Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12.D.1. Preliminary Plat of Southbridge Fields-Res. No. 6355 J~. 0, J · CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CASE LOG NO.: 05-119 TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Mark Noble, Planner II SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat of Southbridge Fields MEETING DATE: February 21,2006 REVIEW PERIOD: October 28, 2005 - February 24, 2006 INTRODUCTION Shakopee Crossings, L. P., submitted an application for preliminary and final plat approval of property located north of Crossings Boulevard and west of County Road 18 (Outlot B, Riverside Fields 3rd Addition). The plat, as currently proposed, contemplates the creation of six (6) commercial lots and one (1) outlot on approximately 10 acres of land. The proposed lots will have frontage on County Road 18 and/or Crossings Boulevard, but will be accessed from two private drives that intersect with Crossings Boulevard. The submitted concept plan identifies a number of potential uses. The actual uses will be reviewed on an individual basis, at which time it will be detennined whether a CUP, Variance, and/or another application would be required. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission reviewed the preliminary plat at its January 5, 2006 meeting, and by a 4-1 vote, they recommended approval of the preliminary plat application, with revisions. Specifically, the Commission discussed the first access to Crossings Boulevard, west of County Road 18, with their recommendation that this access be reconstructed and signed as a right-in only. They also recommended that screening be allowed in theeaserrient along Riverside Fields 3rd Addition to ensure that there is the ability to provide an adequate buffer between the commercial and residential developments. Those revisions have been incorporated into the draft resolution attached to this report. DISCUSSION The Council reviewed the preliminary and final plat application at their January 17, 2006 and February 7, 2006 meetings, and tabled the request to their February 21,2006 meeting to allow staff to modifY the text concerning park dedication requirements. Additionally, the applicant has requested that only the Preliminary Plat application proceed at this time, with the Final Plat application to be addressed in the future. The Council must make a decision on this application at their February 21,2006 meeting as the review deadline is February 24th, unless the applicant grants an extension of this application. Staff have revised the text concerning the park dedication requirement (condition no. I.M.), consistent with the language provided by the City Attorney and the Parks and Recreation and Facilities Director. Regarding the plat pIan/potential uses of this commercial development, staff have received severalletters and e-mails from property owners in the adjacent Riverside Fields residential development that expressed concerns with the proposed commercial uses and potential traffic generation of those uses. Those documents were provided to the Council as part of their February ih packet, and have been included 1 again for reference purposes. Specific issues addressed in those documents pertain to potential noise and light pollution from the commercial uses, screening of the commercial uses from the residential properties, and concern with the access points that intersect with Crossings Boulevard. Staffhas again included the October 16,2003 memorandum prepared by WSB & Associates, Inc. that pertains to the traffic study of Riverside Fields development (identified as Riverside Meadows at that time) which provides the rationale for the present street and access configuration. At the present time, Condition No. Il.L. reads that "the easternmost access to Crossings Boulevard shall be constructed and signed as a right~in only", which is the recommendation forwarded by the Planning Commission. This is a different recommendation than that taken by WSB & Associates, Inc. in their report, as well as a different position than the proposal offered by the residential property owners. City staff have had several recent discussions regarding the street alignment issue with WSB staff, with it determined that there are several potential design options available, including reconstructing the first access into a full intersection (this would include removal of a portion of the Crossing Blvd. median and constructing additional left turn lanes), but that a detailed study would need to be conducted should the City Council provide that direction. The Council may consider discussing this issue as well as the other issues raised by the residential property owners prior to making a decision on this plat application. Staff recommends that if the Council proposes any changes to the Crossings Boulevard roadway alignment/intersections, that an additional condition of approval be that the applicant shall be responsible for all future improvements to the Crossings Boulevard infrastructure caused by their development. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve Resolution No. 6355, a resolution approving the Preliminary Plat for Southbridge Fields, subject to the conditions presented. 2. Approve Resolution No. 6355, a resolution approving the Preliminary Plat for Southbridge Fields, subject to revised conditions. 3. Do not approve the preliminary plat and direct staff to prepare a resolution consistent with the direction of the Council for action at the Council's next meeting. It should be noted that this alternative would require written authorization from the applicant to an extension of the review period. 4. Table the matter and request additional information from staff and/or the applicant, provided the applicant grants an extension of this application. VISIONING RELATIONSmp This action supports: Goal E: "Financially strong", and Strategy 5: "Foster community connections". ACTION REQUESTED Offer amotionto approve Resolution No. 6355, a resolution approving the Preliminary Plat for Southbridge Fields, subject to the conditions presented, and move its adoptio . g: \cc \2006\02- 21 \ppsouthbridgefields .doc 2 ~ RESOLUTION NO. 6355 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF SOUTHBRIDGE FIELDS WHEREAS, Southbridge Crossings, L.P., applicant and property owner, has made application for preliminary plat approval of Southbridge Fields; and WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as: Outlots B, Riverside Fields 3rd Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Scott County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed preliminary plat with conditions; and WHEREAS, on January 17, February 7, and February 21, 2006, the City Council reviewed the proposed preliminary plat. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shako pee, Minnesota that the preliminary plat of Southbridge Fields is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the Final Plat: A. Approval of title by the City Attorney. B. The legal description of the parcel being platted shall be identified on the plat as Outlot B of Riverside Fields 3rd Addition. C. Remove the signature block for the City Planning Commission. D. Identify the temporary easement for emergency access purposes from Southbridge Parkway to Crossings Boulevard on the plat (Document No. A 712552). E. Execution of a Developer's Agreement, which shall include provisions for security for public improvements within the plat and the engineering review fees, and any other fees as required by the City's adopted fee schedule. 1. Shakopee Public Utilities Commission shall be contacted if the applicant wishes to contract with them for security lighting. 2. Electrical system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 3. Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 4. Public sanitary sewer, public storm sewer and public watermain have been extended through the site. The applicant shall work with City of Shakopee staff to provide acceptable access to each system and their associated appurtenances. This includes providing adequate easements and entering into an encroachment agreement with the City. 5. The developer shall be responsible for payment of Trunk Storm Water Charges, Trunk Sanitary Sewer Charges, Trunk Storm Water Storage and Treatment Charges, security for the public improvements, engineering review fees, and other fees as required by the City's most recent adopted Fee Schedule. 3 6. No public improvements shall be constructed until the City Engineer and the Shakopee Public Utility Commission approve the Final Construction Plans and Specifications. 7. The applicant shall obtain an NPDES permit prior to any land disturbing activity. A copy of this permit shall be forwarded to the City. The applicant shall adhere to all MPCA NPDES requirements. 8. The applicant shall provide evidence of suitable easement agreements for access to all adjacent properties utilizing the private sewer system. These easements shall be approved by the City prior to recording of the plat. Maintenance of these utilities shall be the responsibility of the applicant. F. The applicant shall provide a more defined site plan showing impervious surface percentages complying with the requirements set forth by City Code, at time of Conditional Use Permit and Building Permit application submittals. G. Easements shall be shown on the Final Plat as approved by the City Engineer. H. The applicant shall contact City Engineering to apply for and secure an encroachment agreement for the trunk storm sewer located along the westerly line of Lots 1,3,4,5 & 6, as well as secure an encroachment agreement for the trunk sanitary sewer located between Lots 4 & 5. I. The survey data (length and bearings) shall be shown for each lot. 1. Temporary street signs shall be provided until such time that permanent street signs are installed. K. Adequate easements for watertnains shall be required, consistent with Shakopee Public Utilities Commission's requirements. L. Water services shall be shown for each lot. M. The applicant shall meet the park dedication requirement by providing cash in lieu of land dedication. Park dedication fees in the amount required by the City Code and adopted City fee schedule shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. If any portion of the property is being platted as outlots to accommodate a phased development, the park dedication fees for each future phase shall be based on the fees in effect at the time of final plat approval for those outlots and shall be paid before the final plat for those outlots is recorded. N. The applicant shall provide sidewalks along the proposed internal streets, to be built at the time of the street construction. O. Screening elements required by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, the City Council, and/or City Staff shall be allowed within drainage and utility easements adjacent to Riverside Fields 3rd Addition. The applicant shall be responsible for the maintenance of the screening and shall repair and/or replace any landscaping located in the easements that may be damaged due to need to access the easements. P. The applicant shall obtain a grading permit prior to any additional land disturbing activity. Q. The soils on site shall be subject to sampling and testing at the City's discretion. The cost associated with the testing, and if necessary, the removal of any material deemed unacceptable by the City shall be the applicant's responsibility. R. The applicant shall provide storm water computations for the proposed development as required by City Engineering to insure the downstream system can accommodate the runoff. S. The applicant shall ensure that the emergency access from Crossings Boulevard to Southbridge Parkway be well maintained and accessible at all times. II. Following approval and recording of the final plat, the following conditions shall apply; 4 A. Building construction, sewer, water service, fire protection and access will be reviewed for code compliance at the time of building permit application(s). B. The developer and/or their assigns shall be responsible for any required or desired noise or dust mitigation measures. C. Shall provide electronic (AutoCAD) files ofthe Final Plat to the Engineering Department. D. The applicant shall meet the screening and landscaping ordinance requirements of the City Code. E. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan for review and approval by the City of Shakopee Natural Resource Specialist. F. The applicant shall provide six (6) inches of topsoil below areas to be sodded. The soil composition should be similar to the MnDOT topsoil borrow requirements. G. The applicant shall provide rain sensors for any irrigation system. H. The applicant shall implement the use of Best Management Practices for erosion control and stormwater management during construction. I. The applicant shall utilize the MPCA Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas as a technical reference for erosion control. J. The applicant shall comply with the design and performance standards for the Planned Residential District (PRD). K. Silt fence and/or tree protection fence is to be removed following establishment of vegetation as determined by an inspection by City staff. L. The easternmost access to Crossings Boulevard shall be reconstructed and signed as a right-in only. M. The applicant shall be responsible for all future improvements to the Crossings Boulevard infrastructure caused by their development. Adopted in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the _ day of , 2006. Mayor of the City of Shako pee Attest: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk H:\CC\2006\02-21 \05119ppsouthbridgefields 5 Kennedy 470 U.S. Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 .. (612) 337-9300 telephone .. (612) 337-9310 fax . C H ART ERE D http://www.kennedy-graven.com JAMES J. THOMSON Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9209 Email: jthomson@kennedy-graven.com MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jim Thomson, City Attorney ~> RE: Southbridge Fields Park Dedication DATE: February 1, 2006 INTRODUCTION At your January 17, 2006 meeting, an issue came up with respect to the payment of park dedication fees for Southbridge Fields. The developer, Steve Soltau, has requested that payment of the fees be deferred until building permits are issued for the commercial lots that are part of that plat. Mr. Soltau contends that because the preliminary plat for the commercial property that he is now platting was approved before the park dedication provision was amended, he should be allowed the option of paying the fees when building permits are issued. You asked me to research the question and report back to you. BACKGROUND In February 2005, the City Council amended the City Code provision dealing with payment of park dedication fees. Before the amendment, the City Code (Section 12.34, Subdivision 2, Paragraph U) allowed a developer to request that payment of park dedication fees be deferred until building permits were issued, rather than at the time of fmal plat approval. The new provision (Section 12.34, Subdivision 2, Paragraph T) requires that park dedication fees be paid when the final plat is recorded. Deferral until the time that a building permit is issued is no longer an option. The commercial property that is now being platted as Southbridge Fields was originally part of Riverside Fields First Addition. The City Council approved the First Addition preliminary plat on August 19,2003. The preliminary plat depicted lots and blocks on the entire residential portion of the property, but it did not depict any proposed lots and blocks on the future commercial portion of the property. The final plat resolution was approved on October 21,2003. The final plat resolution addressed park dedication requirements for the residential area, but did not address any park dedication requirements for the commercial portion. The final plat included the commercial property as part of Outlot A, which also included the future residential portion north of Crossings Boulevard. Outlot A of Riverside Fields, First Addition, was replatted as Riverside Fields Third Addition. The purpose of that plat was to create the lots and blocks in the first phase of the residential development north of Crossings Boulevard. The commercial portion was platted as Outlot B of the Third Addition but, again, no lots and blocks were shown on that portion of the property. The Third Addition fmal plat was approved on October 19, 2004. No preliminary plat for the Third Addition was required because the residential property was being developed consistent with the approved preliminary plat for the First Addition. The major difference between the final plat and the preliminary plat was that a loop road between the residential and commercial portions of the property was being eliminated and modified into a cul-de-sac design. A concept plan for the commercial area was submitted to the City as part of that redesign to show how the street system would work without the loop road. The concept plan did not, however, depict any future lots and blocks on the commercial portion. LEGAL ANALYSIS Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358, subdivision 3(c) states that for one year following preliminary plat approval and for two years following final plat approval, no amendment to a city's comprehensive plan or official controls "shall apply to or affect the use, development, density, lot size, lot layout, or dedication or platting required or permitted by the approved application." Section 12.10 of the City Code states that approvals of both preliminary plats and final plats remain in effect for two years from the date of the approval. Like the statutory provision, Section 12.10 states that during that two-year period "no amendment to a comprehensive plan or other ordinance shall apply to or affect the use, development, density, lot size, lot layout, or dedication or platting required or permitted by the approved plat." Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.352, Subdivision 16 states that preliminary plat approval can be granted "only following the review and approval of a preliminary plat or other map or drawing establishing without limitation the number, layout, and location of lots, tracts, blocks and parcels to be created, location of streets, roads, utilities and facilities, park and drainage facilities, and lands to be dedicated for public use." Minn. Stat. 9462.352, Subd. 16. The question that has arisen in this case is whether a preliminary plat that does not depict lots and blocks on property that is ultimately included as an outlot in the final plat gives a developer the vested rights contained in the City Code and state law. In my opinion, it does not. The reason for my opinion is that a preliminary plat must meet the statutory requirement in Section 462.352, Subdivision 16. None of the preliminary plats that included the property that is I now being platted as Southbridge Fields depicted lots, blocks, or any ofthe other types of things that are required by that statutory provision. In addition, the preliminary and final plats for Riverside Fields First Addition were approved more than two years ago. Therefore, the developer would not gain vested rights under those approvals even if they had depicted lots and blocks on the commercial portion. CONCLUSION The City Council has not approved any preliminary or final plats depicting lots and blocks on the property that is now being platted as Southbridge Fields. Therefore, the current code provision pertaining to payment of park dedication fees applies to the development. A WSB & Associates, Inc. WSB 4150 Olson Memorial Highway, #300 Minneapolis, MN 55422 (763) 541-4800 & Associates, Inc. (763) 541-1700 (fax) Memorandum To: Bruce Loney, P.E. Public Works Director City of Shakopee From: Charles T. Rickart, P.E., P.T.O.E. Transportation Engineer Date: October 16, 2003 Re: Riverside Meadows Development Traffic Study Review WSB Project No. 1281-20 As requested, I have reviewed the traffic study for the Riverside Meadows Development located west of CSAH 18 and south of Southbridge Parkway. Based on my review of the traffic study and conversations with the developer's consultant, I offer the following comments: . The traffic forecasts for CSAH 18 are based on Scott County's 2020 traffic forecasts for this roadway. In addition, the forecasts assume CSAH 21 is completed. Although this may be the correct assumption, the interim condition on CSAH 18, prior to CSAH 21 being constructed, may reach the 2020 traffic levels sooner than anticipated. Also, 2020 forecasts typically are conservative and tend to be low. . The traffic generation assumes that 20% of the trips from this development would be internal. In other words, 20% of the traffic would be traveling between Riverside Meadows and the remainder of the Shakopee Crossings Development including Wal- Mart and Sam's. The majority of this traffic would be using Crossing Boulevard to CSAH 18. The developer's consultant ensured me that these volumes were included in the turning movement counts. . The 2020 peak-hour traffic volumes illustrated in Figure 2 indicates 481 to 500 peak-hour trips in the left-turn lane from CSAH 18 to Crossings Boulevard. Although this does not directly impact the Riverside Meadows Development, this should be identified for the potential of a dual left-turn lane in the future. C:\Docurnents and Settings\MNoble\Local Settings\Ternporary Internet Files\OLK9\101603 b1.doc Mr. Bruce Loney City of Shakopee October 16,2003 Page 2 . The level of service (LOS) analysis conducted indicates that the overall intersection would be operating at an LOS C at the CSAH 18 and Crossing Boulevard intersection. Although the overall intersection is operating at a satisfactory level of service, specific movements (the southbound CSAH 18 movement to eastbound Crossing Boulevard) may be operating at unsatisfactory levels of service. The capacity analysis worksheets were not provided and no additional information was available for review of this potential issue. . The queue length analysis indicates that 175 feet would be available for vehicles queuing in the left-turn lane, on Crossing Boulevard approaching CSAH 18. Based on the capacity analysis in the a.m. peak-hour, 216 feet would be required, and in the p.m. peak-hour 189 feet would be required. Although these queue lengths are projected for the year 2020, as indicated previously, the 2020 volumes on CSAH 18 may occur in the interim before CSAH 21 is constructed. . The roadway geometrics indicated that there is 270 feet of separation between CSAH 18 and the East Clover Lane intersection. Assuming a 175 foot storage length and a 5: 1 taper, my calculations indicate that there would only be 25 feet of storage available for the East Clover Lane left-turn approach. This is enough storage for only one vehicle to queue before backing up into the through lane oftraffic. This is not a sufficient queue storage length for that approach. Based on these comments, I would recommend the following: 1. Close the proposed median opening at the East Clover Lane intersection allowing a right-inlright-out access only. 2. Increase the storage length of the eastbound Crossing Boulevard approach to CSAH 18 to provide up to 300 feet of storage for the left-turn lane. 3. I concur with the remainder of the recommendations as outlined on Figure 4 ofthe developer's consultant's report. If you have any questions or need additional information on this review, please contact me at (763) 287-7183. sm C:\Documents and Settings\MNoble\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK9\101603 b1.doc January 30, 2006 Lisa Masica 1834 Penstemon Lane Shakopee, MN 55397 (952) 403-1643 RE: Southfield Commercial Property Mayor and Members of the Council, As a concerned Shakopee citizen living in the Riverside Fields Neighborhood, I feel it is important for me to express my concerns as well as offer solutions to the proposed plat to Southfield, the commercial development located off of Crossings Boulevard. Pedestrian Safety I am concerned about pedestrian safety. I feel that with some design changes to the plan that the commercial development and the residential neighborhood have a better chance of succeeding together. Road Design Currently the plan calls for a Y -shaped road where one arm passes next to a community pool. This arm is also the only proposed exit from the development. I believe this plan can be changed to increase safety as well as reduce the impact of the development to the residents. I feel the best resolution to this would be to close off the road that passes by the pool, in other words have a single private road, and have the first arm be the only point of entrance and exit. This would require the first entrance be made into a full intersection. Sidewalks Sidewalks are important if we value safe neighborhoods and enjoyable places for people to live in Shakopee. A sidewalk closest to the establishments along this now single private road gives pedestrians a designated location to walk and motorist a predictable location to watch for people. Noise and Liqht Pollution I am concerned about noise and light that may come from the establishments that will be located in the development. I feel it is important to plan ahead for these future problems by requiring the developer to minimize these factors upfront. Landscaping and Berming The use of berms and landscaping will create a definition between the neighborhood and the commercial area. I believe these will block out much of the light pollution from cars as well as help to buffer traffic noise. Also, J believe that these berms will discourage pedestrians from cutting through yards to access the commercial space. Attractive landscaping also makes the commercial area more esthetically pleasing by adding a natural backdrop to residents backyards rather than a parking lot. Lighting Scheme I believe before approving a final plat for this development that the developer be required to indicate the location and type of lighting that will be included for the parking areas and streets. Since this street will be a private road but essentially an extension of our neighborhood, we would request that the lighting be in line with not only a neighborhood feel but similar to the already established style. As the City Council of Shakopee you have the power to make this neighborhood a safe and enjoyable place to live. In fact, one of the goals for Shakopee's Vision 2030 is to create a "Small Town Feel" that provides a great place for kids to grow up. I believe my suggestions allow this area to thrive with a sense of community and commerce while meeting the needs of both developer and neighbor. I urge you to consider my suggestions and if you have the time to visit the site I think you will see that I have proposed reasonable and positive changes to the plat design. Regards, Lisa Masica February 1,2006 VIA EMAIL Mayor and City Council City of Shakopee Minnesota 129 S. Hohnes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 Re: Southbridge Crossing Shakopee, MN Gentlemen: I'm writing to express concern about the proposed development at Southbridge Crossing. I live at 1761 Fescue Court, so I am adjacent to the development. We were aware that a development was planned when we bought the house, but as I said during the last hearing, we were told it would be "light commercial". What is being proposed is not light commercial. For the record, I amin the development business, so I'm very much in tune with what needs to be done when putting a project together. You do traffic studies, you do demographic studies and profiles, you create a list of "shops" that will go in the project. So, a developer knows wbt is happening long before they me for a plat. The light commercial we heard from our builder was not accurate. The developer indicated to me that he just fmalized the plan in October. That may be true, but he knew long before then what direction he was taking. My concerns are as follows: Traffic - Any developej: should have a traffic study done before and during their planning. With the proposed plan, I am concerned about all the left-hand turns that will go to County Road 18 and at what time. The developer has created a very dangerous situation, particularly with the "community pool" directly adjacent to the intersection. There has been talk about the need for stacking. Well, I have driven around the city, particularly the Marshall, area, and the stacking distance from Marshall and Vierling (where there is a fast food restaurant, a grocery store, etc.) is much shorter than what we would have if the intersection at the proposed site is moved to the right in right out location. You can't tell me that the county is going to allow you to have a long green arrow to accommodate more than 10 to 12 cars. You don't have that in Marshall. If it goes as proposed, there will be a major accident there with children. I urge you to visit the site to see it ftrsthand. Mayor and City Council City of Shako pee Minnesota February 1, 2006 Page 2 The Plan - Putting fast food retail and a gas station all in the corner of County Road 18 and Crossings will place a lot of pressure on the traffic issue I just described. You should not let all of those be in the project. Two of the three don't fit into the light corrunercial category. Neighborhood Protection - Items of concern, but not necessarily in order of importance, are lighting, screening, hours of operation, and architectural design (visual pollution in general). In addition, delivery and service vehicles and odors. Last, but not least, safety. I know that Steve has been developing for some time in the area and has a working relationship with. the city, but we live there and also have a relationship with the city. We hope that you give great thought and consideration to our concerns. Like I said, I'm not opposed to light commercial (i.e., banks, doctors, offices, even some retail) but having traffic generators as proposed is a concern. Please take these concerns into consideration during your discussion. Sincerely, ~~~ Dale R. Everson 1761 Fescue Court Shakopee, MN 55379 DRE/jk I:DevelopmentjDale/City of Shako pee 2-1-06.doc Mark, thank you for returning my phone call this morning (Feb. 2). These are my concerns regarding commercial development at CR 18 and Crossings Boulevard. 1. Please make a full intersection on Crossings Boulevard where there is currently designated a right-in, right-out to this development (located parallel to the first arm of Penstemon Lane which is currently blocked by a median). All of the neighbors have major safety concerns about funneling commercial traffic out of this development from a second road (parallel with the second arm of Penstemon Lane) that would run right next to our community swimming pool. It's also a privacy concern. I don't want individuals who would normally not come into this neighborhood to see that my children are at the pool, nor do I want their driving to endanger my children's lives! If that second road (next to the pool) were to be used as the full intersection, Crossings Boulevard heading toward County Road 18 is inadequate for such traffic. It is extremely narrow, and I can easily envision careless drivers running over the curb or even onto the sidewalk. Also, gas-station users would make a right-out and have to make a V-turn at that next intersection and it's too tight for this! Yes, tight maneuvering makes for slower speeds, but careless drivers don't care ifthey wind up on the sidewalk. I'm sure there are engineering concerns that would need to be addressed with such a proposal, but I sincerely hope those hurdles will be overcome. 2. We hope the city will require the developer to incorporateHEA VY screening along Crossings Boulevard to shield Ryland homes from the commercial development and along the shared pool and backs of the Centex homes that will adjoin this development. From my backyard, I have a clear view to Crossings Boulevard and even to the Home Depot parking lot. I do not relish the thought of seeing a gas station, fast-food restaurant, free-standing neon signs, parking lots, bright lights, and other businesses so close to my home! Please screen this development so well that when I'm admiring the sunshine in my backyard, I'll never be reminded that business is so close. 3. We are sincerely hoping the city will bring in high-quality establishments that will benefitthe market values in our community and will maintain the cozy residential feel vs. making it feel like a food court at the local mall. Weare resigned to the fact that the area will be developed, but please let it be a valuable asset! Shakopee IS a great place to live, work, and play! But it will quickly lose its allure in have to worry about my children's safety at the pool, see visu.al reminders of business so close to my home, or feel that my neighborhood is no longer the cozy neighborhood where I want to raise my children and live for 30 years. Thank you for your interest in my concerns. Hopefully the neighborhood's input will be helpful as the city works with the developer on this project. Natalie Smetak, 1817 Penstemon Lane 952-233-0482 ... - .-..-.. ..--'"--.....---....--...- ---- ..... .- .." E~ I.~\'T" ~ . 020llUlt.K-Kw.lrto, LTD. . . j;'~ii ~!J , ' Preliminary Plat ~.P~~' Shakopee Crossing, LP 0" ~ . PropC?,sed ..... 1111 H, : .~ ,., .Southbridge FIelds Addition hJ t Shl!ilkopee, Minnesota ~Jii : .. ;. : 3 i , NOTE: I i ~ of '1/t2/05 prellmlll<<y. grad9'lg of till rood -on lb, wen '( ~ ~ .. alcSa Wlla vnw wey. SIt. may b. ilrKIllI' ~ nog. 0' if tonJtnl~OlI lit lbkl tTme. I , /II .. i ~. ~ g 1 \ 1/)' ~ .. Iii . i5 n:; 'I- ~rr ::>0) urO" o () t') ZWIt) -"It) cnoc(% 2-:::i 5~lli li:fg@S -- &O~ '[i;;igne, Engineer 1.35 OctO$ ~ ~ & Sum,)'On oc( 0 '" i RLl< - Kuuslsto, Ltel. :r ,... . ~~~~ . cn= ... Mmetcnf!c, Ulnneso!ll 553~ ~ B Tel. eSS'l}. 933-0972 i- Am<: Kurt K1.oIl I.!unlcl'poijty. . Shok'PH --' . . Proposed Utllttlllft - I:lIHalt1t 6tJllI"A(:t DESCR/F'TSON. ~:;; 0rnhI /'Jc. *",581_'" , DVIil gt/) r- Outlot a, Rl\>l::RSlDE FIELDS 3RD ADornOl/, Scott Covn!y, f,/IIln..o!1l. A Su ~ <t . . reg mmCly. . .., Wa..J Plll'C41 Areq - 432,632 sq.1t. ClI" !I.e4 o~e# mVICINI1YMAP~~...::l~~ u: fa a. P~OPOSED DESCRIPTION Zonln"' . . HOT TO = . I ~ ... l CCXIN1'I'IlCAD Ile\ 10 W - ~ Lob 1-8 an Ii Oullot A. SOUlHBRIOS!: FIElDS AO.otn ON. Se.tt '~!J ZonIng: PRO (PfCl!lned Resldelltlal Dlstrlot) ~-':l (}! ~ . CDunty. MhnC$atl2. - CUrrent lIS<< VoCont . 0 oc( ~ LEGEND Proposed use: Commll'clal w".... mi: 1/'" et: !if ~ ~ HII"'" I I N'\ tl. """ . ~ 1!lH Setl"lc:ks: ($" Bl> gulder.,e.s) I I ..... 0 :::: ~ · - IRON IICtlUllEllT FW<<l u - ll'AWl ijAlllltU f'ront yard: 50 felt . ,') .~ F ~ ..J .i! 0 .. rmVTm mSlll.\HHOUl: ~ .. ll'A1U ClJIlB mP Rear ~ord: 40 {tol __ _. ::l ~ ~ ! ~.. H'lDlWfT lJ. - iElDlIOtl! ~ Side )<ll'd: 20 (eet 0 . 0 J sr- FIlUlIll st'll:I: '" 2 - S1llllII ~ !l.IIIllOU: Rear << Sldo )'Di'd: 50 *-at irom OIly resldelltIcl zone ,~f,O~ (I) a. ~ W"iIa'=tI~"Qf,",~'. J '7 J I. .. 'I$' .. 'lall'fICflr 1WlH0Ul H .. GA'lI: VJ.L\'Il MInimum Su!d!ng He1~ht: 35 feet . BENCHMARK L:W 1/l' SE 1/~ j i _ < --.-::: '=f' ~C'llOH ill' .. CAalt'lllMlOH eoX MIIllmum Lot Width: I~ feet (rem seth.oek to setbaoi<.' !!l:. <r: ~1 :1 ~~~)/IJ<i1!nt locatecl on the north sid. of :;. '. .. 5itIlV litl'IEll 'If - aEl:'lRie IWalCU MInImum lot I'Ii<ltlrt lao foef pet crl~ Ordlnanell Crossings Sll'd, 130 feel::!: narll1e=t of Pen8temon lane t 'I - - - - - =1Ia ~ ~ ~ - OJ.S'.lNrrElf MlnTrnum tol Pepth: 25a.e. roet asv,.. 765.55 feet. per Plonw Ql9lneerlng ~ - . ..a :g .f '1 - --1!X1$lI!lll.11l' COIfttlUR 18l- alallllC'1l'WlS'OfllIEUOX lim1ltnum Lot Depth: 200 '""t P~ City Ord"Ulan... NW 1/+ "I'- Ill~" .0 . .' _ uo------ UHDEllGROlRItlIW 0 'llVfflC SlIOllAl. Sfle ~<<IelunDm SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 115, g,:g ",CIO ~ l- \ .,. - Lot lNmmcry. TSM F01l' #20 RANGE 2Z ili "l ",0 co, ..~ - UJ -- UNg~ mc1llJC It. 'HAm ,osrlNEllCAlll!I VAl.I'r Number of lots: S CommerctQI Slevotlon... 7S~.J5 feet scorr COUNiY, MINNESOTA. ..~ 0 i~ 1 OlIUot M shown htreorl. ... 02004 RIJ(-Kuuslslo. LTD. . - CoII4S' GOP/; STATE ON E CALL .d:ll n ~ C.S.A H. lI.rn 18 Twin C/t1es ,Q 851-45+-0002 igii ~ .. . . . . .lJV. UN. Tgll f'rH 1-800-252-1168 II I !!:15.f' F~ j i21 j 11."'11"''''..... i .. .: , i ~ . /r::"'-::"-::"'-l--' i~1 :' ;' , i . '! ;' L , . ~ /;' / "-sUlltllNa SE1BACK I I r : ,,'y-'-~;;~-J, I ' ( )l or / .--.----------. I' ' ".,t'/ ,,--. ..~ \. ;/ l 'I ~ ' i I " 1...---. ...__' . ];'-, 0 I(,r~---..----.---. <. 1 I ",- '" : BANK I I ' .' '.U , " III r------ !.OT6 I , ; hi ~ I {' : i tl: 1 I Ilil . . I, I " I I I i.;! " IE . . I J ' Ii - , :.~ MURE t I , i "ill " g I, ,~~~~!y!__~ I I .. !"o11 ' ~ I I I "I i'li u In 'I r-------, I 1 f ' =i.t. I f\ ...: Lu_. " .!>rl~ -= .. ,_J ',---2.1 'if i..: I " _ - - . l =. ~& go I .....,. _ _ _ . .' i ~..'il .- <- _ _______.._______ I . lI;1j .-: ~ '\. ___ _"":..",_I~~' :Eo () ~ \........_---- '''''-''--- ....-___-l _._'_ ~ m /'. I /, .. 24'xZ4' STOP SIGN ~ B S / / : ANOSTOPBAR J iJ i i5 I ',/ . I" \ I / l ' \ ,;" ~ : ~ : ~, ,JI -. , ''\... ,!iI;;;:; _.. ,;.1 I" I / (\ n:r, / ii//i H~ I ~ " . / \. ~ \ ,,:",,; IT ." ! . . .. . . . i' I ,,\ -.( /' 'j It'". / 4, ;11111" 'y .-l- /' ~> ./ . .. ... .. .. . /' .1 j i j1i i! / ,'4' ' 'L -(' // 1i!!!H, I ----"--r V',I-__V, ,.' /~ I ~ll"fIH I ( ~ /'! en, ,': , : i : , __ '\ . ./' :>:! i'. I ;; I ..J . -f - / '. /' / ~! 1 ! Hill '7 ./ ........ I ---) 'k-- - f /~ ~~ ___. ( ". ~) . ur8~ . ,~'\ ~.~ /. Zf.Ll~ /' /' \ \\r /4 A <:}'P1 ~i~ /\ \ /? ).~k' O<r.J /' . / ' ,ow "/ ' ~ w ~ / /' "" ~9~ . \' ~\; \ . SITE NOTES ~~~ ./"" SITE NOTES ..~. /" CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS J: 1'Y> -", . ' ~.. OF EXISTlNG ,UTlUTIES AND TOPOGRAPHIC rEA TURES PRIOR TO en .- lHt SITE PLAN StJGGESTS BUILDING AND USES FOR EACH LOT. ", / THE COMMENCEMENT OF SITE GRADING. THE CONTRACTOR 03 lliESE ARE FOR REFFERANCES ONLY. EACH LOT \\lU BE V SHAU. IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY lHE ENGINEER Of' DISCREPANCIES' SUBMITTED TO THE CITY FOR FORMAl SITE PLAN REVIEW BASED . OR VARIATIONS FROM TliE PLANS. UPON MARKET CONDITIONS. ' Z " / ALL DI!.lENSIONS ARE SHOWN TO THE FACE OF CURB UNLESS en j " OTHERWISE NOTED. ~ !C 0- . , / AlL ClJRS ANO GUTTER TO BE 8612 UNLE:SS OTHERWIse NOTED. Ii: m ~ r ' ~ lOTS \'rlLL BE DEVELOPED ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS IN THE: W ~ U;, J FUTURe:. . "::I . a 0..... I PRQPERT'f IS ClJRREN11.Y ZONED PJtO, iji. i ~ ! ~. F~fh . ,::>aio f . ~If..~ . LEGEND PROPOSED ~ ~ 5 i ~ PRa'tlIIY tH!: - - - U ::- ~~ ---'------ --------- ,i ' ~ tHl - - - - - - - - - - Ii 0 50 100 cal'l!;lUii - - - - - - ..~ ItJ .s I eu;s tHl .. r--..on ~ I: I 9Qi' ."..". i' uon llIa. t~ SCAlE IN fEET ij...~"'~......~~ I<) ~8 ~, .A IllIUW/CXlS PA~HT "m$.'!l:j,~ _.. ~~. fo 0 ." " '... N _ /2.. to. J. oN t'A k L <e.. FebrUary 8, 2006 Usa Masica 1834 Penstemon Lane Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: Southfield Development Mayor and Members of the Council, First I want to thank you for your time and consideration when listening to our concerns at the February th council meeting. As a citizen I appreciate the opportunity to be able to express my concerns personally. After the presentation by the traffic engineer, I am assuming that you are less likely to change the first right in to the Southfield Development into a full intersection. Let me say for the record that I still believe that this is the best solution to all of the neighborhood concerns and I respectfully disagree that we would have a stacking issue. That being said, I know as a council you rely heavily on the information that you receive from you consultants so with' that in mind I still have some requests that will improve the safety, flow of traffic as well as reduce the impact on the neighborhood. Traffic Flow and Neiohborhood Impact With the reality of the first full intersection being at the end of our street, I have many concerns about the current design of the road and the inevitable forcing of commercial traffic down a quiet residential street. Lane Design Change Currently, the design of the road will not allow larger vehicles such as semi-trailer trucks and oil! gasoline tankers to make a left hand turn east onto Crossings Boulevard without considerable difficulty. The one lane is too tight to make this turn easily~ I believe that most of these drivers will choose to go straight down Penstemon Lane. This will force commercial traffic down our residential street and make a significant impact on our neighborhood. My proposal would be to shift the median and subsequently the current left hand turn lane going west down Crossings Boulevard over to the center lane. Essentially, this will create two lanes on both sides of the median and allows for larger vehicles to make a left turn onto Crossings Boulevard feasible. Signage To further reduce the impact on Penstemon Lane I think that signage will be important to remind commercial traffic not to drive into the neighborhood with a sign that states "No Thru Traffic" or "Neighborhood Traffic Only". Although we know that not everyone will abide by the sign, I feel that it will reduce the number of vehicles that would use this street otherwise. Safety Safety will be of greater concern because the first full intersection will be at the point of crossing to the neighborhood pool area. I feel that with the addition of some safety features that the commercial development and neighborhood have a greater chance of succeeding together. Pedestrian Crosswalk with Light A clearly marked crosswalk (from the southwest corner of Penstemon Lane and Crossings Boulevard to the northwest corner where the pool is located) with either paint and/or a change in road surface will identify a clear walkway. Also I feel the use of a pedestrian crosswalk sign with a flashing yellow light below will also enhance the visibility of pedestrians using it and alert drivers. Speed Bumps or Textured Roadway Installing speed bumps on the private road next to the pool will great reduce the speed at which vehicles can go andwill improve the safety for pedestrians at the intersection. A textured roadway may also be preferable if it provides and equal amount of safety. Please realize that as you make these decisions that come before you that your decisions are ones that we as residents live with everyday. We want a safe and enjoyable neighborhood to live in and I believe that we have made reasonable and fair requests of the council to consider. Regards, Lisa Masica _ __.._.._.u_u~........_._"." ...._....._ .. ,,_ ..."'...... ... ........_ . . ........_~......__,.. ....."_"M....".."._-........._.._...._........ ".".__< ,.."......" .........___.__......_.,,__......_. .,_...._"....."_......__"'..,,......... R.~.~_.........................h.._._.. ._." ...,..~_....._ ..._._~_......~_._. _ _..__... '....___.,.. ...._.