HomeMy WebLinkAbout10A - Jeffers Property
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREP ARED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
NOVEMBER 4, 2002
lOA
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE JEFFERS
PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 115,
RANGE 22 (Case File #02-108)
History: Jim Deanovic, representing the Peter Andrea Company,
Wensmann Realty and the Jeffers Estate have filed an application for a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the property located on the south
side of CSAH 42 and west of CSAH 21. The proposal is to amend the
2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from the current C-BO
(Business Office Park) and R-L/MD (Low to Medium Density
Residential) designations to the R-HD (High Density Residential)
designation on approximately 160 acres of vacant land.
This property is presently zoned R-l (Low Density Residential) and C-
5 (Business Office Park) and is designated as C-BO (Business Office
Park) and R-L/MD (Low to Medium Density Residential) on the 2020
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. At this time, the applicants are in
the process of developing a plan for the entire 320 acre Jeffers parcel.
The most recent concept plan identifies a mixed use development
consisting of single family homes, townhouses, senior housing, and
apartments. The development concept submitted by the developer also
includes a park with an interpretive center, a transit hub, a fire station
site, and a potential school site. The site would most likely be
developed as a Planned Unit Development.
This property is also located within the Shoreland District for Jeffers
Pond, which is currently classified as a Natural Environment Lake.
The City has asked the DNR to reclassify this lake as a Recreational
Development Lake, and the DNR is in the process of reviewing this
request. In any event, the overall density of this development will be
determined by the lot area in the Shoreland District.
1:\02files\02compam\jeffers\cc report. doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (9?2) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
T
T
T
The Planning Commission reviewed this request at a public hearing on
October 14, 2002. The Commission voted to recommend approval of
this Comprehensive Plan amendment on the basis that the proposed
designation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and
objectives. A copy of the draft minutes of the Planning Commission
meeting of October 14, 2002, is attached to this report.
Current Circumstances: The total site consists of approximately 160
acres. This property is a combination of cropland, pasture and
woodland.
Most of the site drains towards Jeffers Pond at the center of the site.
The site is subject to the provisions of the State Wetland Conservation
Act. A specific delineation of the wetlands on the site will be required
as part of the development application.
Access to this property is presently from CSAH 42 on the north side
where a driveway provides access to the existing farmstead. Some
access will be permitted from CSAH 21. The specific access points
will be determined as part of the development applications.
To the north of this property, across CSAH 42, are the DNR Wildlife
Management Area and the Shepherd's Path property. Although the
site is presently vacant, construction of the Shepherd's Path church
will begin in the near future. The Shepherd's Path property is zoned
R-4 (High Density Residential). The DNR property is zoned A
(Agricultural). West of this property is The Wilds golf course and
residential development. To the east, across CSAH 21, is the Vierling
farm, zoned C-5 (Business Office Park) and C-l (neighborhood
Commercial). To the south is the remainder of the Jeffers farm, zoned
R-l.
The Issues: The applicant is proposing to develop approximately 360
acres of land located south of CSAH 42 and west of CSAH 21. The
concept plan for the development includes a mixture of single family
homes, townhomes, senior housing, condominiums and affordable
housing. As mentioned earlier, the overall density ofthe development
will be regulated by the Shoreland District requirements; however, the
request to amend the Comprehensive Plan would accommodate the
higher density uses proposed for the site. On the concept plan, the
higher density uses are located along CSAH 21 and CSAH 42.
This project is consistent with the following goals and objectives set
out in the Comprehensive Plan:
GOAL: SUITABLE HOUSING AND ENVIRONMENT: Encourage
the development of suitable housing in a desirable environment.
1:\02files\02compam\jeffers\cc report. doc
Page 2
FISCAL IMPACT:
ALTERNATIVES:
OBJECTIVE No.1: Provide opportunities for a variety of affordable
high quality housing.
OBJECTIVE No.2: Maintain a choice of and encourage development
of quality residential environments.
OBJECTIVE No.3: Provide suitable passive open space for the
preservation of the natural environment and the enjoyment of residents.
The proposed R-HD designation is consistent with the above stated
goals and objectives in that it offers a variety of housing and it
provides open space and the preservation of the natural elements of the
site. Furthermore, the designation is consistent with the City's Livable
Community Goal to provide affordable and life-cycle housing.
The proposed amendment reduces the supply of land planned for
future commercial uses; however, the area designated for C-BO is a
relatively small area located between Jeffers Pond and CSAH 21. The
topography, access and proximity of the lake make this area more
suited to residential development than to a business office park
development. The Planning Commission also determined that this
amendment does not really reduce the amount of commercial land,
since this area has never been suitable for commercial development.
Conclusion: The proposed Comprehensive Plan designation is
consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
The change in designation of this area from a commercial designation
to a residential designation will not significantly reduce the supply of
commercial land. Therefore, the Planning Commission and the staff
recommend approval of this request.
Budf!et Impact: There is no direct budget impact involved in this
request.
The City Council has three alternatives:
1. Adopt a resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan to include
this area and designate it as R-HD.
2. Continue the review for specific information or reasons per City
Council discussion.
3. Find the Comprehensive Plan amendment inconsistent with the
purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and deny the
request. In this case staff should be directed to prepare a resolution
with findings of fact.
1:\02files\02compam\jeffers\cc report.doc
T
Page 3
T
T
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
The staff recommends Alternative #1. The following motion is
required:
1. A motion and second to adopt a resolution approving the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to designate the 160 acres as
High Density Residential (R-HD) is required.
1:\02files\02compam\jeffers\cc report.doc
Page 4
'~1
RESOLUTION O~.I
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
2020 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 27,
TOWNSHIP 115, RANGE 22
MOTION BY:
:Y:C
SECOND BY:
U-
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Jim Deanovic, representing the Peter Andrea Company, Wensmann Realty, Inc. and the
Jeffers Estate submitted an application for an amendment to the City of Prior Lake 2020
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to change the designation of the following described
property from the C-BO (Business Office Park) and R-UMD (Low to Medium Density
Residential) designations to the R-HD (High Density Residential) designation:
Legal Description:
The Northeast Quarter of Section 27, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota.
and
WHEREAS, Legal notice of the public hearing was duly published and mailed in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes and Prior Lake City Code; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on October 14, 2002, for those
interested in this request to present their views; and
WHEREAS, On October 14, 2002, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan on the basis the R-HD designation is consistent
with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, On November 4, 2002, the Prior Lake City Council considered the proposed amendment
to the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to designate the above described
property to the R-HD designation and;
WHEREAS, The City Council received the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve
the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment along with the staff reports and the
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting; and
WHEREAS, The City Council has carefully considered the testimony, staff reports and other pertinent
information contained in the record of decision of this case.
,.-
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA, that:
1. The above recitals are herein fully incorporated herein as set forth above.
1:\02files\02compam\jeffers\cc resolution.doc Page]
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
J
2. The proposed amendment to the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to designate the above
described property as R-HD (Low to Medium Density Residential) is hereby approved.
3. Approval of this amendment is subject to the approval of the Metropolitan Council.
Passed and adopted this 4th day of November, 2002.
YES NO
Haugen Haugen
Gundlach Gundlach
LeMair LeMair
Petersen Petersen
Zieska Zieska
{Seal} Frank Boyles, City Manager
City of Prior Lake
1:\02files\02compam\jeffers\cc resolution.doc Page 2
.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 2002
B. Case 02-108 Jim Deanovic - Peter Andrea Company, Wensmann Realty and
Jeffers Estate are requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map to designate the north 12 of the Jeffers property from R-L/MD and C-BO to R-
HD. This property is located west of CSAH 21 and south of CSAH 42.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated October 14,
2002, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Jim Deanovic, the Peter Andrea Company, Wensmann Realty and the Jeffers Estate have
filed an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the property located on the
south side of CSAH 42 and west of CSAH 21. The proposal is to amend the 2020
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from the current C-BO (Business Office Park) and
R-L/MD (Low to Medium Density Residential) designations to the R-HD (High Density
Residential) designation on approximately 160 acres of vacant land.
This property is presently zoned R-l (Low Density Residential) and C-5 (Business Office
Park) and is designated as C-BO (Business Office Park) and R-L/MD (Low to Medium
Density Residential) on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. At this time, the
applicants are in the process of developing a plan for the entire 320 acre Jeffers parcel.
The most recent concept plan identifies a mixed use development consisting of single
family homes, townhouses, senior housing, and apartments. The development could also
include parkland, a transit hub, a fire station site, and a potential school site. The site
would most likely be developed as a Planned Unit Development.
This property is also located within the Shoreland District for Jeffers Pond, which is
currently classified as a Natural Environment Lake. The DNR is in the process of
reviewing the City's request to reclassify this lake as a Recreational Development Lake.
In any event, the overall density of this development will be determined by the lot area in
the Shoreland District.
Staff recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment as requested.
Questions from the Commiss~oners:
Atwood questioned ifthe recreational lake designation is compatible with the density.
Kansier said the density would be significantly less than what would normally be
permitted under a high density designation. It would allow clustering. The overall
density would be scattered throughout the site. The density would be consistent with the
recreational development lake.
Atwood questioned if staff is assuming the DNR is going to go ahead and approve the
reclassification. Kansier responded staff was just trying to move the development
process along and when the classification is known, the developer will have to make a
decision whether to go forward.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MNl01402.doc 5
t
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 2002
Criego questioned the Business Office Park zoning/high density and suggested leaving
the remaining portion of the 160 acres a Low to Medium density. Kansier said there was
no specific indication of the area involved. At this point, the developer asked for the
designation for the whole northern portion because it gets very limiting to specifically
define, especially at the Comprehensive Plan stage. The next stage, should this go
forward, would be a Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD and Rezoning application. They
then could more definitely identify the high density residential areas and provide a legal
description.
Criego questioned seeing the PUD in conjunction with the zoning. Kansier said the
applicant will probably file all the applications together.
Criego questioned the 50 foot OHWM (Ordinary High Water Mark) setback. Why the
change from Prior Lake's 75 foot OHWM? Kansier explained it does not affect the
setback of the lake. It would remain the same. The drawing identifies a trail or easement
to buffer the lake itself. Adjacent lots would still be required to meet the 75 foot setback.
Comments from the public:
Gary Tushie, of Tushie Montgomery, the architect representing both developers, stated
the staff had done a great job reviewing the project. Tushie clarified the 50 foot
conservancy area around the lake is not a setback area. That area will be put into public
ownership. The high density areas will be very low. The only portion of the high density
in the project will be the senior rental, which is the only area even close to the
requirements. Overall, the densities are low.
Jim Deanovic, developer, wanted to point out they have changed their plans due to the
input in the 2020 Vision and Strategic Plan meetings. One of the most important changes
was the 50 foot buffer to preserve as much existing vegetation and included the park.
What the Commission is looking at tonight would reduce the impervious surface to
protect the waterway and lower the density. During the 2020 Vision meetings it was
important there would be a school site and fire station. Many participants at the meetings
would like to see all types of lifecycle housing. Another important factor in the meetings
was the trail and parks. All changes in our proposal were made due to the 2020 Vision.
Criego stated he felt the project was wonderful, but questioned the high density and
commercial acreage designation. Why the purpose of the entire 160 acres? Deanovic
responded there are pockets of higher density uses and it will be in the PUD. This
process is the only way to get it through the ordinances. It is complicated because of the
overlay districts.
Kansier said the applicants gave the simplest legal description which was for the north
half of the property. It would be very hard to write a legal description to describe a
concept plan. That is why they gave the description for the entire north half of the
property. Kansier explained the proposed designations.
L:\02FILES\02planning cornrn\02pcrninutes\MNI 01402.doc 6
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 2002
Criego questioned the high density area falling into the Rl zone. Kansier and Deanovic
responded.
Criego questioned Deanovic why he felt it was necessary at this time to amend the
Comprehensive Plan. Kansier stated under ordinance, the applicant is required to follow
this process. The applicant needs the designation for the use, not the density.
Paul Viereck, 3465 140th Street, Shakopee, questioned the selling price on the walkout
townhomes on the lake. Deanovic responded they would be as low as $150,000 to
$250,000. Viereck did not want to see a low-end housing project. He felt it is a concern
along County Road 42 and didn't want a similar Five Hawks housing project.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad:
. Recalled an earlier meeting that Mr. Jeffers had a desire to keep a large portion of
the 320 acres a significant park/educational center. Is that going to be in the
southern part?
. Kansier said the park will be in both areas. Mostly the southern half of the
property .
. Paul Oberg, the executive for the Jeffers Estate, spoke on the wetland and
vegetation. Mr. Tushie stepped in and clarified his comments.
. The physical characteristics of the north 160 acres, especially the lake, stream and
some topography changes, seem to be consistent with the 2020 Plan.
. It is the best use of the property.
. Agreed with staffs recommendation and supported the request.
Atwood:
. Believes it will be a beautiful developed area with the trails and parks.
. However small the Business Park area, felt she could not support reducing the
business office park area in Prior Lake. The topography may need to be
addressed, but did not feel the Comprehensive Plan should be amended at this
time.
Criego:
. It looks like there could be 980 units on the 160 acres. The developers agreed.
. Questioned staff on the density. Kansier said the number of units would be well
below a straight zoning. If it was just Rl it would be around 1,200 units.
. Is that taking out wetlands? Kansier said it was. The percentage of wetlands in
the entire property is about one-third.
. Overall it is a good plan, have concerns on the high density for the entire 160
acres. But will go along with staffs recommendations.
,"-
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN I 01402.doc 7
J
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 2002
Lemke:
· Commercial and Business Office land is precious in this City. Wish there was a
way to replace this.
· Appreciate Commissioner Atwood's concern. Familiar with the property and
agreed with staff, the topography does not lend itself for that use.
· Support the amendment. It is a wonderful development.
Criego:
· The City needs more commercial property, but early on in the conversations, there
were some comments made in allocating other commercial acreage in Prior Lake.
That should solve the problem.
· The topography is tough, even for the developer.
· Asked staff on their thoughts of additional acreage identified for commercial use
in Prior Lake.
Lemke spoke of swapping back land.
Rye explained the zone change along County Roads 42 and 18. He went on to give a
brief explanation on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment in 1995. If the City looses
whatever this is, 40 acres or so, is that significant in light of the other properties? It's
open for argument. In the past, City Council asked us to go back and look into the
community for other areas of replacement. The Planning Commission can raise the issue
in a recommendation to the City Council.
Stamson:
· Generally agreed with Criego's concern on designating the whole are as high
density.
· Recalled ifit's designated all high density and try to zone only part ifit low
density, where there is a conflict, the Comprehensive Plan takes precedence. Rye
said generally that is true, but the Shoreland District makes it different. The
Shoreland District changes the density. That is the protection.
· The Shoreland designation will rule on density. It's just the uses on this land.
· Agreed with the other Commissioners' concern on loosing the Business Office
space. Have to question ifthe City is really loosing it. In reality, the area is not
suitable for the business office park. Nothing is lost.
. Overall, it is a great development.
. Need to recognize the south half is largely public space.
. Asset to the City. Support the recommendation.
Open discussion:
Atwood:
Questioned if there would be lifecycle housing. Kansier said there would be, but there is
a lot of reviewing to be done.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MNIOI402.doc 8
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 2002
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE R-HD
DESIGNATION.
V ote taken indicated ayes by Criego, Lemke, Ringstad and Stamson. Atwood nay.
MOTION CARRIED.
This matter should go before the City Council on November 4, 2002.
A recess was called at 8:05 p.m. The meeting resumed at 8:11 p.m.
6. Old Business:
7. New Business:
A. Case 02-071 Ray Brandt is requesting to vacate the drainage and utility
easements located on the Timber Crest Park property. This property is located at
the southeast quadrant of the intersection of CSAH 21 and TH 13, on the north side
of Franklin Trail and Bluff Heights Trail. New easements for the existing and
relocated utilities will be rededicated as part of the final plat.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated October 14,
2002, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Ray Brandt has filed an application to vacate the existing drainage and utility easements
located within the Timber Crest Park property. New easements for the existing and
relocated utilities within the existing easement will be dedicated as part of the final plat
of Timber Crest Park.
There is no need for the retention of the existing easements once the new development
has been platted and the new easement is dedicated. The Planning staff therefore
recommended approval of this request, subject to the condition the documents vacating
the existing easement will not be recorded until approval of the final plat.
Questions from the Commissioners:
Criego questioned why there wasn't any discussion on the easement during the original
public hearings. Kansier responded it was identified in the plans for relocation. Staff had
several discussions with the developer. It is no surprise. Sewer pipes are relocated all the
time, prior to the final development.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
. Generally, the hurdle to a vacation is that there is no public need. The intention is
to provide sewer service which will be accomplished through the redevelopment.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MNIOI402.doc 9
r
Jeffers Property Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Location Map
\
,
,
I':
I
I
Iii
CSAH 421 [
~ ~
I
I
i
~
i i
I
i
,
1\
-/'
'1
i,
'--{
'--;
-l--J,/
.rjJ
'Tjl/
--Ii
) !i
>-. I.
,
: I
, I
~.-
100
o
100 Feet
-
N
+
'--'-
/--;
/--
) .
I I
( c__
\
\
\
)
,j
v
'-,
'---.
, i
'='
- '. :-~ '
il'
'."
'j'
J ~--
/
Jeffers Property
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
~
J
b~?' III I~n?
t:J. ~cc.:::-, -
\ ~ Ik'-UI/ ~ m t.a: ~
1i I -~ /; ~ ~O ~V
1\ ~15 ~ /&-87 n1,. ~ ;.oi
"~~/'1 -- r- ::I:
/:...< IT '/:Xy' ^ ~ \ 0
ill ~~~!~ ~ 1:M ~L-'
=- ~^ >- fIJN J>t z;:Y JJif}'>
~ I Jl Y >-1 ~~ ~rt! ~ /
~ i Jf-< [;.. /1 ~ .
r= T~
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ r;~
h-~ TH T
\
,
:'.
~"'
-Jlf-U ~
l
~~
~~
I.::: 'I-
J. .J.
... ~\..I.J.
'j
.,
~*
\
......
y \\./
R:Jr1"... "111 W/ ~
1'\ t-- zY'~
:/ /' '). ~ -1 ? '27__
~/\ ~ lr-.:.J ~
Ja r ~Yr~
~IDI ~ 1 i IIIDI r lIDD I ~
~l~a~ ~~ ~~~ifif ~ ~~~eL~.
8 Q!l~ ~). iil~::l !11!11li' :J:J -~:J
oS ~r! - t III ~ ~ ~ ~ { ii ~ ~ ea.
~Qoc 5. 9(,)(1)-8-8 t s:""'it R
j Bl Iii n' iii .., ~.~. ~ ~ '< g' r
!!!. s: C ill 16 co co ~ -. ..,,,
"" III Bl Ll -. ~~ C -. c ....
~g !!!, er!!!.. it; = ~3 :J
CI: "" ^ lD _. fa. D Co
g g c cs."" ~ C
l6 III CI: !/!. 8" g ~ en
9 iil :J",,-CI: "'" CD
III :$i~ '<
W
>a-
CD
~
..,
~
-~
N
o
o
o
~.z
'"
-
()
--
~
a
lJ
....,
--
o
....,
(U
~
-
9
3
"'0
[Uro
::J ::J'"
a.~
""U C CJ) .
Q) CJ) <
::J CD CD
.
C-o
R-
mOl
_:J
~5.
c....(Q
5~
CD "'0
r\Jm
.t:a.~
~~
O:J
2-
~.z
~<DDIIII~DDIQDDDI
~~~~~~~2~f~~~~>
6fB ~ ~~~.f9I~:I:~bh;;o
~ ~ i ll!. 16~. cs: <s- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ~m~~ ~~~~~~~
~~ ~~r~~2~~c3-'~i
i .... -' III lD ~ '< ~ :s::
iil' ^ ?il ~. !1!'f $'.z $I ~ lll:
- ~ IX;:, ll!. ;;0 lll. ll!. 9
IIlm i'mi'i-;;o
III iac:iaam
12. i: ~ i: Il!.. ~
Q!. fir ~
- ~
trl
-
r
~
s: ~.
Q):J
-ceo
()
--
,.......
'<
S,
\J
.,
--
o
.,
~
~
Brief Description of the proposed project:
In part, the estate of Robert Jeffers established that a portion of the real estate known as
Jeffers' Ponds was to become part public park! nature preserve, and part mixed use
housing development for all age groups and income levels. As such, this proposal is
requesting that the northern half of the site be re-zoned and re-guided.
The Comprehensive Guide plan currently shows the approximate Northwest quarter of
the site to be guided for C-BO, Business Park. The remaining % of the site is guided for
R-UMO, Urban Low -to-Medium Density Residential.
We propose that Jeffers' Pond site be reclassified as a R-HD, Urban High Density, which
will allow a mixture of housing types for all income levels. These reclassifications will fit
our proposal and are in accordance with The Metropolitan Council's Regional Blueprint,
which encourages compact development with access to transit.
Jeffers Ponds, which is a water body created in part due to a dam, is currently classified
as a Natural Environment Lake by the DNR, which was classified in a time when
development of the surrounding properties were not anticipated to be developed with city
sewer and water. Reclassification by the DNR to a Recreational Development Lake,
which is more in line with the current development patterns, has been requested by the
city. Our proposal fits within the guidelines for a Recreational Development Lake.
Our proposal includes mixed densities of residential uses, including single-family lots
(approx. 3.4 D.U.lACRE), quad homes (approx. 4.1 D.U.lACRE), condominiums
(approx. 4.7 D.U.lACRE), town homes (approx. 8.2 D.U.lACRE), and senior apartments
(approx. 24.7 D.U.lACRE). A percentage of units will be classified as affordable. The
highest density of residential use would lie near the existing homestead, and would
include senior apartments, with a transit station for MVT A use across the street.
Townhomes and Single-family lots would surround the West half of Jeffers pond. The
East side of the pond would be Quad homes and Condominiums. See exhibit 'A, ,
attached.
We believe these residential uses will have less impact on the water quality of Jeffers
pond by reducing the amount of impervious surfaces, and better meet market demand.
This site is quite hilly, with pocket wetland areas and is not well suited for larger scale
office or commercial development, such as allowed under the current Commercial zoning
categories. These types of developments have higher impervious areas required for
buildings and require large parking lots which doesn't allow for maintaining or enhancing
the existing rolling topography and vegetation. Housing can more easily be developed on
this type of site while being less intrusive. Housing structures have smaller footprints and
require less grading to ease them onto the site. The combination of less disturbance to the
existing topography and less large impervious areas, are a better development pattern to
preserve and protect the water quality of Jeffers Pond. As a means of insuring water
quality we are proposing a 50' deep continuous buffer surrounding the developed part of
Jeffers Pond. This buffer area would contain a public trail encircling the lake and joining
..
1
the nature park to the South and be planted with vegetation which would naturally filter
surface runoff.
Due to the picturesque rolling topography and scattered water features, this site is more
suited for residential development. People value living near such natural amenities, and a
majority of the housing units will have views of the water and other natural features. The
trail system and other amenities, such as play areas and a swimming pool, are additional
features, which will make this development an asset to Prior Lake residents. The
proposed nature preserve also ensures that a major portion of the property will remain in
its natural state of beauty.
The proposed development is divided into 5 segments, which can be constructed as
phases in order to lessen the impacts of construction to the surrounding neighbors. This
will also prevent major traffic impacts during construction. Access to the site would be
achieved with four entrances. One entrance currently exists off of Co. Rd. 42. Another
would be added on 42 and two new roads would access off of Co. Rd. 21. For a
development of this size, this number of access points is quite small, and aims to protect
the smooth flow of traffic along both of these county road arterials. Within the site,
internal circulation is continuous, with a minimal number of dead ends and cul-de-sacs.
In conclusion, the reclassification of the North Jeffers Pond site from CBO and R-UMO
to R-HD Urban High Density residential will better protect the natural character of the
land and also will have less impact on the water quality of Jeffers Pond. The proposed
development fits with the requested DNR reclassification of the pond to a Recreational
Development Lake. It also will meet much needed housing demand, as defined in Prior
Lake's 2020 Visioning Plan, by providing different housing types for people of varied
income and age groups in addition to preserving and enhancing natural features of the
site. The proposal meets the goals of the Metropolitan Council's Regional Blueprint and
will be an asset to the City of prior Lake if reclassification is approved.
,,-
co
2
I
"''''.._. "".",jjl__.
'.": . ...~.lj~' . :.,' . . 'V . " r' r>!:#"'!!' .
~ ;",,/~,'-~ ..': !d? ,.;:
.' .' ~"- ~ \ ;\\' .::::
t-
~ I'
- : I .
q .--
I \I:~ l~'"!
\ -. i, I: ~i ", ,,,,,,-",; I I{" -
, "1' '!l ,-~'-.'- "'.' i>, ..~.' Iii' ~'-
_"'" :, _~,,' ;!:l-l ~,;.. ,,; : '.--- '-
;- : :' .""'''' ....:.ri')';;[;.;~L.J\'-:),l'
",,~.~..;_ ''\W
'- - - '.:-:;n , .'
; I
j-;~
~.
..~- ."
"
-'("jj
. ,----.
)1 .. ,
.-;----"
,---',1
)
'-~-
--:-
l"1l1/..~;
I,~/.
I'" ------
.::::::--- II
'~:;~J.::__
. .:1: '\
'-
~::.:
/
'<,\.- -
,- --:-\~-
-...... -- /'
Q
<~
z
/
;--
--.J
<-:
~~
-!
;--
~~
"T
........:;,
-~
c'"
~
~:
r-: -
=.i..,
-<
~
<-1
<.
,..,...
~
3:
"
<[
uJ
;--
-'
I-
lLJ
:-: ..z----
;;:,-..
~
\
\
\
'-- I
'= I
\
\,
;-- I
- (
~ /
I
, I
,
~'
":'J----~
:--~
=- - ~
f-
z-'::
L
~ ~
.-,-
~.<~:~~:
~
,
I.
I
,
I
I
,
I
I
,
I
, ,
,
,
I
, - -~-
,.:.-
-'~-'~
I
I
^
,1.;/
I
~ --.3.:.. :-~";"',:~ ~I~ ~ ~
.7.....-:... :~:' 2(;'" ,:" . 0
_ 0._--./
"(j)
~
~
~
~
~
t--:>
<I::
E-<
o
if]
~
z
z
::E
~
;:.::::
<I::
.....:l
p::
o
.....
p::
P-.
r- --------..'1
,.' ..... ",' . - -- r-"-, ~.
". . .
-- -' , - '.
-. ,. ,
-. ""-. . "
, -
, ,
.- ~ ,.-- .
OCT I I m
, . '
! i
I have reviewed the attached proposed request (Jeffers Comprehensive Plan
Amendment) 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
Denial
Conditional Approval
It!' 1/1&1 4- 4~cIeH;/;;J (/i -lie!)
1;;;;/~ ~~ W(~ ~~~
----jJ.!. =___ ~I1V(j.,...., _ -~_.[ C'i..c ' ". _
-:J~if0-s- p~/ 6#!Z tP7o- 7 7 /.(j~) .
'-
Comments:
Signed:
? cd- ~c-?-
f?~ LYN t--ri
Please return any comments by Thursday. October 10, 2002, to
Date:
tic f- r :tOo z--
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
e-mail: jkansier@cityofpriorlake.com
-
1:\02files\02compam\jeffers\referral.doc
Page 2
r
.~~
.,
Shakopee Mdewakanton
Sioux Community
OFFICERS
Stanley R. Crooks
Chairman
Glynn A. Crooks
Vice Chairman
2330 SIOUX TRAIL NW - PRIOR LAKE. MINNESOTA 55372
TRIBAL OFFICE: 952-445-8900 - FAX: 952-445-8906
Lori K. Beaulieu
Secretary!Treasurer
17 October, 2002
Writer's Direot Line 952-496-6158
Ms. Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
RE: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Dear Ms. Kansier:
This letter is in reference to your correspondence dated 14 October 2002 regarding the
proposed amendment of the City of Prior Lake Comprehensive Plan. The proposed
amendment would eliminate a planned commercial area and increase residential density
on other lands. The proposed amendment may decrease future tax venue, require
extensive infrastructure expense and impact wetlands, forested areas and other sensitive
environments.
Eliminating the planned commercial development on the southwest corner of the
intersection of County Highways 21 and 42 will reduce future tax revenue. The studies
for completion of County 21 to the north are already underway. This intersection has the
potential to be one of the busiest in Scott County in the near future. Commercial
development would generate significant tax revenue for Prior Lake and would diversify
the city economy.
Providing infrastructure to the proposed development area may be expensive due to the
topography and geography of the parcels. There are numerous lakes, ponds and wetlands
present on the parcel. Residential use of the entire parcel will not result in significant
levels of tax receipts relative to the cost of providing infrastructure and services. Given
Prior Lake's long-standing complaints about lack oftax revenue this seems to be a
counterintuitive plan amendment.
It is laudable that Prior Lake is exploring higher density residential development if this
development is being used to facilitate open space, preserve natural resources and provide
quality residential areas. Increasing residential density to boost development profit, at the
expense of aesthetic amenities and natural resources, is not a commendable goal.
Hopefully, the increased density will allow proposed development to retain significant
forested areas, avoid wetland impacts and protect the surface waters on the parcel during
""-
and after development. Recent soil erosion and water contamination events near this area
point out the problems associated with indiscriminate removal of forested areas, poor
environmental practices and developing without considering the total landscape.
Thank you for the chance to comment on the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Please keep the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community updated on the progress and
future actions in this process and any platting or other development that may result.
Sincerely,
AkP~
-
Stanley A. Ellison
Land and Natural Resources Manager
H: \el I isons\proj ect\j effersp lat\p Incmt
r
Iii
'E ]! Iii
-8 -c-.~
._lii,!!! 4l.!!!_
CI)~c:2c -
~Q)-8:l-8~1ll",
l: il 'Iii a::-iij 0 l!! UI III
o GlGlZ'GlO'iij Gl Gl
:!! a:: Cf: 'iij a:: '0 ::J ,~ l:
.~:>.E c~ gal ::J'iij
~:&'i.;;!~'iii -E~m~
.E~j'iE~.85-i1ii
G-D~::JO~E.O~
'E: ~ ~ ~'6~ .2'E Gl l:
~~.9.9~~~8~~
Ole.
c CO
.c ~
o
N
Iii
~~
;u~ >.
0..-0 ~lii
CI) E ca ~
:3 Iii -g 5
c Ii ::J 0
'Iii l: 0 al
~ ~ m 0
g3Fw~ir
(/).....(\1<">.,......(\1<">.,.10 ~o~
<t,ri:.ri:.ri:.ri:.a::ooooo::::!:CI)ri:.:5
IDDIIIDIIIII.DD~~
~
7.*00
~
CD
~
m
-.J
L-
0
--
L-
a.. ~
......0
Co
O)N
E _
'+- 1::0
CON
0 0.0)
O)e
O:::J
~ 0>-'
C'U
.- 0)
e......
I . e CO
-- CO "'0
-0.
0 0..::::>