HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-136 Council Resolution•
CITY OF LINO LAKES
RESOLUTION NO. 04-136
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLAN/PRELIMINARY PLAT,
ALLOCATION OF MUSA RESERVE,
FOR THE PROPOSED
PHEASANT HILLS PRESERVE 12TH ADDITION
WHEREAS, the Lino Lakes City Council makes the following findings:
Findings
1. Hokanson Development has submitted an application for a residential planned unit
development (PUD) and a development stage plan/preliminary plat for the PUD.
This would require the allocation of Metropolitan Urban Reserve Area (MUSA) acres
by the City.
2. The site includes approximately 30.7 acres.
• 3. The comprehensive plan guides the site for Low Density Sewered Residential
development .
•
4. The site was rezoned from R -X, Rural Executive to Residential Planned Unit
Development by Ordinance No. 22 -04.
5. The Lino Lakes Growth Management Ordinance, Ordinance No. 01 -03 establishes a
goal to limit new growth n the city to an average of 147 new housing units per year,
with the ability to exceed this target by 20% at the City Council's discretion. This
project can fit within the 20% if final platted in year 2005.
6. The Planning & Zoning Board held a public hearing on the application on January 9,
2002.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Lino Lakes City Council hereby
approves the application for a planned unit development/development stage plan for
Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addition.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council approves the allocation of 5.6 acres
of MUSA reserve for Blocks 1 and 2 of Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addition.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval apply:
• 1. Erosion control and tree protection measures must be installed before grading begins
on the project, as required by City ordinance.
2. Individual custom grading of each lot will be examined to minimize impacts to the
existing topography and minimize other impacts to the environment.
3. The construction of rainwater gardens in individual lots will be used if possible,
increasing infiltration of stormwater runoff.
4. A delineated preservation area on the north side of the island will be clearly marked
during clearing and construction on the site. Care will be exercised to not damage
valuable trees or disturb designated buffer zones. This area will remain in a natural
state. Covenants will be used so property owners cannot remove vegetation in this
area. Monuments will be posted delineating this area. Drainage from the rear of the
homes will travel through this area allowing infiltration and reducing runoff. The
project approval will include a mechanism such as covenants or a conservation
easement to protect this area.
5. Covenants shall be included in homeowners' association documents to prohibit the
use of phosphorous on the lawns.
6. The posting of signs and other aspects of a protection plan, as recommended by MN
DNR, will be required to help protect Blanding's Turtles .
7. The revised project and bridge design shall be submitted for review by the Rice Creek
Watershed District. A permit must be obtained from the Watershed District prior to
final plat approval by the City.
8. The City Engineer's comments in the memo of September 17, 2004 must be
addressed to City Engineer's satisfaction.
9. The developer shall implement the pre - construction survey and monitoring program
for noise and vibration prior to any grading or construction work commencing on the
site.
10. A small, temporary noise wall must be constructed around any dewatering pump that
will run after daytime working hours.
11. Homeowners shall not disturb wetlands beyond 100 feet from the back of their
homes. This prohibition shall be included in the homeowner association documents.
12. The bridge, roads, water, and sanitary sewer utilties within the project shall be
privately owned and maintained. There must be an inspection and maintenance
program for the bridge and utilities. There shall be provisions in the development
agreement and homeowners association documents to enable the City to step in and
effect repairs to the bridge, road, and water and sanitary sewer facilities if the
- 5 6 - Resolution 04 -136, page 2
•
•
association fails to maintain them, and assess the cost to the property owners without
challenge by the property owners. This is not intended to give responsibility for
maintenance to the City except in emergency situations. This requirement is intended
to protect public health and safety. These provisions shall be executed before work
begins on the bridge or utilities.
13. There shall be no burning of vegetation cleared during construction. Vegetation shall
be chipped and the chips disposed of off site.
14. Park dedication shall be cash, calculated based on the park dedication fees in effect at
the time of fmal plat.
15. Bridge rails shall be wood or a material of similar appearance, to be reviewed by City
staff prior to commencing construction.
16. The project shall not be fmal platted until 2005 to comply with the growth
management policy.
17. Homeowners association declaration/covenants must be submitted for City Attorney
review as required by the City's fmal plat requirements.
18. Any elements of the project not specifically addressed by the approved plans shall be
subject to appropriate requirements of the R -1X zoning district and of other
applicable City ordinances and controls.
19. This approval is based on the following submittals:
• Existing Conditions, September 3, 2004
• Site Layout Plan, September 3, 2004
• Grading and Drainage Plans C3.1 and C3.2, September 3, 2004
• Erosion Control Plan, September 3, 2004
• Tree Preservation Plan, September 3, 2004
• Utility Plan, September 3, 2004
• Preliminary Plat, September 3, 2004
• Typical Section & Quantitites for bridge, September 3, 2004
• General Plan & Elevation for bridge, September 3, 2004
Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this day of
2004.
AT'T'EST:
Ber son, Mayor
- 57 - Resolution 04 -136, page 3
•
AGENDA ITEM 6 B
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser
C. C. MEETING DATE: September 27, 2004
TOPIC: i. Ordinance No. 22 -04
Rezone From R -X to Residential Planned Unit
Development
ii. Resolution 04 -136
Planned Unit Development Stage Plan/Preliminary
Plat, and Allocation of MUSA Reserve
iii. Resolution 04 -137
Variance to Allow infrastructure Construction Prior
to Final Plat
Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addition
VOTES REQUIRED:
• BACKGROUND
•
3/5 for rezoning ordinance
3/5 for CUP/PUD/Plat/MUSA resolution
3/5 for variance
Mr. Ed Vaughan has submitted an application to develop property that includes an island
near Ruffed Grouse Road. This will require a rezoning from its existing Rural Executive
zone (R -X). Under the City's current ordinance, this will require a rezoning to residential
planned unit development (PUD) and the corresponding development stage
plan/preliminary plat. The project also will require allocation of MUSA reserve acres.
The project has been discussed since the original submittal in April 2001. A summary
timeline is attached at the end of this report. A petition for the preparation of an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) prompted the City to require an EAW in
2002. This put the application review process on hold. The City completed the process
for an EAW with its decision that no Environmental Impact Statement is necessary.
Under the deadline law (MN Stat 15.99), the deadline period begins again after the
completion of a process required by statute. The negative declaration occurred August
9th. The 60 -day review period began again then, and expires on October 8th. The last city
council meeting before the deadline is September 27th.
The subdivision ordinance requires that a final plat approval must be obtained before
streets, water, and sanitary sewer infrastructure are constructed. Because of the City's
growth management limitations, the project cannot be final platted until 2005. The
MnDNR permit for constructing a bridge expires November 30, 2004. Therefore, a
•
Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addn.
page 2
variance from the infrastructure timing requirement is needed in order for the project to
proceed.
ANALYSIS
Land Use, Density, Zoning
The table below identifies the existing land use and zoning as well as guided land uses for
the area.
Location
Existing Land Use
Guided Land Use
Existing Zoning
Site
vacant
Low Density Sewered
Residential
R -X, Rural Executive
North
regional park
PSP Public /Semi -Public
PSP Public Semi- Public
South
single family
residential and
wetland
Low Density Sewered
Residential and Rural
R -1X Single Family
Executive and
R -X Rural Executive
East
regional park,
wetland,
Rural, PSP
R -X, PSP
West
wetland and single
family residential
PSP and Low Density
Sewered Residential
R -X, PSP, R -1
The comprehensive plan guides the island and the end of the "peninsula ", where the
proposed lots are shown, for Low Density Sewered Residential land use. The site is
within the Stage 1 growth area, which means the City can consider serving the site with
utilities prior to year 2010.
The following is a summary of the of the proposal:
units 8 units /acre
total site gross density 0.26 units /acre
total site net density 0.91 units /acre
Block 1 & Block 2 only gross density 0.71 units /acre
Block 1 & Block 2 only net density 1.42 units /acre
These densities are derived from the following lot data. It should be noted that the
private road is included in these lot areas. If the private road easement were subtracted,
the density would be very slightly higher, though still well within the range required by
the comprehensive plan.
•
L1 B1
Block 1 subtotal
L1 B2
L2 B2
L3 B2
L4 B2
L5 B2
L6 B2
L7 B2
Block 2 subtotal
Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addn.
page 3
gross ac upland ac
3.96 0.90
3.96 0.90
1.02 0.95
0.87 0.60
1.05 0.60
0.70 0.49
0.85 0.55
1.24 0.75
1.60 0.78
7.33 4.72
subtotal Block 1 & Block 2 only 11.29 5.62
Outlot A 2.00 0.16
Outlot B 17.38 3.04
TOTAL 30.67 8.82
Growth Management:
• MUSA: The City's growth management policy (Ordinance 01 -03) implements
growth policies of the comprehensive plan. It establishes limits on the number of new
units to be approved as well on the use of MUSA reserve. The site requires MUSA, so
the MUSA reserve limit is relevant. The 36 -acre target has been reached for 2004, but
the policy allows an additional 20% (7.2 acres). To date, 36 acres have been approved
for 2004. The additional 5.6 acres for this project will bring the total to 41.6, or 15%
over the target.
Units: The 147 units per year have been reached for 2004 and the allowable 20% also
has been used (see attached table). As of the August 23 City Council meeting, 133 lots
have been approved for 2005, so there are lots available for 2005 if the City Council is
willing to use the discretionary 20 %.
Variance: As part of the City's growth management regulations, the subdivision
ordinance prohibits infrastructure construction until a final plat is approved. Section
1010 -6 states:
The construction of streets, facilities for sanitary sewer and water, and other
improvements beyond grading, wetland, and stormwater facilities shall not begin
until approval of a final plat.
The developer has a permit from the Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources to build a
bridge. This permit expires November 30, 2004. The DNR has informed the developer
Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addn.
page 4
• that the permit will not be extended, and the bridge must be finished by the expiration
date. If the bridge is not built, there is no access to the island.
•
The subdivision ordinance addresses variances in Section 1002 -5:
The City Council may approve variances from the requirements of this
Subdivision Ordinance. All variance requests from these subdivision regulations
shall comply with Section 2, Subd. 4 of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance, as may
be amended.
The cited section is the normal variance section of the zoning ordinance. Therefore,
variances from the subdivision ordinance are handled just like variances from the zoning
ordinance. Normally, a variance must go to the Planning & Zoning Board for a
recommendation. However, because we are facing a statutory 60 -day deadline, we don't
have the time to bring it to the P & Z first.
PUD Zoning: The site currently is zoned R -X, Rural Executive. A rezoning is
needed if the project is to proceed. The project includes numerous unusual physical
aspects. The standard zoning and subdivision requirements of the City's ordinances
would not allow the project as proposed. The current zoning ordinance does not allow a
conditional use permit for a PUD in a single family zone. Therefore, we can't just rezone
to R -1X and use a CUP/PUD. The other alternative is to rczonc to PUD.
The following elements are those that don't meet standard requirements.
• The project is located within a shoreland management overlay district that includes
land within 1000 feet of the ordinary high water level (OHWL) of Wards Lake.
Wards Lake has an ordinary high water level (OHWL) of 883.7. Technically
everything at or below this elevation is within Wards Lake. This lake is classified as
a Natural Environment Lake, and therefore there is a minimum setback from the
OHWL of 150 feet. The proposed project does not meet the requirements for
setbacks because the island is less than 300 feet wide: There is no spot on the island
that is 150 feet from all edges of the island.
• Section 1102.09, Subd. 3.B. of the shoreland ordinance states:
"Roads, driveways, and parking areas must meet structure setbacks and must not
be placed within shore impact zones when other reasonable and feasible
placement alternatives exist. If no alternatives exist, they may be placed within
these areas, and must be designed to minimize adverse impacts." (The shore
impact zone is one -half the setback, or 75 feet.)
The proposed private road is within the shore impact zone. In order to place the road
elsewhere, the house pads would need to be moved closer to the other side of the
island, reducing the setback even further.
•
Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addn.
page 5
• The maximum cul de sac length is 500 feet, as stated in Chapter 302.03, Subd. 1.(8).
The existing cul de sac, Wild Turkey Trail and Ruffed Grouse Rd., is over 1000 feet.
The proposed project would extend this nonconforming situation.
Because of these inconsistencies with standard ordinance requirements, the proposal
includes the use of a planned unit development (PUD). A PUD is not intended simply to
be a way to avoid development ordinance standards. A PUD offers the opportunity to
deviate from strict application of ordinance requirements to achieve goals —such as more
efficient use of land and preservation of desirable site characteristics—that would not be
possible when adhering to normal ordinance requirements. Several elements, such as a
preservation area buffer along one side of the island and the swales, would promote
environmental goals.
An important question for the proposed project is whether the proposed design meets
enough of such goals to justify the many deviations from normal requirements. The
specific requirements relative to the proposed project are discussed below.
PRELIMINARY PLAT/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Section 2, Subd. 10.A. of the zoning ordinance discusses the purpose of a planned unit
•
•
I ... -.
• D • .... - • • 11 • - 1 d 11 • 1
application should be compared to these purposes in order to justify any flexibility
requested by the applicant.
Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this section of the Zoning Ordinance is
to provide for the grouping of lots or buildings for development as an
integrated, coordinated unit as opposed to traditional parcel by parcel,
piecemeal, or sporadic approach to development. This section is intended to
introduce flexibility of site design and architecture for the conservation of
land and open space through clustering of lots, buildings and activities, which
promote the goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan or serve another public
purpose. It is further intended that planned unit developments are to be
characterized by central management, integrated planning and architecture,
joint and common use and maintenance of parking, open space and other
similar facilities, and harmonious selection and efficient distribution of uses.
The PUD, by allowing deviation from the strict provisions of this Ordinance
related to setbacks, heights, lot area, width and depths, yards, etc., by
conditional use permit or a mixture of uses by rezoning to a PUD District, is
intended to encourage:
1. A development pattern in harmony with the objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan.
e
•
•
Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addn.
page 6
2. Innovations in development that address growing demands for all styles of
economic expansion, greater variety in type, design, architectural
standards, and siting of structures through the conservation and more
efficient use of land in such developments.
3. The preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics such as
existing vegetation, natural topography and geologic features and the
prevention of soil erosion.
4. A creative use of land and related physical development which allows a
phased and orderly transition of varying land uses in close proximity to
each other.
5. An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and
streets thereby lowering development costs and public investments.
6. Promotion of a desirable and creative environment that might be prevented
through the strict application of City zoning and subdivision regulations.
Urban PUD Purposes:
a. Preservation of wildlife habitat and unique natural resources.
b. Reduction of negative impacts on the environment.
c. Creation of common open space that provides a unified landscape for the use and
enjoyment of the neighborhood community and/or the general public.
d. A variety of urban residential lot sizes, configurations, and neighborhoods.
While a PUD allows for flexibility from standard zoning requirements, it can be useful to
compare certain design elements to the standard requirements. The following table
summarizes selected project design elements and compares them to related requirements.
proposed
lot size
R -1X: 12,825 sf
21,697 (smallest lot)
setbacks
local street
30 ft or
25 ft from internal
streets in PUD
30 ft
impervious
R -1X: max 65%
shoreland: 35%
< 30%
open space
50% for PUD
Outlots: 63%
•
•
•
Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addn.
page 7
Lots: The proposal includes eight lots. One lot would be on the "peninsula" at the end
of the existing Ruffed Grouse Road. Seven lots would be on an island.
It is difficult to say exactly what is included in the "upland" data submitted for each lot.
The wetland is one edge, but the ordinary high water level, which establishes the lake
edge, is a different line. However, they are in close proximity to one another. According
to the submitted data, the smallest lot, Lot 4 on the island, is 21,697 sf of upland. This
upland figure includes the private easement for the road , which would cover about 3,000
sf on that lot. Even subtracting this private easement, and some area that is below the
OHWL but above the wetland edge, the lots will be large.
Streets, Access: Access to site is via Ruffed Grouse Road and Wild Turkey Trail to
Birch St. The addition of eight single family homes will pose no problems for these
roadways. The proposal includes a short extension of Ruffed Grouse Road and a bridge
to the island. A road would then run along the south side of the island to provide access
to lots there. It is not advisable for the City to take on the expense of maintenance and
repair for the bridge. In addition, it is City policy that landscaped islands are not allowed
in cul de sacs, as is proposed on the extension of Ruffed Grouse Rd. Therefore, the road
extension, bridge, and the island road will be private facilities. They will be owned and
maintained by a homeowner association made up of property owners in the development.
A private easement will be established across all the lots to contain the road and bridge.
How to allocate costs between island owners and Lot 1 Block 1 would be a matter to be
worked out by the developer in the association documents.
The road design will need to be revised as recommended by the City Engineer to ensure
emergency vehicle access. This refers to radii on curves and other details. The submitted
bridge design corresponds with the latest information submitted as part of the EAW
review.
The City will require provisions in the development agreement to enable the City to step
in and effect repairs, should the association fail to maintain the bridge and roads, and
assess the cost to the property owners. The City also would require an inspection and
maintenance program.
Residents have raised the question of possible damage to the roads by construction
vehicles. It is standard practice for the City Engineer to examine roads before and after
construction and charge any damage to the developer.
Stormwater Management: There will be a small collection area in Lot 1, Block
1, within a small landscaped area in the road. There will be two ponds on the island, one
at each end. In addition, stormwater will be collected in several areas prior to running
into the ponds. This will allow more infiltration and filtering of stormwater.
Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addn.
page 8
The lots will be custom graded, which means that the grading will be determined as part
of the individual building permit. This allows close attention to the trees, slopes, and
other features of the lots. The normal mass grading typically devotes less attention to
these details in order to be more cost effective for the developer.
Utilities: The project will be served with water and sanitary sewer via existing
facilities in Ruffed Grouse Rd. A sanitary sewer lift station is proposed on the island, at
the east end of the bridge. These utility extensions, like the roads and bridge, will be
private utilities, owned and maintained by the homeowner association. How to allocate
costs between island owners and Lot 1 Block 1 would be a matter to be worked out by the
developer in the association documents.
The City will require provisions in the development agreement to enable the City to step
in and effect repairs, should the association fail to maintain the utility facilities, and
assess the cost to the property owners. The City also would require an inspection and
maintenance program.
Park Dedication: Park dedication would be calculated based on the number of lots.
Because the dedication fee may change prior to final plat approval, this report does not
include a calculation of the total dedication.
Additional EAW Issues: The EAW process identified the following issues to
be addressed as part of the plat review and approval:
1. The City will require a specific and extensive tree preservation plan for the plat
and individual plans for custom graded lots. These are required in the City's
newly adopted subdivision and zoning ordinances.
An overall plan was submitted, individual lots will be addressed with the building
permits. This is a standard requirement, but is included as a condition of approval.
2. Erosion control and tree protection measures must be installed before grading
begins on the project. The City has begun strict enforcement of these
requirement.
This will be addressed as part of standard project inspection by the City Engineer. This
is a standard requirement, but is included as a condition of approval.
3. Individual custom grading of each lot will be examined to minimize impacts to
the existing topography and minimize other impacts to the environment. Plans
must clarify where mass grading is proposed, if any, and where custom grading is
proposed.
An overall plan was submitted, individual lots will be addressed with the building
permits. This is a standard requirement, but is included as a condition of approval.
4. The construction of rainwater gardens in individual lots will be used if possible,
increasing infiltration of stormwater runoff.
•
•
Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addn.
page 9
5. A delineated preservation area on the north side of the island will be clearly
marked during clearing and construction on the site. Care will be exercised to not
damage valuable trees or disturb designated buffer zones. This area will remain
in a natural state. Covenants will be used so property owners cannot remove
vegetation in this area. Monuments will be posted delineating this area. Drainage
from the rear of the homes will travel through this area allowing infiltration and
reducing runoff. The project approval will include a mechanism such as
covenants or a conservation easement to protect this area.
A covenant will be required as part of the homeowner association documents as a
condition of approval.
6. Using roof leaders to direct runoff away from impervious surfaces will reduce the
volume of runoff from the site.
This will be considered with house and lot design.
7. Covenants will be included in homeowners' association bylaws to prohibit the use
of phosphorous on the lawns.
A covenant will be required as part of the homeowner association documents.
8. The posting of signs and other aspects of a protection plan, as recommended by
MN DNR, will be required to help protect Blanding's Turtles .
This is a condition of approval.
9. A flat bridge design will minimize the visual impacts compared to a truss bridge.
The clearance under the bridge will be approximately 12 feet above ordinary high
water level, and approximately six feet during 100 -year flood conditions, which
allows for canoe access.
The new design includes these features.
10. Any fill activity in the lake (below the ordinary high water level) or dewatering
must conform to DNR standards.
This will be addressed with project inspection.
11. If any wetland fill does become necessary due to the revised bridge design, the
developer must obtain necessary approvals from the Rice Creek Watershed
District prior to City Council approval of the preliminary plat.
The bridge design must be reviewed by the RCWD.
12. The City will require utility and roadway specifications that demonstrate
compliance with current City standards. These will be of greater detail than have
been submitted to date.
The City Engineer has reviewed the submittal.
13. The City will require a pre - construction survey and monitoring program for noise
and vibration (as noted above).
A plan has been submitted and must be executed as part of construction.
•
•
•
Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addn.
page 10
14. Damage to existing streets will be considered in the establishment of financial
securities for a development agreement for the project.
It is standard procedure to observe roads before and after construction to determine any
damage. Any damage will be charged to the developer.
15. A small, temporary noise wall must be constructed around any dewatering pump
that will run after daytime working hours.
This is a condition of approval.
16. A condition regarding no disturbing wetlands beyond 100 feet from the back of
their homes will be included in the project requirements and recorded against all
properties as a platting requirement.
This is a condition of approval.
17. The City will require provisions in the development agreement to enable the City
to step in and effect repairs, should the association fail to maintain the
infrastructure, and assess the cost to the property owners. The City also would
require an inspection and maintenance program.
This will be included in the development agreement and/or homeowner association
documents, as determined by the City Attorney.
18. The City would impose a prohibition on the burning of vegetation cleared during
construction and require that vegetation be chipped and the chips disposed of off
site.
This is a condition of approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD
The Environmental Board reviewed the proposal in December 2001. The Board
recommended denial of the application .
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
The P & Z Board reviewed the proposal in January 2001. The Board recommended
denial of the application because of the numerous departures from zoning and subdivision
requirements and, in the Board's opinion, the failure to meet the purposes of a planned
development.
Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addn.
page 11
OPTIONS
1. Approve the application by approving the following:
i. First Reading of Ordinance No. 22 -04, approving rezoning to Residential PUD.
ii. Resolution 04 -136, approving PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat and
MUSA Reserve Allocation.
iii: Resolution 04 =137, approving variance from requirement that a -coal plat must be
approved before infrastructure can be constructed.
2. Deny the application by denying the ordinance and two resolutions.
RECOMMENDATION
Option 1
•
•
•
Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addn.
page 12
Summary History of the Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addition Project:
April 2001
September 2001
December 2001
January 2002
February 2002
March 2002
August 2002
August 2003
October 2003
April 2004
May 10, 2004
June 1, 2004
July 9, 2004
July 15, 2004
August 9, 2004
Project submittal for comprehensive plan amendment, rezone to
planned development, and preliminary plat. Submittal incomplete.
New submittal, incomplete. Additional information received over
following weeks.
Environmental Board voted to recommend denial of project as
submitted.
P & Z voted to recommend denial of the project as submitted.
City received petition requesting preparation of EAW.
City Council required preparation of an EAW.
Comprehensive plan adopted, which includes site in Low Density
Sewered Residential area, eliminating the need for the comprehensive
plan amendment.
EAW completed and distributed for public comment: notice in EQB
Monitor Sept. 1, comment period ends October 1.
Comments raised questions, City notifies applicant that more info
needed on specific items. Information received over next months.
City Council work session, Council instructs applicant to provide more
information with specific info needed by staff (bridge, noise).
Bridge images submitted.
Bridge piling /abutment sketches submitted.
Draft Record of Decision distributed to Env. Bd., applicant,
neighborhood (petitioner) representative
Environmental Board recommends negative declaration.
City Council holds a public hearing. Council makes a negative
declaration: an Environmental Impact Statement is not warranted.
September 3, 2004 New plans submitted.
•
•
•
Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addn.
page 13
KtJIUtN 1 IAL MUSA
ALLOCATION 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
TOTAL
annual target
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
252.0
27.7
55.0
20.9
3.7
1.4
0.7
Stoneybrook
27.7
Century Farms North
15.3
11.4
13.5
5.4
9.4
Ravens Hollow
20.9
Justin's Preserve
3.7
Junes Addition
1.4
proposed
West Shadow Ponds 2nd
0.7
Pheasant Hills 12th Addn
5.6
Speiser /Sawyer
1.5
5.0
total
43.0
43.1
20.6
5.4
9.4
0.0
0.0
121.5
remaining of annual 36 -7.0 -7.1 15.4 30.6 26.6 36.0 36.0
130.5
exceeds target by
19% 20%
•
as of September 14, 2004
LOTS /UNITS
• , Pheasant Hills Preserve 121' •n.
Development Name
approved prelim. plats
Prelim
Plat
Phasing plans by year (lots /units to be final platted)
year end
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2003 -09
total
max.
1029
Stoneybrook •
103
51
0
2nd Addn
0
52
52
Century Farms North
249
56
65
52
43
33
249
Keefe: prel plat, not final plat
1
1
1
Morton (minor subdiv)
0
1
1
Ravens Hollow
56
0
56
56
Haley Manor (10 new lots)
10
10
10
Crystal Cove
3
3
3
Millers Crossroads
152
22
47
51
32
152
Lakeview Estates (2 new)
2
2
2
Snell (minor subdivision)
0
1
1
Pheasant Hills Pres. 13th
1
1
1
Justin's Preserve
1
1
1
Marshan Estates
4
4
4
Rice Creek Church duplex
2
2
2
Rice Church: Oakwood View
10
10
10
Junes Addn
2
2
2
Highland Meadows East 2nd
18
18
18
Marshan Townhomes 2nd
23
23
proposed
Pheasant Hills 12th island
8
8
8
West Shadow Ponds 2nd Add
1
1
1
Fox Den Acres (resubmittal)
56
11
45
56
total
51
148
176
176
120
33
0
0
653
remaining of annual 147
remaining of 1029 for pre -2010
exceeds target of 147 by
percent
-1
-29 -29 27 114 147 147
1 29 29
0.7% 19.7% 19.7%
376
page 14