HomeMy WebLinkAbout14.A. Comp Plan/Land Use Amendments
CITY OF SHAKOPEE J ~. f} ~
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Reguide Property and Zoning Map
Amendment to Rezone Property
MEETING DATE: January 21,2003
REVIEW PERIOD: October 17,2002 - February 14, 2003
CASELOG NO.: 02-118
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 (11) and Agricultural Preservation (AG) to Urban Residential (R-
IB), Medium Density Residential (R2), Multiple Family Residential (R3) and Planned
Residential District (PRD). A copy of the staff report to the Planning Commission is attached for
the Council's information.
The City Council' did extend the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUS A) boundary to this site
in August 2002.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission conducted the public hearing on the subject request at the meeting of
December 5th. At the conclusion ofthe public hearing, the Commission voted to recommend denial
of the requested amendments.
The City Council reviewed this request at its December 17, 2002, meeting and at that time tabled
action in order to receive further information on the land use guiding of properties adjacent to the
subject site. City staff has been in contact with NAC regarding the land use guiding of adjacent
properties. NAC recommends that the existing Comprehensive Plan be implemented and further
states that plans that are contrary to the adopted land use plan are premature.
In addition, the Public Works Director and the Community Development Director have met with
Scott County staff members regarding the County Road 21 study. Scott County staff indicated that
they intend to formally request that the city not review or approve development plans along the
County Road 21 corridor until such time as the Environmental Impact Statement (ElS) has been
completed. At the time this memo was prepared, staff had not yet received that request.
1
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Direct staffto prepare a resolution of denial based on the Planning Commission
recommendation and Northwest Associated Consultants report for consideration at the
February 4,2003 meeting.
2. Direct staffto prepare a resolution of approval for consideration at the February 4, 2003
meeting.
3. Table the matter and request additional information.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Offer and approve a motion to prepare a resolution consistent with the Planning Commission
recommendation for consideration at the February 4,2003 Council meeting.
ill fa.):nll ft---,...,
ie Klima
lanner II
g:\cc\2003\O 1-21 \compplannoecker.doc
2
:iF!
CITY OF SBAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Shako pee 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-WHY
South: County Road 161 Rural Residential (RR)
East: Agricultural Preservation (AG)/Light Industrial (11)
West: Agricultural Preservation (AG)/Light Industrial (II)
MUS A: The site is within the MUSA boundary
lNTRODUCTION:
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 (II) 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 of CSAH 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 dpt~.:hed residential units,
townhome units and a 3 to 4 story senior center. Please see E;~1.ibiJ ..::, 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.
FINDlNGS:
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. Staffhas
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 information 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\12-05\compplannoecker.doc
3
-
RIB \~. \ I I I I \ \' "I. ii' \ \....,..
C
AG ~ ~~---
J2 -
~
~
J2 ~~
.....
~
A
I I I~
~ ,0KH1l3tr~.E
SHAKOPEE
COMMUN11Yl'RIDESINCE 18S7 S
Reguiding and Rezoning of subject parcels.
D Zoning Boundary
! i Parcel Boundary
_ Parcel Area in Question
EXHIBTT C-
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, except 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. 1 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 backyards 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 in 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
today mo~ of the exnerienced metro nlanner~ know that indnm1a1. commercial or multi-family i~ he~ in the~ area10 alonll maior
highways in the long run. We all can identify with SF sites in 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. TIrrough 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 beau~ 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 ill the business Imow 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 aU 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 connnunities, 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.
Si;z:' ~ ~ ~
_4--C~-//~::4~_____
Randall R. Noecker, president
Noecker Development, LLC
8315 Pleasant View Drive
Mounds View, Minn. 55112
Cell 612-741-2662
().ffi,,<> '7'<;'<_ '7IU:;_'<;,<Il'7
-EXHIE>/I b
City of Shakopee
Memorandum
TO: Julie Klima, Planner II /J ~- 1/
. /"-.1
FROM: Scott A. Smith, Assistant City Engineer ? 7/ $:. 0./~r..
c: . ._~. '. ---
:" .tl .:.-_....~....,...,~
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 regtlide 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-location, 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 proj ect may be requested to move forward 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 STATE AID HICHWIIY NO. 2' EAGLE CREEK PONDS
_ n __ 200 loot righI-ai-way
1-- 940' .. 1--- (unimproved)
REZONING PLAN
.. SHAKOPEE, MN
R-2 R-3
10.8 ACFES aAOBB 1lA ACfES CH)8S :~AS MEN"!
2.8 ACFEB P\B Ie 81rt:1:T 1.8 ACfES P\BJC S1l&T
8.2 ACfES tET 18.8 ACfES tel
5.7 \NTS I ACRE U lNTS I ACfE
<0
P .R.D. m
\ CX) I
\
~ I
\ "<~<- ~,.
9:1 ACfES QROSS f'J
\ -' -<:t
I 0.2 ACRES PtB..IC STFtt::t: f \2
co 9.5 ACRES teT
<::::1 o I"! .-'
1O.1lNTS I ACRE I.-
\...,J I I
.,..... 0
tOr) I I
.,..... CPEEr
\
I -. -
w_. _~ .~- - CREEK
CREEr;' t
-<:t
,-
-<:t
1-- ~
410' R-1B 738'
--410.C)'I-
40.5 ACfES Cft)SS --738.:0--
6.2 ACFES PtBJC STfIt::ET
34.3 ACFES tET
2.1lN1"S I ACfE
i
I I
I""J I
i ,.,., . CO
-....... f"..
.DO'> - r-r]
N .
.']") r--. <0 ('I
t CO 'D
co
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
That port of the West half of the Southeast Duorter of Section 14, Township 115. Range 22.
1\ lying Northerly of the North right-of-way line of County Rood No. 16, excepting therefrom
the West 410 feet thereof.
. .
'. ~/; The Southwest One-quarter of the Northeast One-Quarter: the Southeast One-Quarter of the
'... (;RAPHK: 3C.~LE
Northeast One-quarter excepting the Easterly Five Hundred ninety-one and seventy-five one
I! '1/j ;.;. :~, ." hundredth feet thereof; all in Section Fourteen, Township One hundred Fifteen, Range
,..,..-- Twenty-two. Scott County, Minnesota.
.: '-. ' 111 f"EET J
" ..... " .' - : l~..'h ~ i~') ~~. NOTE: Area of parcel 3.460,423 Sq. Ft. (79.44 Acres)
.- ~~'-
EAGLE CREE' 1;_ "',,' '-'"
- - _ _ --! 80ULEVARD- - ,,'-1-;'.j:
--
--
-
I hereby ""rilfy thol this pion wos prepored by me or under PREPARED FOR:
C.A.P. rcr,I"""'" UI'QII fWtMIr S1TC ~ ,- my direct superviSion ond thot I om a duly rflfJistered pro- NOECKER DEVELOPMENT 10/11/02
(fIS$IOnal engineer under th~ lows of the state of J,lj'n~sota.
r44':SM ~,AA NO PLOWE ENGNEERING, INC.
e.A.p. 8315 Pleasent View Dr. SHEET 1 of 1
e.w.p. 9160 lCXNGTON AVCMJC N. E. Mounds View, MN 55112
TEl.: (16S) 785- 1(UJ Cl/iO,f PING. IJN 5MJ,4 rA~.. (16:1) 186-6(}07 DATF:: 10/23/02 REC. NO. 18227 TEL. (763) 786-6387
------------------- ------
COUN1'fsrAiE~OI;llCHWAYNO.21 ,', AGLE CREEK PONDS
200 loot "got-ol-way
I 9 O. I (un;mproved) ,-
...... 4 ... ...
- \ REGUIDING PLAN
t-IC>>i DENSITY AESlOENJIAL E
a4 ACfES QROSS \. \,
..e>.DENSrTYRESD8'ffiAL UJACfEBPler.lflld:l SHAKOPE , MN
1O.B ACFES QROSS 18.8 ACfEB tel' '. "
2.6 ACFEB PlBJC 81h:t:r U lNTB I ACffE.
ex) 8.2 ACfES tel' \
;::: 5:7 lNTS J ACfE \ ,.
I P.AD \ \ I
I . . \ '\ I
~ 9.7 ACFEB QROBB \ ~
~ 0.2 ACAES P\B..IC tfl'fI:ET \ S
r~J D.5 ACfES lET ~\ r0
_ _ 1).1 lNT8 I ACRE 'I
\ ~
I I 1
CREEK ~,.,,~,...,,-.~"
--- "-., -~-
-----------
'-,-- "__.. '" ;;PC(r;
.- CREEY
N
Q)
LO
-, ... 410' EX. S.F. FESDENTIAL GUDED --1 \
_ _ 41 O. O! _ NO fIEQlK)NQ CHANQE 223........ 51 5' ....
-40.5 ACFES QROSS --72,8,20--
6.2 ACfEB PtEL1C ::STREET
34.3 ACfES teT
2.1lNTS J ACfE
!
I I
N I
1 0,"~ ex)
r{) Q) N [-f)
(7j f""--.. cD C'. I
. _ :_'" ex) '0
i ~ LEGAl ",se",""""'
"1\' That. part of the West holf of the Southeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 115. Range 22.
, lying Northerly of the North right-ai-way line oi County Rood No. 16. excepting therefrom
\i the West 410 feet thereof.
;-1) i GRAPHIC SCALE
." "".m ,., '" The Southwest One-quarter of the Northeast One-quarter; the Southeast One-quarter of the
. 1'Il _ .! Northeast One-quarter excepting the Easterly Five Hundred ninety-one and seventy-five one
~ . _ , _ ., hundredth feet thereof; 011 in Section Fourteen, Township One hundred Fifteen. Range
, '" F!:ET , Twenty-two. Scott County. Minnesota.
~ ; men. :ao rl.
t ., ., - .-
~ ,.' i ...;. EAG .... '.. .. _.. _.. _ _ ' NOTE: Area of parcel 3.460.423 Sq. Ft. (79.44 Acres)
;~ lE' -- , - .
- _ _ _ C~K BOUlEVARD--':: .,,-':;. :.~.
--
--
-
PREPARED FOR:
J hemby c~rlify that thn plan was prepared by me or tinder
rAP sn<PUoWNG r:IQCERN> my dir<</ SUPI!ITVI)ion and tho/I am a dilly rl!ltJistl!lrl!ld pro- M'/'Iz=rvr=o nZ=IJCJo.IDMCAJT
.. " """......__ Il!ISsiont1ll!1ngin~ undl!lr 1M law$ 01 thl!l Stcrll!l al/,linnl!lsoto. VI;;f,,;I\I..;f"{ VI;; VI;;L. ,/-/I;;/lf 10/1'/02
C.A.P. _,...._ PLOWE ENGINEERING, INC. 8315 Pleosent View Dr. SHEET 1 of 1
C.w.P. 91"" WONt;TOIV A"M.C No r:. Mounds View, MN 55172
TEl.: (m) 785-rIJ'J CIf1(U PrNCS. _ 550" rAX, (16J) 18<-6tXJ1 DATE:: 10/23/02 ReG. NO. 18227 TEL. (763) 786-6387
NOR T H W eST ASS O. C I ATe D. CON S U ~ TAN T S , IN C.
_.......__.._...__..h,...._..........N__.__.'...
6775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director
fROM: Deb Garross, Consultant Planner
DATE: December 3, 2002
RE: Issue Report for Eagle Creek Ponds Comprehensive Plan Amendment &
Rezoning
ff,LE: 276.01
APPLICATION
The City of Shakopee has received a request from Noecker Development, LLC, to
consider a Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning to change approximately 80
acres of land from Single Family Residential I Agricultural to Planned Residential
(Medium to High Density) in order to develop a mixed-use project with medium and high
density residential abutting the future County Road 21 Corridor, a senior center, park
and trails and single family homes on the southern part of the site abutting County Road
16. The subject site consists of about 80 acres of land situated directly north of County
Road 16 and south of the South Bridge Planned Unit Development.
BACKGROUND
ll1e...~.~rt~....~~e.PI~.~....ele~ent .of the. ,.~~~~~~~lm~i*~"'~':I:~.\1.l,:~~$.,g~~.~!8~~,9i 19.~~~.~,R,lis!1
,.:I~!g~~~,~'~~~~~..:i~9;~...:<;i,~~.m~r.ci.~I~pg.ystri'?f\1l:f~y~ro'pment'ilii~g::il!;~~,tii~~ii~~~:;,@r.~.~,~...:~g~[ClRoiat'e
f~lB;'{Mam~~~',',:'r,~~!.Q~ntl.c::lI'c1en$ltles,,!i The current ComprehemsWe Plan Indicates that
",i.,....'."'..'i"....'...'.....;;'..'i".'.i,;'...,...',.,.;,."..',".i'.'..;.>...,...';,......", i..,.......",.,...... ,". '.' :...,1
'rne'Cfi'Um'''and''nlgH'''densityresidential areas are intended to be developed adjacent to
commercial areas to provide market support and housing opportunities for the
employment centers. Medium to high density residential land uses are also located
adjacent to Highway 169 and serve as a buffer between the highway and single-family
residential development.
The southern part of the subject site is partially located in the bluff area along County
Road 16. The northern part of the site borders the future County Road 21 Corridor. It is
our understanding that the site is located within the rural service area and is not
contiguous to the urban service area and because of this, there are issues of providing
utilities to the site (Le., the site is not contiguous to properties with sewer and water will
need to be provided from the south, under the future County Road 21 Corridor). The
Page 1 of 4
City Capital Improvements Program Map (2001-2002) indicates that the section of
County Road 21 connecting County Road 16 and County Road 18 is not planned until
2005. The CIP does not indicate the extension of utilities to the site during the plan
period of 2001 through 2007.
ISSUES
,Il~lwl,;,!jffii,~~iii~;".'j~~M~,:,,~~~g.9!et~g,:~i;h.Jb~,...~ppli,q~t,qr1. ;fr9r.D,...9ur. .p~r~p~~tiy~....i~....th,t:it . it j,~
~l:f!tt1atlililre;'.';o/The applicant does not control land that 15 contiguous to the MUSA and the
delivery of utilities to the site is further complicated due to the fact that plans, other than
the right-of-way corridor for 4,~c\;:J;.atYT'!~e'a'dr'!?2'~':;;':"iao'!in0t"exi'$t. The sub>je"ct2"site');is"'iim,G~"
,c$mtigu0lUfS!:,t0.'iaiCQmmer~ial!distfict;,Qfj;;,~~Q@:~)!Q;l!P:glh!W(.9!~P!":~,~q~J!~,,.',QHig~st,,!.~n~. The land
u~~.,designation:,alonedoesnot provide theri'iecnan'isrrrfoprovidemarketsupport,for
cPmmercial.:ar~.~s.~ In order to be supportive, good pedestrian and vehicular access
must be provided to connect the development to the commercial sites. At this point,
and for the foreseeable future (based upon the City and County CIP and transportation
plans), the site is an island in the rural service area.
The Maxfield Research Inc., housing market study (prepared for the Scott County
Housing and Redevelopment Authority) indicates the housing demand expected for the
Suburban Market Area (consisting of Shakopee, Prior Lake, Savage, Jackson and
Louisville Townships) through the year 2010. For the purpose of identifying the City of
Shakopee's portion of the demand, one third (1/3) of the total Suburban Market Area
demand for the various types of rental and non-rental housing is outlined as follows:
RENTAL HOUSING DEMAND
General Occupancy Rental # Units # Units
Subsidized IAffordable Need 121
Market Rate Need 283
Total General Occupancy 404 404
Senior Rental - Deep Subsidy 14
Senior Rental - Adult! Affordable 98
Senior Rental - Congregate 51
Senior Rental - Assisted Living 47
Senior Rental - Memory Care 23
Total Senior Rental 233 233
Total Rental Housina Demand 637
Page 2 of 4
FOR SALE HOUSING DEMAND
Single Family # Units # Units
Entry Level (up to $250,000) 441
Move Up ($250,000 to $450,000) 1,323
Executive/Estate ($450,000+) 441
2,205 2,205
Multi Family
Entry Level (up to $200,000) 879
Move Up($200,000 +) 473
Total Multi Family Demand 1,352 1,352
Total For Sale Housinq Needed 31557
The information provided from the Market Study indicates that there will be a need to
provide the type of housing opportunities outlined in the application. The issue that
needs to be addressed concerns where and when said housing opportunities should be
provided. The current Comprehensive Plan indicates that there are large tracts of
medium to high density guided land located immediately adjacent or contiguous to
commercial centers along the 169 Bypass. The current Zoning Ordinance allows a
range of 5 - 11 medium density and 7 - 18 high density units per acre. The existing
land use map indicates approximately 370 acres of vacant land guided for medium/high
density use. If an average density of 8 units per acre is assumed, there is currently a
medium/high density land supply that would accommodate 2,960 units. The total multi-
family demand anticipated through the year 2010 is 1,352 units. There is an abundant
land supply to accommodate the multi family unit housing need expected over the next
eight years.
The subject site is located approximately Y4 mile westerly of the closest commercial
guided property. The bulk of the County Road 21/18 commercial center is located north
of the future southeasterly extension of Southbridge Parkway (which forms a barrier
between residential guided lands (including the subject site) and the bulk of the
commercial center. The subject site is physically separated from the closest medium
density guided area by two ten acre tracts of land guided for low density residential land
use.
As part of the Comprehensive Plan update, it is anticipated tl71l:at:~1aGi,€li~i.en'al',m:e0jwJ)'FI/Ai€1F:r,z
...:::::g:~:!i;l~tty,:::ie.f11)poFtuRities...:.i)will..:;tDe.iipr;QYiQ~.d:':"i::.al.Qng:i'itn.e.....",Bi\(e.r;f[qpttEir9.t"'i'./::~y,.WJH'~:""'iQJ~!r.i.9!. to
provide additional market support for the Downtown and First Avenue Commercial
ar~as. Addi.ti:om~:H'Y""ii;ijw:e:;i.:.anti!3ipate'ii2thati:.futurei"':Gor1'1merGial!l'fl'Ct€f!stfiiah.ii.'ia[~,~g\';""i,:~J.!J'ti. be
,'ili(!f'@1Mftrre'd'ii;iia:t"i:.th'eiie'O~o;f1"f~"i:R'o'a'aii":1!5!ii~nCli'i6~!'!infercnanges"'alon€l'itFie:ifffgfiWaY:'1'6~!r'iB:ypa'ss'
and areas of medium and high density will be created to support the employment
centers/retail areas at these locations in Shakopee.
Page 3 of 4
RECOMMENDATION
1,~e'f;recamffi~rta;~tlo'h"'frorn;Otlr' . office '. is..,that......the.,..,proposedland"use;'amendment"ane
f;~~omi!i4~;;');:&a-t'te;;:;'pl1~lm~Wre . Adequate areas for medium/high density residential
development exist within the City in locations that are directly adjacent to
commerciallindustrial areas and the urban service area. Furthermore, we believe that
the{J&~~i;!i?~~!>f'h;;~,~~,~,~:;;,t9,r,;...~~,~;\~Q~tiQ~.:.~~g.\~i9n~J,;,.m~Si.i.HfrO[@,igl};:.,g,@I'l~ity;..!;I~r;:I!::l".'"U$@...",~b,Ql.Jlg.,., b~
;::1alc)l!\g;,;th:e:::ri'veTrf:ront;'to".pri()'vig@'.;:!:r!~V~~~;,$,l.Jpp.Qrt...for:DowntQWP...(3.1'l9,;,.tbE3.. ,...,Flr~t:.,.AVE3Q!Je
CQr-:o~,~~~,:al:";:~r:~s:;;i;:~~~"l'~:~o~..~ly;!,.,;:~di~.c.en~";,to.,,.,f~!~.r:.;?ommercia'lindu$tl1i(3.'.. ..aFeas
a;nff~i~~t(:iato';BeI6catea"aifh€rCoUnty"Rd~d '15"'arief 69"ihterchangeswith the.169
.;:iMP~$~t
The subject site is physically separated from the bulk of the commercial area that will
develop adjacent to County Road 18. While the applicant provides good rationale for
considering other land use options adjacent to the future County Road 21 Corridor, we
t:leJ:i~$Ie:;tmat,,:pr;i,Q~.~ty,;;~bQ,!JI,q.;be.;;gJY.en;.,to.,Jands...,that",are,;.alread}';..witbJQ:tb!?:...!JFbao,.serviee
aFea;.ancl",aFe".leeate'd'J:tFI"el0'S~r":prexi;mitY"i(with;;supJ!>eFtimg'r;Qadi,.:trail)....a,n.g.,jQff,.a~~(ygtlJre)i.tQ,;;,
),:c.~IiE\;Irn\.e.!:;Qi.al,,!.a!F.eas.,;.Qf:tt\~;;.Q;i!y . The South Bridge example cited by the applicant is a
good example of the relationship desired between medium/high density and commercial
land use in that the multiple family is located contiguous to the commercial site and both
road and open space is provided from the development to the commercial district.
Should the City determine that the application is desirable, consideration should also be
given to re-guiding and rezoning the two ten acre sites located adjacent to and east of
the subject site. It is important for the City to consider the market demand and that
designating this site for medium/high density may be detrimental to the development of
other areas that have better infrastructure, access and closer proximity to commercial
centers within the community.
Page 4 of 4
.----------------------- ---------------
. COUNTYSTATEAlO HIGHWAY NO, 21 AGLE CREEK PONDS
1 ,.... 940' ~ :,:; r ~ 3 - - 200 f~:~i;:~~~e~)-way
\ REGUIDING PLAN
MED. DENSrTY RESIDEN1lAL \ SHAK OPE E, M N
~ 10.8 ACfES QR08S \
~ 2.8 ACFEB PlBJC 8TFI:t:: I \ t ~. A .
bro &2 ACFEB tET ~
ZJ::.: 5:1 tNTB I ACfE HIGH DENSITY RESlDEN11AL \ () /'I TA $1.. e.
28.1 ACFES GFI088 86'
I 2.1 ACFES PlBJC 81 ft::E 1 \ I
I 28.1 ACFES N:T ~ ~
co 7.5 lN18/ ACfE ~ .qw
o \ "
O o~
.-- '"
~ ~~?
n I'--~
.-- I
I ~ I
I I
C'.l
0)
11)
424'
1
41 0, EX. SF. RESDEN11AL QU[)E[)
738'
--41001- NO FECllDG CHANGE N 89'43'46" W
N 89'43'46" W <<).5 ACFES GFIOEI8 --738.20--
8.2 ACFES PUIJC 81 tII:I: I
34.3 ACFES tET
2.1lN18/ ACFE
I w
I ;... "" I
N ~ io I
0)" ~ ~ ro
.f'-..o Rr to
WOlz ~ '
0) f'-.. Ow N
f'-.. ~w
I ro
I : LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
That port of the West half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 115. Range 22.
lying Northerly of the North right-of-way line of County Rood No, 16. excepting therefrom
the West 410 feet thereof.
GRAPHIC SCALE
'" ... ,,. ,.. ... The Southwest One-quarter of the Northeast One-quarter; the Southeast One-quarter of the
~ _..I '" I Northeast One-quarter excepting the Easterly Five Hundred ninety-one and seventy-five one
- hundredth feet thereof; all in Section Fourteen, Township One hundred Fifteen, Range
( IN FEET) Twenty-two, Scott County, Minnesota,
1 inch... 120 it.
~~'rt~~bl~12~"4?""'._'-"-"N' 86'54' ',,';"" ...:=_......... _"'''' _ . NOTE: Area of parcel 3.460,423 Sq. Ft. (79.44 Acres)
- _ _ _ ~Gl~ CREEK 80UlEVAR~t'5525:~49;-8.-..,...
- - - - - - - - - _ _ _ ==-.:.~~ __ _ _ " '. -_.h.._.... :...... ~~
PREPARED FOR:
/ hereby certily that this plan was prepared by me or under
SITE PLANNING ENGINEERINt; my direct supervision and that I am 0 duly registered pro- NO I ce' V CR Dl C fIe I 01 D M CN T /
C.A.P. I(J/l'.-w snr lA1TJ(Jf ow<< tess/anal eng: er under the lows of the State 01 Minnesota. 1:::: 1\ L:.. J L- V L-L r -, -, L J 10/11 02
C.A;. :;;";::"A:",,"":... PLOWE ENGINEERING, INC. 8315 Pleasent VJ'ew Dr. SHEET 1 of 1
';''''' """'...""" - 9/80 lEXlNGTIJN ~VFNUE N, E. Mounds View, MN 55112
C.W.P. 7EJ" (163) 185-"H3 CJf/CI.E PINES, MN 55014 FAX.' (16;1) 186-6001 DATE: 1/.1/0.1 REG, NO. /8227 TEL. (763) 786-6387
. EAGLE CREEK PONDS
. PRELIMINARY PLAT
SHAKOPEE, MN
.
,
,
,
,
m \
l 'I \
Iff \
::: '\
, , I \
I , I \.,.
J , , \
L~~ \
\
\
,
\
,
,
\
,
---~-~~--------~-----------~~-~~------------- -~ ~~------~~--
\
\
\
\
o COUNlY STATE AID HIGHWAY NO. 21 \
o \ 0
N 200 foot right-of-way \ ~
S 89.44"8" E (unimproved) \ ..U......lI_
\ .....- .......
--2057.53-- ~\...... - r--r-l _j
~._._.-. -.-.-.~,,'<!~.-.-.-.,.-.. .---.-.-. --.-- -----1., i-r-------"" I';.,. I
!!fi" \\ I BLOCK 3 Ie., I I L'?-_.L_..J
-- _______________ --, --::=--- .... 50' _ ______..:...... I") I I I. , 1
~., .... --, ," ." ~\ _' _', \ ___-'-___..J to I I
1"1-- 7 /': ~ --I"T" ~-- - - - 17 - r-- ----------- t " I")' 1
,. 19." I;' - - ~ ~,o.....=-- '\ \ ~' ~: lr :..;~: me-~ 1~\ \ \ \ \r-2.;' ~ l' J:& ~~ ~I ~ ; Ir-'S] I ~ I ,. ~ L~--l---j T~ 18 ~-T---l fa
I ~ I -UlJLtm I i ~i5 I; ,""" -J..;.;-r i ..- - 1 '..., J. J......S9 80' - ';" " - ...---.....----1
.! '"' - I / I 15 ~. 1 I 1 140\ 23 28..1 .L!8 J8 lJ... 49 , Ii h I I fo I I ~
. ! l:: I ( i 1 .,124 I ":., l\ \ - ~~ \,.- ~..~ I... .. k I 68 ;:n I ( OUTLQr A · 8 t---i-----j .. ~ 9 l-'?-+--~ ~lll
I '" 'v ~ '16 ~ · ~ . ~\ \ 1 1 22 2.7 ~ J9 ..... Ol ill I I lil '.... I I '" m ,0 I I~!::
I - ,8 9 1 1 1 1 14 .1 '::~ - 1 -... 10 - It \ 11") I I ~I: I ,"), I t
... .. 'I ., -0 -l17::;jj I -t: . .Ii 9!!J 21 28 I .3J 40 ~ S, , :"'S7 82' , \ 'I l::--+---l ~ \--+---\:::.
. -..;::.. .! ",12 .' I I _ ,. ICO , 1 '" .;,. 1 I co
I .I.J... - , I ~ 1<13 I .8. r 8.!ll r- 20 29i [:2.., I -~ 52 LS5 B.Jf7 'I..., +~k_~_ J.l~ -'- -~~h~_
I I -'~.. L l' ~ ~ ~ - I i ii2!t ,~..,...t If7 ~\ i Itl. ';.\ -tIll 31; 42! r 1.. SJ I L SSj 6;j *'~ J.,,,..., ,.,... 'I,~I I 1-76 .~. I ,.. '0 ,~='. .
W,. ~ I I l'i:t.: I 118~, 1 'j!;1! " l- I.... ~L~ .-' 4-. , I "-J.::-: I ....::::iiii1Iiii-' I I I. 10 e (TYP)-l 10 f (TYP)-J
IX) S~ ' 4 ..,.. I . \ ..-." \ -- ....1 ~""'j'" --"..1 ~I ,70 69 68 , I
~ q I ~ I "'''' 51 .1191 1-;:;--' .:;( \ \ 50' I ~ 1:1~ .....,1tA - ') I (SLOCK J' l '-
_ 0 ::) w '! ,~_ 8 _. I St-/ "
~ ~. I... J I B~LOCK 2 .20.... I ---= .:J _~ \. '" ,~---PR\WifE~9------~ · ....__
b 7) - ~ ~ r-l "111i j21: I I ,~___r-- - --- ---.I ~ ....7...r "I ,,..-..: .....
I i ~ 4 ~ ./"'" ~ .. r- - I 't JWI:III. -. -- ----.
Z . I", 1 _tl.}t -..." 1 I ' '\/7172737475.s18182"'8485!I. I;.. I
"' - i ii 3 o\c -... ." ......... ~ ~ 1'1 - - , 1 ") I
lil':~ !t ~ ,.lc .V' -, I I , .. 1 ~______J
I ~ 1 ~ " 2 ,':/ / ------- \ -, \ ~ , 7S 78 n 76 'I 90 8& IS8 87 88/1 ) ~ I 1: ~: . ! c.. :
'" 1. Ii l:: ,'-"' ' \ ' I 2.4 25 1 --' '~ liii ~\ Cl .------i I- .., ~
· I;; . 818 I!::) 1......... ___' \, \ '113~141 'I '!43 52 ..:::. "~. ~ ! ~ -! 1-1.5' 8: c..---~ -15'
I '" \ I!... ",'" ___- ,\ I j I 2,; 26 I I I -- J---PRl't'AlE-il~--------"'" \ .... C ....--__--1 ;; 1 "l ,
1 ... 1 -=. it:E Ie, .., a; ,..------,
. .. I ",/' ~ 1 I 121;15 I I 2 27 I i I..... 51 1 \: it ~ I I: ;,. : 1
-=- I \ ", I ..\ - _ _J_... I .., ,
~ I I I \ 'v'" "-~~~ 38' 11 ~61 I 2 281 I 145 50 1 ~ 91 92 93 94 95 96 ~ 11031 fJ7108' . , S,_!=ZO' BLDG:-l ....!. --:---:::::;-
\ ~~...... , I U1"" \, 5'- I=ZO BLDG." J
~ ~ I i ~i"" \ ,./: ! 10 ~7! I' 2j 29 1 I ......... ~ 46 49 It 1;102 0110C 99 98 97 J 12.1~ 11;: 12 11 10 09 \ 5 t: (7YP)- 5' f (TYP)
;;\ I . \ \ /': , 1 9 18 1 )1' 30 il I i; i ,7 tf 1\ W
~ i ';g' , \ \ ,. - _L.:.:-i " ~ 48 t::t: - l') , ~ BUILDING TYPE
"" . . \ \ \ ",.( m-----=::~ 1 I I, ---r--.+' --PRJ\IAlE-eRlYE-&------ "": \ E'l
~ ~- \,) , ~ -- - '--- I!'. -- ~. 0, Ol
~ I _/~(( (,JJ./J,a];"7 !~----:-~' i !53 02 - II \11151617181920 J127"""''''''''311321,' 19 \", R~#UN/TS UNtTTYPE TOTAL UNITS
. ,----" I'!~ :--.. ..... , 1M 81 - I' ~. I \ (/)
~ . \ I {( L!J2J3 71 III J6 JS ~..3.: 32 -'/ I BLOCK 9 I t \ 1112625 24 23 22~21 1'3Il 3713ll ~134133 I 1 \R1 (40) SINGLE FAMILY HOMES 72
:;; I", 11 31 , 55 50. \ I} "~2 (16) 3&4 UNIT TOWNHoMES 55
:n . \<irUio. ,....'.. ....... , '."C;:"~~-.. '~~' L:3_3t/ 311 4q 4~..,:J1 I I ~.. - J I' I R-\ (18)' 6,8,10& 12UNITTOWNHOMES 195
~ I \ I ~.""""".'..,.. ..." ::---~ '7 "'I J 156 59 ~r------:--PRMiFE~~------ \ 313 TOTAL
~ CREEK 60 CIlfIK EASOIfHT ___ -_ --, 157 58' \ I UN/Tf{ \
UJ · _, --- -----...:::::: L I I , _i
5 I I:J '\ ......, .... ..... .'. .. - -------y I CURREN[ZoNING R1-B
UJ ~ 16...... l) ...... ". . ..",' 7RU. ..' \ ' I \
~. rl ae' ~ PROPOSED CREEK I T1WI. ........ ~
~ I I fJ j "'- O~ON , I . _~;"'_""'olU.__ol_,.,T_"S._z::.
lli . l 115 ..... , =-' ~-- - i!e 60' CREEK!ASE1JD{T CREEK I. l::w"r1l;:"o;::. rIg/Il.......,..,... 01 ~ _....10....."....,_
~ I fj ,I J I n..__ol"'_~ll>o__ol""
u ~,I . . I __~""EdIl.orlyf'...
~ ! & 14F1!J ~ .... ......L _.... _..L _..L _.... ,.,..... ........ j / I ~
:5 . ci U!l1 ~ I I -,--, ,--, r--I ...--. - -' ~ . I
~~ -) GRAPmc SCALE J Jwwby -'Ify that /IW pi(Jn - ~ by - or untW ~..&Bm #TJIt 0
N C.A.P. .. .. r _ fo/___-Iht1tJamQ~~-- S1tC - - 1l4'1f: 11/21
~ ~ ~ I I -- 9i-' -Aw - '" #~_. HOECKER Df.\IE1..OF>WEH
6 c.A.P. !ol ~_ /" ft At~ ./';,. ---L ~ ~ .D !'LOWE ENfJIEE1INO, NC. 8315 "'-'t KeW' Dr. Hal..
g: ( II nIT ) -.II/1II .- _ ~ Moundll VIew. ItIH 56112
* ew,p,. JI .__m. .... ''''''''~~ "'" __ ___ _ ___ ro (1<J)""""
:r
----------------------------------------------- ---------------
. EAGLE CREEK PONDS
COUIlTY STIITE AID HIGHWAY NO. 21
- - 2 057 . 53- - 200 foot right-of-woy "\ .
I ,S 89'44' 18"1 E (unimproved) c
. ... 940 --. c REZONING PLAN
~2 \ SHAKOPEE,MN
~ 1O.8ACfESQROSS R-3 \
~ 2.8 AaES PtBJC STft:t::1 ftA4 A~ ~ \
b ro 8.2 ACfE8 tEl' ~. "'~ ~ c
Z ;:: 5:7 lNlB/ AaE 2.1 ACFES PtBJC 8TF1t:c I \
28.1 ACFES tEl' to
7.5lHT8/ Aa:E \ g I
c I
n
.q-w
I c, .,
I o,~
;g 0\ ;;:; g
"-lJl
o I
;;:; \1
.,-
I
I
N
Ol
L{)
~
,-
~
1
I.... 410' R-18 738'
--41001- N 89'43'46 w
N 89'43'46" W 40.5 AaES CIlO88 --738.20--
8.2 AaES PlB.JC STR...-I
34.3 AaES tEl'
2.1 \NT8 J Aa:E
I w
I ~ ~ I
N ~ '", I
Ol r---. b .~ ex)
tOOlz ~~
OJ r--- Oc.o N
r--- ~tO
I ex)
I : LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
That part of the West half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 115, Range 22,
lying Northerly of the North right-of-way line of County Rood No. 16, excepting therefrom
the West 410 feet thereof.
GRAPHIC SCALE The Southwest One-quarter of the Northeast One-quarter; the Southeast One-quarter of the
Northeast One-quorter excepting the Easterly Five Hundred ninety-one and seventy-five one
'j;. .J 'I 'j' ':"' T hundredth feet thereof; .011 in Section Fourteen, Township One hundred Fifteen, Range
- Twenty-two, Scott County, Minnesota.
i RL-zi;~-J;1241 ......-.......... -..,..... AF-.-Q.. ".6: I ~.~ ~:::o) fl NOTE: Areo of parcel 3,460,423 Sq_ Ft. (79.44 Acres)
~ L\= 2'47'04" EAGLE N 8654tlCl"'YI.Z: ---.---...--. t ----- _
- ----- - --~~~__.!3~~~R&= 1:~~~?t9:83..'. -""-__.
--- -'.-
---
_ "-.
PREPARED FOR:
I hereby certify that Ihis plan was prepared by me ar IInder
.. SITE PlANNIN(; EJK;JNf:ERJNG my direct supervision and that I am a duly registered pro- NOI Ce' V CR Df C I / C I 01 D M CN T
C.A:,. ''''''/01''''''''''''- fess~erllnder the laws oflhe Slate of Minnesala. LI I\LI L. VLL. I I-IL.l 10/11/02
C.AP ;;>::::::~:..... PLOWE ENG/NEER/NQ /Ne. C. A .Pi: A'_ / ~~~ 8315 Plec:sent View Dr. SHEET 1 of 1
c, '/-"'" """ "'''''' . 91/J() LDtINGIVN AVENlle N. E. Mounds View, MN 55112
C.W.P. 7fu (l6J) 785-ltuJ CIRClE PINts. UN 550U FAX: (76J) 786-6007 OATc.' 1/3/03 RFG. NO. 18227 TEL. (763) 786-6387