimum of a 2-car garage. About half of the single-family
homesites will provide for an optional third stall to be added, Protective convenants and restrictions will be
recorded against the single family homesites and townhomes. I have attached an example of the
document used in another neighborhood and would expect a similar language for the O'Loughlin parcel.
Neiqhborhood amenities, siqnaqe and landscapinq
The n.eighborhood IS designed around a natural wetland feature and dedicated parkland. The combination
of the two provide functional qualities while enjoying the undisturbed natural feature of the site. As a
-2-
January 29, 2001
gateway into the neighborhood, an entrance sign and landscaping will be provided. The exact design has
not been determined at this time. Attention will be given to mitigating any impacts County Road 83 may
present. Wherever possible, bermingand landscaping will be utilized to protect the neighborhood from
the roadway. In addition, the change in grade from the county road to the site will be utilized to help in
these efforts. Street lighting and signs will be provided as required by the city. Single family mailbox
locations will be strategically placed to coincide with utility boxes and/or street lights to minimize the
number of structures along the street. Mail box clusters of 2,3 and 4 will be used throughout. The
townhomes will include CBU units or some comparable clustering system.
Based on your review and comments additional information can be provided. Please let me know if there
is anything, you need and I will make sure you receive it so there are no delays to our application.
Sincerely,
~~k
Steve Ach
Land Development Manager
Centex Homes
Preliminary
Engineering Proj ect Summary
for
Centex Homes
O'Loughlin Parcel
in
Prior Lake
ili) @ @ rn Ow [g ~I
ill I \' Ii 1 i,
IlL,> i1ill
i i '. '.. I JAN 2 6 7001 :!! !'
,i 'I ., I,
I':,'" I : .,
IU \..Ii S/
I
I. Description of Project
The site is approximately 40 acres located west of Scott County Road 83 and 1/4 mile south of
County Road 42 directly west of Wilds Parkway, in the City of Prior Lake. The subject site is
in the SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 28, Township 115 North, Range 22 West, Scott
County, Minnesota. The proposed project will include the grading, utility and street
construction for 54 single family homes and 68 townhomes.
TI. Project Manager
The project manager and project engineer shall be responsible for various aspects of the
construction and are as follows:
Proiect Manager
Steve Ach
Centex Homes
12400 Whitewater Drive, Suite 120
Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343-9466
952-936-7833
Proiect Engineer
Nicholas Polta
Pioneer Engineering
2422 Enterprise Drive
Mendota Heights, Mn 55124
651-681-1914
ITI.E~tmgStieConilitiom
The site is actively farmed with a rotation of crops over the years it has been farmed. The low
areas of the site have been used in years as pature. The slopes of the site are relatively steep,
with elevations on the site ranging from 1002 to 912., generally the slope falls from south to
north. Two fields entrances are located along County Road 83, on at the northeast corner of
the site the other directly across from Wilds Parkway.
The site drains to a 4.3 acre wetland on the north boundary of the site.
The Shakopee Mdewaketo Sioux Community owns the property to the south and west of the
site. The use of the south land is primarily single family homes. The property to the north is
still used for agricultural ~urposes. The Wilds Development lies across County Road 83 to the
east. Although undeveloped at this time the planned unit development has a mixture of
commercial and public uses programed along the county road.
IV. Soils and Slopes
The United States Department of Agricultures Soil Survey identifies the onsite soils as
primarily Hayden, Glencoe and Terril Series of loams and sandy loams. The Hayden Series
on the uplands are described as good for embankment and foundations with slight erosion
potential. The lowland area running from south to north in the center of the site contains the
Terril Series. These soils are described as good for foundation and embankment after the have
been stripped down to the underlying till. The wetland areas contain the Glencoe Series, which
are deemed poor for construction purposes. These areas have been avoided. Comprehensive
soil testing was performed onsite by Braun Intertec (see soils report), their analysis
substantiates the suitability of the onsite soils for the construction purposes of the development.
Topsoil will be stripped and stockpiled onsite to provide for six (6) inches of repsread across
all turfed areas after grading completion.
The site has 3.94 acres of slopes in excess of 20 percent (%) as defmed by ordinance. These
areas and their corresponding slopes have been delineated on the Preliminary Plans.
During construction a geotechnical engineer will be onsite inspecting soil conditions and
providing analysis of the soils.
v. Erosion Control Measures
Approved best management practices (BMP) of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) as stipulated in Protecting Water auality in Urban Areas shall be followed. These
include but are not limited to the following:
All denuded and stockpile areas shall not have a slope greater than 3: 1
All disturbed area shall receive temporary seed, mulch and disc anchoring if no
significant grading is to occur for 30 days.
All finished grade area shall be seeded mulched and anchored within 14 days after
complete grading.
A seed mixture designed for the soil characteristics and area plantings shall be approved
by the City Engineer.
A separate cool seed mixture will be designed for dormant seed planting in the fall.
Peak Discharge from all storm sewers shall not exceed the original peak discharge from
the watershed.
All storm sewer outlets shall have rip rap outlets designed to City Standards.
All Storm Sewer outlets shall not have discharges greater than 4 feet per second.
Gravel construction entrances and a street sweeping program shall be used to ensure
minimal soil is removed from the site.
Inlet protection for storm sewer shall be implemented until streets are paved and turf is
established.
Erosion control fences shall be installed around all wetlands and water quality ponds until area
plantings have been established. At which time the erosion control fence shall be moved to the
edge of the structure setback.
Water quality ponds will be used as temporary sedimentation basin during construction. The
grading contractor is responsible for maintaining drainage to the ponds and between the ponds
and wetlands, by the use of perforated stand pipes.
VII. Storm Water Management
A preliminary hydrology and water quality needs analysis has been performed for the site. A
single water quality pond is proposed for the site. The water quality and hydrology calculations
are attached for review. The pond is designed to meet the water quality needs of the site, as
well as maintaining flow rates offsite to existing conditions. It should be noted that the analysis
did not include any offsite flow from offsite. The City of Prior Lake Storm Water
Management Plan has defined a need for trunk utilities to extend from the south of the site,
northward into the wetland. Scott County has also expressed interest in utilizing a portion of
the site for the upgrade of County road 83. As these needs are defined they will be
incorporated into the
VITI. Wetland Delineation
Melchert Wallky has prepared a Wetland Delineation Report and survey for the subject property. A
copy of this report is attached. No wetland impacts are anticipated for the site.
IX. Traffic Control
The contractor is responsible to provide to the City of Prior Lake and the Scott County Highway
Department a detailed traffic control/sign plan for construction on the site.
XI. Construction Sequencing
The following is a rough schedule for construction, contingent upon the approval of the project by all
pertinent regulatory agencies :
I. Install perimeter erosion control fence, erosion control fence around wetlands and
gravel construction entrances.
May 1, 2001
II. Begin Mass grading
May 3, 2001
III. Finish Grading, Respread topsoil, seed and mulch
June 15, 2001
N. Begin construction of utilities and streets
June 15, 2001
V. Pave streets, restore site
September 15, 2001
zr-w# 103ro~d AlIO 130~'lfd NIlH~n01.0
Z
:s
a..
Z
o
ZI=
z:5~
z:sa..a::
<( WW
z...Jll.ll.~
:sIl.Cl<(a::
!Q a..~~~a..
~3~2~~~
Cia..iii=>Cl:51!=
1:') tia>->->->->->-
~ ~U~~~~~~
enClZZZZZZ
I- a::~:i:i:i:i:i:i
~ ~!!![ij[ijai3ai3
:r: OXa::a::a::a::a::a::
en UWa..a..a..a..a..a..
":N..;..tu'i.or'crl
t::<
~~
~~
~
I
I
I
i
is
!t
o
~ ~
~; ~
i! jll
9
i
~
,
U~
EJ I
i
I
J t
:I
'f
t.
~I
'I
\ It.
t!l
II.
w
fl~
\;1 h !i' Ii I rtl
llllll . tit I
illi'l~ III 1.1 II I
llfl:jl -1111" I I'! !
Illf! i ~ 11'lt I !11!~1
11'~:!il :Ij i, I I Ii Ii
I ,ill' III it' I II
1m!,! H! HI. i I reiil
tlll1rl ill r~n I i ml'
W,!lll'; !:Ii . *.~,.*
.,!ll'~III'1 Hii Ii '"ii."
Ill! , 1_ !Iii' J -....
.,
-z
~ !
~ i
.- i
i
i
j
i
I
-'. I
" -..-i.-.--.--..-
i "'"
.,...... !&Ii
, ~~:;l
"., ~~:e
-"'_, ~ g i
g
.
~
\
i
!
!
i.
...
\.
~
~!
~J.
!l~
~~~~
ffii5~~lI:~
~ ~~i~o
~ ~~gl;
d d i ~
d'!"'r ~
i~.~~~"'22~
~ ~ n n~ n P
~ I "i't H ~ i i; n * .~ .
IlttYlhlll
11'n l ; 111\*
IJ
ili
co
~ I>
~
0. ~ ti
~ I ~
r~
0\ ~ ..J
89 ~ ~
~ , j i
;;~_"! i
.]~. ~
-. K
<~.i I tn
W
::;
o
I
X
~
Z
w
u
....;,....,..
Ll'
;;c
15
!
I-
W
W
I
Ul
D:
~
o
u
~
8
ili
[
I
~
Ii
~
w ~ ~
.
, CD
-:z - ! ~
. I i
N
. 0 ~
---r
g
~ ; A .
o n~qHL~ td
~iiulnnniu~
~ III! i I! 11 i~~l r D 1
,
,
I
,
I
,
,
\
...........", i
, I,
) !I
'1 %
i
!
i
I
",---'
,
/~'/
I I
....---./ ,1,1 "..__
, /
ffi/ (~<=
I _J \ \
J "'.... ....---:.__... _
... "", ,.-- ----
,../" I:/;'-?';;r--
,-,
\ ,
\_)
c.C'.:
-'
w
(}') 0
Q:
c'~ <
D.-
L' " Z
~
~ I
'"
::>
0
-'
"0
i
III
W
'"
o
I
X
I!!
z
w
o
i
III
Z
o
F
15
z
o
o
'"
z
F
III
X
~W
,It
i.!
I
i
I
.
II
tl
"
~l
Ii
i~i
I!l
II.
Iii
fl!
11:
d I
II' !
!I!~!
I
"I
IE!'!
=1'
.z .
.. 0 ..
.... i If-
Jt*..<<
1
R
l
I
ij
=
~
ij
t'
~ t'
E ~
11 ~
.
i
"
.
l
II
I
~!
I ~
. I
~"'~ i 0
:to " ~~E
"'",F . ~
~i OI.J -q~:
Wo I ~~i!:
~m : ~~~
ii!:;! _ _LJ '.~~
::>< -r i~~
~P)" : ~6~ ~
:g : ~;: ~
~m 01-; ;~~ ~
~~ : i~2 ~
:5'" I
,
.
j
1
.
I
i
il
<II
Ii
;1
- :z:
i c
" ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
i .
. ~
i ~ 9
H~
~
b S ~ 9
nn
~ ~ a .
I
+
------'-----------
-+--
(3..~ 3>1';"1 :::U.s:..n:' R[~ .~ '0: .,/........ IJ 'I" . JMlIJ ~)
(3f\lllO 3>lVl OIlSAt'l) tll .Oll .00
N
~
. ~ I
l(,.tr~'i
-.-, J
:r .
.... . 5 ~
..'
~ .
\)'
<..I
~
I , .~
.... -.c-;
.
J
.
f!
.
.
t
· i
,
,
E
~
l
G
!.:J E
. .J
ii
..J
W
U
lr
<(
!L
Z
:J
:r:
C>
::>
0
..J
'0
~
i
16
mZ
~o
~~ III
W
::;;
0
:r:
x
w
I-
Z
W
U
.
i
I-
<(
..J
!L
>-
lr
<(
z
:i
:J
w
lr
~!L
Ei
ii
, I
.
I
i
I
.
I i
11
'1
h
:.
II
Il,
01
1:1
.1.
.-.
W
{II
di
d I
II! !
~dl
illlil
I
':'.\
mill
II. !
.2j,.
: ~i :
......
r: '::.~...~s
--;'t\c..
..s~
r-~\"";\O~~
;.-"
Vl
Z
o
F
<(
...J
::>
U
...J
<(
U
W
U
<(
IJ..
0::
::>
Vl
Vl
::>
o
5
.0::
W
a..
~
l;
~
1;
~ I
~ ~
a ~
! ~
1n1n:J III
ll!w..
~~~ ~ l! l! M
~=~ ~ ~~~~~ i
I I' I ~!l I
~ i ~~ t; id~
~ ., ~i~~ t;~h
B~ ~ ~.,~~~~8n
~ ~~ ~ "~8o~~~~"~
"~g " affi!i!~oolJi<
;)~"., ~ ~~;;!W~~%~
~..o.. ii ~-w-~-~-
N
.. I
t'
I
"
I !
~ ~ I
o I.l -
N
~B
~;!
~ll!
l
l:l
~
~~~!~!
~~;}"""~N
~t3~~~
~I, :3:;::::.
";:5 1~
I~ ;nil!
WE ~~
~~ ~g
~a. :!ffi
~ ,il:l:r~
- i~i~~
(J) ::>>'" 10).
Z ."..~i:i;;:
w .H;:::<(2s~1
o
!
{B ~
..~ :3~~
~~ lid
~~~8~e
Vl g"<el!:.~
o lig!l~o~
<( ~~~~ ~
I!! ~....li! ~
w il ilililil
Vl
Vl
Z
o
F
8 ~i~~~ :5
~ ;~:~; ::>
eool..~.s..: ~
. ..... <(
u
Vl "
z
o
F
:5
::>
u
...J
<(
U
<(
W
0::
<(
$l~
i:3
.Ii
ig
,~
!f
i.:l~
.,!f"
l'l -
l'l~
~~ i
;0:"'.
D~~IIJUJb
~a;0I~~!lCF=!
!l8 ~Wf~a
'.
w v i
@
.
- :z_ . ~ r '"
- w ~
. I ...
Ii
i
, .J
W
, U
, " ,0::
,'"'
, 0..
Z
::;
J:
'-'
::>
:0
r~
0
i
".
I
i
!~. i
~u i
n5 i
" ". i
-..-1.-
j
".
".
",
"
"
o
Ul
w
::E
o
J:
X
~
Z
W
U
E:J
z
'"'
.J
0..
~
Vi
>-
0::
'"'
Z
~
::;
~~
"0..
E
iIi
,
,
.! t ~
,
. I
. .
l!!
~
..
s
~
i
,
! J~
II
e
l';
01
.:l
!f
~
~
so
~
!
I
Ii
I
,
I
~~
<-c
::;~
td..:
"
z
o
F
:5
::>
u
...J
<(
U
<(
W
0::
<(
~
0::
<(
a..
iI
tJ
II
If
if.
tH
II.
Iii
'II
II'
i I
~ ~
0-
Z
:>
~
a
~
N
,
.,.:l
5~
;~
""
~i
!>~
~!
..
w
..
-c
~
~
~
"
z
5i2 l!!
~I~I!
1.L ~ D.~
o ,., e
o
0::
a..
..
N
..
~
-c<
W-c
!>o-
~i
~~
l'll>
i
~ ~
~ ~
~ e
o
F
<(
0::
<(
W
0::
<(
0::
o
o
~
~~ ..
~i ~
,-
~ III
~ ~
~
~
::!
d I
11!"j!
mi!
I
a:('11
m !
.z .
"0 "
- .. i >>
It..*.
, ,
w w
z Z
:> :>
~ ~
N ~
w
~
;:
:!!
~ !!~!!
~ dlSI a~ ~
"
<
,,~.:,,'
tI~o
~b
~u
<"c:;
,G ..\~.......-:J
<\~
..
o
'.
'"'"
E:J
..
"'
'"',
'I,
i ·
i
\
~ ~I!h ~
.;/~I.~~ ~2
~ H~n~~Hd
~ I *l'q t ~ i !; (\ o:l:
11'h i i Ili( I.
]@
-::Z-I i
. I
1Aii11
4:tm1
'~"~i~\ 5
" '-. ~ .
y- a
-P
~ 1 on
8
',n I ii
'-.J
d
u
'"
<(
lL
Z
::J
:I:
'"
::>
o
....J
'0
~
i
III
W
:>
o
:I:
X
~
Z
w
U
i
z
<(
....J
lL
~
::J
F=
::>
>-
'"
<(
Z
~
~a
.'"
.lL
~
,II
I
. c 1
5
i
~
,
H~
I
i
I
I i
11
tl
\,
,}
h
!il
t!
I"
Iii
fl~
.Ii
~ Ii
w ~
~ ~
! .,
~
II '"
II ~
r -'
w
u
a:
~) <(
~, n.
( .I Z
G' ::J
:r
Cl
::>
g
b
I
)\
',:' \
','
.., ...
~
! _u~~
i! o~~~5..
C!i fiiXi
o
z
o
..
Ul
W
::;
o
:r
~
z
w
u
r
i
z
<(
-'
n.
Cl
z
is
<(
a:
Cl
>-
a:
<(
z
s
~a
Fa:
~n.
"
~il
. ,
. .
II
tl
!1
tl
'I
ft.
t!l
II>
Ii!
ii'
II'
o i
L
~ ~
a ~ n H I - t
P fi r-~ ~ ~ ~I ~
0 fi .. be' ~
~~Ii i&pd'~ II iH ~ ~z -~l
z " 'I" T ! ~
w Bhd n~L = s 1!
D r \ I \ : I I ( L B
W
J \ III !Ii i \~~ : + (
t
III I ;Ii~~ I + \
;L,
il:I~~
,I';
.~I,'
1r:11~
11l1l0ll
L .
; .1
II
II il
'_Ill
d I
II! !
!!l~l
u III
r' "
~ " m'!-II"
~ !j Ml!i 1111, M..-.....-.
i ;, IIlltrlFle
~"".~
I
Ji
II
~
1:\
ll.
, I
Ilil
Ill'
.ZJ;.
.. 0'.
~i....
....
I
'I'
I,'
'ii
III
~
':JI ~ 1 0 U_ _~rr '';r .:.> _-- _~--~~.=.=.....~ _ _ -.=-~ .,L..,; -- -;;; .7tI/f\s........:::-~':.: f3\
x,";" I / """" '" ",'" _- --- --- ,',""I, " I-~
::-_~,,, '\ I / ...."" ,,'" "." _: ~_- _-- _--- ~/._' ,I' \ I ",/ Q
_---- -" -/..-'......."~- '--::\'" __9_..4....... 'It I ,,~.~ \,
--- -- t-:--- - _-:''>J<I'--- ~' I 'I "{.........'7 I ,." r
_-";>--::~-::/ _~::_ II I -'I '> / Ii. 1Y \ \ , .t I
-:::_ --ro---~ , I \ ,Ill 1\'
- >';"'~: ;i:-.:-:i rs:=-:.~~ };~~~~ \ \, ~ ~;\~ .~,(",,-.... >- \' \ "--}
=- _---.::>;:::1 ....",~- ~ 1'::--:-- f!!: ~ - iV'1 ~~\-~'-"" '" \ ~ ~
]( ___:___~ '~~':">Y-:- "fGi - ~ _ J~ &.1-0< "T~ r\\ ~..\X' ~ 1't~ .. ~- " " , ,W --, ~
~ ~;:;~ /~:1i fC. - -~ - -::f:'<.'! ~\ \ \(1 ,} ~~ ~~ - "~ ~.... ....-..:~ ~ \~" ,X
~ ~"E;~ _ -_....- ,," l....-i If.; ~ "'-. c:.:::: fNl" ~ W 1. /./ '...."~' )~
-. .\\,,-:'-'" ~-:? W ' r,~~~ ),.. "" II z
~- -- 'I~:..L: I" .~ ~~~~....( ...~' ,',......,,' ~\\~:5
~- ~-.5.~' -'" - < ==-" I' 'iI~~~'~'\:'''''''t~ ~ ........<~ \\ \; i~
:"=-.=f~_---~- - j'l ~-'I ~ V'A \~, ~\ _ :- / - \ "~~,..;>,, >~ :,\~ \ \ ~t3
-.::-\ L.!..-=-t l \~".. \ - - ~,\' I Will
::. _..:~ - A1-r ~_ a-:r ,:;:-11-7 'l~ll~.j, tb~\.-:\ \', ..-. ~ - )\ .~ ' '\ \\ \\ g:~
,:j .... H--\.-" >r_ ~'M / '10' \ ,,\ \ ,II .J
"'..1- ~r_ ..-~ ~\l!t w '~_ \. ',,' 1\ ' \ ill ili !
.~ il:\~ -Plffi__ / / - -- 9 n- \: I\HJL lA AI, II \ ill' ~
~ ~./ / / / " l~; I)' I ,,, I II
::::- = ~ lJ~^~ I ) Tf / ! / / / ,.. - ~ ~ -' / / J // /J I II -;
;0.- __ \ I / I 1 ,1/ /";/ .I... - "!f!J& II I"
==r _----- ------ \ I / / I I' / // /" ~ '1J ':,.~?]~//fff "
__ -- _~, 'i I / 1 I I I I I / / / /.<< :ll' ~/l,.b / I / / / I I "
. -.:~ ___..-=-~..-.....~"'~" / 1 / \/ ~ / I ;-: _ 17 "'~ ~' / //// III
2>>/,,---:' ;~:~;'~":>\ / I Y JIV "'~A\n&.1'!:_" '0~V /I--6.~~:I'//// /1 I It
~lll /~ ~" '-' \ I~ ~" - ;l')_ '- /A?711r '" ~
i". " " ~," I i A " Z .,( ~~ / I I / 'I ~ ,~
· ~'7/7 ~ ~"'~t./\ .-;V./. ~~-" I ,~~ ---~ '7<t, t~~/ -" - ~~ / /11 tf \ nIl I
/ I ~ I po:/!} '/ / ~ .;:.-...~v~/_....,- ~ '-v- / 'ty' I
.I \ ";,-t/' 2- !. /. __..::.~ :,..//,! ~~~~ -: f\ --;; -" " / ~I 7 I \~ .'
~ I '" 17 - .,..~/ ----- '- '""-.\1 ~~: " " I 0
: 1 j~/ . I I /~~__ ~~} -"F~~" --- K:\-~' \'VX---'("/>::li -.... /. h" "I /
I .' / ~ ',/A I ~' -'-...- .o....\.-~ --. \\" /
, ./ / '$,'!; ZI I _- ~~-'-:I:l~"-< - - I'l', ~'- 0 1/
, I I ~ I II I / '" ,. ~. --'*" -- ~ ~ ~ ~ ,..- /
/c"-,ffI/ /j/~ IIII!')QI{I'Z>~>:;'''' 7;> :'~1'\~ /' ~-'- /;1,. I~
/// ~,' );~ I. / /. ~(tl//. . ~M" (ff(-/ i-'}'~i -= ~~-- -~~-:- '~~~f - ~ ~- II
: "I [1/ ~ ~ 14- I '/ ---.\. ~{-~ ~ ...e--r J,.. 'I-I
/ !Ii I' I /" ,,~ 'i 'nj/ I ~';t( { :j /- ---- ..... 1"'" ~ r::::--4\. k,I '; I
i / / /1 ,,/".) / ~1; /IN::1fL, I fWf' (, - e-... -""" .. /- ',II
/,/ // / /7/') /~ ~ lA~i '{'h' III ~~ ~\-:::. -1l ~<~ 'iJ} - .... 11
.//~--" I/~ v~ / /1!J~/ v :f-l">4..XmJ " J ~ '\'< _ c=- , ~~ ...-_.-\\1 > Itl!'-.I
I z I I r 1 I ~/ 1 I \ '- ~ - ><::J II -- /
I Z I i) A / / I <Xl -.;:>.: ~ "Nt; < /
'x / 1. / I ~ I / / / J \ _ '" '~/ <lfr / - / ,I.
'I I I I " II rlt <. / / -- ..--=:=;"'\ - ....,~ /-ut 1'"1: - --1'\ ,;.... Iii
i / / ' I I H /'//~ / / :: fl~
\ \x I 1'rJ./ !/Jl!{ ~~~:; / 1/ ~/ =~~~~ ~~ ~ -;, ._~' hl
~ ~Ig\ I I, Mi'1I11111~, I(~//I -.... / I - .:;-~ I~""("?G ~ - ~~ d I
"~ 1 I I l!"i I II ~ ~ ,,~ 1'::--- -- l' I'!!
\;\. \ II \ I,' IY\ i i :.iJ! t J / ' .--+--;~~':>-- ,J '" - · lId!
Il \ \ I \ \ \ I ~:t:Ii1 I II lid I / > >~>~ -<:: 'L ~ - - ~ d'lj:
1 l \ ! ~\ \ 1\11 IY:-\1tl11f.h1. / I ef-/If / \ - r~
I_ ,~ \\~II~~\I\ 1 I g / / }< \ co / V t I
)C '/ ~~I ~ \ ~~_ -~ ;" ,,- i' ~ {~.l~!
.' ,~.~ ~ \ ~, \~ I N v6 1 / ,'-""'" *.0...*
-,
RAe!1l!! ~!!. __
~~~~~ m !>!>
~~~
i
~
II Ii t
n ~~
111111 u! ;i
iii ~I
;LI.3 1m I;:
G 't)@
~
~
_:z:
; ~~\m!!'~
... 0-
. I .-
i. . .
[l fj,. :s
,21 .
I .1
..
8]!
· a
. ~
~
'h I 11,1 'I' ~
!I! iJi,ni !~ I i
f,1 ,lliUdf:,!!
PJ ~i'II'IIIII:,1 e
I~I~II' "1"1 d
~ f.1!1!!!:6'\'h','!
lulll ~luh ~f It !'"
;1
-'
W
0,
'"
'"
n.
z
::J
:>::
<.?
=>
'"
-'
'"0
G
i
III
W
:l;
o
:>::
x
~
Z
W
o
~
i
~
II ~
NO~ z~Uln
:?! ~ ~o j! ~ Co
<( .~I'" ~~.
~ ~ ~~ 2h ~ ~~
:::! ~ jg:! 5~ "- ~ ,,~
w ~ ~. l!o ~ ~~ Ull!
~ i ~~ji i1 ~: ~~! ] - ~
"\A' /. x .~_ . I a ~l:I!~ i ~~ ;~ ·
~? ,,__' _ , . , -~ z -. 1
~~~":'2C~ _ '~'~ ~~.Y _.. .- ~
~~,- ~. .,,' - ~~-' .
~ ~-Tti:::' l.----'" \ \ I ~"'\. \ ~~~~"!!'~ ~ .."~':--' " '~~N. J,\~ I - 0
'-r -F<3~\Ie,", f-,--j rl'C f \. '1'. ,}!',' ,~A "'.... .... ,"" ..... ' '. \ \" <0."'- '''.!. :fS
l--~'-"\ ___r-- ---T:;:. -:tn~ 11 __~,'r~ \ ,:;~/Y ~ "i,I\"I ~ ',' ,,1\) 'l:/J~ 'I
~.J'>--=' ~ -,..,,,,-,,-,'I\:'Db.>-- ' ? -~ ~'\\ _\::,..n,' <" ,\ \ \\\'> ( ,.....'
I - - ~ z --" '" ,Il , '
~ ~.....\ 1't ~"-----I ~ ? ~ ~ 1 .~' ;,..: , , " '\' I \ ~ \ G en
~ ~ V , .. r.. --{1 - ' , \ ' " " ",'i" , "
~ ' , ' ." ' ' " ,-' ",' ~ .
~ ' " \ ~ ,\,\ ill' b' .r< ~
""~ 00; , . 11 "":,, ,,,' .. , \~ "
::--___ \') )7--77/ / ' ,--__ __ I[ "~ ,,-r,- 1" I G 1<1\l' ·
- -, ,,;' , " , , /' ' ., , , ", ,'" ,~
-.:: ' " ' / / Jf' '/ '_ -- '- -- ... ' 'I' "n ' '
" "" \ I "" / /, ~ 'IS' __ j " " " 'II / \0 ',,'
'. " \ ,kf'7 / .'/ ~~. 'I U "h' /' ,,,' , ' I
\ 'C" , ,"--/' -- ~ -y, h. ' d' / ,~/p ,'I/@""--
-' "-- _ ~ ,,-' _ ~," ~,.w, ""~/ / // / I I"
'-' /-1'/1 ....,..'- '-I\.~ ....."'~ t,( I -,0; )'~ / /1 I I I I I' D
i ~/!/' _ L I " _ ~/..><?; ~ ~// IF / I / I' \".,
./: /11 ~ 7/ L/ Y \-: - t '_..1:.._ .)//1/.//),. ,1/ >-
, ' ' /l"'''' /' ___./'--'<?< - 7: ,'/, '" , " ' ·
jj/ ,. 7 1./ Z :_~~/ / ,/ __-~ _;.;~. '..... ..... ,~~~/fbro I I I f"'--.. ~
/ Z '/' ,-- __- ,,,... ~~?:: _U, " ~-"<- / I' \r<';"-. \ 1 ::;
~ ' ,...., _ __, cY' ,\ 1\ - " \' ·
(' ~ ~/J.. IN):Li- ~"-'~} ./ ~.....\,..... \c~I--' /. /./ / I' Q ,\ a.
I~ I!~/I f? h;~~/_//:.c/ ~~d/ _,;;' ~~~S-':X<_J /7 I 1_ ~ I~
'~, " ",,,.. / _-'ItC", -- ......,.. ~ 1?W~1 ,)< " ,
/ /~///~ v.':; , , ""','--:/ ~ ~~~ -n.~ /2?5~ .-r'. 't,:l _~,-!-'{,-~11/. I>II~- \-~.:....._.." ',/
,.. / ,<,//.t 1.7t , ~'( . ...;/ P- ,,__ . \.':-.. \ .... -... "-' / -- "-0-' /'::-/~,,.;;
, " ' ''', b>-' - - ~,-~ ,-- ....'
I':" ,,';/P)f/j/)~'N'Y '/ti, ~ &=" "'-,\' - /-'O~ -/J.V;.--~ ,-,' )\, -
/ / / ~1 '/L' I 71 'lj~~Jjq, ,/ __ '-, ,C:::.l ~ _~-'-'I' V ,---- - ' ,
, " /J. ,; '" _,,, " --~. -r" ,--- -- k---O::,' I
,'" ,,! " ""I' ~"'O -- 'f - --- --- ---, ','
, / 1/" I /, ~""1:!J f ,. , ~"~-C_"" c::. ... 1<'- - ;:::: r-i' k
I I ~'I", "'/lJ'ft.. ;;; \ \.'\' V c:=- - '" ~---
I " / /1 " \ ~,,,\:, - - I... ,.... "1.\ - I 11Y.l.'(;> 1. .
" " " " \ _ ~ _ _ _ ,,"- _.. ,__/'C, .
I / I "yn! I! / !;;J ( / / ~I r;r: ~( 0''''' .....]-~ /. , " / / - -~ /-..:--" ,'-==-----~ j;
, ,~., " "." u , -- -- ",.' ,- ," - ' -,
/ ' I~{ , .. "7-><' q /' -..~':/ ,;"" ,:,:::':.::.,- '--
", 'Ii' , " " -.=- ' -- ~ " ',-
I I I" ,t! J ' ,,,' ,t1; 1/11 ! ~x/ I _ ~ IX' --;0 - -'tt ' /' ' r--- "--~--
I 'I 'ki' ~ I IIf ~ ~x:: ""---"'H9'J' . . " ,----->,',
I, I \ V)l{'l'. ,!' 'II' --' / ~::.-_~I\, '-(1/1 --"IiI' J, --~::-,' ,',
\ K\N\liJVr-,1 I,' It I E ~ ~//A)~~~""'- ~/~.\'" ~ ' ~ f....~ 'i'-_::~ ,\,' .1
,"0,~ '1J ~, ,.' ,,' " ,,' ,-l-.~'/)' '-, l i,/ '," \
~'0' ""\1' 'rtIl,'t,Y' ,< !.! r T'~" "''-- - f--, I;
~ \I,\W;.,\\~ ~,) "SJ' ,~ '. .... ~-t 2-~5.....' c!
, "'''-''''''\. ~ ~~ 1_ '. , " . f( " !
I r, b m: ", ' , \. \~ B\U'2 ' " \ ", '
, \\ y!.L ( / y~~' '" I
\ \ '\ \ ,:;\\ t\ .\~ /.~~1 -'..."....., \
, , " \ " " ,!<:i: ,\\'" .. .' "" / / ! ~ " ," I
\ \ " \ \ \ \ \ 1\ ,~'j,~"'\\'~'\~;' .;f~~~'l' '\ , I / / ~ .= --/ --- /. ~J. ^ ) -,.I ~
, , , . J ' \ \11 ,"\",\\\\" 'F\~' , \ " Iff,' ,/ ' ~ ~
\ \ Iii I 1/,U}))J!!!!!fl 11 i \:\\\i\\\\\\<\ (Cj \ (! --~'~1~:----'\"/
, ' " " , I , ' " " " " , " " ,,,,,,,,,,,,, , , .. "I il (/' /
\ \, \ \ \ I i Ii IIII i! f I Ii r ! i I \ ~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \, <'--., \ ~ : ( , : /
;\ \ \ Ii \ \ \ i Ii Iii i ( ,\\\,\ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\,,", ~I / /J \,. '------"
",,!/ l\ \'1<,,'\" """,,' "" \,' ," " ·
. . I '. I I I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ , '- I f / '...., (/
\ .. \ \ \ \ ,\ I , I ,-
\ I I I \ \ I
'. II I
N' ....
~. 0 C!
_ e!
~ 0 ~
I!:
\!t
ii:
~
cr cren
o 00
... ...'"
\!t" ~lJI
\!t ~~ o~ ~
:i cr~ ~5 ~
~
OMa'l:al1U:sool/so"""v~ ~~Yld/~'tllO/'f'
~
OJ
23
c:.
f',,)
OJ
CJ)
i
c-J
.J
W
U
0:
..
lL
Z
:J
J:
"
OJ
..
.J
b
z
..
a'
z
o
>=
~
ei
en
w
0:
lL
W
g~
i
//--
I,
I /-,
I' -
I,(
111 [I ,
, 1\ ,)
I'-'~
\ }
\ I ~-)
l~
!.
U
tl
I'
I~
II
fl
1L
II I
l'i~I'
/ IlfiJ!l
! II
~!I
/ll!1
I II! I
/ "'~"'"
I ... a.1I ·
,I ~...t1
')
I
/
/
I
I
,
,
/
---_./
tAL'KI'ft8:nst II
---
UOIOI'KJ ......ullln .
..YHOllnv..
r~~~=;=': I~
I 2
It It
lih
l I
C')
0>(\1
'li
~
EKV9 "".~
..,.....
UKJ..-.NM DON'
~ ~!
5
=
""
<D
C"J
:z:
<(
-,
I
J"
,~
z
Q
i=
~
Pfu
~-1
IU
I Ii
I ~ ~
] ~ ~
~
of).
/~
tr.=--
----t-.
" i'
; ~~
~
Jo
~
p
~
-1
I
.,"-,,,
I
I
~il
.
. ,
.'l-.~
tKft Nn '1IIfUCItMJU\ft
CR:tewns
MJIO..........oot21
551HDH X5I.1.N5I:J
fltltl.ttfrne ~:1
Cttl'KfI'ZI8 ~
UOflII^IO 19Od....U1W
I" /
t ,,'
I'
ll!t/ .
,I,
II II I
,. !i
il
!I
-I
~
I
~ I
~_...>'.r,,~. ,~.' "'~
.', .....". '.
";'. . .~. - . '.
f' .- _ ';' ~', .'. ,..
,
~. ;..
..;
~:'." ,'.
,;'" \'-, .... ,
'. .:;'~:".,.'" ...:
'.,", '.,
:' . 'I{~ .~
. . ~i..;,
"'.,
1.'.-'-;' ,
.-
;.
B ,
......... .. -
I.' . . . "
'.. ....
" ,'- '.
,..J:..~..
. :,'! ...' :. '~......, 1_.-,
..;
..
.., ..... i'. ._. ~
..:
.:~..', '
.~ .t' .'
.'
,'~ -.
'u,
'.
I =::::=--:::E:1~--======== 1'1 w II@~
--- ---------...------ I J: \,..,1 '~
NVld A3>t w~ 'j' k1' kk1' .'ti T'"" '0
I 13^31 NIVVII h"".l , ,
..VHOHnY..
..J:::::~,,~
'I "
~RTI'''l! @ Ii
t .0-,,"
"
~ '.. .. : "
., ,. .-
"
N
IL
&
:r
()
~
~
5
::;
\C;)Vrr
IN
~J
:r
()
()
oc
)-
-'
~
4:
IL
I
~;F1
ILWJ ~
!: T
>L I
~.'~~~~. . u. J
:r
()
()
II'
~
z
D
f=::J
1==
:~
I L__
1-:
nuft. - -, p~
m i 0 (J
n. ! LL JJ,]
~LJJL,,-
~ ~ :--)1
~ ~!8 I ! ~:::::: ,IL ".~ '.l~
r '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''~, ._~~~ .. '," '. ..
I ~.:,=.,.. ill W ~ .,~ /
n.-. 14 ll!~ .
___'___m','m'___'h__ r\ ~'~
~
I=:: '==-~ I I> ","~ "/ II
f-- ,,-,..., ./ Cl <- U
.\ I ~
~J '-.J fu''=''U'--'l
1...f'JD... .,
:r
()
~
\'l
z
z
D
:r
8
II'
\'l
z
z
D
:r
()
~
I ~
r J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"';."
--~--~--~~---i
P..,.,.,...., I
ill [:
I
~t=
cl
ILj~,
FJ
I~i~
.I!-
ii
Ii
jj
.
ii
ii
i
Ii
.
ii
jj
~
:r
~
\'l
z
z
D
~.
",
:r
8 u:
II'
)-
-'
i'
4:
..
---
'------1
.---'
~ . ~ ~
.' ;.,
.. ,
--1--...1
.o-.r .0-.'
H. ~ .~__,~....
III
'il
-f
II'
-f
'il
~)
I
:i:
~-)
'1
III
\'l
<1'.
ll'
-f
'il
~n
"
z
=>
.,
" ....
~ t
1.
,-L.1
c-.~ .0-,'
III
I!>
<f
ll'
<1'
I!>
-:I
III
\'l
4:
II'
4:
\'l
}J
"
z
=>
:r
()
()
II'
\'l
z
5
::;
Mu .... ..!
~;;::'P:.'i
~/1
lif L
If
ib~ji.__!i ~l!
u:;_________:lr___~::: -::::::::,::::U
L/
[i:...........
~', ~ ~
,; ~.
tta! Nn"""'"
Ill'....
MttQ....-.NM _z~
t1ttl."tte"t9ll :d:t
ml'Ke'l'98 =--kI
UO"'^IO 8podUUum
saWDH Xa.LNa::l
II
II_._-==:":"'_-:::':;:;:_~o::::'':':=':::::: \
. __..________. .._..__....~ . 1
---I --.----....-.--:-::-.---'""':::_ 1
N'v'ld A3>1 .. ~ ..
I 13^31 H3ddn ~~ i I
..VHOHnv..
.0-.....
l-
II
Q
-'
:r
Q
Q
Ii
Cl
lU
Ul
Ii
~
\Jl
<(
:r
N
..
L
Q
Q
Ii
Cl
lU
Ul
[~~~~]
l-
II
Q
-'
l-
II
Q
-'
~
Q
-'
lU
Ul
8
z
lU
IL
:r
Q
Q
Ii
Cl
lU
Ul
Ii
~
\Jl
<(
:r
~
[------1
l______J
l-
II
Q
-'
.0-.....
~I
}
\)
\)
II'
n
III
lU
:r
\)
~)
Ii
n
u,
11\
\I'
,"
,-
"I
<f
}
:r
Q
\)
Ii
Cl
lU
Ul
II'
lU
I-
'll
<(
:r
~I
L
\)
\)
Ii
Cl
lU
III
;. n
I ~ I
hi:
(<)
~~
o
:T"""
-a
~
,
/
"
~
"'"
.c
..
,
OJ
W ~
~ ]~
~~ s.~~
0: i~.l l ~~
:l!" el!!.,l~._ ..::I
~'~!fii:l~.i~3t~Ofi
um.3w~~~~c~xd5
tlotl...." l;~..~b"
~tJilll5Q..~.o(!)J::Iara'l:
E.!1Ij=~-il~:.1~;;ll!l!
80,-,.:i!;:J,,~.,....iil.,6
i:;gwg~~lJJ~~~a::l!;;!
"i:i~>iiliil8~~~~~c
1
'r
']
-.:.
:!
J
:l
IT
<<t:.
t:..
'..J
<t
1-
z
~
/'
/'
... I
,
.,'
I
,/
~~
~~
I I
~..,...
'..0
a::
IJ.J
't
d)
ro UJa.
~ ~~
I- i5
I tf).!-
Z .-
:)
0
,,\ r= !L.
5 ~
:i }j
;!
~
t:I. 0
~ tf
1;1 p.:. 0
=I I-
r:. -
, 2
r<) :::>
~\'ll
........
~~,
..0 :<C 0 3= cr
ffi"~~~w
0... I-' lU V} Cl.
I I I I I
....- \') ~. \() (")
'r;;.,J~::~ I
r.o. 8 .
,:) ""
C:::J <0
C'.J
::z
S;
')
J:.
.:::.
J
I
1'1
C/)
LU
~
o
:r:
~z
0<(
a:-l
~o..
a:LU
<(a..
0..<(
0(,)
-lC/)
LUO
-z
~:s
LUZ
LUO
0_
I!;;(
C/)o
LUZ
~::::>
00
:r:u.
><
LU
I-
Z
LU
(,)
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, MARCH 12,2001
1. Call to Order:
Chairman V onhof called the March 12, 2001, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Stamson and
Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, City Engineer
Sue McDermott, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording Secretary Connie
Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood
Criego
Lemke
Stamson
Vonhof
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the February 26,2001, Planning Commission meeting were approved
as presented.
Commissioner V onhof read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case Files #01-005 & 006 Pavek Family Investments Company/Hodgson
Trust is requesting a Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary Plat to be known as
Regal Crest to allow a cluster townhouse development consisting of 25.58 acres to be
subdivided into 78 lots for townhouse units on the property located on the west side
ofCSAH 21 approximately ~ mile north ofCSAH 82. (Continuedfrom the February
26, 2001 meeting)
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier stated the City received a request from the developer
to continue this matter to March 26,2001.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO
MARCH 26, 2001.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Case Files #01-008 and 00-009 Centex Home is requesting a preliminary plat and
Conditional Use Permit for 38.9 acres of vacant land located on the west side of CSAH 83, %
mile south of CSAH 42, in the East Y2 of the NW % of Section 28, Township 115 North,
L:\Olfiles\Ol plancomm\Olpcminutes\mn031201.doc 1
Planning Commission
March 12, 2001
Range 22 West. The proposal is to create 54 single family lots and to approve a Conditional
Use Permit to allow a cluster development of 68 townhouses.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated March 12,2001,
on file in the office of the City Planner.
Centex Homes and John O'Loughlin have filed an application to develop the property
located on the west side ofCSAH 83, Y4 mile south ofCSAH 42, in the East 'l'2ofthe
Northwest Y4 of Section 28, Township 115 North, Range 22 West. The request includes
the following:
· Approve a Conditional Use Permit for a cluster development;
· Approve a Preliminary Plat.
The proposal calls for a mixed-use development consisting ofa total of 122 dwelling
units on 33.87 net acres, for a total density of3.6 units per acre. The proposed
development includes 54 single family dwellings and 68 dwelling units in 17 four-unit
buildings. The development also includes private open space and a public park.
Centex Homes is the developer of this project. John O'Loughlin, the current property
owner, has also signed the application.
There are several outstanding issues pertaining to this proposed development. These
include the following:
1. The property has not been rezoned from the A (Agricultural) district. The City
Council will not make a decision on this rezoning until April 2, 2001, at the earliest.
2. The plan does not provide for the extension of streets and utilities to the adjacent
undeveloped properties. As noted earlier, it is not practical to extend a street to the
west; however, the street must be extended to the north. It may also be possible to
provide a connection to the SMDC property to the south.
3. Three of the four proposed cul-de-sacs exceed the maximum length of 500 feet.
4. The proposed parkland consists primarily of a wetland, a storm water pond and steep
slopes. The remaining area is a narrow strip of land that will not provide a usable
park.
5. The plan does not address the issue of slopes 20% or greater. This plan does not
make any attempt to preserve those slopes.
The outstanding issue pertaining to this development will require major redesign of the
proposal. The current design is not consistent with the Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinance requirements. In addition, the development proposal is premature until the
rezoning issue has been decided by the City Council. The staff therefore recommends
denial of this proposal.
L:\OI files\Olplancomm\OI pcminutes\mn031201.doc 2
Planning Commission
March 12, 2001
Comments from the public:
Steve Ach, Centex Homes, said they do not have a presentation for the Commission and
are trying to work through staff s concerns and issues. He did not feel the zoning would
be a condition of denial. The concept plan does not show a street connection to the north,
but if that is the wishes of the Council, they will make the connection. Ach met with Stan
Ellison from the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community who felt there was not
enough right-of-way to make a connection to the west. Ach also mentioned they have
changed the slab on grade townhomes to have basements. Ach questioned what kind of
park is the Commission looking at? Centex is considering a centralized park area.
Overall Ach felt they would work out the park issue. The soil tests indicated the area was
not erodible and would not be a problem. The applicant is working on addressing the
slope issue but does not have the plan down. The new proposal will allow more open
space.
The floor was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
. It seems dual tracked. The Commission does not know what the City Council is
looking at for zoning.
. Likes the open space.
. Questioned Outlot A and the surrounding development. Kansier responded staff
did not know what the City Council's zoning intent.
. The proposed park as is stands now is not a plus for the area. There are no trails
or sidewalks.
. The cul-de-sac lengths need to be looked at.
. Hard time letting this go through at this time.
Stamson:
. It is difficult to make a recommendation without the zoning information from the
City Council.
. Without some direction from the Council it is pointless to go through the process.
. Questioned staff if the item can be tabled until information can be obtained from
the Council. Kansier said a 60 day waiver would have to be signed by the
developer.
. Not comfortable making a recommendation.
Criego:
. Spoke on the slope issue. The area is agriculture - no trees. There is no natural
beauty. Not concerned about removal of those particular slopes. It could provide
more parks and trail space.
. As it relates to park land, the applicant can provide more park land if required.
L\Ol files\Ol plancomm\OI pcminutes\mn031201.doc 3
Planning Commission
March 12, 2001
· Questioned staff if there was any reason a walkway (dock) could cross the
wetland. McDermott said the City discourages those because of maintenance. It
would also involve a permit from the DNR.
· Pelt there could be something done with the trails.
· Regarding the cul-de-sac issue - not sure based on the terrain what the applicant
could do. Ach presented a proposal with the cul-de-sac connections (to the west).
There would be grading problems.
· Nick Polta, of Pioneer Engineering, responded he tried not to have excessive
cutting. Tried to keep a lot of the natural exterior. Because of the severe grade,
the homes were set in as shown on the proposal.
. It is more or less a cost issue. Ach agreed.
. The lots meet the R2 standards.
· Looking at the alternatives would prefer the first proposal.
. How to deal with the cul-de-sacs? That is the realistic issue. The engineering
standards have to be met.
· Does not have a strong negative feeling against the proposal. It does need more
parks and trails; the cul-de-sac length has to be addressed and connection to the
north must be made.
· Would not recommend approval without City Council's recommendation on the
zomng.
Lemke:
· Agreed with Criego's comments.
· Agreed the existing slopes are not a big issue.
. Liked this proposal better than a dense development.
V onhof:
. Concurred with the Commissioners' comments.
· This is premature until there is direction from City Council.
· Agreed with Criego on the trails and sidewalks.
· A park system has to be worked out within the development.
· Ach presented a new concept plan (170 units) with more open space. There are
advantages to this proposal as well. It has worked in other communities. It would
be a PUD project.
· Ach said they typically have sidewalks and can put them in.
Atwood:
. Questioned the applicant (Ach) ifhe would sign an extension waiver. Ach said
Centex would agree to sign. They are in a time constraint with the landowner.
He would like to go to the City Council with clear direction between now and
April 2.
Criego:
. Did not like the plan.
L:\O] files\O] plancomm\0]pcminutes\mn03 ]20] .doc 4
Planning Commission
March 12, 2001
. Questioned why the applicant went with an 8 and 10 unit plan instead of 4 units.
Ach responded they tried to get more open space. It is also a number game to get
the best number of units.
. Rather have the single and 4-unit buildings on this property.
Stamson:
. Agreed with Criego, liked the original plan and would like to continue the matter
so the developer can work out some time limit with the staff.
. It seems the Commission is comfortable with the proposal. Likes the single
family homes better.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO CONTINUE THE MATTER
TO MARCH 26, 2001, IN ORDER TO GIVE THE DEVELOPER TIME TO WORK
OUT AN EXTENSION WITH CITY STAFF.
Criego recommend the applicant consider the comments from the Commissioners.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
A. 2000 Annual Variance Report
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated March 12,
2001, on file in the office of the City Planner.
Sixteen applications with 24 variance requests were brought to the Commission in 2000.
The new Zoning Ordinance, effective on May 1, 1999, incorporated several previous
ordinance amendments, such as reduced side yards for nonconforming lots and the
reconstruction of existing decks. These changes may account for the elimination of
several variance requests. The new ordinance resulted in variance requests for building
walls greater than 40 feet, eave/gutter encroachments, 15 foot minimum building
separation, accessory structures, and driveway width at the property line. The Planning
Commission addressed some of these requirements with ordinance amendments in the
last year. In 2000, the City of Prior Lake also adopted five ordinance amendments that
affected variance requirements.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO ACCEPT THE REPORT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
L:\Ol files\Ol plancornrn\Olpcrninutes\mn031201.doc 5
DATE:
April 4, 2001
TO:
FROM:
Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator
. ........ -"---'--:71
Sue McDermott, City Engineer t21t~
Q'Loughlin Property (Project #01-32)
RE:
The Public Works Department has reviewed the revised preliminary plans for the subject
project and we have the following comments:
1. Provide a grading plan at a scale 1" = 50' or larger.
2. Show OHWL for DNR wetland #158w.
3. Provide revised storm water calculations, along with a drainage boundary map.
4. Coordinate runoff from C.R. 83 with Scott County. The County has a NURP pond
shown on the SE corner of the property on their preliminary plans.
5. Provide an access road to the NURP pond for maintenance purposes with a slope
:S 8%, and a width of 10'.
6. Maximum slope of grading in maintained areas is 4: 1. This affects the entire grading
plan. Redesign to 4:1 slopes or use retaining walls as necessary.
7. Check backyard swales in Block 3, eliminate/minimize where possible. Try to
eliminate backyard catch basins where possible. Several side and back yard swales
appear to be outside of drainage easements.
8. The pads on Lots 41 & 42, Block 3 must be 1 foot higher than the E.O.F.
9. Extend water main along the western part of the property to the north property line
for future looping.
10. The water main from the connection at Wilds Parkway extending through to the
north end of Street "c" should be 12" in size. The City will pay oversizing costs
through the Development Contract.
11. Eliminate the 8" water main loop along C.R. 83.
G:\PROJECTS\200 1 \3201oughlin\REVIEW2.DOC
SCOTT COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
600 COUNTRY TRAll.. EAST
JORDAN, MN 55352-9339
(952) 496-8346
; r' ~ -...." " ~.
" ~.:\ . '- 1.-..> I;:.;.;J r. . ;:--
f Ii) ! fL \'=7 .E ~' \~/ :-i: !
II i :,/ I FEE , 4 2001
/! ! ; '~ /
;L..:L.:L-
! --~:L:-/ f
L..._..______ !
-.----____l
BRADLEY J. LARSON
PUBLIC WORKS DIREcrORl
COUNTY HIGHWAY ENGINEER
February 7,2001
Fax: (952) 496-8365
Jane Kansier
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Preliminary Plat, O'Loughlin Parcel
West side of CSAH 83, across from Wilds Parkway
Dear Jane:
We have reviewed the preliminary plat as it relates to Highway Department issues and offer the following comments
or concerns:
· We strongly recommend that Street C be platted and constructed to the north property line to allow for a future
connection. This internal street connection will allow residents of the development to travel to the future
commercial property and possibly CSAH 42 without the conflicts of a more highly traveled CSAH 83.
. We have discussed preliminary plans with the city for another access to CSAH 83 just north of this property.
This northerly access to CSAH 83 will likely serve future commercial businesses. This will create two accesses
to CSAH 83 within a Yz mile of CSAH 42. In the interests of safety and efficiency, optimal spacing between
signals is Yz mile. If commercial development occurs to the north, the northerly access to CSAH 83 may be
more likely to be signalized. Under this scenario, residents of this development could travel Street C to utilize
the northerly traffic signal.
· All existing field accesses or driveways to the property along CSAH 83 shall be completely removed from the
County right-of-way and graded to match surroundings.
· Any change in drainage entering the County right-of-way shall require detailed drainage calculations to be
submitted to the County Engineer for review and approval.
. An access permit for Street A shall be required. We will coordinate plans for the reconstruction ofCSAH 83
with the city and developers as necessary.
. No berming, landscaping, ponding, or signing shall be allowed in the County right-of-way.
. A utility permit shall be required for any work within the County right-of-way.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely, -
4~
Transportation Planner
Email: Greg I1kka, Assistant County Engineer
Brian Sorenson, County Transportation Engineer
An Equal Opportunity/Safety Aware Employer
~EROFmCEMEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
PLANNING/ENGINEERING
Ralph Teschner, Finance Director
O'Loughlin Parcel- Preliminary
(assessment/fee review)
March 30, 2001
A 40 acre parcel comprising PIN #25 928 011 0 identified as the O'Loughlin parcel is proposed
to be developed. This area has received no prior assessments for City municipal utilities.
Since utilities are available to the property site, the cost for the extension of services internally
will be the responsibility of the developer. In addition to these improvement costs, the
subdivision will be subject to the following City charges:
Collector Street Fee
Stormwater Management Fee
Trunk Sewer & Water Fee
Lateral Sewer & Water Charge
$ 1500.00/acre
$2943.00/acre
$3500.00/acre
150' @ $60.00/ff
The application of applicable City development charges would generate the following costs to
the developer based upon a net lot area calculation of 20.43 acres of single family and townhouse
units as provided within the site data summary sheet of the preliminary plat description:
Collector Street Fee:
20.43 acres @ $ 1500.00/ac = $30,645.00
Storm Water Management Fee:
20.43 acres @ $2943/ac = $60,125.00
Trunk Sewer & Water Charge:
20.43 acres @ $3500.00/ac = $71,505.00
Lateral Sewer & Water Charge:
150' @ $60.00/ff= $9,000.00
These charges represent an approximate cost of $1,477 .00 per lot for the 116 proposed single
family and townhouse units within the O'Loughlin parcel. Assuming the initial net lot area of the
preliminary plat does not change, the above referenced storm water, collector street, t:r:Ynk and
lateral sewer and water charges would be determined and collected within the context of a
developer's agreement for the construction of utility improvements at the time of final plat
approval.
There are no other outstanding special assessments currently certified against the property. Also,
the tax status of the property is current with no outstanding delinquencies.
H:\SPLITSIOloughlin.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Shakopee Mdewakanton
Sioux Community
OFFICERS
Stanley R. Crooks
Chairman
Glynn A. Crooks
Vice Chairman
2330 SIOUX TRAIL NW - PRIOR LAKE. MINNESOTA 55372
TRIBAL OFFICE: 952-445-8900 - FAX: 952-445-8906
12 February 2001
Lori. !S.. C[.owcbild
!-I ~ ~ ~ \ g cs~~etaty-,:reasurer
\1\,' '--'~- .
(I \ I \!
\~\LFEB , 2200l :! I;,
U \1_ L;J
Ms. Jane Kansier, Planner
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
RE: Comments on the O'Loughlin Proposed Preliminary Plat
Dear Ms. Kansier:
The following constitutes the comments of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux
Community (SMSC) on the application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and
preliminary plat by Centex homes on the O'Loughlin parcel, Pill # 25-928-01-0. The
SMSC, besides being an adjacent land owner, is a sovereign government with reservation
lands abutting the proposed development and downstream along the draining
watercourse. Tribal lands are not in private ownership but are under the direct
jurisdiction of the Tribal Government. They are subject to tribal and federal regulatory
jurisdiction. This includes any negative impacts that may arise off the tribal lands but
travel onto them. Comments in this letter are the official comments of the SMSC Tribal
Government.
Wetlands
Boundarv
Based on aerial photography and visits to the property SMSC staff believe the wetland
boundary may be incorrect.
Drain Tile
The SMSC staff observed a drain tile exit near the wetland in the north central portion of
the parcel. The drain tile runs from the southeast, near Mystic Lake, to the northwest,
terminating in the wetland. Water drains from this tile even during dry parts of the year.
The southeastern inlet has never been accurately located by the SMSC. Personal
communications from local residents indicate that the tile entrance is at or near Mystic
Lake. If this is true, removal of this drain may affect the level of Mystic Lake. This
could impact a DNR wetland located on the south end of Mystic Lake, SMSC lands,
Scott County Road 83 and portions of the Wilds Golf Course. The developer should
provide information on the location of this tile and an analysis of potential impacts to the
lake level.
..
Final Grading
Slope Erosion
The plat shows areas of very steep slopes, some immediately adjacent to the boundary of
wetlands and tribal lands. These slopes are going to be highly erodible. They also alter
the character of the natural area located on tribal lands west of the proposed plat.
A significant portion of the steep slope area is covered by drainage easements. The CUP
and plat approval should, at a minimum, require that this drainage easement be
maintained in permanent vegetative cover, preferably other than turf grass. Standard turf
grass is not appropriate for this slope area. It is not likely to provide sufficient soil
stabilization to prevent erosion on this slope. Mowing and maintenance of turf grass on
the slope will be difficult and will likely result in a poor appearance.
Water Oualitv
On a slope of this gradient, turf grass will provide a very low retention time for storm
water surface flow. Lawn chemicals and other contaminates will reach the wetland areas
very quickly. This has the potential for dramatic negative impacts on the water quality.
Much of the slope area is directly adjacent to a wetland. If this slope is to provide any
buffer for water quality purposes it should be maintained in natural grasses. Turf grass
immediately adjacent to a wetland creates a high potential for negative water quality
impacts.
Storm water
Stormwater management on the proposed plat poses several major issues.
Untreated Stormwater Discharge
The grading plan for the proposed plat shows stormwater drains on the western cuI de
sacs that terminate directly into a wetland without treatment. This is not an acceptable
practice in Minnesota. Regardless of the acceptability in Minnesota, as a government
with downstream receiving waters, the SMSC will not accept the water quality impacts.
These drains must flow into a properly designed stormwater retention and treatment
pond.
Pond Design
The design of the retention and treatment pond shown on the plan is poor and it will not
function as intended. The wetland area immediately adjacent to this pond has a direct
hydroiogic connection to the wetland on SMSC land to the west. The average water level
in 1999 for this wetland was 911.9 feet above sea level. . This is based on measurements
from multiple piezometer nests in the area. The pond has a designed Normal Water Level
(NWL) of909.0 above sea level. The designed high water level is 912.5. As designed,
this pond will be at or near its maximum water level nearly all of the year and would be
completely inundated for the wet seasons.
As designed, the pond is completely nonfunctional and merely provides a deep spot in the
overall wetland complex. Residence time of water entering this pond would be near zero.
Biota uptake of nutrients would be nearly zero in the pond. The "pond" would not
provide any energy dissipation to allow settling of sediment. The stormwater and all of
its contaminates would have a direct conduit onto the regional drainage system. This is
an unacceptable impact on water quality.
Federal Permitting
The SMSC is a downstream recipient of waters originating on the proposed development.
Any NPDES permit for discharge will likely require approval of the United States EP A.
The EPA would consult with the SMSC before making any approval. Erosion control
plans and stormwater discharge control plans may also require federal approval.
County Road Upgrade
The SMSC and Scott County are in the process of upgrading Scott County 83 along the
eastern boundary of the project area. The plans for this upgrade require a stormwater
treatment pond in the southeast portion of the plat. If this pond is eliminated ponding .
provided in the plat must be sufficient to contain and treat the highway runoff. Given that
the pond, as designed, is not.likely to provide any treatment, the potential for additional
stormwater input is a serious issue.
Traffic
There is potential for traffic congestion at the entrance to the proposed development. The
developer should provide a full analysis of the impact of the traffic on the existing and
upgraded county road.
Summary
This development is in an area of steep, highly erodible slopes immediately adjacent to a
wetland. Design of the plat does not appear to recognize these facts. The final grading
design is poorly planned and will, most probably, result in direct introduction of high
levels of contaminates and eroded soil into the wetland. The stormwater drainage system
is completely non-functional. It only serves to move the contaminated stormwater into
the regional drainage system as quickly as possible. Down stream water quality will
probably be impacted. Permits will likely be required through both state and federal
agencies. There is potential to impact the level of Mystic Lake and its associated
wetlands.
Given the problematic design of the proposed development the SMSC requests that the
City of Prior Lake Planning Commission recommend denial of the Conditional Use
Permit and the preliminary plat.
Sincerely,
St . Crooks
Chairman
..
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
4B
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT
TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ON ISLAND LOTS
(Case File #01-012)
STEVE HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
X YES NO
APRIL 9, 2001
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance that would allow accessory structures to be located on general
development lake island lots. This amendment was initiated by the Planning
Commission at the public hearing on February 12, 2001. On that date, the
Planning Commission considered an appeal to the Planning staffs interpretation
of the Zoning Ordinance. The appellant contended the provisions of the
ordinance allowed accessory structures on islands. The Staff, however,
concluded the ordinance prohibited accessory structures on islands.
The Commission adopted Resolution 01-04PC upholding the Planning staffs'
interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance that does not permit accessory structures
on the islands. However, the Commission directed staff to research the issue
and prepare language for an ordinance amendment for consideration.
DISCUSSION:
Section 1104.309: Island Development, currently reads, in part, as follows:
1) Permitted uses on islands are limited to seasonal cabins, public parks and
open space. Year-round residences are not permitted. Recreational
facilities, such as a pavilion or picnic facilities for a homeowners'
association, may also be permitted by conditional use permit as set forth
in subsection 1108.200.
Currently, the ordinance on island development does not allow for accessory
structures because accessory structures are considered a "Use", and "Accessory
1:\01files\01ordamend\zoning\01-012\pcreport2.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
.
Uses" are not a listed permitted use under this ordinance section [Attachment 1,
Ordinance Section 1104.309].
On February 26,2001, the Planning Commission reviewed a staff report
regarding proposed language for an amendment. The Commission discussed
proposed options for the amendment and heard testimony from a "Twin Isles"
property owner. The Commission then directed staff to draft an ordinance
amendment with conditions to allow limited accessory structures on island
development.
ANALYSIS:
To limit the application of this provision to island lots, the staff has prepared the
following language:
(10) One detached accessory structure is permitted per lot on qeneral
development lakes subiect to the issuance of a buildinq permit and the
followinq conditions:
~ The lot must meet the minimum area and dimensional requirements
listed in Section 1104.309, and
>- The structure shall comply with required yard setbacks as stated in
Section 1102.800 (8), and
>- The structure shall not occupy an area qreater than 300 square feet,
and the maximum heiqht of the structure shall not exceed 15 feet,
and,
>- The structure shall be setback a minimum of 75 feet from the ordinary
hiqh water mark (OHWM) and must meet all other applicable front
and side yard setbacks; and,
~ The structure shall not be desiqned or used for human habitation and
shall not contain water supply or sewaqe treatment facilities.
However, the structure may contain an electrical system, with the
proper permits; and,
>- The structure shall be constructed with exterior sidinq and roofinq
materials that are compatible with the seasonal cabin (principal
structure), and
>- If the structure is located below the requlatory flood plain elevation it
shall be built in compliance with the applicable flood proofinq
requirements of the buildinq code and Section 1105 of this Ordinance,
as required; and,
>- The structure shall be attached to a permanent foundation so as to be
immovable from its approved location.
Whether or not an accessory structure should be allowed on island lots is a
policy issue. The current ordinance provision, which does not allow an
accessory structure on the islands, is generally for aesthetic purposes. Island
lots tend to have smaller dimensions and less total area than is required for lots
1:\01 files\01 ordamend\zoning\01-012\pcreport2.doc
Page 2
~
today. In addition, the unique circumstances pertaining to island lots warrant
limitations on the number and size of structures and on the amount of impervious
surface. However, the current ordinance only provides for seasonal cabin
structures on the islands and equipment storage appears to be an issue without
an accessory structure.
Hydrologist Pat Lynch with the Department of Natural Resources submitted
comments for this report [Attachment 2 - DNR Comments]. In essence, the DNR
would not oppose adoption of the ordinance amendment as proposed.
The staff has no objection to the proposed ordinance amendment [Attachment 3,
Draft Ordinance].
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend the City Council approve the amendment as proposed, or with
changes specified by the Planning Commission.
2. Recommend the Council deny the proposed amendment.
3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second recommending approval of the proposed amendment.
REPORT ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Ordinance
2. DNR Comments
1:\01 files\01 ordamend\zoning\01-0 12\pcreport2.doc
Page 3
:..
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO. 01- XX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1104.309 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY
CODE
The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain that:
Section 1104.309 of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
(10) One detached accessory structure is permitted per lot on Qeneral
development lakes subiect to the issuance of a buildinQ permit and the
followinQ conditions:
~ The lot must meet the minimum area and dimensional requirements
listed in Section 1104.309, and
~ The structure shall comply with required yard setbacks as stated in
Section 1102.800 (8), and
~ The structure shall not occupy an area Qreater than 300 square feet,
and
~ The maximum heiQht of the structure shall not exceed 15 feet, and,
~ The structure shall be setback a minimum of 75 feet from the ordinary
hiQh water mark (OHWM), and
~ The structure shall not be desiQned or used for human habitation and
shall not contain water supply or sewaQe treatment facilities.
However, the structure may contain an electrical system, with the
proper permits; and,
~ The structure shall be constructed with exterior sidinQ and roofinQ
materials that are compatible with the seasonal cabin (principal
structure), and
~ If the structure is located below the reQulatory flood plain elevation it
shall be built in compliance with the applicable flood proofinQ
requirements of the buildinQ code and Section 1105 of this Ordinance,
and
~ The structure shall be attached to a permanent foundation so as to be
immovable from its approved location.
This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this _ day of
,2001.
] :\0 1 files\O 1 ordamend\zoning\O 1-0 12\draftord.doc
PAGE 1
ATTEST:
City Manager
Mayor
Published in the Prior Lake American on the _ day of
, 2001.
Drafted By:
City of Prior Lake Planning Department
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
1:\01 files\O 1 ordamend\zoning\OI-O 12\draftord.doc
PAGE 2
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Metro Waters - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106-6793
Telephone: (651) 772-7910 Fax: (651) 772-7977
MAR 3 0 2001
March 29, 2001
Steve Horsman
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714
RE: Proposed Amendment to Language Regarding Island Development, Water- Oriented Accessory Structure
Dear Mr. Horsman:
I reviewed the materials you submitted regarding proposed language which would allow one water- oriented
accessory structure per lot on General Development lakes, and offer the following for Consideration:
In most instances, the proposed language is more restrictive that minimum statewide standards allowing water-
oriented accessory structures. State rules would allow for one water-oriented accessory structure as close as ten feet
from the ordinary high water mark of shoreland basins.
On Recreational and General Development lakes, water-oriented accessory structures used solely for watercraft
storage and related equipment may be up to 400 square feet in size. Minimum statewide standards would allow the
roof to be used as a deck, and would limit the height (less the rails of a deck) to no more than ten feet. It may not
be designed for human habitation or contain water supply or sewage treatment facilities.
Provided the city would require the lot to meet minimum area and dimensional standards in Section 1104.309, limit
the square footage to 300 square feet, and require a setback of 75 from the ordinary high water mark, DNR would
not.oppose adoption of the proposed language you submitted, including the maximum height of 15 feet (versus 10
feet in rule). The additional setback to 75 feet would offset the impacts of allowing a maximum height five feet
higher than the standard.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please call me at 651-772-7917.
Sincerely,
Patrick 1. Lynch ill
Area Hydrologist
~~~--
DNR Information: 651-296-6157 . 1-888-646-6367 . TTY: 651-296-5484 . 1-800-657-3929
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Who Values Diversity
Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a
Minimum of 10% Post-Consumer Waste
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
4C
CONSIDER A ZONE CHANGE REQUEST BY
SHEPHERD OF THE LAKE LUTHERAN CHURCH
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 22,
TOWNSHIP 115, RANGE 22 (Case File #01-014)
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
-- -
APRIL 9, 2001
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
Shepherd of the Lake Lutheran Church has filed an application for a zone change for the
property located on the north side of CSAH 42 and east and west of McKenna Road,
about 1/8 mile west of CSAH 21. The proposal is to rezone the property from the A
(Agricultural) district to the R-4 (High Density Residential) District.
BACKGROUND:
This property is presently zoned A (Agricultural) and is designated as R-HD (High
Density Residential) on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The City Council
amended the Comprehensive Plan to designate this property for R-HD uses in 2000.
PHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Total Site Area: The total site consists of approximately 60 acres.
Existine Use: This property is currently vacant land. There is an old farmstead located
on the north half of the site.
Topoeraphy: The site has a varied topography. The portion of the site west of
McKenna Road generally drains to the DNR wetland located south and east of the site.
The portion of the site on the east side of McKenna Road generally drains to the wetland
at the southeast comer of the site, to CSAH 42 and ultimately to Pike Lake.
Veeetation: This property has been cropland for several years, although there are some
existing trees located in the northeast comer of the site.
]:\0] files\O 1 rezone\shepherd\pc report. doc Page]
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Wetlands: The site is subject to the provisions of the State Wetland Conservation Act.
A specific delineation will be required as part of any development application.
Access: Access to this property is presently from McKenna Road off CSAH 42. As part
of the development of the entire parcel, McKenna Road will be relocated to the west.
Utilities: Sewer and water services must be extended from the existing services located
in CSAH 42 to serve this site. Sewer service presently stops at McKenna Road. Water
service must be extended from the CSAH 21 and Carriage Hills Parkway intersection, or
from the water service located in CSAH 83 at Wilds Parkway. The extension of this
service is planned as part of the CSAH 42 improvement project, which is presently
scheduled for construction in 2002-2003. If the applicant wishes to develop the property
sooner, a development contract for the extension of the utilities will be required.
Adjacent Land Use and Zonin2: To the north and west of this property is agricultural
land, currently zoned A and designated for Low to Medium Density Residential uses. To
the south is the Jeffers property, presently zoned R-l and C-5, and designated as R-L/MD
and C-BO. To the east is a single family dwelling on 15 acres, zoned A and designated as
C-BO.
MUSA Desi2nation: This property is identified as land within the Primary MUSA
allocation. This property is consistent with the criteria for the extension of MUSA as
listed in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan (see attached) once water service has been
extended.
ANALYSIS:
Section 1108.600 of the Zoning Ordinance identifies the following policies for
amendments to the Official Zoning Map:
. The area, as presently zoned, is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the
Comprehensive Plan, or the land was originally zoned erroneously due to a technical
or administrative error, or
. The area for which rezoning is requested has changed or is changing to such a
degree that it is in the public interest to rezone so as to encourage redevelopment of
the area, or
. The permitted uses allowed within the proposed Use District will be appropriate on
the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood.
The proposed R-4 district is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
designation. The R-4 district allows residential development with densities up to 30 units
per acre. In this case, the applicant is proposing to develop the entire site as a faith based
community, consisting of religious worship, senior housing, community recreation and
social space, education, daycare and a conference center. The first phase of this
]: \01 files\O 1 rezone\shepherd\pc report.doc
Page 2
development will consist of a church building. There is no time line for the development
of future phases.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend approval of the Zone Change as requested.
2. Recommend denial of the request.
3. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends Alternative #1. The proposed R-4 district is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation.
ACTION REQUIRED:
The following motion is appropriate for this action:
1. A motion and second to recommend approval of the Zone Change from the A
(Agricultural) district to the R-4 (High Density Residential) district.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Applicants' Narrative
3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
4. Zoning Map
1:\01 files\OI rezone\shepherd\pc report. doc
Page 3
Location Map
II
I
\
~ \ ---
N
A
600
I
o
600 1200 Feet
S~~~~~5~~:er~~G. . i)
'-- 'i"
Schedule A
Shepherd's'Path will be a faith based community development with Shepherd of The.
Lake' Lutheran church as the first phase of a multi phase development. The first phase
will be a 68,500 square foot, two level building, (first floor and walk out basement). It
will include a celebration center for worship, chapel, Sunday school, preschool,
administration offices, kitchen and large group room. Parking for 400 will be constructed
for the first phase. ,
The following phases are proposed to include a health & fitness center, elderly housing,
community recreation, retreat center and distance learning facilities. No specific time
.frame has been established for the future phases at this time.
15033 SOUTH HIGHWAY 13 PRIOR LAKE MINNESOTA 55372 TEL 612.447.2988. FAX, 612.447.2861
~
>1-
CD
~
.,
..J.
_,J:...
tv
o
o
o
DRom ~ I ~ ...... ~ moo." f
WII 00 ~ i IIBrult i 00 ... -. ~
~ ~ ~ ~ i' :l2 i[ ~;;x: ~~ AI AI n. s: ~ ~ I !a.
OCD~....ll.!!jl;l !!l.b: m-lft-l!!. iSlDlm <C
o Q![l =' i ffi~ == Ii' ='=' -9::J
s~j" ~1 m ~~ g2g2 ~ ;I;~ ~~. aa.
Dr i3. .;t ;a.:B 0 cg. ~ i1l. "" ~
'< ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :i"~' ~ Iii' ~ ~ i. r
..lI: Ul ::3. Q lil CD 10 10 ! ~ -. ~,n
::3 3i III III "'U m ~~ Q _. C WI
C/)D Ul llf- ~z 1ll.;t3 ::J
"C S: 3i x- lD m. 5/1. 0 a.
DlQ g Iii cg."" CD C
lil lil a. -. 8' g i1l C/)
g jjj ~3- a. ~ CD
VI :$],~
'"
~.~
"U
Q)
::J
()
--
~
Q,
-U
...,
--
o
...,
lU
@
g
3
"'0
[Urn
::J ::J'"
c..CD
::J
C en.
m ~
.
C:g
Rm
a::l
~;.
~(Q
na?
::T~
0>;:+
~~
8~
-lo.
t>J
s:: ~.
Q):::J
-cce
';-;-;';-;';';-;';';0;'
:;:::::::::::;:::::::'$.
::~::~:::::::::::::::
:!!:!:!:!i!:!!!!!!!!
oo*z
~~m............DDIIIIDmrnmmDDI
~~w 0 @oml@
~ro~~~~~~~2~f~~~~~
50 ~ ~~~~~i.I~LL~~
rnr ~a~~ ~~~~~~~
o~ ....;;!CDG. ~Dr::~~-2
r:: Q. !ltl))~ (fi"3~ roE'
a.1Il.~ ~~rnl~I~D- s....
"" Q.~r::rn-<:& .(fi"r::;:;:Q.!It
-< r:: Q! !!!. E rn ~ ~ 3 '< s;.
!4."'~!!!.r:: ;:;O~~~!ll:
~ m m ~. ~ lR. ~ m. lB. g
~ m ~m.~~~
~Q.....-.m
Q. m: ~ m: I!l. ~
!It 0)" ~
- !i[
trl
()
--
r-+
'<
g,
-a
...,
--
o
...,
r
Q)
~
po
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5A
REVIEW REQUEST TO VACATE A 10' WIDE
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED ON
THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AT 6096 150TH
STREET (Case File #01-025)
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO-N/A
APRIL 9, 2001
INTRODUCTION
Steven and Susan Salaam are requesting the vacation of a 10' wide drainage
and utility easement located on the east side of the property at 6096 150th Street.
This easement was dedicated to the City in 1994 when the three lots, described
as Lots 10, 11 and 12, EASTWOOD, were combined into two new buildable lots.
A new house was built on the west lot in 1994; there has been no construction
on the east lot. Mr. and Ms. Salaam own both lots at this time and have
requested the tow lots be combined into a single lot.
As required by State Statute 462.356 Subd.2, the Planning Commission is
required to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the disposal or
acquisition of public lands as it relates to compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan.
Upon proper notification, State Statute 412.851 allows the Council to vacate
easement or right-of-way by resolution. The statute also states "no such
vacation shall be made unless it appears to be in the public interest to do so".
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission must make two determinations. Does the vacation of
the existing easement comply with the Comprehensive Plan and is there a public
need or anticipated future need for the dedicated property?
Comprehensive Plan Review
The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically discuss utility easements, other
than as a function of ensuring access to public utilities. The vacation of this
1:\01 files\OI vacations\01-025\01-025 pc report. doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
'"
easement is not inconsistent with any specific goal or objective of the
Comprehensive Plan. The combination of the two lots into a single lot will
eliminate the need for an easement and allow the construction of an addition to
the existing house.
Public Need
As noted above, the combination of the two lots will eliminate the need for the
existing easement. If approved, however, the vacation of this easement should
be subject to the combination of the two lots.
RECOMMENDATION
If the two lots are combined, there is no need for the existing easement. The
Planning staff therefore recommends approval of this request subject to the
condition that the resolution vacating this easement will not be recorded until the
combination of the lots is approved and recorded.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend the City Council approve the proposed vacation of the
easement as presented or with changes recommended by the
Commission.
2. Continue the discussion to a date and time certain to allow the staff to
provide additional information specifically requested by the Planning
Commission.
3. Based upon expressed findings of fact, recommend the City Council deny
part or all of the applications based upon inconsistency of the proposal
with specific regulations of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and/or
specific policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second to recommend the City Council approve the vacation of the
easement as requested subject to the condition that the resolution vacating this
easement will not be recorded until the combination of the lots is approved and
recorded.
1:\01 files\O 1 vacations\01-025\0 1-025 pc report.doc
2
.~
@
~
b
2J
W
=
-.
J:
:l~
i~
;~
i: j
:5 i
~::,1 ~ ~
~ '&: 61 i
5 g~~u r
~ !l!l J
~
@
@}
@ b'~
.' .~ i(jI~
'. "'Q;'~
,@~(@
~' .
@
'@
OC;::J ,
~t
Oc=J
c:;:::9
b
:,@
....@d)
",- .
~
@
2J
(!fj2J
!.
-
~
~ I
.,
U
:;:
0..
< I
""
"
~~
'"
~
.7"\
\\
.
~
i \IJ
1(.0
,.,
.~O
~ "
f \- i
~ ;~3
jJ
.
i
i!!
ill ID N . e ill - - -")\'0
~"~::i-~::ID-=~~ro
-::O.O.OO.oot fB4B---=~ - ;
sOg,ttf /'. _
'0
, i
.._ _ J ~
1\ \~:
'- '
,-' \
. IV) i
~ IS!:,
~~, ~t~\ '~\
o '
. ~. I
, .
(j 0
~ ~; i I;
i -6 .';VI ..
:f!~ I
, ~ ,.._ eo
g~!~ ~:
-1= t a
....ti eo ~
iPP. ?:J
u G. :- 0 .
ei i:
:j I! ~
-
E~
a.
-J
r:!,l
Vl
f--
W
W
I
Vl
I I-
I
..1 ~1
t
o
o '"- E
2S~
O'
~
~
...
::l
V1
Qj
U
1-
a.. L.J
"~
-
,
en
CO
V1
CI
Z
-'<t
>~
III~
>
a:: cu
. ~:':::
en :l
V1
-II .
CI ~
Z'- r----
-'-",
a:Cl",
IIIcUJ\O
IllcuUJ\O
3i~ZO>
CI ~
Z~:::EI
III... .UJ
L- :l CU",
i:iCD"5'<t
Z-Ul""'-"
~'<tCN
a::O'-UJ
lD:!~e
.___., .....11 ..... wi .~I.. .._~'"I. .._...~t!'.t_"'_~!-;~._.__.~--!t~4!!!u:au... l,JIlUUUII \"'Ull~':,) u.uCIlI~ UUlnMJli \101' UI
MII~':.'.:~:I~'!> ~':....::..~ ~.' :::::!.:~'~_.
Co,puretlD':,,,r Pertnershlp
to gorporetlo!, \lr P ",tne..hlp
311G ,-"" .1
"t '-"'-;;"
Document No.
Ollie. of CoWlrl ?-=rCer
S=ttCounty. Mlnr.asola
This Is lite lIIlno; lntcnnallon at lite dce:.:ment
reccrClld In litis ct::ca on
No delinquent taxes and transfer entered; Certificate
of Real Estate Value ( ) rued ( Vi not required
Certifi~~f. ~~ Estate Value ~~9 ~
~M
... ~1IU ,;/J/i,v,~
~~
l:;l. -1'\-tt4, 'o:~
Pat Boeclcm211. Ac:!ng C:unty Fiec:=:n:ar
_.~---
County Auditor
by
Deputy
ooc.NO~029- File 5 3r;
~~ume , Page~ Car: :l73/'/J
Thise~ 0' ReguIlTar 0' liUe - Scoll County .IAN
IS lit. filing in:ormaden or Ille Coc~m~nl m.c
In litis office on l;l, I 4 -'11/
/0'3 f\..
Pat Be k . 0 .JrM,
ec man. Ac:nr; ;;e;zstrar ct 'j;Ues
STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: $
Date: October 21,
19 94
. -
~
~
~
~
I
~
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Johnson-Reil and Construction, I nc.
,a corDorat ion
, Grantor, hereby conveys and quitclaims to
under the laws of
Minnesota
Clty of Prior Lake
a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota
~cott County, Minnesota, described as Collows:
Permanent drainage and utility easement
The west 5.00 feet, the east 5.00 feet and the south 10.00feet of the following
described property: Lot 10 and Lot 11, except the east 25.00 feet of Lot 11,
Eastwood, Scott County, Minnesota.
, Grantee,
. real property in
That part of Lots 10,11, and 12, Eastwood, Scott County, Minnesota,
described as being 10 feet on either side of the following
described line:
Commencing at a point on the westerly line of said lot 10; said
point being 336.03 feet northerly of the southwest corner of said
lot 10 (the west line of said lot 10 has an assumed bearing of N
00002'53" W); thence S 83Q40'13" E a distance of 73.20 feet; thence
N64036'35" E a distance of 85.48 feet to the easterly line of said
lot 12 and there terminatino.
III more opell'e I. needed. contlnu. on beckl
together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belongi t ere to.
s",,"p~
~
By
Its
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF ~
} u.
,;i~i'I1l~ - "9~:
/.J{/
~
~ . ~ .
:",d"~lh.l~w.of f..Jt!X~ .~/ UHtYf' on ,q,odl of t ·
I NOTARIAL STAMP OR ilEAL (OR OTHER ITLE OR RANK) l;f { (t:.
'. S:ON E OF ltR 011 '1 t~ NOWLEOGI.IEtlT
, .. ,. CONNIE M. CARLSON 'Tn IIt.lomont. 101 lho rooJ PIoPtrty d ..'Ibod In lhls In.lluiiiinl ohould
t tIOtAaY ""tiC -M,,"SOtA b. ..nt to (Include nama and addu.. 01 tanhe):
scan COUNTY
My _..Ion ..pt,.. 12-2-98
The~egOingr ~,~efore me this
by ?-J1A/ U
day of
I TI~;::;:U;;~~:::::;T:::Y :::::~::~OORESS): \
11600 West I43rd Street I
Suite 206 I
Burnsville, MN 55337
It / / ~ Delat ved ~ &yud
~s aLL ~d ~~
/07~/L/-7'/
/1
Said south parallel line truncates to the westerly line of
said lot 10 and the easterly line of said lot 12 and said
north parallel line extends to the westerly line of said lot
10 and the easterly line of said lot 12.
~
. ....... ...... ...-u. ......... __...... .............
'~HUUC.u'. uuuuuu ,""un...) .ULI"" 1.1....". \ I o.l 'u,
"""..., ""..';0 ......... ........U...'u...
.Corporlllon or Plnnlfllllp
to Corporltlon 0' P Innlrlhlp
No delinquent taxes and transfer entered; Certificate
of Real Estate Value ( ) flied (--+not required
Cert1fiCa~al Estate Value No.
~ - -c~ ,19~
Document 119'11.1 S~J{)G
OFFICE OF MONTY RECORDER
SCO'M' COUNT'l. MINNESOTA
Thl. 1. the fll1nq lnfonaatlan
of the dOCUlll8nt recorded ln
t I DUlce on
t;;( ~....-.. - e.- ;
County Auditor
~~
{O A
Recorder
by
De ut
..J7~-- c?--.e.c-
STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: ~..1:
Date: ~JA4\u.A-tL~ ,19:l2-
~WEll CERTIFICATE RECEIVED
-A.-WEll aRTlACATE NOT REQUIRED
(reserved for recording data)
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Johnson-Reiland Construction, Inc.
,a Corporation
the State of Minnesota , Grantor, hereby conveys and quitclaims to the City of
. municipal corporation
Scott
under the laws of the State of Minnesota
County, Minnesota, described as follows:
under the laws of
Prior Lake
, Grantee,
, real property In
A permanent easement for drainage and utility purposes over the following
described property:
The east 5.00 feet and the south 10.00 feet of Lot 12, EASTWOOD, Scott
County, Minnesota
and the west 5.00 feet and the south 10.00 feet of the east 25.00 feet
of Lot II, EASTWOOD, Scott County, Minnesota
III more splCI II n..dad, contln... on beckl
together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto.
,Hfix Dl'~d Tax HIllin" IIt!fl'
By
~
By
Its
COUNTY OF Scott
} 88.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
The foregoing was acknowledged before me this
by Dan Reiland
the President
of JohnRon-Rei 1 ~nrl ConRt,."" ti on Tn..
under the laws of teState of Minnesota
10=. 'TAM' oa .m <oa oTa.a =~ oa aANal
\ . .LI\.~
. III1N" I)HlJJtA C(UITY
. . MfCan1l\.&\lI1IS2-24-91
L J
:z oil, day of
and
and
~ flf 1 U fl.<U(
9!;
,19_,
if
,:~.:t~,:m. ~~J:~~~ ~'.:J =~':t::::~ttJ~~~~::)llD tbll ID"~' lbouJd
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
74504
Doc. Mo. m.,d3 "
VoI_~Pa9.~Cart ;27~hO
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY (!lAME AND ADDRESS)I
.;
OFFICI OF REGISTRAR OF TITLI
1a7l'T aJQNTT. KINHEIOTA '.
Tbh 11 the filln.. lnfol'1leUon of the docuIMnt.
Ell'" in ~1. office 011
J- ;l3-9S'
/iJA- ...
P.t eo.clm.n. ..~l.tru' of Titl..
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
6B
CONSIDER 2002-2006 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO-N/A
--
APRIL 9, 2001
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION: Minnesota Statutes provides that all proposed capital improvements
be reviewed by the Planning Commission for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
Attached is a draft of the proposed 2002-2006 Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
DISCUSSION: The summary describes the CIP process and the funding sources
available to the City and expected to be used in paying for the individual projects. As in
past years, the primary constraint is the availability of money. In previous years, the City
share of County road projects took the lions share of City capital improvement funds.
The proposed CIP still has a heavy emphasis on roads and streets, but the focus during
the next 5 years is on collector street extensions and local street reconstruction.
New to the CIP for 2002 and 2003 is the water meter change-out program. This a
program will update water meters throughout the City and allow for the purchase of
software and equipment that will enable reading these meters from a remote location.
The ClP continues to emphasize a program for development of neighborhood parks and
trails. The 2005 program anticipates the acquisition of a park site in the Northwood Road
area.
The Planning Commission's function is to review the proposed projects, determine
whether they make sense from the perspective of the Comprehensive Plan and make
specific recommendations about specific projects in the CIP or about projects not in the
current CIP which the Commission feels would better achieve Comprehensive Plan goals.
The Commission does not need to feel constrained to restrict its consideration only to
those proj ects contained in the proposed CIP.
Any recommendation for changes to the CIP should indicate which particular goal or
policy in the Comprehensive Plan is being advanced by the recommended project. The
thing to keep in mind is that all projects are competing for a limited amount of money and
the CIP is limited to those projects with the highest priority. Please give this your careful
consideration.
1:\admin\cip\2002-2006 cip.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
ACTION REQUIRED: Motion and second to recommend changes to the draft CIP as
the Commission determines.
1:\admin\cip\2002-2006 cip.doc
Page 2