HomeMy WebLinkAbout9B - Crystal Bay Prelim Plat
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
"
I
,
\1
;j
ij
~
r
1
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
9B
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
AGENDA ITEM:
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN,
AND APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS CRYSTAL BAY
I
!
I
I
I
I
!
DISCUSSION:
Introduction: 212 Development, LLC, has applied for approval of a
development to be known as Crystal Bay on the property located south
of CSAH 82, directly east of Fremont Avenue and approximately Y,
mile west of CSAH 21. The application includes the following
requests:
· Approve a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan;
. Approve a Preliminary Plat.
The proposal calls for a townhouse development consisting of 24
dwelling units on 10.62 acres. The development also proposes private
open space and 21 boat slips for the use of the residents.
i
r:
;1
~
,
History: The City Council approved a preliminary plat and
preliminary PUD plan for this development on October 7, 2002.
However, when the developer submitted the final plan, there were
some changes that were inconsistent to the approved preliminary plan.
As a result, the developer has chosen to resubmit a preliminary plat
and preliminary PUD plan application.
The general provisions of the proposal have not changed. The details
of the plan and the proposed changes are discussed in the following
paragraphs.
I':
,I
Ii
:1
II
II
II
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this item on
September 8, 2003. Three residents of the surrounding area testified
about the proposed development. Their primary concerns were the
value of the homes, tree removal, the length of the dock, the use of
pervious pavers, noise and the access onto Fremont A venue. The
Planning Commission addressed these concerns as follows:
1:103 filesl03 subdivisionsl03 prelim platl03 crystal bavlcc.Le11.Qrl.docl k
WWW.clLyoIpnorae.com
Page 1
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
. The value of the proposed townhomes is consistent with the
surrounding area.
. The proposal includes a large number of trees along CSAH 82,
which will function as a noise barner.
. The length ofthe dock will be reviewed as part of the permitting
process. The Commission encouraged the developer to look
closely at the dredging of the lake.
. The overall impervious surface ofthe site is less than 30 percent.
Tier 2, the area which exceeds 25% impervious surface, actually
drains away from the lake.
. The access onto Fremont Avenue is located as far south of the
intersection of CSAH 82 as possible. The second access is
important for the development, and this entrance will provide
access to 12 townbomes.
'I
~
II
i ~
II
II
I
i
A copy ofthe draft minutes ofthe September 8, 2003 Planning
Commission meeting is attached to this report.
[I
,
i
I
Total Site Area: The total site consists of 10.62 acres. The net area
of this site, less County road right-of-way, is 8.99 acres.
Ii
:
I
I
II
i
I
,
,
I
I
Current Circumstances: The following analysis summarizes the
proposed plan and its compliance with Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinance requirements.
Topol!raphy: This site has a varied topography, with elevations
ranging from 940' MSL at its highest point to 904' MSL at the lowest
point (the ordinary high water elevation of Prior Lake). The property
generally drains toward the existing drainageway at the center of the
site, and then to Prior Lake.
Wetlands: The original plan did not identify any inventoried wetlands
located within this site. Subsequently, a new inventory of the site
identified a wetland located generally in the center of the parcel, and
running the entire length of the parcel. The design calls for filling
4,830 square feet of the wetland. Mitigation is accomplished through
off-site wetland banking credits. This proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and was
approved by the City Council on September 2, 2003.
I
I
I
I
'I
'I
\:
li
II
II
I
Ii
Vel!etation: Originally, there were five single family homes located
on this site; three of those homes have since been removed. There are
also several stands of significant trees on this site. The project is
subject to the Tree Preservation requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
1:\03 files\03 subdivisions\03 prelim plat\03 crystal bay\cc report.doc
Page 2
Access: Access to the site is from CSAH 82 on the north side of the
site and Fremont Avenue on the west side of the property. CSAH 82 is
classified as an arterial street in the Comprehensive Plan transportation
plan, and is expected to carry between 12,500 and 14,500 trips per day
by 2020. In 2002, the traffic count on CSAH 82 was 9,800 trips per
day. Fremont Avenue is classified as a minor collector street and is
expected to carry up to 4,000 trips per day by 2020. The 2002 traffic
on Fremont Avenue was 2,350 average daily trips.
I
Ii
"
H
"
I'
I'
2020 Comprehensive Plan Desi2nation: This property is designated
for Urban Low to Medium Density Residential uses on the 2020
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The entire site is located within
the current MUSA boundary.
Zonin2: The site is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential). The
applicant is not requesting a rezoning as part of this application. The
R-1 district permits a maximum density of3.6 units per acre.
Shoreland: This property is also located within the Shoreland District
for Prior Lake. As such, the property is subject to the Shore land PUD
requirements listed in Section 1104 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Parcels utilizing the PUD process in the Shoreland District must be
divided into tiers. The tiers are created by drawing lines parallel to the
ordinary high water elevation (OHW). Tier I is the area within 200' of
the OHW; tier 2 is the area 267' from tier I.
PROPOSED PLAN:
Lots: The preliminary plat consists of24 lots for the townhouse units
and one lot for the common open space.
Streets: This plan proposes two private streets. The first street is
Drake Circle, which extends approximately 250' from CSAH 82 to the
south. The access is located across from Fox Tail Trail, at the
approximate location of the existing Drake Avenue intersection. This
street provides direct access to 12 of the townhouse units.
Crystal Bay Lane is the access onto Fremont Avenue and is located
250' south of the intersection of the intersection of Fremont Avenue
and CSAH 82. It is a 300" long cul-de-sac providing direct access to
8 of the townhouse units located on the west side of the property.
There is a 250' long drive off the end of this cul-de-sac, providing
access to 4 of the units.
The proposed private streets are designed with a 24' wide surface. The
setbacks from the curb to the street will accommodate the required
easements. The streets are platted as an outlot. The width of the
1:\03 files\03 subdivisions\03 prelim plat\03 crystal bay\cc report.doc
Page 3
proposed streets was approved as part of the original preliminary plat
and preliminary PUD.
The plat also dedicates 75' of right-of-way for CSAH 82 along the
north side of the plat. This additional right-of-way will be utilized for
future upgrades to CSAH 82, scheduled for construction in 2004-2005.
Fremont Avenue at this location also requires upgrading. The road
section is currently without curb and gutter. As a condition of
approval of this preliminary plat, the developer should upgrade this
section as part of this project. The City would financially participate
in this project.
Sidewalksffrails: No public sidewalks or trails are proposed as part
of this project. There is a crushed limestone trail meandering through
the common area of the site. This trail is intended for the private use
of the residents for access to the lake and to the common area.
Parks: This plan does not dedicate any parkland. Section 1004.1000
of the Subdivision Ordinance requires 10% of the net area of the site
for parkland dedication. A cash dedication in lieu of land is also
possible, at the discretion of the City. The amount of park dedication
at this location is very small; in addition, there is a park on the north
side of CSAH 82 and on the west side of Fremont Avenue. Staff
recommends a cash dedication of $2,670.00 per unit in lieu of land.
This amount is greater than the amount originally identified. This is
due to a change in the parkland dedication requirements since the
original preliminary plat approval. Since the developers have
submitted a new application, the current requirements apply.
Sanitary SewerlWater Mains: Sanitary sewer and water mains will
be extended from the existing utilities located in CSAH 82 and in the
Glynwater development to the west. The sewer line is extended along
the right-of-way.
Storm Sewer: The plan proposes a NURP pond at the southwest side
of the site to handle the storm water runoff. Grading on the site will
also direct most run off to this pond. The City and the Prior
LakelSpring Lake Watershed District have reviewed this plan.
Density: The development proposes 24 townhouse units. Density for
this development is not only based on the R-I district maximum
allowed density of3.6 units per acre, but also on the Shoreland District
requirements. The following table compares the proposed density with
the permitted density.
1:103 filesl03 subdivisionsl03 prelim platl03 crystal baylcc report.doc
Page 4
Permitted Proposed
Density Density
R-1 31 units 24 units
Shoreland District Tier 1
Base Density 14 units 20 units
With Multiplier 21 units
Shoreland District Tier 2
Base Density 12 units 4 units
With Multiplier 36 units
The density multipliers in the Shoreland District are permitted only if
the structure setback from the OHW is increased by 50% over the
required setback. To apply this multiplier, the structure setback must
be at least 112.5' from the OHW. The proposal meets this
requirement.
Buildinl! Styles: One of the significant changes in the proposal is the
type of units. The proposed townhouses are a 3-story walkout,
attached single family style dwelling with an attached garage. Each of
the units in these buildings includes a 3-car garage, rear yard decks,
and approximately 4,610 square feet of floor area. The buildings are
34' high at the front, with exteriors consisting of a combination of
brick and stucco.
Building elevations and floor plans are attached to this report.
The height of the proposed buildings may also be an issue. The
maximum building height is 35 feet. Building height is measured as
follows:
A distance to be measured from the mean curb level along the front lot
line or from the finished grade level for all that portion of the structure
having frontage on a public right-of-way whichever is higher to the
top of the parapet or rooftop equipment, whichever is higher, of a flat
roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, to a point on the roof directly
above the highest wall of a shed roof; to the uppermost point on a
round or other arch type roof; or the mean distance of the highest
gable on a pitched or hip roof
According to the plans, the height of the structure will not exceed 35'
along the private streets; however, if walkouts are utilized, the height
may exceed 35' for the units adjacent to CSAH 82 and Fremont
Avenue. The developer has not provided scaled elevations for the rear
of the building to allow staff to determine whether or not the buildings
will exceed this requirement.
1:103 filesl03 subdivisionsl03 prelim platl03 crystal baylee report.doe
Page 5
Setbacks: The required and proposed setbacks for this development
are shown on the following table:
Setback Required Proposed
Front (from private street) 25' 20'
Side Street
CSAH 82 25' 25'
Fremont Avenue 25' IS'
Side (between buildings) 15' 15'
(Yz the sum of the
building heights)
Lakeshore (OHW) 75' 112.5'
The developer is requesting a modification to the front and side street
setbacks. Modifications may be approved by the City Council through
the PUD process.
Lot Coveraee: The R-I district allows a maximum ground floor area
of 0.30. The ground floor area proposed in this plan is 0.23.
Impervious Surface: The maximum impervious surface allowed in
the Shoreland District is 30% of the lot area above the OHW. In this
case, 30% of the lot area is 2.7 acres.
Impervious surface coverage is further limited to 25% of each tier area
in a Shoreland District PUD. In this case, 1.26 acres of impervious
surface is allowed in tier I, and 1.23 acres is allowed in tier 2.
The Planning Commission and the City Council approved a
modification for the impervious surface requirements in each tier for
two reasons. First of all, the applicant is dedicating more right-of-way
than would normally be required because of the adjacent County road.
Second, the applicant will be using pervious pavers for the driveways
to reduce the impact of the impervious surface on the site.
With this application, the applicant is requesting a greater modification
to the impervious surface requirements. The table below compares the
two plans:
Permitted Approved Proposed
Tier 1 25% 25% 25%
Tier 2 25% 30.4% 32.1%
Overall 30% 27.2% 27.9%
The change in the plan appears to be a result in the shift in some of the
building locations and the size of the buildings.
1:103 filesl03 subdivisionsl03 prelim platl03 crystal baylcc report.doc
Page 6
A condition of approval of this modification required that the City
approve the design and installation of the penneable pavement
driveways. In addition, the homeowner's association documents must
address the maintenance of the permeable pavement. The staff has
been working with the developer on the proper design and language to
address these conditions.
Useable Open Space: The R-1 district also requires 600 square feet
of use able open space per unit for cluster developments. Although this
proposal is a PUD, it must also comply with that requirement. The
required open space for this development is 15,600 square feet; the
plan indicates a total of 15,875 square feet.
Shoreland Open Space Requirements: The Shoreland ordinance
requires at least 50% of the total project area within a PUD be
preserved as open space. The common lot for this development meets
the 50% requirement.
The Shore land PUD ordinance also requires that 70% of the shore
impact zone (50% of the setback from the OHW) be preserved in its
natural state. The Shore Impact Zone on this site includes 58,433
square feet. The preserved area is 40,992 square feet or 70.2%, which
is consistent with the ordinance requirement.
Shore Recreation Facilities: Section 1104.805 (4,c) states the
following:
Shore recreation facilities, including but not limited to swimming
areas, docks, and watercraft mooring areas and launching ramps,
shall be centralized and located in areas suitable for them. Evaluation
of suitability shall include consideration of land slope, water depth,
vegetation, soils, depth to ground water and bedrock, or other relevant
factors. The number of spaces provided for continuous beaching,
mooring, or docking of watercraft shall not exceed one for each
allowable dwelling unit or site in the first tier (notwithstanding
existing mooring sites in an existing commercially used harbor).
Launching ramp facilities, including a small dock for loading and
unloading equipment, may be provided for use by occupants of
dwelling units or sites located in other tiers.
The developer
development.
requirements.
is proposing to install 21 boat slips to serve this
This is consistent with the Shoreland District
Parkin!!:: The proposal provides at least 3 spaces per dwelling unit, in
that each unit will have a 3-car garage; the Zoning Ordinance requires
1:103 filesl03 subdivisionsl03 prelim platl03 crystal baylcc report.doc
Page 7
Landscapinl!: Section 1107.1900 lists the landscaping requirements
for this development. Perimeter landscaping is required for the
townhouse portion of the development with buildings consisting of 3
or more units at a rate of I tree per unit or 1 tree per 40' feet of
perimeter, whichever is greater. Our calculations indicate a total of 73
trees are required for this site. The landscaping plan submitted
includes 73 trees, but the sizes and types of the trees must be slightly
modified to meet all ordinance requirements. This includes the
requirements that at least 25% of the landscaping trees be deciduous,
and 25% be coniferous, and that at least 20% of the plants must exceed
the minimum sizes of 2 1/2 caliper inches for deciduous and 6' for
coniferous. This requires that at least 20% of the deciduous trees be 3
y, caliper inches, and at least 20% of the evergreens must be at least 8'
high. The plan also does not indicate whether an irrigation system will
be provided.
j!
I
I.
il
J
I
i
I
Ii
I'
"
,
I
I
i
I
a minimum of 2 spaces per unit. No parking will be permitted on the
private streets.
The landscaping plan also includes a 6' wood fence along the east
property boundary. This was a requirement of the approval of the
original preliminary plan.
Tree Replacement: The applicant has submitted an inventory
identifying 4,230 caliper inches of significant trees on the site. The
Zoning Ordinance allows up to 25% of the significant caliper inches to
be removed for road and utility purposes, and up to 25% for building
pads and driveways. According to the proposed plan, 41.7% of the
caliper inches will be removed for road and utility purposes and 18.3%
will be removed for building pads and driveways. This requires
replacement of 142 (2 Y, caliper inch) trees. Upon review of the plan,
the staff feels some trees are being removed that should be retained,
especially those located behind units 3 and 4. A revised grading plan
has been submitted that seems to preserve these trees. The tree
inventory and replacement plan must be revised to match the new
grading plan.
Sh~ns: There are two subdivision signs identified on the plan, one at
each street entrance. No plans or elevations have been submitted for
the signs.
Liehtine: Street lights will be provided on the private streets.
Traffic Impact Report: The developer has submitted an elementary
traffic study for this development. This study indicates the proposed
development will generate a total of 172 daily trips. The report
assumes that approximately half of these trips will use Fremont
1:103 filesl03 subdivisionsl03 prelim platl03 crystal baylcc report.doc
Page 8
A venue, and half will use CSAH 82, which is a fair assumption. The
additional trips onto Fremont and CSAH 82 are a small fraction of the
existing traffic on these streets. The report concludes the additional
trips will not have a significant impact on the existing streets.
I.
,
11
I
Phasin2: The developer proposes to construct this project in 2 phases.
The first phase will consist of the 12 units located on the east side of
the site. The second phase will consist of the cul-de-sac off of
Fremont Avenue and the remaining 12 units. No time1ine has been
submitted for this phasing.
THE ISSUES:
There are two separate applications included in this proposal.
I
r
I
PUD PRELIMINARY PLAN: The PUD must be reviewed based on the
criteria found in Section 1106.100 and 1106.300 of the Zoning
Ordinance. Section 1106.100 discusses the purpose of a PUD. These
criteria are discussed below.
(1) Greater utilization of new technologies in building design,
materials, construction and land development.
The developer has attempted to design the buildings so they fit the
land, rather than force the land to fit the building design. The use
of permeable pavement for the driveways on the site will reduce
the runoff and allow further treatment of the storm water.
(2) Higher standards of site and building design.
The density of this site is clustered to the north and set back
further from the lake shore than would be required under a
conventional development. The units have also been placed so as
to preserve the trees on the east boundary of the site. The
utilization of private streets further reduces the impervious surface
on the site.
(3) More efficient and effective use of streets, utilities, and public
facilities to support high quality land use development at a lesser
cost.
Maintenance of private streets, including plowing and future
repairs, is done by the homeowners association. This reduces City
costs in providing services to these homes.
(4) Enhanced incorporation of recreational, public and open space
components in the development which may be made more useable
and be more suitably located than would otherwise be provided
under conventional development procedures.
The developer is providing a private beach and recreation area for
the residents ofthe development, as well as private walking trails.
These trails will connect to the public trail along CSAH 82.
1:\03 files\03 subdivisions\03 prelim plat\03 crystal bay\cc report.doc
Page 9
(5) Provides a flexible approach to development which allows
modifications to the strict application of regulations within the
various Use Districts that are in harmony with the purpose and
intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
The density and variety of housing units is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan goals to provide a variety of housing styles.
(6) Encourages a more creative and efficient use of land.
The PUD allows the higher density areas to be clustered, and
preserves open space.
(7) Preserves and enhances desirable site characteristics including
flora and fauna, scenic views, screening and buffering, and
access.
The townhouse units are sited to take advantage of the natural
terrain.
(8) Allows the development to operate in concert with a
Redevelopment Plan in certain areas of the City and to insure the
redevelopment goals and objectives within the Redevelopment
District will be achieved.
This criterion is not applicable.
(9) Provides for flexibility in design and construction of the
development in cases where large tracts of land are under single
ownership or control and where the users) has the potential to
significantly affect adjacent or nearby properties.
The use of the PUD allows the clustering of the homes and the use
of private streets.
(10) Encourages the developer to convey property to the public, over
and above required dedications, by allowing a portion of the
density to be transferred to other parts of the site.
There is no additional parkland dedication with this plan.
Section 1106.300 states the quality of building and site design
proposed by the PUD will enhance the aesthetics ofthe site and
implement relevant goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. In
addition, the following criteria shall be satisfied:
(1) The design shall consider the whole of the project and shall create
a unified environment within the boundaries of the project by
insuring architectural compatibility of all structures, efficient
vehicular and pedestrian circulation, aesthetically pleasing
landscape and site features, and efficient use and design of
utilities.
1:\03 files\03 subdivisions\03 prelim plat\03 crystal bay\cc report.doc
Page to
The design creates a unified environment. Revision of the
landscaping plan to meet the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance will also enhance this area.
(2) The design of a PUD shall optimize compatibility between the
project and surrounding land uses, both existing and proposed
and shall minimize the potential adverse impacts of the PUD on
surrounding land uses and the potential adverse effects of the
surrounding land uses on the PUD.
The use of the PUD will allow the clustering of the townhouse
units and provide a greater setback from the shore line.
(3) If a project for which PUD treatment has been requested involves
construction over a period of time in two or more phases, the
applicant shall demonstrate that each phase is capable of
addressing and meeting each of the criteria independent of the
other phases.
This project will be completed in two phases. The utilities, roads
and landscaping will be completed for each phase.
(4) Approval of a PUD may permit the placement of more than one
building on a lot.
This is not applicable.
(5) A PUD in a Residential Use District shall conform to the
requirements of that Use District unless modified by the following
or other provisions of this Ordinance.
a. The tract of land for which a project is proposed shall have
not less than 200 feet offrontage on a public right-ofway.
b. No building shall be nearer than its building height to any
property line when the property abutting the subject property
is in an "R-l" or "R-2" Use District.
c. No building within the project shall be nearer to another
building than Y, the sum of the building heights of the two
buildings, except for parking ramps which may be directly
connected to another building.
d. Private roadways within the project site may not be used in
calculating required off-street parking spaces.
The modifications requested by the developer include the
following:
. The use of private streets. Normally, a development of
this type would require a minimum right-of-way width of
50' and a 28' to 30' wide surface. The developer is
requesting a 24' wide private street. The additional 26' of
right-of-way would be accommodated by the use of
easements adjacent to the private road.
1:103 filesl03 subdivisionsl03 prelim platl03 crystal baylcc report.doc
Page tl
. Reduced front yard setbacks on the private streets. The
conventional setback requirement is 25' from the right -of-
way line. The developer is requesting a 20' front yard
setback, measured from the building face to the curb ofthe
private street.
. Reduced front yard setback along Fremont Avenue. The
conventional setback requirement is 25' from the right-of-
way line. The developer is requesting a 15' setback along
Fremont Avenue.!
. Impervious Surface. The developer is requesting a
modification to the maximum 25% impervious surface in
tier 2 of the development. The developer is proposing to
utilize permeable pavement for all of the driveways in the
development. This pavement, if installed and maintain
properly, should reduce the impact of the impervious
surface on the site. The overall impervious surface ofthe
site is 27.9 percent.
These modifications are permitted under the PUD provisions
at the discretion of the Council. The Planning Commission
found these modifications to be consistent with the goals and
intent of the PUD criteria in that they allowed the clustering of
the townhouses to preserve the natural terrain. The Planning
Commission also found the modification to the impervious
surface appropriate since the overall impervious surface is less
than 30% and the ponding is sized to accommodate all of the
driveways, roads, and other areas. The Commission also
reasoned that a conventional development could include
impervious surface up to the 30% maximum.
PRELIMINARY PLAT: The preliminary plat generally meets the
requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances.
If the PUD plan is approved, the preliminary plat may also be
approved. There are remaining Engineering issues that must be
addressed. These are basically design issues that can be addressed at
the final plat stage.
CONCLUSION:
The Planning Commission and staff recommended approval of both
the preliminary PUD plan and the preliminary plat, subject to the
following conditions.
1. The tree inventory must be revised so it is consistent with the
revised grading plan.
2. The landscaping plan should be revised to meet all ordinance
requirements. Replacement trees must be included on the
landscaping plan.
1:103 filesl03 subdivisionsl03 prelim p1atl03 crystal baylcc report.doc
Page 12
FISCAL IMPACT:
ALTERNATIVES:
3. The private streets must be platted as outIots. A 13' wide drainage
and utility easements must be provided on either side of the outlot.
The developer must place "No Parking" signs on the private
streets.
4. The developer must provide easements for the storm water pond.
5. All driveways in the development must be constructed with
permeable pavement. The design and installation of these drives
must be approved and inspected by the City.
6. Fremont Avenue must be improved adjacent to this site. The City
will participate in the cost of the project.
7. The homeowners' association documents must address the
maintenance ofthe permeable pavement.
8. Address the comments identified in the memorandum from Larry
Poppler, Assistant City Engineer, dated July 23, 2003.All public
improvements must be constructed to the standards of the Public
Works Design Manual. Revised plans must be submitted for
review by the City.
9. Provide a phasing plan for the project.
10. The height of the units on Lots 23 and 24 may not exceed 35'
along Fremont Avenue or CSAH 82.
II. Provide plans for the entry monument signs. These signs must be
located at least 10' from any right-of-way line and may not be
located within the clear view triangle.
Budl!et Impact: There is no budget impact as a result of this action.
Approval ofthe project will facilitate the development of the area and
increase the City tax base.
The City Council has three alternatives:
I. Adopt a resolution approving the PUD Preliminary Plan subject to
the listed conditions, and adopt a resolution approving the
Preliminary Plat for this development subject to the listed
conditions, with the finding that the preliminary plat is consistent
with the intent and purpose of the Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances.
2. Deny the PUD Preliminary Plan, and the Preliminary Plat on the
basis they are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning
and Subdivision Ordinances and/or the Comprehensive Plan. In
this case, the Council should direct the staff to prepare a resolution
with findings of fact based in the record for the denial of these
requests.
1:103 filesl03 subdivisionsl03 prelim platl03 crystal baylcc report.doc
Page 13
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
3. Defer consideration of this item and provide staff with specific
direction.
I
'I
The staff recommends Alternative #1. This action requires the
following motions:
I!
i
Ii
11
I
,
1. A motion and second adopting a resolution approving a Planned
Unit Development Preliminary Plan to be known as Jeffers South
subject to the listed conditions;
2. A motion and second adopting a resolution approving a
Preliminary PI to be known as Jeffers South, subject to the listed
conditio .
Manager
1:\03 files\03 subdivisions\03 prelim plat\03 crystal bay\cc report.doc
Page 14
jl
,I
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
PRELIMINARY PLAT
RESOLUTION 03-XX
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT
OF "CRYSTAL BAY" SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED HEREIN.
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
WHEREAS: The Prior Lake Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on September 8, 2003 to
consider an application from 212 Development, LLC., for the preliminary plat of Crystal Bay;
and
WHEREAS: Notice of the public hearing on said preliminary plat has been duly published and posted in
accordance with the applicable Minnesota Statutes and Prior Lake Ordinances; and
WHEREAS: All persons interested in this issue were afforded the opportunity to present their views and
objections related to the preliminary plat of Crystal Bay for the record at the Planning
Commission hearing; and
WHEREAS: The Planning Commission and City Council have reviewed the preliminary plat according to the
applicable provisions of the Prior Lake Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and found said
preliminary plat to be consistent with the provisions of said ordinances; and
WHEREAS The Prior Lake City Council considered an application for preliminary plat approval of Crystal
Bay on September 15, 2003; and
WHEREAS: The City Council finds the preliminary plat of Crystal Bay to be consistent with the provisions of
the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, subject to the listed conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA:
A. The above recitals are incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
B. The preliminary plat of Crystal Bay is approved subject to the following conditions:
1) The tree inventory must be revised so it is consistent with the revised grading plan.
2) The landscaping plan should be revised to meet all ordinance requirements. Replacement trees must be
included on the landscaping plan.
3) The private streets must be platted as outlots. A 13' wide drainage and utility easements must be
provided on either side of the outlot. The developer must place "No Parking" signs on the private
streets.
1:\03 files\03 subdivisionsl03 prelim pla~03 crystal baYlplatre~.docf . I k
WWW.cltyopnorae.com
Page 1
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
f
4) The developer must provide easements for the storm water pond.
5) All driveways in the development must be constructed with permeable pavement. The design and
installation of these drives must be approved and inspected by the City.
6) Fremont Avenue must be improved adjacent to this site. The City will participate in the cost of the
proj ect.
7) The homeowners' association documents must address the maintenance of the permeable pavement.
8) Address the comments identified in the memorandum from Larry Popp1er, Assistant City Engineer,
dated July 23, 2003.All public improvements must be constructed to the standards of the Public Works
Design Manual. Revised plans must be submitted for review by the City.
9) Provide a phasing plan for the project.
10) The height of the units on Lots 23 and 24 may not exceed 35' along Fremont Avenue or CSAH 82.
1]) Provide plans for the entry monument signs. These signs must be located at least ]0' from any right-of-
way line and may not be located within the clear view triangle.
Passed and adopted this 15th day of September, 2003.
YES NO
Haugen Haugen
Blumberg Blumberg
LeMair LeMair
Petersen Petersen
Zieska Zieska
{Seal} City Manager
City of Prior Lake
]:103 filesl03 subdivisionsl03 prelim platl03 crystal baylplatres.doc
Page 2
I
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
I
I
I
I:
:1
II
,
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN
RESOLUTION 03-XX
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CRYSTAL BAY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
I
I
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
WHEREAS: 212 Development, LLC has submitted an application for a Planned Unit Development
Preliminary Plan to be known as Crystal Bay; and
WHEREAS: The Prior Lake Planning Commission considered the proposed Planned Unit
Development Preliminary Plan at a public hearing on September 8, 2003; and
WHEREAS: Notice of the public hearing on said PUD Preliminary Plan has been duly published in
accordance with the applicable Prior Lake Ordinances; and
i
I
I
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission proceeded to hear all persons interested in this issue and
persons interested were afforded the opportunity to present their views and objections
related to the PUD Preliminary Plan; and
WHEREAS: The Prior Lake City Council considered the proposed PUD Preliminary Plan for Crystal
Bay on September 15, 2003; and
WHEREAS: The City Council finds the PUD Preliminary Plan is compatible with the stated purposes
and intent of the Section 1106 Planned Unit Developments of the Zoning Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE,
MINNESOTA:
1.
2.
The above recitals are herein fully incorporated herein as set forth above.
It hereby adopts the following findings:
a) Greater utilization of new technologies in building design, materials, construction and land
development.
The developer has attempted to design the buildings so they fit the land, rather than force
the land to fit the building design. The use of permeable pavement for the driveways on
the site will reduce the runoff and allow further treatment of the storm water.
b) Higher standards of site and building design.
The density of this site is clustered to the north and set back further from the lake shore
than would be required under a conventional development. The units have also been
placed so as to preserve the trees on the east boundary of the site. The utilization of
private streets further reduces the impervious surface on the site.
c) More efficient and effective use of streets, utilities, and public facilities to support high
quality land use development at a lesser cost.
,
,
I
1:\03 files\03 subdivisions\03 prelim plat\03 crystal bay\pudres.doc oty f . I k
WVJ\.V.Cl 0 pnor a e.com
PAGEl
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
Maintenance of private streets, including plowing and future repairs, is done by the
homeowners association. This reduces City costs in providing services to these homes.
d) Enhanced incorporation of recreational, public and open space components in the
development which may be made more useable and be more suitably located than would
otherwise be provided under conventional development procedures.
The developer is providing a private beach and recreation area for the residents of the
development, as well as private walking trails. These trails will connect to the public trail
along CSAH 82.
e) Provides a flexible approach to development which allows modifications to the strict
application of regulations within the various Use Districts that are in harmony with the
purpose and intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
The density and variety of housing units is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals
to provide a variety of housing styles.
f) Encourages a more creative and efficient use of land.
The PUD allows the higher density areas to be clustered, and preserves open space.
g) Preserves and enhances desirable site characteristics including flora and fauna, scenic
views, screening and buffering, and access.
The townhouse units are sited to take advantage of the natural terrain.
h) Allows the development to operate in concert with a Redevelopment Plan in certain areas
of the City and to insure the redevelopment goals and objectives within the
Redevelopment District will be achieved.
This criterion is not applicable.
i) Provides for flexibility in design and construction of the development in cases where large
tracts of land are under single ownership or control and where the users) has the potential
to significantly affect adjacent or nearby properties.
The use of the PUD allows the clustering of the homes and the use of private streets.
j) Encourages the developer to convey property to the public, over and above required
dedications, by allowing a portion of the density to be transferred to other parts of the site.
There is no additional parkland dedication with this plan.
k) The design shall consider the whole of the project and shall create a unified environment
within the boundaries of the project by insuring architectural compatibility of all structures,
efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation, aesthetically pleasing landscape and site
features, and efficient use and design of utilities.
The design creates a unified environment. Revision of the landscaping plan to meet the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance will also enhance this area.
I} The design of a PUD shall optimize compatibility between the project and surrounding
land uses, both existing and proposed and shall minimize the potential adverse impacts of
the PUD on surrounding land uses and the potential adverse effects of the surrounding
land uses on the PUD.
The use of the PUD will allow the clustering of the townhouse units and provide a greater
setback from the shore line.
m) If a project for which PUD treatment has been requested involves construction over a
period of time in two or more phases, the applicant shall demonstrate that each phase is
capable of addressing and meeting each of the criteria independent of the other phases.
1:\03 files\03 subdivisions\03 prelim plat\03 crystal bay\pudres.doc
PAGE 2
This project will be completed in two phases. The utilities, roads and landscaping will be
completed for each phase.
n) Approval of a PUD may permit the placement of more than one building on a lot.
This is not applicable.
0) A PUD in a Residential Use District shall conform to the requirements of that Use District
unless modified by the following or other provisions of this Ordinance. 1) The tract of land
for which a project is proposed shall have not less than 200 feet of frontage on a public
right-of-way; 2) No building shall be nearer than its building height to any property line
when the property abutting the subject property is in an "R-1" or "R-2" Use District; 3) No
building within the project shall be nearer to another building than Y, the sum of the
building heights of the two buildings, except for parking ramps which may be directly
connected to another building; and 4) Private roadways within the project site may not be
used in calculating required off-street parking spaces.
The modifications requested by the developer include the following:
. The use of private streets. Normally, a development of this type would require a
minimum right-of-way width of 50' and a 28' to 30' wide surface. The developer is
requesting a 24' wide private street. The additional 26' of right-of-way would be
accommodated by the use of easements adjacent to the private road.
. Reduced front yard setbacks on the private streets. The conventional setback
requirement is 25' from the right-of-way line. The developer is requesting a 20' front
yard setback, measured from the building face to the curb of the private street.
. Reduced front yard setback along Fremont Avenue. The conventional setback
requirement is 25' from the right-of-way line. The developer is requesting a 15'
setback along Fremont Avenue.!
. Impervious Surface. The developer is requesting a modification to the maximum 25%
impervious surface in tier 2 of the development. The developer is proposing to utilize
permeable pavement for all of the driveways in the development. This pavement, if
installed and maintain properly, should reduce the impact of the impervious surface on
the site. The overall impervious surface of the site is 27.9 percent.
These modifications are permitted under the PUD provisions at the discretion of the
Council. The City Council found these modifications to be consistent with the goals and
intent of the PUD criteria in that they allowed the clustering of the townhouses to preserve
the natural terrain. The Council also found the modification to the impervious surface
appropriate since the overall impervious surface is less than 30% and the ponding is sized
to accommodate all of the driveways, roads, and other areas. The Commission also
reasoned that a conventional development could include impervious surface up to the
30% maximum.
3. The Crystal Bay Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan is hereby approved subject to the
following conditions
a) The tree inventory must be revised so it is consistent with the revised grading plan.
b) The landscaping plan should be revised to meet all ordinance requirements. Replacement
trees must be included on the landscaping plan.
c) The private streets must be platted as outlots. A 13' wide drainage and utility easements
must be provided on either side of the outlot. The developer must place "No Parking"
signs on the private streets.
d) The developer must provide easements for the storm water pond.
1:\03 files\03 subdivisions\03 prelim plat\03 crystal bay\pudres.doc
PAGE 3
e) All driveways in the development must be constructed with permeable pavement. The
design and installation of these drives must be approved and inspected by the City.
f) Fremont Avenue must be improved adjacent to this site. The City will participate in the
cost of the project.
g) The homeowners' association documents must address the maintenance of the
permeable pavement.
h) Address the comments identified in the memorandum from Larry Poppler, Assistant City
Engineer, dated July 23, 2003.AII public improvements must be constructed to the
standards of the Public Works Design Manual. Revised plans must be submitted for
review by the City.
i) Provide a phasing plan for the project.
j) The height of the units on Lots 23 and 24 may not exceed 35' along Fremont Avenue or
CSAH 82.
k} Provide plans for the entry monument signs. These signs must be located at least 10'
from any right-of-way line and may not be located within the clear view triangle.
Passed and adopted this 15th day of September, 2003.
Haugen Haugen
Blumberg Blumberg
LeMair LeMair
Petersen Petersen
Zieska Zieska
YES NO
{Seal} Frank Boyles, City Manager
1:\03 files\03 subdivisions\03 prelim plat\03 crystal bay\pudres.doc
PAGE 4
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 8,2003
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the September 8, 2003, Planning Commission meeting to order
at 6:31 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Ringstad and
Stamson, Planning Coo 'nator Jane Kansier, Planner Cynthi rchoff, Assistant City
Engineer Larry Poppler an Recording Secretary Connie son.
5.
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
"-~"\
~v..r
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the Au
presented.
mmission meeting were approved as
4.
Commi sioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
~
A. Case #03-98 & 03-99 212 Development has submitted an application for a
townhouse development known as Crystal Bay Townhomes consisting of 24 units on
10.62 acres ofIand zoned R-ISD. The property is located on the south side ofCSAH
82, east of Fremont Avenue and Y, mile west ofCSAH 21. This application is a
revised proposal to the previously approved preliminary plat and preliminary PUD
plan.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated September 8,
2003, on file in the office of the Planning Department.
212 Development, LLC, has applied for approval of a development to be known as
Crystal Bay on the property located south ofCSAR 82, directly east of Fremont Avenue
and approximately Y, mile west of CSAR 21. The application includes a Planned Unit
Development Preliminary Plan and a Preliminary Plat.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MN090803 .doc 1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 8, 2003
The proposal calls for a townhouse development consisting of 24 dwelling units on 10.62
acres. The development also proposes private open space and 21 boat slips for the use of
the residents.
The City Council approved a preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan for this
development on October 7, 2002. However, when the developer submitted the final plan,
there were some changes that were inconsistent to the approved preliminary plan. As a
result, the developer has chosen to resubmit a preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan
application. The general provisions of the proposal have not changed.
Staff recommended approval of the PUD Preliminary Plan and the Preliminary Plat
subject to the following conditions:
1. The tree inventory must be revised so it is consistent with the revised grading plan.
2. The landscaping plan should be revised to meet all ordinance requirements.
Replacement trees must be included on the landscaping plan.
3. The private streets must be platted as outlots. A 13' wide drainage and utility
easements must be provided on either side of the outlot.
4. The developer must provide easements for the storm water pond.
5. All driveways in the development must be constructed with permeable pavement.
The design and installation ofthese drives must be approved and inspected by the
City.
DRAFT
6. Fremont Avenue must be improved adjacent to this site. The City will participate in
the cost of the project.
7. The homeowners' association documents must address the maintenance of the
permeable pavement.
8. Address the comments identified in the memorandum from Larry Poppler, Assistant
City Engineer, dated July 23, 2003.All public improvements must be constructed to
the standards of the Public Works Design Manual. Revised plans must be submitted
for review by the City.
9. Provide a phasing plan for the project.
10. The height ofthe units on Lots 23 and 24 may not exceed 35' along Fremont Avenue
or CSAH 82.
11. Provide plans for the entry monument signs. These signs must be located at least 10'
from any right-of-way line and may not be located within the clear view triangle.
Questions from the Commissioners:
Ringstad questioned how much additional dedication the developer is giving than what is
normally required. Kansier said it was an additional 25 feet along the entire north
boundary ofthe property which is at least a quarter mile.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MN090803.doc 2
Planning Commission Meeting
September 8, 2003
Criego questioned if the 25 feet on the north side has already been dedicated. Kansier
said it would be dedicated as part of the final plat.
Criego questioned if the calculations included the 25 feet? Kansier responded it did
include the 25 feet.
Comments from the public:
DRAFT
John Klingelhutz said they changed the design of the building because of the land value.
It wasn't in all the size of the building that changed the impervious surface. There were
some mistakes made in the original calculations. It is a 7/10'h percent difference over.
They feel they have a good plan and do not want to change the layout ofthe building.
Atwood questioned if the 23rd and 24'h units have height problems. K.1ingelhutz said the
height of units would be reduced by 10 feet if they did not make them walk-outs.
Criego asked what the additional footage was added to the footprint. K.1ingelhutz
responded they did not add to the footprint they added another level inside the home.
Tom Finn, 15672 Fremont Avenue, was at the first presentation and felt everyone left as
friends. The developer has a nice product. Finn expressed the following concerns: the
value of the homes; tree removal; the dock length, the dock covenants and what would be
allowed and the entrance and lighting on Fremont Avenue;
Kansier pointed out the proposed access off Fremont is 250 feet from the CSAH 82
intersection. She went on to explain that generally the homeowner's documents are not
reviewed by the City for specific requirements. Staff looks at the general provisions and
how they coincide with the City regulations. Kansier said the developer would take care
oflighting for the development. The City would be involved in any public street issues
and lighting could be part of the County Road 82 project in 2004.
Bill Rudnicki, 2330 Sioux Trail NW, stated he has known the developer for over 10 years
and wanted the public to know the developer is concerned with the neighbors' issues and
this will be a first class development.
Tom Sheele, 15601 Highland Avenue, had a number of questions and concerns: the
acreage difference from the first proposal to the second proposal. What numbers were
used in the density calculations? Kansier explained the calculations and what was
excluded. Sheele felt the PUD regulations had to be 10 acres. Kansier said the gross
acreage is over 10 acres. Sheele asked to look at the landscaping plans. He went on to
question the traffic study. Kansier said it was public information and he would be
welcome to come and review. Shee1e questioned the vegetation regulations. Sheele also
felt the developer does not meet the PUD requirements as there is no general benefit to
the community.
L\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MN090803.doc 3
Planning Commission Meeting
September 8. 2003
Kyle Schroeder, 15557 Highland Avenue, questioned the tree removal. Schroeder
presented photos ofthe area and questioned ifthe trees were going to be removed. He
would like the developer to come out and mark the trees. Schroeder said he did not
understand why the pavers had to be tested so close to the lake. Maintenance should be
in the covenants. Schroeder went on to explain his experience with homeowner
associations. Stamson responded maintenance would be part of the PUD process.
Schroeder would like to know who is going to inspect the pavers. Stamson said it was a
simple procedure.
Kansier pointed out Schroeder's property and where the significant trees lay on the
development.
Schroeder asked for an explanation on the impervious surface. Stamson responded.
Schroeder said the paver issue is a concern. Stamson explained the pavers were being
treated as though they were concrete. They are not getting a credit for impervious.
Schroeder stated he would like to see the developer provide a noise barrier.
Kendall Larson, representative for the impervious pavers the developer will be installing
addressed the issues brought up by the public. In reference to Schroeder's comments that
the pavers have never been tested - Larson pointed out the Minnesota Landscape
Arboretum tested and monitored this product with other products. There are numerous
projects around the State and Twin Cities who have used the pavers and have been
successful.
Criego questioned the percentage of runoff versus permeating the pavers. Larson said he
can not give an exact amount but he explained the paver opening is 13% of the brick. He
said he is not an engineer and is not able to address the question. The engineer was not
able to make the meeting.
The public hearing was closed.
DRAfT
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
. There are several ways of addressing the noise abatement on County Road 82.
There are a number oftrees along County Road 82. Kansier responded a
significant number of evergreen trees will be planted along the right-of-way for
screening and some noise abatement. Hoped the applicant would try to address
that issue and reduce the noise.
. Surprised the neighbors have not spoke on the height of the buildings. It is within
the regulations. It went from a two-story to a three-story complex.
. The additional square footage being requested is .7%. The overall concern is 30%
on the property, not the 25% on the tiers. From a lake preservation standpoint this
is not a major issue. It is well under 30%. The drainage goes to the sides.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MN090803.doc 4
Planning Commission Meeting
September 8, 2003
"
I'
II
,I
!
Lemke:
. Was skeptical at first for any increase on impervious surface but after hearing
Criego and remembering Tier 2 does not run into the lake that a lot of this surface
is mitigated by the use of materials.
. Everything is really the same and there have been improvements.
. The dockage issue was covered a year ago and the number of docks is the same.
. It is a worthwhile project that meets all requirements. Supported.
I
I
ij
I'
1!
I'
,I
I
I
Atwood:
. Agreed with the Commissioners. The covenants and noise abatement issues have
been addressed.
. Suggested a neighborhood meeting where something could be presented including
the landscape and covenants. It doesn't need the neighbors' stamp of approval
but they could see the efforts by the developer.
. All the information is public.
. Agreed with the Commissioners on the impervious surface. It is not an issue.
. There has to be a second access to the development.
. Support.
Ringstad:
. This was a good process - a year ago there were negotiations between the
developer and the neighbors. There are a lot of positive comments.
. A little disappointed we are looking at this again tonight. The neighbors are
bringing up issues addressed a year ago.
. Surprised the height of the buildings were not brought up by the neighbors but
they are within the code.
. Agreed with Commissioners on the impervious surface issue especially with the
drainage moving away from the lake.
· Okay with the development. DR AFT
Stamson:
. The two big changes are the design of the building, although it meets regulations
and the second is a minor calculation error on the impervious surface. Generally
the Commission is looking at single lots, this development as a whole is under the
30% requirement The tier discrepancies are further back and drain away from the
lake.
. The County Highway requirements pushed the driveways into Tier 2. There was
no credit given to the pavers.
. Comfortable with this project - will support.
. There is a number of ways to mitigate noise. Landscaping is a very efficient way
of mitigating noise. Residents can also take care of their own properties. Noise
walls work well for adjacent property owners but as you get away from them the
wall is not effective. Noise increases from bouncing off walls. You cannot lump
this on a single developer when hundreds of cars are coming from other places.
. Homeowners should take it upon themselves to handle the noise.
I
,I
II
I
I
,
I
i
I
I
II
"
il
t!
Ii
I
,
II
11
II
!I
I,
,I
"
,
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Connn\03pcMinutes\MN090803.doc 5
Planning Commission Meeting
September 8. 2003
II
I
,I
. Vote to approve.
Lemke:
. One of the speakers made the comment that the road dedication is required under
law. If no one was buying this land, the County would have to come in and buy
this land. Kansier responded that was correct, the County would normally have to
buy the 25 feet of right-of-way. Dedicating the right-of-way would not be
required.
Criego:
. Asked the applicant the price range. Klingelhutz responded the units would start
at $850,000 to a 1.1 Million. Association fees will be around $350.00 a month.
. Kingelhutz said they looked at the noise abatement issue. They are concerned and
will do the best they can to address the noise - that is why the landscape plan has
a lot of trees. It is in our best interest.
. Klingelhutz did not send out the notices for a neighborhood meeting in time.
. Regarding the homeowner's association - they might have to put up money first
so the City is assured the driveway maintenance is done.
. Klingelhutz said there are no buildings in Tier 2 - only driveways.
. Asked if the developer knows where the dredged area of the lake is. Klingelhutz
responded he did not know and would research the matter.
,
I
II
I'
!I
,
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY ATWOOD, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN AND
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS CRYSTAL BAY SUBJECT TO THE 11
CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT. DRAFT
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
j.
Ii
I'
I
This item will go before the City Council on September 15, 2003.
B. Case #03-92 Th hakopee Mdewakanto oux Community has submitted
an application for a Condl . the grading and reconstruction of
the former Lone Pine Golf
Planner Cynthia Kirchoffpresente e Planning Report on file in the office of the City
Planning Department.
The Shakopee Mdew ton Sioux Comm 'ty (SMSC) is requesting a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) to Jl e more than 400 cubic y of fill and excavate over 400 cubic
yards of mate' on the property located on the n side of CSAH 82, and west of
CSAH 83 the Mystic Lake Casino and zoned A griculture) and SD (Shoreland
District .
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MN090803.doc 6
Location Map for
Crystal Bay T own homes
"r;jj;&/"J (:i;!h:).. i
J//7\\\'Y/ (c ~
~..\~I
~\\\~I
am. / \~....--::..'.\.. ;.1::::--/. r---~.
' II I \ /
. \ c-------,
~ ~Ur------o!
'-----...1;
I
:;
:I:
=<
m
."
Z
m
"
o
Gl
z
:;
I@/f~~~.' \\~ /;;~f'
\ 0:Z'Y ~\ v/~ /Y;:/
~ <j); ~\\ \ t::::J
~ vi 1,---,
. i I' !
I 11lTl \ 1\ ~
, I \ I
..----. I ) \ I
CSAl:i R? '"dT~ OT .""
154TH ST NW
J
I I
I : !
MARSH ST MA
~
.s'f
)
~ ,p.
~~-
.",((14 ~
"-./0
/,t "
(<of .
'/~
I ,
+
N
~ N "
:;
!!I II '" ~
0
i N.
II
I I,~ ~~ ~ .~
.~~ ~ ~l
I ~. ~
~ l "~- '~ .
dl, I ~~~~g~ tll ::
1 w
Iki~ } hj~~~ t ~ ~l
.!~~~~ I W _
>
.!~~i I'~~~ 8 ci
0<. !~~~~~i Z
I I ii~ill; '"
I
0 V1
. .~I ~ ~ Z
, 1;;_ -..
'I w
h~a~.i ~
8... .... 11
"' en
w
:2
, 00
:I:..J
, Z~Z
--.I [ill ~g:::
0" .
7/W::I1 oW
f-" '"
l/Vl z-<
XOd >- W~
<(. a:
-I co gQ
wa:
...J~o.
, I <(0
, f-O
I en'
, >-
,
, N I 0::
, ~ ()
I ,
,
, ci I
,
I z
,
,
, I lInn,
, >- I
I ~ ,
J: , ;2 I.J.J I,
'" , "
, I <i{,1
, J: '" I , ~'l
I , ;! " i/.l f-h
~ , 9:' 1,1 EB:i
, I 91/l
, ~
I 0 ft '"
<..l , Q, iii
,
, I Ii,'
,
I to ,
,
, 0 I
, <..l
I '"
,
,
, I
,
I . ,
, ,
, I I
,
I , B I:
,
, I I .
, !
I q
,
,
I 'M'N >3A'o' INOY'l3eJ~
,
, -=:.r..: -----
I ----
----- ----
I
,
,
I
I
hllll
mIll
.,
o
":-2,
'"
-~
I
--
~
I.,
I.
llVb'l
1/'v'1
xo" , 'If
-;t,li
II:, :111\
" II. 1
<. II \
0,
r: 'I i"1 II
cS I II I I
c:; , ,1.1 I !
<Cll' ,,~: ' I
t , 'I \ I I
' rI
Iii, ~' , I:
;' ,'i' : "1 1 /'
0, I i, , , I'. , :i
II11 I , Ill'! I I,
' 'Ir I, '~i' E 'l~'l I'
,f in I ' '~Ii i' IIplll .!
,J, , idii!! ! ilill ! 1 ~
~f! ~ III:! !ll U!h il! III
.>, I~ 1,"11 ! II'!S.. m !
;! I " ' '. ..... 1111!irl i 1~lm'l II
':, I:, ,,.,, .. i".41!11,1;:mll:
! 'I! I, _ ~(~ !lil!:U!.!i!:me!
' 'I , c< !
I Iii . Gi ~, "." iI, ~!sl!lllllll, ii
I II . "I iS1'1 ill"I' !
i ", , . :.J' i I"' i I ~'llil,lll!
' 01, · . f 'i ijl'll Iii 11112 'I
i ~Ifl '- , 3A Olv "" I' I ;\--r) 'II, 'Iii ~:I'I'I:ll !!
' 'i7, l\ ,'\ - -~:... / -' ~...:_-~/::,_ !I,liil!~ I' hlll'l'!1
' " I, ----Ln - -- 1.11,', Ilill! 11,1
I i L~C;~. . · -;';;/ .11 ilil~' >lfpj.,
I: 7/,1." ,1, 1'\,: /~t:--J,:-~j;;! jf1f/ ii'IIU:lilflilillhln!lll
1\ ' I /) (f'" 1- /' /,/,/ ,..... I>> I~! ~U':;ll! rnl:i!1 "
11(//// d<<<
1\ (,..... / /'
,\( < (
'\ \
-
'J
1
"
q 2 8
l3i iiI
!~ ~ ~
0- 0
~u
o
!OJ
~
I I
'z '"
'0
(f)
w
~
Od
I"
z"
:S:' z
O ~'.
ow
I- ~~
~ i~
...... oQ
~ "oc
...J ~~
<(0
>-"
(f)'
>-
0::
U
1'1'1
lIlli"
~'l
~I
Ij
" .
, I
I'
I
I
I
_..J
l1VHl
llYl
XO~
l
I
I . I
~> 11:111
,) I '"
f: , ~
23 I
Co
"c ci
I '"
, ,.
I
I ~
:r:
~2 Q
<. :r:
0, I
r::
'"
I :;,
8
,
I
~: I
" r::
~c
'- I 0
..,~ I <.J
Ii! I "
~.
~'j t
~.:: ,
I
I
I
,
,
I .
I I
I
I I
, I
I I
(i
I'
l~ I
Ii! I
f
I
I .
I
I
'Ihdi!~l!
h
I
B
~
.
1-.1
+l '1,1
Jl'::1111
'11,1 1'111,
1;" l. '\I
----- !.,j, ,I II'
:!ljl ~ 'I.
,,1 ,_ jl
. -ill: :1, .Wl.
, I
'I II' 11' I
I!! Iii Ii! I
' Jill 'j; Pi I
. Ijll,'l\4'.1 ';'11 il
. lll.l.l II .
.j hi: h.. lffiii
~
\
---r
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
-I T
I I
I I
\
\
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
,
,
I
,
,
I
l
;
'M'N
.........-
._-........
7f
/
/
11--1
I I
I
~,
.
9~
1:?i ~
i!lh. ~o
oe
~u
o
I
i
z IS
~ w
~ ~
~
z
" "-
00 0
~
"
z
i;: ci
a '"
~ r,
w' w
~ I
~ co
01
W
;:;
O.
I~
z"
~H
0" .
ow
f-" ~
>- !!;1...J
<(... a:::
....... ~Q
~"oc
..J ~"
<(Q
f-"
01"
>-
0::
U
J'll!
lll~l!
I hd
.
~!!
~I
{1 I I
~ j1 I HUll N
II: I 1Il111 '" N ~
(.." <;
c'
r'
.. I ....- M ~
<;' 0
N.
z !;l
:'i ~
0. '"
I: ::
:J
>= "-
" 0
w
>- ~
0;
o
0.
~ z
8 t;:;
'"
I
"'
I
.
>-", ... '"
% r:j" c..
"'", ~~ ~ "'z
0:1:::; ,,--l "'0 ~j
,,'" -en
-,0 "' ~
.,,::r: "'''- "'% S2c..
;:;" 0%
"'z @'i . j
"'", ",0
'" "-
>-0 N'" .
13'" '"
. l
. j
0 i I
~ ,
. i
, , 1
. I: I
, I
. I
. i
.
.
.
o
g
.
.
o
~
o
.
.
(tl~:
t
Ii Ii
~ ~ t~ c
H "i ~
~c h ~
, ~g "~i
I 'iI, II i
en ~ > ~" ~
W iL.~.~ "
1-1 ",~:;t", t,
01 ~~~ill "''''
Zi i ~1:2 ~.# ~
I'
,
, .
/
~'I
l.:lc ~ ~
it;; ~
~g ~ =!i
~;S;~,:,I
5:':l:o.~5
i~~l,
r-\
1. I
t
'J 1
,
,
-, '"'
, !
,'I : .HI ~
~,,'\ It ill: ,~ !
Ill':! "
il:! II i' ~ 1
-a
Ii". !
II'" ~, Ii ! :
..... '. 'o'or,4
i '~ .:.: ;)!,j
jj '" '~' 'i g
,~, j ~
, '.... -~!
~W :;~)
I
<:
Q
~ I
Cl "
'T;i'l
,
,
I,
Cl
<:
'" I :
i iI1i.,!
If!: 1111~
!' < II !
I
H .,
'i!j '!
~
::c "'<t N ~
'"
~JII
<
I,..J~ I
=,
\ \ \ ,
I'" \-M-'N AV \.lNdrl3C1~
' \ It-' ,
i]--r':~<r'--:- L. . - "'_
" .' <~7" ~ '"
"[- 5" ,,_ !o
@~ g ~ f ~ ~I ~I g
"Ii: w' '" "', !" _I ~ 8
h Iii. ti I, i ~
8@ e 01l~e 1~)(0 19J
":.;
I
6;1
i
Ji
\>>1
~
,.
-----51
,~['l\
--4 I
"', ---: I
- - - - I
:1
'\
\
\
,
T
='1 I
,I
II
I'
1\
II
11
I
I,
\1
:' -ld
,
I
~
I
-~
fu
ill
~
\f)
I
I
I. u'll!Ii"
,,',,'" ~ OJ
I'
I
!
"iii,~,,---"
JII"_,1 i~''''-:;--' .iii'~
"fl',
"iii,-.,--
~,
~f
- I.
~' 0
-
-I
10
-
,t
~I:
T
!~=JErS,~l
,i!U~-... []
,I ...
-"-.__1.111::1:1'"
Ili~~I----i--1
~:,
r~Qri
I
I
.""".' 111'-.'
JI
'" k' _,,,,' j. j"' ~ -
;"""j' I '"'''',1
-iiii~-
'","
1.1
".;
.
-
,I
1_,J
~
-
~
" .~:
, ~ -
,(,:.
T
j,.
<'.n;'
LJ1u"
.~
i
:1
r
. ~.
CD
'.~'
;; ~
~ .
(l};n
---- __om '1
---. ----- -------...:
'-T'~
11,
~~
@
",..
'--------~~::-]
- -0. ~_
x
CD
.. ,I,
" "~,~
..~
. .
,__ ___u___ ___
[',
DiU -------, ,.uu; ;U
<:.1>......1
r=----=. --i'i~
~
I
I-':if
1..lt
--1
- I
,
!
Ti
.L.__
".11
-~~-'!,.."
E. ('-,,,
I ..., [
'"II
---:':,"
-------:0:."
o
~,
I
I
~.
TII
1,,<1
.O'::I!
~l
I
"
I
...J
-J.. -
~I
I
I
I
I
I
__--LJ
..J
~-"'J
,~
~
IMPERVIOUS CALCULATION
CRYSTAL BAY TOWNHOMES
212 DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC
Prior Lake, Minnesota
Otto Job No. 2-03-0122
Rev. 6/23/03 & 8/28103
TIER 1
Total Area 224,822 SF
Impervious Area
Buildings 53,611 SF
Roads OSF
Driveways 2,682 SF
TOTAL 53,611 SF 56,293 SF
% Impervious 23.8% 25.0 %
TIER2
Total Area 168,171 SF
Impervious Area
Buildings 14,093 SF
Roads 16,330 SF
Driveways 23,636 SF
TOTAL 30,423 SF 54,059 SF
% Impervious 18.1 % 32.1 %
TIER 3
Total Area 3,148 SF
No Impervious Area
TOTAL PROJECT (Less Existing R.O.W.) 396,141 SF
TOTAL % IMPERVIOUS
21.2 %
r
27.9%
AUG 2 9 2iJ1J3
r:
-- --....-1
.-:~-'-,:_':--'--'. - (~'-~ (
TTO
SSOCIATES
AUG I 8 2003
Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.
August 14,2003
Ms. Jane Kansier, AICP
City of Prior Lake Planning Department
16200 Eagle Creek Ave SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: CRYSTAL BAY TOWNHOMES
City Job No. 02-34
Otto Job No. 2-03-0122
Dear Ms. Kansier:
The purpose of a General Development Plan and Planned Unit Development is to
redevelop the existing 10.62 acre site by developing 24 town homes along a 24' private
street with scenic views of the Upper Prior Lake Bay. The PUD includes 21 boat slips.
We are seeking a PUD on this property in order to provide for a unique townhome
development, which includes many walkout style units and front-loaded garages. The
flexibility of the PUD process will allow the units to be placed in the most efficient layout
that maximize views of the lake while still maintaining the character of the site.
The following public benefits include:
1. A higher standard of site design was needed to layout the town home units
that maximizes views of the lake while still preserving as much of the natural
character of the site as possible. The building design of the town home also
meets a higher standard of design by the use of an efficient floor plan and an
eye for quality details.
2. The plan emphasizes the use of common open space, which nearly envelops
the development. The green space is particularly important where the stands
of trees are preserved along the east property line and along the entire
shoreline. This allows everyone easy access to the lake. A trail system for
the development is also available to all residents from the common open
space areas.
9 WEST DIVISION STREET. BUFFALO, MN 55313 . (763) 682-4727 . FAX (763) 682-3522
Letter to Jane Kansier
City of Prior Lake
Crystal Bay Townhomes
Page - 2
3. The use of walkout style townhomes in areas that work with the topography
and full-basement units in areas of level terrain minimizes the need for
grading.
4. The preservation of many of the existing trees along the eastern part of the
site allows the natural character to remain and provides a buffer from the
neighborhood to the east.
Modifications from the existing district regulations include the following:
The proposed side street yard setback is 15'. Typical side street yard setbacks
in an R-1 district are 25'. In an effort to create efficient use of the property, it was
necessary to narrow the side street yard setback to 15'-0". This distance would
allow for landscaping between the unit and future sidewalks that would buffer the
unit from the street.
Phasinq
Phase I consists of 12 units on approximately 7.22 acres and the construction of a
detention pond.
Phase II consists of 12 units on approximately 3.40 acres and the construction of a
detention pond. This phase will complete the project and the connection of Crystal Bay
Drive to Fremont Avenue Northwest.
Densitv Calculations
Tier 1 Density = 5.24 Acres/20 Units = 3.82 Units Per Acre
Tier 2 Density = 3.74 Acres/4 Units = 1.07 Units Per Acre
Ground Floor Area = 51,384 SF
Floor Area Ratio = 0.23
Parkinq
Each unit includes a three-car garage and three spaces per driveway.
Comprehensive Plan Desiqnation
Residentiallowlmedium density.
Letter to Jane Kansier
City of Prior Lake
Crystal Bay Townhomes
Page - 3
Zoninq
R-1SD
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Introduction
The Crystal Bay Development is located along Scott County Road No. 82 (154111 Street
Northwest) and Fremont Avenue Northwest. The project consists of 24 townhome units
in 12 tWin home style structures.
Backqround
Crystal Bay Development will have a direct connection to both County Road No. 82 and
Fremont Avenue Northwest via a private street. The project will be developed in two
phases with Phase One consisting of 12 units on the easterly one-half of the site, and
12 units for Phase Two which is the westerly one-half of the project site.
Historically, the site has been used for residential purposes so the projected new trips
are not entirely an increase of traffic generation.
Access of the private road to both Fremont and County Road No. 82 are currently a
"stop and go" situation. County Road No. 82 is a minor arterial and Fremont is
classified as a local street. The employment center and school systems are primarily
located to the north of the project site.
Assumptions
For the purpose of the traffic analysis, we have used the assumptions used in the
previously approved PUD application.
The assumptions made are as follows:
· One trip per unit outbound for AM peak hour (24 trips)
· Two-thirds trips inbound and one-third outbound for PM peak hour
· 6.6 trips per day for each town home unit (158 trips per day)
· 85% of outbound trips will be a right turn movement and 15% left turn
It is our opinion that the total inbound movement on County Road No. 82 is insignificant
compared to the total volume on County Road No. 82 and will not create significant
delays. The same is true for Fremont Avenue Northwest at the intersection with County
Road No. 82.
Letter to Jane Kansier
City of Prior Lake
Crystal Bay Townhomes
Page - 4
With the upgrade to County Road No. 82, a right turn lane will be constructed for
vehicles turning onto Fremont Avenue. The applicant will be assessed by the county
for this improvement. The applicant is also dedicating through the platting process
additional right of way for the expansion of County Road No. 82.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Environmental issues concerning the site include the removal of existing homes and
outbuildings, the abandonment of private water wells and individual septic treatment
systems, temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control and tree removal and
replacement. There are no known or suspected dumps, hazardous materials or
threatened or endangered species.
Removal of Exist/no Homes
Five single-family residential homes and various outbuildings occupied the site. One
home is served by municipal sewer and water service, while the others have private
wells and individual septic systems. The applicant has moved the three homes in the
area proposed to be developed as Phase I and has contracted with licensed well drillers
and septic operators to abandon the wells and septic systems in accordance with state
statutes. Wells and septic systems will be properly abandoned on the other properties
as well. The project will result in all homes being connected to municipal services and
will remove the potential of septic leakage or runoff into Prior Lake.
Erosion and Sediment Control
The construction and development will utilize best management practices to control
erosion and runoff with Prior Lake in accordance with the necessary NPDES erosion
control permits. Two permanent sedimentation ponds will be constructed and will be
protected by a public drainage easement.
Tree Removal and Replacement
The project has been designed to protect and preserve most of the trees in the
shoreland, bluff impact zones and along the east property line adjoining Island View
Addition. On the east side retaining walls and modified building design were employed
to assure that many of the mature trees are preserved.
The tree replacement was completed and calls for 312 caliper trees to be planted on
the site. Many of the replacement trees are similar in species to what exists on the site
(oak, maple, spruce), so the landscape character will remain consistent.
Letter to Jane Kansier
City of Prior Lake
Crystal Bay Townhomes
Shore Impact Zone
Page - 5
The Shoreland PUD Ordinance requires that 70% of the shore impact (50% of the
setback from the OHW) be preserved in its natural state. The area of the shore impact
zone for the site is 58,433 SF. The area proposed to be preserved is 40,992 SF or
70.2%.
Sincerely,
Otto Associates
Engineers and Land Surveyors, Inc.
~)~
Cara Schwahn Otto, P.E.
CSO:jk
cc: Tom Heiland, 212 Development Group
1. Due to error made in the preliminary approval, we are now at the 28%
of impervious surface instead of27.2%. We have not changed
anything on the building size or in the development design. We also
believe that the last calculation for impervious surface should give us
a 50% credit for the driveways.
2. Grade elevations were also calculated mistakenly and it moved the
904 elevation 15' closer to units 13 and 14. Therefore we cannot
maintain the 112' setback from a.H.W.
9L
j/
!:0
DATE: July 23,2003
TO: Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator
cc: Sue McDermott, City Engineer
FROM: Larry Poppler, Assistant City Engineer
RE: Crystal Bay (Project #02-34)
The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject final planned unit development and has the
following comments:
GRADING! EROS10N CONTROL
I. Grading plan continues to be cluttered and difficult to read. Revise grading plan in such a
way that makes the plan easier to read. Please submit a grading plan without the tree plan
showing in the foreground (gray existing features).
2. Show the pervious paver piping on the plans. Show details and calculations for the pervious
pavers. Part of the reason pervious pavers were accepted by the City was because a system
was to be designed for this application. The City has not yet seen the proposed design,
signed by a licensed professional engineer.
3. Show details and calculations for the infiltration basin. What happened to the infiltration
basin?
4. Show construction limits including trail! path grading.
5. Place the name and phone number of the person responsible for erosion and sediment
control plan preparation, implementation, and maintenance on the plans. A phone number
was not included on the plan sheet.
6. Submit detailed plans and specifications for the retaining walls. Submit calculations for
retaining walls over 4 feet in height.
7. Show all emergency overflow routes for surface water drainage. Provide flow arrows.
8. Show or define access routes for all ponding areas (maximum of 8% grade, 2% cross slope
and 10' wide).
9. The top ofbenn elevation of the ponds shall be a minimum of one foot higher than the
HWL of the pond.
10. Show grading and limits for entrances to be removed.
II. The erosion control notes need to include text specifying that slopes greater than 4: I shall
have an erosion control blanket installed immediately after the completion of grading.
These areas should be illustrated on the plan or revise grades to no more than 4: I
throughout the plan.
12. Floating silt curtain should be placed along the shoreline at the storm sewer discharge points
to contain any sediment that may be discharged from this site during construction.
G: \PROJECTS\2002\34crystalbay\Review 3 072303.DOC
WETLAND
1. As indicated in our memo dated October 25, 2003, a 30' average buffer (with a minimum of
20') from the OHW of elevation 904 must be shown on the plans in accordance with City
Standards. It is unclear if the easement shown on the plat is designated for the buffer.
Additionally, the area on the plat does not appear to be an average of 30 feet and portions of
the area are less than the minimum 20' requirement.
2. The wetland replacement application was sent out for the required 30.day notice on July 16,
2003. The 30.day comment period will end on August 15, 2003. Work in the wetlands
cannot start until this applicatlOn is approved by the City. The wetland was delineated by
Kjolhaug Environmental Services and field verified by WSB.
WATERMAIN
I. Water services may be placed in same trench with sanitary services, however sanitary
services must be three feet downstream from water services.
SANITARY SEWER
I. Raise lots 13 and 14 so that ejector pumps will not be necessary.
2. Add cleanouts on services longer than 100 feet.
STORM SEWER
I. Drainage discharge overflow is shown flowing onto the Scott County right of way ditch.
2. Revise plans to show the minimum stonn sewer pipe size of 15".
3. A "Rainstore" note is shown. Is the "Rainstore" part of the proposed project?
4. Class ill riprap, rather than Class II riprap, must be called out at the outfalls of the stonn
sewer shown on Detail B and Detail D on Sheet II. This detail must be in confonnance
with MnDOT Plate 3133 for volume.
5. The outlet control structure of the south pond should be redesigned to decrease the slope of
the outlet pipe. An example of a possible design is attached with this memo.
6. It should be noted on the stonn sewer profiles that the last 3 joints of all storm sewer pipes
shall be tied.
STREET
1. CuI de sacs need to follow the detail plate #506 of the Public Works Design Manual. Show
the grades and drainage arrows for the cuI de sacs (minimum grade is 0.8%).
2. 1s a boat ramp or beach access path proposed or has that been removed from the design?
3. Street lighting is to be consistent with the City's policy outlined in the Public Works Design
Manual. A Street lighting plan prepared by Xcel must be submitted.
4. Show typical section for trail.
2
o
Page 1 of 1
ELEV.909.
ELEV.9C
------\
!
;\
\ I
OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE DETAIL
-hl"".J/r.nXTThmn'IiT~\'T.,.........'t"'\f"'Ir'],T"'\T T,.,t"".....,,,,,t "]:;,;l",,<:>\{lr Tl""Q~~(\\nl1tL:>.tn""t...;l ~...........
"7/'111/(\1
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
PLANNlNG/ENGlNEERlNG
Ralph Teschner, Finance Director
Crystal Bay. preliminary plat
(assessment/fee review)
August 26, 2003
A 10.62 acre parcel in 34.115.22 (PIN #259340180 thru #25934027) is proposed to be platted
into Crystal Bay. 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. 1n addition to these improvement costs, the
subdivision will be subject to the following City charges:
Park Dedication
Collector Street Fee
Stormwater Management Fee
Trunk Sewer & Water Fee
$2670.00/unit
$1500.00/acre
$2943.00/acre
$3500.00/acre
The application of these City charges would generate the following costs to the developer based
upon a net lot area calculation of 9.00 acres (excludes CSAH 82 ROW') of townhouse units as
provided within the site data summary sheet ofthe preliminary plat.
Park Dedication Fee:
24 units @ $2670/unit = $64,080.00
Collector Street Fee:
9.00 acres@ $1500.00/ac = $13,500.00
Storm Water Management Fee:
9.00 acres @ $2943.00/ac = $26,487.00
Trunk Sewer & Water Charge:
9.00 acres @ $3500.00/ac = $31,500.00
Assuming the initial net lot area of the final plat does not change, the above referenced storm
water, collector street, and trunk 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.
, Stormwater pond acreage has NOT been deducted.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
H:\SPLlTS\Cl'ysmlbuy.doc
i\N EQUAL OPPORTLN!TY E!VlPLOYER