HomeMy WebLinkAbout14.G. Preliminary Plat of Eagle Creek Ponds-Res. No. 5904
I'f. 6 ,
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Request of Noecker Development, LLC for approval of a
preliminary plat of a residential development identified as EAGLE
CREEK PONDS
MEETING DATE: June 3, 2003
REVIEW PERIOD: Extended by written assent of the applicant to June 3, 2003
CASELOG NO.: 03-029
INTRODUCTION:
Noecker seeks preliminary plat approval of a plat, which as revised, would create a 39.8-
acre Outlot north of the Prior Lake outlet channel, which is proposed to be relocated from its
current location, and the creation of 71 single-family lots on the southern portion of the
subject property. A copy of the report that went to the Planning Commission is attached for
the Council's information.
DISCUSSION:
The report to the Planning Commission identified 3 major issues associated with the request;
1) approval ofthe proposed change in the Prior Lake outlet channel, 2) roadway access to
the site, and 3) easements for the extension of water lines to the site. Following is an update
on those issues.
Since review by the Planning Commission the proposed realignment was discussed at the
Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed board meeting on May 13, 2003. The Board has not
approved the change, but did indicate its interest in the proposal and directed its staff to
continue discussions/negotiations with the applicant.
The applicant's engineer, Chuck Plowe, has been in touch with the Assistant City Engineer
to get further information related to the City's requirements for a second access in
connection with the future extension of Pike Lake trail. However, at this time no additional
plans for this access have been submitted to the City. Attached for the Council's
information is a copy of a letter sent to the applicant by Scott County Transportation Planner
Craig Jenson.
G: \CC\2003 \06-03\ppeaglecreekpondrev .doc 1
,. ""
At this date, staffhas not received further confirmation ofthe applicant's ability to secure
easements for the extension of water
Because these items are not yet resolved, because June 3rd is the deadline for action,
consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation, staff has attached a draft
resolution of denial for the Council's information.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve Resolution No. 5891, a resolution denying the preliminary plat ofEag1e
Creek Ponds.
2. Approve Resolution No. 5891 with revised findings.
3. Approve the requested preliminary plat, and direct staff to prepare a resolution
consistent with that action, and secure approval of an extension of the review period
from the applicant in order to prepare the resolution for Council action.
PLANNING COMMISSION:
At its April 17th meeting the Commission recommended denial ofthe preliminary plat
based on the findings presented in the staff report.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Offer Resolution No 5891, as presented or with revisions, and move its adoption.
/! ~L~-'-
R. Michael Leek
Community Development Director
G: \CC\2003 \06-03\ppeaglecreekpondrev ,doc 2
RESOLUTION NO. 5891
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA APPROVING
THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF EAGLE CREEK PONDS
WHEREAS, Noecker Development L.L.C. has made application for preliminary
plat approval of Eagle Creek Ponds on property located at 7301 Eagle Creek Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the Shakopee Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the
preliminary plat on April 17 , 2003; and
WHEREAS, all required public notices regarding the public hearing were posted
and sent; and
WHEREAS, the Shakopee Planning Commission has recommended denial of the
requested preliminary plat based on the findings below; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the preliminary plat request at its meeting
of June 3, 2003.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that it adopts the following findings offact
relative to the requested preliminary plat approval:
Finding A: The proposed street layout does not reflect good planning and
development for the City in the following regards;
. The proposed plat provides only one access into and out of the
site, and does not take account of future limitations that may be
placed on that access with future improvement and expansion of
CSAH 16. The proposed access will not serve prospective
residents well, either from the perspective of their access, public
safety access, or buffering of lots along CSAH 16 from the noise
of future increased traffic.
. Because the preliminary plat as revised does not show the future
development pattern for the northern part of the site, the City
Council is unable to evaluate that portion of the site.
Finding B: The proposed plat is subject to the requirements of the Woodland
Management Ordinance. The applicant has submitted a tree
inventory, but it is not clear that the applicant has a plan in place that
meets the requirements of that ordinance for tree
replacement/woodland management.
G: \CC\2003 \06-03\ppeaglecreekpondrev ,doc 3
Finding C: The proposed plat (as revised) does not facilitate the use and future
development of adjoining lands. Specifically, it does not propose an
immediate roadway connection to these lands, and chooses to leave
the construction of the extension of Pike Lake Trail (which is critical
to access for both this and adjoining properties) to the City at some
future date.
Finding D: In order to serve the subject site with properly looped water and
sanitary sewer service these services will have to cross properties
owned by others. The applicant has not demonstrated that these can
and will be obtained. If he is unable to obtain easements for those
purposes, the subdivision cannot be economically served with those
utilities.
As proposed by the applicant, the subdivision has only one access,
that being from CSAH 16/Eagle Creek Boulevard. While it is
presently allowable as a full intersection, the expansion of CSAH 16
to a 4-lane facility in the future will limit the proposed access to a
right-in/right -out condition. The applicant depends on the
construction of Pike Lake Trail by the City and the development of
the adjacent properties to gain a second access. In the short term, at
least, the proposed access does not provide good or economical
access for public safety services (police and fire).
Finding E: The information submitted to date by the applicant does not
demonstrate that the requirements of the City's Shore land Ordinance
are met for those lots that are within the Shoreland Overlay Zonefor
the Prior Lake Outlet Channel. The applicant has failed to submit all
of the information for plat approval required under City Code Sec.
12.21, Submittal Requirements for Preliminary Plats.
Finding F: As submitted, the land use represented by the proposed plat of the
southern portion of the subject site is consistent with the City's
adopted 1999 Comprehensive Plan.
G: \CC\2003\06-03 \ppeaglecreekpondrev ,doc 4
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that Noecker L.L.C.'s request for preliminary plat approval
of Eagle Creek Ponds is hereby denied:
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota,
held this _ day of , 2003.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G: \CC\2003\06-03 \ppeaglecreekpondrev .doc 5
Randy Noecker
8315 Pleasant View Drive
Mounds View, MN 55112
RE: Eagle Creek Ponds
Dear Mr. Noecker:
We have received your application for an access permit onto CSAH 16 that included plans dated
April 15th. The Scott County Highway Department is not opposed to the location of your
proposed access point onto CSAH 16, approximately 160 feet west of your east property line.
This access location will most likely become a right in/right out only in the future when CSAH
16 is reconstructed. As with all plats, upon approval of your plat from the City of Shakopee, the
County will issue a permit with specific conditions for this access location. As we have
discussed, a condition of access permit approval will be the construction of a right turn lane and
a bypass lane on CSAH 16.
The County will not issue a permit for your proposed temporary access location at Pike Lake
Trail. There is no indication that easements for a road at this location have been obtained. Any
road that would be constructed at this location would have to be as part of a full intersection
design. Keep in mind also that the County will not approve an access permit for City street
access without the consent of the City.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
~
Craig Jenson
Transportation Planner
Email: Darin Holmgren, County Utility Inspector
Scott Smith, City of Shakopee
Michael Leek, City of Shakopee
,~lp
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Shakopee Planning Commission
FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Request of Noecker Development, LLC for approval of a preliminary plat
of a residential development identified as EAGLE CREEK PONDS
MEETING DATE: April 17,2003
REVIEW PERIOD: October 17 - February 14, 2002
CASELOGNO.: 03-029
Site Information:
Applicant: Noecker Development LLC (Noecker)
Property Owner: Terrance Hanson (Eagle Creek Stables)
Location: North of CSAH 16, south of Southbridge residential development
Adjacent Zoning: North: County Road 21Right-of-Way
South: County Road 16/ Rural Residential (RR)
East: Agricultural Preservation (AG)/Light Industrial (11)
West: Agricultural Preservation (AG)/Light Industrial (11)
MUSA: The site is within the MUSA boundary
INTRODUCTION:
Noecker seeks preliminary plat approval of a plat, which as revised, would create a 39.8-acre Outlot
north ofthe Prior Lake outlet channel, which is proposed to be relocated from its current location,
and the creation of71 single-family lots on the southern portion of the subject property.
DISCUSSION:
APPLICATION INFORMATION:
This application was originally submitted on January 30,2003, At the time of the original
submittal, the Environmental and Park Plan Review Fonn were not completed. This was later
submitted on April 4th, but as the report discusses later the EAC still has concerns about the
infonnation completed.
As originally submitted, the preliminary plat would have created townhouse lots north of the
drainage channel. With the denial of the applicant's request to re-guide the property to allow this
use, the applicant had to revise the plat to reflect that reality, A revised plat drawing was submitted
G; \BOAA -PC\2003 \04_17\PPEAGLECREEKPONDSNOECKER.doc - 1 -
an Tuesday April gt\ revised grading, drainage, and utility plans had nat been received by the time
this repart was prepared an Friday, April 11 tho Starm water calculatians, which have been
requested since the ariginal submissian, have alsO' nat been received.
City staffhas met several times aver the past several manths (bath infarmally and as a develapment
review cammitted) to' discuss this plat, and has made several suggestians far changes.
Unfartunately, nane afthese have been incarparated intO' the revised plat. As the Cammissian can
see fram the attached carrespandence fram the Naecker, the applicant is driven by the legal
circumstances surraunding his purchase afthe subject praperty. AlsO' attached far the
Cammissian's infarmatian is carrespandence to' the applicant regarding the applicatian.
PARK DEDICATION:
The applicant prapases the dedicatian of land as a part of this plat. Staff does nat have a
recammendatian to' repart fram the Park and Recreation Advisory Board on the adequacyafthe
prapased dedicatian.
COMMENTS RECEIVED:
Written camment has been received fram the fallawing departments, agencies, ar ather entities;
. Shakapee engineering staff;
. Mark McQuillan, Natural Resaurces Directar, reparting an the Enviramnental Advisary
Cammissian (EAC) review afthe propased plat as revised;
. Shako-pee Public Utilities Commissian (SPUC);
. Scatt Caunty Enviranmental Health;
. Priar Lake -Spring Lake Watershed District;
. Centerpaint Energy.
Capies afthese camments are attached far the Cammissian's infarmatian, and are discussed belaw.
Engineering Comments:
In summary, Assistant City Engineer Scatt Smith has recammended denial of the request far
preliminary plat appraval on the basis ofthe follawing (and other) camments;
. Despite repeated requests, starm water calculations have still nat been submitted. These are
critical to' completing review of the propased drainage, and cauld materially affect the
prapased plans.
. The applicant has nat received appraval afthe prapased relacatian afthe Priar Lake autlet
channel fram the Priar Lake -Spling Lake Watershed District. The applicant alsO' needs
approval fram the Lawer Minnesata Watershed District, whase jurisdictian the praperty
atherwise lies in.
. The propased plat as revised is nat respansive to' camments previausly shared with the
applicant an the issues of street access and alignment. There is no evidence of
arrangements far a temparary ar permanent secand access to' the prapased plat.
G:\BOAA_PC\2003\04-17\PPEAGLECREEKPONDSNOECKER,doc - 2 -
. The revised plat was only submitted on Tuesday, April 8th, At the time this report was
prepared, the related changes to grading, drainage, and utility plans were not submitted, and
so have not been available for review.
EAC Review:
. The Environmental and Park Plan Review Form were not completed at the time the original
application was submitted, and was only submitted on April 4th. The EAC felt the
submitted information was in some cases insufficient or incomplete. A copy of the form is
attached for the Commission's information.
. The EAC felt that the applicant should have a reasonable time to prepare a tree replacement
plan.
SPUC:
SPUC's comments note trunk water mains would be required along both the extension of Pike Lake
Trail and CSAH 16, The applicant has not submitted evidence at this time that the easements
needed forthe extension of water services will be in place to serve the proposed plat.
Scott County Environmental Health:
Comment was made that an environmental review might first be required, City staff does not
believe that the proposed development meets the requirements for a mandatory EA W. The City
does, of course, have the authority to order a discretionary EA W if it deems it necessary, Staff has
not proposed a discretionary EA W at this time.
Prior Lake -Spring Lake Watershed District (the District):
The District has not approved the proposed changes to the Prior Lake outlet cham1el, and believes
those need to be agreed to before the preliminary plat is approved. The District's later letter
reiterates the need to obtain approvals from the Lower Minnesota Watershed District as well.
FINDINGS:
City Code Chapter 12, Subdivision Regulations, at Sec. 12.08, Subd. 3.B. sets forth the factors that
the Planning Commission is to take into account in making a decision on its recommendation
regarding approval or denial of a preliminary plat. These factors are set forth below, along with
proposed draft findings related to those factors,
a. Whether the layout of streets, lots, utilities, and public improvements and their relation to
the topography of the land, reflect good planning and development for the City;
Finding A: The proposed street layout does not reflect good planning and development
for the City in the following regards;
. The proposed plat provides only one access into and out of the site, and
does not take account of future limitations that may be placed on that
access with future improvement and expansion of CSAH 16. The
G:\BOAA-PC\2003 \04-17\PPEAGLECREEKPONDSNOECKER,doc - 3 -
proposed access will not serve prospective residents well, either from
the perspective of their access, public safety access, or buffering of lots
along CSAH 16 from the noise offuture increased traffic,
. Because the preliminary plat as revised does not show the future
development pattern for the northern part of the site, the Commission is
unable to evaluate that portion of the site,
b. Whether the subdivision preserves the site's important existing natural features;
Finding B: The proposed plat would result in the draininglfilling of existing wetlands
on the site, The proposed mitigation plan suggests that drainage ponding be
counted as mitigation for that activity. That is not acceptable mitigation
under the Wetland Conservation Act,
With the passage of the Woodland Management Ordinance, it is planning
staff's understanding that the proposed plat is subject to the requirements of
that ordinance. The applicant has submitted a tree inventory, but it is not
clear that the applicant has a plan in place that meets the requirements of
that new ordinance for tree replacement/woodland management,
c. Whether the proposed plat will facilitate the use and future development of the adjoining
lands;
Finding C: The proposed plat (as revised) does not facilitate the use and future
development of adjoining lands. Specifically, it does not propose and
immediate roadway connection to these lands, and chooses to leave the
construction of the extension of Pike Lake Trail (which is critical to access
for both this and adjoining properties) to the City at some future date,
d, Whether the subdivision can be economically served with streets, public services, and
utilities;
Finding D: In order to serve the subject site with properly looped water and sanitary
sewer service these services will have to cross properties owned by others.
The applicant has not demonstrated that these can and will be obtained. If
he is unable to obtain easements for those purposes, the subdivision cannot
be economically served with those utilities,
As proposed by the applicant, the subdivision has only one access, that
being from CSAH 16/Eagle Creek Boulevard. While it is presently
allowable as a full intersection, the expansion of CSAH 16 to a 4-lane
facility in the future will limit the proposed access to a right-in/right-out
condition. The applicant depends on the construction of Pike Lake Trail by
the City and the development of the adjacent properties to gain a second
access. In the short term, at least, the proposed access does not provide
good or economical access for public safety services (police and fire),
G:\BOAA-PC\2003 \04-17\PPEAGLECREEKPONDSNOltCKER,doc - 4 -
e. Whether all applicable provisions of the City Code are met; and
Finding E: The information submitted to date by the applicant does not demonstrate
that the requirements of the City's Shoreland Ordinance are met for those
lots that are within the Shoreland Overlay Zone for the Prior Lake Outlet
Channel. The applicant has failed to submit all of the information for plat
approval required under City Code Sec. 12.21, Submittal Requirements for
Preliminary Plats.
f. Whether the subdivision is in confOlmance with any official map of the City and the
Comprehensive Plan.
Finding F: As submitted, the land use represented by the proposed plat of the southern
portion of the subject site is consistent with the City's adopted 1999
Comprehensive Plan,
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend to the City Council the approval of the preliminary plat of EAGLE CREEK
PONDS as revised with conditions as outlined by the Plmming COlmnission at its meeting,
2. Recommend denial of the preliminary plat of EAGLE CREEK PONDS for the reasons set
forth in the staff recommendation below,
3. Continue the public hearing, if the applicant is willing to provide the City with an extension
to the review period, to allow the applicant to;
a) provide the additional infoffilation that is needed to make a determination (e.g,stOlm
water calculations, additional infonnation required by the EAC),
b) obtain approval of both the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District and the Prior
Lake Watershed District of the proposed drainage plan and drainage calculations for the
plat,
c) to provide evidence of the applicant's ability to secure easements for the extension of
utilities to the subject property from lands that are not under the applicant's control, and
d) revise the plat so that adequate access is available to the plat at the time of development
of the site and lots,
e) prepare a tree replacement plan, and obtain approval of same as required under the
Woodland Management Ordinance.
4. Close the public hearing, but table the matter to allow the applicant to;
a. provide the additional information that is needed to make a detennination (e.g. storm
water calculations, additional information required by the EAC),
b. obtain approval of both the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District and the Prior
Lake Watershed District of the proposed drainage plan and drainage calculations for the
plat,
c. to provide evidence of the applicant's ability to secure easements for the extension of
utilities to the subject property from lands that are not under the applicant's control, and
d. revise the plat so that adequate access is available to the plat at the time of development
of the site and lots,
G:\BOAA-PC\2003\04-17\PPEAGLECREEKPONDSNOliCKER.doc - 5 -
e. prepare a tree replacement plan, and obtain approval of same as required under the
Woodland Management Ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial for the reasons stated above and below as draft findings.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Offer and approve a motion recommending denial of the requested preliminary plat of EAGLE
CREEK PONDS based on the following findings.
Finding A: The proposed street layout does not reflect good planning and development
for the City in the following regards;
. The proposed plat provides only one access into and out of the site, and
does not take account of future limitations that may be placed on that
access with future improvement and expansion of CSAH 16. The
proposed access will not serve prospective residents well, either from
the perspective of their access, public safety access, or buffering of lots
along CSAH 16 from the noise of future increased traffic.
. Because the preliminary plat as revised does not show the future
development pattern for the northern part of the site, the Commission is
unable to evaluate that portion of the site.
FindingB: The proposed plat would result in the draining/jilling of existing wetlands
on the site. The proposed mitigation plan suggests that drainage ponding be
counted as mitigation for that activity, That is not acceptable mitigation
under the Wetland Conservation Act.
With the passage of the Woodland Management Ordinance, it is planning
staff's understanding that the proposed plat is subject to the requirements of
that ordinance. The applicant has submitted a tree inventory, but it is not
clear that the applicant has a plan in place that meets the requirements of
that new ordinance for tree replacement/woodland management,
Finding C: The proposed plat (as revised) does not facilitate the use and future
development of adjoining lands, Specifically, it does not propose and
immediate roadway connection to these lands, and chooses to leave the
construction of the extension of Pike Lake Trail (which is critical to access
for both this and adjoining properties) to the City at some future date.
Finding D: In order to serve the subject site with properly looped water and sanitary
sewer service these services will have to cross properties owned by others,
The applicant has not demonstrated that these can and will be obtained. If
he is unable to obtain easements for those purposes, the subdivision cannot
be economically served with those utilities,
G:\BOAA-PC\2003\04-17\PPEAGLECREEKPONDSNOECKER.doc - 6 -
As proposed by the applicant, the subdivision has only one access, that
being from CSAH 16/Eagle Creek Boulevard. While it is presently
allowable as a full intersection, the expansion of CSAH 16 to a 4-lane
facility in the future will limit the proposed access to a right-in/right-out
condition, The applicant depends on the construction of Pike Lake Trail by
the City and the development of the adjacent properties to gain a second
access. In the short term, at least, the proposed access does not provide
good or economical access for public safety services (police and fire),
Finding E: The information submitted to date by the applicant does not demonstrate
that the requirements of the City's Shoreland. Ordinance are met for those
lots that are within the Shoreland Overlay Zone for the Prior Lake Outlet
Channel. The applicant has failed to submit all of the information for plat
approval required under City Code See, 12,21, Submittal Requirements for
Preliminary Plats,
Finding F: As submitted, the land use represented by the proposed plat of the southern
portion of the subject site is consistent with the City's adopted 1999
Comprehensive Plan,
4A;~L-/~
R. Michael Leek
Community Development Director
G:\BOAA_PC\2003\04-17\PPEAGLECREEKPONDSNOECKER,doc - 7 -
EAGLE CREEK PONDS ~RELIMINARY PLAT SHA"OPEE, MN
.... " 1\ \ \
~', "" ~\ G' \ VICINITY MAP
'- .... "- I I V \ I I
',""., ", " _</ ci I I 1
'. " '\. \ .-- .,.. ....-
'" """', ,I __-~' \t, .......,O""A II"') \ " I
...,'\....~~\ VUlLo" ~I \ I
',\ \ _ _4 III OU1t.OTA 1 I I
, , - - ,~.. I
, \ \ V:;: _ --OUTLOT B \ It--- EXISTING 60' CREEK EASEMENT ' \ I
\\,.,....., ~, ~ I" I
\ \ : \ C~E~: I ,I i; ; i ~: '~..'~.. ........ =:JC:3i;c~''',;;_ '.-~ ';;;'\ \;'=.~,~;,;,: '.-, .... ,1-: I :
I I!~. , ' __________ / -__ o TRAIL I I '
I I I! ,~,~. I I I / ---- PROPOSeD ...
I . ',I / I ---_ co FUTURE '
:: I ". l-=i ja I / / -----__ ,;;;r:RE!i!L.b.P[ATlON . ,:;
I I I ,_. J"~ I I I - -:~~.,,~ gn. ,;',.' -.'~ - _~, CREEK ' I
I I I r3 .~~. :i 1 I // I - -~"~" ~~. ~:" ',~, ' i
I I! : 1- 3 ~, I / // MITIGA TION 1 AREA :.- I- 6 __5 I- 4 1-2__1-.... / 1 /' 'I -" ,
I I I lAII7;:.!1 I /./ ,.{ I> ,. ~ r,un....O!. .a! ; :
I I ,~bJ ._~. pi ~ / / Ij~,,,"~.i~'."'~.i~"~~.~~"0..~l,,~..~; ~. /'~ 'I i
I I I 'fE. t ~'--. / I I ~ I 1- j, . ~
I I t"'=' -;-%~ " . ,~ '-_____________ I f- _ b 8l0,,~ 1 IrJO'SOBA K ",.~. """". .
() I I! : 04 \ iJ~":l~r. ----:!-' ..J SINGLE FAMfr.HOMES t- - ft- I- ---- ,>',. f ' '
I I --.:- \ .." __ i1 __ _"~T .,.' < l .
I I I I 1/' ,,~~^ ,.;J[ ,- ,,- ..:: ,,;: ''''~, ";;';;" . . ~ ~"~' ,:, " ,
"" I I -i ..: , ~ I> ",~ - - .- ,- ,- - ,... ." ~,," '.' /
0;--1 I ,I VI _,~;: ^,," ..~;: :"'-::':', ,.::.': .. ,,;, '~";" NO ' ."" ..... -, ~; /'
() I I Ii GJ~< ,.,,, I I ~'." ,~, .~- ,~- .~- _..~, -,,~- .-'~- .~". ...' ;
[ I t ~,. .5/1J.'G(e ::w.. __ NU'_ _ _ ,....,,,..u ~",. "'-110' .5.<:0' 114.<0' ~. I>UID" ~<IO ~ ~Ul' ""::'T''''' "''''''..... ..,...,'1)............ .....l. .
I I I - I "J-...co - I-- _ I-- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,;,:. - .~ ~". ," ~ ~"." /"':J
'<ij- I I I ,,_~. "" _, SINGLE FAMILY HIES I- - - - - - - PARK
"i"-- I I : "'"=. "...'1.....,... i! IZ"'" n. ~~".l.7...~.~~".lU...<l.~1 lO.m...... ~-' I'" E~ B=: . ~ ~:; ~~'o.m.......si;'ll.<M...^'~~,......_...a~.....n........h.. R~ ;.. 1'. !if! ~ .
"it::G) I I I " x~' .. ," ,.,,'~. !..~~.!,,^,.~.~!..".d!; '" ~. ' "~~.,...~~.".~~.~-..m..^.' ' ;
I I 1t~ " l:I l* l1\ " II R ~- !l~ >>':! fi: ~-"..:%..... . ,~I)........~~
a I I I! I 6 7 8 9 10 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 I. ,..-1' EXISTING 70' CREEK EASEMENT
_ 1'" I I I, . BL< CK II ,
Q C'l:: : 1 ;;;0' ~~4~~:1--';': ..;;; ;;.~,. _,;;';07 ': g ......-;::::';?':T -"':'';;',T-'':r< -.;~'T ":';;~T -"-;'""_::;..;.".'f' _f;T "';;....""-;::;.:-."'T ;;. _ ' _ -,tf'tf. _ , _ ,
I I I '. > --738 20-- : J
I' I \ ~ 11 ..u.,...."- ~~ t; "."1..11. 15 ~~ 17 18 19 20 21 22 . !I'
: 1- : : = .' _" 1 ~ SINGLE .FAMILY HOME~ t, 1, PIO #
:: :: HI It'-~K,)> · > ,=, ,,,,,- i- ,,-~^ ii "".~^ ij '''..- ~l ,,~~. i~ ,,~- ii 27-914-009-~ SINGLE FAMILY TYPICAL LOTDETAlL
I I I 1 '12 ,~~. .' l' 16 " 8' OCK 2 ,,'........-.
\ I! I il t2 I:: ...m_II.~:l ~l €ASDIDIT
I I- 1 I _,,~ ' 0 1- 'PIO # ,--- ..,
1 I I, ,_. 8, , .. _ ", . ,. ~.., -..... 1'0' SETBACKT I
I .. ,,. .. ,.. -- -- "" - ,..~ '77 914 01? 0 I -L
I I I I . VI ;. 1"..,.. .:.<>:1 .UlC .~q,,,",, 6_ ~ ll<fOO 7'I-Q0 U sz L - - L - II --'1
I I I I ~ . ~ ,~ ':un..... r.i 0 ~ ~: ---+----'z~ ~o .caar::a.A~[;I- --- -. [f. I- --- GAR SlOE II II 5'
I I 0 >:. ,-'" .~".
I I! I I P/D J "_,,, ~~ ...; ~~ ,~" ,.~. I 10' I L --' I 10'
I I ~ ... -~ ~~ "EXCEPllON II II
I: ,,274<914-002-0 : ~ ,- . :.' _, '. I IL_~.JI
I t I I N lj, 1 ~ IZ.'lotl_ II. € 8 .. ~ <:. t II B B i! U_ ooA 1 ~ I I \ JO' S!7BA '
I I I I ~ ;;: ::c: ill~;.. ~'o 1~ ~.:& ,UOJ...,.. ~... 'UI!:l"...1I. ~~ ,:I..,...... ;;;~ IUH.../l. ..~ 1 W - - - - - - - - _.:...- - - - - - - - - - ~o.--- .
I I I ~'j,'\. <D U; Iii ji ..~~^ lE -!! ii " i' , ~.,~. ~
I;l,! I '" 0> m....... ~ j ,- c:; , #
: \~ :: ~."""">' 1 ,- 1, it 7 8 8LpC'\ }o. _,~.\ _2.; ! 'I BL~E^K 1! ~ PID I / .
I I I, j V" ~~15 ,,,.~^ I' r ~..' .:~.' ""' .... ~. ,~. ! 2 - I 27-914-012- I NOTE: ADDITIONAL EASEMENTS WILL BE
I I : I EX~ i" 6 5 4 3 2 1 ~ ,.',_ I REQUIRED FOR UTILITIES AND PONDING
I '! I I '"";'"~~. SING C FAMILY H AlES to ~ t. ~ ,- ~
I I I !, ~- e. !, :1';: u..~.... ~t ,:.,........... .~5 g ~:..
I I I I t ~ .- ;; .~.. <: .~- 'l. ,Uh. "~..~'~. P i; ~."~ F 'U.., !;).'~ BUILDING TYPE -TOTAL SITE AREA = 79AACRES
1 I I I i 16 .."..^ ;i -/ - j- 1- 1- 1i 3~ ' ,,-PARKSANDTRAILS=5A1ACRES
I I '".... ~_ l J; f' t ~., ' " -PUBLIC STREET RIW AREA = 5,61 ACRES
I r :.a '......, ~ PROP ~*
I , I I ~...". . " .~. ~_ -, I ";1.' I' -OUTLOTA=39.8ACRES
1 I - I 1 .,'~" . ~". B B .". ..,,' ..". ~.. ......." "';. ZONING SLDGS UNIT TYPE TOTAL UNITS - OUTLOT B = 0.23 ACRES
I I I I ~ !Ta'o ~ z1-OD ~<fol)/'J ".00 S..OO 8+00 1O,(}(J~" .u~~ __..ILU'"",," ~ ~
I I I '1i I" ,,5 4 =, Rl-B (71) SINGLE FAMIL Y HOMES 71 TOTAL UNITS = 89 UNITS PER ACRE
I I I J J ....' . .. .,.. . - -~- .' . ", '" TOTAL AREA .
, I ~ ~,~. "'" ..~ .~ "" ..~ ..~ .". .....
I I. I I . .. CURRENT ZONING Rl-B .s......... ""'.....Zoo;",
I 1_ 1 I ~I I" ._.. :.-, MI,. Lol O,p" IJI.74' / 'DO'
I I I I 'r-/ ~ ''''__''- ~! I:"""'" ;~ 1.\,' ~ _ _ ~ ;.. "!j is.: 1 Min. Lol Width t:; S~lboc~ 55..J" I -
I ! ~I I ' . . ,,-! ,.-~: .."...., ...,~^', ..~~ 0;, ,~- .;.
----, -t... 1 i 8 'I ~ . ~ ~\i. ~~ ,; t
r----- I ~ siNGLE' IL Y ~OMES 5 4 3 2 .. ;
I. '------.....::f.. ""- ...-.. 8 OCK 1 .,. 'I
_ -----.;: -- --...~ ' ~.~ '.. , P !. '..." ~, .
f. .~..: '_.: ~_ . ," CL,); ,,~.'" ,.:;.,. l'oZ' ... .... ~1 i' .:i
. I ~ "b ,." .... . ....' ..".. ." ,.,.,. I 6
. _ ~ . U";..~t.,n' . 0..- . ~....., ..... LEGAL ot!iCRIPllOr/:
I ~ c..,rllp.,.. _. ~.d..c:;Q 'i~ '. -----:-- . ~.'t;-----:... T~"t pOrt or the Wesl holt cl. Il'lt SOutneost Quarie. of Sel:licn '4. TO',"5I1i.. 115. R1lnlle Z2.
I Me::. . -. 6. O. __) '---- PIO -/.J '1'"9 Ilortl'wllll 01 l~ Ilor1h rl9ht-Of....?! 11M 01 County Rood IIll. 16, e.eeplin; I.",el.om
ADOIieROO---- . CO _'. :. ~ . _ rr Ine We,t _10 leet Inereol.
Lor J , k RUN ____ . ~ . ~ ,- --, II The Solllh.ut On'l'-qIlO'ru" 01 the Ilortheas! OM-ollorte'; lne s-:.;rlneO'~ One-Illlcrter or the
_ :~~~ _ ~) / _ 9 1 4 _ 0 12 _ ? PIO ~ 110"n"O'II On=-ollo"" e~te.plon9 Ih~ Eosle./y .,V" Hund<eo n.net.v-one one :;.cwen1r-fr.-" on"
_ .....,...... ---.:_ ";";"'_ ~.t:J..~. \..:.... "- 11 hur",redlhlnlll'lt.eol:oll,n::.ett.cmFoIlMeer..lo..n,toip(im!l'Illnll',,:lFill"ell.I\on<;e
_ _ _ __ _~ . ~ . T."nl)'-I_, Stott COllnly.M,nne=otg.
EAGLE CREEf< R- - - _ - ~:;-'.".. ~27-914-012-1 "01' "'....."""."0,""'" I""""")
MEAOOWBROOI< Rv9pLEVARD L= ~,_ -~,r-~ . ~ ~
(LOTS 1 -3)
'U,"O"'^U ,"'/>M', GRAPHIC SCALE . ....
, I her~DY cert/ly ~n~r thIS p/~n wos preporeo O!, m~ or u.7d~r SITE p/.ANNINr; ENr;INEERINr; PREPARED FOR:
C.A.P. 1/27/0J Remo"" sr. hpusong odd,d Iwn,'ms. ", 1 'f '\'" '\'" ~ m)' d,recl supems,on ondtnot t om 0 duly L,censed P'o- DATI:: '1/21/02
GRAWN J/, V.. t. I ~_ _ TeSSlonal EngIneer under 1M lows of (h~ Store ol Minnesota. NOECKER DEVELOPMENT
CAP. 4;S 03 "mp~ng /D"hpm" rom pOl _ PLOWE ENGNEERlNG, /NG. 8315 Pleasent View Dr. PREL. PIAT
CHt.CKED .< IN FEET ) CHARl.ES n~ PLOWE 9180 (EXINGTON AVENUE N.C. Mounds View, MN 55112 1 /2
C,w.p, 1 ,neh - 100 fl DATC.' 4/8/03 LlCCNSC.4' /8227 (16J) 185-/()4J CIRCLE PINES. loiN 550/4 FAX (163) lB6-6001 Tel (763) 786-6387