HomeMy WebLinkAbout14.C. Preliminary Plat of Riverside Fields-Res. No. 5916
CITY OF SHAKOPEE /,/.C.
Memorandum
CASELOG NO.: 03-077
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Mark Noble, Planner I
SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat of Riverside Fields
MEETING DATE: August 19, 2003
REVIEW PERIOD: June 6, 2003 - October 3, 2003
INTRODUCTION:
Ryland Homes has submitted an application for variances to the lot width, side yard setback, and
rear yard setback, in conjunction with a preliminary plat of property located west of CSAH 18 and
south offuture CSAH 21.
CONSIDERATIONS:
The applicant is proposing a mixed-use development that would consist of single- family
residential lots (66 acres), office use and neighborhood commercial (10 acres), and wetlands (3.5
acres). Additionally, as part of the application, the applicant is requesting approval of variances
to the lot width requirement (50 feet minimum, where 60 feet minimum is required), and 15 feet
side yard setbacks between structures, where 20 feet minimum is required. The original
application had included a variance request for 20-foot rear yard setbacks, where 30 feet is the
minimum rear yard setback requirement. The rear yard setback variance request for the
properties on the north side of the east/west street has been withdrawn by the applicant, and they
will work with potential builder(s) to design structures that comply with the rear yard setback
requirements for that area.
The applicant has submitted revised drawings (dated 8-7-03) that reflect the street and right-of-
way width for the east/west street, as suggested by staff. They have also provided street names
which staffwill be evaluating. Additionally, staff just received additional information from the
applicant (dated 8-13-03), which we have not had an opportunity to share with other city staff
and respond to, but is included for the Council's review.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve Resolution No. 5916, a resolution approving the preliminary plat of Riverside
Fields, subject to the conditions as proposed.
2. Approve Resolution No. 5916, a resolution approving the preliminary plat of Riverside
Fields, subject to revised conditions.
3. Deny the preliminary plat of Riverside Fields.
4. Table a decision in order to allow time for the applicant and/or staff to provide additional
information.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission reviewed this project at their August 7, 2003 meeting, and by a 4 to 2
vote, recommended approval of the preliminary plat with a variance only to allow 55' lot widths
for lots north of the east/west street, and with a sidewalk on the north and south sides of the
east/west street. The staff report to the Commission is attached for the Council's information.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Offer a motion to approve Resolution No. 5916, a resolution approving the preliminary plat of
Riverside Fields, subject to the conditions as proposed.
~ "
Planner I
RESOLUTION NO. 5916
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA APPROVING THE
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF RIVERSIDE FIELDS
WHEREAS, Ryland Homes, applicant, and Shakopee Crossings Limited Partnership,
property owner, have made application for Preliminary Plat approval ofRNERSIDE FIELDS; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as follows:
All that part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 13, Township 115, Range 20, Scott County,
Minnesota, lying southwesterly ofthe southwest right-of-way line of County State Aide Highway
No. 18, and southeasterly of the southeast right-of-way line at County Road 21; and
WHEREAS, the Shakopee Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of
the Preliminary Plat on August 7, 2003; and
WHEREAS, all required public notices regarding the public hearing were duly sent and
posted and all persons appearing at the hearing have been given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Shakopee did review the Preliminary Plat of
Riverside Fields on August 19,2003; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, as follows:
That the Preliminary Plat ofRNERSIDE FIELDS is approved subject to the following conditions:
I. The following actions must be completed before review of the final plat by the
City Council:
A. The developer shall provide revised plat plans to City staff that are consistent
with City Engineering design recommendations (See City Engineering
Memorandum, dated July 31,2003).
B. The plat name shall be revised on the final plat drawing and related
documents.
C. Street names shall be added to the final plat.
D. Eliminate the ponds from the outlots and incorporate them into adjacent lots.
II. The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of
the final plat:
A. Approval of title by the City Attorney.
B. Execution of a Developers Agreement which shall include provisions for
payment of engineering review fees, and any other fees as required by the
City's most current fee schedule.
1. Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of
the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission.
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. Installation of sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems in accordance
with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard
Specifications of the City of Shako pee.
5. The developer shall be responsible for payment of engineering review
fees, and other fees as required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule.
6. The applicant shall dedicate approximately 4.2 acres of parkland to
satisfy the need for a park to serve this area, and a 20-foot trail area for
a total of approximately 5.7 acres.
7. The applicant shall construct and install an 8 foot wide asphalt trail
along the 12 mile levee trail, a trail/sidewalk along the north side of
"Commercial Street", and other trail/sidewalk areas as shown on the
preliminary plat.
8. The applicant shall make additional improvements to the park area,
including 6 inches of topsoil, grading, turf establishment, playground
equipment, picnic areas/shelter, and open space for field games, which
would satisfy and possibly exceed the park dedication requirements.
9. The developer should work with staff and bring back development
options of the park to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board for
review prior to recording of the final plat.
10. The applicant shall implement the use of Best Management Practices
for erosion control and stormwater management during construction.
11. The applicant should transplant healthy young trees on site whenever
possible.
12. The developer shall install rain sensors for the irrigation system.
13. The homeowner's association shall develop a management plan for the
sustainability of the wetlands and native plantings proposed in the
preliminary plat.
14. The applicant shall include 6 inches of topsoil on the entire site.
15. That all sprinklers owned and operated by the Homeowner's
Association have rain sensors as required by State Law.
16. The applicant shall construct houses using construction materials and
methods for indoor noise mitigation.
17. The applicant shall incorporate a berm and/or a 6 foot fence with a
variety of trees along CR 21 and CSAH 18, or wherever appropriate, to
mitigate noise from the highways.
18. That a 16" trunk watermain along CSAH 18 and a 12" trunk
watermain in proposed east/west street will be required within this
development.
19. A minimum 50 foot drainage, utility and trail easement be placed on
all property adjacent to future CSAH 21.
20. Lots that could be impacted by the potential 100 feet of additional
right-of-way be reserved for the last phase of the development, and that
these lots are not sold until some preliminary design issues regarding
future CSAH 21 have been resolved.
21. The landscaping plan be revised to show the relocation of plantings and
fences on lots adjacent to the County right-of-way for future CSAH 21 be
relocated to the rear yards of the individual residential lots.
22. Noise issues may arise as traffic levels increase on CSAH 18 and once
CSAH 21 is open to traffic. The application material incorrectly states that
noise mitigation is the responsibility of the County. As per 7030 of
Minnesota Rules, noise attenuation is the responsibility of the land use
authority.
23. The noise report that was submitted with the packet does not address future
CSAH 21 or indicate the name/company that prepared the noise report.
24. No landscaping, ponding, berming, or signage shall be permitted within the
County right-of-way.
25. Any change in drainage entering the County right-of-way shall require
detailed stormwater calculations to be submitted to the County engineer for
review and approval.
26. A street light shall be installed at the intersection of CSAH 18 and the
proposed east/west street.
27. A County access permit shall be required for the east/west street at CSAH
18. A right and left turn. lane on CSAH 18 shall be required. No other
accesses or direct access shall be granted to the development.
28. Any work within the County right-of-way shall require a permit.
29. 55' lot widths approved for lots north of the east/west street.
30. Provide a sidewalk on the north and south sides of the east/west street.
C. Final Construction Plans and Specifications must conform to City
requirements and are subject to approval by City Engineer. Such plans as they
relate to water or electricity are subject to the approval of the SPUC Utilities
Manager.
D. Temporary street signs must be displayed.
E. No site grading will be allowed until preliminary plan and profile sheets for
street and utility work are approved by the City Engineer.
III. Following approval and recording of the final plat the following conditions shall
apply:
A. Houses on lots immediately adjoining CSAH 18 and the future CSAH 21 right-of-
way shall be equipped with STC 30-rated windows. As an alternative, or in
addition to, the developer shall construct a sound mitigation fence along CSAH 18
and the future CSAH 21.
B. Responsibility for other noise mitigation measures that may be required in the
future shall rest with the developer or its assigns.
C. Building construction, sewer, water service, fire protection and access will be
reviewed for code compliance at the time of building permit application(s).
D. All existing easements are retained.
E. Final grading, utility connections and access to city streets will need approval by
the Engineering Department.
F. All outstanding fees will still apply.
IV. Prior to any site grading, the following actions must be completed:
A. Submit the City of Shako pee Wetland Application, and receive approval of the
wetland mitigation plan.
B. Payment of grading fees will be required per the most current City of Shakopee
Fee Schedule.
C. No grading shall occur until the grading plan and storm water issues have been
reviewed an approved by the City Engineer.
D. Earthwork balance calculations need to be shown on the grading plan. The
calculations should show the amount of import and export of the different fill
materials needed to balance the site. The source of fill materials shall also be
indicated on the grading plan.
E. Project benchmark information is needed on the grading plan, and requires a
registered land surveyor's verification. Project benchmarks need to be tied to the
City's approved benchmark system. A surveyor's bench loop notes will have to
be submitted showing how the project benchmarks have been established.
F. Additional storm drainage calculations need to be submitted including the 100-
year and 10-day snowmelt event.
THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that approval of the Preliminary Plat
of RIVERSIDE FIELDS does not constitute a representation or guarantee by the City of
Shakopee as to the amount, sufficiency or level of water service that will be available to lots
within the plat as they are developed.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota,
held the _ day of , 2003.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
~~m;lED\ll~~ RYLAND
~~ AUG 1 4 2003
August 13,2003 By
~~ ~,.._-.-=-...~ The Ryland Group, Inc.
7900 West 78th Street
Mayor and City Councilmembers: Suite 100
Edina, MN 55439
Contractor's Lie # 20035443
Ryland Homes is pleased to bring you a 211 lot single-family developme.lltyllGlCated south
and west of our Riverside Grove town home and condominium neighborhood, west of
County Road 18 and south of future County Road 21. Over the past year, we have been
listening to your concerns and are trying hard to develop a single-family neighborhood on
a zoned property that would otherwise allow up to 640 units. There are difficulties in
doing this and we need your help to succeed.
We think that we are responding correctly to Shakopee's needs with regard to land-use,
open space, recreation, and environment. Weare either meeting or exceeding City
requirements and we need some flexibility in the City Code in order to make it all work.
None of the variances result in a change to the City Code that Shakopee has not approved
previously. Ifwe are successful, we will develop 211 traditional single-family homes
and 10 acres of neighborhood commercial and office in conformance with the PRD
zoning designation.
Because of the physical characteristics of the site, which create a hardship for reasonable
use of the land as single-family, we are requesting some flexibility in the lot setbacks,
and on a limited basis, the lot width. Because of the elevation of this site as it relates to
the City's Comprehensive Storm-water Management Plan, there is an extraordinary
amount of fill required to develop this property as single-family. Attached is
substantiation for the requested variances according to the City's Criterion. Weare
working hard to provide the best housing diversity to the neighborhood by also
cooperating with Shakopee Crossings, and Centex Homes in the development of the
property.
The project as proposed is viable, but, if all of the recommendations of the City Advisory
Commissions are combined, and the variances are not granted by the City Council, there
will be a loss of lots and use of the property as single-family that may ultimately make a
portion of it infeasible for use as single family. If this is the case, it may become
necessary, in the future, to change some of the plan to multiple family.
Following is our summary of the recommendations from all of the Advisory
Commissions:
PRAB
The PRAB recommended approval of the project unanimously. The Commission
recommended a combination for park dedication of: 5.7 acres of land; park and trail
development valued at $172,000; and cash park fee of $44,700.
".,
Our original proposal was for 4.2 acres of park and trail. The PRAB recommended the
deletion of (5) lots, increasing the park area by an additional 1.2 acres. Since that time,
we have also learned that the wetland area is actually .6 acres smaller in this area, making
the entire area available for park, 6.3 acres.
The City Code dictates that when a combination of: land; park development; and cash are
required by the City, the total value is subtracted from a total cash park fee applied to the
development.
Our cash park obligation for 211 homes is $561,260 (211 x $2,660/unit), plus $44,700 for
10 acres commercial, equals: $605,960.
Total value of 6.3 acres ofland (at a fair market value of $148,000/ acre, as prescribed by
City Code) plus $172,000 in improvements plus $44,700 for commercial equals:
$1,149,100. Based upon the PRAB we are exceeding the City Code park requirement by:
$543,140. We told the PRAB that we would like to keep the (5) lots, and that if they
were taken; it was imperative that we obtain the variances from the City Council to
assure the viability of the single-family use. Our ability to shoulder exceeding the City
Code in park contribution is dependant upon approval of the project as proposed. If the
City Council approves the project without the requested variances, we ask that we be
credited for the park contribution in equivalent units: $543,140 - $44,700 (commercial) /
$2,660 per unit = 187 units (beyond the 211 unit proposal).
EAC
The Environmental Advisory Commission unanimously recommended approval of the
Preliminary Plat. At the time of approval, the detailed noise analysis was not complete.
As of July 11, 2003, URS environmental engineers submitted a noise study indicating:
, ''Noise levels do not exceed the City's noise ordinance of70 decibels, and mitigation is
not needed.
The EAC recommendations exceed the City Ordinance in the following areas:
Landscaping and fencing along future Co. Rd. 21 and existing Co. Rd. 18; (6)" of topsoil
rather than (4)"; houses constructed using construction materials and methods for indoor
noise mitigation.
Our proposal exceeds the City Ordinance in the following areas: 74 more trees and 185
caliper inches more than City Code; 2700' natural interpretive trail; management plan for
management of the sustainability of the wetland and native plantings proposed in the
preliminary plat.
Planning Commission
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat with
conditions, and some of the variances (4-2). The initial motion was to approve the plat
and variances as proposed, but did not carry (2-4).
At the Planning Commission meeting of August 7, (in order to be responsive to the
comments of the July 17 Planning Commission meeting, we withdrew the request for a
rear yard setback (from 30' required by Code to 20') for the 97 lots lying north of
Crossings Blvd.
The Planning Commission ultimately recommended approval of 55' wide lots for the 97
lots north of Crossings Blvd. Rather than 50' lots, as we had proposed. The Commission
did not recommend approval of the variance requests for side yard or rear yard setback
proposed for the 114 lots south of Crossings Blvd. The Planning Commission made it
clear that they felt it was not their role to take anything into account for consideration of
the variances beyond hardship.
There are a number of conditions that the Planning Commission adopted dealing with
future Co. Rd. 21. Craig Jensen, Scott County's Transportation Engineer, made it very
clear in his letter of July 7,2003, that the County was making no requirements regarding
future County Road 21. The 200' of existing ROW borders this project on the north side
and this property is not benefited from it by access. The County appreciated that we had
largely left structures out of any potential additional future ROW the County might
possibly decide they needed. Their comments were to request voluntary cooperation on
some items. The City Planning staffhas made recommendations that these requests by
the county become requirements of the City. While we will cooperate where we can,
delay of construction for some lots in the residential area beyond January, 2004, and any
delay in the office area, are not appropriate and should not be made a requirement of this
plat.
We have revised the Preliminary Plat to conform to the Planning Commission
recommendation of increase ROW on Crossings Blvd. and extension of the rear lot lines
over storm water ponds.
We clearly understand that the City Council balances all of the needs of the City, and the
differing recommendations of the advisory commissions. Riverside Fields responds to
the following areas we understand are valued by the City of Shakopee:
1. The proposal is for single-family homes in a PRD zoning that would permit up to
640 multiple family homes
2. There are no more homes proposed because of the variances than would be
possible without variances. The variances allow important diversity of housing
models through out the neighborhood than would be possible without the
variances.
3. Shakopee "gets something" if the variances are granted: single-family land-use;
429 less housing units than otherwise allowed under the PRD; park land
dedication and development and cash park fee resulting in $498,440 more park
value than required by City Code, and; tree plantings and topsoil in excess of the
City Code.
The Preliminary Plat request is for 211 single-family residential lots with 10 acres of
neighborhood commercial and office, permitted under the PRD zoning. We respectfully
request that you approve it.
The variance requests are for:
1. Lot width from 60' to 50' for the 97 lots north of Crossings Blvd.
2. Side yard setback from 20' combined to 15' combined for all of the lots. For the
(97) lots north of Crossings Blvd. It results in more total side yard setback on a
street frontage than an equal street frontage for the 55' wide lots the City
previously approved for Centex in Southbridge.
The variance for the 65' wide lots south of Crossings Blvd. allows (7) models of
homes to be built rather than (3), providing for variety in the neighborhood.
3. Rear yard setback variance from 30' to 20' for the lots south of Crossings Blvd.
We have withdrawn the request for rear yard setback variance from 30' to 20' for
the lots north of Crossings Blvd.
We ask that you approve the variances as requested to help assure the viability of this
proposal as single-family, and grant approval of the Preliminary Plat for 211 single-
family lots and 10 acres of neighborhood commercial and office.
Chris Enger
Land Resources Manager
Ryland Homes Twin Cities
R"'"'Crp r-o
"\tJtl vl'
--
AUG 1 3 2003
CITY OF SHA~{OPEE
~x;
. ,
I .
Criterion I
The strict enforcement of the ordinance provisions would cause undue hardship because
of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration. Undue hardship
means the following:
1.A. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions
allowed by official controls;
The physical elevation of the property creates an undue hardship because of the
minimum floor elevation required to meet City Engineering standards requires
approximately 500,000 cu. yds. of fill across the entire site. Development of the site
given these physical constraints is not feasible with the number of lots resulting
from strict adherence to the City's setback and lot width requirements.
The recommendation from the Park and Recreation Department and (3) members
of the PRAB of a combination of parkland dedication and park development in
excess of the City Code further exacerbates the hardship created from the low
elevation of the site, by requiring additional fill for the park and resulting in the
deletion of (5) additional lots.
There is a further area hardship imposed upon the site from a request from Scott
County to reserve from structures an additional 100' of potential ROW for future
COUlJ.ty Rd. 21, in the event the County chooses to acquire it during 2003.
2.B. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property;
The City's Comprehensive Storm water Management Plan and Engineering
Standards when applied to the property given its' existing elevation result in an
extraordinary amount of fill to make the property developable. This condition is
unique to this property and this request.
I.C. The circumstances were not created by the landowner.
The overall elevation of the property has not been altered. The storm water
standards required by the City are higher many communities in the metropolitan
area. Adherence to these standard on this property results in an extraordinary
amount of fill.
I.D. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and
The lot sizes, width, density, and setbacks are consistent with single-family
dimensions and standards previously approved by the City in the South bridge area.
Side yard setbacks of 15' and in fact 10 feet as well as lot widths of 50' have been
granted in the Southbridge single family subdivisions, and other neighborhoods of
the City.
I.E. The problems extend beyond economic considerations. Economic considerations do
not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the
ordinance.
The City Policy Boards have encouraged the development of single-family
subdivisions most recently because of the number of multiple-family developments.
The proposed single-family subdivision conforms to the PRD zoning of the site and
is a reasonable use of the property; perhaps a City preferred reasonable use of the
site. Because of the physical constraints of the site, the setback and lot width
variances are necessary to provide a physical design that supports the extraordinary
amount of fill required to develop the site. If it weren't for the fill requirement, the
plat could be designed without variances.
Criterion 2
It has been demonstrated that a variance request will be in keeping with the spirit and
intent of this Chapter.
The City has approved lot size and setbacks the same or greater in the immediate
area. The plat meets all other City requirements. The request:
I)Exceeds the park requirement.
2)Exceeds the City's tree replacement requirement in both number an size of tree.
3)Meets or exceeds the City's engineering standards for storm water management.
4)Conforms with the City's noise standards for properties adjacent to major roads.
5)Provides an transportation connection not required in the City Transportation
Plan.
6)Responds to the City's desire for more single-family development.
7)Exceeds the City's ordinance for depth of black dirt for good stewardship of a
water resources.
8)Provides a environmental interpretive trail not required by City ordinance.
Criterion 3
The request is not a use variance.
The request is not for use.
Criterion 4
Conditions assured by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals will insure compliance to
protect the adjacent properties.
The Preliminary Plat is in conformance with all aspects of the City Code with the
exception of the variances requested. The variances can be enforced in the same
way as the underlying requirements of the Code. In the areas, such as Park, and
Enviromental, where the Boards have made recommendations that go beyond those
standards required by City ordinance, the City could make them requirements by
making them conditions of approval of the variances.
Criterion 5
Variances in the floodplain
The site is not within a Floodplain Zone. N.A.
.
RIVERSIDE FIELDS
ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT
. Preservation of existing wetlands
. Protection of existing wetlands
. Enhancement of wetlands
. Environmental trail
. Lower density
. Less impervious coverage
. Less storm water runoff
. Conformance to Comprehensive Storm Water
Management Plan
. Exceeds City tree replacement requirement
. Provide environmentally sensitive vegetation
replacement and massing plan
. Exceeds City park requirements
. Clean-up and remediation of existing landfill
. Provide for future Co. Rd. 21 corridor
. Conform to indoor noise attenuation standards
. .' .
Comparison of total open space and building in a typical 850' streetscape
Proposed plan Centex South bridge Centex 80' lot
Street frontage 850' 850' 850'
Lot width 50' 55' 80'
Number of Lots 17 15 10
Building width 35' 40' 60'
Side yard I Lot 15' 15' 20'
Combined side yard 255' 225' 200'
Combined Building 595' 600' 600'
Proportion opens pace:
Building 0.43 0.38 0.33
Opens pace *increase total side yard from *decrease total side yard from
proportion South bridge 13% Southbridge 13%
* increase from 80' lot 30%
~6
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
CASELOG NO.: 03-077
TO: Shakopee Planning Commission
FROM: Mark Noble, Plamler I
SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat of Riverside Fields
MEETING DATE: August 7, 2003
REVIEW PERIOD: June 6, 2003 - October 3, 2003
Site Information:
Applicant: Ryland Homes
Property Owner: Shakopee Crossings, Ltd.
Location: South of future CSAH 21 and west of CSAH 18
Existing Zoning: Planned Residential District (pRD)
Adj acent Zoning: North: Planned Residential Distlict (pRD)
South: Rural Residential (RR)/ Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zones
East: Highway Business (B-l)/Community Commercial (CC)
Zones/(PUD) and Rural Residential (RR) Zone
West: Light Industry (I-I) Zone
Comprehensive Plan: CommerciallMedium- Density Residential
Area: 79.82 Acres
Attachments: Exhibit A: Location Map
Exhibit B: Site Plan and Preliminary Plat
Exhibit C: Applicant's Narrative
Exhibit D EAC/PRAB Memorandum
Exhibit E: City Engineeling Memorandum
Exhibit F: Scott County Public Works Letter
Exhibit G: Shakopee Public Utilities Memorandum
INTRODUCTION:
Ryland Homes has submitted an application for variances to the lot width, side yard setback, and
rear yard setback, in conjunction with a preliminary plat of property located west of CSAH 18 and
south of future CSAH 21. This application was continued by the Commission at their July 17, 2003
meeting, although there was substantial discussion regarding street and lot size/setback issues.
Basic site and development information is as follows:
Site Size: 79.82 acres
Total RO.W.: 13.92 acres
Total Lot Area: 49.82
Total Outlot Area: 16.08
Proposed No. of Lots: 213
Proposed No. of Out lots: 2
Proposed Density:
Gross (excludes outlots, Lot 34, Blk. 2 and Lot 65, Blk. 1):3.9 dwelling units/acre
Net (excludes above plus ROW): 5.2 dwelling units/acre
Range of Res . Lot Sizes: 5,640 sq. ft./ - 16,344 sq. ft.
Average Lot Size: 8,307 sq. ft.
CONSIDERATIONS:
The applicant is proposing a mixed-use development that would consist of single-family
residential lots (66 acres), office use and neighborhood commercial (10 acres), and wetlands (3.5
acres). Additionally, as part ofthe application, the applicant is requesting approval of variances
to the lot width requirement (50 feet minimum, where 60 feet minimum is required), and 15 feet
side yard setbacks between structures, where 20 feet minimum is required. The original
application had included a variance request for 20-foot rear yard setbacks, where 30 feet is the
minimum rear yard setback requirement. The rear yard setback variance request has been
withdrawn by the applicant, and they will work with potential builder(s) to design structures that
comply with the rear yard setback requirements.
Section 11.89, Subd. 2, of the City Code contains provisions for the granting of variances only if all
ofthe following criteria are met. The applicant has provided a rationale for the requested variances
as they relate to site conditions (Exhibit C). The question for the Commission is whether the site
conditions themselves justify the request, or whether they go to the economics of developing the
site. Staffhas provided the required criteria for the commission's information. The Planning
Commission should provide direction to staff as to whether it believes the criteria are met.
Criterion I
The strict enforcement of the ordinance provisions would cause undue hardship because of
circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration. Undue hardship
means the following:
1.A. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under
conditions allowed by the official controls;
1.B. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property;
1.c. The circumstances were not created by the landowner;
1.D. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and
1.E. The problems extend beyond economic considerations. Economic considerations do
not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the
terms ofthe ordinance.
Criterion 2
It has been demonstrated that a variance as requested will be in keeping with the spirit and
intent of this Chapter.
Criterion 3
The request is not for a use variance.
Criterion 4
Conditions to be imposed by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals will insure compliance to
protect the adjacent properties.
Criterion 5
Variances in the flood plain overlay zone also shall meet the following criteria.... (This
criterion is not an issue in this particular application).
Because CSAH 18 and future CSAH 21 isolate the site, the provision of park and recreation
opportunities is important to the site as well, and this concern has been addressed by the Parks
and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB), as noted in the memorandum from Mark McQuillan
and Mark Themig (Exhibit D).
PRAB reviewed the proposed preliminary plat application at their July 28, 2003 meeting and
recommended approval with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall dedicate approximately 4.2 acres of parkland to satisfy the need for a
park to serve this area, and a 20-foot trail area for a total of approximately 5.7 acres.
2. The applicant shall construct and install an 8 foot wide asphalt trail along the Yz mile
levee trail, a trail/sidewalk along the north side of "Commercial Street", and other
trail/sidewalk areas as shown on the preliminary plat.
3. The applicant shall make additional improvements to the park area, including 6 inches of
topsoil, grading, turf establishment, playground equipment, picnic areas/shelter, and
open space for field games, which would satisfy and possibly exceed the park dedication
requirements.
4. The developer should work with staff and bring back development options of the park to
the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board for review prior to recording of the final plat.
Condition number 1 states there would be a total of approximately 5.7 acres of parkland
dedication. This figure includes the removal of the five lots adjacent to Street 5 (Lots 1& 2,
Block 6, and Lots 83 through 85, Block 3, located in the southwest corner of the proposed
development). Additionally, the applicant stated that a new wetland delineation study has been
completed recently. This study reported that the wetland area is approximately .6 acres less than
what was previously known, and that this .6 acres ofland will be included as parkland, which
would bring the total to 6.3 acres of parkland to be dedicated as part of this project.
The EAC reviewed the proposed preliminary plat application at their July 9,2003 meeting and
recommended approval with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall implement the use of Best Management Practices for erosion control
and stormwater management during construction.
2. The applicant should transplant healthy young trees on site whenever possible.
3. The developer shall install rain sensors for the irrigation system.
4. The homeowner's association shall develop a management plan for the sustainabilityof
the wetlands and native plantings proposed in the preliminary plat.
5. The applicant shall include 6 inches of topsoil on the entire site.
6. That all sprinklers owned and operated by the Homeowner's Association have rain
sensors as required by State Law.
7. The applicant shall construct houses using construction materials and methods for indoor
noise mitigation.
8. The applicant shall incorporate a benn and/or a 6 foot fence with a variety of trees along
CSAH 21 and CSAH 18, or wherever appropriate, to mitigate noise from the highways.
Other Review Comments Received:
The Engineering Department had submitted a memorandum (Exhibit E), providing a number of
conditions that staffhave incorporated into the draft resolution. One of the issues that had staff
recommending a continuation of the application at the last meeting pertained to the need for a
traffic study of Street #1 (east/west street running the entire length of the property). There has
been substantial discussion between the developer and City staff regarding the issues and details
pertaining to project future traffic volumes and determine the roadway classification, right-of-
way width (for example, Street #1 will be designed with a 66 foot right-of-way, with 5 foot
sidewalks on both sides of the street and 9 foot boulevards) and intersection spacing
requirements. However, as ofthe time ofthe preparation of this report, staff has not received
revised plat drawings that show the design changes that had been requested by City staff.
Therefore, City staff is recommending a continuation of the application until the revised plat
drawings have been submitted.
Scott County Public Works Department has provided a letter (Exhibit F), which addresses
several issues. Specifically, the County has provided extensive discussion on the proposed
CSAH 21, and the potential need for additional right-of-way. They noted their position on this
issue, and provided several options that the Commission should consider in their
recommendation to Council.
Shakopee Public Utilities Commission submitted comments (Exhibit G), noting that a 16" trunk
watermain along CSAH 18 and a 12" trunk watermain in proposed Street #1 will be required
within this development.
Planning staffhave sent a letter to the Minnesota Planning Environmental Quality Board, asking
that they provide a response setting forth their position on whether an amendment of the
Shakopee Crossings Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) would be required. It is
staff s determination that an amendment is not necessary as the proposed development would
have less of an impact than that proposed in the original study.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend approval of the variance requests and direct staff to prepare findings in support
of that approval, and recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat of
Riverside Fields, subject to the following proposed conditions:
I. The following actions must be completed before review of the final plat by the
City Council:
A. The developer shall provide revised plat plans to City staff that are consistent
with City Engineering design recommendations (See City Engineering
Memorandum, dated July 31,2003).
B. The plat name shall be revised on the final plat drawing and related
documents.
C. Street names shall be added to the final plat.
D. Eliminate the ponds from the outlots and incorporate them into adjacent lots.
II. The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of
the final plat:
A. Approval of title by the City Attomey.
B. Execution of a Developers Agreement which shall include provisions for
payment of engineering review fees, and any other fees as required by the
City's adopted fee schedule.'
1. Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of
the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission.
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. Installation of sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems in accordance
with the requirements ofthe Design Criteria and Standard
Specifications of the City of Shakopee.
5. The developer shall be responsible for payment of engineering review
fees, and other fees as required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule.
6. The applicant shall dedicate approximately 4.2 acres of parkland to
satisfy the need for a park to serve this area, and a 20- foot trail area for
a total of approximately 5.7 acres.
7. The applicant shall construct and install an 8 foot wide asphalt trail
along the Yz mile levee trail, a trail/sidewalk along the north side of
"Commercial Street", and other trail/sidewalk areas as shown on the
preliminary plat.
8. The applicant shall make additional improvements to the park area,
including 6 inches of topsoil, grading, turf establishment, playground
equipment, picnic areas/shelter, and open space for field games, which
would satisfy and possibly exceed the park dedication requirements.
9. The developer should work with staff and bring back development
options of the park to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board for
review prior to recording of the final plat.
10. The applicant shall implement the use of Best Management Practices
for erosion control and stormwater management during construction.
11. The applicant should transplant healthy young trees on site whenever
possible.
12. The developer shall install rain sensors for the irrigation system.
13. The homeowner's association shall develop a management plan for the
sustainability of the wetlands and native plantings proposed in the
preliminary plat.
14. The applicant shall include 6 inches oftopsoil on the entire site.
15. That all sprinklers owned and operated by the Homeowner's
Association have rain sensors as required by State Law.
16. The applicant shall construct houses using construction materials and
methods for indoor noise mitigation.
17. The applicant shall incorporate a berm and/or a 6 foot fence with a
variety of trees along CR 21 and CSAH 18, or wherever appropriate, to
mitigate noise from the highways.
18. That a 16" trunk watermain along CSAH 18 and a 12" trunk
watermain in proposed Street #1 will be required within this
development.
19. A minimum 50 foot drainage, utility and trail easement be placed on
all property adj acent to future CSAH 21.
20. Lots that could be impacted by the potential 100 feet of additional
right-of-way be reserved for the last phase of the development, and that
these lots are not sold until some preliminary design issues regarding
future CSAH 21 have been resolved.
21. The landscaping plan be revised to show the relocation of plantings and
fences on lots adjacent to the County right-of-way for future CSAH 21 be
relocated to the rear yards of the individual residential lots.
22. Noise issues may arise as traffic levels increase on CSAH 18 and once
CSAH 21 is open to traffic. The application material incorrectly states that
noise mitigation is the responsibility of the County. As per 7030 of
Minnesota Rules, noise attenuation is the responsibility of the land use
authority .
23. The noise report that was submitted with the packet does not address future
CSAH 21 or indicate the name/company that prepared the noise report.
24. No landscaping, ponding, berming, or signage shall be permitted within the
County right-of-way.
25. Any change in drainage entering the County right-of-way shall require
detailed stormwater calculations to be submitted to the County engineer for
review and approva1.
26. A street light shall be installed at the intersection of CSAH 18 and the
proposed collector street.
27. A County access permit shall be required for Street 1 at CSAH 18. A right
and left turn lane on CSAH 18 shall be required. No other accesses or direct
access shall be granted to the development.
28. Any work within the County right-of-way shall require a pennit.
C. Final Construction Plans and Specifications must conform to City
requirements and are subject to approval by City Engineer. Such plans as they
relate to water or electricity are subject to the approval ofthe SPUC Utilities
Manager.
D. Temporary street signs must be displayed.
E. No site grading will be allowed until preliminary plan and profile sheets for
street and utility work are approved by the City Engineer.
III. Following approval and recording of the final plat the following conditions shall
apply;
A. Houses on lots immediately adjoining CSAH 18 and the future CSAH 21 right-of-
way shall be equipped with STC 30-rated windows. As an alternative, or in
addition to, the developer shall construct a sound mitigation fence along CSAH 18
and the future CSAH 21.
B. Responsibility for other noise mitigation measures that may be required in the
future shall rest with the developer or its assigns.
IV. Prior to any site grading, the following actions must be completed;
A. Submit the City of Shakopee Wetland Application, and receive approval of the
wetland mitigation plan.
E. Payment of grading fees will be required per the most current City of Shakopee
Fee Schedule.
C. No grading shall occur until the grading plan and storm water issues have be'en
reviewed an approved by the City Engineer.
D. Earthwork balance calculations need to be shown on the grading plan. The
calculations should show the amount of import and export of the different fill
materials needed to balance the site. The source of fill materials shall also be
indicated on the grading plan.
E. Project benchmark information is needed on the grading plan, and requires a
registered land surveyor's verification. Project benchmarks need to be tied to the
City's approved benchmark system. A surveyor's bench loop notes will have to
be submitted showing how the project benchmarks have been established.
F. Additional storm drainage calculations need to be submitted including the 100-
year and 10-day snowmelt event.
2. Recommend approval of the variance requests and direct staff to prepare findings in support
of that approval, and recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat of
Riverside Fields, subject to revised conditions.
3. Recommend denial of the proposed variance requests and direct staff to prepare findings in
support of that denial, and recommend denial of the preliminary plat of Rj.verside Fields.
4. Continue the public hearing in order to allow time for the applicant and/or staff to provide
additional information.
5. Close the public hearing, but table a decision in order to allow time for the applicant and/or
staff to provide additional information.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staffrecomrnends Alternative No.4, continue the public hearing in order to allow time for the
applicant and/or staff to provide additional information.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Offer a motion to continue the public hearing to August 21,2003.
~'Y~'~I1' A
~
SHAKOPEE
COMMUNITY PRlDESlNCE 18S7
Preliminary Plat of Riverside Meadow s
and Variance for Setbacks and Lot Width
. Subject Property
.' ,.' Boundaryline.shp
.-
_ Jacparcels
D Zoning Boundary
-..,--,- Parcel Boundary
'E:'\c: .\.It'f!t 'T c:.'I...
RYLAND
~ft~.~. lR}f5~~~g:f>:;fJ f~u",3~~,'~li nr:}:~'4
("001) \N"~'::,r 78th :..Ir*~;:.~
:':"!ll!':: iUU
Ed:n;':I, /./\f'..! 55::139
Cnj"!ir':jci,)!' :i Li..:: iF :2(:().35.;.;.~3
V!\'lv/.r-J'::nd,,::'')li1
Riverside Fields
Community Overview
Proposed Neighborhood Use
Single Family I Office I Neighborhood Commercial
Ryland Homes is proposing a new single-family, mixed-use neighborhood in the
southwest comer of County Road 18 and the future Co. Road 21. The total site is eighty
acres in size. The proposal includes an office use, two different types of commercial and
t"~iO different types of single-family residential. The neighborhood office is 25,000
square feet designed in a residential theme. The commercial is made up of 10,000 square
feet or neighborhood shopping, and a convenience commercial store, together with the .
office on ten acres.
In addition to the 1 0 acres of office .and commercial use, the proposal includes: 47 acres of
medium-size single family residential; 19 acres of smaller lot single family; 4 acres of
city parkland; 3 Y2 acres of wetland; a private park with a neighborhood pool; and over 12
mile of recreation trail in addition to neighborhood sidewalks.
Existing and Proposed Use
This mixed-use neighborhood is proposed on property cUlTently zoned Planned
Residential Deydopment (PRD). The uses are all allowed in that zoning district. The
City had also previously 'Submitted the site to the Metropolitan Council as a mixed-use
site for d Liveable Communities grant.
Rylr,nd Homes is se:1sitive to the growing concern by the City over multiple-family in
Shakopee, (especially in this area). We are pleased to propose a single-family mixed-use
development at 3 homes per acre gross density. The two, single family neighborhoods
are pr0posed at significantly lower density than allowed by the Comprehensive Plan or
the Zoning ordinance and are detached rather than multiple-family. The number of
multiple family units allovyed under the PRD zone on this 80 acres would be almost 500,
or up to 8 units per acre. There are 211 single-family homes proposed.
Road network
The plan conforms to the transportation plan of the City. A centro.l neighborhood through
road is planned east/west through the site. There is a single access point at Co. Road IS,
E '('\o-ll e IT c..
~/e-.
consistent with County plans, and there is no access requested from future Co. Rd. 21.
There is 200 feet of existing ROW for Co. Road 21 adjacent to the northern boundary of
the site. If the County were to determine they need any additional ROW, they must
contract for the purchase of it at this time.
The road network is planned to: limit access to County Road 18, as required; provide for
a continuous through road; and make use of loop streets where ever possible from a
drainage standpoint to confonn with City Policy. There are no lots fronting onto the
central street. All street widths and ROW's are designed to City standard. Traffic
generated from the residential portion of this property will be significantly less than with
over twice as many units of multiple-family. The neighborhood and office uses will be
mostly captured trips going-to- work or corning-home traffic. The neighborhood
shopping and office will be off-peak. hour. The mix of land uses 'will help provide a
balance of traffic.
Noise Mitigation
The homes will be constructed of materials and in a fashion to meet the indoor noise
standards for Co. Rd. 18. Although Co. Rd. 21 is not in place at this time and the County
would be obligated to provide appropriate noise mitigation in the fuhlre, the homes will
be built to mitigate noise to indoor standards. Because of the requirement for a large
amount on on-site ponding, berming is not possible. A six-foot high fence and evergreen
trees will be placed along both County Road 18 and future County Road 21 to further
mitigate noise. Noise studies for ~ounty Road 18 and a County Road 21 have been
provided.
Engineering
The site is relatively flat, made up of sandy soils, but, has fairly high ground water.
Relative to the City Storm water plan, the site is low and requires a substantial amount of
import in order to met the standards for minimum floor elevation. Not only does tIus
make development very expensive, but also, it requires a large portion of the site to be
devoted to storm water ponds and the entire site to be filled 4-8.
Because of: the large amount of fill necessary to raise the site to meet City engineering
elevation standards; the requirement for a large area of the site to be devoted to storm
water ponds; and the recommendation for 4 acres of parkland; lots must be sized to malce
efficient use of the remaining developable land in order to make single-family
development of the land practical.
Requested Waivers
In order to reduce the density from that allowed in tbis zoning district (up to 8units/acre)
to single family (3units/acre gross), we need waivers to some setbacks and lot widths. We
are requesting a waiver to allow 15' between houses rather than 20'and a 50' minimum
'~i'fott~\~ 'L
3!f-,
lot width rather than 60'on 97 of the lots (or a 60' average lot width rather than minimum
on 211 lots). We are also requesting a minimum 20' year yard setback rather than 30'.
We are using single-family floor-plans that can be accommodated on a 65 foot and 50
foot wide lots. Both collections ofhomes work well with a combined distance between
houses of 15 feet. There are 114, 65-foot wide lots, accommodating a three-car garage.
The 97 homes designed for the 50-foot wide lots would have two-car garages.
Hardship and mitigation
. The site is naturally constrained because it is low in relationship to the City's
planned storm-water system. In order to build, the site must be raised between
four and eight feet. This makes efficient use of the site important in order to
make the site developable practically.
. The large amount of frontage on future County Road 21 and existing County
Road 18, make the marketing oflarge single-family lots infeasible.
. The natural and engineered constraints of the site require an extraordinary amount
offill and a high percentage of the site for storm-water holding ponds.
. Almost 1/3 of the site is devoted to wetlands, storm-water ponds, trails, or parle.
. The 5' waiver on side-yard setback has precedent in other parts of the City.
. The average lot width is in excess of 60' .
. The 15' distance between houses would be a minimum, in some cases a buyer
would chose a smaller floor plan or a two car garage, that would result in meeting
the 20' setback.
; The City Staff recommends four acres of the property for dedication. If all lots
met the side-yard set back requirement, it would eliminate the land dedication
possible for park. The reduction in side-yard set-back by five feet and minimum
width equate to four acres of land, that is better used as City Park land, and open
game fields.
. Because of the more than twelve acres of storm water area required, for every
acre reduction in stOl1n water pond one acre of park could be dedicated.
. The four acres of City park land made possible by the reduction in side-yards can
be aggregated with other planned dedications currently being discussed with the
City, to help meet the City's Comprehensive Plan goals for park in the
neighborhood.
Park (Trails ( Park Development
The City staff has suggested that it is appropriate to provide a combination of: cash park
fee, parkland, and parkland development for this neighborhood. The cash park fee for
211 homes would currently be $2,660/home and $4,470/ acre for commercial and office
area. Shakopee's ordinance provides when a combination of land, cash, and development
is required by the City, that the fair market value of land that the City wants for park
dedication plus the actual cost of park development be subtracted from the cash park fee.
In addition, the City my give credit for any private recreational amenity. Ryland is
planning to build a neighborhood pool for this development.
~V~t8 ,.,...C
~/<<-
In this case, the fair market value (as defined by City ordinance) of the four acres of
parkland to be dedicated exceeds the cash park fee and trail and park development. Any
cash park fee, plus additional public and private park development become an additional
mitigation supportive of reduced setback and lot width requirements.
Natural Features
There is a three and one-half acre wetlalld at the southwestern boundary of the site. This
will be preserved in its' entirety and protected with storm-water ponds. We are
proposing a trail for dedication to the City along it the northern border ofthe wetland. A
wetland report has been compiled and the wetland has been previously identified and
approved by the City.
We have done a tree inventory of the northwestern and northeastern treed areas ofthe
site. The areas are shown on the City's Natural Resources Inventory as Type 2 and Type
3 woods of lower quality and condition. Because of the engineering requirements for the
site, it must be raised 4-8' and the trees will be removed. The Landscape plan far
exceeds the replacement required by the City.
Landscape Plan
The Landscape Plall provides a tree on each single-family lot, in excess of the ordinance
requirement. In addition, evergreen landscape and fencing buffers are planned along the
County Roads. The number of trees required for tree mitigation exceeds the City
ordinance.
Summary
Ryland Homes is pleased to propose a Preliminary Plat for a single-family, mixed-use
development on this site. We have worked with the City staff to develop a plall that
meets the City's goals in a way that also makes the development of single-family feasible
on a site designated for higher density. We are able to offer a Public/Private parle and
trail package that becomes a part of a larger planned City system, to provide needed
recreational amenities for the residents of this new neighborhood.
r-~ respect~lly request your positive consideration of Riverside Fields.
l!J~
I LJ ", '
Chris Enger 0
Land Resources Manager
Ryland Homes, Twin Cities Division
e,,\-t \&fr c..
&SI"
NOISE RESPONSE
The proposed Riverside Grove-Shakopee Crossings Development has the potential to
generate noise fi-om two types of sources:
. Construction activities;
. Additional traffic generated by the development.
Significant noise impacts occur when:
0 Noise levels increase by ~ 3 decibels (dBA);
. Noise levels exceed state staJ.1.dards.
There are two descriptors for state noise standards:
. L 1 0 - the 90th percentile in which noise levels are exceeded 10 percent of the time.
. L50 - the 50th percentile in which noise levels are exceeded 50 percent of the time.
Minnesota noise standards are listed by time of day and land use in the attached table.
Noise impacts fi'om construction of the development may exceed the state noise standards
for a limited period of time. Every effort will be made to reduce construction noise by
ensuring that all equipment has proper noise reduction devices.
Noise impacts from post-project traffic volumes were evaluated using the STAMINA 2.0
(FHWA 1982) model provided by Jv1NDOT. STAMINA 2.0 predicts A-weighted noise
levels (LEQ, LI0, L50 and L90) based on traffic VOh1l11e, speed, and vehicle type. For tIns
analysis, velncles were placed into three categories: cars, medium trucks, and heavy trucks.
The principal source of additional noise may be future traffic generated along the roadways
surrounding the proposed development, mainly CSAH 18 and proposed Road D. The
nearest residences are located approximately 60 feet north of CSAH 18 along the southem
edge of the proposed development. Other potentially noise sensitive areas include any
nearby schools, churches or parks, hotels, as well as outdoor restaurants.
Only daytime (rush hour) impacts were predicted using 8T AMJNA 2.0. Nighttime noise
standards only differ from daytime noise standards in residential areas. Peak nighttime
traffic is assumed to be 78 percent of the peak daytime volume using :tv1::l\!l)OT methods.
E.~\-l\~n- ~
C,lv
The following vehicle type percentages were used:
. Cars: 96 percent;
" Medium trucks: 3 percent;
. Heavy trucks: 1 percent.
Traffic volumes provided by Benshoof & Associates, Inc. were used for the STAMINA 2.0
model runs. The worst-case condition traffic, PM peak-hour traffic, was used for this
modeling.
The attached table (Stamina Noise Modeling Results) slUnmarizes the STAlv1INA 2.0 model
results for 2006 and 2020 Build Conditions at the Riverside Grove-Shakopee Crossings
Development. The 'No Barrier' Scenario does not consider a reduction in noise propagation
via trees, benTIS, walls, etc. and is included as a baseline model only.
The existing tree line along CSAR 18, which will remain under the build condition, will
serve as a noise balTier and is modeled tmder the 'Tree Barrier' Scenario. Results
surrunarized in the table indicate that modeled noise levels lUlder the Barlier Scenario
slightly exceed state standards at one receptor, R-2, under both 2006 and 2020 build
conditions. R-2 is located approximately 50 feet nOliheast ofCSAR 18 near the back lot
line of the proposed residential area. The LI0 standard was exceeded by 2.5 and 0.1
decibels for the 2006 and 2020 build conditions, respectively, and the L50 standard was
exceeded by 0.7 decibels for the 2006 build condition. It should be noted that completion
of alternate traffic routes, namely CSAH 21, will reduce traffic voltmles on CSAH 18
between 2006 and 2020.
Although state noise standards are slightly exceeded near the southem edge ofthe proposed
residential area, noise levels within residential buildings should have no detrimental effects
to human health and wiUnot require special construction materials or procedures. Open
windows and doors may increase noise levels in celtain residences near CSAR 18. To
mitigate tbis possibility, a row of trees or bushes, 5 to 10 feet tall, with ground to crown
cover may be planted along C8AR 18 or the back lot line of the residential development
nearest C8AR 18.
Additional mitigation measures to further decrease noise levels in the vicinity of the
development include:
II Reduction of the speed limit along noise-sensitive sections oflocal roadways;
. Installation of a additional noise barriers (e,g., walls, berms, trees);
. Combination of reduced speeds and barTier installation.
!'\e4-t, ~ rr 0
'It.
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
MEMORANDUM
To: Shakopee Planning Commission
Michael Leek, Community Development Director
From: Mark J. McQuillan, Natural Resources Director
Mark Themig, Facilities and Recreation Director
Subject: Preliminary Plat Review of the Riverside Fields and Variance for side & rear
setbacks and lot width
Date: July 29, 2003
INTRODUCTIONI BACKGROUND
Chris Enger of Ryland Group, Inc. has appeared before the Park and Recreation Advisory Board
(PRAB) and the Environmental Advisory Committee and presented a Preliminary Plat for
Riverside Fields. Riverside Fields is an eighty-acre parcel located west of CRi8 and in the
southeast corner of future County Road 21.
The site is guided and zoned for Planned Residential Development. The Applicant is requesting a
PRD and proposes an office use and commercial use on 10 acres, medium- size single family
residential on 47 acres, smaller lot single family on 19 acres, four (4) acres of city parkland, a
private park with a private pool and about a Y2 mile of recreation trail in addition to neighborhood
sidewalks.
On the southwestern area of the site is three and one-half acres of wetland that the applicant
intends to preserve. The Applicant proposes to construct and elevated trail (levee) and storm-
water ponds north and adjacent to the wetlands. The Applicant has offered to include
environmental interpretive signs along the trail by the wetlands with staff's cooperation.
The applicant has submitted a tree inventory and tree replacement plan for their development.
The woodland areas are shown on the City's NRI as Medium and Low Quality woods. Removal
of trees will occur because the site must be raised anywhere from 4' to 8'. Ryland is removing a
total of 306 trees. Normal landscaping requirements of one tree per lot equates to 211 trees
(lots) at 2.5 inches or 527 caliper inches. Replacement caliper inches 306 trees at 1.5' minimum
equates to 459 caliper inches. The total tree replacement schedule indicates the developer
would need to plat a total of 986.5 caliper inches. Ryland's plan proposes to plant 1,171.5 caliper
inches, which exceeds the City's requirements.
This site was included in the Shakopee Crossings September 2000 AUAR.
The City's Comprehensive park Plan identifies a need for an eight acre park in this area. Staff has
held numerous discussions with Applicant to look at a variety of options. Those options included
the following:
1. That park dedication requirement be met through land dedication.
a. This option would ensure a large 8-acre park for the area, but may impact the
type of development being proposed. It could be, at least, 3-5 years before it can
be developed.
2. That park dedication requirement be met through a cash contribution in lieu of parkland,
and be paid at time of recording the final plat.
a. This option would provide additional cash for the development of future parks,
but it could leave a deficiency of parkland in this area as identified in the Park
Compo Plan.
"E ~~ \ e .,- 0
~/7-
3. That park dedication requirement be met through a combination of land and cash
dedication.
a. This option has been proposed by the Applicant, with possible improvements
made to the park by the developer.
4. Deny approval of the plat as presented.
PRAB RECOMMENDATION
The PRAB was a member short of having a qorum when this plat went before them on June 23,
2003. However, from the discussion the Applicant had with the three members that evening, the
general consensus of the members present were as follows:
1. The Applicant shall dedicate approximately 4.2 acres of parkland to satisfy the need for a
park to serve this area, and a 20' trail area for a total of approximately 5.7 acres.
2. The Applicant shall construct and install an 8-foot wide asphalt trail along the % mile
levee trail, a trail/sidewalk along the north side of "Commercial Streee', and other
trails/sidewalk areas as shown in the Preliminary Plat.
3. The Applicant shall make additional improvements to the park area including adding
adequate fill to ensure the park does not experience high water issues, 6 inches of
topsoil, grading, turf establishment, playground equipment, picnic areas/shelter, and open
space for field games, which would satisfy and possibly exceed the park dedication
requirements.
4. The developer should work with staff and bring back development options of the park to
the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board for review prior to recording of the final plat.
EAC RECOMMENDATION
The EAC recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat with the following conditions:
1. The Applicant shall implement the use of Best Management Practices for erosion control
and stormwater management during construction.
2. The Applicant should transplant healthy young trees on site whenever possible.
3. The developer shall install rain sensors for the irrigation system.
4. The homeowners association shall develop a management plan for the sustainability of
the wetlands and native plantings proposed in the preliminary plat.
5. The Applicant shall include 6 inches of topsoil on the entire site.
6. That all sprinklers owned and operated by the Homeowners Association have rain
sensors as require by State Law.
7. The Applicant shall construct houses using construction materials and methods for indoor
noise mitigation.
8. The Applicant shall incorporate a berm and/or six-foot fence with a variety of trees along
CR21 and CR18, or wherever appropriate, to mitigate noise from the highways.
E 1C tot \~ \T"" E..
( 13
City of Shakopee
Memorandum
TO: Mark Noble, Planner I
FROM: Joe Swentek, Project Engineer
SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat - Riverside Fields
DATE: July 31,2003
After reviewing the above referenced application, I have the following comments for the
applicant and for the planning department:
Recommendation
I recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat subject to the following conditions being
addressed prior to Final Plat approval:
A. Preliminary Plat:
1. The right-of-way width for Street #1 shall be a minimum of 66-feet.
2. The applicant shall submit a traffic report to City staff for the area near the
Street #1 intersection with County Road 18. Once City staff approves a
traffic report, an adequate 100-foot right-of-way corridor length shall be
determined for the Street #1 entrance to the property.
3. A wetland mitigation plan shall be submitted and approved by City staff.
4. The applicant shall vacate the Minnesota Valley Electric Coop easement.
5. The plat shall show all easements on all lots.
6. Easements must be shown on the Final Plat as approved by the City
Engineer.
7. The survey data (length and bearings) shall be shown for each lot as well as
the plat boundary.
B. Preliminary Grading and Erosion Control Plan:
l. Show all proposed erosion control devices (silt fence, rock construction
entrance, inlet protection, etc.).
2. The applicant shall obtain an NPDES permit prior to grading operations
commencing.
C: \ IVrNDO W5\ Temporary I ntemel File,IO LK2C I \Prelim Pial. Review. RivcrsideFields I.doc lof3
E ~....., ~ \T e,
No slopes shall exceed 3: 1. No slopes shall be less than 1 %. 2,/~
3.
4. Denote all high points and low points (label with spot elevations and
drainage arrows).
5. Provide top of curb elevations at each intersection with drainage arrows
showing drainage patterns.
6. Provide a cross-pan (as per City standards and specifications) at all
intersections where drainage flows through.
7. Catch basins shall not be located within driveways (the minimum offset
between the edge of a catch basin and the edge of a driveway shall be 5-
feet).
8. Low point catch basins shall not be staggered.
9. The Normal Water Elevation (NWL) and High Water Elevation (HWL) shall
be shown for each pond.
10. Emergency overflows shall be shown for each low point (within the streets
and rear yards).
11. The emergency overflow (with spot elevations and drainage arrows) shall be
shown for all ponds and drainage ways (two feet of freeboard shall be
provided).
12. All pedestrian ramps shall be located at mid-radius as per City standards.
13. No mid-block pedestrian ramps shall be allowed.
14. Lot lines and easements shall be shown on the Grading and Erosion Control
sheet and proposed spot elevations provided for each lot comer
(corresponding lot and block numbers shall be shown).
15. No site grading will be allowed until preliminary plan and profile sheets for
street and utility work are approved by the City Engineer.
16. Prior to construction, surveyor's bench loop notes shall be submitted
showing the benchmarks for this site have been established using the City of
Shakopee's approved benchmark system.
C. Preliminary Utility Plan:
1. Cable-crete (or approved equal) shall be installed at all FES. Provide a
detail on the detail sheets.
2. Provide a cross-pan (as per City standards and specifications) at all
intersections where drainage flows through.
C:W/lNDOWS\Temporary Internet Files\OLKlC I 'Prelirn. Plat.Re,;ew.Ri"erside.Fields I.doc 200
E't.+t'~\T ~
'I!>
3. The applicant shall provide City staff with pavement calculations to be
approved.
4. Provide top of curb elevations at each intersection with drainage arrows
showing drainage patterns.
5. All pedestrian ramps shall be located at mid-radius as per City standards.
6. Catch basins shall not be located within driveways (the minimum offset
between the edge of a catch basin and the edge of a driveway shall be 5-
feet).
7. Low point catch basins shall not be staggered.
8. The proposed 18" PVC sanitary sewer main along the East side of the
property shall be extended to the Southeast property line.
D. Preliminary Landscaping Plan:
1. No landscaping shall be located within the right-of-way.
C:'WINDOWS'T cmpcrary lntcmct Filcs\OLK2C I\PrclimPlat.Rcvicw.Ri\'crside.Fieldsl.doc )co
f,c-M t8 rr F"
\/~
ri SCOTT COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION
~
'l..~~~"~ !. J. HIGHW A Y DEPARTMENT, 600 COU NTRY TRAIL EAST, JORDAN, MN 55352-9339
''Scott (952) 496-8346' Fax: (952) 496-8365. www.ca.scott.mn.us
, ~ I ~l .'! /, !
I _~. 'i!-=- ~.. Q= ~.-
LEZLlE A. VERMILLION
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
BRADLEY J. lARSON
COUNTY HIGHW A Y ENGINEER
July 7,2003
Mark Noble
City of Shakopee
129 South Holmes Street
Shakopee, MN 55379
RE: Preliminary Plat, Riverside Meadow
West of CSAH 18 and South of Future CSAH 21
Dear Mark:
The COtmty is working on an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for future CSAH 21. There is an existing 200
foot corridor for future CSAH 21 abutting the north side of this plat. The scoping document has indicated the
potential for a 300 foot corridor for CSAH 21. This development proposal could limit the options the County has to
develop a road alignment for future CSAH 21 or intersection/interchange design for CSAH 21/CSAH
18/Southbridge Parkway. If the City chooses go forward with the development without changes to the plat, we
offer the following comments.
. At this time, the County is not in a position to determine whether an additional 100 feet of right-of-way is
needed. The developer has been made aware of the potential need for additional right-of-way. The County
appreciates that the developer has left proposed structures and most residential lots out of the possible 100 feet
of additional right-of-way. However, if a 300 foot corridor is needed it would impact the rear yard of some
proposed homes. We request at this time, that at a minimum, a 50 foot drainage/utility and trail easement be
placed on aU property adjacent to future CSAH 21. We also request that the lots that could be impacted by the
potential 100 feet of additional right-of-way be reserved for the last phase of the development, and that these
lots are not sold until some the preliminary design issues regarding future CSAH 21 have been resolved. We
anticipate a preliminary design for future CSAH 21 to be drafted over this winter. If the lots that could be
impacted were reserved, the County/City would have the opportunity to acquire the lots if it is determined that
the lots would be. needed for the construction of CSAH 21 in the future.
. The landscaping plan shows proposed plantings and fence to be adjacent to the County right-of-way for future
CSAH 21. We recommend that these plantings and fence be moved to rear yards of the individual residential
lots. This would allow for the landscaping and fencing to be mostly outside the additional 100 feet ofright-of-
way that could be needed in the future. Even if additional permanent right-of-way would not be needed, any
landscaping in the area they are proposing to place it may have to be removed to properly grade CSAH 21.
+ Noise issues may arise as traffic levels increase on CSAH 18 and once CSAH 21 is open to traffic. The
application material incorrectly states that noise mitigation is the responsibility of the County. As per 7030 of
Minnesota Rules, noise attenuation is the responsibility of the land use authority.
+ The noise report that was submitted with the packet does not address future CSAH 21 or indicate the
name/company that prepared the noise report.
~\(+t\~\-r f'
?, I,.. Riverside Meadows
Page 2
No landscaping, ponding, benning, or signage shall be permitted within the County right-of-way. .
..
.. Any change in drainage entering the County right-of-way shall require detailed stormwater calculations to be
submitted to the County engineer for review and approval.
.. We request a street light to be installed at the intersection of CSAH 18 and the proposed collector street.
.. A County access permit shall be required for Street 1 at CSAH 18. A right and left turn lane on CSAH 18 shall
be required. No other accesses or direct access shall be granted to the development.
.. Any work within the County right-of-way shall require a pernlit.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Craig Jenson
Transportation Planner
Email: Brad Larson, COllnty Engineer
Leslie Vermilliol1, COlUlly Public Works Director
Michael Leek, City of Shako pee
Bruce LOlley, City of Shakopee
Dean Robbins, Pioneer Engineering
c\C.+l\e\T .~
SHAKO PEE PUBLIC UTILITIES
MEMORANDUM
TO: Shakopee Community Development Department ~ ~
FROM: Joseph D. Adams, Planning and Engineering Director ~
SUBJECT: ST AFF REVIEW RECORD COMMENTS for:
Preliminary Plat for Riverside Meadow and
Variance for side & rear setbacks and lot width.
CASE NO: 03077
DATE: If'l;lv;
COMMENTS:
Municipal water service is available subject to our standard terms and conditions. These
include, but are not limited to: installing a lateral water main distribution system in
accordance with utility policy, paying the associated inspections costs, paying the Tnmk
Water Charge, and paying the Water Connection Charge.
Underground electric service is available subject to our standard terms and conditions.
These include, but are not limited to: entering into an Underground Distribution
Agreement, granting any necessary easements, and paying the associated fees.
Street Lighting installation is available subject to our standard terms and conditions.
These are contained in the current City of Shakopee Street Lighting Policy. Applicant
must pay the associated fees.
Applicant should contact Shakopee Public Utilities directly for specific requirements
relating to their project.
Note: SPUC recently increased the rates for the UG Electric Charge, Trunk Water
Charge, and \-Vater Connection Charge. The new rates will apply to this
proposed project.
A 16" Trunk \Vaterrnain along CSAH 18 and a 12" Trunk Watermain in
proposed Street 1 will be required within this development.
RIVERSIDE FIELDS SHEET INDEX (f)
\ 1. COVER SHEET/SITE PLAN 0
-'
PRELIMINARY PLANS \ 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS w
\ l.J...
\ 3. PRELIMINARY PLAT w
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOT \ 4. PRELIMINARY GRADING 0
\ 5. PRELIMINARY PROFILES (/)
"'~ /' /' 0:::
\ 6. PRELIMINARY PROFILES w
'" /' >
/' \ 7. PRELIMINARY UTILITIES
/' 0:::
/' \ TR1.
/" TREE PRESERVATION PLAN
/" \
/" ...-- - --...... TR2. TREE PRESERVATION PLAN
SETBACKS / '
----- /' \
-----
30' FRONT -------- , , \ L1. LANDSCAPE PLAN
--- /'
30' REAR --- --- \ L2. LANDSCAPE PLAN
10' HOUSE SIDE
5' GARAGE SIDE \ L3. LANDSCAPE PLAN
20' SIDE (CORNER LOT) ""
30' REAR COUNTY
"-
"- ~"""(~ , ~ r'i;~
" ~ ~ ~ ~
me""'" 'i L.J
"- ~ ~ g
"-
"- AUG 1 1 2003
"-
"-
" Pi () r~ b::t:.R
'v
E!\!GiNEfJ~ING) F?!\.
0 '0 100 200
~ I I
GRAPHIC SCALE JN FEET
[rEId bE] SEQi'
g __45 J
LOCA TION MAP [f!ld " bEl]
*
PRFPARtD RY PIONFF:R ENGINfFRING PA
DEAN M. ROBBINS
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL CIVIL ENGINEER
41968 ~~
REG. NO. . ' ,
.JOHN C lARSON . 4~__J
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL lAND SURVEYOR ~
' I
19828 ~ 6~_j
REG. NO.
~"
~ I I
DEVELOPER ~B__j
RYLAND HOMES ~
7900 W. 76TH STREET r~ ~
SUITE 100
EDINA, MN. 55439 I I
l ,/
l..___..."
The informatIon and/or renderings and mops contained herein, such as street
and lot locotirm, dimensions. creos, londscoplnt;l ond amenities. ore of the
sole purpose of depleting (I possible use of the properties. and are subject
to chonge, no representation or warranty os 10 zoning. development
ownership or land use of such properties is b(ling mode, and Bu)'l9fs should
nol ond wl1l nol rely on the informotion and! or renderlnC}s and mops or
views contained herein In deciding to pl.lrchase ony properly. atc.
Pioneer Engineering, P.A. make no wOrT(lnlles or representations of any kind RECREA
or choracter. ewpressed or Impllecl. with respect to the matters depleted or
coverad by the rendering. drawing9 and other Information herein.
For detall9 of ewlstlna developed ore09, refer to the recorded fhal plot.
The owners of the property shown ond their successors and assigns resefVe
the right to make zoning, development Q'lInllr",*,ip Q'IId/or ond use changes for
any part(s) of the properlles.
The developer reserves 1he rlgM to change the pions without further notice.
SUbject to City and oil Government approvals.
...**~
: PIONEER 1. REVISED RIGI-lT-or-WAY & LOT UNES
If. engineering .. Revi9ians Dote 6-05-03 SHED TIRE OWNER PROJECT
I hereby certify that this pion was prepared by me Of under my Nome Reg. No._ 1.8-7-03
*",,,,'1< direct supervision ond thot I om 0 duly LIcensed Prolesslonal De!!li ned Ol.lR COVER SH EET RYLAND HOMES RIVERSIDE FIELDS 7 SHEETS
Engineer under the lows of the Stole oJ Mlnnesoto. Si9no\Ure Oo~e~ Drown BAT
/ \
/
/ \ TOTAL AREA ____________79.8209 ACRES
,.' ^
,0/'. TOT~L R.O.W. AREA ______________14.3475 ACRES
~, \
' , "
r\) , 'b TOTAL LOT AREA ______________57.2062 ACRES
(-.V / '
() , TOTAL OUTLOT AREA _________B.2672 ACRES
"S~, / Q V \ TOTAL OUTLOTS ___________2
(' \'(...... ... '\-
,.-/ ~ ',-, NUMBER Of' LOTS ____________-211
~ \
_'I':';./" \~, LARGEST LOT (RESIDENTIAL) _________49,497 SQ. FT.
.-C~ \ \...1, ..-/ \.J
,oQ::;~ ~ --:, SMALLEST LOT (RESlDENTIAL)______5,640 SQ. n.
(."" ./" ' \
';) AVERAGE LOT (RESlOENTIAL)___________ll,BIO SQ. FT.
r"; ~ r;:"
~~\ '0"c- ~ ~, '-.! \ 0 '0 to, 200 GROSS DENSITY (EXCLUDES OUTLOTS, LOT 34, BLK. 2 & LOT 65, BU<. I) ____3.4 RESIDENTI~L LOTS/AC.
,-c' ,\:,,,,1 \'", I . r I
c.Q''-' ,f" ----- ,I 65 ~~ NET DENSITY (EXCLUDES OUTLOTS, R/W, LOT 34, BU<. 2 &: LOT 85, BU<. I) __4.4 RESIDENTIAL LOTS/AC.
--' ---- ~ \ 383,6B9SF .~ ~
-- " ~~ 1 ,..~ ,../;. ~ ,\ GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET ZONING ____ ___....PRO
(-' 0 v ~~~~.., / ~~'" //:'-/
'-' ,,'{jJ "/,, . -^ UTILITIES ____________ AV~ILAIlLE
/\ /~/'/ /' ())
f,>-Y// , ::' "- \S\
~ -K _'" '\ / <i ('\. U:CAI DF~r.RIP1l0N roo PREliMINARY PI A T PURF'DSF.~ ONLY
~ ,,~~. " All thot port of 1he Northwest Quarter 01 SectIon 13, 10wnshlp 115, Range 20, Scott County
<./ "" Minnesota l)'Ing southwesterly or Ihe !Southwest right of woy line of County Stole AIde Highwoy No.
e :,/./ ",00 "" IB and 'Southeosterly of the soulheasl rIght 01 woy line of County Rood No. 21.
-\ "[~~) -
--- Co "- 10, ,I~ <.J
<.:~ f..."^ / \~\..). <.r"-
','" "- '," /_C'::;;, ~,' PREPARED BY PIONEER ENGINEERING. PA.
'" /- " /-.0./ <""'.....".J..
V IT <':// JOHN C. LARSON
~;>".rf} REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR
'')<,''^ '00 "( 19828
'" ' REG. NO.
>
, "
,-, "
"):U "
0\ ,e, "- ^/
~I "- 0,
, ~ (,/"
I" "'" ." '"
~I ll.266sr6:g ~-l /,..)
125 00 t.>".:" '-",1
I ~ J/,.<, ,/ DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
~I ..",..5:il ~ :il17','"" ')<'_ "- EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS:
1~ a 124 '" ~
o \I
~ 6,26<lSf'4 g ~'8".'JOSf" 1 " 5-1
125 ~ 121 "J."'...., '" II
It ~ C I-<;
5119'''''' 51 ill ..". "24::0 :;;45'~"" '" m '.'" "50~ ~1:Z""" ~ .. II ..
~ 118 '" 0 0 126 N - 130 l09::! ,... _____J____J L____l_____
' ril20!!l,898Sl' ~ s,B92Sr23M ...--- t'll46e.290SF ~:ri 6.520SF"4 ~ :ri13!!1.84-PSI' ~ or) "I~r ~
' liB ttB g 0 126 126 9 113
, "It" t'l being -5 feet in width, and adjoining lot
~ '"t "It" <0 '"t ~ 0 8.J27 SF 0 7537 Sf" ~ 7766 SF ~ ~ 7.1151 Sf" fines unless otherwise indicated, and
~ s.ol'SF'1;1j:~ 1D2F.551Sf <o7,M0522 <0 8,.0S9st tOr-- '4B~ r--' :ci1O' <0 33 " 10 feet in width ond adjoining street
125 ::160 118 118 60 47126 124 SO 14115 112 151 60 1'\1 " lines and rear lot fines unless otherwise
" indicated on 1he plot.
~ ~~ CROSSING (, BOULEVARD "-
~ i~ ~ "-
~ 125 ~! 1\8 118 125 125 116 lOB 1 60 126 "'-
~ ~ ..... " If) 60 In ~:02&" n. ~ 111.0:12 .,8~ g: 60 9 U7~ ~. IL g 10.01.) .q. it g 60 ~ 10,1{)1 Iq. It. If) 1M2:!, IICI. fl. I() ~ 11,107 lIq. fl. ::g "
'" -.. ,. '" ",.. - . . - 10 1 65 ~ 64'" 48 '"
8 \25 ~ 118 118 ~ 124 125 ~ 119 118 bJ 125 ~ US? SF 46 : ~
~<( ~ Z 9 2 Z "" ..
~ 7.92!1SF" l{}. ~lLI Q) 7,73BSF :s 7,872:50 :3 ~ :g a,078 SF :g 1I.1B~5r lB ~ :g 7,76$SI' l2 7.6SSs63:g ~ 'i949B.12SST:2 156 ~
2 I::; ::r:U on84 121 11881 c:( 124 126 <. 66120 118 0 125 e.
~It: It 8 3 It 62 It: ;t .
~O ~ 8.2'\liSl" 'i2 7,l!.71'" ~ ~ r6 1l.0!5SF ~ II.li2.SF ~ ~ :2 1.8D!lsr :g 7.6fflSf" :g ~ :2SOll.t2SSF ~
_ 85 131 11880 Ii 124 126 ~ 67,20 118 ~ 12' ~
Z 7 4 z 61 w 0
~ 7."'" :ll iil :ll ',83' " :'J 4 .",,,, l\l iil :ll 7.... .. :ll 7.... " ~ i!< :ll 51 ....." ').0 ""-
11679 12J 127 68 121 117 ts \47 . __ ~
78 ~ :;: 6 5 ~ ~..,," ~ 60 ~ r
~ 4,31!"9' N 11.1MST <r 1Z,&OeY .'--17l 69' ~ 7,&.J35F <0
1.01 e ... 1 117
\21 23 ., i-- -:;::____1__ -----1
t ~a, ~ I J
'~~. ~..::.'{ \ t I
o. C' I - .< I
~ .".1.1',. ,(<v"- r~
N'q /_~~____j
I .
~ ~ I ~c I
;:-- I ;:-..: I
~ I ' I
,,' ~ ..~~ I ~:0- I
,-","~olo. I"') C'J 'J
'C-'>
.... 4-9491ST I I
332,.2!lll:SF /") ., I
<,.':, L __ _ __ -----1- n _ h--1
/. '
, &I SECTION 13. TWP. 115. RGE. 20
214 24' LOCA TION MAP
NO SCALE
~I A
-"I\~"""1t IJ/'.:-'("'" II r\rll"I'"\/\1 '1\'-" I ~ ... _ _ I
I L.V.........vrll \L_"":: nUUI I IVl 'I r V -'rl ^ J( "a...)C r:.
......... f\/\V, L_L_
1) RE~S(D RIGHl Of WAYS & lOT liNeS
I hereby certify that 1his plon wo~ prepared by me or under. my direct Nome ~e~:~cnsB_7_03 Dole 6-5-03 SHEET TlllF OWNER PROJECi
,"P''';';'"Q,dlho",m,d"'y''g;'t~.dP,"I''';~QIE'g"","'d'' 0.., ,d PRELIMINARY PLAT RYLAND HOMES RIVERSIDE FIELDS 7 SHEETS
tho laws 01 the State of Minnesota Reg. No. _ Dole nrown
" . · } ',,- t~+h9" IT' e3J
I f I. I r/~J' ~\ .-.~ -'-. ~ 7~
\ ) I J. '- . \ ,..... 1 ~- , I . ~
. ., , " . . I ~ , ! .. / ,
-M V 1\11\\\ " " \;, ...-../ '-', .' .~ 'E . E TOTALS _' ....
.----.- - -"- '~\\' 1\ '.- f." ~. " TRE " ......r
. ,=~. '-' -' ,,," .. " . r-- ., / _ .' ",',
' I '"'Y- ~?"~.(#'['?"""7' _.,~';, \lh.\l~ i 1\ -. ~_, /1 _=>---__,! ";"= ,. '_) l\
I , . , V -'. ;.0' ~ ff .. '" .. . '... ", '''': I '___ ,. I / \ 1 I 50 '7.0 I
I I ! ! ..\'\...............--Z~.. '1'1<~-?'.~>>-%~~~~~..'.Jlr"r~~ \\\i;.~:~. ,,\\;,'i\ 1 i!l \ / I(!! ,/ __'~_ _'<__'-' i IHAZAR\lED \665...../ 93.Q.)" '_'"
" I I i I /. LL,/ A ..., "-"-~'''''''' \\\~~.., .' \\l~H\ I ~_ ~ ...., . ,____ ~ " I 'REMO . )
~I--....... i I, f. \: ,j'. \.~.,--...~Q' -:;:; 0 .AA~.........)". <,., -::..~--:::: \~ ~\\\~\ :l) \ ~ '\ \,.W:\,' \. - ,I \...__..... \ \.. [ I \ ITOTAL [715\ (IOO.O%:.f-J
. . '. ", ~ . ."."...., ". , . . .. . ,
i i . ----.. ~'~~..3-._j ,i i' \",-" .,., ",\m;~ / J \ \ \, \~': \~: ,I \It '-" I ~ -", \, \ ", { { \ .~, \ \ "OS! F'>REST
· .~ ':::;;:;:." . / I ! ! '~"::;:;9iV >'>~,\\~~ ' \\ \~'-"" Y r\ '- '; , I '" ..: ~ I'ME"UM .O~ITY __':~)QOL" ..jf
/II ~~~~:~~HV!l()?::~.... ~. ---~~--:~~_.... :0, :/ .1I:.1ii~!!'iIDJ'! ~~\" ~~~\~~~~\~~\\~'\\~\\>";"""""-":;"'\l""-"'" \ \ '\1' 1,I.f f{i"",\\ /.... \\ li50a/2lQ"1J2AL541~~d;~^:;P.:A~;5~~Q~~",
' - --, , - '.. . ... ..,..,...,........,...,.,...., 5:" , ..' . ., " c . .. , , ., """" " ." . p. ,
". ! I 1Q,".""~.2~~~_ ...-" .-.,..-' )1';,p. "~.!:>...'...:jiHnWnnHiH1HnL~~nt l (:'-.......~\~~\\.~ ',,\\~\\~\\M:...-.......J/.Il\. /"l ,1 j !;j l-~~} } ) \ \,1 \..__... (;;;'~..i.._3
' , .. . , ,"'... ."'.'.'.".,,,,,.,,,, .,.,,,., .... ''''. , ,~ " , ,w, ",. . ", ., . . _ . _
/ )! I 0" ,/' ~l\ ::~~..:!iiii!iEm~mjjiljijl~jlji'i) ~1\W:~1~~\ .\\~~\C ~/ / ///~;:-::::~~/': j!! LtWOUAUTYV<lOOLA~~~ f~
1 t (I' ..-/I / ...',. "W"""""",,,.,:,,!!,,,!!!!~~ v . . ,,~\~ '.. ,\i',~\\<&,./ I , f '-'7....~ ;' ii { r'" TO ,""-^~V--::'--__
/ 'J \.._/ \ I ..,'......-...........~ J jl""- .i / ~0' ~~',:;.~:;,~5::..1nHll~;~k:::-l \.~:~., "~\~~~\'~~ .J..' ~..::~~\:~~:\N,~~ /,1 \.../ .~ 1 J[ 1..1L~7W~~c:L~T~ ~;LANP~~::'051~J.5-;;;:q:_._,
. '.''''---. ". L-V-V" ., " ~,...o/'h.. ..,. r,tr:... ?',;.! ." "'~ ~., .\' ''I: ,'. ~.~' \.'. , I . '\. ::J.' . f.;,.- f "'. .' .,:___ ~
~ /" ". ", -""'" J- .' .... { ;'. ", ~VA:%:< ::iii:' . ~..' .;.:.8,j:..~;,~. '"'- 0 \No AREA I \\\ \ \\\ ...... . '.:'~;'" ..~~...! i / l '~-:::..._.,"_.., \ /;,'~ l .J .Jl1'~ / I
.. , . . y~... ... ... .., , ". . . '., , .- '- ., .. ',. ,
't=Jt---J !/'-.... ..\ I ./} '/ ~:V~"" ~o~rt .~%~.II.../:. ,:.....:.:. . :'~~F~~~!:f~~' ,~!-~ \\~~\; l~.-"",:\ "__-.../" ---... I ~;iJtAW. ,.,,~,~~_
2, "\! i i .' l~ : ~ J ~l>~ . ~~. .... .../ ..: · "YM;;;;;;;. "" .., ~-7 ",", \\'\~\~~I'~"'~'- . \ ,I r"~: ~""'K)' r" "'I' ~!.-"... .
- . , ,. ~ ~ , '. ".=, . ".. . .... . ....,."....,. ,'-, . " ""', " " , , .'.' . . ,
i \ if -7', ?"~e~;..,~~ ~~,~ :;"',..~,~. " ~. ~ )Ir~~\$~...:'\ 'l.. ~..~~~.$~ \. j 1/' .....~ oF1,k,06LANbs.. IS1,1S2A s~illl ',1 ~ r
'\ ~" ~~ ="= ~."..,. .... ..,..... ""'"., ... ~- ,>' """'."". , , \, -'.'AL".F,\, , ... ",.,
!~'?~~.\ ~~~' ~~~A,:.,'".~/!!',.,.::,i,;!!;'::>,:"..... ~~~4 ,~\.:""~ ~~ ,\, \ I I ( Yo " .--.,)\\.. _ \ '\!\ GlW'!IlC 3CJJ.E III rEE'l'
'.-=-" ~--- . ~ ~...... ....... .. ....,., '\ ~J "",,,~~...,,,,,,,,-, ~ " J. , ,_ '. \ .\
;~ - ~ - "~&.?"" ,,~. ,.... .. .", .."'.....,,i. .",. . .""" III ,....".'''';'%.'~'''''' ~"""'.",'" "" ", I ,,____ ''\ \ , ,
' ".+ ~ .",------, ~~..-<>. . . "~i i;.> .: ~,.: ;,:;i 'i .,,"':,;;i'; "::,<,; 'i. , ., '( I ~,,"'. "" '; ~''''~ ... '-.. " '" ",. i .."..', --iN- .moo! ,
~~~~~~7//)~:;;>(~,l"Ci..~~~~.:..:,:'..... .::~.!.::::i:.0.::.~:k~i:.::+;:.~, ..........~}.";.;:ii;~.::~~~.,'!''\:~~"\ ~~:::'~'\,..~t~ 1,1 ,i J 1:':::~~1'::::r:l~OOOi:~DARE~, ~~.\~\ \~, \
!-- ~ .. ~ , 1I!!!l ... . ..,...",....... . . ...,.. .,...: ~" - R.l.~0"'1 ...",,,.. . .','" " " "" ~'" v \ "".,',.w,.,,'.... \ ' \ \ '
' (L=.-, ". . ""'" "'l'iff'o ~ IJ. '. ~<::':;'=-" . '. f""'J:if?.;lli1fi,;':C.i;'~ TIlt' ~. . '~'I~:;~RlnH~g~~, :\1i~ii;;:;~~HHli;~~~~ ~~~~ . '~~~:-i~~~~\\/,....,,/,. I." !.!.:.~~~:~~::. "\ ..'''-..... \ :.\\ \.... .
' . .. . . ...., w. 'm "',' , · ",,<. ..".."". ",,,. ~ _. , R . ..'""'.,.,.' l """"""',.. .". "'v ",-,,<: .... .., ....~ ""'" I , .,
''?- j" :ii;"'''''''~'. .:"~.., ~ :. ,<j ,....V J ". ~ ., '~!,f;f;;; L '.\i.!l;~,. ... ,,_. '~~;"p,;::";~ -.iffi;:i!:i!i:imii'~' ~~'~ ~ ~~, '.(> ) ',_'\ 'i \ \ \ \\~ \. .
' ... .. ."., . '.. ... 4 _ To . ....... .....' .. '''.. . .",. .,.~.. ."""".'.".'.".'." ~" ..', .. "'.' , . . _', ,.,
..:)--6,- G~"',,. . .;"';. . · '.,,, .r~ ;' '. .'. ,~. .~. ;j!. , 1. I",i". ",~.~ ,~ IfJ) .1<i~~:'ii1:"1 i",,,,,,,,!!,;;;;;,;;,,., '\ ''\'%:.",~, ''-'' ~ t ,~,,/ _ \ \\ I \ \ ~\!\ 11
\ [ .,'j1:..':.. #.. >' ',';~i iif:;: ."""'~: ;':: -li/-' .' .. ,..,..."., ,.,'ii.i. ~"..~ " .1"':.";;;"'''';' .",,,,.:O'.""",ji'li,'. 1 ,"XC',...." .'."~ ,~.~., .~"",,_ .' /'" \ \ '\ \ i~l \1. "I .
:--...\ \ ~ I., 'H!~. i. .. ,.,<:" ",.. .. :. \'il ;,,,.; . · :[n';,i;, u .. L .',;'.... .,', '" ." . :,,:!riii "i"i "'YI1;,'. i \ R '"'\ w''\'-'ii,*,'1(.,.. """ :,;;<<" ~". ( '" 7" i~ ~~);, .~" y---'" \\ \".' ,I f I \\.1\
' " .,.... .., '... ......,.. ,.... ... .. . '. ...~. ',~ "".. .. ". -..' ....... .... . ".. ...". , ....." ."" .......,. - . .,. . .' . ."" ",... , ~,., , ,
... <" ~ W: ~"ii...4~;l' .,. ; 'it;,,' ,.t~~l':(;~';;"W'1;; ';',/61"";; ';~"" ,'fiI:ii!', -,; ~~ ijf:),IWm,,- ~;;~;"f~ : c '''~; ~~~"'.'..'\.,~~~"\ /I) \j /1) J~)
'" " ., --- ".:. ,. . ".':\rr!i:!i).IIi'.i .,:. '~... ..., ~'.' .;::i' ,'"., c," .m",. , , Y,,' . .+.~. . . 'f>>,.<! , . <-c". "'~ ;;,' ; ;mmiJ · ""-' ':"'." . '.. ,.,~, '>.,. , " .:.,.." , ; I f '/ I .j // I
.. .... .. "'.. ,.. ..'.., ,.... . r." . '.. . ,. ., ',.... .... ... . '- _' ""'''' .. . ~,~: " 'J' ....~... .
r:'TOR'1Jl ((<~/~;~; Y;';'iC' :".~:. ':~. 1./:b/!{).':. "'>;W~t~i1f1M ,i".~~~t~'\i'{, '. '.. ~~'~. ""'$ . 'Y1 ~%R "'rN:r\J,fi'.':1 i;;m~~::~.:~.o~~:~iHii:!'::~~~;;~i:t:---~. -- _-;; ~::~\,~'( ~~~~(\\\ \~-1;;f~,---3,::~
. I ~~ , J ,::l: . - :.... I.f:J!I.=it .... '., (I ./1 1 ~ .,. .... '''' 't.. '{O<Ol,<HO \2~_ .:: ::':..... .,:::::~I"'> . '<'. . '. ~""..;" .,......." ~>;.,::,... ~'\.~";':;'" " co' ,'.,. r" v" .
" ',' fl j :~;: - \ 1 J r: ... p- r\ ~J~ \., '-': 1Ql I \)vl' ',-,- '. ""':."i,..,.;~". .'-, i..,i'i. ~':, '",,, "',~ '."f'" \ / ,,"'-/1 / /"/' ,oJ.,.._......"';...
'''''0' "'1' ~\I W,h '\ ~, '7\]" : G '-;j' ....u-.. .--....'7.~:.~.. -- ..- ---"I"""(\, '. ,,~. ", -;;;.;.0. 8":""!-':;;;~~'~;;.- ':':';$";!::.,,, "~iI::"""'~"~":\ ~~.~~,..~" '<"';\~~._ /I'l'/./" ..'? /1/' /.
' ~~..... f ':., \ . . . ." ...-1....--r - '. "J '. ".- ....;.... .A f"'...-'r' ',,",,'"'' . .. '. ,.~'" '.... ,'\.~.,.". .r:." ,"' "~'.'
'\ I I,' .' :'.:" \ .'-: \ . 1 ,,-- -,,-.-' :5....-.. '-"~'I ',....., -r-~.. ~1~~")':~':,"~ ""''''~o'''' ~'&''''_'' ..,'-'.....,'J../. ".." " II.'
I', ""'''' . '.', I .~ ".-.",., '.> '/A~'.. ."".'.."'. '''''''W"'>,,. ",
\ . ( ,'. ,,,. .... c,.. .". ! .". . " .. ~ ._..' 'A .-.~ '.. ,.. /. '."'" ,.=., ""N,/ .' I, ,
' t'.../ 1/I/g ~;'~~': ".-1".... ~ ~1WU\ '\fi JIlI\ l~r<llJ(.f:-,~l::::"l'..j" '. ,\:~ ...-Gi2\_.-<~."...__\,..~...:.-- ./Q\ ,._~'_. ll"~'-""'" ."~>-~~~~:~~.~:~:;.~..:....../....../ A
.' , '-Ill ~ '.., ,1\ '" . ,., u ".., . "--" '__. '\\,.. , '.. "1..). ," ~ ',we,,, ....'w.....,.' .
/ ..,/ ""! \ ;"';"/" i I, -... J~f('l:;;-;-' 'Ji'lllIDJ' nr,.~. A,.\,:.....lf+'/" \~11(!::\.3J~"':'.. ~;~~/ . . . ~ :Jb5~f\\\ ....~~~_~~/~ #' j~/~~0~~::\~ ""~:.. ....:.."~;:'X~..,'\,~"\..".....><~:..~~{..);o.\ /_ !
.. I I [, 'w, l....lr [fit . """ - ~'.'.= . .t. ~~ _~ ., . , .,', "'........,."...,....
I . " ." , .. .." ;..' . .. r .", '-> . . / ., . " ,".' _ '" __._." I '"".~" '" '. """"".".'
>";.l . i~ - '.... ~ "-"::: .~ }1f'.U '- ...;~<... '~~_'-J ::~~""--",' "L'{~:/r~ ~~:-) '.~/.\~ ':0.~\~\ I~~ ~.. \ID.....t:.::'1..~~!-:-.." 'l'r '. .~ ,,,:2 it1.id~2)~~ii;>~I"'.~~~~~:~~:~~~1;:~;
,., , \;, 7. - ~. .,----.. f ~ , '. ",;'1 , ." '. \ 0 " I .-"7";~, ___.. 'S,"-., \\'\ .;&... ,",,'" ',,,",,/
E,.n"''''OOI-~", """" ,~:.. .- D" /~'. .^'- - , . '=" .. [rlrQ\.\' (;TI .... ~ \ ,0 . '.. : \~ . = ,~~ '.,' _ . _"~>"~~"'~""" ...~~'.,"\..'\.,,<~~,....)..~i::~:..
' '- . - '. ,. ., ~,' , " '" I, . .- " . I , ---=->; .. '. .',' '.. .,'. "",
\ ................... -....ia.'..1 IT"''' i' :.....~.. /' ;Fi\...,/).\_~ ~ '1\, ~ {'l'!':,; ',-\9l- ",\1" ,-I).!.r,P<\)111 ['v --?;;a'" ~~~,,~,~\ ~"*~':"''.'
., ',.. ". "" ~" ,n, ., \~.J h '~, "JJ -' \ Il!j . ' , c.. . , . ". , ,.! L.-I ,'\ "'" _ " . ,. ,,,.. '''_... "~ 'it:!!I!i'i::.y ., .,." ,,- """"":., ';
"""";' '. ...., ii'i1i; Il~~)-' l'.cJ1il/J ~~! Lt..I~. '''7.~'i\1}. .......(......... \ ...... '';'I~ I)t!~\ ~l.) /' Ell.. '\'. ~~ ..rf.L,.~....... ;- 5 ...\'('.\~'a~~...~ ...\.... . ~~~.~\~..:'.<:~.\.'\".~'\..~>.:.::::.:.:.::...
' ( ':. -:;:. ~ /<:; {]J]I"" :.m .~ I"'... (r......J).. "" I ~ .' 6 ^.J I N': r~...~.\.~J...\ ..'~ \ ~ ....' . ~~~. ,~. " . "''\.;,'" ."..,~''''.\'\.'\..'\,;... ...:.... __
"'-", .. '~~.. .' ... v' L"- . -' ..., / _. ., . '. 'v" II.' \~,' ..' 0-- \ '~"" " ,"',.-, ","'- '. .'" .1' .... .......
....~------ -I"!k ., 1 '71 ~, . 11)1 m '" t~11 \ ... , ... ~.l ~~ ... .. N, / , ~.,\, ,'''' ~~" '~.~ '"
. .~ . .' ..:::::.:~:........_-........\......,1 ;~:~:,,~, i:. '~.lf ':1'11ITITJ, I) ~1=J"I'''''' .i, 4~' 'I~. " ....lr.....pmll../,I/I "If '/ 1;" ~. T. 'I ~. i~; ~.'X~O-.. i\\ j 7 i~'''' :, ~. .~-~~~Pl ~~~~ \~L~'~~~ \~\"~~~~.. ...>::~:~'<.::.... ........: .~:.
.., . 'I!. ~ IllliJl.!l. VL'j I.; J ~ JI.. ~\ .J i.:""~J I"t'''.' ,\ ~>,- ,~, 11 .'. , 'J.. _ . .N....\~ ,~\ IW\,. .....\.'\.. \\. '.
' , .". , " . . , ,., ,-. . .'~ .. "... '.." , .'~'. .
.; ~, ~ --, J /(/1 '1 \. .,. ?Ij ~. \ '; 4+.. 'I' .' I ",. i ,2 Jt, f. ,... ,.\. L ~ ".',._" . -'r-::::,/ J '. .......~,Wl ~;~'S "'<::1'
./ ~ :_~ 1 t L 1 ([] \ m1IL \, .~t}( I~, 'II S ~~.. \0 121 '~, "'ft. . ,j fl1f\ 1', I fI.i II.) ))/1 ~i~ ili.>>
.,'''~"' """ " ,. = ~.... . J ...., "".,.5 . --... " IL . II..~ . r \. \ 7// nn I I, \' \1 :1,: ,\2:h!id/JI! . , !'I<I ili..' .....'....
.~'~. or .-:",,,,,,,. "''', :Hil'0;:Wmmi~_"._~'\;,:- ~':i ~~. :-r-,:: ~~. ~~~~~,>"~:) ~ ~'~;~~":'~Ifi'>. ~~ l'QI~~l~(/J;,,0 .... .~ 9JiqiM!~; '\ ..
I.~ "j~~. -::::"-====.1 ( I.{~~)) , ~ . ~></ '~ .'., ,- ~~~~~rf!:]" ...._" W)h/lf:l'c,,: \
'. ".. ..., . ,~-- ".~~~~' ~-~~'_.=~."""~"."-'.~-=~ ..".'rr<..-. ""."". ,
I ,H../ \ .- -= -:C~.~:~~~~~~~~::>~~_~. s,."_''''='~~'~''''' '::::'1 --->::---==-~___,.-;" _ ~ __ __ " __ --~'lll,. ,
e-.. ., '>=,~ .~~" ~. -.,,;~;t""';::;"1"'" ~L~... .. __ __ __ .. __ '.,... _: "" '__.
u. .... ~.~ . '~,;t" 'ij.. ,__ . 'e' , '. '_..._._..,.._.,..._.
· P' ........., .. .,.. ..,. ...,~c<<<~~ ... .'. ..,,~::: .~~ ., ~- .~;5""" ._.=~J~,E'~:, :!~~~f~"~-','_u m ,:", Te1 t:'c::~
" . . .'---- ,-, '"m; "'VeRSlDE M,ADOI" ,
= .. -s
:, .,.. ,~" R'",.ND HOM,
' -.. ,-- '--,
. r 0 - ,,~, .'." -Ro, IN VEN "JO ,
,,' U. 0 ""..., "n .
:j L 0 23 ._
~ of * ~NEER .~ o.~.... .,,' ~"""~"" ':.:; :';;"':' ~::~:F;'~:';:;";',';"'r.,~; ;;,;:':." ~;,;' ...:::..=-. :"..,/ ...=:::::.-
;ePlln..rlng" I:.::..-.....:;;..~~ I~....,,',,"",..
.If- . ng" _. ~:-..:.:...=;..: ;;;::.'~~;:~::. '
...... ~ '''--.