HomeMy WebLinkAbout14.B. Rezone Property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) and Light Industrial (I1) to Urban Residential (R-1B) Zone-Ord. No. 658
I if. 8,
CITY OF SHAKOPEE CONSEtJT
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II
SUBJECT: Amendment to the Zoning Map - Rezone property from Agricultural
Preservation (AG) and Light Industrial (II) to Urban Residential (R-IB)
Zone
MEETING DATE: March 18, 2003
CASELOG NO.: 02-118
INTRODUCTION:
At its March 4,2003, meeting, the City Council reviewed a request by Noecker Development
requesting the reguiding and rezoning of property. At that meeting, the Council took action
denying the request for reguiding and the rezoning ofthe northern portion of the property. The
Council further directed staff to prepare an ordinance of approval for the rezoning of the southern
portion of the property to Urban Residential (R-1B) zone.
Attached is a copy of the draft resolution of approval.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve Ordinance No. 658, rezoning property from Light Industrial (Il) and Agricultural
Preservation (AG) zone to Urban Residential (R-IB).
2. Deny Ordinance No. 658, rezoning property from Light Industrial (Il) and Agricultural
Preservation (AG) zone to Urban Residential (R-IB).
3. Table the decision and request additional information from the applicant and/or staff.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Offer and approve a motion to approve Ordinance No. 658, approving the request to rezone
property from Light Industrial (Il) and Agricultural Preservation (AG) zone to Urban Residential
(R-IB).
~Kl~
. ulie Klima
Planner II
g:\cc\2003\03-18\rez noecker.doc
ORDINANCE NO. 658, FOURTH SERIES
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA,
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP ADOPTED IN CITY CODE SEe. 11.03 BY
REZONING LAND GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF CSAH 16 AND SOUTH OF
THE SOUTHBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (11) AND
AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION (AG) ZONE TO URBAN RESIDENTIAL (R-1B)
ZONE
WHEREAS, Noecker Development, applicant, has requested the rezoning ofland from
Agricultural Preservation (AG) and Light Industrial (II) to Urban Residential (R-1B) Zone;
WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as follows:
That part of the West Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 115, Range
22, lying Northerly of the North right-ol-way line of County Road 16, excepting therefrom the
West 410.00 feet thereof Also that part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and
of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter excepting the Easterly 591. 75 feet thereof
which lies south of the following described line to wit: Commencing at the southwest corner of
said Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter,' thence North 0 degrees 18 minutes 27 seconds
East, on an assumed bearing along the west line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northeast
Quarter, a distance of613.09 feet to the point ofbeginning of the line to be described; thence
South 81 degrees 00 minutes East a distance of 1 022.16 feet; thence South 87 degrees 40 minutes
East a distance of 1055.00 feet to the West line of the East 591. 75 feet of said Southeast Quarter
of the Northeast Quarter and there terminating. All in Section 14, Township 115, Range 22,
Scott County, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, notices were duly sent and posted, and a public hearing was held before the
Planning Commission on December 5,2002, at which time all persons present were given an
opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council heard the matter at its meeting of December 17,2002,
January 21, March 4, and March 18,2003 found that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan for the area of the City within which it is located.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1 - That the zoning map adopted in City Code Sec. 11.03 is hereby amended by
rezoning the property referenced herein, from Agricultural Preservation (AG) and Light
Industrial (II) to Urban Residential (R-1B) Zone.
Section 2 - Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage
and publication.
Passed in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee,
Minnesota, held this day of ,2003.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
Attest: ,
Judith S. Cox, City Clerk
Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of , 2003.
*1
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Shakopee Planning Commission
FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Reguide Property and Zoning Map
Amendment to Rezone Property
MEETING DATE: December 5, 2002
REVIEW PERIOD: October 17 - February 14,2002
CASELOG NO.: 02-118
Site Information:
Applicant: Noecker Development
Property Owner: Terrance Hanson (Eagle Creek Stables)
Location: North ofCSAH 16, south of South bridge residential development
Adjacent Zoning: North: County Road 21Right-of-WRY
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 Development has made a request to reguide and rezone property. Specifically, the
requests are to 1) amend the Comprehensive Plan guiding of property from Single Family
Residential to Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential, and Planned Residential
while retaining a portion of the site as Single Family Residential guiding and 2) to rezone the
property from Light Industrial (I I) and Agricultural Preservation (AG) to Urban Residential (R-
IB), Medium Density Residential (R2), Multiple Family Residential (R3) and Planned Residential
District (pRD). Please see Exhibit B for development plans.
The subject site is located north ofCSAH 16 and south of the Southbridge residential
development (see Exhibit A). The property is approximately 79 acres in size. The applicant has
expressed his intent to develop the property with single family df"t:-..:hed residential units,
townhome units and a 3 to 4 story senior center. Please see E:-~~.ibir ..::, the applicant's narrative.
The City Council did extend the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) boundary to this site
in August 2002. The adopted Land Use Plan guides the entire subject site for single family
development. Had the applicant's request been for a rezoning of the entire site to a single family
residential zoning district, staff would be in the position to provide a positive recommendation for
1
the development of this parcel. However, given the mixture of proposed types of development,
several issues may require further attention, such as:
. The ease and cost of extending services to this site. Services to this site would need to
cross the right-of-way offuture County Road 21, the completion of the construction of
which is not expected within the next 3 years, and would have to cross adjacent property
owners lands which are currently outside of the MUSA boundary.
. Determining whether this location best suits the type of development proposed. While
viewing the parcel in its current state, it is easy to view the proposed development in
isolation. However, the construction of County Road 21 and the upgrade of County Road
16 will vastly change the character of this area.
The Engineering Department has provided comments which have been attached as Exhibit D.
The City's Comprehensive Plan sets basic policies to guide the development of the City. The purpose
of designating different areas for residential, commercial, and industrial land uses is to promote the
location of compatible land uses, as well as to prevent incompatible land uses from being located in
close proximity to one another.
FINDINGS:
The Zoning Ordinance does not specify criteria for granting a Comprehensive Plan Map amendment.
Though reasonable criteria would be Criteria 1 -3 for Zoning Ordinance amendments. Staff has
provided Criteria 1 - 3 for the Commission's review and discussion.
Criteria #1 That the original Comprehensive Plan is in error;
Criteria #2 That significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place;
Criteria #3 That significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns
have occurred.
The Zoning Ordinance specifies criteria for granting a Zoning Map Amendment. An amendment may
be granted when one or more of the following criteria exists.
Criteria #1 That the original Comprehensive Plan is in error;
Criteria #2 That significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place;
Criteria #3 That significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns;
Criteria #4 That the Comprehensive Plan requires a different provision.
AL TERNA TIVES:
1. Recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to reguide and rezone the subject
property, as requested, contingent upon approval from the Metropolitan Council.
2. Recommend denial by the City Council of the request to reguide and rezone the subject
property as requested.
2
3. Continue the public hearing and request additional infonnation from the applicant or staff
4. Close the public hearing, but table the matter and request additional information.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Offer and approve a motion consistent with the wishes of the Commission.
uhe ~~
Planner II
g:\boaa-pc\2002\l2-05\compplannoecker . doc
~
3
-
R1B \~. \//1\\\1 '-..1/1\ \~
C
~
AG ~ ~~~
12 ;:~
~
~
12
.JOOOl Jf1
~
A
I I II~
~ E1H1BtrAw-*E
SHAKOPEE
COMMUNIlYP1UDESlNCIlt6S7 S
Reguiding and Rezoning of subject parcels.
D Zoning Boundary
r i Parcel Boundary
_ Parcel Area in Question
EXffFBfTL..
Noecker Development, LLC
8315 Pleasant View Drive
Mounds View, Minn. 55112
October 17, 2002
Mark Noble
City of Shakopee
129 Holmes Street South
Shakopee, Minn. 55379
RE: Rezoning and Guiding Applications
Dear Mark,
Today I am submitting my rezoning and guiding plat applications for the Eagle Creek Stables property at 7301 Eagle
Creek Blvd ( # 16). The project will be called Eagle Creek Ponds and your suggestions and help to date are appreciated. The
property has 17 acres on the bluff and 63 acres below_ South Bridge is adjacent to and directly north of my project, exeept for the
200' R ofW dedication therein. The plan I am submitting is a "mixed use" plan with R-2 andR-3 up against the highway and
RI-B (with smaller and large single family lots) on the south half of the project. The site also has a planned senior center with
about 100 units and a large park with several thousand feet of asphalt trails.
This area of the City is now guided for single family, but several site issues dictate that single family is not really
appropriate for some of this site. I purchased rights to this property in 1998 and in the fall of 1998 we began studying the site to
determine the best logical uses for the area and the creek relationship issues along with wetland mitigation criteria. The creek
and the wetlands are tied together and through. numerous meetings and phone calls with city staff, Pete Willenbring (WSB), Paul
Nelson at Prior Lake-SPWSD and various wetland agency representatives, the issues seem to be coming together into an
acceptable plan with the creek moved slightly from it's existing location.
Although recently changed to single family, the use of all the land, does not really fit that type of proposal best in an
area wide master plan concept. Several reasons effect the best and most appropriate long term use of the land and are obvious
after our perusal. These include; highway #21, the best residential use for the property, the most appropriate uses for property
near shopping centers, existing topographical conditions and today's market demand. The site conditions, it's location and area
wide issues have lead to the plan herein submitted A few copies of the proposed preliminary plat are also attached. I plan to
immediately submit the preliminary plat in November, because of court ordered issues (from the lawsuit as previously explained).
The plan being proposed by my people has R-3 and R-2 backing up against Highway #21. Proper design techniques
suggest turning the buildings on end as it faces the 4 lane. This method is proposed for all the R-3 and the R-2 units except
where a few of the units in the R-2 area have the back yards to the pond. The common ground of an association has usually been
deemed to be more appropriate than the back yards of SF homes in areas of adjacent high traffic roads. The other areas in the site
have the SF on or near the bluff. With Highway #16 (Eagle Creek Blvd.) generating less traffic, SF zoning is best here than
elsewhere and the lots backing up to #16 have been made deeper to overcome traffic problems.
As a developer, we see the demand and the need for senior housing in the future, especially near shopping centers. As a
part of the R-3 zoning a 3-4 story building with underground parking would be built ill the 84 -120 unit size. Efficiencies of
operation dictate this for management issues and for other aspects of a senior center, like transportation needs and activities for
the seniors. Until we complete a market feasibility study for the senior center, the number of units best suited for the area is
unknown, but the plan will fit all aspects of the R - 3 zoning when completes.
My level of experience includes development projects in Chanhassen, Maple Grove, Eden Prairie, Savage, Blaine and
rural acreage lots elsewhere with 25 years in real estate as my occupation. Featherstone Lake Estates in Savage was started in
1998 and 65 SF lots and 90 town homes were designed in the preliminary plat. This project incorporated 59 acres of land Large
parcels of ground give more creativity to site design than small sites and "mixed use" sites in areas like this, usually work best in
the long run for the community because of the diversity.
One of the primary "site condition" factors is the 200' wide Highway #21 Right of Way (2,000+ feet long) and adjacent
to the north side of my land In years gone by city planners deemed it acceptable to put single family next to major highways, but
todav mo!\t of the exnerienced metro nlanneri\ know that indlli\trial. commercial or mlllti-familv ii\ he!\t in these areai\ alonQ' maior
highways in the long run. We aU can identify with SF sites ill the metro backing up to busy highways; even as recently as when
South Bridge was approved, it was acceptable to think single family was okay next to a future 4 lane highway. Through shared
information and increased knowledge, we have been able to expand our understanding of proper planning techniques to a much
greater degree than ever before.
This parcel is 80 acres in size and as a result, the design flexibility of the site can enjoy much creativity and unlike some
large sites which do not allow for the ability to incorporate a senior center, this site has several unique factors which contribute
well to a senior center complex within a mixed use development. In other sitUations, like in my 59 acre site in Savage, the layout
of the land around that lake was too narrow to make a senior center work. Often a large flat project like this is needed to design
amenities like a senior center within a master plan or area of the city.
Other design goals were achieved through much planning and redesign which has allowed us to implement desired
benefits. For example, we have used the creek to separate the Single family from the senior center and R-2 land. We have located
the wetlands near the trail system to enhance views and we have kept the park trail next to the creek whenever possible. With this
basic layout, we have also used our ponds effectively to contribute to the lifestyle and natural beauty the residents will enjoy while
living in this neighborhood
Other issues playa part in the design aspects of this project. South Bridge, for example, is a mixed use development and
it is logical that this land would also be rezoned to a "mixed use" being adjacent to South Bridge. Also, nonnal design criteria
places "mixed use" land near shopping centers to increase residential concentrations. Often, as in this case, when high traffic
roads are adjacent to the site, this multi-residential use is usually more appropriate.
The last issue I wish to comment on is market demand. All of us in the business lolOW that the demand for town homes
is not decreasing. Lifestyle desires create a demand for town homes that appears not to end, especially for certain types of
housing and after 25 years in the real estate business the trend toward town homes is constantly increasing. We all recognize this
fact. Our busy lifestyles contribute to this type of demand in housing. We as developers satisfy a housing need; we cannot control
the need, we only ride the "demand wave" and the demand is still there and growing for this type of lifestyle living. Another area
of demand in today's marketplace is single family lots on smaller parcels, because some buyers still prefer to have that single
family house but they do not want the large yard My plan will have some of these smaller lots below the bluff to accommodate
this need This decision came at the very end after it was determined we should eliminate the twin homes from previous plans.
Much thought has gone into this plan as it relates to "lifestyle demand" issues. This project, it's location, the conditions of the
site, the area surrounding the site, the market demand and even construction issues, which relate to the limited amount of
material available, all lead to the same outcome; a residential project under a <<mixed use" format is the best master plan for this
land considering all the conditions and issues involved.
In my opinion, this plan has the most probable and proper mix of unit styles for future demand in the City. The highway
issues, the site location and it's nearness to shopping, the housing diversity, the lifestyle issues and other related factors have lead
us to create this plan as the best fit for future needs of the City. Also, if you have seen some of my projects in Savage
(Featherstone Lake Estates), Eden Prairie, Maple Grove or Chanhassen you will recognize that my neighborhoods are usually a
step above surrounding developments in value. The resulting appearance of properly designed developments is enjoyed by the
residents and the community for generations to come. This plan is ideal considering its location, the adjacent highway, its access
to shopping and most important, proper site design for the land given its conditions and issues for development.
If you will investigate my previous developing activities in other communities, you will see this prevailing attitude of
"upper bracket plans" in previous projects I have designed. The senior center, for example, is so obvious as a current and future
need, yet its placement surrounded by single family homes is not the best design plan. The residential units next to highway #21
need to be multi-family, not single family. This combination is then best solved with the senior center next to the high density
units. In summary, not matter how we look at it, if we want to properly build for the future, this plan or one very similar to it will
generate the best overall desire for our needs in the future. If you have any questions, please give me a call.
SZ:'~ ~ ~
_4-cr;/4Ud~
Randall R. Noecker, president
Noecker Development, LLC
8315 Pleasant View Drive
Mounds View, Minn. 55112
Cell 6l2~741-2662
{'\ffit"<> "7h'L"7IV':;_h'l.Sl"7
-EXHIBrr b
City of Shakopee
Memorandum
TO: Julie Klima, Planner II // ~- (J
~. if---I.
~_'~ I
FROM: Scott A. Smith, Assistant City Engineer ,~j:rl/ ~.~_~~Y{J<--
SUBJECT: Reguiding and Rezoning - Proposed for Eagle Creek Stables
PID No.: 27-914001-1,27-914001-2 & 27-914010-0
DATE: November 25,2002
The application indicates a desire to reguide and rezone three parcels ofland currently
known as Eagle Creek Stables, 7301 Eagle Creek Blvd. After reviewing the referenced
application, I have the following comments for the applicant, and for the planning
department:
Several concerns regarding the site and future grading of this property exist.
1. Wetlands on site have not been mitigated as of today, but efforts by the applicant
are attempting to address them.
2. The channel through the property will need several items addressed. These
channel items include possible re-Iocation, size, construction and easements.
Preliminary talks and layouts have been presented, but to date nothing has been
approved or accepted.
3. Issues with extending sanitary sewer, storm water management, street design and
street locations have not been decided. Concepts have been looked at, but nothing
has been finalized or approved. .,.~:..~ "-'.--
4. The applicant has significant access issues with Scott County and City of
Shakopee. The access issues are being worked on, but no final agreement or
understanding with adjacent property owners, Scott County and the City of
Shakopee have been made. A 429 project may be requested to move fOl'V\fard with
his future plans. This will require City Council action and approval.
5. The Shakopee Public Utility Commission must approve the water system
necessary to serve the proposed development. There have been discussions on the
availability of water to this site, but they involve crossing the future County Road
21 corridor. At this time Scott County has not approved any water main
alignment involving future County Road 21.
Recommendation
Recommend approval of reguiding and rezoning with the above noted concerns.
:;
--------- ----- .-
COUNlY STATt AID HIGHWAY NO. 21 EAGLE CREEK PONDS
. .- ... p'p ..- 200 foo\ right-of-woy
\.... 940' -- 1___ (unimpr""..;)
REZONING PLAN
\
R-2 R-3 SHAKOPEE, MN
10.8 ACFES QROSS , .. ~:AS ME NT
a4 ACFEB C>>lOS8 "
2.8 ACfES P\B Ie STFI::ET 1.9 ACRES PtBJC STFeT \\
8.2 ACRES tET 18.8 ACfES tET '\1 '-..,
. \
5.7lNTS I ACRE U lNTS I ACfE \,
\..
(Q
()l
P .R.D. \ IX) I
\
\ I "<~..""
9j ACRES QROSS 1<1
i ~ '<t
I 0.2 ACFEB PlBJC STFtt::I: I 12
co 9.5 ACRES tel
C) "n .'
() 1U lNTS I ACfE \~
~ " 1
r-"-j I I
I
~ CPEU
I ----------. -~,,---
I
-.....,.--~- . I:
...-- CREEr:
~~_.. . ...... t
.,-- ePEEr.
-q-
~
-q-
\..... 1
410' R-18 738'
.--4';C,J)'j -
40.5 ACFES CfIOS8 --738.20--
8.2 ACfES PlBJC STFtt:t:: ~
34.3 ACFES tET
-;~-"r. "",. 2.1lN1'S I ACfE
i
I I
('I I
J Cn "I'-- [jJ
(J:.,;m ff)
N
'7) I'-- (Q C'.I
CO (.0
[ CO
I ,
i LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
'1\' That port of the West half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 115. Ronge 22.
lying Northerly of the North right-of-way line of County Rood No. 16, excepting therefrom
the West 410 feet thereof.
:':1' : The Southwest One-Quarter of the Northeost One-Quarter; the Southeast One-quarter of the
C;RAPHlC .3C.~LE Northeast One-Quarter excepting the Easterly Five Hundred ninety-one and seventy-five one
j~ 'M .. ' ;.~ ;~, H,,, hundredth teet thereat; 011 in Section Fourteen, Township One hundred Fifteen. Range
-w-;.---- Twenty-two, Scot! County, I~innesoto.
t .. ' IN r::ET j
.~ -.. . : m~h " ,~rj ~~. NOTE: Area of parcel 3.460,423 Sq. Fl. (79.44 Acres)
,. . EAGLE '. ~ :. '" - .... 1 ~- ,-~.
- _ _ _ CREEK BOULEVARD" -.. ~ ;',::; :
--
--
--
PREPARED FOR:
f hereby certify fhal (his plan "'os prepa,ed by me 0' under
C.A.P. NU;WJMu.f1IIOIWII" sm: !'WINING <~ my dir<<:t supemsion ond that I om a duly 'tNjistered pro- NOECKER DEVELOPMENT 10/11/02
'"sional engineer Glnd~r the laws of the State of J.linMsoto.
I~_"AA"'" FLOWE ENGINEERING, INC. 8315 Pleosent View Dr, SHEET 1 of 1
C.A.P.
C.w.P. 9'80 LCXNCTON AVEMK N. E. Mounds View, MN 55112
Ta: (16.1) 785- 104) CIPClC PINES. NN 5~1" FAX.' (l6S) ,8&-6OtJ1 DA TE': 10/23/02 ReG. NO. 18221 TEL. (763) 786-6387
------------------- ----- -
COUNTY STATE AID I:HCHWAY NO. 21 AGLE CREEK PONDS
200 foot r;ght-of-way
I~ 940' "'1- (un;mproved)
- REGUIDING PLAN
..
..
c
HGH DENSITY RESlDI$J1AL SHAKOPEE, MN
1l.4 ACFEB QRCSS , ' \
MED. DENSITY RESDENTIAL "
1.9 ACFES P\.8 ~ e I "-=' I
1).8 ACfES 0A06B 18.e ACfE8 tel'." \
2.8 ACFES P\BJC ts TfI.:ET U lNTB I ACFE
OJ 8.2 ACfES tel 0
\
~ 5:7 UNTS I ACfE
r-... \
\
\
I P .A.D. \ I
\ ..
I \. 0 I
\.
co 97 ACfES OROBS \ n
0 o ~
0 0.2 ACRES P\B...IC €I II1fET \~
~ 9.5 ACfES tel
i"J on
- 111lNT8 I ACfE \~
I o I
I \ I
CREEK
.. ~ 'i~'>r,';,,,.~...-
'-
~-- .--- CP.[Ci': l;~;,""'1~' ",",.,,,..~.....
CREEK "/1" I /- '- 'i:...
ti r ! i f1) r- .".,.._".~...
N f; jJ ;(" ! I rV7 r;;r:7 ~
0'> q, 1 II . ,I reI l
L() (: '! , '../ . ~ II"
Iii ,'I 1 ..1 I
'1/ if I I
F Ii ,'. ~ i', f,/
, "'~ i III
., i J!,
[1',1" ! ,":)1
"I . ';' .~, I
I
I
I~ 410' EX. S.F. FESDENTlAL GUDED 223' --\....... ...j
--4HJ:)'I- NO fECd)Kl CHANOE 515'
~.5 ACFEB OROBS --7.38.20--
8.2 ACfES PtB..IC 8Tr= I
34.3 ACfEB tEl"
2.1 UNTS I ACFE ']'''"- .
i
I I
1 ('.J I
O:r-... iD
'D 0'> f.rj
N
,:71 r-... <D (",1
I~. OJ !.o
r ' '.
OJ
i LEGAl DESCRIPTION:
1
'( That. port of the West half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 14. Township 115. Range 22.
I"; \, lying Northerly of the North right-of-way line of County Rood No. 16. excepting therefrom
.\': the West 410 feet thereof,
;i/] GR.~PHIC SCALE
I 'W " 'W ,~ .~ The Southwest One-quartef of the Northeast One-quorter; the Southeast One-quorter of the
~-- Northeast One-quarter e.cepting the Easterly Five Hundred ninety-one and seventy-five one
~i hundredth feet thereof; all in Section Fourteen. Township One hundred Fifteen, Range
I IN f'EE'T J Twenty-two. Scott County. Minnesota.
: m~b . :2'0 n.
" ~. 'i "j'" . -
.. .. '- -".' NOTE: Area of parcel 3.460.423 Sq. Ft. (79.44 Acres)
;> _ EAGLE CPE" .~ - ~, . --
_ _ _ ~K BOULEVARD -- - "'-: .:;, ~.
--
--
-
t h~y r:erlffy that /his pIon was p~rtKI by m~ or under PREPARED FOR:
"""""""
C.A.P. ~'lOIfllttAflll,l'~ Sff< PWNNG E:NGN:ERfNG my dirt:ef sup,rvi$ion and that I am 0 duly r~istered pro- NOECKER DEVELOPMENT 10/11/02
~~-~ '..--AMI'.,ItA..... Insional engin~" under tn, laws of the Sfut, 01 Minnesota.
C.A.P. PLOWE ENGINEERING, INC. 8315 Pleasent VIew Dr. SHEET 1 of 1
>c"""
C.W.P. P1t1O LDfJNt;TON ,4t'CML N. E. Mounds View, MN 55112
rn: (ltJ.J) l8!S-lD4J CIRCLE PfNES. UN 55014 rNf: (16J) lBS-6007 [)I,TE: 10/2:1/02 ReG. NO. 18227 TEL. (163) 186-6381