HomeMy WebLinkAbout10C - Meadow View Heights
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MAY 7, 2001
10 C
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING
THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 68-UNIT
TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT AND A RESOLUTION
APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS
MEADOW VIEW HEIGHTS
History: Centex Homes and John O'Loughlin have filed an
application to develop the property located on the west side of CSAH
83, 1;4 mile south of CSAH 42, in the East Y2 of the Northwest 1;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. At that time, the property had not
been rezoned, so the Planning Commission deferred action until the
City Council had made a final decision on a rezoning request for this
property. Also on March 12t\ the Planning Commission and the staff
took the opportunity to raise several issues with the developer
pertaining to this development, including the need for parkland on the
site, the need to extend the proposed streets, and the grading of the
site.
The City Council approved an ordinance rezoning this property to the
R-2 district on April 2, 2001. On April 9, 2001, the Planning
Commission considered the revised plans. The Planning Commission
ultimately determined it is not possible to connect the roads to the west
and the south due to the existing development and the wetland
mitigation area. The plan does provide a future access to the north.
The developer also submitted a revised proposal identifying parkland
on the site. The Commission determined there should be some
parkland at this location since there will not be many more
1:\01 files\OI subdivisions\prelim plat\centex\centex cc.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
Ilr
'Ii
. ,
opportunities to obtain parkland on the west side of CSAH 83. The
Planning Commission recommended approval of these applications
subject to conditions. A draft copy of the minutes ofthe March 12,
2001 and April 9, 2001 Planning Commission meetings are attached to
this report.
Current Circumstances: 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. 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, primarily surrounding the wetland.
This site has been actively farmed for several years. There is a stand
of trees 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.
There is one 4.3 acre wetland located at the northwest comer of this
site. The plans do not indicate any disturbance of this wetland.
Access to the site is from CSAH 83 on the east side of the site. The
access point to this site is located across from Wilds Parkway. At one
point, there was some discussion about providing access from this site
to the SMSC property to the south. However, the SMSC has indicated
this access is not desirable since an existing residential lot would have
to be removed to make the connection. The property to the west is
also part of the SMSC trust land, and is used as a wetland mitigation
area. The plat does provide a future access to the property to the north.
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. The site is
zoned R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential). The R-2 district
permits a maximum density of7.2 units per acre.
The developer submitted revised plans for this development on April
18,2001. The following information is a summary of these plans.
Density: The revised plan proposes 114 units on a total of 40.43
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
3.36 units per acre.
1:\01 files\O 1 subdivisions\prelim pJat\centex\centex cc.doc
Page 2
Lots: The preliminary plat consists of 54 lots for single family homes
and 60 lots the townhouse units. There are also 2 lots for the common
open space, an outlot in the northwest comer of the site, and a park.
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. Outlot A, located in the northwest
comer of the site, has no access from a public street or from any public
property. The Planning Commission recommended the outlot be
dedicated as park and the developer has indicated his intention to do
this.
The proposed townhouse lots are "envelope" lots encompassing the
building footprints. The common area for this development is also
platted into 2 lots.
Buildine Styles: The proposed plan calls for 2-story single family
dwellings, ranging in size from I, 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 Coveraee: 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. The proposed common area adjacent to the townhomes
provides open space for this development; the calculations indicate
1.57 acres of open space, or 1,143 square feet per unit.
Parkine: The proposal provides at least 2 spaces per dwelling unit,
which is consistent with the minimum Zoning Ordinance
1:\01 files\O 1 subdivisions\prelim plat\centex\centex cc.doc
Page 3
. " ....-
.
11
requirements. Based on the site plan, each single family home and
townhouse unit will have a two car garage.
Landscapine: Section II 07.1900 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 I tree per unit or I 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 116 front yard trees. Staff calculations indicate a total of
189 trees are required for this development. The revised landscaping
plan is consistent with the ordinance requirements. However, the
number of trees indicated within the key on the plan is not consistent
with the number of trees shown on the plan. This key must be revised.
Furthermore, an irrigation plan has not been provided. The
landscaping plan must also be signed by a registered landscape
architect as required by the Zoning Ordinance.
Tree Replacement: The applicant has submitted an inventory
identifying 151 caliper inches of significant trees on the site. The plan
indicates removal 91 caliper inches, or 60.3% of the significant caliper
inches for grading. This would require replacement of approximately
27 caliper inches, or II, 2.5 caliper inch trees. The landscaping plan
identifies 13, 2.5" trees as replacement trees. These are located within
the park area. The plan should be revised to locate the replacement
trees on the common area or on individual lots. A possible location for
the replacement trees is along the south property boundary.
Siens: The site plan includes a project monument sign located at the
entrance to this site. A concept plan for the sign notes it will not
exceed the 50 square feet allowed by the Zoning Ordinance.
Liehting: 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-de-sac extending from the
south side of Street "A" to the southwest. Street "C" is a I ,000' long
through street extending north from Street "A" to the north boundary
of the plat.
Section I 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 Planning Commission determined the grade and other
1:\01 files\O 1 subdivisions\prelim plat\centex\centex cc.doc
Page 4
physical constraints on this site limit the possibilities for eliminating
these cul-de-sacs. The Planning Commission recommended the City
Council grant variances for each of the cul-de-sacs.
Sidewalks/Trails: The plan proposes sidewalk along the north side of
Street "A" from CSAH 83 to Street "C", and then along the entire
length of Street "C to the north property line.
Parks: The parkland dedication requirement for this development is
10% of the gross land area, or 4.04 acres. The revised plan includes an
8.94 acre park. The net area of the park, less wetlands, ponds and
steep slopes, is 1.93 acres. While the proposed park does not meet the
dedication requirements, it does provide a usable park for this site.
The Planning Commission concluded there were few opportunities to
provide usable parkland on this site. The Planning Commission also
recommended that Outlot A, which includes approximately 0.76 acres
of upland area, be dedicated as park. This would provide some future
opportunities to develop a park and trail on the north side of the
wetland when the area to the north develops. The remaining
dedication requirements would be satisfied by a cash dedication. It is
contemplated that the portion of the park adjacent to the street would
contain playground equipment. The area shown as Outlot A in the
northwest comer of the plat may be developed as parkland when the
area to the north is developed. Under this scenario, the City would
maintain the remainder of the land dedicated as park. The Public
Works Department is concerned about the maintenance of some of this
area. The staff is still discussing the details about which area should
be dedicated as park, and which area should be maintained by the
homeowner's association.
Sanitary Sewer and Water Main: Sewer and water services can be
extended to serve this site from the existing utilities located in CSAH
83 and Wilds Parkway.
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.
The Issues: There are two separate applications included in this
request: one for a conditional use permit for the townhouses and one
for a preliminary plat for the entire development. The issues for each
application are discussed below.
(1) 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
1:\01 files\O 1 subdivisions\prelim plat\centex\centex cc.doc
Page 5
. ~ ,
.
fT
shall be approved if it is found to meet specific criteria. The Planning
Commission addressed these criteria as shown 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.
In general, the proposal meets the provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance. There are some minor revisions required to the
landscaping plan to ensure compliance.
(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 sewer system will be designed to
accommodate runoff from this site. The parkland dedication
requirements for this site can be satisfied by a combination of land
and cash dedication.
(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 that 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.
1:\01 files\O 1 subdivisions\prelim plat\centex\centex cc.doc
Page 6
(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-I 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-1"
Single Family Residential Use District; (3) This subsection shall
not be applied to conversion of 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 the above criteria.
b. The applicant shall clearly demonstrate through the application
and site plan that a superior development would result by
1:\01 files\O 1 subdivisions\prelim plat\centex\centex cc.doc
Page 7
_ ~ r
.
11
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 many of the steep slopes by designating this
area as common open space.
(2) Preliminary Plat: With some modifications, the proposed
preliminary plat meets the standards of the Subdivision Ordinance and
Zoning Ordinance.
The major engineering issue on this site is pertains to the grading of
the site. The design currently includes 3: 1 slopes in the backyards of
several of the single family homes. The maximum slope in maintained
areas is 4: I. The developer has indicated the grading plan will be
redesigned to provide retaining walls where necessary to maintain the
4: I slopes.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission also concluded the proposal
met the requirements for a conditional use permit and preliminary plat.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the conditional
use permit and the preliminary plat subject to the following conditions:
1) Eliminate 2 single family lots along the north side of Street "A" to
provide a more usable park area. Outlot A must also be dedicated
as parkland.
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) Revise the landscaping plan to meet the Zoning Ordinance
requirements. An irrigation plan for the townhouse portion of this
development must also be submitted.
4) Include the necessary replacement trees on the landscaping plan.
5) Provide plans and elevations for the proposed monument sign.
1:\01 files\O 1 subdivisions\prelim plat\centex\centex cc.doc
Page 8
FISCAL IMPACT:
AL TERNATIVES:
6) Submit homeowner's association documents for the townhouse
development.
7) Provide a name for the proposed subdivision.
8) Provide street names for the public streets.
9) Address the following comments from the Engineering
Department:
(a) Provide a grading plan at a scale 1 " = 50' or larger.
(b) Show OHWLfor DNR wetland #158w.
(c) Provide revised storm water calculations, along with a
drainage boundary map.
(d) Coordinate runofffrom C.R. 83 with Scott County. The County
has a NURP pond shown on the SE corner of the property on
their preliminary plans.
(e) Provide an access road to the NURP pond for maintenance
purposes with a slope ~ 8%, and a width of 1 0 '.
(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.
Revised plans for the development were submitted by the developer on
ApriI18,2001. These plans reflect some ofthe above conditions. The
attached resolutions lists the conditions which should still be included
as part of approval of this proj ect.
Budl!et Impact: The construction of new dwellings will provide
additional tax base to the City.
The City Council has three alternatives for each application:
1:\01 files\O 1 subdivisions\prelim plat\centex\centex cc.doc
. T I
Page 9
I
I J
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
rnnrlit;Ol1al TT'i:p Pprm;t.
I. Adopt a resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit for this
development subject to the listed conditions.
2. Deny the Conditional Use Permit on the basis it is 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 for the
denial of this request.
3. Defer consideration of this item for specific reasons.
Prf!fim;n(lry Plat-
4. Adopt a resolution approving the Preliminary Plat for Meadow
View Heights subject to the listed conditions, with the finding that
the preliminary plat is consistent with the intent and purpose of the
Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances.
5. Deny the Preliminary Plat on the basis it is 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 staffto prepare a resolution with findings of fact for the
denial of this request.
6. Defer consideration of this item for specific reasons.
Staff recommends alternative # 1 for each application. Since there are
two separate items, two motions are required.
1. A motion and second to approve a resolution approving the
Conditional Use Permit, subject to the listed conditions.
2. A motion and second to approve s resolution approving the
Preliminary Plat to be known as Meadow View Heights, subject to
the listed conditio s.
rv
1:\01 files\O 1 subdivisions\prelim plat\centex\centex cc.doc
Page 1 0
CONDITIONAL USE ,ERMIT
RESOLUTION Ol-~S~
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO DEVELOP A 60-UNlT
TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS "MEADOW VIEW HEIGHTS"
MOTION BY:
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
M~
&/~~
SECOND BY:
The Prior Lake Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on March
12, 2001, to consider an application from Centex Homes and John
O'Loughlin for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a 60-unit cluster
development to be known as Meadow View Heights; and,
The Prior Lake Planning Commission continued the public hearing to April
9,2001; and
Notice of the public hearing on said CUP has been duly published m
accordance with the applicable Prior Lake Ordinances; and
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 CUP of Meadow View Heights; and
The City Council considered the CUP application for Meadow View Heights
at its regular meeting on May 7, 2001; and
The Planning Commission and City Council find the CUP for Meadow View
Heights in harmony with both existing and proposed development in the area
surrounding the project; and
The Planning Commission and City Council find the proposed CUP is
compatible with the stated purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as
they relate to conditionally permitted uses, and further, that the proposed
CUP meets the criteria for approval of CUP as contained in Section 1108.202
of the Zoning Ordinance.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE:
1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein.
2. The City Council hereby adopts the following findings:
1:\Olfiles\Olsubdivisions\prelim plat\centex\cup res. 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
III
I
I J
a) 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.
b) 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.
c) The use is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and the
Use District in which the Conditional Use is located.
The proposal meets the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The landscape plan
requires some minor modifications to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
d) 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 sewer system
will be designed to accommodate runoff from this site.
e) 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 that property.
1) 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. As noted above, with some modifications, the
plans meet all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The landscape plan must be
prepared and signed by a registered landscape architect.
g) 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.
h) 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
1:\01 files\O 1 subdivisions\prelim plat\centex\cup res.doc
Page 2
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.
3. Section 11 02.403 (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-l" Single Family
Residential Use District; (3) This subsection shall not be applied to conversion of
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 the above criteria.
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 many of the steep
slopes by designating this area as common open space.
4. The Conditional Use Permit is hereby approved on the property legally described as follows:
The Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 28, Township 115 North, Range
22 West, Scott County, Minnesota.
5. The Conditional Use Permit is hereby approved subject to the following conditions:
a) Revise the landscaping plan so that the key is consistent with the number of trees shown
on the plan. In addition, the plan must be signed by a registered landscape architect.
b) Submit an irrigation plan for the townhouse portion ofthis development.
c) Revise the landscaping to relocate the necessary replacement trees from the parkland.
d) Submit homeowner's association documents for the townhouse development.
e) The Final Plat and Development Contract must be approved by the City Council.
f) Upon final approval, the developer must submit two complete sets of full-scale final
plans and reductions of each sheet. These plans will be stamped with the final approval
1:\01 files\O lsubdivisions\prelim plat\centex\cup res.doc
Page 3
III
I
II
information. One set will be maintained as the official CUP record. The second set will
be returned to the developer for their files.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby grants a Conditional Use
Permit for the cluster development to be known as Meadow View Heights. The contents of
Planning Case Files #01-008 and #01-009 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public
record and the record of the decision for this case.
Passed and adopted this 7th day of May, 2001.
YES NO
Mader Mader
Ericson Ericson
Gundlach Gundlach
Petersen Petersen
Zieska Zieska
{Seal} City Manager,
City of Prior Lake
I: \01 files\O 1 subdivisions\prelim plat\centex\cup res.doc Page 4
PRELIMINARY PLAT
RESOLUTION 01 ~ S 1-
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF
"MEADOW VIEW HEIGHTS" SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED HEREIN.
/v1Jv SECOND BY: &J'~
.
MOTION BY:
WHEREAS: The Prior Lake Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on March 12, 2001, to
consider an application from Centex Homes and John O'Loughlin for a Preliminary Plat
for to be known as Meadow View Heights; and
WHEREAS, The Prior Lake Planning Commission continued the public hearing to April 9, 2001; 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 Meadow View Heights for the record at
the public hearing conducted by the Planning Commission; 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
Meadow View Heights on May 7,2001; and
WHEREAS: The City Council finds the preliminary plat of Meadow View Heights to be consistent with
the 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
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. A variance to the maximum length of a cul-de-sac is approved for the proposed cul-de-sacs shown
on this plat is approved due to the limitations places on extending these streets by the grades on the
site and on the existing development on the adjacent property.
C. The preliminary plat of Meadow View Heights is approved subject to the following conditions:
1) Dedicate Outlot A as parkland.
2) Provide street names for the public streets.
li"-g~~~~~~wif1\(}g~~~~.f~f}5~W~'UFlh~%ta 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 4t'f-l~~~5
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
. 11 1"
1
I
II
3) Address the following comments from the Engineering Department:
a) Provide a grading plan at a scale 1" = 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 CR. 83 with Scott County. The County has a NURP pond shown on
the SE corner of the property on their preliminary plans.
e) Provide an access road to the NURP pond for maintenance purposes with a slope ~ 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.
4) 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.
Passed and adopted this 7th day of May, 2001.
YES
NO
Mader Mader
Gundlach Gundlach
Ericson Ericson
Petersen Petersen
Zieska Zieska
{Seal}
Frank Boyles, City Manager
1:\01 files\O 1 subdivisions\pre1im p1at\centex\p1at res.doc
Page 2
I.
Location Map
~J
,
Iii
! I
: I
,I' ~~!I-~'~~
~~:>;./..
~ '<r) '-_~' _
~
....\-.,
I '----:
N
A
.
1000
o
1000 2000 Feet
,
III
I
I j
E:ENTEX HCMES
Minnesota Division
'. '? ~::~ : ~ r: \.,'.7 ~ ;-'..--
~ _0__.._____ __-=::..-_ :.
'2400 Whltewater Drive
Suite '20
Mlnnetonka. MN 55343
January 26, 2001
.IAN 2 6 2001
. . ~ j'
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
---
. .'-'1
-.._--~~- {
!
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 town homes 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, berming and 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
III it"
I
11
Preliminary
Engineering Project Summary
for
Centex Homes
O'LoughIin Parcel
in
Prior Lake
i 1mi'@CS[gO \\P ~5- ~;\,
illl. ~.. 1:1
. I, 1 . I'
'! v/ :: id
I j ~ \ JAN 2 6 (001 111 ! I:
I',', . I I't!'
'., \ -. ...
IL Ui ,s/
I
1. 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.
ll. 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
Ill. Existing Site Conditions
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 eurposes. 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 loarns and sandy loarns. 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 Ouality 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.
III if
. I
IT
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.
VIT. 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
oertinent 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
IV. Begin construction of utilities and streets
June 15, 2001
v. Pave streets, restore site
September 15, 2001
>'"
111
I
IT
r~\, [g@lli 0 ~i/ ~f:\'\1
,\1 \ \. I: I
\ I _,I I II
\\V/ ! _~ ' I 2001 i)Jj
L______
J~'" - .... If
",;
I:ENTEX HOMES
Minnesota Division
12400 Whitewater Drive
Suite 120
Mlnnetonka, MN 55343
April 9, 2001
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
RE: April 9, 2001 Planning Report
Dear Jane Kansier,
I wanted to provide a response to the concerns outlined in the Planning Report that will be presented to the
Planning Commission April 9, 2001.
Parle Area
We will provide some alternative park designs at Monday's meeting to assist in facilitating a preferred park
design. As you know the park design has been a critical component in determining what happens to the
overall site design. Once we get through park issue several of the other issues should fall into place.
Useable Open Soace
We will provide a plan at the meeting that highlights the required area to meet the 600 square feet per unit.
In general, the proposed plan provides a minimum of 30 feet behind the townhome buildings. The slope
on those areas is or can be adjusted to meet the maximum 10%. In addition, the park area immediately
adjacent to the townhomes will certainly provide a large amount of recreational opportunity available to the
residents.
Outlot A
Outlot A is a remnant that should be attached to the adjoining parcel. We will be discussing the outlot with
Mr. O'Loughlin who currently owns the property to the north. To include Outlot A as part of the single-
family lots would be awkward since it is on the other side of the wetland and not accessible from the
single-family lots.
LandscaPing
Centex will provide the required number of yard trees for the single family homesites and required number
of trees based on site perimeter for the tOwnhome area. I would request that one of the two required yard
trees be planted as a boulevard tree. This will enhance the streetscape and add to the character of the
neighborhood. An inigation system will be provided in the townhome area. The exact design will be
prepared after the landscaping plan has been finalized.
Vegetationffree Replacement
Centex will meet the requirements for tree replacement. The numbers shown on our plan include saving
some trees along the west property line. Apparently your calculations have those trees being removed with
grading. If the trees are removed Centex will make the necessary replacements. We would like the
opportunity to try and save the trees during the grading operation, which can be better assessed with field
verifying the trees as grading progresses.
Entrance Sign
A specific monument sign has not been designed for this neighborhood. I would anticipated a sign similar
to the design I faxed to you on Friday April 6,2001. Centex will meet the necessary sign standards as they
relate to setbacks, area and height.
r\-
- .
Homeowner's Association Documents
These documents will be provided prior to submitting for final plat approval. Once the preliminary plat is
approved the appropriate information can be included in the documents.
Neighborhood Name
Upon approval of the preliminary plat a neighborhood name will be created and included on the final
documents and final plat
Engineering Deoartment Comments
Nick Polta from Pioneer Engineering has spoke with Sue McDermott regarding her issues. It is my
understanding that Sue believed these technical issues could be addressed between the preliminary and
final plat.
The last issue I would like to bring relates to the cul de sac length. As part of the Planning Commission
and City Council action the cul de sac length should be approved as part of the preliminary plat. As you
have presented in the report there is no option to extend the streets to the west or south because of the
wetland mitigation area and lack of interest on the part of the Mdewakanton Sioux Community. The
constraints placed on the property have created a unique circumstance to warrant the cul de sac lengths.
If there is any other issues that I should be prepared for at Monday's meeting please call me in advance of
the meeting.
~
Land Development Manager
Centex Homes
111 !:
.
11
..... f,' H\",' !ii Itill';;;,'
. ~!! .. E, ,If I. II
'fcaD" ~ 1.1'-'- 1",1 ,'\"
.,2'" l~ifl 11;""1
" ~m '! in' I!; ~;!III~
1!,.1I [i ',',ili! }!I"'ll
\,~ . I'. .111 .
II' 11.1 II! ;,bll
Ii l'1 .,;;, I
If' II' I I!, ,!~ ;~i" 1
1.1' I I Ii 1'\ " jll!
if-II i t1i 1'1 WI'.
l i., ,II d' 'III,I!
I II , !i' ,I!! f'!
~ , I ~i I: J!~;~
I II' :i 'I if!
, .
.,.111 i ii !.~ I 'iD,,;;;r.t~~ 'Hi ~
1!~8a~ ~
H!i2~ ~ 2
OJ I' , , I ~ I I ef~Cl ..
. ;' II \3 :1 ! ~ t *,~ I J;; u e ~
I . I . . . . I I I ~ tl:~ II! a
nUPHU ~.. ~
i~ ~
iH'~~"~~ "
i ~'iii~ Ii
.. !i!
i g ~ ~ 0
!1
m
Hi
il}
HI
~if
,-I
h
11
"
11
'I
II
II
; I
I
1
\
ii r i~
~~
~~
n
~ t '
,
~
~
(')
o
;;i
'"
<I'
;I:
'"
fTl
-<
,
()
fT1
Z
;;1
x
:I:
o
;::
fT1
l/J
;to
fT1
,)>
o
o
'l f~
(lJ I~ jl
..,:_ l~ e
-~__ I IT1
--< ()
_..... U) -l
/'11 ""
J 9
n e ~
~_.~
-~
~~.
~ '
~ i
2
~. I
"'0
AJ
0:>
I''.J
L-:-:1
'n Q
~
ll>
~
/
~ .
\
i
j .
i
\.
\
\'
I=;;;]
lJ
:::0
I'l
r
;g8 ~~
/-}\~ 0 6 ~ ~
i ~'\ :::0 -1 :::0 0
! j i 'j \ r 0 -< ~
/,-' >;~~~~:, : ~ ~ )> ~ <
I'.:..). ,i~ /-;,~::<~_._u_-, , r Z ;$ no
\ ".:::,./,.<-:-.:; II \"-"-"-" u_u_ I . I I' I
\L__"~:~::"-'_----- ',=.J) ~ ~ 0 5 :E
ZI'l lJI
~lJ ~I'l
(f)fTl 1'lG)
0:::0 Z:r:::
-1~ -1-t
)>- lJ(f)
-1 r
)>
Z
(f)
J
~
Iq
)=:::J
i
-.i-..-
j
i !i'
! :E
\ ~
! 0
i
i
i
i
z..
r
'.
~'),y
. ,.
<
~ .,
>
~
".
~.).
,'(J'>
.~,y
!XI:-J!"P':"'P'!,,:-'
-0 \l -0 -0 -0 -0 ITI (') 1Il
::0::0::0::0::0::0 X 0 :c
PPPPPPiii;ii R:J
~~~~~~g::o -i
zzzzzZ(;)lIl
>)>>>)>>~:c Z
::0::0::0::0::0::00 ITI 0
-<-<-<-<-<-<z~ ~
:tl~(;)Clll-oO
ITIZ~i2~):::!-o
ITIOo- -i
-o~z~f! Bi
::0)>(;)-0)>
~\l-orZ
ITIlT1r>
::o-o)>z
~~z
=lz
o
Z
-0
~
Z
~ ~~ri: .
~ ~.,
~ ..:.
I 1;, .::. ~
, ;2..
. .
@~
a lb.'.
f'II11
ill
MEADOW VIEW HFI(;HTS
IIi
11
~l}
fll
;iJ
I.,
I,
il
II
n
f~
II
If
I
I
,
\
~li
.
<
~
~
S
i .
it'
~
e
"'~
x
Vi
:::!
z
'"
()
o
z
o
:i
o
z
en
()
0'
z
;;1
x
:x:
o
;:::
'"
IJJ
;:::
'"
>
o
o
:e
:s;
'"
:e
:x:
'"
<i
:x:
....
en
111 T
I
i
i
i
~::~~~;;;~~<:// %
j- \-r;/ / t!
- .....-" ""I J / I
~~//;,,/I,// 1"----... - !
....."" / I
:=_.....__.....1///
"
,-,
\ ,
\...._)
,
,...........,\
\
i
I
~
~
~:..-
"'-J
,"'1
: n! 1~!'JI'li \ ~ \ t ; ) ! ),
· LJ I \i\~ I. . ~ I ,\ r \ ~
i j p' 1'1 ; ! III II ;! !
lie~ iRiHi;iiU 0
U ; I n~1
~
'.0
~
I
~
"
Ii
a~. i
~,
~"' J
~,
it! : __2:_
.
II
~..
....!! .....
Jf taO tr
"S'z.
I om
Il~~
\'Ill
"
I
-'T
i~lli
i ill
I I
ill
! !
;!}
~H
~i'
!.,
HI
i'
;1
u
t'
1 ~
fl
H
;
,
\
f
\
,
-o~
;u
I"l
r
3:
z
:P-
;u
-<
-0
r
:P-
-<
()
I"l
Z
M
x
I
o
;:::
I"l
VJ
! ,
i
.
I
,
'i !
~
5
g fil~
.1Il 'i~ ..,
..~ or
~~
'"
CO. RD. 83
(MYSTIC LAKE DRIVE)
1328
11M U .. I[ 1/' CIr ...... 1/' ce. RD. n.~ (:.:','srIC LAI{E OR!....Ej
--+-
!
;:::
I"l
:P-
o
o
::E
<
;Ti
::E
I
I"l
G'i
I
-l
VJ
T~ ,
~w ~ "
F'~ E! ,
zO> ~ >
"
p 8 0
~ ~
0 ,
~ ~
z
0
> ~
z
0
w ~
c
~ ,
~
~~~~~ i !I
ra;~; ~'D ~:
~'~M I *_
li~;;: ~ ~~
~~~U ~= =1=?;~
"'z~l'l I r fTlc
~~~~: !i'::<
izot I Om
5"@b- !-'O ~,.
~~. I 1 ~
~S~~ I ~~
i 2 ~ ~~
UUP
~;6~~
- ~ " @
g
~
~~.
R ·
~ .
.
~ I
:;;z: ...
p
~
~
;I
. \._~
.:-.f:.
co
~
!:2
I
~
a
...> ~..
-~. ! ~
~ ~ ~
H"H
~ ~ ~ ~
pt
8 i g
g i
i
Q"
. ~
-t-
I
lit
"r
II
II
"
..
I
~
J
i
~
l
I
;!:
'"
)>
0
0
'"
$
'" . "'
'"
:I: ;"1-'-
'"
c; \ CD
:I:
-<
Ul , "
I q
S ~'~.
...
~ ~ ft C
Pi ::;;z: -
~ . .
o ~
~ ~ -.1
J 11 r
...
:t"!.'
. D'
. z'
" m
II II
1.11
"
I
ill ,,'I
!I'l.,
I I
fr
III
. I
II!
III
.jl
1.1
).
'i'
II
[l
{!
II
If
I
\
f
I
"'-30 ,.'"
~~i Ii
es ~~
~~
H
H
la,
i t
""
~~
r
f:
Z
)>
'"
-<
Ul
::;
'"
"
r
)>
z
()
'"
z
;;j
X
:I:
o
;!:
'"
Ul
ii
~~
'!'
I
I
o
-u
fTl
z
nUl
~~
!:lg
::J: ()
~ ~
I:l ()
~c
r
:r>
--I
o
Z
G'l
~; nn' ~
~ "t:;; ;TI
': ~ i z g
B B B :;u
Ul
~:a:st: t: ('Tl
~~~~~~ ~
~h~~1CI ~
~~al:..iil VI
<lcslE~~
~!:i~ ~~
i~f: !}
ro
o :r>
~U~;t! ~ ~~~~~at - ~I ~
!;/;'6~~ ::j ~1;;5\~~i'l ~~~ :r>
~..lli@....... -< 0""::11I1: I: ~ ()
~~ i' () ~ 'E~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~~ )>...... ~ . (')
Ill';; 6g h :-!D:::"'~"" . t ~
I!!~ ;c: C :;~""t:2~ P:" )>
ill,?:;:' r ~2Q'~5 f:~ ::I
.a~.~; ~ U1U1a8....c ~~ 0
~~!;iillli 0 - ~
2._";;1 Z
;a~; l Ul
'6 ~
A
!
~
'6
A
,.
~ ~ti i ~ ~
~ '4Illi lli lli lli
:r>
:;u
fTl
:r>
:;u
:r>
::f
o
~a
u.~
~~
8;
ill $
L:e
~
~ ~ ~~
~t;!i ~~~
m '!'~ ~~~
71~ 82:
~ ~ ~;~
~ ~ r
,
"U
:r>
;u
^
:r>
;u
fTl
:r>
()
:r>
r
()
c
r
)>
::I
o
Z
"U
n~:
I i ~
Z
G'l
N
;: I< ~
i ~ ~
i I
, I
~ ~
~
~~!li~h~ ~ ~I!~ ~
~@Al ~i8~~ ~ ~a~ ~
t~s~~~~08 ~ ~~ 0
h~!:l i~~~ ~ ~ ~
~!~@ !:l ~~ ~ ~ Ul
......__ ~ .' '" C
~ '__'~ P .:-'~ ;:0
;: t'" ::__~ ~ t~~ ~
~ ~ ! ~ ~ a 8a 8 ~
()
)>
r
()
c
r
:r>
::I
o
Z
Ul
~
~ rJ-
i ~
Ul
@
'ii
~
i
@
~
!;
i s
~ 2
~ ~
g ~
Ii
~
51
~
Q
~ . ...
~
~
,
~
~
O~CIJ
~ ~~~
~ ~~~
!:! t::1Il~
!f
::;
~
i
~
~
:~
Ie
!
i
i
!
I
;;I
\
\.
!
i
i
i
i
\.
~
o
i/~~
!~ · . )C
._1 i
i .
,
. .
./ ._u....
i . ./ ..-..............
\I~>)' ./;{/J;-I:<~\\\_.~.-
,.,.../..........~./ ss ,---..-
: '<=~~-=:=:'_I tC -._--;
. l-- ---..----.--.. --_.,j
i
_i-_.
i
i m'
! .0.
i .' li
i OJ.
i
.,
,,''2J,~,~'i
,-
..... ~..~t:, :..\),~
~-'>"
.,
.,
"
.
,
.'.
.,
"'
I"
.'~
..... ~l.*
If-..,.~..
Ii 1m
II~~
I'"
Ii'
~l' !Ii
Ill!,!
~ ~ i II
! 'I
!Ii
~I~
iU
ill
~if
l.t
!!I
t-
.1
..
(:
1J
II
; !
I
~
I
"':-, ,.""
\it ~~
gg ~!
~~
H
H
. 0
. .
I .
Hi
,-
~
'U:
~"
c:
;::
Z
,.
;0
-<
c
:=l
r
~
'U
r
,.
z
i
~
n
'"
z
M
x
I
o
;::
'"
lJ)
;::
'"
)>
0
0
'"
:5
'"
'"
I
'"
Gi
I '1..-....
-<
lJ) 'C,l
u..)
~
I ~~~~..
e. ,"" ~
i '::' ..< ~
II' i, .,.~.... '"
~GiJ
.
!~ _z~
sU:
* I ~!! \ ~ ; q.~ I
: ;: (} lJ~!! 9 + ~ l.~ I ~
niHHi~q ~
IH.~~Spt"
Ii lR'i~'~
i ~ e
\
!
!
1...
"
\
o
)
,/'
)
.. t .' .-:.~--
"'. ) //j":::.::::..............
. "::;:..., . .'(,. n' -."\.
,">.::.::::.:.31/ ::i \<'::':.:3-'
. L__~"":'~'-::-"~F._.- '.--. : \
"-..J) ~~S!~
. ~~~S il
~-;;~
"
'--.
---.-
"
,;~:r
"
m "
...~g
g~~ ~.
cr';.....::..'
j
,;;~
'''-.
\ ; I~~ II 1 W :
nUinunniun~
~ i i~ i i! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ; i ; i 0
oJ; I ;1 nn
~ ~
.
~ .l~
-0
l:: .-l;
'"
)>
0 (1)
0
:E
:>
'" j ,
:E
:I:
'"
Ci
:I:
-l
VI
e
II
0> II II
~
. 11 ~ .
I j
..i.TJ.....
. -'
.. ~..
II ~m
11!1I
I..,
"
!rl'l
j. ~
. I I!
Ii
~iI~11 III
li'r),. !!I
fib.!' 'I'
;I,R!' ".
'I'
~~
R ·
! i_Z_
9 I
\ .
. .
j .
'n
la,
~
1!lll
ii: !I
i i.I
I I
11-
III
, I
fU
il!
;jl
I.,
11
t'
.1
[:
f:
II
it'
~
'U.
",.
p~
;::
z
)>
'"
-<
G)
:;0
)>
o
Z
G)
'U
r
)>
z
I
n
~l
Z
M
x
:I:
o
l::
'"
VI
'U
g
Ii'IW
..~~~ ~
t~Ct:... ~
m
J;;
~
~': i
~'(
e \\
,\: '
!\,
~~;
\,\
\:1,
q
LO''''
---=. . / \ ~, 'fHHI 0 -/'/VI \ I \ ~ l \'tl..--: ' ,".........., .... /' l ;
~/\'!::1 \ \ "Will, "'~\X\\~ ~ :I I
r-\/ ~ I II; , \' II I \III " ~~\I\ 1/ ,
. ! ,\ .,~ {.j - ~~-:- 4, CJ, ','" - ,,,. ., , , ,
, ' / "" e,,,, L, I
\ ,--,..-,L.-, , '----r' / , ~ ~ =!, ~ , " I II I \ \ " \ /I
.....'~ ~' , / , ? ' I I, I II y.~ \ ,\ \
, " / ,,' I I I I ilJ I I 'WI I, I \ , \
I i~' ~,' 1/........ . . /11/;""" '/'11 V'" ),\ ~
- .-2L- 1-;;' .........." 1 I ;' / /, ' i,', I I... I I~ II 'XI'
~ - ' ~; .1'.'/ )/ ~,,_ .:::: /" I I /I ( I ~/!lf) , \
To '" JX:zz:: ~ /11 'I I I. I I I
'~.-. - - ::.~ '.;.n<;;-~:; ~~- /, ((/// ;"! tJ , ",; >'/ j.J
, ' " .\ :., .,J,'; j~, \~ -PIJ /~/ A, ,I f J, / x/ J
;" - - _-- - -;/1-:j ~ -, ~~ -' I I A I I A /, ./ Il ' ~/ / ,,_J .7
~ . ;ti~~1 ~_~:; ~ ~'" ,,~ l'/j-N ,if '/ ' ~/. > " , I'"i,/, ' ...../:/ ~//
~ttC~.,.~ ~':"~W' a>~~_~ '_ --3~~~ I flU f /'::~:I/X,'" Ii./
/ Il~--- '/\,-} - ---- '/ /~t\\\:\:i J GfI .:/' yJ i /
,- - . ~ -,~ __ ',-- / ....../~ } J 11/." : ~ /
- - 7: - - #"(;( .7iJ /. 1/ /I / I '. /
;, :- ,:f~ '~j~- _~, Y-. F_ _ <.r-' '':::_ . / on'/. J ,II J %/ + /_..:. /
· , - \__-= - .'~ ?:'~' - _ ::::J; -'- _" ",<< 1 I II ) / ~ ~/ I I
~ ' I,' . \iI! '~- .....~ /'" / I I I' Ii ~ ~:n ~ /..... I
r " v<l \>_ { 1-,.. 1 ~;j' /' I
" ;:;J/' / :' ~;:iiIV_.. /~ .. "" / f'.li . '" / , t
I ,/ //. .. ('.::; ~ ........7_ '~"
I \, I / / - - " " ;l!i'~ ---.::::.: /:':'~,J",/ - 7 / 71-' / j /
\' . . I ~ -, '-..', ", '- ~~~.- '7/ . /7 I. l '" I I ~
I I { ( /,/ - __ ffi\-,...... - - ~/""/ / I .. f /
. I I ,1 Ii / .- ~"" .,~-"",< ' -,I I / "'/..../ I' / Of'
W Hi ! /li ,,~:~_~, ~ .-- --.- %/ ,//1 ~-/ O/?j/ \ 1~'Ir~~' _ _ ~;~~.",./
I / I', ,-.- / . ->u~/ 1 I 'k(! I I, \"~""~.."'~,..... ,,/, f~
/ i./ ,// 1'//.,/./" ---;t.!-. / I I I I : il " '-~:'~":::>"-"- ,," ~
. . , I I. 1"/ I I J f / . ~-"-::",,,_--
I ./ f / ///~_/ / ~ / I / I I / / I' I 1/ , I ~
!! i I /// / /' } /-l9I'lF- · '. , ../// /~/~/ / /1 I / 1/ 1.1. ctjl I, /t/ .. Cf~ C-' ~l.-~_ :.: ~ -_.-~
j! I ,'I.:tM~ ~A H['{ r, j~ ...../ / " // / / I I 1t. I/'\ "..--:: ---.
~ " - II I I I '/ I ./ ~ ~ _ _ _ __ :.............. // //' /1 / I I: I ~ \ '- _ ~
ii:!i!: I i .~/ ',..,' f---',o '. .....J'/ ////"/1 '---. ~ ::;::::=
~ Ii '.'.' \ \. I /. ~- ,,~.~ -- ;/1.( / ~ ~A\ -. ~I ~~
E i~llt\ d '.' It t/.v7, _ -c..
~ I": ~\ \1\ ....c... ~. .~ \\Zh.II ~ 9.tllT3JIr ~ ~' ~~ _':.\~ ,,"
r 11:, \ \\J~ "'al\ \ \\1 ,\/~ X '" ~ d: 1_ ~ _ ~ . ,," ""'''\:\::P --r~ =
~~ \\~J.9~>\ \.\\ ",~.)~\.\~~I'i . ....~~''''''''~. D<\"~ '....-,11:..1-- l1 ~ ~_ _ O"-~.
Ul'" \,) \' \ \~6:~~_'''''' <1;_ '. - \:> oIIK ~, ~ "",_
~~ \\' \ \\" " "!-"'., lV""_ .... - '\ \ '_~~ -
~~ \\\ I \ \",>>,:~-,'> "-'.?\ ;?<~ ~ \ \ \ \ .-:?~,. -,,__
.."" li)\ \:'~ "',.'. "', ., ' ~;., -=-- ->~"" ..--:" E~ .
~ -< ~YiL ~~~., "~~....,,.~~:-I<~\ 'IW.~ ~ ~ cr-: ~~ '" ~:..-, .:_ :: \~,~. - _:~
~'x\I~lx \ \" ~,..~.~~\~ \K.'- "" .... " ........ " ~~it;;~~ I, ,,0. \ ,;;;'1-, ;;-1::: _.. _ ,/\-' !~\<~ ~~~~~'_' ~'~:-:"'~-::: ij
", \\\\.. '<<"!. "-. " ',~ \ -t:,~-kl'!::! 1R"-3:;:' ~ ..-\,I'l;;~o;,.\,/ // ---,...:
~ '" ) . \ I' _ i ~_ ;(\.,.\: '" -Ul .",::<J H I::~'~>V, -' _------ =--
0' l ' I" ',"" ~ \0 1>> - .:;1l ...<l . _,~ /- --.;;;;~
t ;. --- \ \ " -....--. -... 1\ ~ \ '- _---' ___ -- ~ : ~.......;./ /' __--==
\, '\ II I , \ j 1-' - _-- ---- _-
\ 'i \ ) 't: \ _/-K{~_:: _:___ __ _ --
',~~~..J;~ / :~!t /;:;:/ -~~- _ >___~>
In '\ I" ~ ~\\ .~,/ ....y,..- ../ ,- . -- ... /', _.
j \ \ \ --- J" - _--- .--- _",' ....../v. /-' ..../ V)/'...... / / , \ -..J~---
:'=< ' "I" \, \~ al' I' ir~I;.!-- -Blf--: --: .....fP .....' /0lc::L.G1f / /1 , OH .... .!" ~
~ ~~~~~~--'"- '} ~r:-PH " ~:-..?::_..;;.::zz.' c-:::..: -:'t-~--.:.:-----=-~--::;;:_~.:::-::::.,!-Y''::/ ::;V-E'1'(c_':;J,w:t~~I~~r
; -'-
~n:)~, ~~~ '\. \41\ I
n~~/)- "
I.m / /'
Ii' ~
!I'H! :>- ~
li'lIl ,
fir ~\l:
, g.
lli '\ J~:
, !
iU '"
fH
r.if
,.,
,!I
t'
I!
n
H
It
- ,-
- ,'oj
".
()
'"
z
oj
X
I
o
;::
'"
Ul
~
.111"1"'10';'11"'1""''''[''1'1';'1''''1''
1!I, i,Hilllh'jhP I :'I..l.il'11I.l1
~11;,h'li.ll~ ;'II!, "n'III"I,'\,r.11
; 1"1111'1111' ~ 1:1i! lit I 1*
I: j'l,!'li!iiu ,llpi iiJ!Wj'!1 !I!j: IIi
~ ! I,il !ili!I"" liP!, ~,iii I il!'j Iia
I. 'I' ,,1'IJij' 1.11
;::
'"
>-
o
.0
~
r;;
:E
I
."
Ci
I
-<
Ul
i.)
~
~
~
.t ORAY~Nc:s/Pl.^~lI~HG ORAWlNGS/I00522/100S22lS2-,OWC
l
.., t!l.;::
!~: ~ :r~ ~
I iiiU i:! i;;~iiw'm
~ In ~ I~ m II
i Iii III iU;; nil
i <! ! d n <<! Ii
i I ~ i Ii II I
ii ~ I
5 =.::. ..................
~~ii ~, Ii
....
~.!l!~.
"caD.
*IZ'
I, ~m
1';21
I'll
\1'
III 1',1
~l ~d /
I I
g \'11 \ ,\\\\1\\\\\1\\\\\\\\,1'\\\\'1\\\\\
t:, ! I I \_, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ , 1 I II' I \ \ \ I \ \ \ \
-- / I ,I '\ \"\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I ! I ! ! III ! 1 ! i I, \ \\ \ \ \
~, / / " \ \ \ \ , \ \ \, ~ I I I I I 'I " I I I I I I' \ I \ I
-, j I I~__--. " ,,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ <> \ I I , 1 , I I I I I I I I I / I I \ \ , \ I .
, (- I ',', \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ '1\ 1\ \ I , I I II I I / I 1/ /I' I I I \ \ \ \ I
~ '~il, \ \,___--. ", \ \ \ \ \ \ \ '\ \ \ \ I \ I \ III f I ,!!, I I' I I I I I I I
_ _ ,\ ~~~-- ) ~ ill' "b ' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I \ I 1 \ I I I , 1 I {I" I / II I I \ I \ \
~ I , '" x ,. ~ ~I \ "'0 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I , !' I , , I I '\ I I I \ : I I I , I ~ I , \
, - ! ' ,0' / ~ ~I \ (--~)" \' \ \ \ \ It \ \ i \.1 I ~ I , , I \ I \ , \.\ \. \ \ \ \ \ 1 I I' I \ '
( ~;' I ~ ',- :.1 \) ''--:/))) ) ) ) \ \ 1 \y;\I~\j~,-~:,~~~,~~~~~~:~, '~i<i<\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
~-~ ~ x ~';I,- ~ ~_ ., -'//} I ~ / I II I' / \ , \, I,' "_~<',lo'~ ,~, ',' \, "'\1,\"\ \ '\ \\\ \ , , \ I,
I.i ---- ::-><-. _..--1- I - / . '_ ........-...... ........' ,~'. \ \ \ 1....'\. \\\ \; \ , ...' "-.""" '.
I ~,;>'\\ v~'.,.'!-"--"":::1'; V ~ --- -- --\--- ~ ..i ,"'\; ~ ~FrJ
~I! ;?(, I( r'---" ~~' / //~ Iffi\8J ~~7",,~'\ \,Y/Y' ,;:t \ / ,!
cO II ,\"'\, ,,-~.., "1,1,\1 ,I ~
., 1~IJ)1 I ~_,~., ~ -:-J. / / '" ~\ \ '", \ \ ~, ~
II II \ ~'/ I /::: _:--, \ \ \'
ii -C:,J \'",") ).. ~ I I ~ '~IY- ~ ~, ~ ,~ ,\ I \ ~'.~ <~0r
. ~~ it)/ l!..~ .->f' '" \ x~~/ e 'VIS ,/ I, "I\~\\\\~::~."'~
I ___ \ lllllj' I \ \ I \ yr.Yr1 \ if,'" ,
i ~ i~' '\~~~>l~' 1.,,, ~,~ ~;0' / / '~& l!1~ill!& },1 U'/,/i1, Tffi!J I +, \ : ~!\l~\ ,,- \ ~\
1 1 , ---- , w _ ~ J"-- / x,... . ~/:Jl/ !OJ I I I I I " \
1'111 ,x \ L..' - x -.c:::r- \ / (,\ -,,'~ -~ I - ' // / '../...J-h I 1111 Ii) J' I
'/ "I. II, ,
, "I:-_~ oJ/ l ..,/ _ ...... I I / /
~ - -,. ,~:;;." / ~~ / I / ;
-_:: -" -,~., "J' ~ _~_'",- ,,,....., - I I / / I "I
!II i~~~~.~;:~;:;~; c. S.:-/ ~ "~;~~"~~'~ ~ Ii;,;
.'. / "", ,,- ~ "'./ ---;?,-J. ~~ ,.' ::J,J, I <I'lL/VII . I
i~ _ n \ :::: F/.;, -~ ,'~. - ~ _ ~ '~~~ '/ lJ I~ ~ ~'),iJ / A ,pj/./ > ,./
,__:~ \~_ ~ -j' -IT.- -;.IC-::::I%' .. - ~ - -3 //~ 1 kN.l'\ !i IL ~ 7 i/ f /0/:' /
(, '--- :', tfJk--~- ,,\~-J - ---- I~~)i \/J Nl '7 /h' /,:>'
r! ,,; ----,- ~ _-=--=-1 ~ - : ~_ -_ - "',,~'~ _ ___ -,,23~, <~I ~~ 1J'11Jf ";.(t ~?/;'/ ",,:
,; )\" ---- - __<'~~ffi~O~~(;~~~~~~\~"""- __ ~- _~~3 ~~ '-/::~~'~'!I1Z'("1 "<oo;/'Irff
~I\' 'U-~ -j/ <_j~2~_x-~~X ~ -- ~- ~ L ",.(// 'I II 7/ '..
, / / - @ / , ,r __ - -,_~ \~ ,x '-u - ~~ ~~ ,. ~-.Jo /' I., ~..,
~~. ~--.......~ - - --..-/1//' I .-- -- ;;<'_\. \......4ao~ ~....... 0-- _/ ~.- -:/_A ~~ ' J I ~ I {. q '.i II
~ ....~'l...... --', {-1"'""" A~.-?
: I", _I I .
_.I;::! - \ ~~l ,/ /v ~-" '~~-~L~iI>' -7/ 8---- bl. ,',,{. ~'j ",'
~) ~ r--, 1 I / / .' , -- Ii" ,"'~ ~ ,- / /. iV - I ,:/, {/' "
\ U I I / --II, '~- -- -? / / / ~Il: .......--~Ix/ /. 7 ~~ ,
f . / ~~.-.// I ,. /;
\\ ' I 1 '" /~"""-:;:;:;;~t>", ~ - - - "',/ ~ - /..1 :...
'l \ ~~Ir-J \ I I I ~ / ":::/X:/- - ~J' - - _' I ~ J...:.:." I
~J X", 1!i~)/~////1~11:~ '~" -=- -- "/J, I \!y~~/
O g; I, I / /~,'~ '~, / \ \1 ~,~~.."
_ ~'\ 10 II, I ;' / // I , - - - \, i " ~
. t I" I I / / / /n.:- (I .:--..:
-...........-:: IJII 1////~1/-:;;7 A..- \\ 11
---~....-\. \) / /I, I mtrl / // //~~ ~/- I r ~:--:.:.:=
I "', (\ d , I Ii /1// / ~ J
\ (\ I I lillI/I, I /.t-;. ~
..~ 111,',',' '" J
I I II, I I \ I I I J
l I , \111 1\ \ \ , :--:- ~
' I, I 11 I ' =-- ;:;t-,I
i~@l,?\,~_\\\\,\\\\\~~\, ,,-,I.L~h .- ~~.
~~~\\\ ~;~>\_< .' . :;< -K : lf1,= '~I:: -Ll-..: - -..~ tt
, \ '~>'\)" \' ,<5: .,,,'~ ,\\.f ,,,"' \7":.. ~.\- ~..--, ~ - ,.t: 'Y- ~
'" I 1\ \ '~~"'-'.,,'_- <:/X:M<)..."-~\\n," -'-J..,_
'- \ \, '\~' ~ '-" ", ""...~ ~~~., 'I' -
;-, -- ~ , / \\ \ \;' ~\ \ ,:,,' ~ '" ....~~'" ~. X- ~ ;:?", '...._);~~~4~'\.l ~rE=~>- 7'"" ..., ~~
", , '_ ') \ \ \' \ - ," " " ., ~. ,-.-><,--r _. ... "
--.' \ r "" "'" ~""....'" y .""'~._~ <<--n~ ~. \ ,_....... \ . <. .-' P.-\\ot
E
U
-
/
\
,
,
"
;'
-,
I,
;'
I
/
:i!~
'"
'"
'll
"''ll
"''''
Ill",
Me
~~
>-z
:::1>-
0'"
z-<
"
r
>-
Z
<>
'"
z
;;t
X
:Ie
o
i!:
'"
III
!I::
'"
>-
o
o
~
'"
:IE
:Ie
'"
G)
:Ie
-l
III
~~_.
~ -Ct
~ .
.
9 I
~ ~
~~ '\~ I -mit G~ l!
"n~ ~ ~~ ~ i~ ~ ~
!~ ~~ ~ ~e ~.. ~ rr1
~~ am ~ ~~!pm ~ ~
~: I~ ~ ~~ ~~;~ : ~
oh a i~ij-Cl ~ i g
II I ~~ 0 i ~
o ~ 1m ~ I
~
!
~
z--
alC~ g~ ~
~.e~t;~~
~~ ~~
"'... ...
g!il !il
d
:0
~
:;j
'" 0 '"
:'2
~. c !1.
8 '0 '" -;;; M
" 0 ~
" ~ ~
~ ~
e
OJ
!
~
.t /tIRAWllfCS/PlAtIllIIlC OR"'MNCS/IOO~:rlfl2.tlWO
III
.
H
\,. "
. .
. . .
. .
, . :.~, : .:' '
: ~,"" ~ .'
" ' ..: , "
. .'
.. ~ ..', .
, .,' .
. . .
'. " .
. . "..
. .'
.., .
. .
. .
. .' "~:'.
- .
" " .
. ."
. . ' ,.
.... .
. " '. ."
. I ."
. . . .
- . .
. .
.....', . I
~ . '. .' . '. '
.' .
. ' .
': ,.'. :.11I
.',.,.,'. .' .;,i
. .,..... ' .
.:>.: :":><:~' .;..'(: ..
. '. ." .
. .
, .
, " I"
, ,. "
.' ,,'" '."' ':.' ,
,.
. , I I~ ". "
, ,. .
0' "
. .
. .
. .
~l .' :-
s?" I' ....
. ~~
~~.
~~ .... .
F\i:.
r
~'.
t.
ill .
.J .
, J
J
C3
". t-
. T
(
T
:' _.~~
. .
. .
,.
. ..
.....,.....
'. ,~Ji
._1U '.' .. .
':t'> . .' . ......
: : ' ..../
,.' ~~.:
.' "
. .'
. .
. .
... - . ...::.
DATE: April 4, 2001
TO: Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator
FROM: S-~e McDer~ott, city E~g.i~~er ~J.
RE: O'Loughlin Property (Project #01-32)
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 comer 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 \32oloughlin\REVIEW2.DOC
III if 1
.
~
IT
,.
,
SCOTT COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS DMSION
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
600 COUNTRY TRAIL EAST
JORDAN, MN 55352-9339
(952) 496-8346
I
f~ r? ~ ;-d r; ':"': '--',:'-;:--.
.i\)\ :..:....: \:.::;,1- I ..; . I
I;: ,Ii . L-:..~... ~' ;..~: 1
1;['''/1 -.
II;! j FEB
Ii /': ';/ , 4 2001
j'G L.:L- I
! J
L______ I
---.-----!
;
,.
~,/~..
',"ICOIr' ,
." .
. ,
BRADLEY J. LARSON
PUBUC WORKS DIRECfOR/
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 pennit for Street A shall be required. We will coordinate plans for the reconstruction of CSAH 83
with the city and developers as necessary.
+ No benning, 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, -
4p~
Transportation Planner
Email: Greg llkka, Assistant County Engineer
Brian Sorenson, County Transportation Engineer
An Equal Opportunity/Safety Aware Employer
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
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 Manal1;ement Fee:
20.43 acres @ $2943/ac = $60,125.00
Trunk Sewer & Water Charl1;e:
20.43 acres @ $3500.00/ac = $71,505.00
Lateral Sewer & Water Charl1;e:
150' @ $60.00/ff= $9,000.00
These charges represent an approximate cost of $1,4 77 .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, tr: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.
III .,(no 'fr'~' ,,', I
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
.
Ii
AN EQl.'AL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
n
Shakopee Mdewakanton
Sioux COIDTIlunity
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
Lori.!5.. C!:.9wcbild
rr\\ r::l (;:::, I";'; r;Secretary(Treasurer
,!,,\ ! =. \'~ 2 L; ''':' . ,
1:11~~- ..
ILJ Ifl
~~ Fe 12m ~.
12 February 2001
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. rfthis 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
hydrologic 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
(NYVL) of 909.0 above sea level. The designed high water level is 912.5. As designed,
this pond will be at or near its ma.'Ximum 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.
III II'"
.
IT
"'_..~.. .--.-- '-~----_.~ .--~-.-------_.,------_" -.'
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 Permittimz
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 EP A would consult with the SMSC before making any approval. Erosion control
plans and stormwater discharge control plans may also require federal approval.
County Road U!JQI'ade
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 COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, APRIL 9, 2001
1. Call to Order:
issioner Stamson called the April 9, 2001, Planning Commisso meeting to order
at 6: .m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Crie , emke and Stamson,
Planning irector Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kan . r, City Engineer Sue
McDermott, oning Administrator Steve Horsman and cording Secretary Connie
Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
3.
issioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
4. Public Hearings:
-*
A. Case Files #01-008 and 00-009 (Continued) 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, 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 April 9, 2001, on
file in the office of the Planning Department.
Centex Homes and John O'Loughlin have filed an application to develop the property
located on the west side ofCSAH 83, 1;4 mile south ofCSAH 42, in the East Y20fthe
Northwest 'l4 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.
L:\Olfiles\Ol plancomm\Olpcminutes\mn040901.doc 1
.11 T
.
I r
Planning Commission Meeting
April 9. 2001
The Planning Commission originally considered this request at a public hearing on March
12, 200 I. 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
of3.6 units per acre. This development included 54 single-family dwellings and 68
dwelling units in 17 four-unit buildings.
The following outstanding issues pertaining to this development include the following:
I. 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.
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'.
(0 Maximum slope of grading in maintained areas is 4: I. This affects the entire
grading plan. Redesign to 4: I slopes or use retaining walls as necessary.
L:\O J files\O J plancomm\O J pcminutes\mn04090 J .doc 2
Planning Commission Meeting
April 9, 2001
(g) Check backyard swales in Block 3, eliminatelminimize 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 I 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 "e" should be 12" in size. The City will pay over sizing costs
through the Development Contract.
(k) Eliminate the 8" water main loop along c.R. 83.
Staff felt some of these issues could 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.
Staff noted 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.
Questions from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
Questioned the elimination of an outlot. Kansier explained the process.
Comments from the public:
Steve Ach, Centex Homes, addressed the issues in his letter to Jane Kansier dated April
9,2001, which included the park area, useable open space, Outlot A, landscaping,
vegetation/tree replacement and the entrance sign.
Stamson:
. Questioned the marketing target for single family. Ach responded late twenties,
early thirties, second-time homebuyers, young professionals, starting families.
The townhomes would be for people moving down or young professionals
looking for a maintenance-free lifestyle.
. Questioned Ach ifhe had a preference for park design between Plans A and B.
Ach stated Plan A was fine; it would function well. Plan B addresses more of
staff s concern regarding open space.
. Questioned if staff felt the plans would work. Kansier said this is the first time
staff has seen the revised plans and would have to talk it over with the public
works director and maintenance.
L:\Olfiles\OI plancornrn\Olpcrninutes\mn040901.doc 3
. 'f' 'lr
'lI'
.
IT
Planning Commission Meeting
April 9. 2001
Atwood:
. How much land is gained by eliminating the two lots? McDermott responded .4
acres.
Criego:
. How does one pull out of the townhome garage? And how is that affected when
Street C is connected to the northern boundary? Ach said the townhomes were
designed so that the residents would have to back straight out into the street.
There is no opportunity to turn around and drive out.
. Okay for a cul-de-sac or dead-ends, but when it connects to another street it could
be a serious problem. Ach responded the key is how the road connects to the
north.
. How much acreage to develop vs. wetland and pond area? Kansier responded the
developable acreage is 33.78 acres.
. The requirement is 10% park area of the total. Conservatively that would be 3.8
acres.
. How large is outlot A? Ach said it was. 7 acres.
. Ach responded part oftheir proposal would be to satisfy the dedication with land,
cash, installing some (playground) equipment in the park and building the trail.
. Concerned that area is almost landlocked with county roads and trust land. If
there is going to be a park, this is where it needs to be.
There were no comments from the public and the hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
. The property seems very difficult to work with.
. Maybe they put forth their best plan but would like to hear other comments.
Criego:
. Liked the layout for the single-family homes.
. There needs to be adequate parkland.
. Concerned for the pullouts for the townhomes as it relates to future developments.
There will be problems. Similar traffic problems with Eagle Creek/Priorwood
residents pulling out into the street.
Atwood:
. Agreed with Criego regarding the parkland.
. Inclined to go with Plan B and remove the 2 single-family lots for more open
space.
. A 70-foot playground area is small. This issue should be addressed.
. Will go along with staffs conditions.
L:\OI files\O 1 pIancomm\OI pcminutes\mn04090 I.doc 4
Planning Commission Meeting
April 9. 2001
Stamson:
· Agreed with fellow Commissioners on the parkland issues.
. Plan B is a better option. Liked the increased land and how it opens to the street.
. This design is the best with the slopes.
. Probably looking at a variance with the streets.
. Not as concerned as Criego with the backing out of the townhouses. Will have to
look at the street going to the north. This street will not be a shortcut. The
alternative is to put in a cul-de-sac, but no one liked that option.
. Overall the plan works well.
. Agreed with most of staff's concerns.
. Questioned the 4 to 1 slope. McDermott said the City's concern was with the
single-family area where there is common area that an association will maintain.
In a single-family area, it is more ofa concern, as most people want a well-
maintained yard.
. Overall supports the proj ect.
Kansier:
. The City needs to know if the developer has signed the 60 Day Waiver. Ach then
submitted the Waiver.
Lemke:
. Agreed it is a difficult piece of property. There is no other alternative but to have
the cul-de-sacs.
. Concern for the park and the elevation of the terraced retaining walls. Ach
explained the contours did not require retaining walls. Plan B is a good option. It
will be visually more pleasing.
Criego:
. With 122 units on small lots, it seems there will be a lot of children, which will
require more park area. 10% of the area is park dedication. There should be
more acreage. They are short with 1.9 acres. There is no other area for children
to play. Maybe some townhouses will have to come out.
. Regarding pulling out of the driveways at the townhomes - Agreed with Ach
when the property to the north is developed, make every effort to ensure there is
not a stream of traffic.
. With staff's recommendations, agreed with the development except for the park
dedication.
Stamson:
. What acreage is needed for a development this size? Ach said average lot size is
over 13,000 square feet. People may want to put a play area in their own yards.
Criego:
. Questioned the lot sizes. Nick Polta, from Pioneer Engineering responded.
L:\O I fiJes\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\mn04090 I.doc 5
.11
I
i i
Planning Commission Meeting
Apri/9,2001
Atwood:
· With the wetland, the development could err on the side of going smaller on the
park because it is going to feel wide open,
· Ach said the key is to connect whatever park space to future developments to the
north and west. There are further recreational opportunities to the west.
Stamson:
. Said this is probably an adequate amount of land for a neighborhood playground,
given the lot size. These will not be fields for organized sports.
Criego:
· Why can't Outlot A be dedicated as a parkland area? Ach said the issues were
crossing the' wetland and maintenance.
. Rye said it would be hard to maintain a bridge or boardwalk and then get
equipment over it to maintain the land.
. Satisfied if Outlot A would be common area.
Stamson:
· Maybe take the outlot as parkland and not develop it until the property to the
north is developed.
. Kansier said the same problem would exist ifit was common property, there's no
connection. How does anyone get to it? It is a lot with no access. Would rather
see it as an outlot to provide opportunities for future development. It will not be
maintained if it is park or privately owned. It will stay natural grasses.
Atwood:
. What are the contours around the wetland? Concern for small children being
drawn to the wetland. McDermott responded Outlot A is part of a higher knoll
and did not know how usable it would be.
Criego:
. What is wrong with leaving Outlot A a common area and not maintain it? There
is nothing wrong with leaving it natural. Kansier said the City's concern as an
outlot is that there is no access to it. As a City, we would be responsible for this
or to provide access to it because it is a lot. It does not solve the problem.
. It is a compromise.
. Change it to a park. It opens up the area.
Stamson:
. It does not solve the park issue. It makes the technical definition ofthe park
larger but it doesn't expand the usable space for park.
Lemke:
. Does the City have a separate category for non-maintainable parks? Other than
marshland? Kansier responded the City has a list that determines how much
L:\OI fiJes\OI plancomrn\Olpcminutes\mn040901.doc 6
Planning Commission Meeting
April 9. 2001
credit a developer gets for different types of land. When the area to the north
develops it will create some potential for trail connections.
· Any issues with parkland abutting up to commercial development? Kansier said
there are no problems.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, FOR A VARIANCE ON THIS
PARCEL FOR CUL-DE-SAC STREETS A AND B AS PRESENTED BY THE
APPLICANT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO APPROVE THE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO GO BEFORE CITY COUNCIL BASED ON THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OUTLINED BY THE STAFF 1 THROUGH 10 INCLUDING
OUTLOT A BECOMING PART OF THE PARK AREA, AS WELL AS PARK PLAN
B PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH THE PROVISIONS OUTLINED BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION AS WELL AS THE SAME CONDITIONS AS
APPROVED IN THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
The earliest it would go before the City Council would be May 7, 2001.
B. Case ile #01-012 A Zoning Ordinance Arne ment to permit accessory
structures on nd developments.
Zoning Administrator
on file in the office of the
The purpose of this public hearin . to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
that would allow accessory struc r to be located on general development lake island
lots. This amendment was in' . ated by e Planning Commission at the public hearing on
February 12, 2001. On tha ate, the PI . g Commission considered an appeal to the
Planning staffs interpre bon of the Zoning inance. The appellant contended the
provisions of the ordi ce allowed accessory s tures on islands. The Staff, however,
concluded the ordi ce prohibited accessory struct s on islands.
The Commissi n adopted Resolution 01-04PC upholding ill Planning staffs'
interpretatio of the Zoning Ordinance that does not permit acc sory structures on the
islands. H wever, the Commission directed staff to research the 1 ue and prepare
language for an ordinance amendment for consideration. Currently, the ordinance on
L:\OI files\OI plancomm\OI pcminutes\mn040901.doc 7
III IF
.
II
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, MARCH 12, 2001
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Vonho called the March 12, 2001, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:30 p.m. Those p sent were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Stamson and
Vonhof, Planning Dl ctor Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, City Engineer
Sue McDermott, Zoni Administrator Steve Hors an and Recording Secretary Connie
Carlson.
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of
The Minutes from
as presented.
ommission meeting were approved
Commissia er Vonhofread the Public Hearing Statement a S opened the meeting.
4. Public Hearings:
~
A. Case Files #01-005 & 006 Pavek Family Investments CompanylHodgson
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
of CSAH 21 approximately ~ mile north of CSAH 82. (Continued from 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, 200 I.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO
MARCH 26, 200 I.
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, '/.i
mile south of CSAH 42, in the East Y2 ofthe NW '/.i of Section 28, Township 115 North,
L: \0 I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\mn03120 I.doc I
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, 1;4 mile south ofCSAH 42, in the East 'l1 of the
Northwest 1;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 proposal calls for a mixed-use development consisting of a total of 122 dwelling
units on 33.87 net acres, for a total density of 3.6 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\OI plancomm\0Ipcminutes\mn031201.doc 2
III [
.
11
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\Olpcminutes\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.
· Felt 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
zonmg.
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 proj ect.
. 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:\Ol files\Ol pJancomm\O J pcminutes\mn03J20J.doc 4
III [
.
u r
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.
Sixteen applications with 24 varian
5.
6.
A.
Zoning Administrator Ste Horsman prese d the Planning Report dated March 12,
2001, on file in the office oft
quests were brought to the Commission in 2000.
The new Zoning Ordinance, effec ve on ay I, 1999, incorporated several previous
ordinance amendments, such as educed si yards for nonconforming lots and the
reconstruction of existing dec s. These chan s may account for the elimination of
several variance requests. e new ordinance re lted in variance requests for building
walls greater than 40 fee eavelgutter encroachmen 15 foot minimum building
separation, accessory s uctures, and driveway width a he property line. The Planning
Commission address a some of these requirements with 0 inance amendments in the
last year. In 2000, e City of Prior Lake also adopted five 0 inance amendments that
affected variance equirements.
CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO ACCEPT THE REPORT.
Vote take indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
L:\OI files\O 1 plancomm\OI pcminutes\mn031201.doc 5