HomeMy WebLinkAbout10D - Jeffers Pond
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
JANUARY 18, 2005
10D
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING DIRECTOR
AGENDA ITEM:
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE ZONING MAP TO DESIGNATE PROPERTY AS THE
JEFFERS POND PUD AND A RESOLUTION APPROVING A
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS JEFFERS POND
DISCUSSION:
Introduction: Wensmann Realty and Paul Oberg, executor for the
Jeffers Estate, have applied for approval of a development to be known
as Jeffers Pond on the property located at the southwest quadrant of the
intersection of CSAH 42 and CSAH 21. The application includes the
following requests:
· Approve a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan; and
. Approve a Preliminary Plat.
The proposal calls for a mixed-use development consisting of retail
space and offices, single family homes, residential condominiums,
townhomes, senior apartments, an elementary school site, a fire station
site, transit station site, and parks and trail on a total of 336 acres.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this item on
December 13,2004. A copy of the minutes of the December 13,2004
Planning Commission meeting is attached to this report.
The Planning Commission continued the public hearing to January 10,
2005. At this hearing, the Commission considered additional
information on the issues identified at the earlier meeting. The
Commission also considered testimony from 3 individuals opposed to
developing the property.
Current Circumstances: This is the first PUD proposal submitted under the new Mixed Use
PUD standards, adopted by the City Council in October, 2004. As the
Planning Commission may recall, Section 1106.400 of that ordinance
lists the types of uses and standards allowed under a PUD. These are:
(1) Variety: Within a comprehensive site design concept a mixture of
land uses, housing types and densities.
1:\04 files\04 pud's\jeffers pond\cc report. doc
Page 1
www.ciryofpriorlake.com
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
(2) Sensitivity: Through the departure from the strict application of
required setbacks, yard areas, lot sizes, minimum house sizes,
minimum requirements, and other performance standards
associated with traditional zoning, planned unit development can
maximize the development potential of land while remaining
sensitive to its unique and valuable natural characteristics.
(3) Efficiency: The consolidation of areas for recreation and
reductions in street lengths and other utility-related expenses.
(4) Density Transfer: The project density may be clustered, basing
density on number of units per acre versus specific lot dimensions.
(5) District Integration: The combination of uses which are allowed in
separate zoning districts, such as:
a. Mixed residential allows both densities and unit types to be
varied within the project.
b. Mixed residential with increased density acknowledging the
greater sensitivity of PUD projects, regulation provides
increased density on the property if a PUD is utilized.
c. Mixed land uses with the integration of compatible land uses
within the project.
The PUD provisions offer maximum flexibility in many areas,
including setbacks, building heights, and so on. The Jeffers Pond
proposal includes several of the above elements. The following
analysis summarizes the proposed plan and its compliance with Zoning
and Subdivision Ordinance requirements.
Total Site Area: The total site consists of 336 acres. All of Jeffers
Pond is included within this site, as well as several wetlands. The net
site area is 216.5 acres.
TODO!!raDhv: This site has a varied topography, with elevations
ranging from 980' MSL at its highest point to 866' MSL at its lowest
point (the ordinary high water elevation of Jeffers Pond). The steepest
portion of the site is the ridge along the southern portion of the
property. This ridge includes several bluff areas.
Ve!!etation: There is an existing farmstead on this site. Historically,
much of the site has been used for agricultural purposes. There are
also several stands of significant trees on this site. The project is
subject to the Tree Preservation requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Wetlands: There are several wetlands on this site, in addition to
Jeffers Pond. Jeffers Pond itself comprises just over 50 acres of the
site. Wetlands encompass approximately 78 acres of the remaining
site area. In total, approximately 37% of the site is covered by water.
1:\04 files\04 pud's\jeffers pond\cc report. doc Page 2
Access: Access to the site is from CSAH 42 and CSAH 21, both of
which are classified as "A" Minor Arterials in the Comprehensive Plan
Transportation Plan. The plan proposes two full intersections onto
CSAH 21, and one 0/4 intersection onto CSAH 42. Access to the site is
also provided from Jeffers Pass on the south, from Wilds Ridge, and
from a second street to the west.
2020 ComDrehensive Plan Desienation: This property is designated
for Urban Low to Medium Density Residential, High Density
Residential and Community Retail Shopping uses on the 2020
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
Zonine: The site is presently zoned R-l (Low Density Residential)
and C-5 (Business Office Park).
Shoreland: This property is also located within the Shore land District
for Jeffers Pond, a Recreational Development Lake. As such, the
property is subj ect to the Shore land PUD requirements listed in
Section 1104 of the Zoning Ordinance.
PROPOSED PLAN
Lots: The preliminary plat originally consisted of lots for 117 single
family homes, 211 townhome units, 47 rental townhome units, and 204
senior co-op apartment units. Plan revisions to include more parkland
will probably result in the loss of some of these units. The plan also
includes a 24-acre mixed use site, consisting of retail, office and other
commercial uses, and 114 residential units.
Densitv: Density of the development is based on the net area of the
site, which is 194.02 acres. There are a total of 693 units proposed, for
an overall density of 3.57 units per acre. This is consistent with the
density in the R-l district.
Density is also restricted by the Shoreland District. The maximum
density permitted in each tier of this district is identified in the
following table:
Permitted Proposed # Units
Density Densitv OverlUnder
Shoreland District Tier 1
Base Density 157 70 -87
With Multiplier 236
Shoreland District Tier 2
Base Density 156 199 -43
With Multiplier 312
Shoreland District Tier 3
Base Density 124 152 -28
1:\04 files\04 pud's\jeffers pond\cc report. doc Page 3
With Multiplier 371
Shoreland District Tier 4
Base Density 115 175 +32
With Multiplier 346
Shoreland District Tier 5
Base Density 173 97 -76
With Multiplier 190
TOTAL 725 693 -28
Unused density in the lower tiers may be transferred to the upper tiers.
There is only one tier, Tier 4, in which the density exceeds the
available number of units. The overall density of this site is 28 units
less than the density permitted.
Streets: This plan proposes four major through streets and several
interior streets, both public and private. The major streets include:
. Jeffers Parkway, a collector street from CSAH 21 to CSAH 42.
This street is the primary access for the commercial development
and the residential development on the north side of the site.
. Another collector, also known as Jeffers Parkway, extending from
Jeffers Parkway to the west, where it connects with a street in
Wilds Ridge.
. Jeffers Pass, extending from CSAH 21 to the south boundary of the
plat where it connects to the existing street. This street is the
primary access point on the south half of the site, and provides
access to the school site and to the residential areas.
. Wilds Ridge, a residential street extending from Jeffers Pass to
Wilds Ridge on the west. This street provides access to the west
and to residential lots.
There are also several interior streets, both public and private. The
public streets are cul-de-sacs, providing access to single family homes
in the development. The private streets provide access to the
townhomes.
It must be noted that almost all of the streets in this development
include the name "Jeffers". While we appreciate the desire for
continuity, the number of these names may prove confusing. The staff
will work with the developers to determine the appropriate names.
Sidewalks/Trails: Trails are a major component of this proposed
development. The object is to provide both an interior trail system,
and connections to the regional trail system. The trail connections
proposed as part of the development include:
. A trail around the perimeter of Jeffers Pond.
1:\04 files\04 pud's\jeffers pond\cc report. doc Page 4
. A trail along the wetland on the south side of the site. This trail
connects to the existing trail to the south.
. A trail along CSAH 21 where it is adjacent to this property.
. Both sidewalk and trail along Jeffers Parkway, from CSAH 21 to
CSAH 42.
. Sidewalk on one side of the other major streets.
. An interior trail system in the park.
Parks: Parks are another central component of this proposal. In the
narrative, the developer notes "the goal of the Jeffers Pond
development is to create a community that provides a wide range of
housing options and services, while preserving and utilizing the
natural elements of the site." The minimum dedication requirements
for a park this size is 1 0% of the net land area, or 19.4 acres. This
proposal dedicates a total of 49.78 acres of land for public use. The
usable area (49.78 acres less steep slopes and wetlands) is 19.76 acres.
The major feature of the park system is the 27 acre nature park and the
1.44 interpretive center site. The purpose of the nature park is to
preserve the trees and the bluffs along the ridge south of Jeffers Pond.
As part of this process, the estate will establish a conservation
easement over this park site. This easement will ensure the park is
used for passive recreation. It does allow the City to do the
appropriate maintenance on the site. The estate has also agreed to
contribute $500,000 for the construction of the interpretive center.
The staff has no problem with the proposed conservation easement.
We understand the desire to preserve this area. However, one
provision of the conservation easement does not allow a paved trail in
the area located on the west side of Jeffers Pond, between the lake and
the wetland. This area will include a waterfall feature that the City and
the Watershed District must maintain. This area also provides a link in
the looped trail system around Jeffers Pond. The staff feels this trail
should be paved, since it will allow for maintenance and a better loop
system. Erosion on this trail will also be less if it is paved. The
developer is also requesting 3+ acres of parkland dedication credit for
this segment. The staff will continue to work with the developer on
this issue.
There is also an active park in this development. This is a 4.6 acre site
located on the north side of the nature park. This site will allow the
City to develop ballfields and play structures for this area.
Other Public Facilities:
This proposal also includes land for other public facilities. The
developer is dedicating land for a fire station site on the north end of
the property. A transit parking area is also included in the site. The
1:\04 files\04 pud's~effers pond\cc report. doc Page 5
estate has also entered into a purchase agreement with the school
district for a 12.27 acre school site.
Sanitary Sewer/Water Mains/Storm Sewer: The Engineering
Department has reviewed the plans for these utilities. These comments
are attached to this report.
Duildin!! Stvles: The developer is planning for a rural vernacular
architectural style. Other elements intended to tie the development
together include landscaping, signage, street lighting and mail boxes.
The developer is still formulating a theme for the commercial segment
of the project.
The PUD is also divided into nine different neighborhoods. Each
neighborhood is intended to provide a different service or housing
style. Starting at the north and moving clockwise around the site, these
neighborhoods are:
(1) The Village. This area includes a mIX of retail, restaurants,
services, offices and other commercial uses. The area also includes
residential condominium units above the commercial spaces, and
parking structures. Buildings are designed as 2-4-story structures.
(2) The Station. This segment of the development includes 47 back-
to-back townhouse units in 3- to 8-unit buildings. Market prices
are expected to range from $175,000 to $210,000.
(3) The Enclave. This component includes 38 single family homes on
55' wide lots. The price range for these homes is expected to start
at $290,000.
(4) The Hollow. This is a coach home development, consisting of 39
units in 10, 3- and 4-unit buildings. Prices range from $260,000 to
$360,000.
(5) The Pointe. Luxury twin homes in the $400,000 to $800,000 range
make up this neighborhood. There are 52 units in 2-unit buildings.
The proposed buildings are similar in style to the Glynwater twin
homes.
(6) The Ridge. This neighborhood is similar to the single family
neighborhood proposed for Wilds Ridge. Lot widths start at 85'
and home prices range from $480,000 to $800,000.
(7) Parkside. This is a townhouse development consisting of 124 units
in 4-6-unit row style buildings. Prices start at $220,000 per unit.
(8) The Shore. Described as "luxury villas", this development consists
of detached single family homes on 55' wide lots. The
surrounding open space will be maintained by a homeowner's
association. The proposed units will sell from $400,000 to
$600,000.
(9) Condominiums. This is a senior cooperative condominium
development, with 204 units in 3 buildings. The proposed
buildings are 3-stories with underground parking.
1:\04 files\04 pud's\jeffers pond\cc report. doc Page 6
Setbacks: The required and proposed setbacks for this development
are shown on the following table:
Re uired Pro osed
25' from back of curb 25'
25' from ROW line 22'
20' 20'
25' 30'
75' +75'
Re uired Pro osed
25' from ROW line 30' average,
25'min
Side 10' 15 " 6' for
ara es
Rear 25' 30'
Lakeshore 75' +75'
Impervious Surface: The maximum impervious surface allowed in
the Shoreland District is 30% of the lot area above the OHW.
Impervious surface coverage is further limited to 25% of each tier area
in a Shoreland District PUD. The table below compares permitted and
proposed impervious surface:
Permitted Proposed
Tier 1 25% 18.63%
Tier 2 25% 28.32%
Tier 3 25% 23.87%
Tier 4 25% 30.47%
Tier 5 25% 21.91%
Overall 30% 24.07%
Although the impervious surface exceeds 25% in tier 2 and tier 4, the
overall impervious surface is less than 25 percent. Only tier 4 exceeds
the 30% maximum. This tier is located at least 600' from the lake
shore.
Shoreland Open Space Requirements: The Shoreland ordinance
requires at least 50% of the total project area, or 168 acres, within this
PUD be preserved as open space. The wetlands, parks and school site
meet this requirement.
The Shoreland PUD ordinance also requires that 70% of the shore
impact zone (50% of the setback from the OHW) be preserved in its
natural state. In this case, there is a 50' wide buffer located around
Jeffers Pond. This area could potentially meet this requirement;
however, the developer is proposing to grade within much of this area.
1:\04 files\04 pud's\jeffers pond\cc report. doc Page 7
Landscapinl!: Landscaping will be required for each element of this
development. Due to the size of the PUD, the specific landscaping
requirements will be reviewed at each final stage.
Tree Replacement: There are many significant trees on this site. One
of the goals of the development is to preserve the most noticeable of
these trees. The developer is in the process of inventorying all of the
trees on the site. This information will be available before any grading
will be permitted on the site.
Traffic Impact Report: A traffic impact report was submitted with
this development plan. The total daily trips generated from this
development at build-out are estimated to be 22,864. The study
concludes the following:
1. All key intersections currently operate at an acceptable overall level
of service (LOS) with existing traffic controls during peak hours.
2. Under year 2009 no-build conditions, all key intersections will
continue to operate at an acceptable overall LOS C or better;
motorists on the southbound approach of the CSAH 42/"New"
McKenna Road intersection will experience heavier delays during
the p. m. peak hour.
3. Under year 2009 build conditions, additional traffic is generated to
the extent that two intersections (CSAH 21/Fountain Hills Drive and
CSAH 42/New McKenna Rd.) will not operate at an acceptable LOS
during all peak hours.
4. Mitigation of the CSAH 21/Fountain Hills Drive and CSAH 42/New
McKenna Rd. intersections that could be implemented to attain an
acceptable LOS would include the installation of traffic signals at
each of these two intersections. The Traffic Study recommends a
complete signal warrant analysis.
5. Mitigation would also be provided by altering the CSAH 42/01d
McKenna Road intersection by restricting left turns for the
southbound and eastbound approaches (right-in/right-out/left-in for
west bound only). This could improve overall side-street operations
and intersection safety and the displaced trips would be diverted to
New McKenna Road to the west.
Market Study: A market study has been submitted and is attached to
this report. To summarize, the proposed commercial area in Jeffers
Pond will not satisfy all of the need for commercial development in
Prior Lake or even within the Jeffers Pond trade area. Other
commercial areas, such as downtown, are likely to absorb the
additional capacity. There will be some competition between
downtown and the Jeffers Pond area, but it will not saturate the
market.
1:\04 files\04 pud's\jeffers pond\cc report. doc Page 8
Environmental Assessment Worksheet: On January 3, 2005, the
City Council reviewed the EA W prepared for this development. The
Council determined there was no need for an Environmental Impact
Statement.
Phasing:: The developer expects to complete this project in five
phases, beginning in 2005 and ending in 2008 or 2009. Construction
will start on both the north and south side of the site.
Fees and Assessment: This development will be subject to the
standard development fees. A summary of these fees is included in the
attached memorandum from the Finance Director.
THE ISSUES: The issues identified in the original report are listed
below. The staffhas continued to work with the developers to address
these concerns. The progress on each issue is reported in bold italics.
1. Engineering Issues: Several engineering issues were identified
pertaining to:
a. Preliminary Plat:
b. Utilities:
c. Grading:
d. Storm Water:
e. Wetlands:
The developer submitted revised plans on December 20, 2004.
These plans have been reviewed by the City staff. The Engineering
Department comments on these plans are attached to this report.
In essence, it appears most of the concerns have been addressed in
some manner; however, the scale of the revised plans is too small
to verify the accuracy of the changes. Revised plan sheets at a
legible scale have been submitted, and are currently being
reviewed by the Engineering Department.
2. Buffer around Jeffers Pond: When the DNR agreed to reclassify
Jeffers Pond to a Recreational Development lake, the decision was
based on the provision of a 50' undisturbed buffer around the lake.
The DNR agreed the City could include a trail within this area. The
proposed plan includes extensive grading within this buffer. The
plan must be revised to eliminate this grading, or at the very least
minimize the grading.
According to the developer, the 50' buffer is measured from the
Ordinary High Water elevation for Jeffers Pond. The original
plans did not identify the OHW. Based on the OHW, the 50'
buffer appears to be intact. Again, to verify this, the developer
must submit revised plans at a legible scale.
3. County Road Issues:
1:\04 files\04 pud's\jeffers pond\cc report.doc Page 9
a. The right of way for CSAH 21 and CSAH 42 are not clearly
defined on the site plans. The County has a 33-foot right-of-way,
described as the easterly 33 feet of the property, at the SW comer
of CSAH 42 and CSAH 21 which is not being shown on the site
plan. This right-of-way will have an impact on building setbacks
and ponding locations in this area.
b. The plans do not show the reconstructed CSAH 42. The plans
show old information, which does not reflect CSAH 42 as a four
lane road or a path on the south side of CSAH 42.
c. The plans do not reflect a full access with left turn lanes at
Fountain Hills. The plans only show this access as a right
in/right out.
d. The existing access stub that is not being used at Carriage Hills
Parkway and the existing left turn lane shall be removed as part
of any access permit application onto CSAH 21.
e. The trail along CSAH 21 needs to meet county standards for
boulevard width between the path and curb. The existing right-
of-way does not accommodate a trail. To accommodate the trail,
additional right-of-way a minimum of75 feet from centerline for
CSAH 21 is needed. We are open to the option of a 15 foot
drainage, utility, and trial easement to accommodate utilities and
the trail along CSAH 21 in place of additional right-of-way
dedication.
f. The site plan is showing a building in the County's drainage
easement and using the easement for the development's
stormwater. The County is open to discussing the
reconfiguration easement of our existing pond and easement to
accommodate a regional need. However, we have not received
any clear plan or stormwater information that indicates to us in a
clear way what is being proposed. The County will need plans
that clearly show the existing and new easement. The building
can not be constructed or pond transformed as shown until the
legal issues surrounding existing easements are cleared up.
g. The Y4 intersection design on CSAH 42 needs to be part of an
overall intersection plan that includes the access on the north side
of CSAH 42. No access permit at this location shall be granted
until the overall intersection plan is completed and is approved
by the County.
h. No ponding, berming, landscaping, or signage shall be located
within the County right-of-way.
The developer is continuing to work on these changes to the plan
sheets.
1:\04 files\04 pud's\jeffers pond\cc report. doc
Page 10
4. Bluffs: The plan proposed grading within the bluff and the bluff
impact zone, as well as a dwelling unit within this area. In order to
be consistent with the goal of preserving the natural resources and
amenities on this site, the bluff area should remain undisturbed.
The developer resurveyed the topography on the lot to verify the
locations of the bluff. In some areas, the top of bluff has been
shortened. In other areas, the developer is continuing to revise the
plans to ensure the bluff remains undisturbed.
5. Tree Inventory/Tree Preservation:
a. The plans show trees that appear to not be included as part of the
inventory.
b. Provide a legible overlay plan illustrating which removed trees
will be within building pads, driveways, utilities, and drainage
ways.
c. All impacted areas must have a comprehensive inventory
completed. An extrapolation tree survey will not meet the
inventory requirements.
The developer is in the process of inventorying and identifying all
of the significant trees on the site.
6. Fire Station Site: During discussions on the concept plan for this
site, the developer agreed to provide a site suitable for an 8,000
square foot fire station and 20 parking spaces. The proposed site
does not meet this criterion.
The developer has indicated the design of the commercial area is
still conceptual. To accommodate the fire station site, the size and
number of spaces will be noted as part of the plan. The specific
site will be designed with the final PUD plan.
7. Parks: The proposed active recreation park should consist of at
least 4 to 5 acres of usable, relatively flat upland. This park is
intended to meet the needs of both Jeffers Pond and Wilds Ridge.
The City staff and the developer have been working on a design for
this park. The developer has submitted a plan for a park that
includes 4.6 acres of usable land. City Public Works Director Bud
Osmundson has determined this area will be sufficient. The
developer will continue to work with the City on the details for the
park.
8. Market Study: The developer has not submitted the required
market study.
A market study has been submitted and is attached to this report.
To summarize, the proposed commercial area in Jeffers Pond will
1:\04 files\04 pud's\jeffers pond\cc report. doc
Page 11
not satisfy all of the need for commercial development in Prior
Lake or even within the Jeffers Pond trade area. Other
commercial areas, such as downtown, are likely to absorb the
additional capacity. There will be some competition between
downtown and the Jeffers Pond area, but it will not saturate the
market.
9. EA W: The City Council will review the EA W and determine
whether or not additional environmental study is needed on January
3, 2005. The preliminary plat cannot be approved until this decision
is made.
The City Council reviewed the EA W on January 3, 2005, and
determined an Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary.
10. Traffic Impact Report: The TIR includes a recommendation for
signal lights needed as a result of this development. The developer
should be prepared to discuss how these signal lights will be
accommodated.
The Development Contract approved with the final plat will
require funds for the signal light. This money will be escrowed
until the County feels the light is warranted. At that time, the
funds will be used for the signal.
11. Overall Development Theme: The developer should identify a
common element or theme throughout the development to tie it all
together. This can be accomplished in many different ways,
including architectural features, signage, color, style and so on.
A theme for the residential portion of the development is attached.
The developer is planning for a rural vernacular architectural
style. Other elements intended to tie the development together
include landscaping, signage, street lighting and mail boxes. The
developer is still formulating a theme for the commercial segment
of the project.
There are two separate applications included in this proposal.
pun PRELIMINARY PLAN: The PUD must be reviewed based on the
criteria found in Section 1106.100 and 1106.300 of the Zoning
Ordinance. Section 1106.100 discusses the purpose of a PUD. These
criteria are discussed below.
(1) Provides a flexible approach to development which is in harmony
with the purpose and intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Ordinance.
The proposed PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use
Plan designations on the entire site. The PUD approach allows the
1:\04 files\04 pud's~effers pond\cc report.doc
Page ] 2
location of the different land uses in ways that preserve and enhance
the natural features of the site.
(2) More creative, efficient and effective use of land, open space and
public facilities through mixing of land uses.
The proposed PUD plan clusters the commercial and residential areas,
and provides additional open space.
(3) Create a sense of place and provide more interaction among people;
The PUD plan proposes trails, and other pedestrian elements to
connect the residential and the commercial elements. The commercial
area is also designed to be pedestrian-friendly, and to provide services
for the neighborhoods.
(4) Increase economic vitality and expand market opportunities;
The proposed commercial area provides additional retail and
commercial opportunities for the City.
(5) Support long-term economic stability by strengthening the tax base,
job market and business opportunities;
The proposed commercial area provides additional retail and
commercial opportunities for the City. The new residential areas,
along with the commercial development, will strengthen the City's tax
base.
(6) Increase transportation options, such as walking, biking or bussing;
The plan includes a transit parking area, which will allow the City to
expand its bus service so it may serve more passengers. This area will
also increase transit opportunities for other Scott County providers.
The parking area will also provide parking for those who wish to use
the trail system.
(7) Provide opportunities for life cycle housing to all ages.
The PUD plan includes several housing types, from senior housing to
condominiums to townhouses and traditional single family homes.
This mix will provide housing options to many different buyers.
(8) Provide more efficient and effective use of streets, utilities, and public
facilities that support high quality land use development at a lesser
cost.
The development utilizes a mix of public and private streets. The
public streets provide access through the development and to adjacent
properties. The private streets are primarily used for the townhouse
developments, and will be maintained by a homeowners association.
(9) Enhanced incorporation of recreational, public and open space
components in the development which may be made more useable and
be more suitably located than would otherwise be provided under
conventional development procedures. The PUD district also
]:\04 files\04 pud's\jeffers pond\cc report. doc
Page 13
encourages the developer to convey property to the public, over and
above required dedications, by allowing a portion of the density to be
transferred to other parts of the site.
The PUD incorporates a large natural park, as well as an active park.
Other public elements include a fire station site, a school site and a
transit site.
(J 0) Preserves and enhances desirable site characteristics and open
space, and protection of sensitive environmental features including,
but not limited to, steep slopes, wetlands, and trees. Where applicable,
the PUD should also encourage historic preservation, re-use and
redevelopment of existing buildings.
The plan includes a trail around the lake, trails through the natural
park, and a system of trails connecting to other trails in adjacent
developments. The plan also preserves the bluff areas on the site, and
provides a public-owned buffer around Jeffers Pond.
(11) High quality of design compatible with surrounding land uses,
including both existing and planned.
The proposed design is compatible with the surrounding land uses.
(1) Greater utilization of new technologies in building design,
materials, construction and land development.
The developer has attempted to design the buildings so they fit the
land, rather than force the land to fit the building design.
(2) Higher standards of site and building design.
The density of this development has been moved north to lessen
the impact on the existing trees and the proximity to Crystal Lake.
The utilization of private streets further reduces the impervious
surface on the site.
(3) More efficient and effective use of streets, utilities, and public
facilities to support high quality land use development at a lesser
cost.
The homeowners association does maintenance of private streets,
including plowing and future repairs. This reduces City costs in
providing services to these homes.
(4) Enhanced incorporation of recreational, public and open space
components in the development which may be made more useable
and be more suitably located than would otherwise be provided
under conventional development procedures.
The addition of parkland with this development will be utilized by
both the future and the existing neighborhood. A trail adj acent to
Crystal Lake will allow public enjoyment of the lake.
(5) Provides a flexible approach to development which allows
modifications to the strict application of regulations within the
1:\04 fiJes\04 pud's\jeffers pond\cc report.doc
Page 14
various Use Districts that are in harmony with the purpose and
intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
The density and variety of housing units is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan goals to provide a variety of housing styles.
(6) Encourages a more creative and efficient use of land.
The PUD allows the higher density areas to be clustered, and
preserves open space.
(7) Preserves and enhances desirable site characteristics including
flora and fauna, scenic views, screening and buffering, and
access.
The townhouse units are sited to take advantage of the natural
views. It may be possible to revise the storm water ponding area
to reduce the number of trees removed as part of the development.
(8) Allows the development to operate in concert with a
Redevelopment Plan in certain areas of the City and to insure the
redevelopment goals and objectives within the Redevelopment
District will be achieved.
This criterion is not applicable.
(9) Provides for flexibility in design and construction of the
development in cases where large tracts of land are under single
ownership or control and where the users) has the potential to
significantly affect adjacent or nearby properties.
The use of the PUD allows the clustering of the homes and the use
of private streets.
(10) Encourages the developer to convey property to the public, over
and above required dedications, by allowing a portion of the
density to be transferred to other parts of the site.
The parkland dedication will help facilitate the creation of a
neighborhood park system within this area. There proposal also
identifies an additional acre of parkland dedication with this plan.
This is more than required under the Ordinance.
Section 1106.300 states the quality of building and site design
proposed by the PUD will enhance the aesthetics of the site and
implement relevant goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. In
addition, the following criteria shall be satisfied:
(1) The design shall consider the whole of the project and shall create
a unified environment within the boundaries of the project by
insuring architectural compatibility of all structures, efficient
vehicular and pedestrian circulation, aesthetically pleasing
landscape and site features, and efficient use and design of
utilities.
1:\04 files\04 pud's\jeffers pond\cc report.doc
Page 15
The design creates a unified environment. The proposed streets
and provision of trails and sidewalks allows for efficient
movement of traffic.
(2) The design of a PUD shall optimize compatibility between the
project and surrounding land uses, both existing and proposed
and shall minimize the potential adverse impacts of the PUD on
surrounding land uses and the potential adverse effects of the
surrounding land uses on the PUD.
The use of the PUD will allow the clustering of the townhouse
units.
(3) If a projectfor which PUD treatment has been requested involves
construction over a period of time in two or more phases, the
applicant shall demonstrate that each phase is capable of
addressing and meeting each of the criteria independent of the
other phases.
There are no additional phases proposed.
(4) Approval of a PUD may permit the placement of more than one
building on a lot.
This is not applicable.
(5) A PUD in a Residential Use District shall conform to the
requirements of that Use District unless modified by the following
or other provisions of this Ordinance.
a. The tract of land for which a project is proposed shall have
not less than 200 feet offrontage on a public right-of-way.
b. No building shall be nearer than its building height to any
property line when the property abutting the subject property
is in an "R -1 " or "R -2" Use District.
c. No building within the project shall be nearer to another
building than .~ the sum of the building heights of the two
buildings, except for parking ramps which may be directly
connected to another building.
d. Private roadways within the project site may not be used in
calculating required off-street parking spaces.
The modifications requested by the developer include the
following:
. The use of private streets. Normally, a development of
this type would require a minimum right-of-way width of
50' and a 28' to 30' wide surface. The developer is
requesting a 28' wide private street. The additional of
right-of-way would be accommodated by the use of
easements adjacent to the private road.
1:\04 files\04 pud's\jeffers pond\cc report. doc Page 16
· Reduced front yard setbacks on the private streets. The
conventional setback requirement is 25' from the right-of-
way line. The developer is requesting a 20' front yard
setback, measured from the building face to the curb of the
pri vate street.
. Reduced shore land setback. The minimum required
lakeshore setback is 150' from the OHW. The developer
has provided this setback. The modification requested is
to the additional setback necessary for density bonuses.
The proposed plan has been reviewed by the DNR.
. Impervious surface for tier 2. A modification to the
impervious surface requirement for tier 2 is necessary.
This modification can be justified on the basis that the
development does not disturb any part of the Shore Impact
Zone. Further, the development has been pulled forward
on the site to reduce the impact on the trees and on the
Shore land.
These modifications are permitted under the PUD provisions
at the discretion of the Council. The Planning Commission
found these modifications to be consistent with the goals and
intent of the PUD criteria in that they allowed the clustering of
the townhouses to preserve the natural terrain. The Planning
Commission also found the modification to the impervious
surface appropriate since the overall impervious surface is less
than 30% and the ponding is sized to accommodate all of the
driveways, roads, and other areas. The Commission also
reasoned that a conventional development could include
impervious surface up to the 30% maximum.
PRELIMINARY PLAT: The memorandum from the City Engineering
Department lists several revisions required to the preliminary plat.
Most of these issues can be addressed at the final plat stage. However,
no additional grading will be allowed until all of the grading and
hydrologic issues have been addressed.
CONCLUSION:
The Planning Commission and staff recommended approval of the
rezoning, the preliminary PUD plan and the preliminary plat, subject to
the following conditions.
1. Address the following engineering issues listed in the
memorandum from City Engineer Steve Albrecht dated December
30, 2004. All grading, storm water and wetland issues must be
addressed prior to any grading on the site.
Preliminary Plat:
1:\04 files\04 pud's\jeffers pond\cc report. doc
Page 17
a. While it appears the topo and easements have been corrected
the submitted sheets are at such a small scale we can't verify
that these items have been completed.
b. The roundabout has been redesigned and the dimensions are
acceptable to the City. The splitter islands need to be
reconfigured to provide better direction channelization.
Utilities:
c. Units 3-7 Block 7 on Jeffers Enclave have been revised to
allow for a 20- foot setback and a 40- foot easement over the
trunk sewer.
d. A profile of the sewer has been provided, however a revised
grading plan is required in a legible scale in the critical areas to
verify changes. Additionally the MCES will need to approve
construction over the easement. It is the applicants
responsibility to obtain written approve from the MCES.
e. A legible grading plan needs to be provided to verify the sewer
pipe is no longer exposed and that sufficient cover has been
provided. Written approval from the MCES will be required
prior to final grading plan approval.
f. A legible grading plan needs to be provided to review actual
design fill depths over the interceptor. Written approval from
the MCES will be required prior to final grading plan approval.
g. A legible grading plan needs to be provided to verify the
required retaining wall changes have been made. Written
approval from the MCES will be required prior to final grading
plan approval.
Grading:
h. It appears the buffer issue along Jeffers pond has been
addressed as shown in the preliminary documents submitted.
Please provide a legible grading plan that shows the OHW and
proposed grades for final review.
1. Please provide a legible grading plan to show the changes to
the retaining walls in relation to the wetlands and buffers.
Storm Water:
J. Please provide a legible grading plan to verify the changes have
been made.
k. The 2-yr discharge rate was a past PLSL Watershed District
requirement. If the watershed does not require it please
disregard. Please verify with the watershed.
Wetlands:
1:\04 files\04 pud's\jeffers pond\cc report. doc
Page 18
1. Supplementary wetland information has been submitted.
However not all of the TEP comments have been addressed and
a revised mitigation grading plan needs to be submitted. Please
submit a plan at a minimum of 1 "=1 00' (preferably 1 "=50') for
reVIew.
m. As previously indicated to Schoell and Madson on 12/22/04 via
email, the School District is planning on impacting the wetland
on their site. They have stated to the City that mitigation for
this wetland was to be included in the total site mitigation plan
for Jeffers Pond. Please clarify this issue as soon as possible as
mitigation approval will remain on hold unit it is addressed.
2. Maintain a 50' wide buffer around the OHW of Jeffers Pond. With
the exception of a 10' trail, this buffer should remain undisturbed.
3. All Scott County Highway Department issues must be addressed
with the final plans.
4. No grading or other disturbance may take place within the
identified bluff. All structures must meet the minimum bluff
setback requirements.
5. A revised tree inventory and tree preservation plan must be
submitted prior to any grading on the site.
6. The developer must provide space to accommodate an 8,000
square foot fire station and at least 20 parking spaces. The specific
location for this site will be determined as part of the final plan
phase.
7. The plan must include an active recreation park consisting of at
least 4.5 to 5 acres of usable, relatively flat upland.
8. The developer must provide funds for a future traffic signal. These
funds will be escrowed as part of the development contract.
9. The overall theme must be refined and incorporated into the final
plans.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Budeet ImDact: There is no budget impact as a result of this action.
Approval of the project will facilitate the development of the area and
increase the City tax base.
AL TERNATIVES:
The City Council has three alternatives:
1. Adopt an ordinance amending the Zoning Map to designate the
subject property as R-l, adopt a resolution approving the PUD
Preliminary Plan subject to the listed conditions, and adopt a
resolution approving the Preliminary Plat for this development
subject to the listed conditions, with the finding that the preliminary
plat is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinances.
1:\04 files\04 pud's\jeffers pond\cc report. doc
Page 19
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
2. Deny ordinance amendment, the PUD Preliminary Plan, and the
Preliminary Plat on the basis they are inconsistent with the purpose
and intent of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and/or the
Comprehensive Plan. In this case, the Council should direct the
staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact based in the record
for the denial of these requests.
3. Defer consideration of this item and provide staff with specific
direction.
The staff recommends Alternative # 1. This action requires the
following motions:
1. A motion and second adopting an ordinance approving an
amendment to the Zoning Map to designate the subject property R-
1 (Low Density Residential).
2. A motion and second adopting a resolution approving a Planned
Unit Development Preliminary Plan to be known as Heritage
Landing subject to the listed conditions;
3. A motion an second adopting a resolution approving a
Preliminary P to be known as Heritage Landing, subject to the
UO iti s.
Frank Byles C ty Manager
1:\04 files\04 pud's\jeffers pond\cc report. doc
Page 20
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO. OS-XX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1101.700 OF PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE AND
THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
WHEREAS: Wensmann Realty, Inc., and Paul Oberg, executor for the Jeffers Estate, have submittec
an application for a Planned Unit Development to be known as Jeffers Pond; and
WHEREAS: The Prior Lake Planning Commission considered the proposed Planned Uni
Development at a public hearing on December 13, 2004; and
WHEREAS: The Planning Commission further considered this matter at their meeting on January 10
2005; and
WHEREAS: Notice of the public hearing on said PUD has been duly published in accordance with thE
applicable Prior Lake Ordinances; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission proceeded to hear all persons interested in this issue anc
persons interested were afforded the opportunity to present their views and objection~
related to the PUD; and
WHEREAS: The Prior Lake City Council considered the proposed PUD for Jeffers Pond on Januar~
18, 2005; and
WHEREAS: The City Council finds the PUD is compatible with the stated purposes and intent of thE
Section 1106 Planned Unit Developments of the Zoning Ordinance.
The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain:
1. The Prior Lake Zoning Map, referred to in Prior Lake City Code Section 1101.700, is
hereby amended to designate the following legally described property as the Jeffers
Pond Planned Unit Development (PUD).
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
The Northeast Quarter and the Southeast Quarter of Section 27, Township 115,
Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota.
ALSO,
That part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 34, Township 115, Range 22, Scott
County, Minnesota, described as follows:
]:\04 files\04 pud's\jeffers pond\pud ord.doc
www.cityofpriorlake.com
Page 1
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
Beginning at the northeast corner of said Northeast Quarter; thence south along the
east line of said Section a distance of 33 1/3 rods; thence west, parallel with the
north line of said Section, a distance of 60 rods; thence south, parallel with the east
line of said Section, to the north line of the South Quarter of the North Half of said
Northeast Quarter; thence west along said north line of the South Quarter to a point
120 rods west of the east line of said Section, as measured along a line parallel with
the north line of said Section; thence north, parallel with the east line of said Section,
to the north line of said Section; thence east along the north line of said Section to
the point of beginning.
ALSO
That part of Outlot F, The Wilds, according to the recorded plat thereof described as
follows:
Commencing at the North Quarter Corner of Section 27, Township 115, Range 22,
Scott County Minnesota; thence on an assumed bearing of South 0 degrees 13
minutes 37 seconds East, along the east line of the Northwest Quarter of said
Section 27, a distance of 1710.05 feet, to the point of beginning of the land to be
described; thence continue South 0 degrees 13 minutes 37 seconds East, along
said east line of said Northwest Quarter, a distance of 1350.84 feet; thence North 57
degrees 13 minutes 08 seconds West, a distance of 139.67 feet; thence North 29
degrees 19 minutes 45 seconds West, a distance of 530.12 feet; thence North 0
degrees 22 minutes 03 seconds East, a distance of 171.09 feet; thence North 15
degrees 18 minutes 13 seconds West, a distance of 245.09 feet; thence North 9
degrees 02 minutes 28 seconds East, a distance of 83.00 feet; thence North 33
degrees 50 minutes 09 seconds East, a distance of 236.29 feet; thence North 3
degrees 57 minutes 02 seconds East, a distance of 126.50 feet; thence North 89
degrees 46 minutes 23 seconds East, a distance of 282.00 feet to the point of
beginning.
2. The above recitals are herein fully incorporated herein as set forth above.
3. It hereby adopts the following findings:
a. Provides a flexible approach to development which is in harmony with the
purpose and intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
The proposed PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
designations on the entire site. The PUD approach allows the location of the
different land uses in ways that preserve and enhance the natural features of the
site.
b. More creative, efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities
through mixing of land uses.
The proposed PUD plan clusters the commercial and residential areas, and
provides additional open space.
c. Create a sense of place and provide more interaction among people;
The PUD plan proposes trails, and other pedestrian elements to connect the
residential and the commercial elements. The commercial area is also designed
to be pedestrian-friendly, and to provide services for the neighborhoods.
d. Increase economic vitality and expand market opportunities;
1:\04 files\04 pud's~effers pond\pud ord.doc
Page 2
The proposed commercial area provides additional retail and commercial
opportunities for the City.
e. Support long-term economic stability by strengthening the tax base, job market
and business opportunities;
The proposed commercial area provides additional retail and commercial
opportunities for the City. The new residential areas, along with the commercial
development, will strengthen the City's tax base.
f. Increase transportation options, such as walking, biking or bussing;
The plan includes a transit parking area, which will allow the City to expand its
bus service so it may serve more passengers. This area will also increase
transit opportunities for other Scott County providers. The parking area will also
provide parking for those who wish to use the trail system.
g. Provide opportunities for life cycle housing to all ages.
The PUD plan includes several housing types, from senior housing to
condominiums to townhouses and traditional single family homes. This mix will
provide housing options to many different buyers.
h. Provide more efficient and effective use of streets, utilities, and public facilities
that support high quality land use development at a lesser cost.
The development utilizes a mix of public and private streets. The public streets
provide access through the development and to adjacent properties. The private
streets are primarily used for the townhouse developments, and will be
maintained by a homeowners association.
i. Enhanced incorporation of recreational, public and open space components in
the development which may be made more useable and be more suitably
located than would otherwise be provided under conventional development
procedures. The PUD district also encourages the developer to convey property
to the public, over and above required dedications, by allowing a portion of the
density to be transferred to other parts of the site.
The PUD incorporates a large natural park, as well as an active park. Other
public elements include a fire station site, a school site and a transit site.
j. Preserves and enhances desirable site characteristics and open space, and
protection of sensitive environmental features including, but not limited to, steep
slopes, wetlands, and trees. Where applicable, the PUD should also encourage
historic preservation, re-use and redevelopment of existing buildings.
The plan includes a trail around the lake, trails through the natural park, and a
system of trails connecting to other trails in adjacent developments. The plan
also preserves the bluff areas on the site, and provides a public-owned buffer
around Jeffers Pond.
k. High quality of design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both
existing and planned.
The proposed design is compatible with the surrounding land uses.
4. Final plans for the Jeffers Pond Planned Unit Development are subject to the
following conditions
1:\04 files\04 pud's\jeffers pond\pud ord.doc
Page 3
a. Maintain a 50' wide buffer around the OHW of Jeffers Pond. With the exception
of a 10' trail, this buffer should remain undisturbed.
b. No grading or other disturbance may take place within the identified bluff. All
structures must meet the minimum bluff setback requirements.
c. The developer must provide space to accommodate an 8,000 square foot fire
station and at least 20 parking spaces. The specific location for this site will be
determined as part of the final plan phase.
d. The plan must include an active recreation park consisting of at least 4.6 acres
of usable, relatively flat upland.
e. The developer must provide funds for a future traffic signal. These funds will be
escrowed as part of the development contract.
f. The overall theme must be refined and incorporated into the final plans.
This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this 18th day of January, 2005.
ATTEST:
City Manager
Mayor
YES
NO
Haugen Haugen
Fleming Fleming
LeMair LeMair
Petersen Petersen
Zieska Zieska
Published in the Prior Lake American on the _ day of
,2005.
Drafted By:
Prior Lake Planning Department
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
]:\04 files\04 pud's\jeffers pond\pud ord.doc
Page 4
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
RESOLUTION OS-XX
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF "JEFFERS POND"
SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED HEREIN.
WHEREAS:
WHEREAS:
WHEREAS:
WHEREAS:
WHEREAS:
WHEREAS
WHEREAS:
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
The Prior Lake Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on December 13, 2004 to consider an
application from Wensmann Realty, Inc., and Paul Oberg, executor of the Jeffers Estate, for the preliminary
plat of Jeffers Pond; and
The Planning Commission further considered this matter at their meeting on January 10,2005; and
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
All persons interested in this issue were afforded the opportunity to present their views and objections
related to the preliminary plat of Jeffers Pond for the record at the Planning Commission hearing; and
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
The Prior Lake City Council considered an application for preliminary plat approval of Jeffers Pond on
January 18, 2005; and
The City Council finds the preliminary plat of Jeffers Pond to be consistent with the provisions of the Zoning
and Subdivision Ordinance, subject to the listed conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE,
MINNESOTA:
A. The above recitals are incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
B. The preliminary plat of Jeffers Pond is approved subject to the following conditions:
1) Address the following engineering issues listed in the memorandum from City Engineer Steve Albrecht dated
December 30, 2004. All grading, storm water and wetland issues must be addressed prior to any grading on the
site.
Preliminary Plat:
a. While it appears the topo and easements have been corrected the submitted sheets are at such a small scale
we can't verify that these items have been completed.
1:\04 files\04 subdivisions\04 prelim plat~effers pond\platres.d9c f . I k
WWW.cltyopnorae.com
Page 1
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
b. The roundabout has been redesigned and the dimensions are acceptable to the City. The splitter islands need
to be reconfigured to provide better direction channelization.
Utilities:
c. Units 3-7 Block 7 on Jeffers Enclave have been revised to allow for a 20-foot setback and a 40-foot easement
over the trunk sewer.
d. A profile of the sewer has been provided, however a revised grading plan is required in a legible scale in the
critical areas to verify changes. Additionally the MCES will need to approve construction over the easement.
It is the applicants responsibility to obtain written approve from the MCES.
e. A legible grading plan needs to be provided to verify the sewer pipe is no longer exposed and that sufficient
cover has been provided. Written approval from the MCES will be required prior to final grading plan
approval.
f. A legible grading plan needs to be provided to review actual design fill depths over the interceptor. Written
approval from the MCES will be required prior to final grading plan approval.
g. A legible grading plan needs to be provided to verify the required retaining wall changes have been made.
Written approval from the MCES will be required prior to final grading plan approval.
Grading:
h. It appears the buffer issue along Jeffers pond has been addressed as shown in the preliminary documents
submitted. Please provide a legible grading plan that shows the OHW and proposed grades for final review.
i. Please provide a legible grading plan to show the changes to the retaining walls in relation to the wetlands and
buffers.
Storm Water:
j. Please provide a legible grading plan to verify the changes have been made.
k. The 2-yr discharge rate was a past PLSL Watershed District requirement. If the watershed does not require it
please disregard. Please verify with the watershed.
Wetlands:
I. Supplementary wetland information has been submitted. However not all of the TEP comments have been
addressed and a revised mitigation grading plan needs to be submitted. Please submit a plan at a minimum
of 1 "=1 00' (preferably 1 "=50') for review.
m. As previously indicated to Schoell and Madson on 12/22/04 via email, the School District is planning on
impacting the wetland on their site. They have stated to the City that mitigation for this wetland was to be
included in the total site mitigation plan for Jeffers Pond. Please clarify this issue as soon as possible as
mitigation approval will remain on hold unit it is addressed.
2) Maintain a 50' wide buffer around the OHW of Jeffers Pond. With the exception of a 10' trail, this buffer should
remain undisturbed.
3) All Scott County Highway Department issues must be addressed with the final plans.
4) No grading or other disturbance may take place within the identified bluff. All structures must meet the minimum
bluff setback requirements.
5) A revised tree inventory and tree preservation plan must be submitted prior to any grading on the site.
6) The developer must provide space to accommodate an 8,000 square foot fire station and at least 20 parking
spaces. The specific location for this site will be determined as part of the final plan phase.
1:\04 files\04 subdivisions\04 prelim plat~effers pond\platres.doc
Page 2
",,~,,_,'_C'''''''''''~''~'.'<< ,u"_<"~,;~"",,_",_,,,-'.,".,, ~ "''''''''_''~'''-'^~''''''~_'"'''''~"~''~'.~_"''~'''''"''_'''''''''.__'''_'.~".~..___,__._,....~.~___..,'__~'..~.._.""..~~"........,_,~_._~__.___.___~
7) The plan must include an active recreation park consisting of at least 4.5 to 5 acres of usable, relatively flat upland.
8) The developer must provide funds for a future traffic signal. These funds will be escrowed as part of the
development contract.
9) The overall theme must be refined and incorporated into the final plans.
Passed and adopted this 18th day of January, 2005.
YES NO
Haugen Haugen
Fleming Fleming
LeMair LeMair
Petersen Petersen
Zieska Zieska
{Seal} Frank Boyles, City Manager
1:\04 files\04 subdivisions\04 prelim plat~effers pond\platres.doc
Page 3
LOCATION MAP FOR
JEFFERS POND
1 ~-__I jJ
00 --<::::;::--
-----
~\~
Efo[Q " ~f=\~
__ ] ~_ Jl J __L_ ~I-~ --~~ _____~______
c \~- ~T~\____ I i ~)
1 !I~\~ I--j [HI.' I
\ I l' I ---- n~_~_
i .. it - .. . < - i ~~- i
" ..- ".,. . . - . -"':- .-.," - .... . . . "'0 - n"':o_.
[1k<:J'~~;~: \. '----lb~il~.......-- ;
!,~ n-f\;'~~ 1/ . ~~1!RI: I !
-- ~ 111!111.I.rl D II] - T
1,_ ~lS j" '1-\ ' (./ ~ u~ - .~. x:
~~ t -=_-~~~.l" ~ \ ~ ._..... . ._' ~1' . _"'.'~..-.'. -~~~ i
~ ~ i~~ _ !__~ A~lli;
,nUL ~~ _ ~ilJ"\""~
''-Z71_ '<::-ZJJ:\ /- i - --
i' b ! _
"<JJ\lLIJ canin.~--~ "oCb .-- ~ ~ "
.---'-1~-~~: c_ '~ c~~~~~~[rWW1L~ 4i~m, l/m _
tIT ~~:~ ...- c-- " ~{l17}A = ~~~~ I ~ .~
0.., 1-1:. ,'- ~~- ~~;~lc"'.,-~ ;,~ : 6or~rt/;!?1~ ~~ c- ~~~=\ I ~ '
"111 fLU.! '.i~J.'!'~ f(/!!/;*&711ili:J:;~[di4ff~i~"tif~li' ~
~it\llf'l,~: .~~_7i.~~.-'.'I.~I~..lil "Fl~lJIW I !.le_..el.; ,~~~ rm.~
u_ -- (O\l&Jl~\f~~Trrr! It J]]ll~~t_! ._.~lL:.:(L_-:_::"It >
~;~ I Ij[ ff[~-:~~l~f i.!~!J
ifiIi~~~ -""
r~t-~f~mf,; .~/ I
,-- e_
eM
. - -- .
i
_ _ l
~-,
11JUGIg
.8
"=:J
/~
II
N
+
D rn_~@o~ls,~
Preliminary Plat /PUD r OCT 2 6 3114 11
"The Village at Jeffers Pond" L I
October 25 I 2004
Owner:
Estate of Robert Jeffers
C/O Mr. Paul Oberg
1000 Superior Boulevard
Wayzata, MN 55391
952-475-9914
Developers: Mr. Herb Wensmann
Wensmann Realty, Inc
1895 Plaza Drive #200
Eagan, MN 55122
651-406-4400
Mr. Jim Deanovic
Peter Andrea Company
9565 Amesbury Lane
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
Engineering: Schoell & Madson, Inc.
Attn. Mr. Ken Adolph
10580 Wayzata Boulevard
Minnetonka, MN 55305
952-546-7601
BACKGROUND:
Wensmann Realty, Inc in cooperation with Peter Andrea Company and the
Jeffers Estate have been worki ng on a complete development plan for the
Jeffers property located west of CSAH 21, south of CSAH 42 consisting of
approximately 320 acres, along with a portion of the property currently
owned by Shamrock Development that was approved as part of the Wilds
Ridge Addition for a total gross area of approximately 336.5 acres.
For the past several years, planning commission members and city council
members have viewed a variety of concept designs for the property. This
property along with other large tracts that remained undeveloped, were
reviewed as part of the 2020 vision planning process. Several goals of the
2020 vision plan were designated on this property. These public features
included a future elementary school, fire station, transit station and nature
park and expanded trail system.
In October 2002, the DN~ approved the reclassification of the Jeffers
Pond from Natural Environmental (NE), to Recreational Development (RD).
This approval was contingent upon a publicly owned natural vegetation
buffer, use of motorized watercraft and private docks prohibited, designing
the development to preserve the steep slopes and trees, and that storm
water retention ponds and infiltration basins be utilized to lessen the impact
of storm water on the water quality of Jeffer's Pond.
The City of Prior Lake City Council reviewed a request in November 2002 to
re-zone the northern 160 acres from C-BO Business Office Park and R-
L/ MD Low to Medium Density residential to R-HD High Density residential
uses. The draft proposal called for 950 housing units. Replacing the lost
commercial base in other parts of the city were issues discussed with the
proposed re-zoning of the development.
During 2003, the development group attempted to create a concept plan and
preliminary plat that would meet the requirements of the Shoreland Overlay
District. RFP's for a consultant to process and review the EA W application
were accepted and a preliminary EA W submission was started. This plan
however, fell short of the current guidelines and needed to be re-designed.
In January 2004, Wensmann Realty, Inc. began investigating the possibility
of re-designating the high visibility corner of CSAH 21, and CSAH 42 to a
commercial use as it was in 2002. The 160 acres in the northern portion of .
the development area was assigned to Wensmann Realty for development
rights and a re-design of the property began.
With the large land area and number of units involved, the EA W threshold
was again met which has required significant engineering and environmental
reviews to be performed. The City's consultant has been working on the
preparation of the EA W for publication since late July, 2004. City staff and
the development group have met on several occasions to discuss the
significant hurdles as they appeared.
PROPOSAL
The proposal as submitted requires a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment
as part of the approval process. Under a separate request, Wensmann
Realty, Inc. the lead developer, has requested a Comprehensive Guide Plan
Amendment for approximately 23 acres from HD (High Density Residential)
to CB (Commercial Business) located along CSAH 42 and CSAH 21 in the
North East corner of the site. In January 2004, the study by the McComb
Group LTD., determined that the city would need approximately 62 acres of
additional commercial space within the City of Prior Lake to accommodate
the needs of the community as growth continues. The study also supports a
decrease in the number of acres by 500+ acres previously designated for
multi family. This amendment request would also satisfy the concerns
expressed by the Council during the November 2002 re-zoning request.
In addition to the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment, the request
requires the use of the new Planned Unit Development District for
processing this project. Without the new PUD procedure, the development
could not go forward as proposed.
The project is a combination of lifestyles, variety of housing price points,
retail shopping opportunities, office space, restaurant choices, banking
opportunities, transportation, pedestrian friendly walkways, pristine nature
park with trails, elementary school and active recreational parks.
The goal of the Jeffers pond development is to create a community that
provides a wide range of housing options and services, while preserving and
utilizing the natural amenities of the site. The development plan is
integrated around the lake, wetlands and rolling hills. As a community vision,
the development dedicates space for public services such as an elementary
school, fire station, transit station, and a vast public trail system. The
design of this site compliments the goals and design standards of the city's
PUD ordinance.
The public benefits of Jeffers Pond are significant. They include the
following;
336-acre. contiguous parcel for master planned community
Preservation of the natural features of the site
Life-cycle housing for the community
Diversified housing mix
Expanded market opportunities
Harmonious transition between housing and commercial uses
Improvements to storm sewer system, which will assist the flow
control of the outlet channel of Prior Lake to the north
Preserves over 177 acres of open space that is ecologically beneficial
to the area plus providing parks, picnic area, playgrounds, ball
fields natural areas and nature trails for the enjoyment of all
the residents in the City of Prior Lake
Provides for centralized public transportation services near high
density and retail
Creates over 5 miles of public trails and sidewalks
Provides a high quality, environmentally sensitive community, yet
Creatively integrated uses.
PUD REQUIREMENTS
Part of the PUD process is to identify the benefits achieved by using a PUD.
Below are the benefits achieved using the PUD process.
1. Creative, efficient and effective use of land, open space and
public facilities through mixing of land uses.
The 177+/- acres of public parks, trails and nature preserve is the
focal point of the development proposal. These are components that
benefit not just the residents of the development, but the entire
community. By clustering several development pockets, large open
views of the lake and a contiguous park have been achieved. A typical
development would achieve much smaller parks or open spaces with
limited connectivity.
2. Create a sense of place and provide more interaction among
people.
The entire development focuses on access, especially pedestrian
friendly access. The commercial area's entire focus is on accessibility
to shopping via plaza walks ways and centralized parking ramps. The
commercial area is connected directly to the trail system and sidewalk
system and adjacent to the transit location. Mixed-use building
concepts have been incorporated in the proposal, which allows people
to live, work and shop all within walking distance.
3. Increase economic vitality and expand market opportunities.
The location of this development, at the intersection of Co Rd 42 and
Co Rd 21 wi II shortly become a gateway into Prior Lake. This high
traffic, high visibility corner has the ability to provide a new
commercial center that could not be duplicated in are-development
setting. This request supports the findings of the McCombs study
and the concerns expressed by council members in 2002 by replacing
30 + acres of commercial property.
4. Support long-term economic stability by strengthening the tax
base, job market and business opportunities.
Access and visibility are key components to the success of any
commercial development. Once completed, the development wi II
achieve the threshold for traffic signalization on Co Rd 21, which will
improve the traffic flow in and out of the northern half of the
development. Increasing a diverse retail outlet will provide numerous
opportunities for a variety of business. Traditional office space,
banking, retail, food services, etc. will help increase the local job
market within the community, and attract services that may have
otherwise located in the surrounding communities.
5. Increase transportation options, such as walking, biking or busing.
The transit station would allow for commuter traffic to remain of the
roads. Prior Lake residents could take a short walk, or bike ride from
their homes to the transit location. Not only has this development
provided a system for the use of trails and sidewalks, it encourages it.
6. Provide Opportunities for life cycle housing to all ages.
It was the desire of the late Mr. Robert Jeffers that his property be
used as a living and learning tool. It was of significant importance to
him that housing for seniors was provided. The variety of housing
types includes this senior component so important to Mr. Jeffers in
more than one plan type. Depending on price, style and needs there
three different housing types that would meet the needs of a senior.
In addition, housing for the first-time homebuyer is also provided.
7. More efficient and effective use of streets, utilities, and public
facilities to support high quality land use development at a lesser
cost.
Having a master plan for the site allows for the efficient coordination
a new street and utility system. The project also utilizes private
streets which minimizes the paved surfaces, creating a reduction to
the impervious surfaces where possible. By implementing private
streets, the city receives the additional benefits of reduced future
maintenance costs, as the local homeowners association maintains the
paved surface, and contracts for private street plowing.
The master plan also incorporates future public needs and interests
such as an elementary school site, fire station, transit station and
public park and trail system. As a PUD, the city will have the location
of these public facilities secured today, and incorporated within the
proposed development from the start, ensuring future property
owners know exactly what amenities will be provided within their
development.
8. Enhanced incorporation of recreational, public and open space
components in the development which may be made more useable
and be more suitably located than would otherwise by provided
under conventional development procedures. The PUD district al
encourages the developer to convey property to the public, over
and above required dedication, by allowing a portion of the density
to be transferred to other parts of the site.
This provision is the heart and vision of Jeffers Pond. The
development was specifically designed to remain away from the
sensitive natural resources, focusing the areas of development to the
open agricultural areas. This effective land use management practice,
along with the flexibility the PUD process provided, has allowed the
project to set aside land and dedicate land, for public uses that will
serve the entire community. Density calculations have incorporate the
entire property, yet focused development in the agricultural areas.
The same was true of impervious surface calculations. Without this
approach this project would not proceed. Over 177 acres will
eventually be conveyed to the City of Prior Lake for public purposes.
9. Preserves and enhances desirable site characteristics and open
space, and protection of sensitive environmental features including,
but no limited to, steep slopes, wetlands and trees.
Development team designing Jeffers Landing have always been
sensitive to the beautiful, natural site characteristics, along with the
wishes of the late Robert Jeffers to use the property as a teaching
tool for young and old alike. Conservation easements are proposed
across a significant portion of the property to ensure that the natural
elements are forever protected.
Building and Site Design PUD Requirements
The PUD ordinance call for building and site designs that enhances the
aesthetics of the site and that are harmonious with the surrounding
land uses.
1. The design shall consider the whole of the project and shall
create a unified environment within the boundaries of the project
by insuring architectural compatibility of all structures, efficient
vehicular and pedestrian circulation, aesthetically pleasing
landscape and site features, and efficient use and design of
utilities.
With a 336-acre parcel consisting of a lake, wetlands, significant
trees stands, and scenic bluffs, Jeffers Landing blends the existing
environment with a community of homes and services for people in all
stages of their lives. The varied types and design of homes not only
provides a unique place to live, but also allows the ability to protect
and preserve the natural amenities of the site. The development
carefully integrates senior housing, townhomes, condominiums, and
single family homes. To provide for the daily needs of the residents,
a 28 acre commercial area is located on the north side of the
development providing commercial shops, professional services and
restaurants. In addition, Jeffers Pond dedicated public land tobe
used for a transit stati'on, fire station, school, interpretive, public
parks and trails. Each component of the project was designed to
create a unique niche within the site but also to transition
harmoniously to the surrounding area. Architectural design,
landscape, ponds and natural buffers will be utilized to transition the
different components. As a PUD, the site is designed with a
comprehensive road and utility system that provides a safe and
efficient use of land and services for the entire community.
2. The design of a PUD shall optimize compatibility between the
project and surrounding land uses, both exiting and proposed and
shall minimize the potential adverse impacts of the PUD on
surrounding land uses and the potential adverse effects of the
surrounding land uses on the PUD.
Jeffers Landing incorporates perimeter uses that are consistent with
The adjacent land uses. As part of the overall project application, a
Comprehensive guide plan amendment request to re-designate the
northern 28 acres of the development back to a commercial use would
be consistent with the designation of the surrounding properties,
given the location to the intersection of Co Rd 42 and Hwy 21. The
higher density units and commercial areas were placed to allow easy
access to the county roads to avoid congestion. The less intense
residential uses were designed for the interior of the development
where sensitivity to the natural amenities of the site were warranted.
Provisions were also made for future access and efficient traffic
flow from the undeveloped property to the West. Streets have been
designed to handle this future traffic, in addition to the traffic
generated by the development.
3. If a project for which PUD treatment has been requested involves
construction over a period of time in more than two phases, the
applicant shall demonstrate that each phase is capable of
addressing and meeting each of the criteria independent of the
other phases.
The project is anticipated to be developed in four phases or less. A
phasing plan has been included with this application. Each phase con
be developed independently without impact to existing conditions or
surrounding areas. Each undeveloped phase will be contiguous to
public facilities and infrastructure. The dedication of the public lands
and the development of the varied housing types will meet the criteria
approved for this project.
4. Approval of a PUD may permit the placement of more than one
building on a lot.
The single-family portion, detached townhomes, twin homes, and
townhomes will have individual lots and possibly common areas for use
of all the residents within their respective association. The
apartments and the retail center may request multiple buildings on
each lot allow for efficient use of shared assets, which will reduce the
creation of duplicate facilities. Separate site plan approval for the
Apartment site and commercial facilities will be required to meet the
individual standards. These will be submitted as part of the building
permit approval process.
5. A PUD in a Residential Use District shall conform to the
requirements of that Use District unless modified by the following
or other provision of the ordinance.
.~,.,~".<-..+-~-~_......"~~,,,.....,.--.-_..__~._~~.,....__ _.,..~......,'~ ~~. ..~.."'_,~~"...'__,....___.,._,""'_,,__..._~w.-.,,__~_." _~_~,____",_",,~,'_~_' ~ . ,,'-"-, ""'_''''_'''_'___~'"'.'-'_''''__~~--'__'_'_~~_'__
I
Jeffers Landing is a site that has several development restrictions
and requires flexibility of the city ordinances to provide the benefits
as previously presented. The project was developed in accordance to
the intent of the PUD ordinance with only the following modifications
to the city's codes requested.
A. The site has two cul-de-sacs (Jeffers Enclave and
Jeffers Shore Court) that exceed the maximum length of
500 feet.
I. City staff and the development team have reviewed a
variety of options to create connections and eliminate
the modification. It was determined that any through
connection would cause either a greater safety risk, or
impact the environment unnecessarily.
B. Homes along the Western edge of the site have a 25
foot rear setback and 10-foot side setback from the
adjacent residential zoning district.
I. The only building that may be affected by this
requirements is the Apartment Building. Depending on
final building plans, the site plan for this area many need
some minor modifications at the site plan, permit stage.
C. No building within the project shall be nearer to
another building than t the sum of the building heights of
the two buildings, except for parking ramps which may be
directly connected to another building.
I. Modification of this requirement uses the new mixed
use PUD District. As a goal of the new District,
"providing a flexible approach to development which
allows modification to the strict application of
regulations within the various use districts that are in
harmony with the purpose and intent of the City's
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance" and "providing
---------------"-"-'-"---'-----'-.-----. -,,--"+-_._. ---...,----.- .t--.----.---.,-..-..---~.----...~-..._-.."---,-"'-"..-".",---------- .---. .........-
greater flexibility in the development of a parcel by
tailoring the development to the site and neighborhood".
These two key elements wi II allow this development to
move forward as designed. Creating the "plaza" "urban"
feel of the commercial area requires flexibility regarding
setbacks and building heights similar to the downtown,
zoning district. Rather than spot zoning, the PUD
approach allows flexibility in applying the standards.
E. Encroachment into the bluff setback.
Two single family lots have a minor impact to the ridge for
Grading only. The house pads do not encroach the bluff
zone, just the 20' setback from the bluff ridge line.
The twin homes building pads remain outside the bluff
setback, however minor grading will be required within the
bluff setback, but not the bluff ridge itself.
The encroachment is created by the irregular boundary of
the bluff line. To minimize grading, Wensmann Realty will
custom grade each lot, minimizing the impact that mass
grading of the area would create. In addition to custom
grading only the area needed to build the homes, private
streets have been designed to further minimize the
impact. The private streets are built to City standards.
Setbacks would be from the street rather than the ROW
as would be the case in a public street. This saves almost
22' of impact area that would have otherwise been an
impact with a public street.
Attached are the design standards applied to this development.
_<<--.i-_,____""'.~~,+~_"',___~._ "__~_,~__"'~"...,........_._,.,.'..~..............."'h+.'-""^',.........,-~...,'..-.......,-"".."""""l."'~.,..,.""~,.,;_.,.~.~'''"--' ..c._",,." . .~
"'C
a>
(/) (/)
o (V
Co ._
o ~
L.. ctl
CL>
:c
L..
:::::l
-S.
(/) (D(D(D(D
.~ ~~~~
>ctl ~ t.n t.n 0 0
O('t')N~~
"'C
a>
(/) (/)
o Q)
0.._
o ~
L.. ctl
CL>
L..
a>
C
a>
U
'ffi
...
Q.)
0::
-
roO)
'e . E "'C ....:
a> Ca>'
~ ~ .~ g jl
o~ a>oo
UUO::L6t.n
"'C
CD
(/) (/) (/)
oa>a>
0..._ ._
o L.. L..
L.. ctl ctl
0...>>
~
E
2~
a5~"'C"":
E :::::l .~ en 15
t~:::::loa>
ctloo:::t C10_
0.., CDOO
<x:: 0:: 0:: 05 co
"'C
a>
(/) (/) (/)
o Q.) a>
0..._ ._
o L.. L..
L.. ctl ctl
CL>>
15
$---
~ LO CD (]) (])
.- I'- ~ ~ ~
>ro ~ ~ t.n t.n t.n
Ooo:::tNNN
(Dw1515
t.n$~~~
~t.nt.nOt.n
O('t')N~~
:c
L..
:::::l
-S.
15
~
"'t.n
CD~
~':::I_-
t.n a> a> a>
l'-~~~
~~OOO
Ooo:::t('t')NN
:c
~
:::::l
-S.
15
~
t.n
~
_':::I__
CD a> a> a>
t.n~~~~
~t.nOLOt.n
O('t')('t')~N
D
L..
:::::l
-S.
15w15w
~~.2.2
~t.nLOOO
O('t')N~~
:c
~
:::::l
-S.
0)
C Q)
'00 a>
:::::lQj ;;;
~(;)"'C"": ~
:::::lCDen_ _':::1__
.~ ~ .~ g j2 t.n j2 j2 ~ ~
a> 0::' o::CD ~ 0 ~ t.n 0 LO t.n
(f) C()COO('t')('t')~N
o
~
0::-
L..-E,'::&:'.::&:.'::&:'
o .- C)ctl C) C)
o Q.) ctl ctl
.ci:i:IB.oB
CD i5 "'C 0) a> W a>
.t::! .- C C (f) (f) (f)
(f):5::::::l=6ca>L..
-_o=o"'Cctl
o 0 L.. :::::l L.. ._ a>
...J...JCDCOLL(f)O::
D
~
::l
~
(/) 15
a>L.. ~
E a>
- "'C . LO
o (/) '" '+-; ~
I:::::l;::(/) _:;::,_......
(3 .- 0 a> a> a> a> a>
~oo:::t 5-o~l!).2~~~
o 0::1 o::a> ~ 0 ~ t.n 0 l!) t.n
I- C()COO('t')('t')~N
"'C
a>
~~a> w15~a>
o..'C ~ l!) ~ ~ - ~
ectlt.n~t.nl!)~LO
CL>t.nO('t')Nl'-N
.;..:
c:
Q)
E
0..
o
Q)
>
Q)
"'0
"'0
CD
en
o
0.
o
t.-
o.
Q)
..c:
......
'+-
o
c:
0)
"00
Q)
"'0
Q)
..c:
......
t.-
J2
"'0
Q)
en
::J
Q)
t.-
Q)
~
en
"'0
t.-
co
"'0
c:
co
......
en
0)
c:
.~
o
J2
Q)
..c:
I-
~
E
ctl
LL
a>
C>
.E
(f)0)
o .E "'C ....:
--I5~en- __............
= N ':; 0 Q) Q) CD a> CD
ctl ('t') CI 0 .2 .2 .2 .2 ~
E I CDO_O~t.nt.nOt.n
(f)O::O::COCOO('t')N~N
"'C
CD
(/)(/)... ...---
o CD CD a> CD a> a>
o..'C .2 l!) .2 .2 .2 .2
ectlo~t.nt.nOLO
CL>o)O('t')N~N
~
'E
ctl
LL
a>
C>
C
Ci5 0) .
o .E "'C ~
--I5~0- ww1515
~ N '5 0 ~ Q) a> (]) CD
L..~ 0"0_ ----
ctl 0::' o::a> N co C"':! t.n l!) 0 t.n
...J ~C()O('t')N~N
, .c
~:Q
Ci5:5:
00
...J...J
o
~
0::-
L..-E,'::&:'.::&:.'::&:'
o .- C) C) C)
OCD~ctlctl
i:i:I-.oB
a>-
"'C g> (f) a> ~
C '_ _ (f)
:::::l"'Cca>~
o = 0 "'C ctl
t5cEu:Ci5~
F. Impervious Surface requirements.
By using the PUD process and the flexibility allowed under the
PUD, Additional public uses are possible within the development,
By transferring underutilized impervious surface areas within and
between tiers, the private development uses meet the
requirements of the intent of the shore-land overlay district.
This flexibility under the PUD process has provided the tool
needed in order to achieve a quality, mixed use development.
Closing:
In closing, we are asking for your consideration and support of this plan.
Jeffers Pond development has been in the planning stages for almost six
years. Each hurdle we have faced has been a challenge to resolve.
Cooperation, compromise and a spirit of working together with all of the
various private and governmental services and the development team
involved throughout this process has been instrumental in creating a plan
that achieves the objectives of all involved. Thank you for your time,
suggestions and comments over the past six years and currently I as you
review the preliminary plat PUD request.
00001
00000 i
rrl f1l r'1 fT1 rrl
Z Z Z Z z
~~~aa I
fT1 rr1 f'T1 ~ ~
Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul
""0 ""0 lJ ""0 iJ
:J: ~ :r. :::I: :r:
)>)>)>)>)>
VlVl(J)VlVl
IT! IT! IT! IT! IT!
o
\-' \J--"'" :; 25
j at ~
)>
i n l1
! ~(;~~~
i C ~ (J)
i ~ ~ 2 ~ ~
\..,. c~ ~~~
\ ~ t -- I
n ~
j ~
i 0
/
i ~
i, r......-
/:---.1
" - ~
~ 8 ~
~ )> )>
o 0
(]I
a
Ul
~
en
a
i1
I
~
~
Ul
'"
~
~
\T(: : : : : ~
~~ ~ ~ ~ I
I I I I I
~~~~~
)>
~
)>
~
~
~
(]I en N
~ ~ ~ ~ :
)> )>
i'i ~ 0 0 i'i
i1 ~
f ~
~
N
en
VI
5
i1
I
~
;;
i1
~
~ ;:!
:+"
t>-
Jay R. HIU
Oat. ""'/.,, Ir"I& Req. N~
,-~
i,WENSM;>..NN)
'---1:iiiD----/
1... ~ arr.e. 8..... 200
~ .. 5."2
PETER ANDREA COMPANY \ I
_. _1MIrY LAne
_ Pr..... .... 5eM7
PAUL OBERG. ATTORNEY Project ~~~ ~":~1I41
1000 ~_ ....... ...t. 210 I
..pete, ... ....1 ij S_. "''''\ ~
~ ....-._-. ~
SMI Project Number: 62990-002
SChO~~D.~i.!!J.C.
,.=.=-_..-
1 D:58O WiI)'ZDl.lI iJDylftanl
1If1llMGpoI" hInnMo\o ~I~~
I pitan.: (952) 5+1-7601
F:\E.NG\62990\O02\DWG\1100\PREllMINARl' PLAN SET\PH1 _?RE .PHAZING.d\I.g, 1012212004 09:10'42 AM, Qaqt3, 12.1fj(l38
"
I !
:~
~~
I hereby certify that this plan ...0' prepareCl by
me or unCI., my airect supervi"on crnd thai i
om 0 Lrcensed ProleUtCl!'lot E"qlnelr uno.' the
Iowa of U'. Slote of "'..,"uoto
I ~::~"O"'
~~iJ;!i; , . \
/rf:2" . . /;j:~1.~!
'. I' .. '~h__'_"--o/ .....-.. '. "
\ \ "'c,~._,..",......,/ ...1
\.. \. : \
. . ~.~-r ...r~'
k,--J ! !
1:+"
t>o
Joy K. Hill
Dote' ,., ,...,., In.!. Req. No-2A..S.5.2.-
Schoell & Madson, Inc. I 1"0"'
e.......rllll.. aur..,..... . 1I'...."tft9 I I
.c ... T..............m...., ....,...
.. ~f~~:~fi~:.P~~~~~~ ,~,~! I
;:l
9485 Am..bury. L.n.
Ed... Prairie, Mn 515347
I I P'o,ecI '<amelLacal,an
Jetters Pond
PAUL OBERG, ATTORNEY. ..... ..... _.... _
I 1000 Sup.rlor Blvd., Suit. 210 II. s heel~e~~.-'-- I~;;.t\o..".
Wayzata, IiIn 58381 ,Shor.land T"" lahlblt . EX1
) '__on__
-- - S~I PrOlect Number- 62990-00J
....----." ,:,~
\ // E !'J S ,\1 A ;',j I'Ji
~
1895 PI.za D,lve. sun. 200
e.gan, "It 515112
PETER ANDREA COMP ANY
L-
N
.~~-
\~':~.~-->~~~~~~:;:'[~ .
N89'4g"2"w
660.27
Joy R. H,ll
Dato' .., '"'Iii /rid.
Schoell & Madson, Inc.
.."........M.. aUI.""". . ....""In.
.- ... T.........."...,..."'."... ..,'1"...
".'fI.'c:hoeltmodIO..c:O.....
~ ~ ~::~~;::.~~;:~~~OQ:~5)05- 1 515
r:-\, ~
\\1/ Ei'! S;v1 Ai'J ~i
1000 Sup.rlor Blvd., sun. 210
W.y...ta, Mn 55381
...S A"'..DUI'Y Lana
I!dan P".I,le, IiIn 553.7
1895 Pl.... Drive, Suit. 200
eagan. Mn 55112
[]]
no
0'"
zz
00
3~
OVl
z
Vl~
~~
zz
(;)
'"
a
Vl
z
'!: ~
~
0
i
0
OJ
>
~
>
'"
~
1l
J:
0
!
'* 0
i n 0
0
~ z !
~ ~
() OJ
0 0
z c
0 z '"
c 0 V>
'" '"
ii i!l!lill H ~
~~
8~ i2.
~~ H
t B
i~ ;;~~g(~~ ~ [[
~S HH;iH ~i
~ i!~:i~ ~i.
~ ! iillll i [
;;
I
;;.
~
~!I~i~J
ijiilil J
;:l
.+"
I Mereby .;ert./y that this plan was prepared l.Jy
m. or unoer my ']1'11(;( suoef'l'Slon QMQ 'hot I
om 0 Licen'!" Prot...,onol E"'q>ne.r uneJer thll
10'ItS <:If thll Stotll of ~Innesolo
Jay I-( HI"
Dote ' 'l /"il/nll ~Ilq No~
I Schoell & Madson. Inc. I
II......'..... a..'........ . ....ftfll.flI.
-'tit. -- a.. T........III1...'rofll.,.flIt.t ..,......
I ".","",,'mOd'C" ,om I
- ! O~80 NOVloto ~t>\JIe..ord
, " '04'","', ,=" 01,,",', o.lln"ne~OI?):>JD5~ I, ~25",
.. ... .. :l~O"":' 95i~ ;<46- 7.,0 I .. .....'
~
!
h
4-'
-/'/'
l.:-.
r:=---
'i
I
i
~
"0
S;'"
~~
~V1
1"'1"
-<~
I!!i'; ~~.... Vl ~i ~
~ ~~ g
i~
~i ~;~ E ~,ll
:. :J ~ ~~
~ ~ ~
:.,~ !
i ~
I~
In
,:.
!~
it/)
E
I~
1=
r:.
,;=
(~'~,
'\/VEi'-1 Sivl ,"',1'11'1)
'~
11185 PI... O,lve. Suite 200
e.gan. Mn 55112
'-4
1-<
I~
'n
1~-4
=~
!iil!
1:.0
'ne
1:=
1m
I~
Ii"
PETER ANDREA COMPANY
8".5 Am..ltury L.';.
Hd." P".'rle, Mn 58347
PAUL OBERG, ATTORNEY
1000 Sup.rtor Blvd., sun. 210
Wa,zata, Un 55381
~~ .
~~l I'~
I ill
i~i
i ' :.,~ !=~
s .. u liil~
. ... I:':'
I ~J
0-<
I~
. ~ I:'
: ~I~ : 1;=
;:3
I'I!:+'"
L
8
t>-
1'''.'
"F~ .r~"!~C i iria;ii;iW;;i
r!; ., f~"
a ii I. i;U~ : ~~I~IU;~l~ISlh
~~"il'lii ~ · 'I. .l i '81
I :~ ~ I!:~i ~ ~ ;1,. ..j"all. i
;!.~ ~; ; ~i~~ !!i:illj:~i
! ! ias~b~~
~::i~~~~ ~ ~ii~ U IUi~~1
i . !i i~ I!! iil!SI
n ....'Mi-M
a ~~c'J~'
:i ~ inil~i~ rll, 111 I 'Ii!!
: ~ Ilia )"' I I 'u
Udil~! III 1"1 .
.. a "'" l~ . li,a,
~ - i~' t j iir
n ~ if": JII~ I = ii!"iJ
.~~e U. ~! i ;!~ Ii
~ .'1 ~. :u I q ~.! I
~s 0 ~ !H II t!!a :
.; !
g ~qPd
I .
aiil~, aiil~,- a ~~
~Ic ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
n !OI:Qr.~
! ." . '8
~c.~ !-" i..o~ ; ~~~:~;;
a"'~ ~"'i: ~~-
II!;!; II!;!; II!;!;
-::
""'I ~~~ II
t;2:i 0; :~ ~
.. ~N
~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
.z ~ i ~~. z i z
~e~DDl
;:l ~g
-+ ~~
~;
. .. o!'
~~~~;
/;/;/;!;/;
ij~
~H
~ ~;!
~U21~~
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
:;: ~~h~~
o '=l CI
ji
~~
~.
'" ~I~ ~
~ ~ aa
~ ~ at
I>
, hereDV certify thot !.h.s pion ",os pI.pored Oy
me or '..onder '"V 1irect SUMl'"v'Slon and t"ot I
0'" 0 Licensed ~'ol.s"O"(I1 (nq'f'le., unoer the
low'l .,t the Stote 01 I"Imn..olo
Joy -(. Hrll
Dot.. "'1'1/'1':/.'"'1.4 ~eq, N~
Schoell & Madson, Inc.
.........,..... ..",.,1". . '"n"'''''
.~ =:::::.:~~.::,~:'::;......, ..'v....
- ~ ::::;p~r;:~~~;;:D~~~:~5JC5- I ~25
~~
H
z!
9 ~
.tl,Q:!1OC~i>>:;;
~. I . I I" n
~;;;:S~;l~Is:~
~ a~
;; .5"""
"\j
III 0
I W
,,~~
;g ~nq
o !Ui
U~
~~ ~i~
~;;l ~~;;l
2i ~~i
il'" ill~
:::~ p~
O~ P
~~ ~~
.(
!I
. -oOj
-::
Ii
~
o~
&~~~:
nn~
~z.!~.z
~ ~
~ ~
Ii: '"1i1
~ ~~
~ ~~
~ ~~
~ !~
~
~o "0
~~~~
~cn~UI
~ ~~
!il~~
~ ~
~
rn
RIIY'SIOrl'S
Dot.
.r---.,
\ "
\ i
:( ~: /r-;
.....-:--""W'--- '0
(V\) E~J SiJi;:", ;\1 ~,)
" /
I' PETER ANDREA COMPANY I
II .1 94811 Am..bu.y Lene I
, Bet." Pralr.e. IIn 55347 I
i I ,
~, "'o/'c' JO;;f~~c~"pondl 'I'
U ~I... L..... ............ ,
I Si,.., "'~~'..Imln..y T... I !~
' P'....n".. PI.n . 0...." ,~
SMI ~ro,.ct Numb.r:~ir2'990=00J
PAUL OBERG, ATTORNEY
1000 Superior Blvd.. Suite 210
Weyzel.. Un 55381
1885 Plaza Drive. Sldl. 200
Eagan. Un 55112
C~~~N)
Jeffers Pond theme elements are designed to build a cohesive identity for the site as a whole, and to
enhance the unique natural and cultural history of the J dfers Pond site. Architectural styles and
landscape features shall reflect the dual nature of the site ~ each having unique styles and character/
istics to tie them together.
Residential Features
Architectural style, building materials and color palettes shall be limited to the colors provided
as included in the Norman Rockvvell series of vinyl siding. Siding will be a variety of vinyl shake, vinyl
lap, Hardie shake, Hardie lap, cedar shake, cedar lap, and Hardie stucco. Stacked limestone, stacked
flagstone will be the dominant accent materials. The Architectural style shall be influenced by rural
vernacular architecture. Contrasting colored vvide fascia boards and trim shall frame rooflines and large
rectilinear openings for vvindo\vs and doors. The use of squared inset \vindows on street facing garage
doors \vill be encouraged. Angled trapezoid vvindo\vs along eave~ lines shall be avoided. Porches, front
and back, screened and open are encouraged to promote experiencing the outdoors. Painted \vood
accents can enhance vvindo\v openings and doors.
Monument Signs
Nlonument Signs shall incorporate dry limestone walls, either
freestanding or to terrace plantings. Signage \vill be mounted to
the face of the wall
\vith the lettering
highlighted by land~
scape up~lighting or
landscaping back/
lighting. Entry monu~
ments shall be ac~
cented \vith trees,
shrubs and perennial
plantings as suits each
individuallocltion.
T
Landscape Features
Street lighting and accent lighting shall encourage the use of low-tech, simple detailing to provide a
strong visual accent both during the day and night. Individual mailboxes will complement the street
lighting style to promote neighborhood continuity. Signage on streets and trails shall be unique, provid-
ing another key element in identifying and unifying the site.
Landscape Plantings
Alleys of trees create a formal entry, while grids of ornamental trees
can create an orchard look. Mass plantings of grasses and classic prai-
rie flowers to create small meadows filled with butterflies reminiscent
of farm pastures. Asters, purple and yellow coneflowers, daisies, yar-
row and blazing star will provide swaths of color to attract attention to
landscape features at entries and trailheads.
Site Access via Trails and Bridges
Access will be unobtrusive and designed to accent natural features without detracting from the views
and with minimal disturbance to natural topography and existing vegetation. Trails may be surfaced
with compacted stone, or wood fiber in less heavily traveled paths. Near water bodies, timber board-
walks will cause the least impact on water quality and wildlife. Trailhead plantings should accent access
points with plantings dependant on the trail location. Plants without documented invasive tendencies
are particularly important to protect the sensitive quality of the existing ecosystems or woods and water
wherever located on the site.
C~~~
The details. pictures. and plans represented in this document are subject to change. Final details and products will be submitted upon/lnal plat.
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 2004
pointed out the site and the future road with impacts to the wetland.
the wetland mitigation plans.
Stamson as d ifhe knew the traffic count. Ellison said he does not h e the current
number. The 1 tended number will be employees and some golf cou e access. It should
not be a busy ca . 0 road. Eighty percent of casino traffic is off C nty Roads 83/82.
There still should a way around any construction on County R ad 83.
The public hearing clo ed at 7:35 p.m.
Comments from the Co
Billington:
· The request is reasonao and meets the crite a.
· I am sure engineering ha reviewed this. W th their guidance I will support the
request.
Lemke:
. Once again the SMSC has sho
class. Believe this will be the s
. It will be a beautiful bridge an
ot of class. All of their facilities are first
e.
preserve the wetlands.
Ringstad:
. Agreed - will support.
Stamson:
.~
· Agreed - The Co munity has done a great' b designing this. They went above
and beyond the equirements.
. Support.
LLINGTON, SECOND BY RINGST , APPROVING
RESOLUTI 04-XXPC TO ALLOW GRADING AND\ XCA V ATION OF MORE
THAN 40 CUBIC YARDS.
ken indicated ayes by all with Commissioner Perez abs
lED.
MOTION
?K
D. #04-139 and 04-140 Wensmann Realty has applied for a Preliminary Plat
and PUD for the development of 336 acres for a mixed unit development known as
Jeffers Pond. The proposal includes 693 residential units, 23 acres of commercial, a
12 acre elementary school site, a fire station site, an interpretive center, and parks.
The Property is located at the southwest quadrant of the intersection of CSAH 21
and CSAH 42.
Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated December 13,2004,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MNI21304.doc 8
'~"""""~~_.,..,__~_""",,,~.,o_..,.,....,-.,w,.~,_.....,,_,.."_.,.,.-'-'--__....~.~,._...._.....,......_"""""~__.""",..~"."'_.."""..'"c,,'_"'.,_......~.__"_"",""","''-''-~''M'''''_...''.~"_,~.""",,,,,,
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 1004
Wensmann Realty and Paul Oberg, executor for the Jeffers Estate, have applied for
approval of a development to be known as Jeffers Pond on the property located at the
southwest quadrant of the intersection of CSAH 42 and CSAH 21. The application
includes the following requests:
· Approve a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan;
· Approve a Preliminary Plat.
The proposal calls for a mixed-use development consisting of retail space and offices,
single family homes, residential condominiums, townhomes, senior apartments, an
elementary school site, a fire station site, transit station site, and parks and trail on a total
of 336 acres. 37% of the site is wetland. This is the first PUD proposal submitted under
the new Mixed Use PUD standards, adopted by the City Council in October, 2004.
Kansier gave an overview of the entire project.
A brief overview - The preliminary plat consists of lots for 117 single family homes, 211
townhome units, 47 rental townhome units, and 204 senior co-op apartment units. The
plan also includes a 24-acre mixed use site, consisting of retail, office and other
commercial uses, and 114 residential units. Density of the development is based on the
net area of the site, which is 194.02 acres. There are a total of693 units proposed, for an
overall density of3.57 units per acre. This is consistent with the density in the R-l
district.
There are several issues pertaining to this proposal. Some of these issues will affect its
overall design. Others are issues that must be addressed prior to preliminary plat
approval. These include the following:
. Engineering Issues:
1. Topography
2. Utilities - interceptor pipe
3. Grading
4. Storm Water
5 . Wetlands
· Buffer around Jeffers Pond
. County Road Issues
· Bluffs
· Tree Inventory/Tree Preservation
. Fire Station Site
. Parks
· Market Study
. EAW
. Traffic Impact Report
. Overall Development Theme
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN121304.doc 9
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 2004
Based on the issued listed above, the proposed plan cannot proceed as is. The Planning
staff recommended the public hearing be continued (to January 10,2005) until several of
the issues have been addressed.
Lemke questioned the round-about not meeting Federal Highway Standards. Kansier
said the idea is to provide a nice traffic flow out of the commercial areas. The
dimensions will not meet the standards. A school bus or fire truck cannot make it around
it. If it is provided it has to work.
Comments from the Public:
Terry Wensmann, ofWensmann Homes, stated they have been planning this project for
over a year and are happy with the plan. It will preserve the natural amenities on site
with a nice housing mix. Many government agencies are involved. They are working on
staff's comments and concerns. None of the issues will be a problem. They are just
going to tweak the process. They are not concerned with tabling the hearing to January
10.
Billington noted he really liked the proj ect and wondered if the applicant had any
concerns with engineering's comments. Wensmann responded they met with staff last
week and did not see any significant changes.
Billington asked about the timeline. Wensmann said they would like to start grading this
spring. They feel they can meet the dates and actually start building homes after the
streets are in - maybe July - depending on the weather. The school has some urgency.
Build out may be 3 or 4 years.
Lemke questioned if they were okay with the Watershed District. Wensmann responded
most issues have been addressed with the Watershed and DNR. They do not foresee any
problems.
Lemke would like to see the roundabout. Terry Wensmann said they are looking at
meeting the standards. Hopefully they can preserve it.
Deb Olson, 14640 Bridle Ridge Trail, said her family has enjoyed the Jeffers Pond area
for 10 years. Olson asked the Commissioners if there has been any consideration for the
amount of noise in that area. It is already noisy with County Road 21. She stated she has
grown accustom to a certain standard of living in the country. Now it sounds like she'll
be living in the "freeway". Kansier responded "noise" is addressed in the EA W. The
suggestion is the noise would not be any more than any other development on the site.
County Road 21 is a major road which will continue to Highway 169. One of the
requirements with this development is to have some sort of buffer and landscape along
the road. Olson said she is still concerned with the noise for the residents who live along
County Road 21. She asked the Commissioners to consider the lifestyle of the residents
who live in Carriage Hills and Raspberry Ridge.
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN121304.doc 10
Planning Commission Meeting
December 13, 2004
Rhianna Saxon, 14584 Bridle Ridge said no one cares what she says because she is not
rich or a developer. Saxon said she moved from an overdeveloped area that changed
everyone's lifestyle so she moved because it was miserable. She moved to Prior Lake
because it is a magical place and still like the country. The Jeffers Pond area is like a
dream. Why can't these beautiful areas be protected? Where will the wildlife go? She
does not want to look across the street to see industry, cars, etc. Saxon felt her house will
be worth nothing. This development will change Prior Lake and she'll move.
Deb Olson asked staff for the traffic count on County Road 21. Kansier said she does not
have the exact count, probably around 24,000.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke questioned the DNR's concern with the maple basswood forest. It looks like it is
being preserved. Kansier responded they were talking about the trees on the ridge and
park. Everyone is making every effort to preserve the ridge and trees. It is part of the
natural park area.
Lemke asked if the developer had any concerns with the fire station. Kansier said the
concern is size and configuration. Without a specific layout it is hard to tell. The
developer will note as part of the plan that it will meet staff s concerns.
Lemke questioned the noise issue with the breakout of the development. Half the traffic
will come off County Road 42 and part off County Road 21. Kansier explained the
traffic flow.
Ringstad said he is going to be specifically looking at the bluff impact zone. He would
like to see the 50 foot buffer preserved.
Kelly Murray said there was a problem reading the lines on the plans to distinguish the
setbacks from the wetlands. A new plan was redesigned and the actual topo has
improved areas where it looks like there is a bluff impact.
Kansier pointed out there were 300 notices sent and tried to solicit public input. It has
been in the newspaper and the developer had a neighborhood meeting.
Billington asked if the EA W was available for review. Kansier said it was available on
the City's web site and a copy at the office.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY BILLINGTON TO CONTINUE THE HEARING
TO JANUARY 10,2005.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\MN121304.doc 11