HomeMy WebLinkAbout9D - Pike Lake Ponds
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MAY 15, 2006
9D
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING DIRECTOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE REZONING 28.04 ACRES
FROM R-S TO R-1 AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION
APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS PIKE LAKE
PONDS
Introduction
Manley Land Development has applied for approval of a development to be
known as Pike Lake Ponds on property located Y:z mile north of CSAH 42,
directly north of the Vierling property, and east of Pike Lake Trail. The
application includes the following requests:
· A rezoning of approximately 28.04 acres from the R-S (Rural Residential)
District to the R-1 (Low Density Residential) District;
. A Preliminary Plat consisting of 28.04 acres to be subdivided into 44 lots
for single family development.
The City Council considered this item at the March 20, 2006, City Council
meeting. Although the Council was generally in favor of the layout and the
density of this preliminary plat, the Council tabled action on this item for the
following reasons:
1. Allow for the completion of the City of Shakopee Transportation Study
for the CSAH 16 corridor;
2. Clarify the domestic water supply situation;
3. Clarity or indemnification on Conditions #2, #3, #5, #5.1, and #12 of the
preliminary plat proposal.
Historv
A copy of the City Council Agenda Report dated March 20, 2006, and the
minutes of the March 20, 2006, City Council meeting are attached to this
agenda report. This information outlines the background and the current
proposal.
Current Circumstances
The City Council asked for clarification in three areas. These areas, and the
requested information are listed below:
1. Allow for the comoletion of the Citv of Shakooee Transoortation
Studv for the CSAH 16 corridor: The entire study has not been
completed, but the City staff did meet with the City of Shakopee staff and
their consultant to discuss the Prior Lake issues. The study identifies an
www.cityofpriorlake.com
L:\06 FILES\06 sU6DlvISIONS\PKL:~~~~~~~441.'2f:t3~dJ {}?~595>2'.9f4?~4~~<s-reportDuc
east-west connection from Pike Lake Trail to Muhlenhardt Road north of
the Vierling property, which is eventually projected to handle about 1,750
trips per day. Until the Vierling property is developed, this will be the only
east-west connection. This connection essentially creates a minor
collector street through the Pike Lake Ponds neighborhood. The proposed
street is not presently designed to handle this volume of traffic. There is
also the question of the alignment of this street, since there are two
significant wetlands immediately to the east which would be impacted by
the proposed alignment. In order to accommodate this connection, the
proposed east-west street may need to be redesigned. If there is an
alternative alignment, especially one which does not impact the wetlands,
this must also be identified.
Another issue raised as a result of the Shakopee study is the condition of
Pike Lake Trail. With the construction of a new elementary school at Pike
Lake Trail and CSAH 16, Shakopee intends to pave Pike Lake Trail to its
southerly border. From there, it will be gravel to CSAH 42. If this
development proceeds as proposed, Pike Lake Trail will be paved from
CSAH 42 to just south of Martindale Street, leaving a gap of approximately
~ mile of gravel road. This could cause some safety issues, and, at a
minimum, the City will receive pressure to pave this segment. As noted,
the City does not have this improvement scheduled in the CIP.
2. Clarifv the water situation: The developer is proposing to extend
watermain from CSAH 42 and Pike Lake Trail to this development. While
the current system has the capacity to serve the proposed development,
any additional extensions will require a water storage facility on the north
side of Prior Lake. The staff anticipates we will receive requests to further
extend this watermain. We are also fielding questions from property
owners to the north of this development about the possibility of extending
water service. A dead end extension ot this length also requires frequent
flushing to maintain the water quality. The staff has determined this issue
can be accommodated by some sort of financial arrangement through the
development contract, if necessary.
3. Claritv or indemnification on Conditions #2. #3. #5. #5.1. and #12 of
the oreliminarv olat orooosal: Pike Lake Trail is not a platted right-ot-
way, nor is there a dedicated easement, so the City only has prescriptive
rights to the road. This means the public has the right to use the road
surface and the ditches for public purposes. There is no room for
expansion of the road outside of these boundaries. Any additional ponding
or surface necessary for the improvements means additional easements
must be acquired from the current underlying property owners. There is
also a Metropolitan Council interceptor located within this area. We have
also learned the Metropolitan Council does not have a specific easement
for this pipe; again, there are only prescriptive easements. There is a legal
question of whether or not it is possible to extend the watermain within the
prescriptive road right-of-way. At the March 20th meeting, the City Council
asked the developer to provide a legal opinion on this matter. Since we
have not received any information from the developer, the City staff has
also asked the City Attorney for an opinion. The City Attorney has advised
L:\06 FILES\06 SUBDIVISIONS\PRELlM PLAT\Pike Lake Ponds 06\05-'15_cc_agenda_report.DOC
us that the City's prescriptive easement for the roadway and the
Metropolitan Council's prescriptive easement for sewer do not provide the
City or the developer with the right to extend the watermain under this
roadway to serve this development.
4. Since the March 20th meeting, the City Council and staff have also
received an e-mail from Steve Czech at 13360 Hickory Avenue NE. He is
concerned about the impact of the extension of Hickory Avenue on an
existing oak tree, which is located in the existing right-of-way. Mr. Czech
understandably would like to see the tree preserved. His preference is to
eliminate the Hickory Avenue connection and cul-de-sac the existing street.
Streets are connected for several reasons, including emergency vehicle
access, school bus routes, snow plowing efficiency and mail delivery. All
of these items have a public benefit and a public cost. Hickory Avenue
was originally platted to extend into the Pike lake Trail property, and the
staff believes the connection should be maintained. The City Engineer has
looked at the tree and the right-of-way, and has determined there are
options which would maintain the connection and minimize the impact on
the oak tree. These options will be discussed with the City Council at the
meeting.
ISSUES:
The major issue pertaining to this development is whether or not it is a
premature development. Section 1002.700 of the Subdivision Ordinance
states a development may be considered premature should any of the
following provisions exist (a complete description of each of these is attached
to this report):
. lack of adequate drainage;
. Lack of adequate water supply;
. lack of adequate roads or highways to serve the subdivision;
. lack of adequate waste disposal system;
. Inconsistency with Comprehensive Plan;
. Lack of public service capacity;
. Inconsistency with Capital Improvement Plan.
This development meets the second, third and final criteria. Development of
this property involves the extension of utilities and road improvements, none of
which are programmed in the City's Capital Improvement program. Further,
the development of this property is impacted by the plans for Pike lake Trail
and the Vierling property to the south.
The City's plan is to maintain the Pike lake Trail/42 intersection as is and
swing Pike lake Trail to the east. This option would also pull the road away
from the lake and provide a 10+ acre park/open space adjacent to Pike lake.
However, the City staff is looking at other options which could mean less park
on the Vierling property. The ultimate alignment of Pike lake Trial, therefore,
is still undetermined.
Rezonina from R-S to R-1: Section 1108.600 of the Zoning Ordinance
identifies the following policies for amendments to the Official Zoning Map:
L:\06 FILES\06 SUBDIVISIONS\PRELlM PlAT\Pike Lake Ponds 06\05-i5_cc_agenda_report.DOC
. The area, as presently zoned, is inconsistent with the policies and goals of
the Comprehensive Plan, or the land was originally zoned erroneously due
to a technical or administrative error, or
. The area for which rezoning is requested has changed or is changing to
such a degree that it is in the public interest to rezone so as to encourage
redevelopment of the area, or
. The permitted uses allowed within the proposed Use District will be
appropriate on the subject property and compatible with adjacent
properties and the neighborhood.
The property is designated as R-UMD (Low to Medium Density Residential) on
the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The R-1 district is consistent
with this designation.
Preliminarv Plat: The applicant proposes to subdivide the property into 44
lots for single family dwellings. The general layout of the plat appears
appropriate, given the constraints of the site. There are a several issues
pertaining to this preliminary plat that are somewhat unique. These are
discussed below:
1. The developer must agree to all of the previous conditions for development
of this site, including upgrade of Pike Lake Trail from 42 to the north
boundary of the former Arima property to an urban collector street,
pavement of Pike Lake Trail, and the extension of watermain, all at the
developers' cost. This segment of Pike Lake Trail must be done before
this development can proceed.
2. The current plan identifies 58.8% tree removal for drainage and utilities.
The staff and the developer discussed whether the development,
especially the easterly cul-de-sac, could be redesigned in a manner that
would not require the removal of so many trees. The developer provided a
letter, dated February 23, 2006, stating this cul-de-sac has been revised,
resulting in saving an additional 35 trees.
3. The proposed plan disturbs a wetland on the east side of the property to
extend a cul-de-sac and create additional lots. This impact must be
studied, and approved by the Technical Evaluation Panel and the City
Council prior to any work on the site.
4. The developer must provide concept plans for properties to the north, east,
and south of the development. There are retaining walls proposed at the
property lines in the future road right-of-way. The developer must verify
that future grades will connect to the proposed development properly.
5. There are some lots within the development that do not appear to meet the
minimum net lot area or lot width requirements. These lots must be
adjusted to meet minimum requirements.
6. In the memorandum dated February 15, 2006, the Assistant City Engineer
has identified several design issues. The staff has met with the applicant
to discuss and resolve many of these items.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of this development on the
basis it complies with the earlier Council direction. With the listed conditions,
l:\06 FllES\06 SUBDIV1SIONS\PRELlM PLA npike lake Ponds 06\05-15_cc_",gend;ueportDOC
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED
MOTIONS:
the proposed development is consistent with the provisions of the Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinance.
The City Council may wish to consider that our developable lot inventory is
presently in excess of 400 lots. Based on the number of building permits
issued in 2005, this is an adequate supply for the time being. Delaying the
approval of this development will allow for the completion of the Shakopee
study, which will provide helpful information on the transportation infrastructure
appropriate for this area. The question of the extension of water under Pike
Lake Trail must be addressed by the developer as well as the improvement of
Pike Lake Trail to the north of this subdivision. If this subdivision is approved,
we anticipate requests from Shakopee to provide sewer and water service to
new subdivisions within their City.
Approval of this plat could result in City expenditures to pave a portion of Pike
Lake Trail. It would also require intensified maintenance of the dead end
watermain. Finally it will encourage other land owners in this area to request
approval to develop their properties. Aside from these costs, the developer is
responsible for all costs, both on-site and off, involved in extending the
services and upgrading the road.
The City Council has the following alternatives:
1. Adopt an ordinance rezoning the subject property from R-S to R-1, 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. An ordinance and resolution approving the rezoning and
preliminary plat are attached to this report.
2. Deny the rezoning and the Preliminary Plat on the basis it is premature and
is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances. A resolution for denial of this request is also attached.
The Planning Commission recommended Alternative #1. The staff believes
the subdivision is premature under the criteria listed in the Subdivision
Ordinance. Because the Planning Commission and staff recommendations
differ, we have included both an approval and a denial resolution.
The statutory deadline for action on this matter expires on May 30,2006. The
Council must take action at this meeting to meet this deadline unless the
developer extends the deadline in writing.
If the Council concurs with the Planning Commission recommendations, the
following motions are appropriate:
1. A motion and second to adopt an ordinance rezoning approximately 28.04
acres from the R-S (Rural Residential) District to the R-1 (Low Density
Residential) District.
2. A motion and second to adopt a resolution approving a Preliminary Plat to
be known as Pike Lake Ponds, subject to the listed conditions.
If the Council concurs with the staff recommendation, the following motion is
appropriate:
L:\06 FILES\06 SUBDIVISIONS\PRELlM PLAT\Pike Lake Ponds 06\05-15_cc_agenda_reportDOC
Reviewed by:
1. A motion and second to adopt a resolution denying the requested rezoning
and the Preliminary Plat to be known as Pike Lake Ponds, based on the
fact that this is a premature subdivision according to the criteria listed in
the Subdivision Ordinance.
~~
Frank BOYlest;1 M
L:\06 FILES\06 SUBDIVISIONS\PREUM PLAT\Pike Lake Ponds 06\05-15_cc_agend;:u"eport.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO. 06-
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:
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 change the zoning classification of the
following legally described property from R-S (Rural Residential) to R-1 (Low
Density Residential).
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
The South Half of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter EXCEPT all that
land lying West of the Township Road in the South Half of the South Half of
the Northeast Quarter, all in Section 23, Township 115, Range 22, Scott
County, Minnesota.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM the following described property:
That part of the South Half of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of
Section 23, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, described as
follows:
Commencing at the Southeast corner of said South Half of the South Half of
the Northeast Quarter; thence North 89 degrees 41 minutes 06 seconds
West, assumed bearing, along the South line of said South Half of the South
Half of the Northeast Quarter, a distance of 761.10 feet to the point of
beginning of the land to be described; thence North 04 degrees 09 minutes
33 seconds East, a distance of 297.00 feet; thence North 86 degrees 27
minutes 37 seconds West, a distance of 390.10 feet; thence North 00
degrees 23 minutes 45 seconds East, a distance of 118.11 feet; thence North
89 degrees 36 minutes 15 seconds West, a distance of 700.24 feet more or
less to the centerline of Pike Lake Trail; thence Southwesterly along said
centerline to its intersection with said South line of the South Half of the
South Half of the Northeast Quarter; thence Easterly along said South line a
distance of 1123.94 feet to the point of beginning.
1:\06 files\06 rezone\pike lake ponds\ord06xx.doc
www.cityofpriorlake.com
Page 1
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and
publication.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this 15th day of May, 2006.
ATTEST:
City Manager
Mayor
Published in the Prior Lake American on the
day of May, 2006.
Drafted By:
Prior Lake Planning Department
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
1:\06 files\06 rezone\pike lake ponds\ord06xx.doc
Page 2
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
RESOLUTION 06-xx
Motion By:
Second By:
WHEREAS, The Prior Lake Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on February 27,
2006, to consider an application from Manley Land Development, Inc. for the
preliminary plat of Pike Lake Ponds; and
WHEREAS, Notice of the public hearing on said preliminary plat has been duly published and
posted in accordance with the applicable Minnesota Statutes and Prior Lake
Ordinances; and
WHEREAS, All persons interested in this issue were afforded the opportunity to present their views
and objections related to the preliminary plat of Pike Lake Ponds for the record at the
public hearing conducted by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission and City Council have reviewed the preliminary plat
according to the applicable provisions of the Prior Lake Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances and found said preliminary plat to be consistent with the provisions of said
ordinances; and
WHEREAS, The Prior Lake City Council considered an application for preliminary plat approval of
Pike Lake Ponds on March 20, 2006, and on May 15, 2006; and
WHEREAS, The City Council has the authority to impose reasonable conditions on a preliminary
plat.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE,
MINNESOTA as follows:
1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein.
2. The preliminary plat of Pike Lake Ponds is approved subject to the following conditions:
a) The property (formerly the Arima property) at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of
CSAH 42 and Pike Lake Trail must be completed prior to the development of the Bohlen (Pike
Lake Ponds) property. This development will extend water service to the north boundary of the
Arima property. This development will also upgrade the adjacent segment of Pike Lake Trail to
collector street standards.
b) The developer of the Bohlen and Whipps property must agree to upgrade Pike Lake Trail from
the Arima property to the southern boundary of the Whipps/Bohlen property, to a temporary
rural section. The section will be temporary until the Vierling property is developed. The
upgrade includes the following:
i) Grading
ii) Paving
L\06 FILES\06 SUBDIVISIONS\PRELlM PLAT\Pike Lalw\Vwl~.QrlakrtlcOlOOC
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
iii) Right-of-way or easement acquisition (The City only has prescriptive rights over the existing
road. Additional right-of-way and/or easements may be necessary to accommodate the
grading, ponding, shoulders, etc. The developer will be responsible for acquiring all
necessary easements.)
iv) Ponding and runoff control for the new road section in compliance with the Watershed
District requirements.
c) The developer of the Bohlen and Whipps property must agree to upgrade Pike Lake Trail
adjacent to the Whipps/Bohlen property to a collector street and to pay the entire cost of this
upgrade.
d) The developer of the Bohlen and Whipps property must agree to extend water service from the
north boundary of the Arima property to the Whipps/Bohlen property, and to pay for the cost of
this extension.
e) The developer must agree to contact the Metropolitan Council to obtain a determination about
whether or not road improvements will be permitted within the MCES sewer easement.
f) The developer at their cost must determine whether the City s prescriptive easement for
roadway can be used for the installation of utilities and the City makes no representation
therefore.
g) Once items 1-5 have been resolved and preliminary and final plats for the property have been
approved, the developers, must voluntarily agree to pay the entire cost of items 3-5 in addition
to any development fees which are due and payable as part of the Development Contract.
These costs and the improvement process will be outlined in the Development Contract
between the City and the developer.
h) Lots 2-8, Block 1, must be adjusted to meet the minimum 20,000 square feet of net lot area.
i) Lots 5-7, Block 1, must be adjusted to meet the minimum lot width of 100' at the front building
line.
D Lots 1-9, 13-17, Block 2, must be adjusted to meet the minimum 12,000 square feet of net lot
area.
k) Lots 7-9, 13-16, Block 2, must be adjusted to meet the minimum lot width of 86' at the front
building line.
I) A wetland mitigation plan must be approved prior to any work on the site.
m) The developer must provide concept plans for properties to the north, east, and south of the
development. There are retaining walls proposed at the property lines in the future road right-
of-way. The developer must verify that future grades will connect to the proposed development
properly.
n) Three Pike Lake Trail typical sections should be shown. The Pike Lake Trail typical section in
front of the development should be 42 feet wide and show B618 concrete curb and gutter both
sides of the street. A separate rural typical section should be shown for the Pike Lake Trail
segment from Pike Lake Meadows to Pike Lake Ponds. A third typical section should be shown
at the intersection of Pike Lake Trail and County Road 42. The urban typical sections should
include an 8' bituminous trail (2-1/2" bituminous, 6" class 5) on the west side and a 5' sidewalk
(4" thick) on the east side.
0) The Developer should dedicate additional right of way along Pike Lake Trail to accommodate
80' of total right of way.
L:\06 FILES\06 SUBDIVISIONS\PRELlM PLAnPike Lake Ponds 06\plaUesolution.DOC
p) A preliminary 40 mph state aid design must be completed to verify Pike Lake Trail alignment.
The proposed park along Pike Lake should be depicted in the alignment drawings.
q) Any issues identified in the February 15, 2006, memorandum from the Engineering Department
must be addressed.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 15TH DAY OF MAY, 2006.
YES
NO
Haugen
Dornbush
Erickson
LeMair
Millar
Haugen
Dornbush
Erickson
LeMair
Millar
Frank Boyles, City Manager
L:\06 FILES\06 SUBDIVISIONS\PRELlM PLAT\Pike Lake Ponds 06\plaUesolution.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
RESOLUTION 06-xx
Motion By:
Second By:
WHEREAS, The Prior Lake Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on February 27,
2006, to consider an application from Manley Land Development, Inc. for the rezoning
of rezoning of 28.04 acres from the R-S (Rural Residential) District to the R-1 (Low
Density Residential) District and for the preliminary plat of Pike Lake Ponds; and
WHEREAS, Notice of the public hearing on said rezoning and preliminary plat has been duly
published and posted in accordance with the applicable Minnesota Statutes and Prior
Lake Ordinances; and
WHEREAS, All persons interested in this issue were afforded the opportunity to present their views
and objections related to the rezoning and preliminary plat of Pike Lake Ponds for the
record at the public hearing conducted by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission and City Council have reviewed the rezoning and
preliminary plat according to the applicable provisions of the Prior Lake 2020
Comprehensive Plan and the Prior Lake Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and found
said rezoning and preliminary plat to be inconsistent with the provisions of said
Comprehensive Plan and ordinances; and
WHEREAS, The Prior Lake City Council considered an application for a rezoning and preliminary
plat approval of Pike Lake Ponds on March 20, 2006, and on May 15, 2006.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE,
MINNESOTA as follows:
1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein.
2. The request to rezone 28.04 acres from the R-S (Rural Residential) District to the R-1 (Low Density
Residential) District is hereby denied.
3. The preliminary plat to be known as Pike Lake Ponds is denied.
4. It hereby adopts the following findings:
a) Lack Of Adeauate Roads Or Hiahwavs To Serve The Subdivision. The proposed
subdivision lacks adequate roads to serve the subdivision because Pike Lake Trail, as it
currently exists, is an unpaved road on a prescriptive easement. The increase in traffic volume
generated by the proposed subdivision would be detrimental to the City's interest in promoting
and protecting the public safety and general welfare.
b) The traffic volume generated by the proposed subdivision would decrease the level of service
on Pike Lake Trail as it currently exists.
c) The ultimate alignment of Pike Lake trail is undetermined at this time, and will not be
determined until the development of the property to the south of the proposed subdivision.
L\Do FILES\06 SUBDIVISIONS\PRELlM PLA T\Pike LalwWwl~J ;JL~ticmi)OC
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
d) The potential connection of this development with future development in Shakopee will further
impact Pike lake Trail.
e) Inconsistencv With CaDital ImDrovement Plans. The proposed subdivision is inconsistent
with capital improvement plans because the necessary improvements to Pike lake Trail and
the water system necessary to accommodate the proposed subdivision have not been
programmed in the Prior lake Capital Improvement Plans.
f) Lack Of Adeauate Water SUDDlv. The proposed subdivision lacks an adequate water supply
because the water lines must be extended over ~ mile to serve this development. This creates
a dead-end water line, which impacts water quality and pressure zones. Also, while the existing
system can serve these 44 lots, additional lots require a water storage facility.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 1STHDAY OF MAY, 2006.
YES
NO
I Haugen
Dornbush
Erickson
I leMair
, Millar
Haugen
Dornbush
Erickson
leMair
Millar
Frank Boyles, City Manager
L:\06 FILES\06 SUBDIVISIONS\PRELlM PLAT\Pike Lake Ponds 06\denLresolution.DOC
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA#:
PREPARED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MARCH 20, 2006
10A
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING DIRECTOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE REZONING 28.04 ACRES
FROM R-S TO R-1 AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION
APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS PIKE LAKE
PONDS
Introduction
Manley Land Development has applied for approval of a development to be
known as Pike Lake Ponds on property located ~ mile north of CSAH 42,
directly north of the Vierling property, and east of Pike Lake Trail. The
application includes the following reque~ts:
. A rezoning of approximately 28.04 acres from the R-S (Rural Residential)
District to the R-1 (Low Density Residential) District;
. A Preliminary Plat consisting of 28.04 acres to be subdivided into 44 lots
for single family development.
This agenda item requests City Council approval of the rezoning and the
preliminary plat.
Historv
In 2004, another developer, Toll Brothers, approached the City about
developing this parcel. The City staff advised Toll Brothers that, in staff's
opinion, the proposed development was premature. The City Council
discussed this matter at a workshop on September 7, 2004. Ultimately, the
Council determined the development of this property could move forward
subject to the following conditions:
1. The property (formerly the Arima property) at the northwest quadrant of
the intersection of CSAH 42 and Pike Lake Trail must be completed
prior to the development of the Bohlen (Pike Lake Ponds) property.
This development will extend water service to the north boundary of the
Arima property. This development will also upgrade the adjacent
segment of Pike Lake Trail to collector street standards.
2. The developer of the Bohlen and Whipps property must agree to
upgrade Pike Lake Trail from the Arima property to the southern
boundary of the Whipps/Bohlen property, to a temporary rural section.
The section will be temporary until the Vierling property is developed.
The upgrade includes the following:
a. Grading
b. Paving
c. Right-of-way or easement acquisition (The City only has
www.cityofpriorlake.com
Phohe 952:ll47\4230YFax. 952:4471.4245
prescriptive rights over the existing road. Additional right-of-way
and/or easements may be necessary to accommodate the
grading, ponding, shoulders, etc.)
d. Ponding and runoff control for the new road section in
compliance with the Watershed District requirements.
3. The developer of the Bohlen and Whipps property must agree to
upgrade Pike Lake Trail adjacent to the Whipps/Bohlen property to a
collector street and to pay the entire cost of this upgrade.
4. The developer of the Bohlen and Whipps property must agree to
extend water service from the north boundary of the Arima property to
the Whipps/Bohlen property, and to pay for the cost of this extension.
5. The developer must agree to contact the Metropolitan Council to obtain
a determination about whether or not road improvements will be
permitted within the MCES sewer easement.
6. Once items 1-5 have been resolved and preliminary and final plats for
the property have been approved, the developers, must voluntarily
agree to pay the entire cost of items 3-5 in addition to any development
fees and securities which are due and payable as part of the
Development Contract. These costs and the improvement process will
be outlined in the Development Contract between the City and the
developer.
These conditions were outlined in the attached letter to Toll Brothers, dated
October 14, 2004. These same conditions still apply today, and the staff has
allowed the developer to move forward with this preliminary plat based on the
previous direction from the City Council.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider this preliminary
plat on February 27,2006. A copy of the minutes of this meeting is attached
to this report. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this
preliminary plat subject to the following conditions:
1. The property (formerly the Arima property) at the northwest quadrant of the
intersection of CSAH 42 and Pike Lake Trail must be completed prior to
the development of the Bohlen (Pike Lake Ponds) property. This
development will extend water service to the north boundary of the Arima
property. This development will also upgrade the adjacent segment of
Pike Lake Trail to collector street standards.
2. The developer of the Bohlen and Whipps property must agree to upgrade
Pike Lake Trail from the Arima property to the southern boundary of the
Whipps/Bohlen property, to a temporary rural section. The section will be
temporary until the Vierling property is developed. The upgrade includes
the following:
a. Grading
b. Paving
c. Right-of-way or easement acquisition (The City only has
prescriptive rights over the existing road. Additional right-of-way
and/or easements may be necessary to accommodate the
grading, ponding, shoulders, etc.)
d. Ponding and runoff control for the new road section in
compliance with the Watershed District requirements.
3. The developer of the Bohlen and Whipps property must agree to upgrade
Pike Lake Trail adjacent to the Whipps/Bohlen property to a collector street
and to pay the entire cost of this upgrade.
4. The developer of the Bohlen and Whipps property must agree to extend
water service from the north boundary of the Arima property to the
Whipps/Bohlen property, and to pay for the cost of this extension.
5. The developer must agree to contact the Metropolitan Council to obtain a
determination about whether or not road improvements will be permitted
within the MCES sewer easement.
6. Once items 1-5 have been resolved and preliminary and final plats for the
property have been approved, the developers, must voluntarily agree to
pay the entire cost of items 3-5 in addition to any development fees and
securities which are due and payable as part of the Development Contract.
These costs and the improvement process will be outlined in the
Development Contract between the City and the developer.
7. Lots 2-8, Block 1, must be adjusted to meet the minimum 20,000 square
feet of net lot area.
8. lots 5-7, Block 1, must be adjusted to meet the minimum lot width of 100'
at the front building line.
9. Lots 1-9,13-17, Block 2, must be adjusted to meet the minimum 12,000
square feet of net lot area.
10. Lots 7-9,13-16, Block 2, must be adjusted to meet the minimum lot width
of 86' at the front building line.
11. A wetland mitigation plan must be approved prior to any work on the site.
12. The developer must provide concept plans for properties to the north, east,
and south of the development. There are retaining walls proposed at the
property lines in the future road right-of-way. The developer must verify
that future grades will connect to the proposed development properly.
13. Three Pike Lake Trail typical sections must be shown. The Pike Lake Trail
typical section in front of the development must be 42 feet wide and show
B618 concrete curb and gutter both sides of the street. A separate rural
typical section must be shown for the Pike Lake Trail segment from Pike
Lake Meadows to Pike Lake Ponds. A third typical section must be shown
at the intersection of Pike Lake Trail and County Road 42. The urban
typical sections must include an 8' bituminous trail (2-1/2" bituminous, 6"
class 5) on the west side and a 5' sidewalk (4" thick) on the east side.
14. The Developer must dedicate additional right of way along Pike lake Trail
to accommodate 80' of total right of way.
15. A preliminary 40 mph state aid design must be completed to verify Pike
Lake Trail alignment. The proposed park along Pike Lake must be
depicted in the alignment drawings.
16. Any issues identified in the February 15, 2006, memorandum from the
Engineering Department must be addressed.
Current Circumstances
The proposed preliminary plat consists of 28.04 acres to be subdivided into 44
lots for single family dwellings. The following analysis identifies the physical
characteristics of this site.
Total Site Area: The total site consists of 28.04 acres. The net site area, less
existing wetlands, is 26.95 acres.
TODoaraDhv: This site has a varied topography, with elevations ranging from
930' MSL at its highest point to 832' MSL at the lowest point. The steepest
areas of the site are located adjacent to the existing road on the west and
along the east property boundary.
Veaetation/Existina Uses: There is an existing house and several
outbuildings located on this site. These buildings will be removed. In addition,
much of this site has been used as cropland or pastureland. The significant
trees on the site are located adjacent to the pond on the north side. There are
also several trees, not all of them significant, located along the fence line on
the south side of the property. A tree inventory identified 5,747 inches of
significant trees on the site. The site is subject to the Tree Preservation
requirements.
Wetlands: There is one significant wetland located in the north of the site,
totaling 1.09 acres. The plan proposes to fill a portion of this wetland and to
mitigate the impact on the site.
Access: Access to the site is from Pike Lake Trail on the west and from
Hickory Avenue on the north. The plan also provides access to the property to
the east and south.
2020 ComDrehensive Plan Desianation: This property is designated it for
Low to Medium Density Residential uses.
Zonina: The site presently zoned R-S (Rural Subdivision). The applicant is
requesting an amendment to the Zoning Map to designate this site R-1 (Low
Density Residential). The R-1 district is consistent with the existing R-L1MD
designation. This district permits a maximum density of 3.6 units per acre.
Shoreland: A portion of this site is also located within the Pike Lake Shoreland
District. Pike Lake is designated as a Natural Environment Lake; the minimum
lot area and lot width requirements for this lake are 20,000 square feet and
100 feet, respectively.
PROPOSED PLAN
Lots: The preliminary plat consists of 44 lots for single family dwellings. The
lots range in size from 12,000 square feet to over 55,000 square feet. Net lot
areas must be provided for some of the lots, which have a gross area of more
than the minimum requirement; however, the net lot area (less ponding area
and wetlands) must be at least the minimum required. In addition, the
minimum lot width at the front building line for some of the lots scales scale
less than the required. The lot width for these lots must be verified.
Specifically, the lots which must be verified are:
I Net Lot Area (20,000 square feet)
Net Lot Area (12,000 square feet)
Lot Width (100')
I Lot Width (86')
Lots 2-8, Block 1
Lots 1-9, 13-17, Block 2
Lots 5-7, Block 1
Lots 7-9,13-16, Block 2
Lots 7-12, Block 1, are through lots, or lots with frontage on two streets.
These lots must be a minimum of 160' deep. All of the lots are consistent with
this requirement.
Streets: This plan proposes six new public streets, as listed below.
. Street 1 is the east-west street, extending about 2,000' from Pike Lake
Trail to the east property boundary. This street is designed with a 55'
wide right-of-way and a 32' wide surface, and provides access to 14
lots.
. Street 2 is an extension of Hickory Avenue NE, 500' to the south where
it intersects with Street 1. This street is also designed with a 55' wide
right-of-way and a 32' wide surface, and provides access to 5 lots.
. Street 3 is a 500' long cul-de-sac located on the west side of Street 2.
It has a 50' wide right-of-way, a 32' wide surface and provides access
to 12 lots.
. Street 4 is a 100' stub street providing access to the property to the
south. It is shown as a 50' wide right-of-way with a 32' wide surface.
. Street 5 is a 100' long cul-de-sac on the north side of Street 1,
providing access to 5 lots.
. Street 6 is a 250' long cul-de-sac located on the north side of Street 1,
providing access to 8 lots. It is designed with a 50' wide right-of-way
and a 32' wide surface.
This development will also require improvements to Pike Lake Trail, both
directly adjacent to this site and off-site. Manley Land Development also owns
the land at the southwest quadrant of CSAH 42 and Pike Lake Trail. Before
the development of Pike Lake Ponds, Manley will upgrade the section of Pike
Lake Trail adjacent to their southerly property and the portion of Pike Lake
Trail adjacent to Pike Lake Ponds to an urban collector street. An urban
collector street includes an 80' wide right-of-way, a minimum 42' wide surface,
and curb and gutter. The developer will also be responsible for upgrading the
section of Pike Lake Trail from the southerly property to Pike Lake Ponds to a
temporary rural section. This includes grading, paving and any necessary
pondin9 or runoff control. The developer will be responsible for all costs
associated with these improvements.
SidewalkslTrails: There is a sidewalk on the north side of Street 1, on the
east side of Street 2, and on the east side of Street 4.
Parks: There is no parkland included within this plat. A future park is planned
along Pike Lake; this park will be developed with the Vierling property. The
parkland dedication requirements for this plat will be satisfied by a cash
dedication in lieu of land.
Sanitarv Sewer: The Metropolitan Council interceptor serving all of Prior Lake
is located in Pike Lake Trail. The developer will extend services to Pike Lake
Ponds from this interceptor.
Water Mains: Water main is currently located at the intersection of CSAH 42
and Pike Lake Trail. The developer will extend the watermain from this
location to Pike Lake Ponds. The developer is responsible for all costs
associated with this extension. It must also be noted the current system has
the capacity to serve this area; however, any additional extensions will require
a water storage facility on the north side of Prior Lake.
Storm Sewer: The plan directs the runoff from a portion of the site to the
NURP ponds located in the back yards of Lots 4-8, Block 1, and Lots 1-5,
Block 2. The City and the Prior Lake/Spring Lake Watershed District are
currently reviewing this plan.
Oensitv: The development proposes 44 single family units. The net density in
this plan is 1.63 units per acre. The proposed density is consistent with the
maximum 3.63 units per acre permitted in the R-1 Use District.
LandscaDina: Single family developments require at least 2 front yard trees
per lot. The developer has provided a plan showing at least 2 trees per lot.
Tree ReDlacement: The applicant has submitted an inventory identifying
5,747 caliper inches of significant trees on the site. The Zoning Ordinance
allows up to 25% of the significant caliper inches to be removed for road and
utility purposes, and up to 25% for building pads and driveways. The number
of significant inches removed over and above these percentages must be
replaced at a rate of a 1/2 caliper inch for each inch removed. This plan
proposes to remove 58.8% of the caliper inches of significant trees for roads
and utilities, and 14.9% for building pads and driveways. This requires
replacement of 356 caliper inches (143 2.5 inch trees). The plan submitted
includes 143 trees to meet the reforestation requirements.
ISSUES:
The major issue pertaining to this development is whether or not it is a
premature development. Section 1002.700 of the Subdivision Ordinance
states a development may be considered premature should any of the
following provisions exist (a complete description of each of these is attached
to this report):
. Lack of adequate drainage;
. Lack of adequate water supply;
. Lack of adequate roads or highways to serve the subdivision;
. Lack of adequate waste disposal system;
. Inconsistency with Comprehensive Plan;
. Lack of public service capacity;
. Inconsistency with Capital Improvement Plan.
Development of this property involves the extension of utilities and road
improvements, none of which are programmed in the City's Capital
Improvement program. Further, the development of this property is impacted
by the plans for Pike Lake Trail and the Vierling property to the south.
The City's plan is to maintain the Pike Lake Trail/42 intersection as is and
swing Pike Lake Trail to the east. This option would also pull the road away
from the lake and provide a 10+ acre park/open space adjacent to Pike Lake.
It would also require dedication of right-of-way across the Vierling property.
Pike Lake Trail is classified as a collector street in the Comprehensive Plan
and would have to be upgraded as such.
The City of Shakopee recently initiated a transportation study to look at
transportation system in east Shakopee and, specifically the CSAH 16 area.
Shakopee intends to work with the City of Prior Lake in this study to coordinate
the transportation system. This may include development of a collector
roadway system, both north/south and east/west to accommodate the existing
and future growth in the area. The City of Shakopee has also contacted staff
to discuss the extension of sewer service, and Shakopee Public Utilities has
contacted the City about coordinating water service in the area. The location
and sizing of roads and services in this development may be impacted by the
results of these discussions.
As noted earlier, the conditions outlined in the October 14, 2004, letter to Toll
Brothers still apply today. The staff forwarded these conditions to Manley
Brothers, so they are aware of the preconditions for development.
Rezonina from R-s to R-1: Section 1108.600 of the Zoning Ordinance
identifies the following policies for amendments to the Official Zoning Map:
. The area, as presently zoned, is inconsistent with the policies and goals of
the Comprehensive Plan, or the land was originally zoned erroneously due
to a technical or administrative error, or
. The area for which rezoning is requested has changed or is changing to
such a degree that it is in the public interest to rezone so as to encourage
redevelopment of the area, or
. The permitted uses allowed within the proposed Use District will be
appropriate on the subject property and compatible with adjacent
properties and the neighborhood.
The property is designated as R-UMD (Low to Medium Density Residential) on
the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The R-1 district is consistent
with this designation.
Preliminarv Plat: The applicant proposes to subdivide the property into 44
lots for single family dwellings. The general layout of the plat appears
appropriate, given the constraints of the site. There are a several issues
pertaining to this preliminary plat that are somewhat unique. These are
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
ALTERNATIVES:
discussed below:
1. The developer must agree to all of the previous conditions for development
of this site, including upgrade of Pike Lake Trail from 42 to the north
boundary of the former Arima property to an urban collector street,
pavement of Pike Lake Trail, and the extension of watermain, all at the
developers' cost. This segment of Pike Lake Trail must be done before
this development can proceed.
2. The current plan identifies 58.8% tree removal for drainage and utilities.
The staff and the developer discussed whether the development,
especially the easterly cul-de-sac, could be redesigned in a manner that
would not require the removal of so many trees. The developer provided a
letter, dated February 23, 2006, stating this cul-de-sac has been revised,
resulting in saving an additional 35 trees.
3. The proposed plan disturbs a wetland on the east side of the property to
extend a cul-de-sac and create additional lots. This impact must be
studied, and approved by the Technical Evaluation Panel and the City
Council prior to any work on the site.
4. The developer must provide concept plans for properties to the north, east,
and south of the development. There are retaining walls proposed at the
property lines in the future road right-of-way. The developer must verify
that future grades will connect to the proposed development properly.
5. There are some lots within the development that do not appear to meet the
minimum net lot area or lot width requirements. These lots must be
adjusted to meet minimum requirements.
6. In the memorandum dated February 15, 2006, the Assistant City Engineer
has identified several design issues. The staff has met with the applicant
to discuss and resolve many of these items.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of this development on the
basis it complies with the earlier Council direction. With the listed conditions,
the proposed development is consistent with the provisions of the Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinance.
The City Council may wish to consider that our developable lot inventory is
presently in excess of 400 lots. Based on the number of building permits
issued in 2005, this is an adequate supply for the time being. Delaying the
approval of this development will allow for the completion of the Shakopee
study, which will provide helpful information on the transportation infrastructure
appropriate for this area. If this subdivision is approved, we anticipate
requests from Shakopee to provide sewer and water service to new
subdivisions within their City.
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. The
developer is responsible for all costs, both on-site and off, involved in
extending the services and upgrading the road.
The City Council has the following alternatives:
1. Adopt an ordinance rezoning the subject property from R-S to R-1, and
adopt a resolution approving the Preliminary Plat for this development
subject to the listed conditions, with the finding that the preliminary plat is
consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances.
2. Deny the rezoning and the Preliminary Plat on the basis it is premature and
is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances. 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 this
request.
3. Defer consideration of this item and provide staff with specific direction.
The Planning Commission and staff recommend Alternative #1.
RECOMMENDED
MOTIONS:
1. A motion and second to adopt an ordinance rezoning approximately 28.04
acres from the R-S (Rural Residential) District to the R-1 (Low Density
Residential) District.
2. A motion and second to adopt a resolution approving a Preliminary Plat to
be known as Pike Lake Ponds, subject to the listed conditions.
Reviewed by:
Fran1~~~ ,t;
City Council Meeting Minutes
March 20, 2006
Teschner: Replied that the Council can structure rates at any level they choose, but that this rate was determined to
recover the sOO I. Also stated that rates in other cities were compared and the p posed rate is in the middle. Stated
that if state aid is ived In 2007, the fees can reduce property taxes.
Millar: Asked if there' a mechanism in place that assures that will happen.
Teschner: Replied th done by City Council.
Millar: States that he bel' in balancing the books, and that he belie s a commitment should be made that if state
aid Is received in 2007, the chise fees will be used to reduce p taxes,
ErIckson: Stated that if it soun like a tax. it is a tax. This is a w of raising money and it will come back to the resi-
dents. It Is the responsibility of th Council to see how this can used to reduce taxes. Glad that this Is a flat fee as it
helps to avoid barriers for new busi . Asked if there is inflation factor built in.
Teschner: Replied there is no inflatio factor built in and amounts would have to be increased by the Council.
Stated that fee schedules are reviewed e annual m 'ng and staff makes recommendations for fee changes.
Haugen: Commented that the City has s t $1.7M purchase right-of-way over the past few years and that can be
passed along to utilities companies. Agreed ho be equitable for all utilities - not just some - to pay franchises and
that this establishes alternate revenue sources. oted that as households and business increases. the revenue in-
creases even If the fees do not.
Dornbush: Asked for an explanation of th usin in the fee structure.
Teschner: Replied that high end users Id be lau" mats and car washes, schools and churches are In a category
by themselves, and that most comme al users are low categories.
Millar: Commented that from an Ity standpoint Medi is an option, whereas gas and electrical are not optional.
Stated he would rather see this a tax applied to property, a' that renters will have this fee passed on to them and
they would have no process recovery. Will support with rese 'ons.
Erickson: Asked how this is is reflected in trust land. '
Teschner: Replied that Innesota Valley looked at passing the fee ng to SMSC and learned that SMSC is not sub-
ject to it. Noted that if innesota Valley is unable to collect the fee, the'are under no obligation to pay it to us. Be-
lieves SMSC is not ally obligated to pay it.
~
IR, SECONDED BY DORNBUSH TO APPROVE ORDINA CE 106-04 ADOPTING SECTION 314
OF THE P R LAKE CITY CODE IMPLEMENTING GAS AND ELECTRIC F CHISE FEES WITHIN THE CITY OF
PRIOR E.
VOT . Ayes by Haugen, Dornbush. Erickson, LeMair and Millar. The motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS:
Consider Approval of an Ordinance Rezoning 28.04 Acres from ReS to R.1 and Consider Approval of a Resolu.
Uon Approving a Preliminary Plat to be Known as Pike Lake Ponds.
Planning Director KInsler presented the proposal and informed the Council it could be considered premature because
water and sewer improvements to this area are not scheduled in the City's CIP. If the Council determines the proposal
is not premature, staff is recommending the conditions included in the report.
Comments:
Erickson: Asked what the wetiand mitigation plan might be,
Albrecht: Displayed the developer's proposal and stated he is not sure if it will be approved by the Technical Advisory
Committee. Informed the Council that the City has an agreement with the watershed that requires wetland replacement
be within the City of Prior Lake.
Erickson: Asked if we are considering this too early.
Albrecht: Replied that the preliminary plat is not contingent upon the wetland mitigation plan.
Erickson: Asked about the sidewalks planned on some of the streets.
Albrecht: Responded that the three cul-de-sacs do not have sidewalks planned. which is typical. and that the City does
not always require sidewalks depending upon anticipated use.
Erickson: Asked how it Impacts the property and trees of the Brunson's.
5
City Council Meeting Minutes
March 20, 2006
Kanller: Displayed the lot and noted that it appears the trees would stay intact.
Albrecht: Stated that a retaining wall is proposed on the Manley property and it would appear that the majority of the
trees on the Manley property would be removed but they could not remove trees on the Brunson property without per-
mission.
Erickson: Asked if there should be an amendment that trees should be retained.
Albrecht: Replied that it would shrink the pad width, but it would be a possibility to require replanting of a tree buffer.
LeMalr: Asked what the current zoning is of the property of the NW quadrant of the intersection of CR 42 and Pike
Lake Trail.
Kan.ler: R-4.
LeMalr: Asked if the Councll had already approved a plat for that area.
Kan.ler: Replied that a concept plan had been presented by a previous owner, but a preliminary plat or a PUD was
never fiied.
LeMalr: Asked if the conditions being proposed here rely on that being developed first.
Kansler: Affirmed and stated that Manley Brothers own that property now so they can handle the street right-of-way
dedication on that property.
LeMalr: So that property wouldn't have to be developed.
Kansler: Believes the City could work with it because Manley owns ~.
Albrecht: Noted that the issue is related to right-of-way width to build a collector street.
LeMalr: Asked if there would be problems to get the collector street going all the way to their property.
Albrecht: Replied that the collector street ends at a section of temporary roadway that bends around the park land and
it would be contingent upon whether Vierling property ever sells or develops, which Is outside the City or developer con-
trol.
LeMalr: Asked if the Vierling's or Manley have to acquire property to put the road in.
Albrecht: Replied that the roadway construction and paving could be accomplished within the existing prescriptive
easement and the Issue would be drainage of the roadway. If drainage is not adequate, they may have to work with
Vierling's. The Watershed has indicated they want to look at that very closely.
LeMalr: Stated he has comments from people in the TItus area that a benefit would be that the gravel roads would be
gone. Noted that the conditions would protect the City and he will support it.
Dornbush: Asked about the difference between rural residential and low-density residential.
Kanller: Replied that rural residential covers existing large lots that do not have municipal services and such zoning is
no longer allowed within City limits. Low-density is predicated on having municipal services.
Dornbush: Asked about the twelfth condition regarding concept plans for properties nearby.
Kansler: Replied that the City is looking for something that shows roads can be extended in a reasonable manner.
Albrecht: Noted that it is a concern to Jump over an undeveloped parcel and we need to assure the roadway, water
and sewer network will work.
Dornbush: Stated she wants to see a buffer zone of trees saved where appropriate, did not see how the City can jump
over undeveloped area and clarified that the developer would have to pay all the costs of infrastructure.
Kansler: Affirmed.
Millar: Asked what kind of homes were planned to be built.
Kansler: $400,000 plus range.
Millar: Confirmed that the developer would be putting in the infrastructure.
Albrecht: explained that the sewer system is across the western edge of the property and can be joined, but the water
system would have to be brought in. City resources have not been allocated to that area since there is no Indication
that the Vl8I1ing property will be developed.
Millar: Stated that this property would be at the end of the water line.
Albrecht: Responded that typically we would want a water system that is looped and this area might be dead-ended.
There are flushing, chlorination, water storage and water quality Issues. Anticipated that we will be requested by Sha-
kopee to provide water in their area.
Millar: Asked what the advantage is for the City to develop this parcel now.
Kanller: Pike Lake Trail would be paved and the water system would be extended at no cost to the City.
6
City Council Meeting Minutes
March 20, 2006
Albrecht: Stated there would be infrastructure savings in having an oversized water main.
Dornbush: Asked If the road would be paved even though it is temporary.
Albrecht: Affinned and noted that it would not have curb, gutter and sidewalk.
Dornbush: Asked who pays the cost of removing the asphalt when the road is moved.
Albrecht: Replied that the City would have some costs for a 42-foot road and whoever develops the property.
Dornbush: Asked if the developer would pay fees in addition to the infrastructure.
Albrecht: Affirmed they would pay fees in addition to these conditions, but they are not putting in water towers and
wells, just the water main in their property.
Dornbush: Asked the amount of the developer fees.
Albrecht: Replied that it would be $100,000 to $150,000 for the roadway and the water main could be $50,000 to
$75,000.
Pace: Asked if the road is in prescriptive easement and whether it would be a public or private road.
Albrecht: Public.
Pace: Stated that if we maintained it for more than five years, we may not be able to move it.
Kansler: Noted that the City already maintains it and it is existing prescriptive right-of-way.
Albrecht: Stated that if the City is propoSing to have a pari< there, we would have to remove the road regardless of
whether it is gravel or bituminous.
Haugen: Asked who pays for the signal light at the intersection.
Albrecht: The developer pays oversizing fees for roadway which factors in the signallighl
Haugen: Asked what the disadvantages are to the City of developing now.
Albrecht: An extension of the roadway to Shakopee may resu~ In more traffic to this connection than it is built to han-
dle. Will be adding to water maintenance issues; and, if the water main is opened to Shakopee, there would be a water
use Issue.
Erickson: Asked how moving a roadway at a later date would affect utilities.
Albrecht: Replied that utilities would be moved off pari<land and interceptor lines would be non-issue.
Erickson: Asked If the City would want to designate that utilities be buried.
Albrecht: Replied they could only be buried In some segments, and there may not be room to bury them in the tempo-
rary road area. Utility companies would probably rather wait until they can bury everything.
Boyles: Asked if a determination has been made about installing a water main under a prescriptive easement.
Albrecht: Historically we have been allowed to, but it is not automatic and we would have to determine there was no
issue with that. Could ask permission from the Metropolitan Council to install in their right-of-way.
Dornbush: Asked whether it could be rezoned higher density later on, if the zoning was denied now on the basis that It
is premature.
Kansler: Replied that the comprehensive plan currently shows it as low-density.
Dornbush: Asked what style of homes is being proposed.
Kansler: Replied that no specific styles were provided and she anticipated it would probably compare to other homes
built in new subdivisions in Prior Lake.
Pace: Suggested a condition to be numbered 5.1 regarding a prescriptive easement for roadway to read, "The devel-
oper, at their cost, must determine whether the City's prescriptive easement for roadway can be used for the Installation
of utilities and the City makes no representation therefore."
Boyles: Noted there is usually a timing issue regarding changes to a preliminary plat.
Kansler: Confirmed that when a final plat is approved, we cannot apply different rules for two years.
Haugen: Asked for more examples concerning transportation pressures that could come from Shakopee or any addi-
tional issues with water.
Albrecht: Replied that Shakopee authorized a traffic study for the area and has spoken to us regarding their water sys-
tem. Noted that this roadway would be the only western connection to Pike Lake Trail and expressed concern that it
could become an east-west traffic corridor.
Haugen: Stated there are too many unknowns on transportation and water and he wants to defer action until we know if
those issues can be managed with conditions that would protect the City long term.
7
City Council Meeting Minutes
March 20, 2006
Pace: Stated that when a preliminary plat is approved. they can get grading pennit. Su~Ia.,~al improvements could
be made that give them the vested right to continue. which could cause problems in the future. Stated that items #2,
#3. #5. #5.1 and #12 could be completed prior to approval of a preliminary plat.
Albrecht: Agreed and noted that we have not explored the issue of whether a water main can be placed in a prescrip-
tive roadway; and the Shakopee traffic study may be completed in a month to provide more infonnation about connect-
ing the roadway.
Millar: Concurs that a decision should be deferred.
Dornbush: Stated she likes the layout, low density and tree buffer zones, but has the same concerns regarding trans-
portation and water.
LeMalr: States willingness to wait for more answers to the questions.
Erickson: Would like to see the transportation study before this is reviewed again.
Haugen: Asked If both the rezoning and preliminary plat should be deferred.
Kansler: Replied that responses brought to the Council at the second meeting in May.
Pace: Stated that we could seek clarity of the afore-mentioned conditions or agreement to indemnify the City as part of
preliminary approval.
MOTION BY HAUGEN, SECONDED BY ERICKSON TO DEFER THIS AGENDA ITEM TO THE SECOND COUNCIL
MEETING IN MAY TO ALLOW FOR COMPLETION OF THE SCOTT COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY, MORE
INFORMATION ON THE WATER SITUATION. AND CLARITY OR INDEMNIFICATION FOR CONDITIONS #2, #3, #5,
#5.1 AND #12 OF THE PIKE LAKE PONDS PRELIMINARY PLAT PROPOSAL.
VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Dornbush, Erickson, LeMalr and Millar. The motion carriad.
RECESS
The Mayor recessed the meeting at 9:32 p.m.
RECONViHE
The meeting
Consider Approval an Ordinance Amending the Zoning 0 Designate Property as Northwood Meadows
PUD and a Resolution proving a Preliminary Plat to be wn .. Northwood Meadows.
Planning Director Kansl resented the proposed prelimin plat and Identified benefits to the City of the additional
acreage of upland pal1dand additional acres of tree P rvation. Stated that the Planning Commission recom-
mends approval subject to con IS allowed until grading and hydrological conditions have
been met.
Comments:
Millar: E.'t'I~~ concern about high d ity.
Albrecht: Replied that in exchange, an . al eight acres of upland area are fragment areas that could be consid-
ered green belt which probably would not .. ,been made into a park in a conventional development.
Millar. Stated that it is good to preserve . uch as we can, but has concern about traffic through the neighbor-
hood and questions whether the City i lving . anent benefit when compared to the high density.
Dornbush: Expressed similar s. Stated she . ,e a lot of the plan and believes it would be nice to have trails
connected around the south end pring Lake Region park. Asked if the County wanted trails in the park on that
end.
Kansler: Replied that the Co ty previously indicated they ,not want direct access, but she believes they are revisit-
ing that. Stated that it coul added as a condition.
Dornbush: Believes it uld be a nice amenity and assumes a iI could be placed on the back edge of properties
without encroaching far on the lots. Asked if there is room for lacement trees to be planted on the property.
Kansler: Indicated public park area where some of trees would placed and stated that some may go on lots.
8
Planning Commission Minutes
February 27,2006
A recess was called at 7:46 p.m. and reconvened at 7:53 p.m.
~
B. EP06-103 Manley Land Development has submitted an application for a
preliminary plat consisting of 28.04 acres to be subdivided into 44 lots for single
family residential homes to be known as Pike Lake Ponds. This property is located
~ mile north of CSAH 42, directly north of the Vierling property and east of Pike
Lake Trail.
Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated February 27,2006,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Manley Land Development has applied for approval of a development to be known as
Pike Lake Ponds on the property located Yz mile north ofCSAH 42, directly north of the
Vierling property, and east of Pike Lake Trail. The application includes a rezoning of
approximately 28.04 acres from the R-S (Rural Residential) District to the R-l (Low
Density Residential) District and a Preliminary Plat consisting of28.04 acres to be
subdivided into 44 lots for single family development.
The major issue pertaining to this development is whether or not it is a premature
development.
Development of this property involves the extension of utilities and road improvements,
none of which are programmed in the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
Further, the development of this property is impacted by the plans for Pike Lake Trail and
the Vierling property to the south.
The City of Shakopee recently initiated a transportation study to look at transportation
system in east Shakopee and, specifically the CSAH 16 area. Shakopee intends to work
with the City of Prior Lake in this study to coordinate the transportation system. This
may include development of a collector roadway system, both north/south and east/west
to accommodate the existing and future growth in the area. The City of Shakopee has
also contacted staff to discuss the extension of sewer service, and Shakopee Public
Utilities has contacted the City about coordinating water service in the area. The location
and sizing of roads and services in this development may be impacted by the results of
these discussions.
In 2004, Toll Brothers approached the City about developing this parcel. The City staff
advised Toll Brothers, in staffs opinion, the proposed development was premature. The
City Council discussed this matter at a workshop on September 7, 2004. Ultimately, the
Council determined the development ofthis property could move forward subject to
several conditions.
These conditions were outlined in the attached letter to Toll Brothers, dated October 14,
2004. These same conditions still apply today, and the staffhas allowed the developer to
move forward with this preliminary plat based on the previous direction from the City
Council.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN022706.doc
7
Planning Commission Minutes
February 27,2006
Rezoning from R-S to R-l: The property is designated as R-L/MD (Low to Medium
Density Residential) on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The R-l district is
consistent with this designation.
Preliminary Plat: The applicant proposes to subdivide the property into 44 lots for
single family dwellings. The general layout of the plat appears appropriate, given the
constraints of the site. There are a several issues pertaining to this preliminary plat that
are somewhat unique. These are discussed below:
1. The developer must agree to all of the previous conditions for development of this
site, including upgrade of Pike Lake Trail from 42 to the north boundary of the
former Arima property to an urban collector street, pavement of Pike Lake Trail, and
the extension ofwatermain, all at the developers' cost. This segment of Pike Lake
Trail must be done before this development can proceed.
2. The current plan identifies 58.8% tree removal for drainage and utilities. The staff
and the developer discussed whether the development, especially the easterly cul-de-
sac, could be redesigned in a manner that would not require the removal of so many
trees. The developer provided a letter, dated February 23, 2006, stating this cul-de-
sac has been revised, resulting in saving an additional 35 trees.
3. The proposed plan disturbs a wetland on the east side of the property to extend a cul-
de-sac and create additional lots. This impact must be studied, and approved prior to
any work on the site.
4. The developer must provide concept plans for properties to the north, east, and south
of the development. There are retaining walls proposed at the property lines in the
future road right-of-way. The developer must verify that future grades will connect to
the proposed development properly.
5. There are some lots within the development that do not appear to meet the minimum
net lot area or lot width requirements. These lots must be adjusted to meet minimum
requirements.
6. In the memorandum dated February 15, 2006, the Assistant City Engineer has
identified several design issues. The staff has met with the applicant to discuss and
resolve many of these items.
The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the preliminary
plat is consistent with the City Council's previous direction. The staff therefore
recommended approval, subject to the following conditions summarized by Kansier:
1. Complete items 1-6 (preconditions of development).
2. Adjust all lots to meet minimum lot area and width requirements.
3. A wetland mitigation plan must be approved prior to any work on the site.
4. The developer must provide concept plans for properties to the north, east, and south
of the development. There are retaining walls proposed at the property lines in the
future road right-of-way. The developer must verify that future grades will connect to
the proposed development properly.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN022706.doc
8
Planning Commission Minutes
February 27, 2006
5. Three Pike Lake Trail typical sections should be shown. The Pike Lake Trail typical
section in front of the development should be 42 feet wide and show B618 concrete
curb and gutter both sides of the street. A separate rural typical section should be
shown for the Pike Lake Trail segment from Pike Lake Meadows to Pike Lake Ponds.
A third typical section should be shown at the intersection of Pike Lake Trail and
County Road 42. The urban typical sections should include an 8' bituminous trail (2-
1/2" bituminous, 6" class 5) on the west side and a 5' sidewalk (4" thick) on the east
side.
6. The Developer should dedicate additional right of way along Pike Lake Trail to
accommodate 80' oftotal right of way.
7. A preliminary 40 mph state aid design must be completed to verify Pike Lake Trail
alignment. The proposed park along Pike Lake should be depicted in the alignment
drawings.
8. Any issues identified in the February 15, 2006, memorandum from the Engineering
Department must be addressed.
Questions from the Commissioners:
Lemke questioned the additional water storage facility. Poppler replied it could be a
water tower or a ground storage facility.
Comments from the Public:
Frank Blundetto representing Manley Land Development, explained their initial
application was a PUD similar to their other PUD (Northwood Meadows). However this
is a difficult piece and had to redesign the site. This is good way for Prior Lake and
Shakopee to connect with County Road 18. Blundetto went on to explain the roads,
wetlands and runoff. It was hard during the winter months to observe the drain tile. In
the neighborhood meeting they tried to address their concerns for traffic and runoff.
Blundetto pointed out it was not their idea or intention to develop any part of the Vierling
property. Staff suggested the realignment of Pike Lake Trail.
Blundetto went on to explain the potential road alignment to County Road 18. It will be
tricky as there are wetlands and elevations to consider. They are going to end the
improvements at their property line.
Lemke asked Blundetto if there were any heartburns with staffs conditions. Blundetto
responded they understand the City's concerns and will try to meet them. They have
talked to the Vierlings however they will speak for themselves.
Ringstad questioned the estimated cost for the road improvements and lot. Frank
responded said the homes will be in the range of $600,000 to $800,000. The cost for the
in road improvements are in excess of $1,000,000.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN022706.doc
9
Planning Commission Minutes
February 27,2006
Ringstad questioned how does saving the 35 trees work into the equation. Blundetto
responded it would be down to 30+ %. There are not a lot of trees on the site so 35 trees
is significant.
John Uban briefly reiterated the process of creating the development.
Jeffery Carlson, 13496 Pike Lake Trail, said they are on septic and wells and asked if any
of the assessments would be incurred by the homeowners along the lake. Kansier said
they would not. All costs would be incurred by the developer. If those homeowners
would like to hook up they would pay the costs. Carlson also pointed out the heavy
traffic at the intersection and to consider that with this development. Carlson felt it is a
great development.
Mike Vierling, 13985 Pike Lake Trail, said his first concern is the intersection at Pike
Lake and County Road 42 and questioned ifthe developer would need an easement on
his property. Kansier said they have not looked at the specifics of the adjoining
development and work within the constraints. The City is not expecting the Vierlings to
dedicate any land to the project. If the developer needs the property it would be their
responsibility to negotiate with you. It is not a City project.
Vierling explained Toll Brothers told him he had to sign a document indicating he would
give them land for an easement and holding pond but couldn't give him an idea on how
many acres. Vierling felt the entire Pike Lake Road should be redesigned before the
project is approved.
Kansier agreed with Vierling and said that would be one of the City's concerns. Manley
would have to work with the Vierlings to figure it out.
Vierling said the lower area of property is in Ag (Agriculture) Preserve. An easement
could be done but is a longer process. Kansier said at this point the City is looking at
paving the existing road did not know how that impacted the Ag Preserve.
Vierling felt it was not their responsibility to have a park on their property to benefit
Manley's project. Kansier explained the park dedication and future plans. Vierling said
his main concern is having the road planned out prior to the development.
Steve Czech, 13360 Hickory Avenue, said the developer has decided to extend the paving
of Pike Lake Road up to Martindale. It would be nice of Prior Lake to take the paving to
the Shakopee line. To leave a gap of dirt road between Martindale and Shakopee doesn't
make sense. Also, a stoplight should be provided at the intersection of County Road 42
and Pike Lake. Steve's other concern is for police and fire access during construction.
Poppler explained staff deals with that issue on all reconstruction projects.
Czech said he would like to see a plan on the reconstruction of the cul-de-sacs and get
feedback from the neighbors. This will increase the traffic in front of his house. Czech
also questioned if there would be a lot construction traffic through Hickory Hills.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN022706.doc
10
Planning Commission Minutes
February 17,1006
Blundetto explained the traffic patterns in the development.
Kansier briefly explained the costs associated with the additional paving and the fact the
road is not in the City's Capital Improvement Program.
Bill Huser, 13289 Hickory Avenue, said his concerns were for the stormwater
management and extending the road all the way to Martindale Drive. Huser explained
the existing problems with Martindale's grade and felt this is a perfect opportunity to
realign the road. He also explained Shakopee will be building a new school and paving
their portion of Pike Lake Trail and asked if Prior Lake would be proactive and work
together and pave the road. Complemented Frank Blundetto on his neighborhood
presentation and residents are happy with this proposed development. Huser felt the
existing roads were not built up for any kind of heavy road construction vehicles. He
also stated there is no point of upgrading the roads until sewer and water extensions are
complete.
Kansier said at this point the City does not have any desire to go up and connect that area
to sewer and water. It is a costly project for both the City and residents. The neighbors'
points are valid. She also pointed out the City's funds are not set up to pave and connect
that segment of Martindale. The collector street funds are in the "red" because of the
number of county road projects.
Scott Vig, 13171 Pike Lake Trail, questioned how many houses will the sewer and water
supply. Kansier said they would be able to handle the 44 lots. Vig asked if it would
make sense to connect the existing 4 or 5 homes on Pike Lake Road. Kansier said they
could but it would be at their cost. Poppler said he could bring a request to connect
forward in a petition to the City.
The public hearing closed at 9:03 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad:
. There are a lot of good public comments tonight.
. This has potential for a good development.
. One thing not brought up yet is conditions 6 through 9 - Halfthe lots need to be
corrected to meet the minimum square footage and the street width. Not sure the
development is ready to be approved.
. 35 trees will significantly reduce the percentage - would like to see what those
numbers will be.
. I think this can go forward with the changes. Glad to see the improvements to
Pike Lake Trail and the developer is offering to cover the costs for that.
. Until I hear something different from the Commissioners, with half of the lots
needing to be reconfigured.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN022706.doc
11
Planning Commission Minutes
February 27,2006
Lemke:
. Questioned staff s recommendation.
. Kansier said the lot sizes can easily be corrected. Staff got a letter from the
engineers saying it is easy to correct but we do not have the corrections.
. One of the conditions was that the former Arima property has to be completed.
Does that mean it has to be built or occupied before anything can proceed?
. Kansier responded the City needs a preliminary and final plat approval before
they can move on with the Pike Lake Ponds final plat. The developer owns both
properties so it makes sense to work the timing out and develop at the same time.
Stamson:
. Questioned why it is important the developer correct the road access on Pike Lake
Road. Kansier said it is the first extension for Pike Lake Trail and the watermain.
. Could they just do the road? Why force them to do the whole development? Not
that I disagree, just wondering. Kansier responded it originally was two separate
developers and that was the segment that needed to get done first. In this case it is
the same developer and they need preliminary approval.
. The real concern is that the infrastructure gets in.
Lemke:
. Does staff know the zoning for Shakopee to the east? Kansier said she felt it was
residential but the area is outside of Shakopee's MUSA.
. This seems a little premature from the standpoint of developing the 42 and Pike
Lake Trail intersection. Apparently there has to be quite a bit of work done.
. However, agree if this piece ofland is going to develop this is the way to do it and
I would support that. Whether or not they're ready to move forward on the
preliminary plat, maybe, its not going anywhere for quite a while.
. Would like the developer to come back with a final configuration with elevations
and road right-of-way so we could see what the final plan would be. It is also
premature because some land is not available for redevelopment.
. Kansier said staff would be looking at potential road information.
. Sounds like City Council said the development could go forward with all the
conditions.
. I can see it moving forward but don't see the rush.
Perez:
. Questioned the additional water storage facility. Poppler said staff is trying to
work it in the CIP. Staffhas not identified a site.
. The development itself fits.
. Regarding the traffic - it is not a big deal. The change in traffic will not
overburden anyone.
. Comfortable with the lot corrections and should be easy to adjust.
. The only wild card is that the conditions are from 2004 but it is a different City
Council. Hopefully they will see this as the previous Council.
. If Manley is going to abide by the conditions, I would move forward.
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MN022706.doc
12
Planning Commission Minutes
February 27,2006
Stamson:
. Agree with fellow Commissioners - It is a great development. The developers
have done well with a tricky piece of property.
. The road connections make sense. Don't think the traffic between the
developments will be a major issue.
. As far as timing, in this case, the Vierling property to the south is in Ag Preserve
and will not develop for a long time. My understanding is that the Vierlings will
farm for quite some time and will not develop soon.
. If the developer is willing to abide by the conditions, I am comfortable moving
forward with it. This is quite a list of expensive conditions.
. Had the same thought as Ringstad with the lot re-drawings, but if staff felt it
would be easy to correct, and does not require major redrawing, I am comfortable
moving it forward.
The Commissioners briefly discussed the lots and touched on not having a neighborhood
park. The developer will have to explain there will not be a neighborhood park at the
time of development and maybe not for quite awhile.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY PEREZ, RECOMMENDING REZONING
FROM THE R-S DISTRICT TO R-l DISTRICT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY PEREZ, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS PIKE LAKE PONDS SUBJECT
TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Commissioner Stamson asked staff to point out the neighbors concerns on the road
connection in the Minutes for City Council.
This item will go before City Council on March 20,2006.
A recess was called at 9:18 and reconvened at 9:21 p.m.
6.
Old Business:
None
7. New Business:
L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNlNG COMMISSION\MlNUTES\MN022706.doc
13
p. <8 La.<8 Po ltS
_oca'~.on v1a-)
~
f
L
I
,./'1
/"1
CITY OF
SHAKOPEE
I,
.:.JSITE
/
Pike Lake Trail
I
CSAH 42
I YJI
I Y?J,-.ll
~Ii~ 1J; ~Bn
\ :
~
N
1-
.L-~n~"'1 Q.
t:;<,\'""":;,'.....j
I::. :1
[:,<'''''':'':''1
_'I\IAMOUSSR'ACE
=.::015 /_'RMNllU5 PAJH
_ ..--CI..RIl t.IlE
__lX>>ICRElElWJl
~IIICHT-OF-WAYl.M
'-.......""
e STOP SIGN
Q UGHTPO..E
STREET SIGN
1MiIItllnnIIlIDn....v_ .--._.... ........IMrWI,...... _......
...1DI111cllU1n,............_~..._...._ol'th.
.....,.",.. "....,....,.... _ ol' "",...,."........ _ aabjlct
=..=-_IIO:=:r:....,.;.:;: : ~ -::.. -::= ."ouId
1lGt.....llIIl:,.".Oll""~...;..r.....".............
..... _.... ..... ill ..... to> __ .., .....,..tr. .....
"'--"~ P.A. _.. ~tlIII.. ..-wt........, kR:t
.. cIIcnIc:W. ...-cI .. n,i.... wIUI '-" ... tile -<<-s -..c_ _
__..'''''...................u.IllI11moGtian........
,__,,~...........__ ........."".--.. ~ plat.
1he___"Ihe~I'__...IhIir__....._
"""Pt.............. --..,..aI_...._cftan,..'"
..,llGrt(I)ol'lhe...........
1hI......._IM...I.........lNplcwIorItMul"'"'*notieI.
s.~ ... ClI, .... .. c--t .....-
SHEET INDEX
1. COVER SHEET - SITE PLAN
2. EXISTING ~v..~.uv,.S
3. PRELIMINARY PLAT
4. PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
S. PRELIMINARY DETAILS
6. PRELIMINARY UTILlTY PLAN
7. PIKE LAKE TRAIL "".."...UcnON
8. PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN
9. PRELIMINARY TREE PRESERVATION PLAN
10. TREB UST
J. PRELIMINARY WETI.AND MITIGATION PLAN
, PRIlPARBD BY PIONBBIl BNGIN&DUNG P.A
PAUL A- 11IOMAS
isoIs'IEaBD PIlWBssIoNALCIVD.FJrlGJNFa
~, 11372
.. ItIiGISDtATION NUMBBR.
. ~LANDSURVBYOR
1112I
RBGISIKA110N NUMIlI!R
PIKE LAKE PONDS
PRELIMINARY SITE, GRADING, & UTILITY PLANS
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA
-,
...6;"':\
~
I
I
I
\
\
\
\
\
~
-
.
[]
(4).
1m"""I'
"'T---"--
........
\
\
\
\
\
\-
ZONING
EXISTING ZONING - -R-S- RURAl SUBDIVlSON RESlDENllAl
PROPOSED ZONING - -R-1. lOW DENSITY RESlDENllAl
SETBACKS-SINGLE FAMILY
'.QT~1Jil~
25' fRONT SETBACK
10' SlOE SETBACK
25' REAR SETBACK
12.000 Sf LOT (14,400 Sf CORNER)-NON SHORELANO
20,000 Sf LOT (24,000 Sf CORNER)-SHORELAND
86' WIDE lOT (103.2' CORNER}-NON SHORELAND
100' 'MDE LOT -SHORElAND
~~ @ ~ 0 ill ~ l
] JAN 1 7 2006 J
AREA CALCULATIONS
GROSS AREA
TOTAl WEllAND AREA
NET AREA
= 28.04 ACRES
= 1.09 ACRES
- 26.95 ACRES
DENSITY CALCULATIONS
Il=1
44 UNITS / 26.95 ACRES - 1.63 UNITS/ACRE
SHORFI AND SE"TRACKS
PIKE LAKE 150' SElBACK
l!EIl.AIlIl./ll~l'I~ 5f1Jil~
30' SETBACK FROM H'M.. OR WElLAND EDGE
By
!,I.~E~~net1ring
1'-.......".........-......"
_....._ MeadotaJldpaOftiae __A_N.Y. ___.,___""'1
11I1)11I__"::: =r~=_ ::''':~..~a::=
__1'-
IE:-
MANLEY LAND DEVELOPMENT
1915PLAZAmIYB
EAOAN.III1NM'IIOTAS5122
,
COVER SHEET - SITE PLAN
~
E
~
~
~
~
~
IlIMlLOI'IlIt
MANl.IlY LAND IlIiVBLOI'MENT
191' fI.AZA DIIYB
BAGAN, MN 55122
CONTACI': FItANIt BUJNDETIO
PHONE: (611) ""263
~~
'j
9 ~ ~
~
GRAPHIC SCALI IN f'DT
~
TOP NUT HYDRANT AT RASPBERRY RIDGE
ROAD AND EAGLE CREEK QRClE WITH AN
ElEVAllON OF 880.12 fEET (NGVD 1929)
LOCATION MAP
PUll. u.u. MJNe!IOTA
PIKE LAKE PONDS
PRJOlt lAD. MJNNMOfA
I 1 + 11
;
~
I:::~':.:'i'i-"""",
~--~
f ..1'.-
_))_..:s'Il:RI:!iECIIUC
_)_..~t....!It'&IILM
_...__~LIlI..ITTlJI€S
-..-_IMlDlQlQIICl~l.JII[
. ,..lP1IC LM:
~-CAlCI4llA51N
. .. CA'ICH ... IUiM
e. CAST 1IllM-*Off
...~-
."1DIa:~
6..F\.IolIIElIDClSD:_
.._ J\.AC 1'01.(
._NI\~GASIIt1PI
M_;"1[Y#IL'A:
I.. tWCttCIL
tl'..l..A_~YIIl.\II:
._l..A_~1CAO
O..~OIIISlt*I-.oIL
..-
,..~
l-lnD'I4I:MllOIl
. ..ltSTltIILE
l..lElE'o'I5ICIIlICIIl
.........to mL.
*W.~IIEU
.-~_~ a.--
1_.ulICW..LA/IG_ e_COlIIllIOl.PWoIT
._uGHTPlU _lftCl
g_-.JLE0lIt(Jt_5AtIT","OIIISlOIIl ..".....-
'1..,.-.. fj:_!IGtIIfICIotITt1lU
.-,/.......
f
J~
EI.~~Rengineering
11-,.-'11)..._....___"
xa~_ MendoCaHcipllOfficc :00'........_111... ___.,_____1
=-iiit"'~': iiul'..a.:Il.~I. =-':'~_~..:::::-
-_1-
1=:: ~
MANLEY LAND DEVELOPMENT
I!U'I'lAZADaIYII
EAQAH. ,. .,. .SS121
EXISTING CVJ_Ul1 JDNS
,-
I
i
~ ~ ~
~
GRAPHIC SCALE 1M P'E!T
~
TOP NUT HYDRANT AT RASPBERRY RIDGE
ROAD AND EAGlE CREEK CIRCLE Mll-t AN
ELEVATION Of 680.12 FEET (NGW 1929)
PIKE LAKE PONDS
.... LAD. MDMI80TA
12+11
TIT U S
"
\
\
- \
-\
"
\
\
------,
\
I..
S
/
/
/
---~
TOTAl.. ARU.
TOTAl.. LOT AREA
TOTAl.. R.o.W. AREA
IrfI..IteER Of LOTS
LARGEST LOT "
SMALLEST LOT
A\'ERAGE LOT
GIIOSS DENSITY
NET DENSITY (EXQJ.OES R.o.W.)
ZClNNG EXIS11Nr.
?A03n oc:reI
"1..15585 oc:reI
5.3782 ACRES
'1'1604 ~ ft.
'12.040 Iq. It.
'n4J2~ft.
1.57 LOTS{AC.
1.84 LOTS/AC.
RS-RURAL SUBDlYlSlON
unUTlES
AV.........
!'.!!~E~engineering
11__.-".........-........
='1i--=-= MmdocaHtiJbbOftice ::~.~".~~ II =.-::a..s:-E'
S T
\
DDITION
'-.---, ..- t
z
o
f-
21_3~:~---i--- 1 ~
-.'~
i ..nc.c.. :5 '&
.." ,-
I I
I I
I I
: I 10 5
fHE . I ~ ZO,2U.... tt.
~20.515 .... 1\.: :
: l -----. .---------
/)~
/~
.,
11
2O.J14....ft
.
-~
R.O'... 234.2P->.... It.
~J182_
.;)I~I
~
~
.
""".. .
"
..
.
2O,1~....ft.
... 3 2 1
f'2,045 .... It. ! 12,040 .... It. ~12.0.0 .... It. ! 1..70& .... It.
j
~
"'\.
.-'
SUIoIEcrT!C.Sl/2CfTHESl!2CflHE:NEI/4--'
4
--,r:.---- ---_--- ---::
...,,~>-_.. 1~
OllAINAGE AND unun EA5Dllt:IfT'-
1-------1-------1
! ~ ,,\~ ! 1 "'<v ,,\~ ! I
i "" i gk:.. .~. 1ft. z. Z.W.wl
'--_______,_--;;~>!n~
i i l' i
: ,,\~: ,,\~:
! c,~ ! c,<V !
L_____ i _____~
'I.
!.
H
I
DRAINAGE AND UTlUTY
EASEMENTS ARE THUS:
it
.... -
II
o -...... 0
_____l____Jl____I_____
, ,
being S 'fMt In width, and od;X:1n9 Jot
lln.. unlen oth...... indicated, and
10 f.... ... Iridth and adplnlrll" strMt
linn ond r... lot linn unI_ o!tlerwl..
Indlcate<lontheplot.
I~t'....., IV'nIII'nntoI ~ -......d... III AT ~~ nIlIIY
11II_1 per1f1l_SIIlrIl'Ii'lGlofIN5outfllWt"'~~~oI'5ecUon2J,
~,::~ ScalICountr.-...oto.1JIftg_101IM~oI
PREPARED BY PIONEER ENGINEERING. PA.
SECTION 23, TWP. 115, RGE. 22
LDCA TlDN MAP
"''''''''
~ e:o 1110
JOHN C. LARSON
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR
19626
REG. NO.
~
GRAPHIC SCALI 1M FEET
-_ r-
~
MANLEY LAND DEVELOPMENT
19U I'l..AZA DelVB
EAGAN. MINNdOTAS5l22
I 3
,
411
I
PRELIMINARY PLAT
PIKE LAKE PONDS
PmCa LAD. MINtEIOTA
.s:iiD.6.,.....I......l'i:;I~
.......-
~ :
. .
. .
---<<---
--<<-
---
---~--
_"y_
...
-1---
-
~
~:::::'::':":":""':"1
~{::1I:l~1m~
1iSt\'WllClij
.)#;^;V))
/ //)
-
~
1........1
,,,,. .....
-....
""""""
......
DllS.....SldWiSE1lP
-- .... ....
..........,....
ElII_rCDrnIURUN[
ElIS1MG,lt~LM
I'IIlPClIUlrCClll1llWLIlt
~WCONlOUIIl.tl[
-.........
PQICl.... VM1IJl1JIIf:
PllOP05iEDSI'OTD.[V,UlllM
........ ---
lIIlMAlED'lIf1UfCILN:
STAllEWmaTFDG:
HUVT-DUTY aT mICE
.......
f'IMll'l&D/DCIS'lllGIlET,WAU.(S)
.._'. . NftASlGN
ornNG ...... _
",,-
~ "AD DMUlPt
(TIP OF tnECT f'U.J
QltA\U....ACE
-""'"
IIllCKCQNS1MIClIONDf1lWIC(
......-n
" \\',~'
~. . '-. I'''''.
' -.:." \~,
"
.' \\
\ ". '-/" \.\
': I "'l
': ~r-.J
I ~"r'1
- ,
". .
it _r,,- "
/--" . .
:-;~:::~~? r'_
'-
" ','
I;
.,; "'~':''-~:~::.''7_,
'" " -"''"'''"....... - '~\}-
~:?/ -~~~~.
I~J . ~ ~ ,
< ., , ~
..... ......
OUllET _ S21.0
HM. _ 1531..
WET. VOl... - 2.24Oaf
STOR. VOl. _ 3.08701
SURF. NfU, - 0.37hc
, ~ .Ii!., //.
'" fft';;<;~~
~. ~'i [f!!)iIilf
..; +., ~H rill,!,,, ft
:/ ; ~...~T~=
, ."
/\W jl.iii~ri~ POND
~ : F ".:,'., " .Jo.J. r:-~ _~_a
'\"''''''';>
'..............'...1...
\...',~it,.~,l. '.
.'
~I.~E~~neering
11..-,.."........._.....'"
:IIID~ MeDdotaHciJbtlOf!ice "__IC... --_.,_--_"1
=.iMr"'::' =:--~=- ::.':=:.~~
...~-
1-
--
12
MANLEY LAND DEVELOPMENT
191.5PUZADlUV&
I!AOAN. MINMDOTADl2:Z
PIKE LAKE PONDS
PIlIOIl. LAQ!,MINHIIlIOTA
PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
-.
t
~ 50 lDO ~
~
GRAPHIC SCALE IN PUT
IIEIQI..lWIl.
TOP NUT HYDRANT AT RASPBERRY RtDGE
ROAD AND EAGlE CREEK CIRCLE WITH AN
ELEVATION Of 880.12 FEET (NGW 1929)
I 4
J.1I
I
"
r:RAf'lIllI:IlIn'lI_
1.
~
~
4.
~
O.
7. SItlQCPU
& CllIO'\ElE
GRAOED AT (II[ TK.
t. STA&IZE DEHJDED N1iEAS AN) SltlOl?LES w.'MN TIME fRAME LJSlEO IN EROSION
. ';,;, . PRAClICES
10. ICST.M.I. U1Ul1ES, STORM SEER. STORW DRAIN INLET ."."M ............ CURB II GUTTER. II
PA_
11. IHEN ALL CCJrISTRUC1KlN AClMTY IS CCU"LE1E Nfl) "THE SUE STABUZED. REWOVE
Aa:l.MJLA,TED SEJ:MNT FROM STOAMWAlER PONDS. INSTALL ALL Fl.TRA11ON POQS AND
PRAC11CES, REMO'tE SEDIllENT CON1RCl. 8W's, JHJ RESEED AHY NEAS 'DlSTURBED.
-...mEli
1. CCNTRACTCR TO ADHERE TO ALL REQl.IlItDEHlS CS THE ~ESOT" P<lU.UT\ON CONlRQ.
MOItC'( M.P.D.E.5. PERIIIT, INQ.UDIIC 1HE R[QlJIR[WENT TO ......zE THE NEA
DlSlUR8ED BY GRADfIG AT N4Y GIVEN 1IWE NC) TO 00lrlI'lElE 1URf ~lJON ... 1H(
1IriIE REQUItED IT 1HE PERYT Af1EJI COlIF't..E'T1(I OF WCfll(.
2. "COPY OF "tHESE PlANS WUST BE ON THE JOB SITE ~ CQNSTRUCllON IS ...
I'ROGlIlS
3. BWP's REf'Dl: TO EROSION AN) SEDlWENT CONTROL PRACncES DEFlNEO IN THE WPC:A
.......'..:;...._.... WATtR QUALITY ... URBAN NEAS JHJ THE ~T" CO<<fRUCllON SITE
EROI!ION AN) SEDlENT CCNTRO. fll.AMrtIrfG HNCl8OCJK.
BMP"s) SHALL BE INSTAU.EIl AND IN
SOME EJtOSI(:W CON1ROl.S SUOt AS
WAY BE INSTALLED AS GRADWG OCOJRS IN
BE .......TAINED UNTI. CONSlRUCllON IS c:tU"L[1ED AND
PASSED.
5. lHE I!IWP'S ~ ON THE PlANS N/IL THE IIIINMAI REQUlROIENTS FOR tHE ANllOP"TED
SllE ~. . -, . ,. ItS CXlNSTflUC1tON _'_'" ,-"-,-",,,-,-5 N'ID l....:..o....w."""' OR SEASCIrtAl
... . .~, DlCT"lE. THE PERWTTEE SHALL ANnapATE TH"T MORE ...-s -.L BE
HECE:SSMY TO ENSURE EROSION Aft) SEDIIlDIT CONTROL ON THE SITE. DLRNG lHE
COURSE OF CONS'nIJClION, IT IS 1ME .,....... ..., ITY CS THE PEJUlEE TO AIXJRESS ANY
NEW M' ,.' . ... lHAT MAY BE CREATED In' CONSTRUCTlON ACll\l1l1ES /IMD/aR. C1JtU.TlC
E'4ENlS AHD TO PROYIJE ADOmONAL ...-s 0\0: AND NJOV[ THE ........
REQUlBENlS ~ ON THE Pl..ANS THAT M"Y BE NEEDED TO PROVIOE EFFECn~
...'.M.~W..M,. aF WA1ER AN) SOl.. RESClURCf:S.
e. ALL lREES NOT US1ED FOR RDIOVAL SHALL BE ..........00.......... 00 NOT ClPERo\TE EQUIPMENT
w.1HlN THE DRIPI.ME. ROOT ZONES OR .THIN lREE PR01ECTICJrl FENCE NIUS.
7. ~ POSSlaE. f'RE5ER\lE THE EXISllNG TREES, GRASS AND OTHER \'EGET"nYE
CO'eO TO HELP Fl.TEJIl RlJNOFF.
a. ='1hl=\i~.IIIEN~~~~~s:?~_~
LEA\'[ " SlJRFACE RCllJQi TO ..-zE EROSION.
t. l'DIPORARY SEED 5HAU. BE WIXlT !IX _ . 50 l85. PER ACRE OR Af"PRO'<ED EQUAL.
IIlIJl..Qi SHALL BE WI)OT 1lPE t (CUAN OAT S1RA.W) . 2 TONS PER A.CIfE. OR ~
EQUAL NIIJ 0lSlC ANCHORED IN PLACE ClR APPRO'fED EQUAt.. INSTAUED TO ......... lOX
CiCJ'tOAG[ OF 1HE SURFACE NfE.A OISlUflBED.
10. PERIIIANENT lUAF RESTCRA"PON IS SEEDlNC IN A.CCCR)AHC[ w.TH IIINDOT 3871. SEED IS
MXlURE tlO "T eo POUNDS PER ACRE. T'lft 1 IIIUL01 AT to X ~AGE.TH OlSC
ANOIOR. EllMD SEEI>>fC IS WNDOT IIIIXlURE 25B AT 30 POl.JrrlDS PER IoCR[, lIPI..AHO
IU'FER IS WNDOT 2eB AT 30 POUNDS PER ACRE, .TH f1l[R Bl.AHICET. (INSTALL ONLY
~ GRCUI) IS DIS1\RIED) ALL saDm AREAS NeE. TO RECEl\i€ T'I'PF: I IlIJLQi NID
DISC NfQfOR OR EROSION CONTROL Bt..NICET TYPE 3. OR h ''''''~~ MTH TAClOFER
'""'"
11. SLOPES AT 3:1 OR SlEEPER. IMIJ/OR VlHERE NJlCA.TED ~ THE PLANS SHAU.. BE SEEDED
IHJ HAVE N4 EHOSlOH CONTRO. Ilt.ANICET TYPE .3 INSTAU.ED OR.....Y BE ...................-...
.TH TACKFER liIJl.Q4.
12. THE CON~ SHAll. RDfO\'E All. SOILS AND SEDlWENT TRACKED ~TO EXISTING
SlREE1S NCl PA~ MEAS.
13. IF Bl..OWfG DUST BEOCIIIES " NUlSNfCE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL APPlY W"lER FROW "
TANK 1RUO( 10 ALL CONSlRlJCllON IiRE.AS.
14. IIII<<DlAlaY F<lJ.O'MHG SITE GRADING OPERA.n~s AND PRIOR TO THE INSTAl.LAlION CF
U1IJ1lES, THE ENTIRE SllE (EXCEPT ROADWAYS) SlWJ. H"~ 8EEN SEEDED AND WULa-tED
AND aT FENCE SHAU.. HA\i€ ElEEN INSTAU.ED ARDlMD ALL PONOS.
15. ALL TDPORNtY ER090N AHO SEDIlIENT CONTROL WEASURES SHALL BE PROPERLY
~aF~THIt~~~DA~~~N~AIlIJV.l1ON IS ACHIE\'W ~
CONSTRUC TlON AC nVIfY REQUlREllIENTS
....mD:iKIL.:.~,.........,.......~
1. THE CONlRACTCR 9iAl.L IIIIPlEMENT ~ PKASING, \i€GETAlNE BUff[R S1RlPS,
HORIZONTAL SLOPE G1tAOlNG, AI<<) OllER CClNSlRl.IClICN PRAC1lCES THAT ......zE EROSIOH.
THE lOCA1KJr4 OF AREAS NOT 10 BE 0lSl\JA8ED WST BE DELINEATED (E.c. w.1M FLAGS.
STNCa. SlCNS, 51.T FENCE. ETC.) ON THE ~ SITE 8EFtlRE WORK BEGINS.
2.1oLL DPOSED SOIl. AREAS .,... 200 flIT Of A SURfACE WA1ER OR liMY STORMWAlER
COfIIKYANCE SYSlDl MtICH IS _..M..:;....... TO A SURFACE WAlDt IllUST BE STABlUZEtl
w.MN 7 D"YS (SlEIPER 1HNf .1::1 SLlI"ES). 14- DAYS (10:1 TO .1::1 SIlJ>>ES). OR 21 D"VS
~n:os.~~o:~ ~~~s:.~~~=.~.J.~
OR OTHER SY5lEW 'THAT DISCHARGES TO " SUW"ACE W"lER.
3. M NClRIIIAL llET1ED PERIIIETER OF NiY DRAINAGE DlTai IIIUST BE SlA8l.lZED .-rHlN 200
LINEAl. FEET FROIIl THE: PROPERTY EDGE. OR FROIII THE ~T aF DISCHARGE TO AAY
SURfACE WATER (w.lHlN 24 HOURS aF COJII€Cl'ING TO A 9JRfACE WAlER).
4..PlPE 0lJllElS MUST BE PRO\1DED w.tw lDF'ORARY. OR PERMAHDlT ENERGY DISSIPATION
w.1HlN 24 HOURS Of ...___~__~____J TO" SURFACE W"TEll
B. ~Tr.na.nRflIPAA~
1.SEDKNT CONTROL PIW:lICES lIlUST W1N1lI2E SEDllllENT DllERlNG SURf"fIa. WATERS. DITCHES
ANO 5ED1111ENT BASINS RECMRE SOIIIIEHT CONTRCl PRAC1\CO CH.Y AS N'PIlCIPRlATE FOR
sm: CXJI)IlKIG. If 00. ;RAD[ SYSTDI IS 0\€Rl..0ADED. ADDInoNAl.. L.IPGRADE PR.ACTICES
IIlUST BE 1NSTALLm, AN) THE StPPP IIIUST BE MIENDEO. lHERE SHALL BE NO Ut8CICEN
Sl.DfI[ LEHG'TH CF GAEATER lHAN 7S FEET FOR SJPES 'MTH A GRADE aF .1::1 OR SlEEPER.
SUlPES "AY IE BRCKDl .1H 51.T FENCE. ROCK Qt[Q( D,w$, 00t.P0ST SNNCES. OR 01HER
IoPPRO'tm IIIElHODSMD/aR. ASSHCJIlWt ON THE EROSION CONTRO.PI.AN.
2.SElWENT CONTRO. PRAC1ICES IIIUST BE ESTAaJSHED ON DO'IlfrfQRADE PERIlElERS 8UORE
IJF'GlU,(J[LNlJOlSlURSNCilACll"'TlESEIEGI\I.
3. THE llIIIWG aF SEDItENT CONlROl PRAClICES ..... Y BE AOoIIS1ED TO ACCOIAIOO" lE SHORT
lERIII AClMllES. HOIIE\'ER, lHESE PftACllCES WST BE ICSTALLED BEFORE 1HE NEXT
PftEClPlTAlION E'flENT E\UI If -mE AClMTY IS NOT COWPLETE.
4.COH1RAClOR IIIUST PROTECT ALL STORM DRAfl INlETS BY N'PROPRIATE BW'S Dl..RINC
CONS1RlJC1tON UNTI.. AU. SOURC:ES w.1H POTENllAL fOR 0ISQfARGlNC TO lHE INl.ET HAVE
BEEN ST-.ml,
5.lDIPClltARY STOQCPI.ES IIIUST HA\'E SIlT FENCE AROJND THE PERlIIIElER Of 1HE BASE Of
THE STOOCPlLE AM) CANNOT BE. PlACED IN SlJRFACE WATERS. tfQ..UOING STORM WATER
COfIIKYANCES SUOi AS aJRB NrlD QUTTER S'l'SlDls' OR CCJI)UITS OR DllO€$.
e.CON1RACTOR IIIUST INSTALL 1DIPOItARY (OR PERMANENT) SEDIiIENT"nON BASINS WHERE TEN
OR WORE ACRES aF DISTURBED SOIL 0AAf,l TO A COIIIIIION LOCATION 1iMD/rIR. AS SHOWN ON
111E EROSION CO\I1ROI.. PLAN.
C. nl'WA1I'RINCAIlKlOlllAJ"Ar.s:-IVUIWAr.I'
1.DEW"lERlNG OR ANY TYPE Of SURfACE DRAINAGE TH"T MAY H"'iE TURBID OR SEDIIIIDIT
LADEN 0ISDtARGE W"lP MUST BE 0IS0lARGED TO IiM ~ SEDlIIIENT BASIN ON THE
PRO.I:CT SllE ..eNEG POSSIBlL F M WATER CNf'tOT BE D1SOtARGED TO " BASIIN
PRIOR TO ENTERING THE SURFACE WATER. IT llIUST BE TREA.TED w.TH THE APPR<lPRlATE
8111P'S suat THAT THE DISCHARGE DOES NOT ADVERSELY AfFECT lHE RECEl\1NG WATER ~
DC:nIGTREAM L '.. ;,...., THE CONlRACTOR IllUST DCSURE 'THAT DlSQtARCE ~TS ARE
ADEQU"lELY .-........:;,.,...... F'ROW EROSION ANO SCOJR. 1HE DISCHARGE MUST BE DISPERSED
<MR NAlURAL ROCK fIPRAP, SAtcI IIACS, PlASnc SHEfTINC" OR OlHER ACCEPTED ENERGY
OlSSIPATIONIIIEASUflES.
2.AlL W"lER FROIIl DEWAlERlNG MUST BE Dl~ARGED IN " MAfoIER TH"T DOES NOT CAUSE
Nl..ISANCE CCNDITIONS, EROSION. OR INUNOAllON Of 'lIIEllANOS CAUSING SlGNf'lCANT AD'oOSE
Ilil'ACT TO THE 'fIEllNII).
D. "SPI'l!TYlH~ AND ..AlNTnlIANCE
1.1M&: CONTRACTOR IIIUST APPOINT SCIilEOHE TO INSPECT THE CONSlRUCTlON SITE ONCE EVERY
SE\Ol DAVS DLRNG AC1I~ CONSTRUCllON AND w.lHlN 24 IiOURS ,f.f"TUt " IlIolNf"ALl EVENT
Of GREAlER THAN 0.5 INOiES IN 24 HOURS. AU.. ...~'...~.'_"-> IllUST BE RECORDEO IN
IRlTING AND RETAINED PER ...P.c..... H.P.D.E.S. REQl.llRDIlEHTS. (MolE: L.ClCAL JURISOIC1la'4
.....Y RECIUItE " MORE FREQUENT IHlDtVAL Of INSPECnoN.)
E. PnlIIJnClN PRn&NTInH ....t.lA~nlT -..<:II---=:
1. SOUO WASTE MlJST BE DISPOSED aF PER ".P.c.". REQl.IIRDIENTS.
2.HAZARDOUS M"lERlALS IllUSl BE STORED AHIJ 01SPOSED OF PER IIlP.c..... REGULATlONS.
J.EXlERHAL WASHING Of CONSlRUCTION 'o&IIa.ES WUST BE lMTED TO " DfFlNED AREA Of
THE Silt. RIJNOf1'" IIIUST BE CONTANED ANO WASTE PftOf'ERlY DISPOSED aF. NO ENGINE
DEOfEASING IS ~ ON SITE.
r:,.'i~' i ---r-
~i ~- ;-:...........J~,t"
~ ..:::~~:.,
..-......
U::!::-_==-_
:..-=--.:=--
, - ,.1-- --
~~~ - LP-. ~"-
O'i,l' '...Lrilio.."fiJIt" =.-
~--
1'lN:"l.SG_{JII.u.)
""""""""
, Ill',;;:-----
~_'l\.~==--
==-~--
~ 1'1"1
r:,.r~i' ..::.~;":.:1: ".r...~
'::-'1:', __'......1
~---
r..J:-~===-_
!,I.~E!~neering :::::---~=-
11-,.-,........-......- 1-
=:-':=''':::' MtDdotaHdpaaOffia: ::::-.:=_ ~~=~$I :. _ ~_
'''''\w.._.~~.... ~.vn.
'~f:ltl...
"...rL" .,
IIllta.,.....CUTlER
,[ ?~IDJ
~
~I--
"-X'"\:..~~ .
-i -r: ~-,-
100 ...:.,.._
- ---
--
--
nRAlNTllF" "ROUND PONOJnRATlON BASIN
(TWICAl SECTION NOT TO SCAIL)
---~---
~"'~a
~ ~-
__CllUlUIID
=r..:::-
~. , --- ~//
....... /...
. ~a:..~_-=. ~.;
.... 11':=.-- ~}~
,. ~ //
BALE INSTALLA110N / ~
BAlE CHECK AT CA TCHBASlNS
R.Q.W. 25'
'\;;')' W --Lwol ~ ~.. I'
/ Jo ~ ~f1NISHED GRADE
'~; ~ I ~GR"OING GR"DE
J-- 10'
co' I j L HOlD ' H-=L
,"".'", """,,7 DOWN ~",
W.\IJ!W1
(TYFICAL SECTION NOT TO SCALE)
'l. ~~:;.., .'O.~' ~ .~ I
: (TYP.)
l -~"""'--FlHlSHEDGRADE
, / ;, I h ;c-<'''''' "'''''
! rJ liE"
l-J~.?- f~:;:;:L !
7 c.,.~. --2
""'" .
,.... 0
BASEWOlT FLOOR
~
(T't'PlCAl SECnoN NOT TO SC"LE)
R~1.CK 60'JW
(TYP) 1it(30 I 30 I F1HISHEO GRADE
I GR"DlNG GRADE
R
i iifmd----~I~ f~_=L
7 LJ.O'
SA"""H' """" = ~
(TYPICAL SECTION NOT TO SC"LE)
~=
PRELIMINARY DETAILS
OUTlET STRUCTURE W/DRAlNT1l.E
~
ROCK CONSTRUC11OH EN1RAHCE
-----.:s.:-
INlET PPE SECTION
OUnET ~cunlRF' FOR PnNnlF1l TRATlON A.lSIN
(TYPICAL SECTION NOT TO SCALE)
DRAWTU CU:NOlT SHALl. 1[1
INSTALLED" llINMlJIjI OFS
AlIO'\IE GROUNl FOR nR$T 'fEAR. /1lJ{. 1il.L PlUG (CAST IRON)
FINISHED SET 2" BELOW FlNSHm GllADf
"''''' ........,
-'~"."l ,,"
" lOPSOL J
(-),.."..~'"....._""'"
.....""
5-Df~~ta>E
lllmlt. ' .
I. BENDS I: RISER TO I[ SAME SIZE AS DRAlNTU MAIN.
2. ClEAHOUTS SHAl.l.1E INSTALLED E'4lIT 100 LF. :t 1:.\1
OEAO ENOS OF AU. LMS.
J. AO.IJSlMDfT or DlWNTILE QLANOUT SHAll. BE MAD( ONE:
YEAR AnEJt INnAL lNSTAl.LA1lON I: "T SAME 1M: ",5 THE
ANAl 5TCR111 S(.:Jt 1'CSPEC1lON.
4. ALL CILANOUT ..::H ARE .. ntONT Of" AN ~QPD)
LOT WIU. IE LOWERED I:YARlCED lIfTH A FDa POST.
MIJN11lFClFANClUT
(T'IPlCN. SEC1lON NOT TO sa.LE)
rd WOOD OR $1UL fENCE
POST. a' WAll SPACING. WIRE lIIESH ',.' .'~., r.
~$TD.FEl.Df[:NCE("''Jd'
ISH. .....1l1<<SH SPACIolG"
OVElllAP GEOTDTl.E FAIIlIC'- 1:'" 14-1/2 QAUC;[ 'MItE).
I:FA5TtNATrINTEJtVAlS./G[OTDCTIL[F"A.BllIC:
J =:A~~~~!.
f LAY FAIIlIC IN tHE TllENCH.
I FAIRlC ANCHORAGE TRENCH:
8ACKFlLLTIlENOlWITHTAW'ED
~. N"'M'lAl SOL
~
~
EllTDCl lllRE: MESH
INTOTIlENOI.
suPPORT POST
.u.ICHOIIAGE,It-S1TUSOIl
OR CEMENT IKIITAIl
ASSPEClFIED.
llllI<;.
A"oloOi FA8lllC TO MRE t.tESH
*SFf'OllTl"05TSIIITHltHGS
......-
rROSlON r.:nNTlKJ. NOn:~
""""
ALl DISt\JIII8ED AIlEA$ $HAll KA'<€ A -.wuw or
~)INCHESOFTOPSCIl.PlACED.
suo WIll SHAU. BE WNOOT ...ll 508. Al'PLY AT 75
=~. IoaE DClllMANT 5WllNG AnER
MUl.CH SHoIJJ. BE WNDOT TTPE-1. STRAW SHCUJ) BE
SPREADUNlFORliIlTATA RAlE or TWO (2) TllNSPER
ACRE 6; AHCHOllED lIfTH [lTHEll NET11NI; (lit"
5TltA1GtlTDI$C.
All SEEDlNC I: IiIUlOMG SHAll TAKEPlAC(W1lH1N
TWQ(2)llEEK$ClfTHECOMPlElEDGIlAOING
""""'"
m"wZEA
APPLY 400 PQMDS PER ACRE or 20-0-10 OR
EQUlYAlENTFEATlLJZDl_ lNCOIlPORAlEITNTtl'IHE
TOP THREE (3) TO FDUll (4) INCHES or ~ACE SOlI.
BTDlSlCllGCIlISiOWE01MERSl.nAllLEMEA.NS.
l-lF"AVY nuTY !;II T ,-n,CF
,.,,""-
(m'ICAI. SECTION NOT to SCAlEl
MANLEY LAND DEVELOPMENT
1915I'I.ofoZAttIYIl
EAGAN.MINNESOTA 55122
EB9SION mNTROI "''''NeE NOTE'
ALL EROSION CONTROL FENCE IS TO BE
INTALLED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND INSPECTED
BE THE CITY PRIOR TO ANY SITE WORK.
CALL -48 HOURS BEFORE DIGGING
GOPHER ST~TF n~f \.~
T'MN CITIES AREA: (651) 4s..-0002
MH. TOll FREE: 1-800-252-1166
PIKE LAKE PONDS
PRJOIl LUE. MDNI$OTA
J.1l
I
.u.I1J 1._ 1_~n~"ln
-.......
-!... _,_1. tt'OWlT
~ _.__*- - GA~ YAl.\lE
_____ <~ 0 - CA'IOf IWilN
-<IE---e -<:<:---(.---. S10llW ~
~ -<_J,~_5MlITAlITIMNItOI..E
,.'
M
...
"
.
.
...
.
..
-""~"""--
.
i-
I
f
II
FUIIUlCATEDIINHlLE
FUIILllCATED~TtVAI.\lE
FlELDLlICA1ED1MIlWIT
FlD.DLlICATEDSOMCl[
FUO LllCA1ED .-LOI VAI.\lE
FIELD lOCATED .-..ot HEAD
FUD UlCA1Ell w.TDI lIEU.
FnDlOCA1EDClA.'CJl'T
rnD LDCATED CATCH ....
FIELD UlCATDI flAIl[D OlD SECTION
FUIII.OCA1ED~U1aJTY
FUll UlCl.TDIl.1C1EllQRCUC1 tnEV.
FUDux:ATDlIaClPIGRCIN)TD.E,
fUD LOCATED fIElI CP1lC LM:
FUll LOCATDI o.LClIlIC UN[
nno lOCATED 1lNIlEIIliIIClM!;AS
FUD LOCAlEO roa: LM:
f'EU)lOCAlEDD.EC'1M:lJOll
FnD LClCAlm D.!C1M: IIQX
nnJllOCA1m~Cl.
f1ELDl.OCA'lEDtr1D'HlM:1Ql(
f"El.D UlCA'lED m.r.81N _
FUllLOCAlEDU1IUTYfI'CU
flEl.DUlCATEOUGHTf'CI.E
FnD LOCA'lED 1E'ST HOLE
fEU) LOCAlED -...ox
FUll LOCA'lEDSll>>l
-::::= PATH
__CCIIrIClIE'lE1WolJ(
---------IIlGIfT-OF--.YUNt
'SET8AQCLJri[
.
Jh
1
I
I
.
OU1t.ET .. 828.0
H'M. .. 83l.lJ8
WlET. VOl.. .. 2.2400'
STOR. VOL - 3.087a'
SURf. AREA .. O.379oc
t
~ lC10 IllCI
~
CRAPHIC !CALK IN PUT
WIl:Ii..lWIl.
TOP NUT HYDRANT AT RASPBERRY RIDGE
ROAD AND EAGlE CREEK aRQ.E 'Mlli AN
ELEVATION OF 880.12 fEET (NGVO 1929)
~I.~ERengineering
11....,...,.........-......,
_~_ MmdaIaHc:iptlOffice a1____:...._ _ - ._...___.....1
=r.r~s::. =_____ :'0::'::='''=--==
..~-
-_ r--
i=-
MANLEY LAND DEVELOPMENT
19UPlAZAI:aJVB
lAGAN.lGtOG!SOTA!!l%Z
I 6
"\'11
I
PRELIMINARY UTll.ITY PLAN
PIKE LAKE PONDS
JIRJOR LAD, MDI'tMOTA
"
-~
9 II:' lqD
~
GIW'RIC SCALB 1M FDT
i
~
TOP NUT HYDRANT AT RASPBERRY RIDGE
ROAD AND EAGLE CREEK CIRCLE W1lH AN
ELEVATION Of 880.12 FEET (NGVD 1929)
~I.~E~erJgi~ng
11......,-,-......._......."
=~=~ MaJdocaHei....OfIke =~=l_ ;~-:..~..=-=I "'N&_
-_1-
~=-
I PIKE LAKE TRAIL CONSTRUCIlON 1 MANLEY ~~PMENT
8AOAH.MlNNIlSOJ'ASSl22
PIKE LAKE PONDS
...x:. LAn, MINNIII01'A
1 7 + 11
..
", -: \ \ I ,I' '" , -'<< ,,\ '- -\ ~~,
.'; , . \ I ( . ----...r~~.~ ,.>" :'" ;;. ,\, -0 \.
I '\.>. V,"" '?~V y,h ,. \' , V ., .., r .N.', r. U,_,::.~C: \""C"::''',.' '0; . .. #",.~.: i
.~,-~~",..1.,.,:\~. \ .:",.' ,,",,~.-~,j,..~, ..~,-::1fl\/!"',+'C, ."",;""*.1>...' ~...... -- '-.
N' ~. it'0:'\' . _=; ~ IhR\w...' IE"; p.' f '1~.. 'j :~ ,.' - ~.\
M '-~. ~ ,) . ).-=y)! J. x' , L I. . __ ^ , . /
," , Y.' '- ;-... ,. ..--"'--";~ JJ, ~ v '\ ~ '"" -. '.1 "14 -~',~'
,
" ~
/../' ,.,! I / . ' Ii'" . _/j- j r ~ :2\'.\\ .... .t'.... ," ,r'j;"'- ~~ ,~~~ 'l~f ~
,'';>; ~:1' , j !,l,e i\,.. ~~~. ......c;;~. ..,~:.. /." ^i~ y..:~t '<~,2;:::?;:~
". ' .".~ ;~~al~~c{ i~r.:j 6:'~0~~~/~~",;~\,,'~ ~\~ :;~~~~~0::~ \'~'<1f~i~f1J;~tt,'
rll,1 ~., :"~~~nl'li iL " ~ . ,'~ 'hr0~\' \~ ~'f~~ ~\~,. f/ ~..\~~... ~ ' \ '\ \\, 1~ -!\:.~\~'~'t,~ ~~ ~- ~
:~ ' ~. jJ Ii\ll -===f:l: ~ ~ ~~ "~ ~...\.~.\.\ 2 ~\ t, ~~ A. <V l ,,\ \ ~ . \\;:\\ !. 1
-I" il'~~ .', :~~ ;.. :', ~ -' 1 \"'\' :\0 \~~~ ~ ~",'.., 1 ~ 'T, . \~ ~\&I\,\;- ';,''''
I . :1 "-1;..... ,. ","" ;'0 i : ;~~'~- ~~.~)- -- ~ h, '~0L' 5 ~U' r a,""'It::: i~' ~.. "!" '\\ . ~)~S\' .' '~'-
:/ ~N _ 110 IJ l~ - ~''- )'~ ~-;: ~'\;: Uo I I ~.;~~.., 1> ~" ~ Y:..1f ,,,,,,...,,~.,- '--
f:' ~ 'J)<. '-,,, .... :,,(--.,..-, ,.~ ./, v- :.\ \ . ',),); . i" ....::.. ) \'I ( j ',,'. " '." ,)'".. --:
if J '-~.., ,...,.... - '. ~ / 'D ~~~ 1 tit-\. "__ ..:.-v tI .~...;.;; I ..... J ~ .'. . \ ;- - /~~ ~'~ .... :..::::.
_ .1/ I.' I 1 :-;,~ - - }-<' \~ "1'.. \... '/ :-l\lY!'l"< ", ...,.... -.. .""'C"-""""'" '~~~'~"'" ..,"-.~
~ "-::: .'..1# .If ~11(i::i ~ -J..::..\. ~ ~~. I ' Z ~" \/ \ ',. ci:~ ......... ~::=::~R:::'-~ ~~ '" ~~~Ii'<~
,-' ~~..';';.:-;:;-.,.,;";-;.. " .. <l::~j!'~~;:.rF'~'\r...;li~I\.....'..f;; ~'~'GS1.r' ~..~-' ~ '1'; ,21fr~')ji~B ~\..~ \. ~ ~llIF"1 ,;
" '.i~,J,.~-~ < vf: "~~. ~~ .rt 0 0'11 -. , 'l1"" J' "-'.~ . ;~t~,~~~ ''''~f'' '~ ~ ~i~(
'~~'~ ~1 ~iJ ,._JC:~7~ ,,~~~~j\1;~c~J',~<'~~'U1$j;;1,
l'II:.~r".:'T'".~(T., ';7..;dt~~.> ....... ~ n ('->--:-; / !.~,
.:-,:,\ "-
,'\ \..... .
~'\tj
/~ .
PLANT SCHEDULE
PLANT SCHEDULE
LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS
OVERSTORY lREES
IU'I__~"~_
~...-..=.
ti 'tr.==.-
EVERGREEN lREES
LANDSCAPE NOTES
ii; :
-Ji.I!I i! !
~
~~~-IlttI",,:~~~I;::lD
.The~c..Itoc__-"J"wlJll"'...
!IleprO,..t_pr1Irto--....
...../'QUIII..,j"""'~toM~lIt_1I'&
.~~=~~~
oAllplooot",,,t___u.._"""""..
trw __ _ of ___-....-,
s-.. '01 .......... 51_
.:-:=ofTM':.:...r;;...'t.~~-'le.
.~~nc::-....~....':.~,
to..........- of IOll.P.H.
.1tw~c:.n___anl__....t
:r=..~(:J=-~-=-~-
.~~~.'t'-::=. ~.::::--,:.:; -
......-..
.~~~~~.2.:3:'" --
.:::;::::4:=~~"'=:::~:
e =~-=.::.. -:..=:: t..~::"d
:U_IromIMu..'.........
.r:~~'L:a;...~~:.~..:.
'm
EVERGREEN lREES
I~
w===~'-
i.-: I"'.MII":
~= =--='::..-:...
TREE WlllGAOON REQUIREMENTS
1'" 1IIEES 10 IIIPlMT lASED ON 1REE PltESERYA'OON CALD..U."OONS
'DES[ 1REES ME CMIt NID NItNE. THE l.AfC)SCAPE II(QUIEMENTS
LANDSCAPE REQUlROlENl'S
44 L01S _ ,. 1IlIED 10 PI..NfT fCIR l..AHDSCAPE AEQUIBIEN1S
no 111I[[I PER LOT (a LDlS . 2 -70)
FtU: 111II PUt CCIID LOT (I L01S . -4 - JI)
10:1 OF 1lEES NEED to E A ...... (IF 3E' OR 1'+ II HDClHT
~.!!!::ffiE~.::fneering
=~:!::. MaIdocaHeipll()ffic:c ~-:"'~.~l~~:.
Il-,..,....ilIIo...-......" - 1-
.._..,...__....1 DIlAallPf
. _.u...__~_ c..,... _ ~_
~=:: ~
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE,I
TREE MITIGATION PLAN
DECIDUOUS TREE PLANllNG DEl AlL
.~i' ~~s
~~ 'l.ri.
~\ .~
.' l':ll!!!!n:Io
==-:'!.~ , !ri;.lP.=-_-:'
-;.::..:.-. i ~~a#
~:r ~::.r::r-
MANLEY LAND DEVELOPMENT
19UPlAZADIlIYIl
BAOAN.MIMNDOTA>>122
CONIFER TREE PlANllNG DETAIL
""..........
PIKE LAKE PONDS
JIIIxa lADI, MINtElIOl'A
gJ.ll
I
f
Ii
r
f
TREE PRESERVATION NOTES
'__~~-'CICII1lUlC1aI......oCt1""'1Hf
~lIl/tTCII"lD_M.L._NlllIIII.-s..oa:aI~
_____1llU~.-s.
2_1Itt~fDlCl.~.~CIUlSIO(llF1Hf~f1I'
...___1II....WD. _110__.......
::: ~~ ~"':" IKP'::O cu:..~lUI
'_NOnJ.~.~~'K-...M~~
.._1IlI_1.IIlI:.....0If...,.__T....lD....\IUl.
4 -CIC ...srK1'MDI1O..-T QIAtIIl[..lIC....CICIft'IIlT IlL
IIICl:1ilC11lll-'_lLAI<Mtot~gr_IM'IDUU
..,...-.~
'-'OU'OClIII~_T.\UCUlbmt___
....lDCA1EO_CIf"IIfI!f1lllU:~.....
S__._lMIJ..-r_ TMI:.va.___lOoM."
T-""'''-,fllIiIIl1lllD0l:WII,AlIIlII-lIIlIt__.sT
~ __'''=~-..==r~-TCIIIl: 1IIIU:
fI.~ERengineering
'""'-
PROTECTED ROOT ZONE
Q
---------...---
-----
.-..---.-----.-.
....___.__.._r...__
.-------.....--..-
---------
..,........r."."......--
..'===-...,--....,.:.=.:....
.---...-...---
---....-.
.ERESERVA TION TREE TOTALS
CALIPER .
INQ<~O::
SAVE 62 554~ (2..JX)
RElotOVE FOR
GRADING 124 124'. (58.8X)
RE~OVE fOR
UTlllHSEPDSjDRIVE 32 314" (l4.9X)
TOTAL SIC. TREES 218 2109" (100.0~)
NON SIGNIFICANT 34. 356r
DEAD/HAZARD 7 60-
OFF-SITE SAVE 1 12.
TOTAL TREES TAGGED 572 574r
=;.:::!:a,:
........-"'"'"
;lU..._.I(... 1'-,..............---- - I-
I, ~ ___..._ I . ~~
(JUJ1B I __u.-_..~_ c.c.NII. ~ 0.0._
i:.
TREE UIl1GA TION
AllOWABLE REMOYAL fOR GRADING - 29 (RG)
REMOVE 124 TREES/1241-
1241-/2109"' _ 58.8X REMOVED FOR GRADING
AMOUNT Of CAliPER INCHES EXCEEDING
ALLOWABLE REMOVAL'" 58.8X - 25.0~ :: 33.8%
(33.8%) (2109.) '" 712.8"' TO BE MITIGATED FOR
(712.8-) (.S-REPLACEMENT RATIO) - 356" CALIPER INCHES TO REPLANT
356"/2.5 (MITIGATION TREE SIZE) '" 1-43 (2S TREES) TO REPLANT ON-SITE
ALLOWABlE REMOVAL FOR unUTlEs.
HOUSEPADS AND ORlVEWA'rS - 251: (RU)
REMOVE 32 TREES/314"'
314"/2109"' '" 14.9" REMOVED FOR GRADING
AMOUNT OF CAliPER INCHES EXCEEDING
ALLOWABLE REMOVAL'" 0
SEE lANDSCAPE PLAN FOR TREE MIl1GA TION LOCATIONS
taW IUTT &T"'l*D
"'_~l'IMlE
TREE PROTECTION FENCE
I
I
.
~
~
5..-:::r-
PRELIMINARY
TREE PRESERVATION PLAN
MANLEY LAND DEVELOPMENT
19Un..AZA~
BAOAJ\I. YINNB!IOTA 55122
/ /==""'1!::-
/' -~~~-
/ __r__.._
#. :0., =-.-
..---
Jf]d
LJ. ~-~.
-=:-_""='-
PIKE LAKE PONDS
I'IUDa u.u, WINNDOTA
:
'"',
1
II
I
\l ~ ':lI ~
...-:=
GRAPHIC SCAl.l: III FEET
105044 TR2.dwg
I 9 + II
..., ....
TNiI It. S1DIS TrPE
!!Ill f en
ft!ijJ ~= ::
11 ~ ~
fm1 " ~
~, !IIi
~! :-
JI)l1 13 ~ Ie
~: :
1M.. I. [M,
=~: :
7D1!1 12 lID
:ii ~l :
'~'! ElO
I =J:; ~.~
I~ ~ :-
r~g :
~~ r 1:
II....!!.. ..
1!!l1 I !!'l
'l!Il J !Jl
~ 11 .
r=- -\' 11;
:=!, :~
17D.18) 11 1Dl'
t tI!!'ll11 1:ntI
: = ~ ~~
i~l: ~r
,"':J 15 -l~
=J; ~;
_)12 I~
l:f.1" ,n
~~! ~~
ij~ t
~." J'I!f!!!-
!JB 11 f.I-IM
ma t3 ~
lI!P1 I. 'lIL.IM
:1! :~
~ 1~ lU
=:~ :w.
=J ~~ ~. f.:.....~
~t2 =-
~J::
r7i'i72) 15 2::otUM.
1=::0 ::.
1 m7! 15 'I]
171'J7l! 1110 ~
17fJ11,4 :~
7im 7 PH
!!!!IlJ ,., ;t
a: ;
=J:~ ~;
~ ~ ~
~:~ i~
7lDI tn ;r.
~ . jj-:
1~: r
t n8!l 10 Be
I'" 1n l'J
: ~J: :.
17IIlMIJ 10 ~
I 71D111 II lJC
"'.=
...-
~
............
!!!l
~
......""
-""
~:
,
,
......""
,
,
......""
,
,
,
,
......""
, 1
............,
~
~- ,
:""'"'" I
~i
!!t"".....
l!l '
!!'I '
~. ,
10'
~I
~I
'" ,
'"
'"
'"
...
'"
'"
~
'"
'"
'"
'"
"" ,
............
~
-
..---
...
~:
"" ,
~,
'"
'"
'"
'"
"" ,
............,
-,
-,
... ,
-,
-,
............,
... ,
............,
l!l
-
-
...
iG
-
......""
~..""
......""
,
"""'''''
,. .
~
......""
i
S
,
rVl;
,
,
,
......""
,
,
...., ....
TN;f ... S1EMS TrPE
: :::; i ": I~
I-lri,! 2~
M!~ 1 ft!l
1711>> 1D ~
17107 to en
I liji 11 An
17111ll 13 GIll.
: ::i?J:: ::
11112) v. I:
: :::~:5 1J;m
I ;:~! ~ :
HUll 111 an
711. 1 1-=
~~ ~ :
TiZ)J 7 en
~~: :
1= II Bn
::;:: .~
n-}1 ~
n::J t~ en
~~:: =
~:;I ~ E!:
7t~'. I!II;
71t1'2 en
I;:~ ~ ::
11<6(l13 !II;
1Ut 111 .. IE
'1~ '1 lIE
I l1C!. IE
I ~E ~ :
7,.1111 IIlE
[;.~:, ~
t 7ttIIJ 111 IE
I 71S'1. 1 !;'m
I 71S a BE
171i. 14. IlIC
~~~~; ::
71511 g en
~~:J L :.
7;~:O :..
7:1)!Q ~
7182) 2lI ~
171&y'lf) r.w
17* 1. ~
1 71M 7 BI'l
171. 15 BI'l
'711J7 10 III;:
171. 12 BI'l
7" 11 GA
71711 " ~
~~~I ~ ::
~~~l ~~ ~ :.
~~~~.: ::
7177 a GA
71n 15 GA
71711) a Bn
~~J ~ ::
7182 II GA
71113 7 III;:
7111W. GIll.
71F 1 r.A
171. 7 lIE
:~~J~~ t
17'!PJ1!l .1-~
: ;~:J; en
1 71JY II !Ie
1 7!jq II Em
171IM 10 ~
171Q1! 7 I!l':
I ;~:~: :
I 7* I en
I 71il 12 en
I nOli 9 GA
~I.~ERengineering
1'.....,---.......----
il. . .. MmducaHe:i.....Offic:e .,--"'... ..-.,---....,
=~.=a~ f;:r"..:''='.. _.~_...~-
S>A1US
I~
,
......111
~
...-.
.............
I~"
.~
'"
..........
,..........
;~
..........
..........
'"
..........
;'II-fEICNF.
~-
.............
............
.............
~
!.......
-
-
-
_.
~
-
~
.............
.............
.............
~
.............
!P _
.............
~......,.
-
..........
.............
~......,.
-""'"
~
...........
~
.............
'"
~~
~
~YM;'
1lO
""
........,.,.
i!ii
-
.............
NS-$E~
"'......,.
~
""......,.
.........,.
""
~
""......,.
...
""
""
...
.............
...
...
""
...........
............
...
r&N::W'M':
1lO
-.....
~
iG- -
~......
1lO
.............
;0.
........".
~
........".
_--.o;e
"'"
!OJ
1-
:..... -- -~
..., ....
TNJf IN. 51EM5 Tl'PE
~i ~ J;2u
1:1ZW 7 ~
1m 8 ~
:~ : ~~
r~ 1~ :'
: :~J ~ ~
::~: ~
, "'~' ..,
1721 a III;:
177'1 10 IlIC
: ::J 1~ 2:-
1 72!SlJ 11 29ft
~:J: :
r 7222) I ID
r=:I~: 2~
I ~J a ID
: =': ~
I 3 ~ ID
r~f1 :
;j~. :
!1>>1 12 Em
;J ~ =
~~: ~
h72!lH II ::
i~J ?
r 1]qJ 7
, ,..,~ ..
I 1AU '7
,,,.. .
:~I:'
17p 111
, ""'I"
172!II:l 10
172!'l111 .flr!
I m ~ ~::w
172!13 10 7;';-"
t 72s.i 12 Em
I nM 10 lie
I 1ii l' lIE
~ miJ 8 :-
I ~ ~~ ~L:W
:=J 172 :
:=j: ~
I 72lW, 7 Em
1 r.!M '7 2WILL
~~,~ ~
I nM} 8 QC
172081 8 l"m
: ~J ~5 2:~LL
~ TZ72) 18 ~
, """i. ~ !Ie
, , ..,
~=~j :;
! 777l! 8 !;:m
117Tll 7 WII.L
:= ~ ~
I~ 7 l"hI
I 721!13 19 QF
172'IIW 15 ~
~:, ~
t 1'.M1) II WilL
Ii ~ ;~~
r~) 7 BE
':3" ow
l 72!1W'. CW
I '5 CW
~~:: ~
I =J ~5 ~:
I T.D11 11i1 CW
,.,
1m
OW
~
'"
~h,
..
'm
'"
~.;;.
N01[S
"'.=
,
""""""
......~
,
.
""""""
/&sAVE
""""~
f
""""""
i
......""
,
""""""
,
......""
,
......""
,
,
,
......""
......""
,
,
,
,
......""
......~
......\If
......""
......""
......~
......~
......""
......""
......~
......""
......~
,
l'M'1!I
_lIE
I~
~
.............
~\II;I
~~ 1
~YJ.I
......~
......"" ,
"""""" ,
......"" ,
......~
,
.....""
......""
,
.....""
,
,
NS-SAVE
.....IIE
I::::::
,
.....""
""""""
~\I'F:
......~
......""
,
,
,
,
=1
............'-1
~~
~ I
~~
..........
:iii.~
::~I
......"" ,
Id-SA\fI;. I
M'l-SA\IE I
.....~
""""~ ,
......IIE
.....IIE
........
......""
OlE' ....
TN;f IN. S1EMS 1'd'[
~J8 '""iF
nm" II ~
-r.p" ra;:
7i)i II ~
Ii! 11 !IE
..... ~
fin 1Q en
""'7itii fI BI'l
m 1ft Rn
~~~J ~5 ~::
7317) 13 Em
~~:I~: :-
I:~:: :=
I ~~~: ~
~ ~ ~:.
~f3 IlIC
173Zl!. IlIC
T.QlI II IIHIK
~7 :1lC
1iii t1 1M'
~~j =
~,~ :;
~: ~
F~ ~1 ~
1~ 7 rM.
:~ ~ :::
1 ~J 12 GA
Hn18) 10 IlIC
T.WO[ II 1M
I=),~ ::
l~: :
: =J: :
H::J: :
I~I~: ,~
7353. 8 GA
~;j ~~ 2 :"
1M 1. lie
{;j,~ ::
I!Y!iIJ 8 ~
:~: ;
I T.IR:'I 18 :lJM
I nIIW 17 ,jJ;
[=: <>00
=J~: :
~J1" ~
~J ,11. GA
7372) a a..
73n' '" iflNtl
7':rr4" 8 0..
nn 1j Be
nri" en
\ nTl iii OIl
\ 1m II CIl
1M 10 CIl
I iiiil 13 en
I iiI.;) 7 1M
.173R2J!Ii BIO
: ~ ,5, 2=,
17.wj 8 /III;
I7:WIJ'O Em
H: ,70 ::
'''''' ,
I~ 8
:: ~ ~
'~J 1!1i lien
:=I~~ ::
1~'2 rM.
I ?Jil1112 B'n
:= ~2 :
17<&11I1 !I I an
IE-
~-
~
~
~
",.1US
........,. -,
~ ,
...........'
!j~1
~,
............1
~I
~t
.........,.,
~;
.........".
............
,
............-
.....""
......~
I~
......""
,
,
,
,
,-
.....""
iG
~
'"
~,
'"
.....""
~
'"
'"
::=1
......~
~
""
...
""
...
""
~
~,
~
...
~
~
~
......IIE
l
...
...
...
... ,
............,
... ,
"" ,
... ,
, ,
... ,
............'
.............'
........".,
... ,
=,
............,
......~ ,
.....~ ,
... ,
.............,
...........,
...........,
~I
~l
f!o~1
............!
~ l
.........".
............
~
............
~
~
~ -
,
.....""
TREE LIST
OlE' ....
1#1;# ... 5TDIS 1lPE
I 71101 15 CW
1 7M1:l 14 CW
740:3 11i1 CW
7.10 Em
7ft 12 Ern
ia 12 lIE
~;;2 ::
:;~~. 2:~
; ;:~~ ~ :
~22 cw
I ;~..~_: ::
7.1 8 B1l
7.1- 7 Bn
7' -,. III;:
~~; ::
}@ ~ :
~~ ~ ':
~~; :
iillN I Em
ii:i 11 Em
fa1 12 en
743:l 12 2~
ioW 111 INU
7Ool.. Em
7" 13 em
fa. Etn
f~~; :u.
i.. 1a WILL
fE~:3 :LL
7- ~ BO
7.... 8 II:
~: ::
~:J ~~ :
;~~. :u.
7451115 WILL
74U 18 WILL
i4i3. 12 WILL
746i II WILL
745& 1. WILL
f!J ~ ::~
-;:-4Wj 11 ON
i4lllll 1I WILL
7Al1i} 13 WILL
7482' 9 AC
7Mri 10 RC
7. 7 ~
7. II 8E
1_ 10 3A.
71i1r1 17 3"WILL
74811 II BE
7. 8 BE
70n l' 2 f1NtI
7471 ,. liE
~:: :
: ~:~:: ~
17418) I Rl:::
17471) 11 III;:
~II ~
~471} ~~ ::
~9 ~ ~
74ft! 7 BE
7.. 8 lIE
7. 10 BE
7. 10 lIE
~:J~: :
7") 2lI ~
~:J ~~ :
7ei l' Rl:::
7. 7 an
f"4lloi 7 Em
7. I an
~: 2:
17. 7 an
178 11 ~
,isii 7 21GA
"'....
........
.....IIE
.....~
.....IIE
~-
...........
..........
""'-""
....-i'M
....-i'M
...oae;r
....&iiE
...---
...........
~oae;r
~
'"""""""
~
....."" ,
:::: I
~
........ ,
.......~ ,
"'SA\IE I
.......
.....~
.....IIE
.....~ ,
~.....,.,
~ ,
~
........,.,
...........'
....... ,
......~ ,
........ ,
........
......IIE ,
""""lIE ,
::::: I
.....IIE ,
.....IIE ,
lrB-AA\IIE I
.....""
........
,
""
:.........,.1
, ,
.....IIE ,
....."" ,
............
... ,
...........,
"" ,
rnMlr~"__~
~
...
~
...
""
""
...
""
........,.
.........
~
........".
...rEiOiE
..........
""
""
if(. del;: Jr6.18OIE
..,---
...........
- .........,.
..-.....
.........,.
...
....&iiE
~I
MANLEY LAND DEVELOPMENT
l'UfU,ZA.taIYII
BAOAN. MlNJrlB!QTA 55122
..., ....
TACt ... S1tMS 'm'E
i ~ j~..
:_;;-~ ~ -
751 5 21Em
7511 I 3!IC
~}2) ~ :.
:~~~ ~
H111 5 1M
:~ ~ :.
75111 I IE
~ 8 1M
7lilI!1I 8 1M
Jis:z:i) I an
~ 1~ :
=J: :
-! 1~ ~
~~: ~
m:i I 9D
"". '"
7W I ~ liA
7!EIII II ,GA-
'7537 8 [;A
J 1511!1 8 GA
I 153& g 4 IE
~ ~ 1~ :
: =j~ ~ i
17545 5 Rll
1 7!5018 S ~ an
: ;=J 11i12 :.
17~ 7 BE
~J! :
~: ::
t 7iiM I an
17ellll 7 BE
I iiIi 10 en
I iiD1 II GA
~: :,
I 7a1~ 13 2''';:
I 71111 II IE
I 181:1 5 an
11812 7 BE
I 1814 7 BE
I 7a1! 13 IE
I 781~ 13 2 <IE
11811 8 lIE
1 7811 II IE
p-~; fl:...""
~1 :~
mEE LEGEND
oc
..
..
:m.
~
f~T
~ .-,,,..,,..
NORWA NQIlWAY IiIAPI.C
PH PAf'08ftQol
.. -......
"" ..........
'" ......
~ :::=
s_ 'IIIQ; 1lI."WD
llIS_...UlCAlUDfT.-.EAIlD......S'O'G
RC_"llI.IIOIII'oUI~Clt.OI:
., _ 'WElOKJIDllMDn:M"",,*,,-._'I1 MOU'lLllIES
D _ 'IIIQ;.IIlIIll_IIIo1OTIfCUGEIIII'IIIQ;f01Al.S
.......11I: _ 1lIU III NI1T (6 -.:.wr lIIU IIZl OR ftatS T'<ft:
1lIIU1S1JICAlEDlIllIUllIK""G
....._ _1IU IIIIGl lIr-.:AllT1lIUIIZlClf 5II"Uli$ TIP[
1IIEI:IIIIJ1CA1'Ul_llIUllIa.-:u
IIT.oa:._'JIID:MAS~_lIr,,-,IJ(CI.T
111 TIU_llTifll>__~_
""1US
"" ,
...........,
~IIE ,
,
~
~
::....... -l
.............,
...........,
~
~
""
""
~
............
""
""
""
...........
""
AG
",,-
""
""
...
~
""
'"
'"
'"
~
~
~
'"
........,..
~
....~
....iiiiM
~
........
~-
...".......
...
""
'"
~
....-.....
...".......
........
...
............
........,..
~
~
...".......
.......oi>iE
............r
............
-.....
............
~
.............
'"
.............
NS-~
PIKE LAKE PONDS
PIUClav.u..~A
lOJ.u
I
~j'7jj ~.
. . z::::~;;P1:;:~.~ ,
-' ~:
WE1I.AND MI11GA nON SEED MIX
NAll\IE SEDGE/lIET MEADOW
(llllC1\JIOE W2)
LEGEND
. ~..ACT
....,...n.
.Clf iiX
- a'
,~ "
- ..,
,~ "'"
- ..,
- "
,- a,
~~- -....... - "
--" - ..
CNlO:~'" - "
~- -....... ,~ .,
-~ -...- - ,.,
-~... ......- - .,
-~ ....usn.u\Ul1l.J$ - ..
~--~ ............ - ..
...- - -~- ,~ ..
.-.JlCPl._ ~_T'" - ,.,
u..._ .....- - ..
~":ioTr79U) .....~~ ,~ ..
E\,IlI'...lQIIUII66o\QU.Mil - ..
E\,IlI'...lQIIUIIPUIF'OlUo1\llll ,- ..
'IEllW___ ,~ ..
. .........-.. ,- ..
~~...~ ,~ ..
- "
,- ..
,- ..
==...::r___ - .,
,- t~
=~ ,~
--~ ,-
- V[JlI;N,\f,t.SQQ,t.AT... ,~
cu...atSllOOT --- ,~
I
I'''' ....-
WFTI...AND t.4ITIGAnON ON-"IIT
IUaIIl..fI.l.
4,575 sa. FT.
mm
IlllI
r7:'1
l.:.:J
..11 ANn _ .6""'un.lT
~.."..-
........n.
VlET1.ANO W1l1GA,TION (NWC)
.5,451 sa. FT.
~ IIUfFEIl (PYC)
.-..",
P.V.c. (POND)
31,929 so. FT.
P.V.c. (BUFFER)
8,424 sa. FT.
~1IUfFEIl
AWN<< 111 . 'IIJ'ItI
..... III . .-JH
TOTAl. REPlAC[Y[NT
oM.Sn SQ. FT.
T
W
~ -...00'
--.....""
(1182 sa. FT. SURPlUS NWC)
(JI,7n so. FT. SURPlUS PVC)
A 2: 1 REPlACDIENT IS REQUIED
TO BE SEEDED 'M1H BWSR WIX1URE W2
PIaNEERengineering
awL_ ~..- _ _
11-,.......__...____
_~_ MeadoIaHcipdsOfftce 1Il1_..._JC.W, --_.,._..,...-.....1
=:iirI"':''::. =~~=.. ~":=='='~
I-
-
...,..,~--
WETLAND A
;\
'('
1\
'\ ..\~,2,r , ~.
\ ~& JwPA&T 'tl'tPE 2)\,
OJlEA .... ~15. SQ.rr:', ~
\"-\ ,
,.;
1';
DNR PROTECTED
WATERS 250W
! f
WETLAND MITIGATION GRADING
.--
I :TS~1P M.AT
I~~
o~-
r==--
.~...
"
n,
,..
u
..
,..
,.,
,..
,..
~.
~: lD' VARIES
~! ~TlO!: 1.C~~i---T-----l ,r~1&ttG
;: ELEVAlION or :',,: : /
~i~~MNOi ", i ..... :
c: ",', , "~___.____4. SALIIACED TOPSOIL
~, " i 1 '; l ~=~~[~f
)t~~~:;-.:~~:.;f--"~~:..c..::'7' ''''''
_~i -'.... SCRAPE I' Of TOPSOIl AND SEED \MlH 8WSR
SEED IllIXT\JRt: W2 NATIVE SEDCE:/WET "[AllOW
"IX WIlli nP[ 1 IIIULCH.
DO NOT PlACE QRCANlC SOIlS FREEl)
CANAAYGRASS GREW .. DONOR SOIL AREAS
~
-...-
_......IIIIT_
..
.,
~
.,
..
~
..
..
..
..
..
..
.,
..
..
..
..
.,
.,
..
i
PIKMDE D.5' HIGH
UNOULAlIONS
AlONG wmGA TION
00"""
~ lI:D e:o
~
GRAPHIC SCALI IN FEET
iii... ....PI.II-.,-
- --------------
105044 WET Iolll 1.dwg
~
PREUMINARY
WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
MANLEY LAND DEVELOPMENT
19L5I'LAZ/o.DRIVB
BAOAN"MINNUOI'A ~122
,
111+11
~-
~
~
PIKE LAKE PONDS
PUJR UdE, IIOHNI!3lJfA
~emorandum
DATE: February 15, 2006
TO: Jane Kansier, Planning Director
FROM: Larry Poppler, Assistant City Engineer
CC: Steve Albrecht, Public Works Director/City
Engineer
RE: Pike Lake Ponds (City Project #05-193)
The Engineering Department has completed a 2nd review of the preliminary plat dated
January 17, 2006 for the subject project and we have the following comments:
General
1. Show the City project # 05-193 on all plan sheets.
2. The final plans should follow the requirements of the Public Works Design
Manual.
3. Obtain PLSL Watershed Permit, NPDES permit, and SWPPP prior to grading.
4. Provide plan sheets using larger scale according to City standards.
Gradino Plan
1. Slopes of maintained areas must not be greater than 4:1. Maximum slopes
adjacent to mitigation areas shall be 5:1 in accordance with WCA.
2. Retaining walls exceeding 4 feet should be designed by an engineer, include a
fence, and must have a building permit. Retaining walls proposed to be
constructed next to building pads should be revised. The close proximity of the
wall to the building pads gives insufficient space for grading a swale in front of
the wall. Two 4' retaining walls terraced need to be designed by an engineer.
3. Easements will be required for the work outside the property lines.
4. Provide access for water quality pond. Pond access paths should be paved and
have a maximum grade of 8% and be a minimum of 10' in width.
5. Swales behind Lots 1-6 Block 4 and Lot 14-16 Block 2 are greater than 300',
please revise grades or add catch basin.
6. Provide existing and proposed NWL, HWL, and OHWL for all waterbodies.
L:\06 FILES\06 SUBDIVISIONS\PRELIM PLA liPike Lake Ponds 06\Eng. review 0 I 3006.DOC
7. Minimum basement elevation for pads adjacent to ponds and wetlands shall be
2' above the 1 DO-year HWL elevation. The lowest opening shall be 2' above the
emergency overflow. Show low floor elevations for building pads.
8. Show emergency overflow routes from all low points and show elevation of high
point along emergency overflow route. All emergency overflow routes shall be
graded and the easement area sodded prior to building permit issuance.
9. The erosion control measures shall be installed and inspected prior to any site
grading. All trees to be saved must be protected by silt fence or construction
fencing around the drip line of the tree to protect the root system. This fencing
must be installed prior to any grading on the site.
10. Provide concept plans for properties to the north, east, and south of the
development. There are retaining walls proposed at the property lines, verify
future grades will connect to the proposed development properly.
11. Provide minimum 20' easements along lot lines where backyard catch basins are
located.
Hvdroloav. Hvdraulics and Storm Sewer
1. Lots 13-16 Block 2 obstruct drainage way and impact wetland. Each proposed
house basement is under the level of the upstream wetland. This configuration
is a risk for nuisance drainage conditions and property damage and is
unacceptable. All structure LFE should be 2' above the HWL of nearby water
bodies. Draintile design separating homes and wetland is unacceptable due to
possible water drawdown impact to wetlands.
2. Future land use upstream of drainage way should be modeled to predict
increase in future water volume flowing across property. An erosion resistant
channel should be designed to prevent future property damage.
3. Volume control must meet PLSLWD requirements. Provide volume control
calculations for review.
4. East pond flows into wetland near Pike Lake. Culvert under driveway between
wetland and Pike Lake should be modeled. Additional water to this wetland must
pass through safely and not effect the inundation period of this wetland.
5. More information should be provided on culvert under Pike Lake Trail near
northwest corner of development.
6. LFE on grading plan is hard to read, please revise font or drawing scale for
review.
7. Provide Rational Method calculations for all storm sewer.
8. Dikes used to create rate control ponds must at maximum use 4: 1 slopes and
measure 10' wide at top. At minimum, a clay core should be designed in
consideration of groundwater flow. If head difference between NWL of pond and
downstream land exceeds 3', soils data will be required in the area and dike
design must address maintenance of pond water level and dike stability. Outlet
pipes through engineered dikes should be designed with anti-seep collars.
Specify that sand bedding not be used through dike section.
L:\06 FlLES\06 SUBDIVISIONS\PRELIM PLAT\Pike Lake Ponds 06\Eng. review 013006.DOC 2
9. Before a grading permit can be issued, a SWPPP must be submitted and
approved by the City Engineer. A SWPPP is a requirement of a construction site
NPDES permit required by the MPCA. A SWPPP can be multipart or a single
document and can be in either a stand alone form or included in the plan set.
10. Provide details for soil infiltration features in back yard areas. Inundated water
level of basin must meet rules in Pubic Works Design Manual as if it were a
pond. (LFE 2' above HWL).
11. The design engineer is encouraged to call Prior Lake Water Resources
Engineer, Ross Bintner at 952-447-9831 with questions on any hydrological and
hydraulic comments.
Utilitv Plan
1. Final utility plan will be reviewed upon submittal of plans and profile sheets with
final plat.
2. Verify that all sanitary and storm manholes are located outside the wheelpaths.
3. Show fire hydrant locations for watermain on Pike Lake Road.
4. Easements on private property shall be a minimum of 20' or twice as wide as the
depth of the sewer line. Verify that all easements meet this requirement
(sanitary sewer between Lots 9 & 10 Block 1).
5. Proposed watermain on Pike Lake Trail should be 8" DIP approximately 250'
south of project and continues to the north.
Streets
1. Show temporary cul-de-sacs at the end of Street 1.
2. The development should make the Hickory Avenue connection, show proposed
geometrics on plans.
3. Three Pike Lake Trail typical sections should be shown. The Pike Lake Trail
typical section in front of the development should be 42 feet wide and show B618
concrete curb and gutter both sides of the street. A separate rural typical
section should be shown for the Pike Lake Trail segment from Pike Lake
Meadows to Pike Lake Ponds. A third typical section should be shown at the
intersection of Pike Lake Trail and County Road 42. The urban typical sections
should include a 8' bituminous trail (2-1/2" bituminous, 6" class 5) on the west
side and a 5' sidewalk (4" thick) on the east side.
4. The urban typical section should include 2" of Bituminous wear (MV4), 3" of
bituminous base (MV3, 8" class 5 (crushed limestone), 24" select granular
borrow.
5. The Developer should dedicate additional right of way along Pike Lake Trail to
accommodate 80' of total right of way.
6. A preliminary 40 mph state aid design must be completed to verify Pike Lake
Trail alignment. The proposed park along Pike Lake should be depicted in the
alignment drawings.
L:\06 FILES\06 SUBDIVISIONS\PRELIM PLA T\Pike Lake Ponds 06\Eng. review 013006.DOC 3
.~.....-... ..~ ". ".""""'.' ...~...Jt..
',_ : _,' . '::_, _,',. _ >_". _.:',' . ,'"J,__ )_,
" . . . ... .. . ~ ~ ... ....
: ......;.-i ~w~~englneertng
MENDOTA H.EIGHTS
CORPORATE OFFICE
2422 Enterprise Drive
MendQta Heights. MN 55120
phone (65i) 681-1914
fax.. (651,)681 -9~88
CIVil ENGINEERS LAND PLANN.ERS. LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
COON RAPIDS OFFICE
201 85th Avenue N.W.
C;QQn~pid$. MN. 55433
phone (763)783-1880
fax (763)783.1883
www.pione<l~<l"g,(~?!
February 23, 2006
City of Prior Lake
Attention: Jane Kansier
16200 Eagle ~reek Ave SE
PriorLake,~N 55372
RE: Pike Lake Po~ds 1- ~eeting with Developer
Dear ~s. Kansier:
Below is a response to your memo dated February 14,2006. Your letter stated the comments
from the DRC for Pike Lake Preliminary Plat application. Our responses to the DRe comments
are in bold.
1. Premature Development. I advised the developer this development could be considered
premature. We noted the previous council had indicated they would be willing to let the
development go forward subject to several conditions, including upgrade of Pike Lake
Trail from 42 to the north boundary of the former Arima property to an urban collector
street, pavement of Pike lake Trail, and the extension of watermain, all at the developers'
cost. These conditions are outlined in a letter to Toll Brothers. I provided the developer
with a copy of this letter. The proposed Pike Lake Ponds development will meet the
conditions outlined in the letter to Toll Brothers.
2. Tree Preservation. The current plan identifies 58.8% tree removal for drainage and
utilities. We discussed whether the development could be redesigned in a manner that
would not require the removal of so many trees, especially on the north side of the plat.
Layout was altered to lessen the wetland and tree impacts. Approximately 35
additional trees will be preserved. This will put the tree removal for grading to
-40% .
3. Net Lot Area. The net lot area of each lot, less any wetlands, must be provided. The net
lot area must equal or exceed the minimum required lot area. All lots meet the
minimum net lot area. Areas excluded include wetlands and ponds (NWL).
4. Wetlands. There was a great deal of discussion about the wetland on the site. The
proposed plan disturbs a wetland on the east side of the property to extend a cul-de-sac
and create additional lots. This impact must be studied. Layout was altered to lessen
the wetland and tree impacts.
-:J. -".........~.. ._~----,.~:..c
'". . . ,:,:~,,; '. "'.. . .
... ..., ". .... -i. -i. .... ..... .'. '.:.' .
· ...: L. ... ",....,...LLengtneenng
~ EtoI.pOTAH EIGHTS
CORPORATE OFFICE
~422 Enterprise Drive
tv1end!;lta Heig~ts,MN 551.20
pho... (651)681.1914
QX (651) 681-9488
CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
C.O.ON RAPIDS OFFICE
2bl 85th Avenue N.w.
Coon Rapids, MN.55433
phone (763) 783~ 1880
fllx(i'63) 783-1 8~3
1I!!'.ww.piol,'lee~eng.co.m
5. Extension of Utilities to Property in Shakopee. The City does not have the capaCit:)r to
provide water service to property to the east of this development without additional
storage. Sanitary sewer and wat..... .....,ain stubs will be provided for possible
development of adjacent properties including Shakopee.
Attached is the new layout. If you have any question please give me a call.
PIONEER ENGThlbbKING, P.A.
~
-
Joseph L. Larson, PE
Project Engineer
Cc: Frank Blundetto, Manley Land Development
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
.~ m"l ~ :~ 'I
" ,..' n~.4Jil
..:_ _ i,j U 3 I
October 14, 2004
Toll Brothers, Inc., Minnesota
Attention: Jon Helmers
8220 Commonwealth Drive
Suite 150
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
RE: Follow-Up to Meeting of October 7, 2004
Dear Mr. Helmers:
On October 7, 2004, the City of Prior Lake Development Review Committee met
with you to discuss the rezoning application for the Harold Bohlen property. As
you know, the development of this property is contingent upon conditions which
are caused by the fact that improvements to the existing road, sewer and water
are not contemplated for improvement in the City's Capital Improvement
Program. The following is a synopsis of our discussion.
1. The rezoning application must include the Whipps property. Without this
additional property, the Bohlen property cannot be subdivided. The
rezoning of just the single parcel is premature.
2. The Arima property at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of CSAH
42 and Pike Lake Trail must be completed prior to the development of the
Bohlen property. This development will extend water service to the north
boundary of the Arima property. This development will also upgrade the
adjacent segment of Pike Lake Trail to collector street standards.
3. Toll Brothers, as the developer of the Bohlen and Whipps property, has
agreed to upgrade Pike Lake Trail from the Arima property to the southern
boundary of the Whipps/Bohlen property, to a temporary rural section.
The section will be temporary until the Vierling property is developed. The
upgrade includes the following:
a. Grading
b. Paving
c. Right-of-way or easement acquisition (The City only has
prescriptive rights over the existing road. Additional right-of-way
1:\04 files\04 rezone\toll bros\meeting summary .doc
www.cityofpriorlake.com
Page 1
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
and/or easements may be necessary to accommodate the grading,
ponding, shoulders, etc.)
d. Ponding and runoff control for the new road section in compliance
with the Watershed District requirements.
4. Toll Brothers, as the developer of the Bohlen and Whipps property, has
agreed to upgrade Pike Lake Trail adjacent to the Whipps/Bohlen
property to a collector street and to pay the entire cost of this upgrade.
5. Toll Brothers, as the developer of the Bohlen and Whipps property, has
agreed to extend water service from the north boundary of the Arima
property to the Whipps/Bohlen property, and to pay for the cost of this
extension.
6. Toll Brothers, as developer, has agreed to contact the Metropolitan
Council to obtain a determination about whether or not road
improvements will be permitted within the MCES sewer easement.
7. Once items 1-6 have been resolved and preliminary and final plats for the
property have been approved, Toll Brothers, as developers, has
voluntarily agreed to pay the entire cost of items 3-6 in addition to any
development fees which are due and payable as part of the Development
Contract. These costs and the improvement process will be outlined in
the Development Contract between the City and Toll Brothers.
We want to be certain we all have the same understanding of this discussion. In
order to do so, it would be very helpful if you would sign the statement at the
bottom of this letter and return the letter to me. I am enclosing 2 original copies
of this letter, one for your files and one for mine.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions, please
contact me directly at 952-447-9810.
Sincerely,
~ ~ Q:f{~
ane Kansier, AICP
lanning Director
I am the authorized representative for Toll
Brothers, and I voluntarily agree with the
obligations set forth for Toll Brothers as set
forth in this letter.
cc:
DRC Members
By: John Helmers
Date:
1:\04 files\04 rezone\toll bros\meeting summary. doc
Page 2
1002.700 PREMATURE SUBDIVISIONS. Any preliminary plaUfinal plat and/or
development .may be determined to be premature should any of the
provisions which follow exist:
(1) Lack Of Adeauate Drainaae. A condition of inadequate drainage exists
if any of the following provisions exist:
~ Surface or subsurface water retention and runoff is such that it
constitutes a danger to the structural integrity of the proposed
structures.
~ The proposed site grading and development will cause pollution of
water sources or damage from erosion and siltation on downhill or
downstream land.
~ Storm trunk facilities and/or regional ponding facilities that will serve
the proposed plat have not yet been constructed.
~ Factors to be considered in making the determinations regarding a,
band c above may include, but are not limited to: average rainfall
for the area; the relation of the land to flood plains; and the nature
of soils and subsoils and their ability to adequately support surface
water runoff.
(2) Lack Of Adeauate Water SUDDlv. A proposed subdivision lacks an
adequate water supply if the proposed subdivision does not have
adequate sources of water to serve the proposed subdivision when
developed to its maximum permissible density without causing an
unreasonable depletion of existing water supplies for surrounding areas.
(3) Lack Of Adeauate Roads Or Hiahwavs To Serve The Subdivision. A
proposed subdivision lacks adequate roads or highways to serve the
subdivision when any of the following provisions exist:
~ Roads which serve the proposed subdivision are of such a width,
grade, stability, vertical and horizontal alignment, site distance and
surface condition that the increase in traffic volume generated by
the proposed subdivision would be detrimental to the City's interest
in promoting and protecting the public safety and general welfare,
or seriously aggravate an already dangerous or hazardous
condition, or when, with due regard to the advice of Scott County
and/or the Minnesota Department of Transportation, said roads are
inadequate for the intended increased use.
~ The traffic volume generated by the proposed subdivision would
decrease the level of service on highways existing at the time of the
application or proposed for completion within the next two (2) years.
(4) Lack Of Adeauate Waste DisDosal Svstems. A proposed subdivision
lacks adequate waste disposal systems if, in subdivisions for which sewer
lines are proposed, there is inadequate sewer capacity in the existing
system to support the subdivision if developed to its maximum
permissible density after reasonable sewer capacity is reserved for
schools, planned public facilities, and commercial and industrial
development projected for the next five (5) years.
City of Prior Lake Subdivision Ordinance
(5) Inconsistencv With ComDrehensive Plan. A proposed subdivision is
inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan when the subdivision is
inconsistent with the purposes, objectives and recommendations of the
adopted Comprehensive Plan of Prior Lake, as may be amended.
Subdivisions that are not proposed in areas consistent with the criteria for
allocation of MUSA reserve shall be deemed inconsistent.
(6) Public Service CaDacitv. A proposed subdivision lacks necessary
public service capacity when services such as recreational facilities,
schools, police and fire protection and other public facilities, which must
be provided at public expense, cannot reasonably be provided for within
the next two (2) years.
(7) Inconsistencv With CaDital ImDrovement Plans. A proposed
subdivision is inconsistent with capital improvement plans when
improvements and/or services necessary to accommodate the proposed
subdivision have not been programmed in the Prior Lake, Scott County or
other regional Capital Improvement Plans. The City Council may waive
these criteria when it can be demonstrated that a revision to the City
Capital Improvement Plan can be accommodated.
1002.701 Burden of Establishina. The burden shall be upon the applicant to show that
the proposed subdivision or development is not premature.
1002.702 Process Used to Define a Premature Subdivision.
(1) Application. Upon receipt of an application for a preliminary plat or a
final plat, the City staff will review the application based on the criteria
listed in Section 1002.601 of the Subdivision Ordinance to determine if
the proposed subdivision is premature.
(2) Notification. If the staff finds a subdivision premature under the criteria
listed in Section 1002.601, the applicant will be notified of the staff's
findings in writing within 10 business days of receipt of a complete
application. This notification shall constitute denial of the application.
(3) Appeal. Any owner of affected property or any applicant may appeal the
staff finding of a premature subdivision to the City Council. The appeal
must be in writing and must be filed with the Planning Department within
5 calendar days after the date of the written notification of the decision.
The required fee shall be paid when the appeal request is filed. When an
appeal is received by the City, the applicant will be notified of the date
and time the City Council will hear the appeal. No appeal will be heard
until all owners of property within 500 feet of the subject property are
notified of the date scheduled for the appeal hearing. Notice shall be
provided in the manner set out in subsection 1109.200 of the Zoning
Ordinance. The City Council shall hear the appeal within 30 days of the
filing of the appeal unless that period is extended with consent of the
appellant. The City Council shall render a decision within 30 days of the
conclusion of the appeal hearing.
City of Prior Lake Subdivision Ordinance
.
WSB
& AnocioleJ. Inc.
Infrastructure _ Engineering _ Planning _ Construction
701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite #300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763 541-4800
Fax: 763541-1700
Memorandum
To: Bruce Loney, P.E.
Public Works Director
City of Shako pee
Michael Leek
Community Development Director
City of Shako pee
From:
Chuck Rickart, P.E., PTOE
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Date:
April 20, 2006
Re:
CSAH 16 Area Study - Prior Lake Impacts
City of Shakopee
WSB Project No. 1566-12
WSB & Associates, Inc. (WSB) is currently in the process of preparing a study of the CSAH 16
area in the City of Shakopee and Prior Lake. The study area is bounded by TH 169 on the north,
CSAH 42 on the South, CSAH 83 on the west, and CSAH 18 on the east. The purpose of the
study was to address access needs along CSAH 16, as well as developing a north/south and
east/west collector roadway system to serve the developing area in the City of Shakopee and
Prior Lake.
A coordination meeting was held with City of Prior Lake Staff and the City of Shakopee Staff.
As part of the study and meeting, several north/south and east/west collector roadways were
discussed. Based on that meeting, and the preliminary analysis results, the following
findings/conclusions are being considered:
1. The extension of Foothill Trail from CSAH 16 to CSAH 42 was considered. A traffic
model was developed with and without this connection. It was found, based on the
traffic model, that the amount of traffic on the local roadway system would not
significantly change with or without this connection. In addition, the physical
constraints of making this connection south of Horizon Drive in the City of Shakopee
would be very difficult. Therefore, it was concluded that the alternative without the
connection south of Horizon Drive would be recommended.
2. It was discussed that an east/west collector roadway on the Valley View Road
alignment should be provided from CSAH 83 to the intersection of Foothill Trail and
L:\06 FILES\I16 SUBJECI\CSAH 16-Shakopee SludylCR 16 MEMO-BL ML-04I 906.doc
Memorandum to Bruce Loney and Michael Leek
April 20, 2006
Page 2 of2
Horizon Drive. The alignment of this roadway, adjacent to the City of Prior Lake,
between Pike Lake Trail and Foothill Trail was discussed in detail. The primary
issues revolved around an existing final plat located south of the Shakopee/Prior Lake
border which shows a roadway alignment through it from Pike Lake Trail to a
connection to Foothill Trail. Several collector road alternatives were discussed
including:
a. Shifting the roadway south to follow the platted alignment. This concept was
discarded in that the function of the Valley View Road extension as a collector
roadway is not conducive to the platted lots shown with direct driveway access to
the roadway.
b. An alignment on the border between Shakopee and Prior Lake. This alignment
was also discarded in that the existing platted lots would have roadway frontage
on two sides.
c. Shifting the road north into the City of Shakopee to line up with a street
connection to the Foothill Trail Development area. This alignment was deemed
the most practical in order to provide direction to the developments being
considered in the area.
The final conclusion of this item was that the City of Shakopee would show an
alignment of the roadway shifted slightly north of the border connecting at Foothill
Trail. In addition, further discussion with the property owner of the platted lots in
Prior Lake should be considered for not only roadway alignment issues, but future
utility planning for those lots. If the roadway alignment could be shifted south, it
would be with cooperation from the property owner.
3. An East/West collector roadway south of Martindale Street extending from Pike Lake
Trail to Muhlenhardt Road was discussed. This alignment is partially in the City of
Prior Lake and Shakopee. It is understood that a current development proposal is
being planned for the area within the City of Prior Lake. It was determined that the
new roadway alignment with the Prior Lake development should be developed so a
roadway could extend from the Foothill Trail extensions to Muhlenhardt Road. This
would require modifications to the current preliminary plat to avoid wetlands and
obstacles on the east side of the proposed platted property. The extension of Foothill
Trail from this new east/west collector to Martindale Street is an issue that the City of
Prior Lake will address as part of their own studies.
4. General discussion concerning the jurisdictional alignment of roadways for
maintenance and future improvements was also discussed. It was determined the City
of Shakopee and the City of Prior Lake should enter into written agreements on
existing and future roadways, as well as utility agreements for sewer and/or water
servIce.
A final report is being completed which outlines the alternatives considered and the analysis of
each alternative. The City of Prior Lake will be provided a copy of that report upon completion.
L:I06 ALESI06 SUBJECI\CSAH 16-Shakopee StudylCR 16 MEMCJ.-BL ML-041906.doc
~ ':::1:1
SHAKOPEE::1=
'CE
~....
"'-<rk
""'....
,
Iii
atn
AVE..
~].:
l2t"l A'''- ..
~ ,". /"-^~ "'" "E. ~
~- _~~69(
~~ ~y~~~
_______ y CURVf
@&t<ri\EtfBRURCURV(
" \~ .'0""
____ i" c,.
@
s
~
'CT. ~
;'e
,..
ON L .
~TR.: .
'"-
H'-
.lA.
"lA.
<<:)
<<:)
~
@
~~'I:i::.
~~~~~""':~; g
~ CROW OR. ~ .;..'ER ST."~
11'"1 #J ~
~@ ~ ..~~
~'&.~~~~f' 4':. '<
~ TA:.
sw[rrcR},ss erR. ~I ~ OTtE:ROAY
Jo ~ fR.
w." ~
~
CIR.
,
g
Prior LOke
Indian Reservation
@
I
Ic?@)~
~ @
(~ .,,::,,;00. ~
,,-, ~~:~~L;~~~,
..~ !
76. CRA!N'IIOOQ fRo
71. WAG~ BR.eIR.
78. OUINe'" sr.
n. SiJN>TSH fR.
SO. RACI~ ST.
1500 F T
I
3000 FT
~TH
~
o
c
'"
~
9
'"
:;:
..-
.:?
:0
:c
X
<oJ
..-
"0
o
~
"'N
~~
d~
NO
,-::
...""
~~
cO
~j
~G:
+-lD
0'"
0"'.
City of Shakopee, Minnesota
CSAH 16 Area Study
~030 Traffic Volumes
(without Foothill Trail Connection)
Prepared by:
..
WSB
701 Xenia Awn.. 5outh, Sultll300
MImeapoI\s, MN 55418
_.-.g.""'"
Figure 1
&~/nc.
tNFMSTRlJC1UREt ENG!NEERINC) PI.M~=:-ON
co
Q)
L.
0.<(
co en
~u
c
c: 0
00..
:.i:iQ)
co v
U co
.3-l
Q)
:::t!.
--
0..