HomeMy WebLinkAbout9A - Red Cedar Hgts. Plat
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
JUNE 3, 2002
9A
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
DON RYE, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING
THE PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS RED CEDAR
HEIGHTS
History: Tom Holme Construction, Inc. has applied for a preliminary
plat for the property located n the north side of Mushtown Road,
directly west of Toronto Avenue and Overlook Drive. The Council
may recall that this property was just annexed into the City through
joint resolution. The preliminary plat consists of 4.34 acres to be
subdivided into 7 lots for single family residential development.
Current Circumstances: On April 22, 2002, the Planning
Commission held a public hearing to consider this application. The
Planning Commission continued the public hearing to May 13,2002 to
allow the developer to address some changes to the storm water
management plan suggested by the City. The Planning Commission
recommended approval of the preliminary plat. The minutes of the
April 22, 2002 Planning Commission meeting and the May 13, 2002
Planning Commission meeting are attached to this report.
Total Site Area: The total site consists of 4.34 acres.
Topoeraphy: This site has a rolling terrain with elevations ranging
from 1004' MSL at the southeast comer of the site to 964' MSL at the
north comer of the site.
Veeetation: There are a number of significant trees on the site.
Development on this site is subject to the Tree Preservation
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Wetlands: There is a wetland, approximately 35,971 square feet in
area, located along the eastern side of this site. The northern tip of the
site is also located within a larger wetland to the north. The developer
is proposing to disturb 5,116 square feet of the wetland in order to
I:\02files\02subdivisions\02prelim plats\red cedar heights\red cedar cc.doc Page I
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
T
accommodate a street and storm water ponding. Mitigation of this
area will take place on site. The Subdivision Ordinance requires a
buffer strip, a minimum of 20' wide and with an average width of 30'
be maintained around the perimeter of the delineated wetland. This
buffer strip must remain undisturbed, or if approval for grading is
given, the buffer strip must be planted with native wetland vegetation.
In addition to a buffer strip, the Subdivision Ordinance also requires
that all structures be setback at least 30' from the 100-year flood
elevation of any wetland or pond. This setback must be identified on
the grading plan.
Access: Access to the site will be from Overlook Drive on the east
and Mushtown Road on the southwest.
2020 Comprehensive Plan Desienation: This property is designated
as R-L/MD (Low to Medium Density Residential) on the 2020
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
Zonine: The City Council recently approved a rezoning to the R-1
district for this site.
PROPOSED PLAN:
Lots: The preliminary plat consists of 4.34 acres to be subdivided into
7 lots for single family residential development. The proposed lot
areas range from 12,356 square feet to over 27,000 square feet.
The minimum lot area requirements for this site are 12,000 square feet,
and the minimum lot width is 86' at the front building line. Only lot
area above the 100 year flood elevation of a pond or wetland is
included. Comer lots require a minimum lot area of 14,400 square
feet, and a minimum lot width of 103.2' at the front building line. All
of the lots are consistent with these requirements.
The Zoning Ordinance requires a 25' setback from the right-of-way
line on both streets on a comer lot. These setbacks must be shown on
the grading plan.
Streets: This plan proposes one new public street. Overlook Drive is
extended 490' from the east boundary of the plat to Mushtown Road.
The street is designed with a 50' wide right-of-way and a 28' wide
surface. The Subdivision Ordinance allows the street width to be
reduced to 28' in areas the City determines to be environmentally
sensitive due to topography, forestation or wetlands. In this case, to
minimize the disturbance to the wetland, the City has determined a 28'
wide street is appropriate.
1:\02files\02subdivisions\02prelim plats\red cedar heights\red cedar cc.doc
Page 2
Sidewalks/Trails: There are no sidewalks or trails proposed on this
plat. Sidewalks are not required on local streets.
Parks: This plan does not include any parkland dedication. Parkland
dedication requirements will be satisfied by a cash dedication of
$1,685 per unit in lieu ofland. A land dedication at this location
would be less than Yz acre, which is not a useful park.
Sanitary SewerlWater Main: Sanitary sewer and water main will be
extended from the existing lines located in Overlook Drive to the
boundaries of the plat.
Storm Sewer: This site generally drains south and east to the wetland
at the east side of the site, and north to the wetland located just north
of this plat. The plat is designed so runoff drains to a series of catch
basins and storm sewers which then direct water to storm water ponds
located on Lot 4, Block 1,just north of the road, and to a storm water
pond on the north end of Lots 3 and 4, Block 1.
Tree Replacement: The developer has submitted a Tree Inventory
that identifies several significant trees on the site. However, the
inventory does not identify the total number of caliper inches on the
site. Based on the information submitted, we cannot determine
whether or not tree replacement will be required. In general, the
Zoning Ordinance allows a total of 25% of the caliper inches of
significant trees to be removed for the development of roads, utilities
and drainageways, and the removal of an additional 25% of the
significant caliper inches for building pads and driveways. The
number of significant inches removed over and above these
percentages must be replaced at a rate of Y2" for each inch removed.
Landscape Plan: The Subdivision Ordinance requires two front yard
subdivision trees per lot. Comer lots require at least 4 trees. A
landscape plan has not been submitted.
Finance/Assessment Fee Review: This development is subject to a
collector street fee, a storm water management fee, a trunk sewer and
water charge, and parkland dedication. These fees are outlined in the
attached memorandum from the Finance Director.
The Issues: There are three issues that must be addressed in this
preliminary. The first is the storm water runoff management ponds.
The Engineering Department has reviewed the storm water runoff plan
and has determined the second pond, located on the north end of Lots
3 and 4 may be acceptable, but is not the most desirable plan. The
staff worked with the developer on other options to manage some of
this runoff. The developer submitted some revised plans on May 13,
2002, but these plans do not completely address the issues. Because
1:\02files\02subdivisions\02prelim plats\red cedar heights\red cedar cc.doc
Page 3
T
the final solution will not be available before City Council review of
the preliminary plat, so the developer has agreed to a condition that
would not allow a grading permit on the site until final plat approval.
The proposed design of the storm water management plan would not
substantially affect the other design parameters of this plat.
The second issue is the required buffer strip around the wetlands. The
plan does not identify the proper buffer strip, and must be revised to
include this area. The plan must also be revised to identify the
required 30' setback.
Finally, the tree inventory and preservation plan must be revised to
identify the trees in terms of caliper inches. This infonnation is
required in order to detennine whether or not tree replacement is
necessary .
There are other engineering issues pertaining to the development of
this site. These issues are outlined in the attached memorandum from
the City Engineer, dated March 28, 2002. These issues must be
addressed as part of the final plat application.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission concluded the proposal met
the requirements for a preliminary plat.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary
plat subject to the following conditions:
FISCAL IMPACT:
1. There will be no grading permit issued until the final plat has been
approved by the City Council.
2. Identify the required buffer strip around the delineated wetland
and the required 30' setback from the 1 OO-year flood elevation of
the wetlands and ponds on the grading plan.
3. Revise the tree inventory to identify the caliper inches of the
significant trees. Provide the calculations indicating the number
of caliper inches to be removed for development of roads, utilities
and drainageways, and the number of caliper inches to be removed
for building pads and driveways.
4. Raise the garage floor elevations where possible at least 1 ' above
the curb elevations to provide positive drainage away from the
house.
5. All improvements, including but not limited to utilities, roads, and
storm water ponds must be constructed in conformance with the
Public Works Design Manual. All plans must also be prepared in
conformance with the Public Works Design Manual.
BudJ!et Impact: The construction of new dwellings will provide
additional tax base to the City.
1:\02files\02subdivisions\02prelim plats\red cedar heights\red cedar cc.doc
Page 4
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
The City Council has three alternatives:
1. Adopt a resolution approving the Preliminary Plat for this
development subject to the listed conditions with the finding that
the preliminary plat is consistent with the intent and purpose of the
Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances.
2. 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 staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact for the
denial of this request.
3. Defer consideration of this item for specific reasons.
Staff recommends Al ternati ve # 1.
o approve a resolution approving the Preliminary
ed Cedar Heights, subject to the listed conditions.
1:\02files\02subdivisions\02prelim plats\red cedar heights\red cedar cc.doc
Page 5
T
PRELIMINARY PLAT
RESOLUTION 02-XX
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF
"RED CEDAR HEIGHTS ADDITION" SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED HEREIN.
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
WHEREAS: The Prior Lake Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on April 22, 2002 and
on May 13, 2002 to consider an application from Tom Holme Construction for the
preliminary plat of Red Cedar Heights Addition; 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 Red Cedar Heights Addition 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
Red Cedar Heights Addition on June 3, 2002; and
WHEREAS: The City Council finds the preliminary plat of Red Cedar Heights Addition 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. The preliminary plat of Red Cedar Heights Addition is approved subject to the following conditions:
1) There will be no grading permit issued until the final plat has been approved by the City Council.
2) Identify the required buffer strip around the delineated wetland and the required 30' setback from
the 1 OO-year flood elevation of the wetlands and ponds on the grading plan.
3) Revise the tree inventory to identify the caliper inches of the significant trees. Provide the
calculations indicating the number of caliper inches to be removed for development of roads,
utilities and drainageways, and the number of caliper inches to be removed for building pads and
driveways.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
1:\02fi1es\02subdivisions\02prelim plats\red cedl~~w~s&3~~EMPLOYER Page 1
4) Raise the garage floor elevations where possible at least l' above the curb elevations to provide
positive drainage away from the house.
5) All improvements, including but not limited to utilities, roads, and storm water ponds, must be
constructed in conformance with the Public Works Design Manual. All plans must also be
prepared in conformance with the Public Works Design Manual.
Passed and adopted this 3rd day of June, 2002.
Haugen Haugen
Gundlach Gundlach
LeMair LeMair
Petersen Petersen
Zieska Zieska
YES NO
{Seal} Frank Boyles, City Manager
1:\02files\02subdivisions\02prelim plats\red cedar heights\plat res.doc
Page 2
Location Map
~
VINE 5T
, , I
~
'>/'!lEST ! ,
, . t
:z:
10
i~ I
It/) i
I rn ,
I
r'IOWE~-=-:_::..
/
HI!
HOTH 5T E
'---
'It;:
o
8
;:
'8'
/
"-<"". '''''.......
" """. ~u___ , -
"-. .~
~ ~(;~~,-,
~Ol1<'___.
---Z'i''''-':'' ...
~ ~--:~<:"
.
40
o
40 Feet
+
~ 1
......... .
~~ J
~ JI~i H
-+-.> a iI~ Hj ..
d ~ ......... liH 1J~2 56 I I !
, 1I. ! Id
h J .~ ~
a:: ~! ,~
c..) ~ ~~ II l~tf
......... II j'H H~
~ I h.{ ~. .
~ r:t: i J .1 ,m
!1' II I
~ h ~l . ! I j j i jlt
d 'i r" I
~ t ..11:."8""
~ r:t: J i=f1 Iii
.~ ~ lfi'l
~ ~ a 1:,1 ,,5
C..:> I;FH II:
.~ ~ 1'"'~ I
za I
""-:l ~ fih ~ ~ m
~ I Jd;l
ct , ~
~ "iV ! ~ I I! :
, ,j~H
"--=1 j . ~ $ ! l .,
~ ...t~ ! l~ ! iUn
~ ,~~ j ~ ;J:. ~HH
r:t: JEb ~ ~ . " 5 II
~ I f fr I
a i ... ~ '"
. . iJP
h 1 !:d I
\
~
\
/' I
/' /
<:: ---
\
S \
\
,
,
,
,
~ I
@ ~ I
- :;-- ~ - S
Ii
l,- ~ c..i I
-- ~
;i ~ I
0
0 ~
:Ii >= I
I u 0
0.. ='
~ ~ a:: 9
i f- 'i'
~ 0 ~!Q
: :"\ c:
:~ 0
u
1-':'1 Oi w
IJ a': ::E
-' N
I'~~ 0 0
:I: ~
~.. '-
" ::E
': 0 '"
f- ~
" ..J c: c: ue92
o o..Ef ,
"'", ~!r
c:.... UIIl 1
2~~" 2
c c:: VJ!f~
:I:-C(<~ ...
~;1
~l ~I' r;::!!;
i~
If; ~ ~ _J~~
~ i ~
fa g 5 ~
I
1-' ~I'-e
z. h
ii~
.h 0 u
qj . vi i5
I
; -I
iI.
:l
~.
i . ~
ftj
} ~ 1
_L
...
~
o
/
ii~~S~~~~~~
- - ....... - - '"
!!
~~!i -I ~
~ a~ ~ h a
U~~nM~~n
ihh~B~a~
ppppppppppp
~HHmH~
H:: l;~~;.:.:
'"
z
<oJ
l:l
~
~h ~ ~ ~.
~I:' 0 t'> o'l . ;'
:'t<"O 00";_ _"NO
~ ooo~o.g
~.t ~:a:.
d~ ~~~-
e
!!~~
i i !~!I:~
U~~ ~ihei:
u M .PPPPf~
HHaHHHH
$:,': ~:8~, :s:~~!
e~5::!r:~:;:::~;~
~~~~~~~~
."" "" "'1
OlJo.c....~;;! _0
i f i!
.:aW 9 ! . I; w
nae_~nh lOl5 d
01 H III II! I Ii ii i P i i!
I ~H~H~H~h: ! ~! ! H
uunuuu~ n I ~ II
'j
: 1
:\
~
gg~
"'.. .
C:""u
0"0
...-.:>..
oe..
:z:......
II>
...
...
...
J:
II>
CD
...
o
.~\
~ \
rn=
-
... .
...
...
J:
II>
'.-1
~......olp"~ l\f\':2,
T II ,0 'I" l:: ~ n
n ..
l;j
LtJ
~
~
'eo,j
'"
lu
t.:l
<:>-
<{l-
et<:
-6"'
:! u5
- '"
o:::~
'5:o~
h. ui
.1I1
m
Z
-<C
~
~
lfl
~~
~~ ~
o <~ a
z ~~~ E::
o ~8S g
~ ( ~o ( ~
~~~ ~ u~ (fj
U )~ ~ ~ z
~ ~~~ )8
~ ~OO ~
~ u "'--' \~ //~ ..........;.. --- 'w"~
~ ,.....--. V.J. _ '. '- --i. 0 onuo^", 01UOJ01 --
m ~ ~ \ // ~ / ~T--- '-'-'-rg--:=:-:=',-,-,-':"-,_. -, ._~~.-::::
Z r..."1 U '<\\, ;/ ,1/,,' :;:---::=" 'I"I~ rr-=---=---=---=-,Tr-~~=--.J-=---=---=---I--- .........
~ ;: , , 1\ 0 I' r l ,---' -
O rv \ ~;I ,'/'/,,' :': ' i "1"\: :1: :1: :1: "..-
~ ,..." 'i': I , :1: 'I' 'I'
'>y '.f,/I ,'/,' 'I' 'I ..,' 'I' : : ' ,
U \'::..~---------~61l'oo'v' ONJJ3S : I II Ii :1: NOllIOO~: lldllll :::
S3JifrJ"'s.J _lQ,OlstQl1JpM ' I" I: s31rtlS3 3~l)H:I<JOOM :i:
L_ _...I L____ _J L ~ ~.
.
U
Z
~
...Jci
oLtJ
~~
O:::E
UCl: ~
~~ ~
~. 0
Cl:Cl:
LtJ~~~ffi
~Vl1r~~
LtJ~Zo:::E
...... Clt:::O...JCl:
~ ~~~~OVl
""'l ~V1~zlii~
e l;jo .~8ot3
""" LtJ ZLtJ ::iLtJ
..... :I:13~Cl:Z Vl
VlZO_Cl:o..Ql;jVl
t... ~ LtJLtJVlLtJVl
~ ~!;(LtJOe::O
Pt:l Cl3=l=ffilli5
::q
tiJ
"':r.i""...tuicDcO
I
""
u
C
",/,/",
","'/,,'"
'/ '
\ ,,;-,,'
,/ '
",///'" "
'/ '
\ \ ";,,,'
. - \.~:-:,-
--
\
z-~
";1
~ C\I 0 Cl'I _
i
!
-ll . 6 I
VI <; ~ I
t55 ~trl~
;~ S~:~~
ii 8 ~,
o z.P,~o:
'0 wg
~~ i;~
C) u;:.
I
~ ~
;,/.
f j
~ ! i I
c..J .. ~ 1lI :
~HH
"'.t... u
!,
X" ~
i l! '
!,L ", ~
i:~Y2;, ~
I.~ \-'P .
...:; III 9:l{ ~ ~
i!H!jin
:t~ ~~ I!!~:' t' t'
~mHHH
!i
~~ .
~ 2 'i ~
h' ~:
~~ ~ ~ ~
~~~ kl ~
Hi i i
lUllS! l!
~~o
. -
'.
gg~ t~~
~~"Jji~
~~~ "J~
~~~ ~ ,:
=!I;
,Ir= } H
_H-
nlfr> .
...."" ':.0 ;, l'l
~. ~ G. <..I
a i U ~.,
~
ft'
\
\
w
~
~
~ ~
~
~
.
~>
~;;
/
/
I
I
I
I
L
OjIJ() IOJ
I'
"
1//
'\
'\
'\
~
u
~
....//7-_
: I;..' -
~ : I I
O-----J:t!
'/' C----t.)
~,-.
"
'I'
"
'I'
, ,
'I'
, ,
'I'
, ,
),
: I : ~
,I,
,',
:1:
','
:!:
:1;
::.
,
,
,
,
. ,
)".J
VI :to
\
\' ",'
\\ \ \ 'do~ .
"'\\\';';,
~ -." \1
:. ,0
~
\
\
\.
/
/'
"",
I
I
L_______
,
I
/
,
----
,
,
/.....,
/
/
/
7,-
'I
'/1
"
,/,
'I
,/,
II
,/,
I,
N
-"
~~
;0(-
NO
~
I ,. I
------__/ II~ L_______
· . -ji~-:~'~~~
s- - -,.,. - - -, I "> rr-------,T,----
~ bt I I - - - - '18 I I
,;i :1: '11 ~ 0 I : :1:
'Ii :1: ~I I : :1:
1// :1: ~I I: :1:
'/,' :1: al I: :1: tKill
_,::.n__('/.II it 1\I.,il~'II:I:, I'. \.,1 I: ':;'ilWL';1
c,.II/t.:..I';:~L 1'2.(jlil\tlt~~L L_____nJ Ln_
~z~
,
I',
/
/
/
0('...,....1.., '"
~ ------~ ~...=....7
---to "/ \ .'
~:: ~ ....'
~':(, '.ct ~"
,x:, ," (,7
~<D ~____~.\.
''''
,
S,
-' "
,
,
,
,
,
\,\
"
... "'/,/\
.......),1'..(;>' \...,
,,;.:~..~ \
, ,
"'/,. I
:;.... I
, ,
I
,
I
I
,
,
.
I(l
o.
5l
o
o
5l
.~
~
;;:
o
'"
..
'"
,,::
~ ~:
O! 8 . .
w ~ ~~
~
w J :ll
V)
tK'... :):),.\1
Ct.!: 'S:ll\r.'
.1
\
::;~\
01 ..:....
::.~-~ ~~ \
~:~~i! \
~
O!
W
~
W
V)
>-
O!
<[
I-
Z
<[
VI
..
Z
:;:
:I:
'"
W
I-
<[
~
till' :J3o'oJ
to., 1",1
-,
,,::
~:
I(l
o
S
o
o
5l
I(l
l7'
l7'
I(l
Q)
/To
o I(l
Q) ....
l7' /To
j 3 19'09+
o
l7'
/To
lM&Q)~
"
,I
"
II
"
"
"
"
I,
"
"
"
"
.~ f5
r~B lng~
goon.; VlD:; l-i ~
+ l tHo' )- ~ i3 j
\D ~~~~~9
:~ ~a!.a:~2
1I000Ie:': 'g.e..~ ~
r' ~~ ~f
"l c(
::>::>
"''''
~~
<{VI
3:
I
\
\
I
\
\
II
"
g ~~ ~
+ ,UI5.
-lr>
8"'"111
+ 91a6
"
got'lel
+ '"'68
M
""
"
z
;:;
'"
5 ,
~/
"
I
I
(
8,""" .
+ l:06ll:.' ~
C\I 1 t.!l ~
U"'.(\
,,'6ft ..
80;;'-'" ...
.:!:. '"tal 0
U Z909+
~ " 'it"
z
~ II Nt; l't"
0",
" -'"
\I " mw
.. I, i~~
"
" m " ~~~ &.."
" ~~ . w"'
'I .,(;, lrJ~~
";("1101
II :l:o 'oIUVt
:l
;;:
o
'"
~ ..
E oJ
o "
g: z
t..Y ~ ~ .!~::
p. ~ ~~it
~ ,~;':i;ti,
.. . ------....1
~~(
"
~
]NIl MJl1n~ l;Tl~
3 3 0'"
I(l
l7'
l7'
I(l
CD
/To
o
Q)
l7'
If)
....
l]'o
o
l7'
l]'o
o~~
~5~
ll. 061
",..
~
.
Cc: U ..512
00..5: 1',.
on on ~ j I' ~
C"-U 0;;,
OCUO ~
-"<"0 on I .
o c CI'I ~ l'
=!ii
Irr: W
_.1
f-'
~(.,..
l"tH
. .. ~
i ~ ill iJ
o
o
+
'"
'1>66
o
o
+
I(l
(I'UI
t 066
.1166
9686
o
o
+
"
ll.066
'0"
01-,1Il1
lI'IMi
o
o
+
M
to('lliIl
IE66
'OlI-'"
'06.
o
o
+
N
liC"fUII
1>6116
1008'1.11
'Ot811
o
o
+
..r-tal
II11a6
o
o
+
o
~
Q
"
Q Q < ..
~ " . ..
. . <
. . .
v
~""'t ~Q) is p
I Xi
, t
j ,
.,1 z ~ I
:5 c
---I ,- a.. ~~ ~ i
J:W
z cd "
,)1 0 w'
~ 9
""I( :x.w 1:1
I ~.Q:~
W.e..~lZ
~ ~~
0.. ol!;
0
.., .., "-
r .., Q:~ m
~ Q: 0 ;;;
...
a
c: c: .; la~
go~ .
c: ~ J. f
~~:;:l ~
o c: cn~f'
:Z:<<l .
iid
1 rr=!~:
J _JJ~
~ W ~
c
~r h
= -,
! 1 i
j I 1 ! . ! . ~ a.
i J I I .i3 .w
I , . . l I . I I
, . ! ,
j ! . I i
. " . .
! I . .
r " ;, ;,
I . I I I %
1 I ~ ~ ! ! ~
; ~
, J : : :
! . i i
j 1
l ~ ~
..
..,
,.;
;;
~
III
a a
l 'i!
Iii laU
I il~! ll.l.[~ ill
h;!
II ~ ~ ~
~,s!
. ~,
;~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
<<
. .. .
< Q <
.. .
< Q
. ~
111111111"" ii !
......Ill j
I
i
I
,
I
.
I
,
~., II .. ..
~
~..,,"..",
:~ :: Rn'~fl9
~
~ . ..
1(1. -: ~ ~
~ ~
~! ~ ::
'II ~ 'II" q
i z - i i:
~ u
.~ !
B S
II ~ !
HPb~
!HR.E
:~'iu:
1 !
I~.!~H
; . ~ . ~ E.
~ . ~.
~ j
.
E. .
. .
.
E
i
-U
.oj
E
ia
I.'
I j
EeeEEEEEEEEEEEEE E
iiiiiiiiliiuiiii i
lEU-UI -11- 'I-m -mIl
j -j j i j J g Ii J
.
~- n..",. lit 5!
"
E ! ! ! ! !
Bu.IHII
i HilH
1;1' ..
, ;;
/\ ~
,/,/ ,
,/ ,
,/ ,
,/ /"'-.
,
'"'-."'-. , J (
~ " "" I i I I 111,
~,___ -----) ih ~--------------- !h~t.
- ~_,_.- _ii~o ~nu,,^,V ~l~O)Ol-;--~.~~.~ fi.r
j.x- -.-.-._._,-...... .~.. f.r,5c
........... . ~ 1.1
W
.
o
<:.:
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I~
Ii "_
I'
,
, ,
/'~~I
/ 0......
/ ~~~
//~~i 4.0::.
".~
/ "'0 ~
~"./::_... // Bci;
/
/
/
~
\
~- ~
:~
~! : .
i _wi
..Iil!n
~ dB .1 . P ~ J
<:J9ro L~ro
~hH g luB
;:~') ('- ;'~i \0' -
, I ( \ " "
~ I ~ 'c ~
, \ \..
~ ~
Memorandum
DATE: March 28,2002
TO: Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinat9r
/J
FROM: Sue McDermott, City Engineer :/'v
RE: Red Cedar Heights (Project #02-32)
The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject preliminary plat and has the
following comments:
GRADING
1. Provide an erosion control plan.
SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN
2. Sanitary manholes are to be located on the centerline of the roadway. All City utilities
are to be located within the street section (between the curb and gutter on either side of
the street). Additional manholes will be necessary. Label manholes in plan view.
3. Provide a note for typical water and sewer service on the plan sheets.
4. Show all utility crossings in the profile view.
S. Maintain 10' separation of sanitary sewer and watermain.
6. Manhole 1 is too shallow. Can street grade be raised?
7. Add to note at connection to existing sanitary sewer "... with Engineer approval - Field
verified.
STREET AND STORM SEWER
8. Revise CB #2, #3, #4, #5 to CBMH.
9. Show profiles of all catch basin leads on the plans.
10. Add structures as needed to maintain the storm sewer beneath the curb and gutter.
11. Label structures, pipe length, class, size and grade in profile view.
12. Provide sump structure at CBMH #4 per Public Works Design Manual.
13. Provide typical street section. Include pavement design or use minimum typical detail in
Public Works Design Manual.
14. Add City Project # 02-32 to all plan sheets.
..
(] :\PR OJFC:TS\2002\ ,:2redcedar\REV IE W1. DOC
In addition, I have attached a memo from WSB with comments on the WCA review
and hydrology.
Please call me at 447-9831 if you have any questions.
..
2
A
WSB
& Associates, lnc.
Jtt/ emorandum
To:
Sue illcDermott, P,E., City Engineer
City of Prior Lake
From:
Andi iWoffatt; Biologist
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Date:
March 27, 2002
Re:
Review of Red Cedar Development Plans
. WSB Project No. 1430-07
As requested, we have completed our water resource review of the Red Cedar Development
Plans dated January 14,2002. Based on our review, we offer the following comments:
Wetland Conservation Act Review Comments
1. A WCA permit application has been submitted with the development plan. The application
indicates that the project will fill 5,116 sf (0.l2 aCf'es) of a Type 3 wetland. Nlitigation is
required at a 2: 1 ratio and this is noted in the application. The application states that 8,476 sf
ofNWC is proposed on-site by expanding the existing wetland and 6,357 sf ofPVC will be
created through wetland buffers. This is in conformance with the WCA. However, the plans
also show excavation of the wetland in the northern portion for this mitigation. This will also
require mitigation at a 2: 1 ratio since this is a Type 3 wetland. This needs to be addressed in
the permit application.
2. It is unclear from the plans if the 12" RCP between the Pond 1 and Pond 2 will fill the
wetland. If this pipe will fill the wetlands, it should be clearly noted on the plans and
addressed in the permit application.
3. The wetland mitigation sites and impact areas need to be clearly labeled on the plans. \Vhile
they are shown in the Wetland Replacement Plan application, they must also be included
with the plan set submitted to the City.
4. A 16.5' buffer is shown around the wetland. This buffer needs to be increased to 30 ft (with
a 20 ft average) according to the City's standards.
..
-----r----.------.--. ---..-..........--.---..-..---....
March 27,2002
Page 2 of3
5. The wetland delineation needs to be verified by the City. This delineation can be reviewed
as soon as weather conditions allow.
6. The application states that the applicant will monitor the wetlands in conformance with the
WCA. Therefore, the City should anticipate receiving an annual monitoring report.
7. The application contains the WCA deed forms for the replacement site. Once the application
is complete, these forms will need to be executed by the City.
8.. The Wetland Replacement Plan application states that the project is within 1000 ft ofa lake.
This project may be subject to the City's shore1and zoning ordinance.
Hvdrolo2:icJHvdraulic. Water Ouality, and Gradin2: Comments
1. .AlI existing and proposed grades need to be shown on the plan. Existing contours should be
shown as dashed and proposed as solid. The contour elevatio~s should be legible.
2. More detailed erosion control plans should be identified for the project and shown on the
plans. This should include slope stabilization and turf establishment.'
3. The developer needs to provide existing 2' contour lines a minimum of200'beyond the
property boundary or more as need to accurately depict the existing drainage patterns.
4. The wetland boundaries should be clearly shown on the grading plan.
5. Details of all emergency overflow structures and pond outlets need to be shown on the plans.
6. A 10: I maintenance bench must be included for the NURP pond.
7. The treatment calculation did not take into account the runoff from Sub-catchment 5. While
it appears that enough treatment will be available in the proposed pond, these calculations
need to be provided for review.
8. The culvert entering Pond 1 from the east is outside the easement. Either an additional
easement needs to be acquired or the culvert should be moved.
9. The culvert under Overlook Drive only has l.55 ft of cover on top of it. This may require the
road deck to be raised.
10. Wetlands are currently modeled with a Curve Number of 58. These areas must be modeled
with a Curve number of 78 or 85 depending on the amount of open water.
ll. The emergency overflow of Pond 1 should be directed north into Pond 2 instead of on to
Mushtown Road.
F: \ WP WIM 1430-07\03 2i02RCsm. doc
. .
March 27, 2002
Page 3 of3
12. The lowest floor elevations do not meet the City's requirement that there be 2' offreeboard
between the lOO-year storm HWL and the lowest exposed structure elevation. The floor
elevations should also be 2' above the emergency overflow. The plans need to be revised to
reflect this required freeboard. Further, proposed contours are not shown immediately
adjacent to the some of the house pads. A more detailed grading plan needs to be included to
evaluate the flood risk to the homes located around Pond 1.
This concludes our review of the Red Cedar Development plan. If you have any questions or
need additional information, please feel free to call me at (763)287-7196.
c. Dave Hutton, P.E., WSB
.
F:I WPWIM1430-07\032702RCsm.doc
.__._.~._----_._...._--_._.~--
INTEROFFICE MEMORAt"lDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
PLANNING/ENGINEERING
Ralph Teschner, Finance Director
RED CEDAR HEIGHTS- Preliminary
(assessment/fee review)
March 13, 2002
A 4.34 acre parcel comprising PIN #11911 043 0 is proposed to be annexed and developed as Red
Cedar Heights. 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:
Park Dedication
Collector Street Fee
Stormwater Management Fee
Trunk Sewer & Water Fee
S 1685.00/unit
$ 1500.00/acre
$2943.00/acre
S3500.00/acre
The application of applicable City development charges would generate the following costs to the
developer based upon a net lot area calculation of 2.96 acres of single family units as provided
within the site data surrnnary sheet of the final plat description:
Cash Park Dedication:
7 units (ii. 51685.00iunit = 511.795.00
Collector Street Fee:
2.96 acres @ $1500.00/ac = $4.440.00
Storm Water Management Fee:
2.96 acres @ $2943/ac = $8.711.00
Trunk Sewer & Water Charge:
2.96 acres @ $3500.00/ac = $10,360.00
These charges represent an approximate cost of 55,044.00 per lot for the 7 proposed single family
LUilts within Red Cedar Heights. Assuming the initial net lot area of the fmal plat does not change.
the above referenced park dedication, storm water, collector street and trunk 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.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.L Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
.
~3/14/2002 16:33
'3522263758
INTEGRA TELECOM PL
PAGE 01/01
I have reviewed the attached proposed request LRed Cedar Heights Revised
Preliminary Plat) for the following:
Water City Code Grading
Sewer Storm Water Signs
Zoning Flood Plain County Road Access
ParkS Natural Features Le~al Issues
Assessment Electric Roads/Access
Policy
Septic System Gas Building Code
Erosion Control X Other -r l.LE...
Recommendation: X Approval
Denial
_ Conditional Approval
Comments:
E'tI~T\NG l:..O??~"" f'lNI:l r\'r..t.~ CA'hL.~~ "~E. L~iEO
~i'?'i.oX, ~b' F~~ CoiL Or MU.~H\1)\AN R.b~ oN T'AE e.P.~T ~'b.t:..
./'--:--- .
, ,/fJtegm
TELECOM
>",..
-'
/'
Dll'8ct OIal: (952) 226-706.4
4690 Colorado Street S.E.
PrIor LaKe, MN 55372
Mobile: (~1 Zl 919.5887
Fax: (952) 226-3i58
aon.nanagectnteQratslecom.com
www.in19gralilllCom.com
Don Barlage
. a.s.p. Engineerlng & Design
-
\~~oJL,.~
o
Signed:
I:J
-
Date:
3-\~-D'2-
Please return any comments by Thursday. March 28. 2002, to
Jane Kansier, ORC Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake. MN 55372
Phone: (952) 447-9812
Fax: (952) 447-4245
1:\02files\02subdlvlslons\02prelim plats\red cedar helghls\referraI2.doc Page 2
~._--------_._-------_...._.__._" . ------...----.
/1
1
"':;'
0, have reviewed the attached proposed request (Red Cedar Heiqhts Preliminary Plat)
for the following:
Water City Code Grading
Sewer Storm Water Signs
Zoning Flood Plain County Road Access
Parks Natural Features Legal Issues
Assessment Electric Roads/Access
Policy
Septic System Gas ~ Building Code
Erosion Control Other
Recommendation: Approval ....p Denial Conditional Approval
~
Comments: I \ /
~ ' 'T I+C B,- '-~ c" 'Dct?:} ~ 'BC:-C:-y...- A..J V CL \.~~
~il(~ T*~ ~~~ "2 z ~S v~<r~ H-1CoH- r~1
vv~_ --,--L~_\cN<;_'^-'_ Fo"-"_,,~_oo-J_. I, A:f"P~
-n+A; Lo;' AOJA-C::::~ To EASt FovNr')'l A-N[) ~~S AP<:-
~2"L.a....) (c>o'('6o.tL- Fc...o6l<? E2:c....6vA-~S" ~r:> i+)o<~ To T~
~I'\..,"':j A =BAsb""Cr-r\ P(...CoC'-S
...
Signed:
Date: ,.)
Please return any comments by Thursday, February 7,2002, to
Jane Kansier, DRC Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Phone: (952) 447-9812
Fax: (952) 447-4245
G ,C .. 5c.)E:- M
1:\02files\02subdivisions\02prelim plats\red cedar heights\referral.doc
Page 2
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, APRIL 22, 2002
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Starn on called the April 22, 2002, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:33 p.m. Those resent were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Ringstad and
Stamson, Planning irector Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, City Engineer
Sue McDermott, Zo . g Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording Secretary Connie
Carlson.
5.
resent
Present
Present
Present
Present
2, Roll Call:
3, Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the April 8
presented.
mission meeting were approved as
4. Consent:
Commissi er Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
;r
A. Case File #02-013 Tom Holme Construction, Inc. is requesting consideration
of a preliminary plat named Red Cedar Heights consisting of 4,34 acres to be
subdivided into 7 lots for single-family residential development. The property is
located on the northeast side of Mushtown Road, west of Toronto Avenue and
Overlook Drive.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated April 22, 2002,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Tom Holme Construction, Inc. has applied for a preliminary plat for the property located
on the north side of Mushtown Road, directly west of Toronto Avenue and Overlook
Drive. The preliminary plat consists of 4.34 acres to be subdivided into 7 lots for single-
family residential development.
Staffhas identified three issues that must be addressed. The first is the storm water
runoff management ponds. The Engineering Department has reviewed the storm water
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN042202.doc 1
---~^----"'_._'-_._^----------".__.._--_..._-_._---^
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 2002
runoff plan and has determined the second pond, located on the north end of Lots 3 and 4
may be acceptable, but is not the most desirable plan. The staff and the developer are
reviewing other options to manage some of this runoff.
The second issue is the required buffer strip around the wetlands. The plan does not
identify the proper buffer strip, and must be revised to include this area.
Finally, the tree inventory and preservation plan must be revised to identify the trees in
terms of caliper inches. This information is required in order to determine whether or not
tree replacement is necessary.
There are other engineering issues pertaining to the development of this site. These
issues are outlined in a memorandum from the City Engineer, dated March 28, 2002.
These issues must be addressed as part of the final plat application.
1. There will be no grading permit issued until the final plat has been approved by the
City Council.
2. Identify the required buffer strip around the delineated wetland and the required 30'
setback from the 100-year flood elevation of the wetlands and ponds on the grading
plan.
3. Revise the tree inventory to identify the caliper inches of the significant trees.
Provide the calculations indicating the number of caliper inches to be removed for
development of roads, utilities and drainage ways, and the number of caliper inches to
be removed for building pads and driveways.
4. Raise the garage floor elevations where possible at least l' above the curb elevations
to provide positive drainage away from the house.
5. All improvements, including utilities, roads, storm water ponds and so on, must be
constructed in conformance with the Public Works Design Manual. All plans must
also be prepared in conformance with the Public Works Design Manual.
Staff recommended approval with the above 5 conditions.
Criego questioned if the final plat would come before the Pc. Kansier responded it
would go straight to the City Council.
Comments from the public:
Jim Johnson, the Engineer from Hakanson Anderson Associates, representing the
contractor, felt staff presented the information very well. Johnson said they did hold a
public information meeting and there were no significant concerns from the public. They
have been in contact with the Spring Lake Watershed District. Most issues have been
addressed. The City Staff and the Watershed are working on the best alternative for
runoff. The tree planting survey will be revised as requested. The developer and
property owners were also present for questions.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminules\MN042202.doc 2
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 2002
Jennifer McCollough, 17294 Toronto Avenue, the adjacent property owner, was
concerned with the runoff on Lot 1. McCollough suggested a better solution for the
runoff would be to have the driveway come off Mushtown Road.
The public hearing closed at 6:50 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
. Asked staff to respond to McCollough's concern for runoff. City Engineer Sue
McDermott explained when a building permit is submitted and reviewed; the permit
would not be approved until the runoffwas addressed. Originally, the developer had
brought in a plan with all the homes in a cul-de-sac coming offMushtown Road. The
City would like to minimize access on to Mushtown Road. There is an existing
driveway on the property with access to Mushtown Road. The proposed roadway
takes its place.
. Felt the driveway was excessive.
. Liked the fact the street is going to be 28 feet wide.
. The ponds and water retention issues are important.
. Questioned the Watershed District's concern. McDermott stated the plan that could
be approved by the Watershed District is slightly different than what is before the
Commissioners. The City has a concern because of the maintenance of the ponds and
lawns with steep slopes. It is not desirable for the City to maintain the pond. The
staff will meet with the Watershed District to discuss alternatives including a "dry
pond" .
. What is the relationship with the ponds on the north section and the existing homes?
McDermott said there would not be any problems.
. Biggest concern was water retention.
Ringstad:
. Agreed with Atwood on the water retention.
. From the public hearing and the informational meeting most issues seemed to be
addressed.
. Supported the proposal with staffs five conditions.
Criego:
. This is a good use of the property.
. Strong feelings with the wetlands. Would like to see the final plans for this project
before approving.
. Agreed with staff other than the retention plan should be brought forward.
Lemke:
. Single-family homes are a good use for this property~
. Questioned staff on the access off Mushtown Road. Is another driveway appropriate
off Mushtown or can the runoffbe addressed without changing the driveway?
Kansier noted the earlier comments by City Engineer Sue McDermott indicated the
L: \02FILES\02pJanning comm\02pcminutes\MN042202.doc
3
. ---- T
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 2002
runoff issue could be addressed without changing the driveway. Another driveway
access to Mushtown Road is not very desirable. Also, there is a fairly steep grade to
Mushtown Road.
· Stamson:
· This is an appropriate development for the land.
· The ideal solution would to have the driveway off Overland Drive.
· Questioned the runoff into the pond. McDermott explained with some redesign it
would be possible to maintain the wooded area. The City has trouble getting access to
a pond in back yards. A newly designed pond would be located in the same area.
· Does not have the same concern for the runoff. It stays the same.
· Support the development and should be moved on to City Council.
Open Discussion:
Criego agreed with the Commissioners but felt the runoff should be addressed and the
matter should be open for the neighbors to view the plan. It is important the neighbors
understand and have a voice in the process.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY CREIGO, TO DEFER THIS MATTER TO
MAY 13, 2002, TO REVIEW THE RUNOFF ISSUES.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Cas ile #02-032 Wensmann Realty, Inc, , requesting approval of a
Registered Lan urvey for the lots originally scribed as Lots 22-24, Block 4,
Regal Crest,
Wensmann Realty is requesting co ideratio r a Registered Land Survey (RLS) of the
lots originally platted as Lots 22- ~, Block 4, Re Crest. The RLS formalizes an
administrative lot line adjustm t on these lots.
When the units on these 10 were constructed earlier this yea, hey were placed on the
lots so that they encroac ed over the original lot lines. The staff roved an
administrative lot line eadjustment in January, 2002 to correct this s ation. When the
applicant brought th deeds to Scott County for recording, the County ermined a
Registered Land rvey was required. The purpose of an RLS is generall to simplify
the description d recording for Torrens Land. The County is responsible for
determining wether an RLS is required, under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes
~508.47.
Staff recommended approval of the RLS as presented.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN042202.doc 4
Planning Commission Meeting
May 13, 2002
6. Old Business:
'*'
A. Case File #02-013 (continued) Tom Holme Construction, Inc, is requesting
consideration of a preliminary plat named Red Cedar Heights consisting of 4.34
acres to be subdivided into 7 lots for single family residential development. The
property is located on the northeast side of Mushtown Road, west of Toronto
Avenue and Overlook Drive.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated May 13,2002,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Tom Holme Construction, Inc. has applied for a preliminary plat for the property located
on the north side of Mushtown Road, directly west of Toronto Avenue and Overlook
Drive. The preliminary plat consists of 4.34 acres to be subdivided into 7 lots for single
family residential development.
The Planning Commission considered this item at a public hearing on April 22, 2002.
The major issue pertaining to the plat is the storm water runoff management ponds. The
Engineering Department has reviewed the storm water runoff plan and has determined
the second pond, located on the north end of Lots 3 and 4 may be acceptable, but is not
the most desirable plan. It was noted that the staff and the developer are reviewing other
options to manage some of this runoff. This solution would not be available before City
Council review of the preliminary plat, so the developer agreed to a condition that would
not allow a grading permit on the site until final plat approval. Other potential options
would not substantially affect the other design parameters of this plat.
The Commissioners felt the runoff issues should be addressed and the matter should be
open for the neighbors to review the plans. The Commission therefore tabled action on
this matter until May 13, 2002.
The staff recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat subject to the following
conditions:
1. There will be no grading permit issued until the final plat has been approved by the
City Council.
2. Identify the required buffer strip around the delineated wetland and the required 30'
setback from the 100-year flood elevation of the wetlands and ponds on the grading
plan.
3. Revise the tree inventory to identify the caliper inches of the significant trees.
Provide the calculations indicating the number of caliper inches to be removed for
development of roads, utilities and drainageways, and the number of caliper inches to
be removed for building pads and driveways.
4. Raise the garage floor elevations where possible at least l' above the curb elevations
to provide positive drainage away from the house.
L\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN051302.doc 11
--r-.--.-----..-.....-........--.-..
Planning Commission Meeting
May 13, 2002
5. All improvements, including utilities, roads, storm water ponds and so on, must be
constructed in conformance with the Public Works Design Manual. All plans must
also be prepared in conformance with the Public Works Design Manual.
Commissioner Stamson reopened the public hearing.
Comments from the public:
Jennifer McCollough, 17294 Toronto Avenue SE, suggested re-routing the driveway to
Mushtown Road. McCollough explained drainage problems she had with her property.
She was also concerned with the long driveway and felt it would cause additional pooling
and stagnant water. McCollough pointed out there were 18 driveways on the surrounding
Mushtown Road and did not feel adding one more driveway would be a safety issue.
Requested the City require installation of a pipe under her driveway and leave the area
open and natural.
Ringstad questioned McCollough if the additional pipe would give her comfort with her
concerns with drainage problems. She responded she would like that.
Jim Johnson with Hakanson Anderson, represented the developers in the project.
Johnson addressed the drainage concern by Ms. McCollough on the proposed
development. It is necessary to get the water drained to the wetlands. He felt through the
grading plans this issue will be addressed. There will be natural buffering along
Mushtown Road and would like to see the driveway come out on Overlook Drive. The
Watershed District requirements have been met. Johnson explained the problems with
the access to the wetland. The plans were not sent to the City until Friday and therefore
the staff did not receive them for review until today. He felt the issues had been
addressed.
Criego asked Johnson to explain the drainage on the southeast portion of the property.
Johnson responded the culvert running under the driveway to Overlook Drive goes into
the wetland area. The 12" pipe will meet the requirements for the water to get to the
wetland.
Jennifer McCollough questioned Johnson's explanation on drainage. Johnson pointed
out the driveway is going to be minimum width, probably 10 to 12 feet wide.
The public hearing was closed at 8:28 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
· Agreed to move ahead. Staff is comfortable moving forward with the drainage issue.
· Understands the neighbor's concern for the driveway. Putting another driveway on
Mushtown Road just because there are 18 existing driveways does not make sense.
Atwood:
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN051302.doc 12
Planning Commission Meeting
May J 3. 2002
· Felt the driveway is excessive but agreed with staff when they say they want to limit
the access on Mushtown Road.
· Appreciated the homeowner's feelings.
· The 12" culvert sounds adequate. The City will hold the developer true to that.
· Move forward on with staff s recommendation.
Ringstad:
· Agreed to move along.
· The neighbor's drainage concern will be resolved.
Criego:
· One of the reasons the Commission held this over was to assure the neighbor the
drainage was taken care of.
· Feel uncomfortable to move this forward. The City Engineer has not had time to
review this.
· All we are loosing is a couple of weeks for the neighbor's comfort.
· Felt the matter should be tabled.
Stamson:
· Regarding the driveway - there are problems both ways. It would be more of a
problem having the driveway come offMushtown Road. This provides a permanent
solution to the problem. It is a better design.
· Support that part of the draining plan.
· Understand Criego's concern but comfortable moving forward. Staff did not feel
there was any problem at the first meeting. There are no major problems effected by
the drainage.
· This will also be reviewed at the City Council level before a grading issue is granted.
· Move forward.
Open discussion:
· Lemke said now that the plat has been redesigned there should not be a problem and
was comfortable moving forward.
· Atwood heard two things from the neighbor, the drainage and appearance.
Appreciate her concerns, but staff has legitimate access to Mushtown Road.
MOTION BY RINGSTAND, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS RED CEDAR HEIGHTS,
SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Ringstad, Lemke, Atwood and Stamson. Nay by Criego.
MOTION CARRIED.
This item will go before the City Council on June 3, 2002.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN05 I 302.doc 13