The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-10-11 PC Agenda Packet4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake,MN 55372 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, JANUARY 10, 2011 City Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order: 2. Approval of Minutes: A. October 25, 2010 Minutes 3. Appoint 2011 Chair: 4. Public Hearings: A. #EP 10-121 Bluffs of Candy Cove. Jason Miller has submitted an application for Variances related to building setback, lot area, and bluff impact on a site consisting of approximately 1.07 acres of land to be subdivided into 3 lots for single family homes. This property is located east of Candy Cover Trail, north ofTH 13. B. #EP 10-122 Bluffs of Candy Cove. Jason Miller has submitted an application for a combined preliminary and final plat consisting of approximately 1.07 acres of land to be subdivided into 3 lots for single family homes. This property is located east of Candy Cover Trail, north of TH 13. 5. Old Business: 6. New Business: A. #EP 10-125 Eagle Creek Estates. Equity Properties LLC has submitted an application for a concept plan for a development to consist of approximately 45 acres of land to be subdivided into 79 lots for single family homes, park, and future commercial sites. This property is located northeast of Credit River Road/CR 21, west of Markley Lake, and commonly known as the Snell property. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: 8. Adjournment: L\11 EILEStlt PLANNING COIDIlVIISSION\l1 AGENDAS/011011 Agmda doc Phone 952.447.9800 /Fax 952.447.4245 /www.cityofpriodake.com PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2010 1. Call to Order: Chairman Ringstad called the October 25, 2010, Planning Commission Those present were Commissioners Ringstad, Perez, Billington, Flemir Development & Natural Resources Director Danette Parr, Planner Jeff Services Assistant Joe Sortland. 14 2. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the September 27, 2010, Planning Co presented. 3. Public Hearing: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 25, 2010 to order at 6:00 p.m. wley, Community nd Development were AMMoved as :)N 1102.1103 OF THE CITY LODGES WITH LIQUOR IN i nguage for Section 1102.1103 1 economic development, staff years by business owners, to td to serving alcoholic beverages. WIPM WE • ••• • • • e�asN+ ••• -• ordinance amendmentto October E ra �Po � f� f Pons ' OUR. ®M 'EME M ME ME X11 W li d E consisted of. Parr answered that Bd E is the most intensive bufferyard and consists of a mixture of vegetation (canopy trTon iferous trees, and bushes -can also have fencing in some cases). The intensity varies depenthe adjacent use, the width of the separation, and the type of buffering installed. Billington asked if it is within the purview of the Planning Commission to set up standards that reach beyond the Bufferyard E standards if warranted. Parr answered that the Planning Commission can determine if larger buffers are necessary. L:\10 FILES\10 PLANNING COMMISSION\10 MINUTES\MN102510.doc 1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 25, 2010 Billington asked how a setback of 200' or 300' for establishments adjacent to residential uses would affect development in the C-2 zone district. Parr answered that increasing the setback would limit more businesses wishing to serve alcohol. Billington asked if the City has a quantifiable number of the properties affected by an increase in the required buffer. Parr presented the 100' buffer setback map for C-2 zoning districts and ans red that an accurate number of the properties that would be affected by a setback increaseto 300' was not available since a number of these areas are not developed at this time. Sergeant Tom Kahlert was presented to answer questions regarAW b0ftkses serving alcohol. Ringstad asked what the Prior Lake Police Department has rieced in re to police calls related to serving hours at establishments that serve alto Sergeant Kahlert answered that the majority of the around 2AM. but that establishments with limited bu Ringstad asked Sergeant Kahlert if the Police Department hd number of incidents reported and the type #Akquor license the Sergeant Kahlert answered that the number are until 2AM, with the exception of The Cove. restaurant hours of ope sees s reasonable Cove has a Departme epic occur during cl ours rs do create many pr ems. rved any correlation between the hment has been granted. establishments open noise complaints from residents ordinance°nendment is attempting to find a balance between nd f licenses allowed. Ringstad asked Sergeant Kahlert if he dons t the neighborhood. Sergeant rt answered t here Wan establishment on the lake near residents which has experienced ber of incid and that he believed limited hours of operation would alleviate the number of repo cidents. Fleming asked if the partment has received calls related to alcohol at establishments which serve alcohol around 7 or 8AM. Sergeant Kahlert answered that he is not aware of that A MOTION WAS MADE BY FLEMING AND SECONDED BY BILLINGTON TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Billington, Ringstad, Perez, Fleming and Howley. The motion carried. The Public Hearing began at 6:30 p.m. L:\10 FILES\10 PLANNING COMMISSION\10 MINUTES\MN102510.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 25, 2010 Comments from the Public: Linda Pelzl, 4486 Pondview TO SE stated that the State of Minnesota has a required 300' setback for establishments that serve alcohol from churches and schools and asked why there is not a 300' setback for residential homes, as they have to live at the residence overnight. Parr answered that the State was contacted to determine why the 300' setback exists and staff was informed that it's a longstanding rule and likely was originally meant for safe reasons. Parr added that this requirement does not apply to daycare establishments. Hermann stated that there is a business place during late hours, such as 3AM an, complain. Ringstad clarified with Parr that there are that garbage pickup often takes arse occurs when they pickup. d to 7AM to 7PM on weekdays and has called to report the late night fig has been done. She asked what will the business. She asked if the liquor license a Conditional Use Permit if it does not comply with reviewed on an annual basis and that repercussions Hermann askeaqMWre could a law where if a business incurs a number of infractions it can lose its liquor license. Parr answered that in c rsations with the City Attorney, it was indicated that specific requirements could be created in rel n to a set number of violations. Parr cited a store in the City that was illegally selling tobacco to underage customers. After a number of infractions the business lost their license to sell tobacco and the business closed. Ringstad stated that he agreed with Hermann's suggestion that establishments which do not comply with the conditions of approval should lose their liquor license after a number of infractions. Hermann asked if there is other land in Prior Lake for restaurants and bars to be constructed on. L:\10 FILES\10 PLANNING COMMISSION\10 MINUTES\MN102510.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 25, 2010 Parr answered that the Prior Lake Comprehensive Plan details where the current and future commercial land is to be located. Some of the commercial areas are currently not developed. Matzke answered that many of the developments are driven by high traffic counts as well as existing utilities. Outside areas, on vacant land, can cost more to develop due to the required infrastructure costs associated with them. Hermann stated that the residential land values are lowering as a result of the development. Matzke answered that businesses don't succeed without residents nearb at the City ordinance are in place to protect the residents. Jeff Phelan, 14271 Timothy Ave NE, stated that many of the regarding the Crossroads development have been realized. H violations and that they don't seem to be enforced. He said Phelan stated that opening a business should not haveto a ny requested that the Planning Commission dethe prop d o David Fawcett, 6811 Boudin St NE, stated that his'tow a bu Crossroads. Fawcett said that on October 25, 2010 a truc parking lot, and went into his parking lot, went around the tow stop. He said that his fears of the Crossro development hav snow plow trucks clearing the Crossroads d ent will also b, numerous places in Prior Lake where he can k. He asl the cost of the residents. ne'ljMo.rhood residents' fears that therey&ave already been etback ofis not sufficient. expense oft hbors and within 100' oe T the turn into Crossroads driveway and nearby a school bus %protiven correct. He said that ve. He says that there are ty is pursuing revenue at Leland Smith, 14358 Lois A E, said that on f 203 ke Vision Plan's goals is to replace the Boudin neighb es. He sug ed the ho s of the Boudin neighborhood are going to be taken. He s d that stem favors a businesses instead of the residents. Deno Howard, 153 S er C' E, Chairman f EDAC, stated that the goal of the EDAC is to attract businesses, keep Lake make it a better place to live and work. One business the rviewe t ou as a result of the C-2 ordinance. The EDAC also interviewe s tha is to come re but cannot due to the current provisions. Howard that the C enc d for being difficult due to the current ordinances, and this prop o rdinance amen tis an nity to fix that. A case by case option would at least give the op business the o unity t esent their case. Howard stated that the progress that has occurred i Lake has im ed th ity, even if it did not personally benefit her. Terry Gutowsk , 6 Fairla hores Tri SE, a member of the EDAC, stated that he owns a business. Gutows ed th rior Lake is a mixed use community, and it has been for a long time. He asked how you ut pace for businesses to benefit both residents and businesses. He asked what the city needs as go through the 2030 Vision Plan, and said he would prefer to see Prior Lake capitalize on their portunities. He doesn't think that 200' setback solves the problems anymore than a 100' setback will. He said that a vacant business/building or an empty lot is also not a benefit to the community. Mary Viereck, 14089 McKenna Rd NW, a member of the EDAC, stated that she has two businesseE and they want to be good neighbors to the residents of the community. Being a good community is having a good business base. She stated that they want to attract new business and retain old ones. L:\10 FILES\10 PLANNING COMMISSION\10 MINUTES\MN102510.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 25, 2010 Sandee Wright, 14300 Timothy Ave NE, stated that the research she cited at the September 27 Planning Commission meeting was from the Science Daily published in February, 2010. She found another study stating that an increase in off -premise alcohol sale sites creates more aggravated assaults. Violence associated with restaurants that serve alcohol was smaller but still significant. The density of two off-site liquor stores near the Boudin neighborhood, plus any additional restaurants, will harm not only the neighborhood but also the City. Wright stated that she too is a home-based business owner. She stated that she isn't irritated with change, but her experience in the process. She said when they bought their home the land use map said it was not going to be developed commercially. She said that thei aily lives have been impacted by the Crossroads development. She said that workers stand outside the Crossroads and that thaAark on the back street of the establishment. Wright stated that the noise disturbs them when 1 concern about the 11 PM closing time. Wright said that the noise the daycare disturb them. Wright requested that if a restaurant is proposed, noise complaints be enforced more stringently. Fleming told Sandee Wright that the City has discusny of Wrights have suggested to the City. He asked Wrig t if eN Wright answered that she did not have the article with her. Fleming stated that he will review the scienc article. . Wright expressed 13 and the children at improved and that s and optio the ils of the scie is article. Pat Wiese, 6830 Boudin St NE, stated that a s o ent shou a determined and designed on specific sites. She said that she didn't think t the si s suitable for such uses. ssed cont Ron Wiese, 6830 BoudinI about the udin Crossroads in regards to the proposed ordinance a id that the ners of the adjacent buildings are opposed to the ordinance amendme e does not u erstand where the landscape buffers would be located on the adjac nt sre is little roo mprovements. He said that when the Kwik Trip project pulled out, thethey d. Dick Pyle, 6285 1 t E, s d that he thinks that the Planning Commission is on the right track. He said that limiting t and types of licenses are good steps toward compromise. He stated that he believes the quality restaurants defines the quality of the community. Pyle stated that a economic conditions exist in Prior Lake to support quality restaurants. He thanked the Planning Commission for the public hearing and listening to the concerns of the public. Pyle said there is opportunity to develop in Prior Lake, and he would still like to do that in the City. He stated that the facility and location, where the traffic will be an asset, is still not available. Pyle stated that compromise is needed between the residences and the businesses. Michael Wright, 14300 Timothy Ave NE stated that the hours of operation being proposed in the ordinance amendment are not reasonable and that it would be harmful to the general welfare of the residents. He stated that he believes another work session is necessary to see what is established as L:\10 FILES\10 PLANNING COMMISSION\10 MINUTES\MN102510.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 25, 2010 reasonable. Wright suggested that an economic scorecard be created to determine if a development will create enough economic benefits to compensate for any harm to the adjacent residential areas. Wright does not believe that Prior Lake has more rules than Savage. He stated he believes the challenges of development are due to geography rather than ordinances. Wright said that Savage has ordinances that control how many customers can be served in an establishment serving alcohol. He said that an economic scorecard to determine what the city is gaining for property tax and how much the residential property values are harmed should be implemented for all areas of the City. Wright stated that due to the successful businesses across Highway 13 from the Boudin neighborhood, the retail value of the Prior Lake businesses will benefit witho harming the property values of the residents. Leland Smith, 14358 Lois Ave NE, asked about the bankopet of Crossroad and what happens to the escrow. • • • • • • •�mda Y::S • • • • • j'd&EisE .o �`mo w�wwm�ws. Parr answered that EFH filed for Chapter 11 ant dit is in place should any obligated requirements not be complete Ringstad asked if the Parr answered that the 040d lift Matzke an: as enginee a warranty period, such as landscaping as well Wright stated that the t'es died during the summer and that they are not dormant. She said that some orange fencing has been placed in the Crossroads development and that it is unattractive. She stated she believes it is to prevent pedestrian traffic between the Phelan home and the Crossroads building. Matzke answered that the fence could be for future snow retention. Wright said that the fence is for impeding traffic. L:\10 FILES\10 PLANNING COMMISSION\10 MINUTES\MN102510.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 25, 2010 Maureen Hermann, 14151 Timothy Ave NE, stated that she believed EFH was obligated to construct the sewer and water system after the completion of the road development. She asked if EFH's letter or credit would cover this obligation. Ringstad said that tonight was to discuss the proposed C-2 ordinance amendment. Hermann stated that liquor licenses are not granted to establishments that owe the City money. A MOTION WAS MADE BY FLEMING AND SECONDED BY PEREZ TOC SE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Perez, Billington, Fleming and Howley. Thdp@ftn carried. The public hearing closed at 7:37 p.m. Commissioner Comments and Questions: Fleming stated that the Planning Commission takes,AgWations s iously and const options Billin stated that the Fafting Co n is attempting to perform a balancing act for what's in the s Sstofobusin and tuality of life for the residents. He stated that many of the issues voith w e discussed with the City Council. Billington said that site specific reviPlanning Commission the tools to have a strong overview of any requests in tBillinards to subsection "5-D" of the proposed ordinance amendment: "the building housing the00'from residential use district, unless all of the conditions are adhered to", if the cet, could an establishment move closer to the residential area. Parr answered that if an establishment could meet all of the conditions of approval, the required building setbacks and any additional conditions of approval the Planning Commission found appropriate, the establishment could be located closer to the residential area. Billington stated that he was not in favor of such a scenario. He requested that a 200' setback be required rather than a 100' setback, along with all of the conditions of approval. Billing stated that stringent standards for developments have been used in the past to protect the welfare of the residents and the sale of alcohol should be no exception. L:\10 FILES\10 PLANNING COMMISSION\10 MINUTES\MN102510.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 25, 2010 Billington said that policing the sale of alcohol through hours of operation, landscape buffering and screening and license type could be used as tools to protect the neighborhood. Billington stated that there are existing rules to protect the residents from noise related to garbage pickup, but he was not sure how to address the concerns of outdoor smoking. He said that a closer setback is onerous to the residents. Billington asked Parr if liquor license approvals are the responsibility of the City Council. Parr answered that the Planning Commission decides if additional conditions of approval are necessary when considering the approval of Conditional Use Permit. She saidk'icense se of an establishment wishing to serve alcohol, the Planning Commission cIi they can apply for. If appealed, the City Council will consider the condition. Ultimathere are no conditions on the liquor license placed by the Planning Commissione CUP, the City Council is responsible for granting liquor licenses. Ringstad asked Parr if the Planning Commission can add license may be requested in the C-2 zoning district, as pa recommendation of the proposed ordinance amendme Parr answered that if a recommendation of approvaiwitl Commission, all recommendations will be brought to the Billington stated it would not be wise to d ine what kind Billington asked when the Conditional Use ' reviewec by the ration should be made available. if a solid wallIftbe con cted inside the building setback. Parr answere in the cJsea Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission has the ability to change the way ich a igates an adjacent neighborhood. Howley asked if the mmission can create a conditional of approval for how high a wall can be when considering a itional Use Permit. Parr answered yes. Howley asked if there is public comment when liquor licenses go before the City Council for their annual approval. Parr answered yes. L:\10 FILES\10 PLANNING COMMISSION\10 MINUTES\MN102510.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 25, 2010 Howley stated that he feels that noise is often generated as a result of operational issues. He stated that tenants are unaware of what the conditions of approval are. Howley stated that the operational issues should be taken into consideration with the approved rules. Howley stated that the liquor license is important to the business owners and that the approval of the liquor license should be given consideration with the proposed ordinance amendment. Howley believes that what existed first is what should be given weight and that he will side with the residents. He said that some proposals will not work when adjacent to residential. Howley acknowledged that the majority of the people who spoke were from the Boudin neighborhood. Howley stated that when most of the homeowners purchased their homes the Cross ads development was a church and the region was less developed. Howley said that the Boudin neighborhood should have an ove district. Undeveloped tracts of land have existing ordinances to protect future residents and dev ts. Howley stated that an ordinance amendment for the entire C-2 zoning district will not ha is Howley stated that the Boudin neighborhood is not blighte nd the of asking for development. Howley said that development will come in^tit t it sho t happen adjacent to a neighborhood that does not believe it will be appropri Howley stated that if there is an overlay district rotect the Boudin neigh b d, he would be able to support the ordinance amendment. Ringstad agreed with Fleming regarding the hours of oper from 7AM to 11AM. Ringstad questioned if a full liquor licens appropriate if it's within 100' of a reside ntiatme ig hborhood. Ringstad acknowledged Sergeant K statement that establishments during the later hours. He st 'or Lake d but that there are also places that serve limite Ico limit problem businesses. Ringstad said that if he th ht residences that the ordinancendment would t He stated that the Use Permit consideration on a case case Ringstad st Fleming asked if t building housing the are met, the building ca to apply for a :haffging the servifig of alcohol C-2 zoning district liquor would be :)nty of the problems occur at oblem establishments, of operation and are not would be located close to ss allowsre Planning Commission to provide that he has concerns regarding Howley's at the Crossroads building is in the C-2 zoning e to serve alcohol should an establishment o allow the growth of businesses while he would support the ordinance amendment. minimum setback with or without conditions. vould include the conditions, including changing the hours I from 11AM-10PM on Sunday -Thursday and 11AM-11 PM Irommissioners would consider a 200' setback measured from the C-2 nearest residential use, and if two or more of the conditions of approval located 100' or 150' from the residential use. Perez stated that he would not be in favor of a 200' setback. Ringstad asked Parr if the Gateway Center would not be eligible for liquor sales if any setback is enforced. Parr said the Gateway Center would be ineligible if a setback of 1 00f is applied. L:\10 FILES\10 PLANNING COMMISSION\10 MINUTES\MN102510.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 25, 2010 Perez stated that a 10AM starting time for serving liquor would be appropriate, and that he approved limiting what type of liquor license. Howley asked the Planning Commissioners if they had given consideration to measuring the setback from whichever is closer, the building housing the use or the parking lot. Perez answered that measurement should be handled on a case by case basis. Ringstad stated that the buildings and measurement will be revisited each ' e a Conditional Use Permit goes before the Planning Commission. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PEREZ AND SECONDED BY FLEMf�NING THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AS PROPOSED WITH A CHANGETHE SALE OF ALCOHOL FROM 10AM-10PM SUNDAY-THURSDAYAND 10AATURDAY AND HOLIDAYS, ANDLIMIT THE TYPE OF LIQUOR LIK ER. Fleming asked Billington regarding his position on tBillington stated he supports a minimum setback o n for the reside He stated that he believes the other conditions outlined by stafor business an he supports including all of the conditions in 5-D plus a minimum Fleming asked Billington to read his Billington said 5-D would read: the building h a residential use district, and including all the co alcohol would be limited from M-10PM Sunda Holidays. The available li would be I VOTE (on previous motion failed 2-3. Perez stated t included b M&nN . .. .® A MOTION WAS ORDINANCE AM Planning clarity to the o ment. us would beI ted a minimum of 200' from he lowing: The hours of serving day M-11 PM Friday, Saturday and to wine a 3.2 beer. Fleming, Billington and Howley. The all of the conditions, plus any conditions amendment will be. technically made a motion of denial. City Council, a motion of denial should be made. AND SECONDED BY FLEMING TO DENY THE PROPOSED VOTE: Ayes: Fleming, Howley and Billington. Nays: Ringstad and Perez. The motion carried 3-2. Parr asked if the Planning Commission would provide findings that would articulate their recommendation of denial. Ringstad answered that the setback appeared to be the reason of denial and that the minutes will clarify the motion of denial. L:\10 FILES\10 PLANNING COMMISSION\10 MINUTES\MN102510.doc 10 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 25, 2010 Fleming asked if the hours of operation were a point of denial. Ringstad said that it sounded like the denial was setback driven more than hours. 4. Old Business: None 5. New Business: None 6. Announcements and Correspondence: Parr announced that the meeting was Chairman Ringstad's last night a Planning Commission. Chairman Ringstad has served on the Planning Commission for in Parr stated a few thoughts regarding Chair Ringstad's time on the Planning Commission; nd nke for his service. Joe Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 8:28 L:\10 FILES\10 PLANNING COMMISSION\10 MINUTES\MN102510.doc 11 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM: 3A SUBJECT: CONSIDER VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A PROPERTY AND CONSTRUCTION OF STRUCUTRES WITHIN THE R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT SITE PIDS: 25.027-023-0, 25-027-024-0, 25-027-025-0 PREPARED BY: JEFF MATZKE, PLANNER PUBLIC HEARING: _X_YES _NO -N/A DATE: JANUARY 10, 2011 CASE FILE: 10-121 INTRODUCTION Jason Miller is requesting variances to construct residential home lots on property located along Candy Cove on Prior Lake at the intersection of Candy Cove Trail and State Highway 13. For this proposed development to be known as The Bluffs of Candy Cove, the following variance is required: Lots 1, 2, & 3 • A variance to allow a structure to be located in the bluff impact zone. (Section 1104.303) • A 5 foot variance from the required minimum 5 foot driveway side yard setback (Section 1107.205 (1)). Lott Lot 3 A 25 foot variance from the minimum 25 foot front yard setback required in the R-1 Zoning Use District (Section 1102.405 (3)). A 13 foot variance from the minimum 25 foot front yard setback required in the R-1 Zoning Use District (Section 1102.405 (3)). A 45 foot variance from the minimum 75 foot lake setback required in the Shoreland District (Section 1104.308. (2)). A 5,284 foot variance from the required minimum lot area for a riparian residential lot on a General Development Lake within the Shoreland District (Section 1104.302 (3)). BACKGROUND The site is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay District), and is guided R - LD (Urban Low Density Residential) on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The land is currently vacant with steep slopes throughout ranging in elevation from 984 MSL to 904 MSL. The property was originally platted in 1921 as Lots 32, 33, 34, 35, & 36 of the plat, Candy Cove Park. In 1960 the State of Minnesota acquired a portion of the lots for the development of the State Highway 13 right-of-way and Candy Cove Trail was realigned to intersect Highway 13. The City of Prior Lake Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 / «ryNryr.ciq,ofpriorlake.com maintains ownership of the former Candy Cove Trail platted right-of-way via a parcel of land (PID 25- 936-075-0) by which this proposed development site and the developed adjacent residential properties located at 5572 and 5584 Candy Cove Trail are accessed. DISCUSSION The applicant is proposing to plat the property into 3 buildable residential lots. Lot 1 is 23,360 square feet, Lot 2 is 15,478, and Lot 3 is 9,717 square feet. In order to gain access to the site the applicant proposes a single, 10% grade, common drive from Candy Cove Trail to the 3 lots. Retaining wall systems are needed to level the access driveway area and building pad sites while minimizing the impact to the steep, bluff slopes. The impervious surface proposed for Lot 1 is 2,950 sq. ft (12.6% of the total lot area), for Lot 2 is 2,434 (15.7%), and for Lot 3 is 2,900 sq. ft. (29.8%). The maximum impervious surface for each lot is 30% of the total lot area. The property was once platted in 1921 under the Plat of Candy Cove Park as Lots 33, 33, 34, 35, & 36. The property currently involves 3 PIDs (25-027-023-0, 25-027-024-0, 25-027-025-0) of which all are under common ownership. According to City Ordinance 1101.501 (3c), "If 2 ormore lots or combinations of lots and portions of lots with continuous frontage in single ownership are of record at the time of or subsequent to the passage or amendment of this Ordinance, and if all or part of the lots do not meet the requirements established for lot area and lot width, the lands involved shall be considered to be an individual parcel for the purpose of this Ordinance, and no portion of said parcel shall be used or sold in a manner which diminishes compliance with lot area or lot width requirements established by the Ordinance, nor shall any division of any parcel be made which creates a lot with area or width below the requirements of this Ordinance. If necessary to assure compliance with other provisions of this Ordinance, the lots shall be combined." Under this ordinance the 5 original lots are hereby combined and can be separated into no more than 2 lots which meet the minimum lot area and minimum lot width requirement for a riparian residential lot. The City Attorney has prepared a statement (see attached) for the legal findings of the variance requests. It is her legal opinion that the City cannot establish a hardship case for the creation of Lot 3 as a substandard lot. The following details further evaluate each variance request Bluff Impact Zone A bluff impact zone variance is requested for all 3 proposed lots. The majority of the site in elevation from the toe of the bluff to the front property lines lie within the bluff impact zone. A variance for the bluff impact zone is necessary to allow any building pads on the 3 proposed lots. The applicant proposes retaining walls on the property to reduce the amount of grading impacts to the steep bluffs slopes. Also, the applicant has submitted a geotechnical report complete with soil borings and an engineer's recommendations for footing designs, desired materials for subgarde and backfill compaction, etc. According to Ordinance 1104.305 (3) "The owner of the property shall submit an as - built survey and post -construction report completed by a professional engineer registered by the State of Minnesota that the final grading of the site was completed in compliance with an approved grading plan and that the recommendations contained in the engineer's report have been adhered to." Drivewav Variance A driveway variance is requested for all 3 proposed lots. The driveway variance is necessary to allow for the proposed shared access driveway which would cross property lines. The individual driveways leading from the shared access driveway to each garage are proposed to meet the 5 foot minimum side yard driveway setback requirement. Front Yard Variance (Lot 1) To achieve a moderate grade for the access driveway a 10-15 foot retaining wall system is necessary to retain the nearby hillside. This retaining wall is located within the City -owned parcel and lot 1. The variance request is necessary to allow for the proposed retaining wall passes through the minimum required 25 foot front yard setback for Lot 1. Front Yard Variance (Lot 3) A 13 foot front yard variance from the required minimum 25 foot setback is requested for Lot 3. The building pad for Lot 3 is proposed to be setback 12 feet from the front property line (Highway 13). The variance is necessary to allow the construction of the proposed building pad area for Lot 3. Lake Setback Variance (Lot 3) A 45 foot lake setback variance is requested for Lot 3. The proposed building pad is located 30 feet from the Ordinary High Water Elevation (904 elevation) of Prior Lake. The required minimum lake setback is 75 feet. The variance is necessary to allow the construction of the proposed building pad area for Lot 3. Lot Area Variance (Lot 3) A 5,284 square foot variance is requested for the creation of Lot 3. The minimum lot size required by the Zoning Ordinance for a riparian lot on a General Development lake such as Prior Lake is 15,000 square feet. The variance is necessary to allow for the creation of Lot 3 as a buildable lot of record. I_11"T_1A'MK Variance Hardship Findings Section 1108.400 states that the Board of Adjustment may grant a variance from the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, provided that: 1. There are extraordinary conditions or circumstances, such as irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of the lot or exceptional topographical or physical conditions which are peculiar to the property and do not apply to the other lands within the neighborhood or the same Use District. The exceptional topography and shape of the property are peculiar to the property. The vehicular access point to the property is limited to an approximately 50 foot wide strip of land at the southwest corner of the property. In order to allow for a safe and reasonable access to the property a bluff impact zone variance for Lot 1 & 2, driveway setback variance for Lot 1 & 2, and front yard setback variance for Lot 1 appear necessary to allow the proposed shared access driveway and retaining walls to be constructed. In addition, a bluff impact zone variance is necessary for construction of any building pads areas on the property. The construction of a third building pad area does increase grading within the bluff impact zone and does not appear necessary as only two buildable lots would meet the current required minimum lot area under the current Zoning Ordinance. 2. The granting of the variance is necessary to permit the reasonable use of the property involved. In order to allow for a safe and secure access to the property and a reasonable amount of square footage for a modern home, the granting of the bluff impact zone variance for Lots 1 & 2, driveway setback variance for Lot 1 & 2, and front yard setback variance for Lot 1 appear necessary. These variances are necessary to create a reasonable building pad area for the lots and driveways to access them safely. The requested variances for Lot 3 (bluff impact zone, driveway setback variance, front yard setback variance, lake setback variance, and minimum lot area variance) are not necessary to permit the reasonable use of creating buildable lots on the property. Two buildable lots can be created without the need for these requested variances. 3. The granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact the character of the neighborhood or be detrimental to the health and safety of the public welfare. The granting of the bluff impact zone variance for Lots 1 & 2, driveway setback variance for Lot 1 & 2, and front yard setback variance for Lot 1 will not impact the character and development of the local neighborhood. Many of the lots along the southern shores of Candy Cove are also irregularly shaped with existing nonconforming front yard setbacks and bluff impact zone encroachments. The geotechnical report identifies stable soils within the area for structures to be constructed on the steep slopes. The granting of the requested variances for Lot 3 (bluff impact zone, driveway setback variance, front yard setback variance, lake setback variance, and minimum lot area variance) will unreasonably impact the character of the neighborhood by allowing a new lot to be platted which will not meet the minimum requirements under current Zoning Ordinance. The applicant is proposing to replat the common ownership property into three lots. Lot 3 will not meet the current minimum lot area requirement of 15,000 square feet for a riparian lot on a General Development Lake. Lot 3 will also not allow for a proposed structure to meet the current minimum lake setback requirement (75 feet) and minimum front yard setback requirement (25 feet). 4. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. The granting of the bluff impact zone variance for Lots 1 & 2, driveway setback variance for Lot 1 & 2, and front yard setback variance for Lot 1 is in harmony with the general purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. The property is designated for low density residential development under the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance and the granting of this variance will achieve the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance to "promote the most appropriate and orderly development of the residential, business, industrial, public land, and public areas". The requested variances for Lot 3 (bluff impact zone, driveway setback variance, front yard setback variance, lake setback variance, and minimum lot area variance) are not in harmony with the general purposes of the Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. The land area of the entire site is not large enough to configure the property into three lots that meet the current minimum lot area and minimum lot width requirements. The available land area will only support two buildable lots that meet the minimum square footage for a buildable lot. The amount of land available to subdivide is not a situation unique to the property and therefore there is no basis to support a finding for a hardship upon which the city can approve a variance to create a third, considerably substandard lot which requires additional variances in order to make it buildable. 5. The hardship is due to circumstances unique to the property not resulting from actions of the owners of the property. The Minnesota Department of Transportation acquired property for the construction of improvements to Highway 13. In doing so access to the property from the area now occupied by Highway 13 was eliminated and the size of the available land for reconfiguring the existing lots compromised. The acquisition of right-of-way for Highway 13 created a situation that meets the required hardship criteria to support some, but not all of the requested variances. The property was originally platted into five lots, all of which are contiguous and in common ownership. The minimum lot size for a single family lot in the Shoreland District is 15,000 square feet. Pursuant to Prior Lake Ordinance 1101.501 (3c) the originally platted lots (now nonconforming) were combined to create two conforming lots that meet the required square footage. Due to the steep topography and shape of the available land it is not possible to reconfigure the original five platted lots into more than two lots that meet the minimum lot area and minimum lot width requirements for a lot in the R-1 Shoreland District; and also meet the setback requirements from the bluff impact zone setback, driveway setback requirements for Lots 1 & 2, and the front yard setback requirements for Lot 1 without granting variances. The hardship basis for the bluff impact zone variance for Lots 1 & 2, driveway setback variance for Lot 1 & 2, and front yard setback variance for Lot 1 is due in part to the acquisition of right-of-way for Highway 13 which are circumstances unique to this property. The recommended variances are necessary to allow for the construction of safe and reasonable access to the property. The hardship basis for the requested variances for Lot 3 (bluff impact zone, driveway setback variance, front yard setback variance, lake setback variance, and minimum lot area variance) is not due to the circumstances unique to the property but rather due actions of the owner's representative of the property. The applicant is proposing to replat the common ownership property into three lots. Lot 3 will not meet the current minimum lot area requirement of 15,000 square feet for a riparian lot on a General Development Lake. 6. The granting of the variance will not result in allowing a use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. The applicant is seeking these variances to allow for the construction of single family residential home sites within the R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District. Single family structures are a permitted use within the R-1 Zoning District. 7. The granting of the variance may be necessary to alleviate a hardship of the inability to use solar energy systems. The current proposal does not involve any proposed solar energy systems. CONCLUSION The applicant is proposing to subdivide the property into 3 buildable lots. Due to the exceptional topography and shape of the property and in order to allow for a safe and secure access and a reasonable amount of square footage for a modern home, the strict application of the following variances appear to create a hardship for the owner of the property to develop 2 residential home lots on the property: Lots 1 & 2 • A variance to allow a structure to be located in the bluff impact zone. (Section 1104.303) • A 5 foot variance from the required minimum 5 foot driveway side yard setback (Section 1107.205 (1)). Lott A 25 foot variance from the minimum 25 foot front yard setback required in the R-1 Zoning Use District (Section 1102.405 (3)). The minimum lot size for a single family lot in the Shoreland District is 15,000 square feet. Pursuant to Prior Lake Ordinance 1101.501 (3c) the originally platted lots (now nonconforming) are combined to create conforming lots that meet the required square footage. It is not possible to reconfigure the original five platted lots into more than two conforming lots that meet the minimum lot area and minimum lot width requirement for a lot in the R-1 Shoreland District. The requested variances for Lot 3 (bluff impact zone, driveway setback variance, front yard setback variance, lake setback variance, and minimum lot area variance) are not in harmony with the general purposes of the Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. in addition, the amount of land available to subdivide is not a situation unique to the property; and therefore, there is no basis to support a finding for a hardship for the following requested variances: Lot 3 • A variance to allow a structure to be located in the bluff impact zone. (Section 1104.303) • A 5 foot variance from the required minimum 5 foot driveway side yard setback (Section 1107.205 (1)). • A 13 foot variance from the minimum 25 foot front yard setback required in the R-1 Zoning Use District (Section 1102.405 (3)). • A 45 foot variance from the minimum 75 foot lake setback required in the Shoreland District (Section 1104.308. (2)). • A 5,284 foot variance from the required minimum lot area for a riparian residential lot on a General Development Lake within the Shoreland District (Section 1104.302 (3)). Based upon these findings in this report, City Staff and the City Attorney cannot recommend approval of the development plans as presented. City Staff and the City Attorney do believe that a hardship appears to exist for the platting of no more than 2 buildable lots and the granting of the requested variance requests for Lot 1 & 2 appear warranted. City Staff recommends the applicant revise the development plans to indicate 2 buildable lots which meet the minimum lot area and minimum lot width requirements. After City Staff reviews the revised plans, we recommend the Planning Commission once again review the plat and variance requests at a future meeting for possible approvals and recommendations to City Council. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve any variance the Planning Commission deems appropriate in these circumstances. 2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. 3. Deny any variance because the Planning Commission finds a lack of demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria. RECOMMENDED ACTION The recommendations by staff require the following motions: 1. A motion and second to table the discussion of the variance requests until the applicant has the opportunity to revise the development plans for the platting of two buildable lots. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location map 2. Property Owner Narrative 3. Development Plans 4. City Attorney Memorandum dated 12-29-10 5. Engineering Dept. Memorandum dated 1-3-11 6. CDNR Dept. memorandum dated 1-4-11 Application For Variance To The Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance for Lot 32, Lot 33, Lot 34, Lot 35, & lot 36 of Candy Cove Park Please consider my application for variances to the City of Prior Lake's zoning code. In an effort to inform and familiarize the City staff, Planning Commission, and City Council with the properties involved in this variance application, I have provided the following historical information about the property: History: Candy Cove Park was platted almost 90 years ago in 1921, and not long afterward the Clarke family became the owners of the 5 buildable lake lots that pertain to this variance. In 1959 the MN Commissioner of Highways designated a proposed route for Minnesota Trunk Highway 13, with Centerline Order No. 29477. This order provided a public notice to the local property owners as to where the future location of Hwy 13 would be. In 1960 Elmer Clarke reconfirmed his clear title as sole owner in fee of lots 32, 33, 34, 35, & 36 of Candy Cove Park Addition in Scott County, MN with a Judgment at the Scott County Courthouse, and he continues to own the lots to this day. In 1960 the MN Deputy Commissioner of Highways indicated an interest in attaining land for right of way purposes for the construction of Hwy 13, with: Amended Width Order No. 30576 & attempted to condemn roughly 130' of right-of-way north of the centerline of Hwy 13 from adjacent property owners. This condemnation would take roughly 1/3rd of the property owned by Elmer Clarke, and with building setbacks would render even more of his property unusable. In 1979 it appears that the City vacated the access road to Elmer Clarke's properties with resolution 79- 41), and did not provide him with a new access point or any sort of easement to access his property. In 1999 the MNDOT owned lot that was intended to provide access to our lots, reverted to the City of Prior Lake according to MNDOT-Release No. 1181 In 1987 & 2002 additional obstructions were placed on the City lot and in the original roadway that was intended to provide access to our lots, when homes and driveways were constructed at the addresses of 5572 & 5584 Candy Cove Trail. Please see the attached Figures 1 through 5, and their comments for additional photos and historical evidence regarding our lots. Discussion Points / Owner Injustices: Since roughly 1964 when highway 13 was constructed, Mr. Clarke has had to watch his properties become denied of almost any sort of reasonable access or use; through no fault or actions of his own. Sadly the government has forced the elderly, retired Elmer Clarke to pay ridiculously high taxes on his property as if it were a usable parcel of land. The 2010 property tax statement for the 5 lots listed above is $11,470, and you can barely even walk your way onto the property. Even sadder is the fact that it's almost impossible to sell this property and escape from the tax burden because the City of Prior Lake and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) have levied so many arbitrary and subjective restrictions on the property that almost no one is willing to buy it. For example between boundary surveys, topographic surveys, tree surveys, soil borings, geotechnical reports, grading plans, drainage plans/calculations, utility plans, attorneys fees, meetings, & coordination, we will have over $30,000 Invested (not including soft costs, holding costs, taxes, etc.), just to ask the city if we might be able to re -install our access drive and build homes on our already platted lots. That's a lot of money just to ask a question, and in many cases it's a lot of money to determine the obvious, which is that we already know the rough elevations of the site (see county website for a topographic), the approximate dimensions of the site (see county website for boundary lines), that the soil is good (the neighbors & the other houses in the area haven't had any issues), and the utilities are nearby and accessible. The owner has been left in a position where it will now cost in excess of $200,000 (it will probably be closer to $300,000 depending upon the design that we are forced to go with) to cut in a new access point, by the time you go through the variance process, pay for all of the costs associated with trucking the dirt off site, dealing with extensive tree removal/replacement, re -grading, and re -landscaping the site. Sadly most of this could have easily been avoided if MNDOT would have leveled out a path to lots during the construction of Hwy 13 or the existing road had just been left in place. Besides the burden of paying to reinstall a 400' long drive, the owner now has to put the drive that was on city property, onto his own property; resulting in the loss of roughly $136,500 worth of land (280' long drive x 30' wide = 8,400 SF x $16.25/SF — 2010 county valuation). Please keep in mind that almost all of the problems that we are being forced to deal with and pay for are the result of the actions of the City, MNDOT, the neighboring developments, or the ever increasing restrictions and constraints imposed by these entities. My legal Counsel has gone so far as to suggest that I should stop dealing with the costs and problems associated with the access issues on these lots, and place that burden on the party that's responsible for taking our access away. Apparently the state statues are quite clear that taking an access away from a property is a "compensable item of damage". Although the comments above may seem quite pointed and hostile, I think most people can relate to the frustration and anger that they would experience if the road to their home was removed and they were forced to pay several hundred thousand dollars to reinstall it. Especially if they were also taxed almost $1,000 per month during the time that weren't able to access their property. With that said I should mention that my intent has always been to work together with the City to find a workable solution for all of us and as a result I'm proposing the following variances for the properties. Variance Request: Intent: We are requesting variances to consolidate 5 existing lots into 3 buildable lots. Two of which should fully conform to the city's current zoning code and 1 that will require additional variances. Although the lots can be partitioned in a way that brings all of them into full conformance with the current zoning code; this results in one of the lots (the lot to the east) being oddly shaped and only allowing for a smaller than normal home to be placed on it. In an effort to create a nicer, more functional third lot, we are requesting similar variances to what our neighbors have been given, on one of our three lots. Property Statistics: We have 53,000 square feet of land and only need 45,000 SF for the 3 lots that we have requested. We have 287' of lake frontage at the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) and we only need 225'. We have 270' of lot width at our 25' setback line along our access drive, which is exactly what is required for 3, 90' lots. Variances: • We request a bluff zone impact variance for all three lots. • In an effort to create a better looking, more functional third lot, we are requesting a variance to the standard 75' lake setback for lot 3, so that the structures on the lake side of this property can be aligned with the homes on neighboring properties. • We are also requesting the same zero foot front setback that our neighbors have been given as a result of the minimal depth of lot 3, due to the highway 13 condemnation and having to move the access drive from public property onto our site. • We are requesting a lot size variance to allow lot 3 to have less than 15,000 square feet of area. Our intent is to bring these lots as close to conformance with the current zoning code as reasonably possible while still providing an appropriate use for the owner and a quality product for the community. We hope that our request for variances is viewed as a reasonable one, especially considering that we are requesting less than a third of the variances per lot, that the neighboring properties have been give. Plat of fmzg- Figure J`eafion 36, TU5 /i 2211% 1-1921 Candy Cove Park Plat, showing the original road that serviced all 5 of the lake lots. Figure 2 -1957 Aerial Photo, showing the original road that serviced the property. This tlrmvrg is ne1nera le9a'ti recordetl map. a survey end Is not intended to be rued as one. THS draeiarg Is a conp11a0on of records, information, aM data boated in vagus aly, eouety. and state offxes, and firer sourws affeany the area sham, and is to he used for reference p,..o-y.S jCo Iy is not responib'a for any Inomrades herein contaned. It dsuepandes are Wm. pease cmtact Na Scdt County Sun,eywe ofte. Map Scale N 1 inch = 147 feet WE Map Date 11111/2010 S Sir, � Figure 3 -1964 Aerial Photo, showing the removal of the owners original road, the relocation of Candy Cove Trail, and the taking of roughly 1/3 of the owners land as State Highway 13 is constructed. Trtstlraning lsneitheraiagalty recorded,apnor. atr.y.m is ro! Map Scale N ut:eMea to ne urea es one. m's era1.,�g is a complatan of records. 1 Incl! = 147 feet informaCwn, eM tla!a bw!ed Invarnus oty, warty, and stave offices. ad other sources aReceng the area sham. aM is to N used for re fare. WE "d? puryoses ordy. Scott ewnty 6 Wtrxsponsib'e for any Nacwradas here, Map Date wntainad. ifdls apax-s are fount. pkase w lea Ne Scet(C ,aty $ .a .orrw. �'�` Ire. ".. 11/11/2010 Stt Figure 4 -1990 Aerial Photo, showing additional access points being provided to the neighboring properties, and further denying the access rights to lots 32 — 36, that were provided by the original road. TKS drawing is ne;lhera legairyrecorded map"a survey and is net Map Scale N Wended nbeused asone.Tn'sdrauscty county, tonttrewAs, Wended tebedIs a u o'eren s...located 1 inch = 147 feet inaa.;'q date "state offices, and .War cow s effect ng Ne area shown, and is W be used for reference WE ac,ca es ad,. Scetl Counyis ml responvNa for anyinaccuracies hersin Map Date contained. If dsaa pedes are found, p'esse coniacl Ne Scvtl Cenety sarvayors mnca_ 11/11/2010 S ...........YYYY Figure 5 - 2003 Aerial Photo, showing the neighboring property (5584 Candy Cove Tr) being granted access across the city lot and using up 80% of the frontage along Candy Cove Trail and leaving us with only one, narrow location with a 25' high pile of dirt in the way, where we can install a driveway to our 5 lots. At this point in time the neighbors house and boulder retaining walls completely block the original road and access point for our 5 lots and the small area that is left for a possible driveway is completely inaccessible by vehicle due to being graded out at a slope of more than 100%. This craning Is asMer a legahy recorded nap wr a survey and is w intended to be used as ass. Ws drawmq is a wMplaabn of rec ds, infoaaato and dal. br W N vsr s city, nt,, and state offKes, end Omer sources aRec6ng 1 .area shorn, am Is b be used for ieferenra Nw es only.Scott cconty is respsvLta for any inacwrades harem conie.ed. if dur'p do sare famd, plaasacmtaa Ne Scoll County suneyms Off.. Map Scale N 1 inch = 147 feet WE Map Date 11/11/2010 S Responsibility Owner/ Project Manager Registered Land Surveyor Civil Engineer/ Designer Geotechnical Engineer Name Company Jason Miller Jason Miller Tim Peterson Stonebrooke Engineering Shawn Bloch Stonebrooke Engineering Greg Bialon Braun Intertec Phone Fax 612-750-6150 612-208-1766 952-402-9202 952-403-6803 952-402-9202 952-403-6803 612-221-0444 952-995-2020 P EXISTING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN --------- COUNTY LINE CITY LIMITS ALIGNMENT/CENTERLINE SECTION LINE - - - PRESENT RIGHT OF WAY LINE TEMPORARY EASEMENT PROPERTY/LOTLINE ---- PERPETUAL EASEMENT CURB & GUTTER ZONING SETBACK LINE -o—o- ACCESS CONTROL LINE - - RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY LINE GRAVEL EDGE RAILROAD — - WATER EDGE / CENTERLINE EROSION PROTECTION AT INLET WETLAND BOUNDARY ,a. A, WETLAND/MARSH CATCH BASIN CURB & GUTTER SANITARY SEWER CONCRETE EDGE STORM SEWER BITUMINOUS EDGE — — — GRAVEL EDGE —X X X— FENCE VALVE CULVERT Q DECIDUOUS TREE WATERMAIN CONIFER TREE HEDGE °•..+--.-•,,.w..�.-^� TREE LINE a TRAFFIC SIGN O MANHOLE ® CATCH BASIN 8" SAN INP ) SANITARY SEWER 4° FIA INP > SANITARY FORCEMAIN 15" STN INP )� STORM SEWER ------>------- TILE LINE 4" N3dN INP I WATERMAIN h HYDRANT ® VALVE CURB STOP G GAS o POWER POLE LIGHT POLE ❑A PAD MOUNTED TRANSFORMER P -BUR UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC OHP OVERHEAD ELECTRIC ® UTILITY PEDESTAL/CABINET --, T UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE UNDERGROUND N CABLE + BENCHMARK O B-3 SOIL BORING PROPOSED & EROSION CONTROL PLAN 2Y•r00 ENGINEER 4 GRADING PLAN ALIGNMENT/CENTERLINE ---- ---- RIGHT OF WAY LINE --�—�- TEMPORARY EASEMENT e CONSTRUCTION LIMITS CURB & GUTTER 6 UTILITY PLAN BITUMINOUS EDGE TREE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT CONCRETE EDGE s7 V)�, GRAVEL EDGE N SILT FENCE -HEAVY DUN EROSION PROTECTION AT INLET ON MANHOLE ■ CATCH BASIN B° SAN SANITARY SEWER 12" STM >> STORM SEWER ------->------ PERFORATED PIPE DRAIN —� CULVERT W/APRON 4 HYDRANT j VALVE .. CURBSTOP B' Wuu F WATERMAIN PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL FOR THE BLUFFS OF CANDY COVE GRADING, SANITARY SEWER, WATERMAIN, STORM SEWER, DETENTION POND AND STREET CONSTRUCTION PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA �"� SFMgpSP PRE8R� N.W. SPRING LAKE NOT TO SCALE REGIONAL PARK N.W. N.W. -. FFEn4DNi. i (�FRE1AONi T. �`g P; ro" 35. ib ISO, hz �\ NORTN DUO RD✓ " �Q Pm M INIA I 9T. S.E. a N f � 23. W'EETWOOD DR. o a�, 11 p t6 ST S.E. 44 , l t/ S.E xP` I -t to � r w C 5 Aµ� 30 tieA P o E is f -U, SON GW. S.E. cC¢ AL RNA' I. SlIIA MER ST. OO y�c, p2 u, 21 c V• oo <o n cQ'Yb °Drn viC1 °J �' p(• II TnRF�A CREST �� `` 'c 9y°OKs DIR. Fft INoLy4; Ut ��;H �i � rT,emLn.q y TP h ✓n Y G@-" ,nl�o YNDIIMA Q f, pt d ZI y11ic rAcazA GRADING I�- ION= SHEET TITLE GENERAL INFORMATION 1 TITLE SHEET PRELIMINARY PLAT 2 PRELIMINARY PLAT MAP of THE :'..r " v'', YU `"-lio _ s . s�.w i ,! Q°,iov[Ew' - _ ., „ i .,... �s T? �' BALSA ,_ S 12 .(- /� YtPG25 .� �P S.E. "1 2 0 lAEAA, CV, aphh/G CITY OF PRIOR LAKE �w FNNE SCOTT COLINTY, MN �'� ❑ °P• H x LLLAc sr oy q",.'zw sT.�� a I7 cutrlE_ I gg� TR, s�`"n Saka 3 � dG 1P' x $ � Cryttal Sake 3 10 � � 4Lsq N TR, � I L OE R Pt ES R' S`S.E. � . spxu E o s 1 y f5t x t oR. m 2'' 93, DR. v— .�. I/��C ` E OAk QORIT DR. �i I AP µ4ERO TNPATOt1i S 11 _� Q NG g , DR. NRN R DR '"' � 61155E 176fA D 111 111 _111 _11� NWY- 9 � FEED WAYSE.� APLE DR. Ni! AY ) P F311 L v _� o" L <i 13 cT. 111 _v1r TI iSW PzzW a VP 119Th ST. E. i S IE 11 CLEARS AIPIE A L8 97 k�Y 180th Si. BENCH MARKS: THE GOVERNING STANDARDS FOR THIS PROJECT SHALL BE: THESE PLANS, THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE STANDARD CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR 1) Mn/DOT: THUMB MNDT UTILITY AND STREET CONSTRUCTION, THE 2005 EDITION OF THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION N: 190045.875 (Mn/DOT) "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION" AND ANY AMENDMENTS, THE 1999 EDITION E: 473415.323 OF THE "STANDARD UTILITIES SPECIFICATION FOR WATERMAIN AND SERVICE LINE INSTALLATION AND SANITARY ELEV: 980.795 SEWER AND STORM SEWER INSTALLATION" AS PUBLISHED BY THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA, AND ANY SPECIAL PROVISIONS. CITY OF PRIOR LAKE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE!! THIS PLAN SET CONTAINS 9 SHEETS PROJECT LOCATION & EROSION CONTROL PLAN 3 GRADING & EROSION NOTES/DETAILS ENGINEER 4 GRADING PLAN 5 EROSION CONTROL PLAN SZ' Shawn Bloch, P.E. UTILITY PLAN P SAVAGE *� 6 UTILITY PLAN 3P8r 59Th TREE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT d s7 V)�, TREEREMOVAL & REPLACEMENT PLAN N 8-9 TABULATION TREE INVENTORY MAP of THE :'..r " v'', YU `"-lio _ s . s�.w i ,! Q°,iov[Ew' - _ ., „ i .,... �s T? �' BALSA ,_ S 12 .(- /� YtPG25 .� �P S.E. "1 2 0 lAEAA, CV, aphh/G CITY OF PRIOR LAKE �w FNNE SCOTT COLINTY, MN �'� ❑ °P• H x LLLAc sr oy q",.'zw sT.�� a I7 cutrlE_ I gg� TR, s�`"n Saka 3 � dG 1P' x $ � Cryttal Sake 3 10 � � 4Lsq N TR, � I L OE R Pt ES R' S`S.E. � . spxu E o s 1 y f5t x t oR. m 2'' 93, DR. v— .�. I/��C ` E OAk QORIT DR. �i I AP µ4ERO TNPATOt1i S 11 _� Q NG g , DR. NRN R DR '"' � 61155E 176fA D 111 111 _111 _11� NWY- 9 � FEED WAYSE.� APLE DR. Ni! AY ) P F311 L v _� o" L <i 13 cT. 111 _v1r TI iSW PzzW a VP 119Th ST. E. i S IE 11 CLEARS AIPIE A L8 97 k�Y 180th Si. BENCH MARKS: THE GOVERNING STANDARDS FOR THIS PROJECT SHALL BE: THESE PLANS, THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE STANDARD CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR 1) Mn/DOT: THUMB MNDT UTILITY AND STREET CONSTRUCTION, THE 2005 EDITION OF THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION N: 190045.875 (Mn/DOT) "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION" AND ANY AMENDMENTS, THE 1999 EDITION E: 473415.323 OF THE "STANDARD UTILITIES SPECIFICATION FOR WATERMAIN AND SERVICE LINE INSTALLATION AND SANITARY ELEV: 980.795 SEWER AND STORM SEWER INSTALLATION" AS PUBLISHED BY THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA, AND ANY SPECIAL PROVISIONS. CITY OF PRIOR LAKE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE!! THIS PLAN SET CONTAINS 9 SHEETS PROJECT LOCATION EXISTING UTILITY NOTE: THE SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS PLAN IS UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL D. THIS QUALITY LEVEL WAS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF "CI/ASCE 38-02 STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF EXISTING SUBSURFACE UTILITY DATA". THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY EXACT LOCATIONS PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW. NOTIFY GOPHER STATE ONE -CALL AT (800) 252-1166 OR (651) 454-0002. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. LIC. NO. 46579 DATE: 12/28/2010 Shawn D. Bloch ENGINEER DEVELOPER Shawn Bloch, P.E. Whiterwater Development, Inc. Stonebrooke Engineering, Inc. 12467 Boone Ave., Ste. 1 5406 Noko Ave. S. Minneapoll M h7e§o d Savage, Minnesota 55378 (612) 750- Ls E (952)402-920 2 L ! L� L( PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DEC l 2 t City of Prior Lake 17073 Adelman St. SE ( ar (� Prior Lake, MN 55372 (952) 440 - 9675 S P y EXISTING UTILITY NOTE: THE SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS PLAN IS UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL D. THIS QUALITY LEVEL WAS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF "CI/ASCE 38-02 STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF EXISTING SUBSURFACE UTILITY DATA". THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY EXACT LOCATIONS PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW. NOTIFY GOPHER STATE ONE -CALL AT (800) 252-1166 OR (651) 454-0002. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. LIC. NO. 46579 DATE: 12/28/2010 Shawn D. Bloch f m z W N� ' � \ 0 30 60 SCALE FEET 00� \\ / W N \ p >� OP /5 Vqp =--- \ 4 HOUSED GJO LOT 1 u 9 / 23 360.0(6( SF /MTO ,9504�F / / T l\ '� P A 2SHED 15, 78.73 SF9U4) � LTO O 3 0 LMP A= 2 434 SF / 9,71 3 SF � ,� O O 904 Cts 6� 9 §� / / / "/ / / / IMPS 2, 00 -P0 / 0. / 90 9/ /J _ \9 _ ' ° � USE ..I.. S zs ro sne«cN c ��pC.,,\ •o:O.p.D,¢a. '.ov •.0.•. a: 'v',.o. .p'.•• o— — ' ..I...Q. ' •..bv; e.;ov•d• .v:?.:.o.. a° '�: �.o4Gv PC� s kse ]s„DbT�• v.:oma. rirormrcuNe ` z�� EIS ING 137.25 ROW L=75.26 R=11,639.4 1 --- --- N5845'50'E F OF srx No. nA=00.22'74' _ _ _ — — FIFIub mN cwrtwm 'P0 M rm uNoor wswrm EXISTING e pO Z f� 91NIIDIpIry DPNNM£ VGY 8 STATE U N IGH WAY NO. 13 CENTERLINE S.T.H. 13 PER MND MAPPING E Q O 0 N\ N „ REV. NO. DATE I BY I CHK I DESCRIPTION IHEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR - - SHEET BENCH MARKS: UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AMA DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER PRELIMINARY PLAT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DRAWN StonebrOOke 2 1) N: 19 045.875IB MNOT �, PRIOR LAKE, MN OF E: 473415.323 CHECKED •,, '� Engineering Responsible Solutions NAME SHAWN D.BLOCH uc.No, 46579 oATE 12/28/2010 SOB • THE BLUFFS OF CANDY COVE 9 0 O a GENERAL NOTES: EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL INSPECTION PROVIDED BY: JASON MILLER WHITEWATER DEVELOPMENT, INC. 5406 NOKOMIS AVE. S. MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55417 612-750-6150 1) ALL CONTOURS AND SPOT ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN TO FINISHED SURFACE GRADES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2) THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SALVAGE AND RESPREAD TOPSOIL (MIN. 0.5' THICKNESS). ALL COSTS SHALL BE INCIDENTAL TO GRADING. EXCESS MATERIAL SHALL BECOME PROPERTY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND DISPOSED OF OFFSITE. 3) REFER TO THE FINAL PLAT OR SITE PLAN FOR CURRENT HORIZONTAL SITE DIMENSIONS AND LAYOUT. 4) THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AND TOPOGRAPHICAL FEATURES WITH THE OWNERS AND FIELD -VERIFY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF ANY APPARENT DISCREPANCIES. 5) THE CONTRACTOR IS TO CONTACT GOPHER STATE "ONE CALL" FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS. 6) ALL SILT FENCE AND OTHER EROSION CONTROL FEATURES SHALL BE IN-PLACE AND INSPECTED PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION OR CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNTIL VIABLE TURF OR GROUND COVER HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. SILT FENCE SHALL BE MAINTAINED AND REMOVED BY THE GRADING CONTRACTOR AND SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO THE GRADING CONTRACT. IT IS OF EXTREME IMPORTANCE TO BE AWARE OF CURRENT FIELD CONDITIONS WITH RESPECT TO EROSION CONTROL. 7) THE GRADING CONTRACTOR MUST BE AWARE OF ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED UTILITIES. 8) ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO LOCAL AND STATE RULES INCLUDING THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND WETLAND PERMITS. 9) ALL EXISTING PAVED STREETS WITH ACCESS TO THE SITE MUST BE CLEANED AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY. A ROCK ENTRANCE TO ALL ACCESSES TO THE SITE MUST BE PROVIDED ACCORDING TO DETAILS TO REDUCE TRACKING OF DIRT ONTO PUBLIC STREETS. 10) POSITIVE DRAINAGE FROM THE SITE MUST BE PROVIDED AT ALL TIMES. ALL RUNOFF FROM THE SITE SHALL BE CONTAINED WITHIN THE SITE UNTIL IT REACHES THE DESIGNATED DISCHARGE POINT. ANY DAMAGE DUE TO RUNOFF FROM THE SITE TO ADJACENT EXISTING DEVELOPED PROPERTIES SHALL BE RESTORED/REPAIRED BY THE CONTACTOR AT HIS EXPENSE. 11) ALL EXPOSED SOILS MUST BE STABILIZED WITHIN 7 CALENDAR DAYS OF ROUGH GRADE COMPLETION UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. ALL STOCKPILES MUST HAVE ADEQUATE SEDIMENT TRAPPING SYSTEMS INSTALLED AROUND THEM. 12) SEE EROSION CONTROL AND TURF ESTABLISHMENT PLAN FOR SITE SPECIFIC SEEDING REQUIREMENTS, PLACE EROSION CONTROL FIBER BLANKET AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN ON SLOPES EXCEEDING 3:1 AND ADJACENT TO WETLAND AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER. 13) TEMPORARY SEEDING, FERTILIZING AND MULCHING MUST BE APPLIED IF GRADING OPERATIONS HAVE BEEN SUSPENDED MORE THAN 7 DAYS ON SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1, 14 DAYS ON SLOPES GREATER THAN 10:1, AND 21 DAYS ON SLOPES LESS THAN 10:1. TEMPORARY SEED MIXTURE SHALL BE MN/DOT 130B, COST TO BE INCIDENTAL TO GRADING. SEE MN/DOT 3876 FOR REQUIRED SEED, FERTILIZER AND MULCH APPLICATION RATES. 14) TEMPORARY SEEDING SHOULD BE PROVIDED UPSTREAM OF INLETS. ALL DISTURBED DITCHES EITHER NEW OR EXISTING MUST BE STABILIZED WITHIN 200 LF WITHIN 24 HRS OF CONNECTION TO SURFACE WATERS (INCLUDING CATCH BASINS), TEMPORARY SOIL STOCKPILES MUST HAVE EFFECTIVE EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL IN PLACE AS PER THE PERMIT. 15) THE SITE MUST BE KEPT IN A WELL -DRAINED CONDITION AT ALL TIMES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR TEMPORARY DITCHES, PIPING OR OTHER MEANS REQUIRED TO INSURE PROPER DRAINAGE DURING CONSTRUCTION. 16) PUBLIC STREETS USED FOR HAULING SHALL BE KEPT FREE OF SOIL AND DEBRIS. STREET SWEEPING SHALL BE CONCURRENT WITH EARTHWORK ON SITE. 17) HAULING HOURS MUST BE CONFIRMED WITH THE CITY PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK. 18) ALL NECESSARY CLEARING & GRUBBING SHALL BE INCIDENTAL TO GRADING OPERATIONS. 191 EROSION CONTROL INSTALLATION SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT ALL TIMES. CLEANING SEDIMENT REMOVAL AND MAINTENANCE SHALL BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MN/DOT SECTION 2573. 20) THE SITE GRADING TOLERANCE FOR THE SITE SHOULD BE 0.1' FOR STREETS AND 0.2' FOR LANDSCAPED AREAS. 21) CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF INPLACE FORCEMAIN, SANITARY, STORM AND PRIVATE UTILITIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION. 22) CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE WEEKLY EROSION CONTROL INSPECTION REPORTS AND WITHIN 24 HRS OF ANY 0.5" OR GREATER RAINFALL. 23) SEDIMENT TRAPS SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED IN ALL CATCH BASINS DURING CONSTRUCTION. CLEANING OF ALL DOWNSTREAM STORM SEWERS SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. THIS WORK SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO THE CONTRACT. 24) FINAL TURF RESTORATION SHALL BE IN PLACE WITHIN 30 WORKING DAYS OF COMPLETION OF GRADING OPERATIONS. 25) SOLID WASTE: COLLECTED SEDIMENT, ASPHALT AND CONCRETE MILLINGS, FLOATING DEBRIS, PAPER, PLASTIC, FABRIC, CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS AND OTHER WASTES MUST BE DISPOSED OF PROPERLY AND MUST COMPLY WITH MPCA DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS. 26) HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: OIL, GASOLINE, PAINT AND ANY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES MUST BE PROPERLY STORED, INCLUDING SECONDARY CONTAINMENT, TO PREVENT SPILLS, LEAKS OR OTHER DISCHARGE. RESTRICTED ACCESS TO STORAGE AREAS MUST BE PROVIDED TO PREVENT VANDALISM. STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MUST BE INCOMPLIANCE WITH MPCA REGULATIONS. 27) EXTERNAL WASHING OF TRUCKS AND OTHER CONSTRUCTUION VEHICLES MUST BE LIMITED TO A DEFINED AREA OF THE SITE. RUNOFF MUST BE CONTAINED AND WASTE PROPERLY DISPOSED OF. NO ENGINE DEGREASING IS ALLOWED ON SITE. 28) CONCRETE WASHOUT ONSITE: ALL LIQUID AND SOLID WASTES GENERATED BY CONCRETE WASHOUT OPERATIONS MUST BE CONTAINED IN A LEAK -PROOF CONTAINMENT FACILITY OR IMPERMEABLE LINER. A COMPACTED CLAY LINER THAT DOES NOT ALLOW WASHOUT LIQUIDS TO ENTER GROUND WATER IS CONSIDERED A PERMEABLE LINER. THE LIQUID AND SOLID WASTES MUST NOT CONTACT THE GROUND, AND THERE MUST NOT BE RUNOFF FROM THE CONCRETE WASHOUT OPERATIONS OR AREAS. LIQUID AND SOLID WASTES MUST BE DISPOSED OF PROPERLY AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH MPCA REGULATIONS. A SIGN MUST BE INSTALLED ADJACENT TO EACH WASHOUT FACILITY TO INFORM CONCRETE EQUIPMENT OPERATORS TO UTILIZE THE PROPER FACILITIES. (PART IV.F.4, PERMIT NO: MN R100001) STAPLE WOVEN STEP 1 MONOFILAMENT STEP 2 DIA STEEL POST SET POSTS AND EXCAVATE FABRICTO EACH 32'X2'WOOD A6'X6'TRENCHUPSLOPE POST IST 4'MAX 30. ALONGTHELINEOFTHE 'ACING0 Mw POSTS FLOW DIRECTION----� 0 TENCH LAY FABRIC X w IN TRENCH SIIu I I Ir M TIL Illi �� ,' i -IIT LJ STEP 3 HE FLOW DIRECTION BACKFILL DSOIL NCH AND COMPACTTHE O EXCAVATED SOIL LL COMPACTED 0 BACKFILL A� T� I m II 111 I IT 0 A B SOTTOMOF ELEVATION POINTS "A" SHOULD DRNNAGE WAY BE HIGHER THAN POINTS "B" NOTES: 1. FILTER BARRIERS SHALL BE INSPECTED WITHIN 24 HOURS AFIER)z' RAINFALL AND AT LEAST WEEKLY DURING ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION. ANY REQUIRED REPAIRS SHALL BE MADE WITH 24 HOURS OF NOTICE 2. SHOULD THE FABRIC DECOMPOSE OR BECOME INEFFECTIVE PRIOR TO END OF EXPECTED USEABLE LIFEAND THE BARRIER IS STILL NECESSARY, THE FABRIC SHALL BE REPLACED PROMPTLY. 3. SEDIMENT DEPOSITS SHOULD BE REMOVED AFTER EACH STORM EVENT AND MUST BE REMOVED WHEN DEPOSITS REACH APPROXIMATELY HALF THE HEIGHT OF THE BARRIER. 4. ANY SEDIMENT DEPOSITS REMAINING IN PLACE AFTER THE SILT FENCE OR FILTER BARRIER IS NO LONGER REQUIRED, SHALL BE DRESSED TO CONFORM WITH THE EXISTING GRADE, PREPARED AND SEEDED. S. SILT FENCE SHALL FOLLOW MNDOT MATERIAL SPEC. 3686 (APPROVED I PLA5 SILT FENCE REQUIREMENTS( 200 TE # ' NOTES: I. ROCKS AT ENTRANCE CLEAN WORKSITE MUD OFF OF TRUCK TIRES BEFORE DRIVING ON MAIN ROAD 2. REPLACE CRUSHED ROCK ONCE SILT FROM TIRES HAS RENDERED THE ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE INEFFECTIVE, ORAS DIRECTED BY CITY ENGINEER PUBLIC ROAD RADIUS AS REQUIRED (15 MIN) 6' MINIMUM DEPTH OF1'T02' CRUSHED ROCK �EM I0 REQUIR AS REQUIRED -►j (20Mw) APPROVEDs PLATE # ROCK CONSTRUCTION T4s ENTRANCE 202 6' THICKNESS THICKNESS REQUIRED ON SIDEWALK AT ENTRANCES 1 2% MIN. SLOPE ON ENTRANCE 6' MIN. THICKNE$S 4 REQUIRED ON ENTRANCES PERSPECTIVE A -A TMw. 1. /S SPECIFIED (TAPERFROM 8' 24' MAK 2' BACK ON 8816 CC.&G)&G) A Y �.. ANSION AS DIRECITEE) NT f AS DIRECTED NOTES: •• PLAN VIEW ^ • A 1. WHERE NEW ENTRANCES ARE TO BE ADDED ACROSS EXISTING C&G, REMOVE EXISTING C&G AND REPLACE WITH NEW C&G WITH DROP CURB FOR DRIVEWAY (3' TAPER FROM 6- BACK TO 2- BACKON 8616 C&G). 2. CONCRETE ENTRANCE SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR ALL RESIDENTIAL ENTRANCES ADJACENT TO SIDEWALK 3. THE AIR CONTENT OF THE CONCRETE SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 4 NOR MORE THAN 7 PERCENT. CONCRETE MD( SHALL BE 3A32 WHERE FORMS ARE PLACED AND 3A22 WHERE SLIP FORM MACHINE PLACEMENT IS USED. 4. THE CONCRETE ENTRANCE SHALL BE PLACED ON COMPACTED SUITABLE GRANULAR SUBGRADE OR AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS -5, 100% CRUSHED QUARRY ROCK AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER. 5. PROVIDE FULL DEPTH EXPANSION JOINTS USING PREFORMED BOARD MATERIAL, PLACED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MNDOT PLATE 7035L, WHERE INDICATED ON DETAIL, AND AGAINST FIXED OBJECTS. PROVIDE CONTRACTION JOINTS, 1M THE DEPTH OF THE CONCRETE OR MORE, WHERE INDICATED ON DETAIL. 6. WITHIN ONE HOUR AFTER THE CONCRETE IS FINISHED AND'SROOMED', ALL EXPOSED SURFACES; FRONT, TOP. AND BACK; SHALL BE SPRAYED WITH MEMBRANE CURING COMPOUND CONFORMING TO MNDOT3754 AT A RATE OF NOT LESS THAN 1 GALLON PER 150 SF. 7. BACKFILLING OF THE ENTRANCE SHALL BE COMPLETED WITHIN 4B HOURS AFTER THE 5 DAY CURING PERIOD. EXTREME CARE MUST BE EXERCISED DURING THIS OPERATION. THERE SHALL BE NO EXCESS CONCRETE OR DEBRIS LEFT BEHIND THE CONCRETE BEING BACKFILLED. S. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMITTO THE ENGINEER THE CONCRETE DESIGN MIX WITH A LETTER FROM AN APPROVED TESTING LABORATORY, PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF ANY CONCRETE. THE LETTER SHOULD STATE THAT THE AGGREGATES AND THE PROPORTIONS MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS. 9. THE COMPLETE CONCRETE WORK SHALL GIVE THE APPEARANCE OF UNIFORMITY IN SURFACE CONTOUR AND TEXTURE, AND SHALL BE ACCURATELY CONSTRUCTED TO UNEAND GRADE. UNACCEPTABLE WORK SHALL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH ACCEPTABLE WORK AS ORDERED BY THE ENGINEER. CRACKING ATAREAS OTHER THEN JOINTS, MAY AT THE DISCRETION OF THE ENGINEER, BE REMOVED AND REPLACED. APPROVED 10 PLATE# RESIDENTIAL CONCRETE ENTRANCES 606 REV. NO. DATE BY CHK DESCRIPTION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR u��aurv�u __ SHEET UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER GRADING & EROSION NOTES/DETAILS UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DRAWN Sto n ebroo ke OF PRIOR LAKE, MN of CHECKED Engineering Responsible Solutions'" -a-1 THF RI I IFFY CSF CANDY c.n\/F 9 .....- c WN n_ RI nrH .._ .._ 4An .,.._ 32/2R/2ala cnR . _. Q 3,810 SF CONCRETE DRIVEWAY SAWCUT AT BITUMINOUS EDGE FOR CURB REMOVAL. IT IS THE INTENT TO TIE INTO CANDY COVE TRAIL WITHOUT SAWCUTTING INTO THE BITUMINOUS ROADWAY. NEW CONCRETE ENTRANCE SHOULD BE POURED IMMEDIATELY AFTER REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING CURB SO THAT THE EXISTING BITUMINOUS DOES NOT SLIDE INTO THE EXCAVATION. IF CURB CANNOT BE POURED SAMEDAY, THEN THE BITUMINOUS EDGE SHOULD BE SHORED AND PROTECTED. AR/oR Syo 06, s ,�� ,29,20� o0 1�\ o / 6'- ov �?o 0 30 60 SCALE FEET REV. NO. DATE BY CHK I DESCRIPTION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION. OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR --- SHEET BENCH MARKS: UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER GRADING PLAN 1) Mn/DOT: THUMB MN UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DRAWN Stonebrooke 4 N: 190045.875 PRIOR LAKE, MN OF E: 473415.323 CHECKED Engineering Responsible Solutions 9 ELEV: 980.795 „paE SHAWN D.BLOCH uc.n°. 46579 °.TE 12,28,20I0 5DB THE BLUFFS OF CANDY COVE RETAINING WALL 4' HIGH MAXIMUM 0 m 4 ER O W. IS ING 946:25 EXISTING 1�1r-98 -OZ6— 8TD` 68 v, — — -. -- OS m m 205 �.960-/ ✓ X12,QIPWAT IN - _ �.� TS, g° R P SANITAtzY'6�2b/0 Ur'6 FIBER OPTIC _.-._ d _" -_ N. ".. �� ` - A —� ig_RCP SAN .. - _._ Y 0.12 0 �IM 948.50 _ 9 4 --- T92 IN - $ ' N T RIM 955.6 °INV 920, , " ZOS6— 56 �— 6 - — -- - --_ _ — _" -- . - --' b- CONSTR TION ITS a >„ o n N N REMOVE AND REPLACE .o N>» o a US 860 SF BITUMINOUS N m m a D NAG RAI E WAY N N N �ENTERLIIIE S.T.H. -13 PER MND APPING- - O � W ' m • mj�j N •t -P' ,N a� m V pa n n O N� � � � O �N � m m N N N N N a ,� N REV. NO. DATE BY CHK I DESCRIPTION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION. OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR --- SHEET BENCH MARKS: UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER GRADING PLAN 1) Mn/DOT: THUMB MN UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DRAWN Stonebrooke 4 N: 190045.875 PRIOR LAKE, MN OF E: 473415.323 CHECKED Engineering Responsible Solutions 9 ELEV: 980.795 „paE SHAWN D.BLOCH uc.n°. 46579 °.TE 12,28,20I0 5DB THE BLUFFS OF CANDY COVE 5 a 4- z z W EROSION CONTROL AND TURF ESTABLISHMENT A ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT REMARKS 2573.502 `' SILT FENCE, TYPE HEAVY DUTY " 580 LF T6 2573.502 SILT FENCE, TYPE MACHINE SLICED 165 LF _ —OE6 2573.602 -TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 1 EA — _ Ob6` 2575.501 SEEDING 1 ACRE 2575.502 ': SEED MIXTURE 100 (TEMPORARY) 140 LBS 2575.502 SEED MIXTURE 270 168 LBS 2575.505 SODDING TYPE LAWN 497 SY 2575.511 MULCH MATERIAL TYPE 1 3 TON (i) 2575.519 DISK ANCHORING 1 ;ACRE ' 2575.523 JEROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 3 6,750 SY 2575.532 ICOMMERCIAL FERT ANALYSIS 10-10-10 279 LBS NOTES: (1) MULCH MATERIAL TYPE 1 TO BE USED ONLY IF SEED MIXTURE 100 IS USED. CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE PER CITY STANDARD PLATE 202 TOTAL DISTURBED AREA: 3 ACRES SEEDING NOTES: SEED AND MULCH ALL DISTURBED AREAS. _ -PREP SITE BY LOOSENING SOIL TO A MIN. DEPTH 3" -FERTILIZER 10-10-10 (NPK) APPLY AT 200 LBS/AC -SEED MIX = MnDOT 100 APPLY AT 100 LBS/AC FOR TEMPORARY USE -SEED MIX = MnDOT 270 APPLY AT 120 LBS/AC FOR TURF AREAS / -MULCH AND DISC -ANCHOR. MnDOT TYPE 1 MULCH SHALL BE USED AND APPLIED AT 2 TONS/AC IF TEMPORARY SEED IS USED ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED AND INSPECTED PRIOR TO ANY SITE GRADING BY THE CITY. 954 ,. CENTERLINE S.T.H. r4(S�7 4- AR7o sy R � SRF<i %�� 06`2s F<v of \1JCv'k "0 70 90720 ING ss_ rMS=.- SILT FENCE, TYPE MACHINE SLICED REV. NO. DATE BY I CHK I DESCRIPTION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR --- SHEET BENCH MARKS: UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER EROSION CONTROL PLAN 1) Mn/DOT: THUMB MNDT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DRAWN Stonebrooke 5 N: 190045.875 PRIOR LAKE, MN OF E: 473415.323 CHECKED Engineering Responsible Solutions -9 ELEV: 980.795 Na„E SHAWN D.BLOCH UC. NO. '76579 oA� Iz,zB,zBIB sDB g g P THE BLUFFS OF CANDY COVE ''� EXISTING SHED �� HOUSE 165 LF MACHINE SLICED SILT FENCE \' O W. E IS ING R —OZ6— T6 _ _ �65 _ —OE6 -- 1 - Zc6- t --.-.-"--"- - — _ Ob6` —_OS6--�-- ING ss_ rMS=.- SILT FENCE, TYPE MACHINE SLICED REV. NO. DATE BY I CHK I DESCRIPTION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR --- SHEET BENCH MARKS: UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER EROSION CONTROL PLAN 1) Mn/DOT: THUMB MNDT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DRAWN Stonebrooke 5 N: 190045.875 PRIOR LAKE, MN OF E: 473415.323 CHECKED Engineering Responsible Solutions -9 ELEV: 980.795 Na„E SHAWN D.BLOCH UC. NO. '76579 oA� Iz,zB,zBIB sDB g g P THE BLUFFS OF CANDY COVE O H L w F 0 O a NOTES: 1. BED SERVICE AND MAIN LINE PPE WITH GRANULAR FOUNDATION MATERIAL AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER. 2. NSTALL CURB BOXES WHERETHE BOULEVARD IS TO BE CUT AT A LATER DATE TO MEET DEPTH REQUIREMENTS AFTER THE CUT. CURB BOX EXTENSION FOR BOXES EXCEEDING ELV N LENGTH ARE TO BE PAID FORATTHE CONTRACT UNIT PRICE BID FOR EACH ADJUST CURB BOX AND SHALL NGLUOE STACKCOUPLNGS. CONNECTIONS, ETC. 3. CURB BOXES CONSTRUCTED N PAVED AREAS REQUIRE THE INSTALLATION OFA -FORD TYPE ASINGLE' UO COVER OR APPROVED EQUAL 4. WATER SERVICES SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE PRESSURE AND LEAKAGE TESTING REQUIREMENTS OF THE MAIN LINES. S. CONTRACTOR SMALL PROVIDE THE CITY MAINTENANCE SHOP W IM ONE 3 FT CURB STOP KEYAND ONE PENTAGON KEY FOR EVERY 20 CURB BOXES INSTALLED, MINIMUM OF THREF. COST OF KEYS SHALL BE INCIDENTAL SERVICESSRALLBE CONSTRUCTED ONLYTO THE RNR UTILITY LINE WHERE PRNATE UTLLITIES EASEMENT ARE ALREADY IN PLACE LINE 4'x e x 6' WOOD POST RAV CL STREET WWI— FINISHEDGRADE EASEMENT YMIN. I SHUT OFF R00. I I SETTOP OF ROD 1S' BELOW 8'MN FINISHED TUNA% WATERMAIN GARDE T-6'MIN. 22' CURB STOP & BOX MINIMUM V CORPORATION STOP. V CONNECTNS TO T WATER PROVIDE CAP ON END OF K) MAIN SHALL REQUIRE THE USE OF CURB STOP FOR FUTURE ANAPPROVEDSADDLE SERVICE. RECONNECT EXISTING WATER SERVICE MINIMUM V TYPE K COPPER IN ONE AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER CONTINUOUS PIECE FROM MAN TO CURB STOP, PROVIDEHORIZONTAL B' CONCRETE BLOCK OOM ECKAND$LACKTOALLOW FORSETTLEMENT APPROVED WATER SERVICE PLATE # CONNECTION 502 SANITARY SEWER & WATERMAIN CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1) CONTRACTOR MUST PROVIDE CITY WITH 48 HOURS NOTICE FOR ANY WATERMAIN OR ROADWAY SHUTDOWNS. 2) ELEVATIONS ARE AT THE END OF SERVICE STUBS AS SHOWN. ENDWATERSERVICE AT CURB STOP. 3) SANITARY SEWER CONNECTIONS SHOULD BE ACHIEVED USING AN'INSERT-A-TEE". 41 MINIMUM GRADE FOR SANITARY SEWER SERVICE STUBS SHALL BE YT PER FOOT (2°%). 51 ALL SANITARY SEWER SERVICE STUBS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH 4"PVC SDR 26. WATERMAIN SERVICES SHALL BE AT MINIMUM I" COPPER TYPE K. 6) ALL SANITARY SEWER MAIN SHALL BE TELEVISED AFTER TESTING. 7) ALL FITTINGS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH TIE RODS OF MEGALUGS. 8) ALL VALVES SHALL BE RESILIENTSEAL GATE VALUES. 9)ALL GATE VALVES AND CURB STOPS SHALL HAVE ADJUSTABLE GATE VALVE EXTENSION STEMS. 10) CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR TRENCH DESIGN & O.S.H.A. REQUIREMENTS. 11) WATER SERVICES ARE 3' UPFLO W FROM SANITARY SEWER SERVICE. 12) WATERMAIN AND SERVICES SHALL MAINTAIN 18' MIN VERTICAL SEPARATION FROM STORM SEWER (INCLUDING MANHOLES) AND IT HORIZONTAL AND 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION FROM SANITARY UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. 131 WATERMAIN AND WATER SERVICES ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING TO CITY OR PRIOR LAKE. REQUIREMENTS. 141 ACTIVATION OF THE WATERMAIN SYSTEM SHALL BE PERFORMED BY CITY PERSONNEL ONLY. 15) SEWER AND WATER SERVICE SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE PRESSURE AND LEAKAGE TESTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MAIN LINES. FIBER CLCV `J.�1U.UU 95 LF 4" SAN SEWER SDR 26 @ 2% / INV 942.00 FIELD VERRIFY LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS J EXISTING HOUSE tYOc. / / I / / I / I LOT i BLOCK 1 / L 2 BL CK 1 / .,y< •a ; a.,•a; v'•�'v; .v: Vv. 4•° �.o'°: o. .a v,.o:V'•p. •.p .o R 4..•. •.o V •�.•°.4•. v•,.°o. .p..? O ..kt.e o a V� ° > v I: = < — - --- < --- --- < RIM 955. 6 INV 920.74\ EX 12" DIP EX 18" RCP SAN P 17' RISER <E� <-- -- 0.12°/0 RIM 948.50 INV 921.20 \ 0 30 60 SCALE FEET 82 LF 1.5" COPPER WATER SEAICELINE \\ 4�`--- CURBSTOP & BOX ELEV 939.00 /R// ---i– 92 LF 4" SAN SEW{R ItSDR 26 @ 2%\ 0 INV 929.00 o FIELD VERIFY LOCATIONS ' AND ELEVATIONS \ IIIA \ / / LOT 3 ' SHED \ / BLOCK 1 If SHED \ I 80 LF 1.5" COPPER WATER SERVICE LINE 1 EA EIS IVIG R.O.WIET CURBSTOP & BOX ELEV 935.00 90 LF 4" SAN SEWER SDR 26 @ 2% INV 925.00 FIELD VERIFY LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS , - EX 1811 RCP SANITARY 0.120/Q P– •�----------�--- P -� REV. NO. I DATE BY CHK DESCRIPTION TRACER WIRE ACCESS BOX DETAIL NOTES: ID TOP NEW 1. ALL SERVICE CONNECTIONS INCLUDING NECESSARY BENDS AND SPECIAL FITTINGS SHALL BE PAID FOR AT THE CONTRACT UNIT PRICE RIO FOR LINEAR FOOT OF SERVICE. 2. BED SERVICE AND MAIN LINE WE WITH GRANULAR FOUNDATION MATERIAL AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER. LIDSIDEMM 3. SERVICES$HALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH 06' DIP BENCH MARKS: CL 62 FROM MAIN LINE SEWER TO THE 4S`BEND WNEN DIP IS REQUIRED FOR THE MAINLINE SEWER ITSELF. 1Y2 12' SERVICE CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING DIP MAW UNE T SEWERS HALL BE APPROVED BY THE CITYENGINEER. I STAINLESS STEEL TERMINAL BOLTS 4. CLEAN-OUTSAREREQUIREOATI00' INTERVALS ON SERVICES. SEE PLATE 9405. MK/DOT: THUMBMNDT N: 190045.875 S. SEWER SERVICES SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE10, COMPLETE BOX SIDE VIEW P4X 4 PRESSURE TESTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MAIN LINE. 2 %' -C.P. TEST (VALVCO) 85EWAB' SEWER COLLAR TOP VIEW SERVICES SHPLL BE CONSTRUCTED ONLYE RNR LINE WHERE PRIVATEEQUAL. TRACER WIRE ACCESS BOX OR APPROVED UTILITIES ARE ALREADY IN PLACE. BOXES CONSTRUCTED IN PAVED AREAS REQUIRE THE INSTALLATION OF A UTILITY 4'A4' 'FORD TYPE ASINGLE' LID COVER OR RW EASEMENT WOOD POST APPROVED EQUAL, LEAVE A MINUMUM OF LINE V OF TRACER WIRE SLACK IN BOX Iw UTIU Y G$TREET EASEMFM ELEV: 980.795 FINISHEDGRADE I I 4'16' PVC SDR2646' BEND I INSTALL SERVICE RISER AS , DIRECTED BY ENGINEER 10 GAUGE COATED 2"PVC 10 MAX WHERE COVER OVER TOP TRACERWIRE UNIL APPROVED ( BY ENGINEER OF MAIN LINE SEWER IS MORE THAN I2 FT. 4'IW PVC SOR26 SANITARY SEWER SERVICE PIPE -PER FOOT OR 211. GRADE I MIN. 114 MPIN LINE SEWER BELL END UPSTREAM WITH SPIGOT PLUG. ELEVATION TO BE SET BY ENGINEER. PRN ATE SEWER SERVICE CONNECTION PVC SOR26 WYE. PLACE WYE NEARLY TO SDR26 WITH SCH40 PVC PIPE WILL HORIZONTAL FOR LOW BASEMENTS AND REQUIRE TRANSITION FITTING. IF NO SHALLOW SEWERAS DIRECTED BY FITTING I$ MANUFACTURED OR FEASIBLE ENGINEER. SERVICE CONNECTIONS TO TO USE, ALL OTHER CONNECTIONS EXISTING MAIN LINE $EWER SHALL USE TO EXISTING SERVICE PIPE SHALL USE A SDR 26 9NSERTA TEE GASKETED BELL' 'FERNCO STRONG BACK RC SERIES' LATERAL CONNECTION OR APPROVED REPAIR COUPLING OR APPROVED EQUAL EQUAL. APPROVED SANITARY SEWER PLATE # SERVICE CONNECTION a I 401 NOTES: 1. BED SERVICE AND MAIN LINE PPE WITH GRANULAR FOUNDATION MATERIAL AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER. 2. NSTALL CURB BOXES WHERETHE BOULEVARD IS TO BE CUT AT A LATER DATE TO MEET DEPTH REQUIREMENTS AFTER THE CUT. CURB BOX EXTENSION FOR BOXES EXCEEDING ELV N LENGTH ARE TO BE PAID FORATTHE CONTRACT UNIT PRICE BID FOR EACH ADJUST CURB BOX AND SHALL NGLUOE STACKCOUPLNGS. CONNECTIONS, ETC. 3. CURB BOXES CONSTRUCTED N PAVED AREAS REQUIRE THE INSTALLATION OFA -FORD TYPE ASINGLE' UO COVER OR APPROVED EQUAL 4. WATER SERVICES SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE PRESSURE AND LEAKAGE TESTING REQUIREMENTS OF THE MAIN LINES. S. CONTRACTOR SMALL PROVIDE THE CITY MAINTENANCE SHOP W IM ONE 3 FT CURB STOP KEYAND ONE PENTAGON KEY FOR EVERY 20 CURB BOXES INSTALLED, MINIMUM OF THREF. COST OF KEYS SHALL BE INCIDENTAL SERVICESSRALLBE CONSTRUCTED ONLYTO THE RNR UTILITY LINE WHERE PRNATE UTLLITIES EASEMENT ARE ALREADY IN PLACE LINE 4'x e x 6' WOOD POST RAV CL STREET WWI— FINISHEDGRADE EASEMENT YMIN. I SHUT OFF R00. I I SETTOP OF ROD 1S' BELOW 8'MN FINISHED TUNA% WATERMAIN GARDE T-6'MIN. 22' CURB STOP & BOX MINIMUM V CORPORATION STOP. V CONNECTNS TO T WATER PROVIDE CAP ON END OF K) MAIN SHALL REQUIRE THE USE OF CURB STOP FOR FUTURE ANAPPROVEDSADDLE SERVICE. RECONNECT EXISTING WATER SERVICE MINIMUM V TYPE K COPPER IN ONE AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER CONTINUOUS PIECE FROM MAN TO CURB STOP, PROVIDEHORIZONTAL B' CONCRETE BLOCK OOM ECKAND$LACKTOALLOW FORSETTLEMENT APPROVED WATER SERVICE PLATE # CONNECTION 502 SANITARY SEWER & WATERMAIN CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1) CONTRACTOR MUST PROVIDE CITY WITH 48 HOURS NOTICE FOR ANY WATERMAIN OR ROADWAY SHUTDOWNS. 2) ELEVATIONS ARE AT THE END OF SERVICE STUBS AS SHOWN. ENDWATERSERVICE AT CURB STOP. 3) SANITARY SEWER CONNECTIONS SHOULD BE ACHIEVED USING AN'INSERT-A-TEE". 41 MINIMUM GRADE FOR SANITARY SEWER SERVICE STUBS SHALL BE YT PER FOOT (2°%). 51 ALL SANITARY SEWER SERVICE STUBS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH 4"PVC SDR 26. WATERMAIN SERVICES SHALL BE AT MINIMUM I" COPPER TYPE K. 6) ALL SANITARY SEWER MAIN SHALL BE TELEVISED AFTER TESTING. 7) ALL FITTINGS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH TIE RODS OF MEGALUGS. 8) ALL VALVES SHALL BE RESILIENTSEAL GATE VALUES. 9)ALL GATE VALVES AND CURB STOPS SHALL HAVE ADJUSTABLE GATE VALVE EXTENSION STEMS. 10) CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR TRENCH DESIGN & O.S.H.A. REQUIREMENTS. 11) WATER SERVICES ARE 3' UPFLO W FROM SANITARY SEWER SERVICE. 12) WATERMAIN AND SERVICES SHALL MAINTAIN 18' MIN VERTICAL SEPARATION FROM STORM SEWER (INCLUDING MANHOLES) AND IT HORIZONTAL AND 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION FROM SANITARY UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. 131 WATERMAIN AND WATER SERVICES ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING TO CITY OR PRIOR LAKE. REQUIREMENTS. 141 ACTIVATION OF THE WATERMAIN SYSTEM SHALL BE PERFORMED BY CITY PERSONNEL ONLY. 15) SEWER AND WATER SERVICE SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE PRESSURE AND LEAKAGE TESTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MAIN LINES. FIBER CLCV `J.�1U.UU 95 LF 4" SAN SEWER SDR 26 @ 2% / INV 942.00 FIELD VERRIFY LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS J EXISTING HOUSE tYOc. / / I / / I / I LOT i BLOCK 1 / L 2 BL CK 1 / .,y< •a ; a.,•a; v'•�'v; .v: Vv. 4•° �.o'°: o. .a v,.o:V'•p. •.p .o R 4..•. •.o V •�.•°.4•. v•,.°o. .p..? O ..kt.e o a V� ° > v I: = < — - --- < --- --- < RIM 955. 6 INV 920.74\ EX 12" DIP EX 18" RCP SAN P 17' RISER <E� <-- -- 0.12°/0 RIM 948.50 INV 921.20 \ 0 30 60 SCALE FEET 82 LF 1.5" COPPER WATER SEAICELINE \\ 4�`--- CURBSTOP & BOX ELEV 939.00 /R// ---i– 92 LF 4" SAN SEW{R ItSDR 26 @ 2%\ 0 INV 929.00 o FIELD VERIFY LOCATIONS ' AND ELEVATIONS \ IIIA \ / / LOT 3 ' SHED \ / BLOCK 1 If SHED \ I 80 LF 1.5" COPPER WATER SERVICE LINE 1 EA EIS IVIG R.O.WIET CURBSTOP & BOX ELEV 935.00 90 LF 4" SAN SEWER SDR 26 @ 2% INV 925.00 FIELD VERIFY LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS , - EX 1811 RCP SANITARY 0.120/Q P– •�----------�--- P -� REV. NO. I DATE BY CHK DESCRIPTION THEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR BENCH MARKS: UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DRAWN Stonebrooke UTILITY PLAN MK/DOT: THUMBMNDT N: 190045.875 PRIOR LAKE, MN LEET1) E: 473415.323CHECKED En ineerin Res onsible Solutions g p ELEV: 980.795 INANE SHAWN D.BLOCH uc.ND. 46579 DATE 12r28r2GLD sOe THE BLUFFS OF CANDY COVE NOTES: 20 TREES x 2.5" = 50" OF REPLACEMENT > 48.25" REQUIRED NOTES: ALL TREES TO BE SAVED WILL BE PROTECTED BY THE TWO ROWS OF HEAVY DUTY SILT FENCE. NO VEHICHLES WILL BE PERMITTED BEHIND THIS FENCING TO THE LAKE SHORE. SILT FENCH SHOULD BE PLACED AROUND DRIP LINE OF PROTECTED LINE OF TREES. FENCING MUST BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY GRADING ON SITE. — 7. I^ 79�p, _ —_--- --- — — — EXISTING R.O.W. FIBER OPTIC- A 0 30 60 iiiiii SCALE FEET Sy0 06 F NF 2g <� OP \200 907 20 SHED)gy, , EXISTING R.O.W NU , _I U APPING n[v. Nv. ural [I or I III I I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR ut]Iu NCU BENCH MARKS: UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER SHEET 1) Mn/DOT: THUMB MNDT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DRAWN 4 Stonebrooke TREE REMOVAL& REPLACEMENT PLAN N: 190045.875 E: 473415.323 PRIOR LAKE, MN of ELEV; 980.795 "� CHECKED EnL ( Z_gineering Responsible Solutions - E: THE BLUFFS OF CANDY COVE 9 xn SHAWN D, BLOCH uc. Ro. 46579 12/28/2010 LANDSCAPING KEY COMMON NAME/SCIENTIFIC NAME ROOT QUANTITY EACH EVERGREEN TREES AP AUSTRIAN PNE/PINUS NIGRA 6' B&B 7 BS BLACK HILLS SPRUCE/PICEA GLAUCA DENSATA 6' B&B 7 OVERSTORY TREES RO RED OAK/QUERCUS RUBRA 2.5" B&B 3 RM IMAPLE, RED/ACER RUBRUM 2.5" B&B 3 NOTES: 20 TREES x 2.5" = 50" OF REPLACEMENT > 48.25" REQUIRED NOTES: ALL TREES TO BE SAVED WILL BE PROTECTED BY THE TWO ROWS OF HEAVY DUTY SILT FENCE. NO VEHICHLES WILL BE PERMITTED BEHIND THIS FENCING TO THE LAKE SHORE. SILT FENCH SHOULD BE PLACED AROUND DRIP LINE OF PROTECTED LINE OF TREES. FENCING MUST BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY GRADING ON SITE. — 7. I^ 79�p, _ —_--- --- — — — EXISTING R.O.W. FIBER OPTIC- A 0 30 60 iiiiii SCALE FEET Sy0 06 F NF 2g <� OP \200 907 20 SHED)gy, , EXISTING R.O.W NU , _I U APPING n[v. Nv. ural [I or I III I I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR ut]Iu NCU BENCH MARKS: UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER SHEET 1) Mn/DOT: THUMB MNDT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DRAWN 4 Stonebrooke TREE REMOVAL& REPLACEMENT PLAN N: 190045.875 E: 473415.323 PRIOR LAKE, MN of ELEV; 980.795 "� CHECKED EnL ( Z_gineering Responsible Solutions - E: THE BLUFFS OF CANDY COVE 9 xn SHAWN D, BLOCH uc. Ro. 46579 12/28/2010 REV. NO. I DATE I BY I CHK I UESCKIPI IUN TREE INVENTORY & REMOVALS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR TREE NUMBER TREE SPECIES DBH CONDITION STEMS REMOVED BONUS HERITAGE TREE SAVE 1 Ash, green 17 5 2 2 Oak, red 85 6 2 3 Oak, red 11 6 ea-1 11 4 Oak, red 10.5 6 `' 10.5 5 Maple, red 14 6 14 6 Oak, red 25 2 2 25 7 Ash, green 8.5 4 8.5 8 Ash, green 75 2 7.5 9 Maple, silver 13 6 10 Maple, silver 15 4 11 Maple, silver 6 4 12 Maple, silver 9.5 4 13 Maple, silver 15.5 6 14 Oak, red 16 4 i 15 Oak, red 6 4 16 ` Maple, red 8 6 8 17 Maple, red 10.5 6 10.5 18 Oak, red 75 4 c 13 19 Maple, red 16 8 16 20 Oak, red '' 16.5 4 15 21 Ash, green 12.5 4 2 13 22 Ash, green 75 4 14 23 Oak, red 14 6 8.5 24 Maple, red 13 6 13.5 25 Maple, red 10.5 6 10.5 26 Maple, red 12 6 12 27 Oak, white 21 6 2 21 28 Oak, red 16 4 16 29 Oak, white it 4 11 30 Oak, white 'i 17 6 3 17 31 Oak, white 16 6 3 16 32 Oak, white 13.5 6 - 1 13.5 33 Ironwood 10 5 2 10 34 Maple, red 14.5 6 14.5 35 Ironwood 6 6 6 36 Ironwood 6 2 37 Oak, red 16 5 38 Maple, red ( 26 4 t[ 2 39 Oak, red 16.5 4 40 = Maple, red 15.5 4 ` 2 41 Maple, red 13.5 6 42 Maple, red 14 1 6 43 Maple, red 11.5 6 44 Maple, red 28 2 2 28 45 Maple, red 7 6 46 Maple, red 22.5 6 47 Maple, red 7.5 6 48 Maple, red 8 4 49 Maple, red 10 6 50 Oak, red 12 6 51 Ash, green 12 2 52 ! Oak, red 11 6 53 Ironwood 7 7 54 Maple, red ' 75 6 55 Oak, red 24.5 6 56 - Oak, red 22 6 57 Oak, white 17.5 6 58 Ironwood 6 4 REV. NO. I DATE I BY I CHK I UESCKIPI IUN TREE INVENTORY & REMOVALS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR TREE NUMBER TREE SPECIES DBH CONDITION STEMS REMOVED BONUS HERITAGE TREE SAVE 59 Ash, green 9.5 4 Stonebrooke 60 Basswood 15.5 4 2 61 Oak, red 20 6 ea-1 62 Oak, red 16.5 6 63 Oak, red 18 4 64 Maple, red 10 5 2 65 Maple, red 8.5 8 66 Maple, red 8.5 6 67 Maple, red 9.5 6 68 Maple, red 11 6 69 Oak, red 20 6 70 Maple, red 10 8 71 Maple, red 10.5 4 72 Maple, red 15 6 73 Maple, red 8 6 74 Maple, red 13 2 75 Maple, red 6 4 6 76 Maple, red 13' 7 13 77 Maple, red 16 6 16 78 Maple, red 15 ; 7 15 79 Maple, red 13 6 13 80 Maple, red 14' 8 14 81 Ironwood 8.5 4 8.5 82 Oak, White - 13.5 6 13.5 83 Oak, white 9 6 9 84 Oak, red 19 8 19 85 Basswood 16 5 2 16 86 Oak, red 11' 6 11 87 Basswood 6 6 6 88 Ironwood ! 12.5 4 3 12.5 89 Basswood 30 5 3 30 90 Ironwood 8 4 1 8 REV. NO. I DATE I BY I CHK I UESCKIPI IUN I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR � SHEET UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DRAWN Stonebrooke TABULATION - TREE INVENTORY 8 ea-1 PRIOR LAKE, MN OF CHECKED Engineering Responsible Solutions" � E SHAWN D.BLOCH uc.No. 46579 D- I2/28/2010 SDB THE BLUFFS OF CANDY COVE 9 Jeff Matzke From: Jeff Matzke Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 9:59 AM To: 'millerfest@aol.com' Cc: Danette Parr; Frank Boyles Subject: FW: The Bluffs of Candy Cove - City Attorney comments Jason, The following is the written response directed to me from the City Attorney concerning the requested variances and discussion points you provided in your narrative for the project: Variances: The property consists of five platted undeveloped lots, all of which are substandard. In 2000 or so, the City adopted an ordinance that essentially codified a line of cases regarding variances for substandard lots in common ownership. The ordinance combined, by operation of law, contiguous substandard lots, to create conforming lots. When we met yesterday I suggested that it would be useful to determine how many conforming lots now exist pursuant to City Code Section 1101.501 (3) c. This Section provides: If 2 or more lots or combination of lots and portions of lots with contiguous frontage in single ownership and of record at the time of or subsequent to the passage or amendment to this Ordinance, and if all or part of the lots do not meet the requirements established for lot area and lot width, the lands involved shall be considered to be an individual parcel for the purposes of this Ordinance, and no portion of said parcel shall be used or sold in a manner which diminishes compliance with lot area or lot width requirements established by the Ordinance, nor shall any division of any parcel be made which creates a lot with area or width below the requirements of this Ordinance. If necessary to assure compliance with other provisions of this Ordinance, the lots shall be combined. Based on the lot area and lot width requirements set out in the Zoning Ordinance, the land being reconfigured to be the Bluffs of Candy Cove will ONLY create 2 buildable lots. Based on the provisions of Section 1101.501 (3) c a lot area variance to create a third buildable lot IS NOT permissible. Therefore, there is no need to consider the hardship criteria as it relates to a variance to create a third lot. I also want to remind you about the restrictions imposed in Section 1101.501 (3) a. of the Zoning Ordinance. This Section provides: Lots of Record - Buildable. A lot of record [existing on] June 1, 2009 in the "R-1" or "R-2" Use District, which does not meet either the area or with requirements may be utilized for single family if the dimensions of its area and width are at least 66 2/3Y of the requirements of this Ordinance (Lot area in the Shoreland District is 15,000 square feet ). I'm pointing out this provision, even though the circumstance are not directly analogous, to illustrate the point that even if three lots existed on June 1, 2009, the lot that the developer is requesting a lot area variance for would not be a buildable lot. Proposed Lot 3 would have needed to be 10,005 square feet to be buildable. Until recently, the general rationale for allowing variances from the strict application of lot provisions was to create lots that would otherwise not be buildable. Since the Klammaker decision it is questionable whether any kind of variance to an existing lot of record is permissible, even where the result is to deny the property owner the ability to build on the lot. The Klammaker decision created a harsh result and I believe the League of Minnesota Cities intend to recommend a legislative solution. 1 I understand that in order for proposed lots I and 2 to be buildable they will need a variance from the bluff impact provisions. I believe that this type of variance remains permissible as part of the subdivision process. Developer Narrative: The developer asserted several claims in the context of the narrative he prepared to support the proposed plat of the Bluffs of Candy Cove. First the developer contends that the property owner was not compensated when the MnDOT took land for the construction of Highway 13. I would be very surprised if that is the case. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and the Minnesota State Constitution require the government to pay just compensation for the taking of private property for a public purpose. If the property owner believes he was not compensated by the state he should consider asserting a claim against MnDOT. I cannot properly advise Mr. Clark and this matter does not involve the City. Highway 13 is a State Road and it is not under the jurisdiction of the City. Although the original access to the Clark properties was directly off of Highway 13, access to the properties exist off of Candy Cove. The developer maintains that it will be costly to construct an access to the Clark properties from Candy Cove and that somehow the City is liable. The access issue would or should have been part of the compensation discussion with MnDOT. The cost to construct access from Candy Cove to the Clark properties is what it is and has nothing to do with the City. There is no basis to assert the City is responsible or liable in any manner. The developer may be using every argument that he can think of to persuade the City that the creation and sale of a third lot will defray the costs associated with constructing access. The argument is without merit. If the Mr. Clark, not the developer, believes he has a claim he should assert it. The City should not be intimidated by threats of possible litigation. The City will need to work with the property owner to negotiate an agreement to provide access across the City lot abutting Candy Cove to the properties. We would model the agreement after the one we used when the Toohey property was developed. I understand that you had a conversation with the developer today during which the developer claims that the City exacerbated the cost to construct an access to the Clark property based on where the City allowed Toohey to construct his assess. Even if this assertion is true, the City did not have a duty to assure the owner of the Clark property the most direct or least costly access route. I believe the City did make certain it preserved reasonable access to the Clark property when the Toohey agreement was negotiated. I hope these comments are helpful. Suesan PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE - This message and any attachments may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or authorized to receive for the recipient, you are notified that dissemination, distribution or copying of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE - Any advice contained in this communication and any related attachment(s) is not intended to be used, and it cannot be used for the purpose of avoiding tax related penalties or to support the promotion or marketing of any matter. (The foregoing legend has been affixed pursuant to U.S. Treasury Regulations.) z Date: January 3, 2011 To: Community Development and Natural Resources Department From: Engineering Department — Larry Poppler, Assistant City Engineer Subject: Bluffs of Candy Cove The Engineering Department reviewed the preliminary plat for the subject project with a plan date of December 30, 2010 and we have the following remaining comments. Continents highlighted in bold text are of particular concern: General 1. The final plat plans should follow the requirements of the Public Works Design Manual. 2. Permits from MNDOT and a SWPPP must be obtained. 3. Provide copies of easements for work outside of property limits. 4. Show City Project #10-122 in the lower right hand corner of each plan sheet. 5. Provide note stating the working hours are from lam to 7pm Monday through Friday and 8 am to 5pm Saturday. Grading Plan 1. The walkout elevations show up to 15 foot wall heights for the basement level. Is this intentional? 2. All retaining walls constructed in the public right of way must be mortarless concrete block retaining wall. Delineate on plans. Driveway for lot 2 shown at 30% grade. Revise driveway grade to no more than 10%. It appears that the garage grade could be changed to 943. Site Hydroloay, Water Quality and Storm Sewer 1. Water quality, volume control and rate control requirements will be required if total impact is greater than 10,000SF and 3,500SF of new impervious surface is proposed. Development will likely require use of alternative BMPs. Review PWDM part 3 for criteria. (This site is not in a stormwater management overlay district for rate or volume) 2. Location, design and erosion potential of overland flow paths will be an important design element on this steep site. Recommend planning micro scale drainage areas to disconnect and safely convey roof water to treatment and/or stable flow paths. 3. Recommend using CN reductions for volume control in lieu of creating physical infrastructure and soil inundation features on steep slopes. Phone952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245/eivw.cit5,ofpriorlako.conr 4. A NPDES Construction Site permit is required for sites disturbing greater than 1 acre and the provisions of the NPDES Construction Site are used locally for sites under that threshold. Before a grading permit can be issued, an erosion control plan and SWPPP must be submitted and approved by the City. 5. The design engineer is encouraged to call Prior Lake Water Resources Engineer, Ross Bintner at 952-447-9831 with questions on any hydrological, hydraulic, and SWPPP comments. 04 rrztoTi Development Review A��NN650�P Memo To: Jason Miller, Whitewater Development From: Jeff Matzke, Planner CC: Shawn Bloch, Stonebrooke Engineering Date: 1/4/11 Re: Review 2 — The Bluffs of Candy Cove The following is a list of comments from the CDNR Dept. review: 1) Difficulty finding variance hardship basis for the creation of 3rd lot versus 2 lots. In order to make lot 3 viable increases to grading of bluff, possible large retaining walls in structure setbacks, smaller lot, and more variances are required. The City Attorney is currently reviewing the historical legal actions on the site for whether a variance basis is possible. 2) Impervious surface calculations on Preliminary Plat plan should include access driveway for each lot. 3) Indicate 25 foot front yard setback from City owned right-of-way parcel. 4) 48.25 caliper inches of tree replacement is required. Also per Subdivision Ordinance, 2 front yard trees are required per lot. 5) Variances needed for current proposal: a. Bluff variance for all lots to allow construction of structures and grading in a bluff zone. b. 5 foot driveway setback for all lots (5 foot variance from 5 foot min requirement) c. 25 foot front yard variance for Lot 1 (variance to allow necessary retaining wall along access driveway. d. 30 foot lake setback for Lot 3 (45 foot variance from the 75 foot minimum requirement) e. 0 foot front setback for Lot 3 (25 foot variance from the 25 foot minimum requirement) f. 9,714.7 square foot lot area for Lot 3 (5285.3 square foot variance from 15K min.) AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT: SITE PIDS: PREPARED BY: PUBLIC HEARING DATE: CASE FILE: 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 STAFF REPORT 3B CONSIDER A COMBINED PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR A DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS THE BLUFFS OF CANDY COVE 25-027-023-0, 25-027-024-0, 25-027-025-0 JEFF MATZKE, PLANNER _X_ YES _NO -N/A JANUARY 10, 2011 10-122 Jason Miller has applied for approval of a residential development to be known as The Bluffs of Candy Cove on the property located at PID 25-027-023-0, 25-027-024-0, 25-027-025-0. The site is located along Candy Cove on Prior Lake at the intersection of Candy Cove Trail and State Highway 13. The request calls for the subdivision of the existing common ownership property lot into three single-family residential lots. PHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS: Total Site Area: The total site consists of 1.07 acres. Topography: This site has a extremely steep topography, with elevations ranging from 984' MSL at its highest point to 904' MSL at the lowest point. Vegetation: The property is a vacant, wooded area on the southern shores of Candy Cove. The project is subject to the Tree Preservation requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Wetlands: No wetlands are located on the site. Access: Access to the site is from Candy Cove Trail through a vacant, City -owned property (25-936- 075-0). 2020 Comprehensive Plan Designation: This property is designated for Urban Low Density Residential uses on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Zoning: The site is located within the R-1 Zoning District (Low Density Residential). The R-1 district is consistent with the proposed R -LD designation. This district permits a maximum density of 4.0 units per acre. Shoreland: The site is located within the shoreland district and is subject to the Shoreland Ordinance (Section 1104) including but not limited to bluff impact zone, impervious surface, and lake setback requirements. Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.4,17.4245 / Nmw.cityofpriorlake.com PROPOSED PLAN Lots: The combined preliminary and final plat consists of 3 proposed riparian lots for single family dwellings. Lot 1 is 23,360 square feet, Lot 2 is 15,478, and Lot 3 is 9,717 square feet. Streets: Platted in 1921, the 5 originally platted lots (now under common ownership) had direct access from Candy Cove Trail. In 1960, with the development of State Highway 13, the State of Minnesota acquired a portion of the lots and Candy Cove Trail was realigned to intersect Hwy 13. The City owns a parcel of land between the lots and the current alignment of Candy Cove Trail. The lots are proposed to have access through the City -owned parcel to Candy Cove Trail through a shared access driveway. Sanitary Sewer/Water Mains: A sanitary sewer pipe and water main exist within the right-of-way of State Highway 13. Utility services for the 3 lots are proposed to connect to this saintairy sewer pipe and water main. Storm Sewer: Grading on the site will direct runoff to newly dedicated drainage and utility easements along the perimeter of all the properties. The developer shall designate additional stomwater treatment methods as required under the Public Works Design Manual. Landscaping: The Subdivision Ordinance requires a minimum of two trees in the front yard for all newly created lots. Tree Replacement: The applicant has submitted an inventory identifying 1597.5 caliper inches of significant trees on the site. The Zoning Ordinance allows up to 35% for building pads and driveways. According to the proposed plan, 767.5 caliper inches will be removed and a 28 inch heritage trees will be preserved resulting in the need for 48.25 caliper inches of replacement. Fees and Assessment: This property has paid sanitary sewer and water assessments as a result of a utility poject in 1974. Therefore, this development will be subject to only the utility connection fee. ANALYSIS: The applicant proposes to subdivide the property into 3 riparian single family dwellings. Lots 1 & 2 conform to the R-1 riparian minimum requirements of 90 feet in width at the front yard line, 75 feet in width at the Ordinary High Water Elevation of Prior Lake, 15,000 square feet in area, and less than 4.0 units per acre in density. Lot 3 does not conform to the minimum lot area requirement. The applicant has a pending variance request from this minimum lot area requirement for Lot 3. In addition, the in order to establish building pads for the 3 lots the following pending variances are requested: a. A variance to allow a structure to be located in the bluff impact zone on Lots 1, 2, & 3. (Section 1104.303) b. A 5 foot variance from the required minimum 5 foot driveway side yard setback for Lots 1, 2, & 3 (Section 1107.205 (1)). c. A 25 foot variance from the minimum 25 foot front yard setback required in the R-1 Zoning Use District for Lot 1 (Section 1102.405 (3)). d. A 13 foot variance from the minimum 25 foot front yard setback required in the R-1 Zoning Use District for Lot 3 (Section 1102.405 (3)). e. A 45 foot variance from the minimum 75 foot lake setback required in the Shoreland District for Lot 3 (Section 1104.308. (2)). f. A 5,284 foot variance from the required minimum lot area for a riparian residential lot on a General Development Lake within the Shoreland District for Lot 3 (Section 1104.302 (3)). CONCLUSION: The combined preliminary and final plat application will comply with all relevant ordinance provisions and City standards outside of the pending variance requests. City Staff, however, cannot find support for all variance requests, and therefore recommends the applicant revise the development plans to indicate no more then 2 proposed buildable lots. The plat as presented cannot be approved unless pending variance request approvals are granted and the following condtions of approval are met: 1. The applicant shall enter into a Private Use of Public Property Agreement prior to the construction of a retaining wall within the City -owned parcel. 2. The applicant shall address all engineering comments as outlined in the memorandum from the Assistant City Engineer dated January 3, 2011. 3. The following pending variances are granted: a. A variance to allow a structure to be located in the bluff impact zone on Lots 1, 2, & 3 (Section 1104.303). b. A 5 foot variance from the required minimum 5 foot driveway side yard setback for Lots 1, 2, & 3 (Section 1107.205 (1)). c. A 25 foot variance from the minimum 25 foot front yard setback required in the R-1 Zoning Use District for Lot 1 (Section 1102.405 (3)). d. A 13 foot variance from the minimum 25 foot front yard setback required in the R-1 Zoning Use District for Lot 3 (Section 1102.405 (3)). e. A 45 foot variance from the minimum 75 foot lake setback required in the Shoreland District for Lot 3 (Section 1104.308. (2)). f. A 5,284 foot variance from the required minimum lot area for a riparian residential lot on a General Development Lake within the Shoreland District for Lot 3 (Section 1104.302 (3)). 4. The applicant shall address all comments as outlined in the memorandum from the Community Development & Natural Resources Department dated January 4, 2011. 5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and pay all required development fees. 6. The applicant shall obtain required permits from all applicable governmental agencies prior to final plat approval. 7. The final plat shall be recorded at Scott County within 90 days of approval by the City Council. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend approval of the Combined Preliminary and Final Plat subject to conditions. 2. Table this item to a date specific, and provide the developer with direction on the issues that have been discussed. 3. Recommend denial of the Combined Preliminary and Final Plat request. 4. Other specific action as directed by the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning staff recommends Alternative #2. RECOMMENDED ACTION The recommendations by staff require the following motion: 1. A motion and second to table the discussion of the combined preliminary and final plat until the applicant has the opportunity to revise the development plans for the platting of two buildable lots. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location map 2. Property Owner Narrative 3. Development Plans 4. City Attorney Memorandum dated 12-29-10 5. Engineering Dept. Memorandum dated 1-3-11 6. CDNR Dept. memorandum dated 1-4-11 4646 Dakota Street SP Prior Lake, MN 55372 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM: 5A SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF CONCEPT PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED NE OF CREDIT RIVER ROAD AND WEST OF MARKLEY LAKE PREPARED BY: JEFF MATZKE, PLANNER PUBLIC HEARING: _YES X NO -N/A DATE: JANUARY 10, 2011 INTRODUCTION Equity Properties LLC has submitted a revised concept plan for approximately 45 acres of property located northeast of Credit River Road/CR 21. The concept plan reflects a mixed use development of 79 lots for single family homes, park property, and future commercial land. This property is presently zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and is designated as R -LD (Urban Low Density Residential) and C -BO (Business Office Park) on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. DISCUSSION The purpose of this item is to discuss the concept development of the site, and to allow the Planning Commission an opportunity to voice any particular concerns or ideas about the proposed development. This discussion is for informational purposes only. This concept plan, along with any Planning Commission comments will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. For discussion purposes, the staff has identified the following issues: 2030 Comprehensive Plan: The site is currently guided as R -LD (Urban Low Density Residential) for approximately 30.92 acres and C -BO (Business Office Park) for approximately 14.81 acres on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. If the proposed concept was to come to fruition, the developer would need to apply for the following amendments to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Comprehensive Land Use Map: • Approximately 0.68 acres would need to be removed from the C -BO (Business Office Park) designation and instead re -designated as R -LD (Urban Low Density Residential). • Approximately 3.96 acres would need to be removed from the C -BO (Business Office Park) designation and re -designated as C -CC (Community Retail Shopping). Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 / www.cityorpriorlakc.com Design/Site Layout: • 79 lots are identified with an average of 12, 137 square feet; however, only 19 lots meet the current minimum lot width and lot area requirements of 86 feet wide and 12,000 square feet (103 feet and 14,400 square feet for corner lots). • The developer proposes side yard building setbacks of 10 feet on one side and 5 feet on the other side. The Zoning Ordinance requires 10 feet on each side for building setbacks. • The concept plan indicates the connection of Fish Point Rd as a major north -south collector street. The design indicates a divided roadway similar to the design of the existing Fish Point Road. The developer also identifies the connection of Credit River Road as a the major east -west connector through the area. Another road, Markely Lake Drive, is proposed to connect to the future development of the residentially guided property to the northwest. • Utility connections for the site must connect to the existing sewer & water mains to the southwest of the site and along Fish Point Road. These connections are identified on the conceptual utility layout. Natural Environment: • This site is heavily wooded with significant trees. For this reason, it is understood that any development of the site will impact trees. Nevertheless, the site also lends itself as an opportunity to utilize innovative site planning (clustering, etc.) that would preserve the sites natural features. Possible lot layout modifications may be made to preserve trees located in the northwest corner of the site. Adjacent Land: • The layout accommodates road connections to adjacent land. Due to existing grades, existing roadway alignments, and trees on adjacent property, the site has some limitations in regards to the site layout and roadway connections to adjacent properties. Given the existing grades, the locations of road connections to the adjacent properties appear appropriate. An additional road connection may want to be considered to the west from proposed Eagle Creek Court. Tree impacts as a result of these connections will be evaluated by City Staff as part of the preliminary plat review. Parks: • A 1.18 acre public park is identified in the northwest corner of the site. The proposed park area would adjoin the existing Brooksville Hills Park Neighborhood Park. The standard parkland dedication requirement for a development is 10% of the net area. Net area is established by removing wetland area and existing public right of way from the gross land area calculation. The parkland dedication requirement is approximately 4.5 acres. According to Ordinance 1004.1002 the remainder of the parkland dedication requirement may be satisfied as a cash payment to the City in lieu of land. Planned Unit Development Criteria: • The developer is suggesting the use of the PUD to allow a mixture of uses, private streets and other modifications to the Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of a PUD is stated in Section 1106.100 of the Zoning Ordinance: 1106.100: PURPOSE. The purpose of the Planned Unit Development District (PUD) is to offer an alternative to development as outlined in the residential, commercial, and industrial use districts of this Ordinance. The PUD District will and to provide for greater flexibility in the development and redevelopment process as compared to development under the definitive and precise requirements of the conventional use districts. The PUD District must demonstrate that the particular areas to be developed can offer greater value to the community and can better meet the community's health, welfare, and safety requirements than if those same areas were to be developed in a single purpose zone. The PUD process provides for a joint planning/design effort by developers and City officials. Development in a single purpose Use District establishes maximum limits within which developers must perform. The Planned Unit Development may be multi-purpose in nature so that not only may it be residential, commercial, or industrial, but also it may contain a combination of these uses. It is not the intent of this Section to allow for reductions or waivers to the standard Use District requirements solely for the purpose of increasing overall density, allowing the use of private streets or allowing development that otherwise could not be approved. • Section 1106.501 states the required standards for a PUD as follows: 1106.501 Required Standards. The City shall consider a proposed PUD District from the point of view of all standards and purposes of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan to achieve a maximum coordination between the proposed development and the surrounding uses, the conservation of woodland and the protection of health, safety and welfare of the community and residents of the PUD. To these ends, the City Council shall consider the location of the buildings, compatibility, parking areas and other features with respect to the topography of the area and existing natural features such as streams and large trees, the efficiency, adequacy and safety of the proposed layout of internal streets and driveways; the adequacy and location of green areas; the adequacy, location and screening of parking areas; and such other matters as the City Council may find to have a material bearing upon the stated standards and objectives of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. In reviewing a PUD plan, the City Council must also consider the compatibility of the development with the Shoreland and Flood Plain district requirements. In his narrative, the developer states a conformance to the character of the surrounding neighborhood area and current market demands as a benefit to the City for approval of a PUD. Based on past PUD benefits received by the City, staff finds it difficult to establish these items as the proper benefits to allow for reduction of housing lots below the 12,000 square foot minimum requirement and building side yard setbacks below the 10 foot minimum requirement. In the past compensation of public infrastructure oversizing costs by the developer, job creation, and preservation of natural features over and above the standard ordinance requirements have been some of the major benefits which PVDs have offered. The Planning Commission may wish to ask the following questions: ➢ How does this proposal meet the purpose and criteria for a PUD? ➢ What benefits does the City receive in return for allowing the proposed modifications to minimum lot size and minimum side yard setbacks? ➢ The developer indicates in the narrative that the market would support a convenience center and pharmacy at this location. Can the developer demonstrate that the market would not support a commercial business park? ➢ Can the remaining area designated as Commercial Business provide adequate space to facilitate this type of use? ACTION REQUIRED: No formal action is required at this time. The Planning Commission should provide the developer with any comments or concerns about this concept plan. Neither the Planning Commission's nor the City Council's comments will be binding and the developer should not rely on any statements made by individual Planning Commissioners or Councilmembers. Any future plans must be processed with the appropriate hearings and public participation. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Concept Plans and Developer's Narrative 3. CDNR & Engineering Department Review Memorandums Eagle Creek Estates Concept Plan 162W- 1�':� �.�.�.� 1�3 10 1 1Ci .�1 16316 lam ! 16307 16313 56MM 5290:5310 5.;.� laam 1$190 9W 57. 1- 1 l 1 5214 161A7 196 1 6am i 5146 1 6WA F ST qFssia low 16347 lGi:2 �sfn5n1 16m1 51?) 51 1�A 16r 16M1 ffilffil 1636364M 71 W99 5235 55 5141 1$3F5 1 lam - -- ma 178 16388 3 16390 16;x'1 �11� r\ $1�31� 16399.163% 16395 164A1B399 16400 :54725cc�3 x,417 �1 1 1 16M.1 � 16420 3 iB23 X4 164111 dffi 16�2d .15�J 36 1E384 1637 1 16300 13B ��r 18. 16429 1Q 1 5:924 163m 16374 16349 18341 1 5276 sm1 1644.8 16447 i�dd,4 19A41 5418 � 1g� lEG3l5. 16379 163@9 16361 ��- 16371 163b5�--1 4 c 5189 �1 X77 3323 537'9 1 5'-05 5553 1$��' . 5182 am 513 i3d1'x399 X335 SSN 1&901 17 ii�9 app - 647:5 f, 514 '. 5210 169D5 X218 CnA MU 51219 5134�5►_ �Subject Site 5 19 1 4ti, 3113 16730 SidBX31 5127 16T,3a SM 5149 1719 igF29 167t'0 197001g7M 1672:5 1673116135 5122 139 51W. 15113 1 5 10 16674 X141 1 1 1 5230 16776 1 5214 161A7 196 1 �1� 16m1 51?) 51 5235 15� 517:31 1 1 16mi165W 16872 1r 1� laam 1&m 1$55: 1 16m1 16m1 16910 1 161A •• 1x31.3 16923 169M 11 1 1 EePMA- 5 law 16W-3 169ffi 16%1 16M1 \ lfflm -------------- 1749 171 ej 5413 §�"-7 X341 5412 Sd�2 �,1t31 This drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This drawing is a compilation of records, information, and data located in various city, county, and state offices, and other sources affecting the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. Scott County is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. If discrepancies are found, please contact the Scott County Surveyors Office. 1709, \J1 1 r -AM -,,0 1 $ Map Scale N 1 inch = 506 feet W E , Map Date 1/5/2011 S �.... "� I � � 1 � I `ziJ' 1 � 1 � 1� I I I I� i � , I' FJ •� --- i -- -- , �- JJ kit:OC31S:`;.n.C;Fir... €L`B ,TF1 �12Duw i-. 1 \\ Ii II jy of ..m ssa sso, mm .m Taxa-' l `ii A 2 M T; ... C GEa „12 2_ a o- - - - - - - - - - - - - ?• : 10 ; .>, 7 Rq ,>,vax 5 4 3 0.E ro .. 35 13 ----- p 38 r l; v ♦ <.' 94 » xm Vie' .s .—"�,-- '- - � �- .. -�_ ` --�_ � -"�- � .T � �_ -. �.-_, � __ � \ `J ° 15 "� �•�' Eogl Cre Blvd �� m `°ror orkleY °fie --_ comp t Zo t q: R 1 m a c-eo r, ..1 x _ X Totol Property. 45.73 Acres Business per 2030 Ccenp Plan: 14.81 Acres i 30 31 `�32 ' 33' 34~ 35' 35x 37 x 38 39' 40 - ¢41 "�,- Proposed Business: 14.13 Acres fk- vy, a - —Lem_ Pres oposed Residential: 31.60 Acres n.n Q'/ \ noe nm nm m nm nm sa x -- S,n - Proposed density. 2.50 lots/acre / 9 n... x Front lard setb.ck: 2 ' 0 31 s „_„ ro Park 29 a 26x 25 OUTLOT C + e ^a^ Side yard gm: 5', Street et -- +2 38 34 Side toed nesse: 1n•• Street 20' e s,zu» w y Tin lot width ®sy lots:: 9 ,.m, >,atw ro?4 � �. . a ay nn nv Total mgie-lamly lots: ]9 i'D n x 27 a pP _ Tin lot size: 10,000 sz,m- / x �y 22 OUTLOT Average lot size: 12.13/ sgAt.. ? , 23 „w,» A gn 26 fr, 27 17 , e«' ^a 22 �ti1 21 7 18 �/N\�021 F 30»n� 9,: 20 9 rs� 19 \ .•\ fRA \ > / ,ate 9 ¢y, i 2, -------- ,a .8 15 12 11 nes» x ,. i3IN Scale: 1" 100' 14 IN 317. 5 eA. It \ e // F�'Fr,, ( 2 }} }} IJUz a _ 0 2157,a` La- F L 11 nwebY certify Ub, e o srdc, plan, or ct / \ i repwl wos pr rd t by mew duty c deed Lope S� ', ono undehotr I e a s of Licensed oeea sere zJ� aer the ta.e ar the state (/ Rey H. Bmnat \ pate 2mb r 20�Re No. 8140 BRANDT ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, LLC Proposed EAGLE CREEK ESTATES 1713 Southcross Drive West, Suite A Burnsville, MN 55306 (952) 435-1966 E33-16-10 SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEETS Scole: 60' OH coo 0 Fv BRANDT ENGINEERING 8 SURVEYING, LLC Grading Pbn 1713 Southcuoss Drive Rest, Suite A for Ournsville, %IN 55306 EAGLE CREEK ESTATES - (952) 435-1966 caa-rs-w SFIEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS ,r— ;�t eW3 14 — X15 3� 31 32 35°J 34 �f35 36 ; FO9/e c re ek qV e / � F /elk- S 4 °22 21 2 � 7 \ 18 9 � Scale: i" = 60' 501 n Narrative for EAGLE CREEK ESTATES In response to the DRC meeting held on 9 Dec 2010, 1 have made modifications to the proposed project. I have also met with Peter Knaeble, as was suggested at the meeting, and have included modifications from that meeting. The connection of Credit River Boulevard was moved to 10+00 of the proposed Fish Point Road alignment to reduce the length of the cul-de-sac. I also eliminated the northerly cul-de-sac and connected Eagle Creek Boulevard to Fish Point Road. I provided for the street connection to Mr Knaeble's property with Markley Lake Drive. It was suggested that I realign Markley Street to fit a ridge on Mr Knaeble's property. But this connection was eliminated and I am proposing a cul-de-sac. It was requested that I provide a 1.25 acre park area in the westerly part of the property. I have shown a 1.19 acre site. Another comment was that the standard plate doesn't provide for cul-de-sac islands. The City of Burnsville and City of Savage have had these as standards for 25+ years so one can visit one of their streets and observe this type of cul-de-sac. You can also talk to the respective maintenance people for those two cities to see how they work. I think they are very pleasing appearance -wise and easy to maneuver. A traffic study has been ordered as per the DRC request and I have talked to someone about a market study re/the commercial rezoning request. I revised the lots along the north side of Eagle Creek Boulevard, adjacent to BROOKSVILLE HILLS FOURTH ADDITION. Those lots are all 86' wide and at least 12,713 sq. ft. which fits the existing ordinance. I moved the proposed right -turn entrance that goes into the commercial area approximately 100' north of where it was. The County made that request. Igo]91]:11Il:1yl&lto] :ilaare] l6701a9:7rel :1IdCIq CARDINAL RIDGE, adjacent to the north, is a PUD community that has smaller lots, width -wise and area -wise, than the proposed lots in EAGLE CREEK ESTATES. It is not adjacent to commercial zoning and our project is. It makes good planning sense to have smaller lots adjacent to commercial and then transition to the larger lots as the lots get farther away from the commercial zoning. Our proposed lots average 12,000 sq.ft. which is what the zoning allows. I don't see our lots as out -of -character with planning principals. A benefit for the City is that Fish Point Road is completed from its ending in CARDINAL RIDGE to its connection with C.R. 21. That is a benefit for the City and for the neighbors northerly of the proposed project and southerly of CR 21. It makes for an easier access for the middle schools and for the high school. The Snell property is most likely not developable (at least not sellable) with the current zoning guidelines. Home buyers are looking for smaller homes and smaller lots with lower costs. (Some experts have said that larger lots and homes may be a thing of the past.) The Comp Guide plan's commercial zoning is for office buildings. The office building business is in a significant depression and when will it come out of it is a good question. There is a need for a convenience center and for a pharmacy and the proposed zoning would allow those businesses. I see the convenience center and pharmacy as assets for the single-family homes and for the City. Maybe that part of the commercial area that lies northeasterly of what will be Credit River Road SE could be an office building area. But I think that type of construction could also be done in the zoning we are proposing. EAGLE CREEK ESTATES is providing a very useable park area for the new proposed homes and for the surrounding developed homes. This is a benefit for the City. Date: December 15, 2010 To: Ray Brandt, Brandt Engineering From: Jeff Matzke, Planner, CDNR Department Subject: Eagle Creek Estates Concept — City Project #10-125 Memo PUD benefits should be clearly stated so that the City Council can distinguish the balance of benefits to ordinance concessions given (i.e.- setbacks and lot area). City Staff feels the current proposal does not offer the required benefits to merit PUD designation. The PUD criteria section of the City Ordinance is currently under revision by the City Council. Additional criteria for PUD benefits may include development of jobs, business creation, sustainability/green building, water quality (sensitivity to storm water management, wetlands, etc). Also, financial contribution to the construction costs of Fish Point Road over and above the required oversizing contribution may be another PUD benefit. 2. A Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment application and Rezoning application approvals will be necessary prior to platting of the development as proposed. a. A market study should be pursued to support for the claims to convert the Business Office Park (C -BO) area to Community Retail Shopping (C -CC) and Urban Low Density (R -LD) Comprehensive Plan Uses. b. The concept should be revised to clearly distinguish the specifically proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations in all areas. 3. Conceptual elevations of both commercial and residential structure product type within the development should be submitted to help the City Council visualize the development. 4. A traffic study of the impacts to Fish Point Road and the nearby CSAH 21 intersection should be pursued. 5. Coordination of the project with the adjacent property owner to the east (Pete Knable) could provide for a more efficient use of land for both street and utility connections. 6. Approximately an additional 1.25 acres of parkland is needed at the Brooksville Hills Park. The required park dedication per the subdivision ordinance is 10% or approximately 4.5 acres. No other actual parkland is needed in this area, therefore the remaining park dedication requirement could possibly be filled by cash in lieu (at a rate of $3,750/unit of residential and $6,400/acre of commercial) 7. All development fees are applicable with the platting application. See attached fee schedule for current 2010 fees. Fees are subject to change by City Council. Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245/ NNAm.cityofpriodake.com Memo Date: January 5, 2010 To: Community Development and Natural Resources Department Flom: Engineering Department — Larry Poppler, Assistant City Engineer Subject: Eagle Creels Estates Concept Plan The Engineering Department reviewed the Concept Plan for the subject project with a plan date of December 28, 2010 and we have the following comments. Comments highlighted in bold text are of particular concern: General 1. The preliminary and final plat plans should follow the requirements of the Public Works Design Manual. 2. Lots 18, 19, and 20 near Fish Point Road and County Road 21 are partially or wholly shown on County purchased property. Scott County must transfer ownership of this land if the Developer wishes to show lots on this property. 3. Developer must work with the adjacent land owner to the east on access and utility locations. Streets 1. The geometries of the street layouts would be reviewed as this project develops. The horizontal curve for Credit River Boulevard appears to be fairly tight. 2. The City standard detail does not contain cul-de-sac islands. 3. A 9 ton design standard should be used for Fish Point Road and Credit River Road. 4. A traffic study will eventually be needed. 5. A right turn lane should be considered on Fish Point Road as it connects to Credit River Road. 6. Review layout/configuration of Fish Point Road and County Road 21. Parks and Trails I . The additional 1.25 acres of parkland shown near the Brooksville Hills Park appears to be adequate for a new larger play structure in this park. Trail should be connected to the existing trail system within the park and out to Fish Point Road. No other land dedication is needed with this plat. 2. A trail or sidewalk connection to Markley Lake should be a part of the plan. 3. Sidewalk and trail should be extended on Fish Point Road to mimic the layout in the Cardinal Ridge Development. 4. Sidewalk along County Road 21 and within the commercial area would be extended with this plat. Phone 952.447.9800 / Fas 952.447.4245 / eti Nv.cityofpriorlake.com Drainage and Natural Resources 1. This site drains to the landlocked Markley Lake drainage district. Designer must consult the Public Works Design manual on allowable rate and volume control requirements. 2. Many landlocked low point areas exist on the plans. Sufficient emergency overflow paths are needed to drain these areas. 3. Some of these landlocked low areas may be considered wetlands. The Developer must perform a wetland study of this property. In cases of wetlands, wetland sequencing will be required according to the Wetland Conservation Act. Buffering requirements will be followed for all wetland bodies. 4. Designer does not appear to have shown enough ponding for the eastern side of the development. 5. Show the storm sewer pipe outlet layout and emergency overflow route for the current pond situated at County Road 21 and Fish Point Road. 6. Ponding for the development can build upon the current stormwater pond located at County Road 21 and Fish Point Road. 7. Show NWL and EOF for each water body or landlocked area. 8. Boulevard plantings along Fish Point Road will be considered with this project. Grading Plan 1. Umnaintained slopes abutting natural areas should be a maximum 3:1 grade. Slopes in maintained areas should not exceed 4:1. Utilities Sanitary sewer connections would come from the property to the east. Easements would be necessary to connect to the sanitary sewer east of the City lift station near Markley Lake. 2. Watermain connections would occur at Fish Point Road and County Road 21, Fish Point Road within Cardinal Ridge, and Credit River Road. 3. Show all easements on the plans. The City has drainage and utility easement behind the existing residential lots on Credit River Boulevard. Grading will be restricted in this area. 4. Public utility lines outside of the public right of way should be shown in dedicated City outlots.