HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-120 Council Resolution01-120
Council Member o' Donnell introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption.
CITY OF LINO LAKES
RESOLUTION NO. 01 - 120
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR 12th AVENUE AND HOLLY DRIVE
WHEREAS, the City has received an application for preliminary plat approval for 12th
Avenue and Holly Drive: and
WHEREAS, A public hearing was held before the Planning & Zoning Board on February
13. 2001 and continued to June 13, 2001 and
WHEREAS, the proposed preliminary plat meets the requirements of the City's zoning
ordinance and subdivision ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Lino Lakes hereby
approves the preliminary plat for 12th Avenue and Holly Drive with the following
conditions:
1. Grading and Utility plans are subject to the review and approval of
the City Engineer.
2. Existing structures shall be removed from the property.
3. Park dedication shall be cash and shall be paid in the rate in effect
at the time of final plat.
4. A landscaping/buffer yard plan shall be provided for the lots
abutting the collector roads where no buffer is provided and shall
be installed by a date to be outlined in the development agreement.
5. Comments of other City staff and Boards/Commissions
Passed by the Lino Lakes City Council this day of August 2001.
EST:
Jean iger, Deputy Clerk
. Bergeson, Mayor
The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
Council Member Bergeson and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof: Bergeson, Carlson, Dahl, Reinert and 0' Donnell
The following voted against same: None .
Whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted.
Resolution 01-120
Page 2
STAFF ORIGINATOR:
CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE:
TOPIC:
ACTION REQUESTED:
BACKGROUND
AGENDA ITEM 7 - D
Cindy Sherman (NAC)
August 27, 2001
Resolution 01 — 120 Preliminary Plat
12th Avenue and Holly Drive
3/5 Vote - Preliminary Plat
The Land Holding Group has submitted a preliminary plat for the northwest corner of
12th Ave. and Holly Drive. The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed a concept plan of
the plat on January 10, 2001. The Planning and Zoning Board first reviewed the
preliminary plat on February 13, 2001 and the item was tabled pending the TWAFFA,
tree preservation plan and grading submittals. The additional information was provided
and the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the application on June 13, 2001. The
Board recommended that the project be denied because one lot required a lot depth
variance and the criteria for variance had not been satisfied and because of concerns
related to access and safety issues; no neighborhood consistency and driveways located
on the cul-de-sac (please see attached minutes).
This review is based on the following plans submitted on August 2, 2001:
Preliminary Plat
Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan
Utility Plan
Tree Protection Plan
ANALYSIS
Project Data:
Site total
Wetlands
Upland
Number of lots
Gross density
Net density (upland only)
8 acres
approx. 1.2 acres
approx. 6.8 acres
13
1.75 units/acre
1.9 units/acre
12th and Holly
August 27, 2001
Page 2
Land Use and Zoning: As shown, the site is zoned for residential development. The
site is within the existing MUSA.
Site
Single Family Resid.
Low Density Sewered Resid.
R -1X
North
Single Family Resid.
Low Density Sewered Resid.
R -1X
East
Single Family Resid.,
and Rural
Low Density Sewered Resid.,
Low Density Unsewered
Resid.
PDO -SF
Resid. and
Rural
South
Single Family Resid.
Low Density Sewered Resid.
R -1X
West
Single Family Resid.
Low Density Sewered Resid.
R -1X
Lot Sizes and Layout: The R -1X minimum lot size is 12,825 sf of upland. All of
the lots meet or exceed this minimum lot size. The proposed lot widths are compliant
with the minimum standard of a width of 90 feet for interior lots and 115 feet for corner
lots. The minimum lot depth is 135 feet. All the lots comply with this standard.
Grading: The applicant has submitted grading information that is subject to the
review and approval of the City Engineer.
Existing Structures: An existing shed and pole building are located within the new
street right-of-way and must be removed.
Transportation and Utilities: Utilities exist in both 12th and Holly, and an
extension of utilities down the proposed cul-de-sac is proposed. The water main will be
looped to 12th Street. The utilities plan is subject to City Engineer review and approval.
Holly and 12th are both major collector roads. The purpose of major collectors is to
channel traffic, and direct access from lots is discouraged. The number of lots fronting
on 12th Avenue has been reduced from five lots in the concept plan to one lot in the
preliminary plat. The number of lots fronting on Holly Drive has increased from zero to
one. The rest of the lots are proposed to front on a new cul-de-sac street. Based on
modifications to the plan which reduces the number of accesses staff supports the layout.
Parks and Trails: A trail is envisioned along Holly Drive, but has not been designed
yet. It has not been decided whether the trail will be on the north or south side of Holly.
It will be within the road right-of-way. A trail exists on the east side of 12th Ave. as part
of Peregrine Pass. Park dedication for this new development would be cash.
Wetlands: Wetlands exist in the north central and southeast portions of the site.
Although the boundaries of wetlands are shown on the preliminary plat, a wetland
12th and Holly
August 27, 2001
Page 3
delineation report has been submitted. Rice Creek Watershed District has granted a
TWAFAA (tabled with approval for administrative action) for the development.
Landscaping and Tree Preservation: The site is a former pine tree plantation. A
plan for tree preservation has been submitted. The Environmental Board has suggested
that some of the trees might be moved.
Because the site is located at the intersection of two collector roads staff will work with
the applicants to develop a landscaping plan to provide a buffer between the right-of-way
and the homes to be constructed in areas where trees are not to be saved.
During discussions at the Planning and Zoning Board an issue was raised regarding tree
planting issues at Gemini Estates, a Land Holding Group subdivision. According to the
City Environmental Specialist, only half of the required trees have been planted. He also
indicated that the neighborhood is frustrated with the inefficiency of the landscape
installation process.
Environmental Board: The Environmental Board reviewed the project on January
3, 2001. The Environmental Specialist's memo includes the Board's comments.
OPTIONS
1. Recommend denial of the preliminary plat due to concerns that have not been
adequately addressed since the Planning and Zoning Board review.
OR
2. Approve the preliminary plat application subject to the following conditions:
a) Grading and Utility plans are subject to the review and approval of
the City Engineer.
b) Existing structures shall be removed from the property.
c) Park dedication shall be cash and shall be paid in the rate in effect
at the time of final plat.
d) A landscaping/buffer yard plan shall be provided for the lots
abutting the collector roads where no buffer is provided and shall
be installed by a date to be outlined in the development agreement.
e) Comments of other City staff and Boards/Commissions
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Option 2.
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 26
Mr. Rafferty reiterated his concern regarding having more trees within the development. He
asked staff what they would like to see. Mr. Wessel replied this was a commercial center and
heavy landscaping was not envisioned for it.
Mr. Rafferty again strongly recommended heavy landscaping, especially trees. He believed trees
could do a good job for masking the large parking lots.
Chair Schaps agreed with Mr. Rafferty with respect to green space in the parking lot. However,
he could live with a mixed concept. He also agreed it should be visually congruent with The
Village. Mr. Wessel replied staff was very aware of making this development connect with The
Village.
Ms. Lane disagreed with Mr. Rafferty's suggestion about the landscaping. She stated if they did
a good job with landscaping along the outside businesses, the parking lot would not need
excessive landscaping. She did not have a problem with a large parking area.
Mr. Lyden suggested breaking up the parking area and putting some retail in the middle.
Terry O'Connell asked if it was possible to have a parking ramp:as part of the Kohl's parking,
which would leave more open space. Mr. Wessel replied a Barking structure was never
contemplated for this project. There was adequate surface'l arking available.
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to continue to public heann_; o the July, ' 2001 meeting, and was
supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5-0.
I. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEAR NG,..Land`Holding Group, 12th &Hollvs
Preliminary Plat
Chair Schaps reopened the public h t 10:22;1p.m.
Staff presented the licatiqu;b x t g app cant had submitted a preliminaryplat for the
PP y:P � PP
northwest corner of 12th Ave. and Tally Dnve. The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed a
concept plan of the plat on"Tanuary 10 2001. The Planning and Zoning Board first reviewed the
preliminary plat on February t3,420_,01- and the item was tabled pending the TWAFFA, tree
preservation plan and grading submittals. The additional information had now been provided.
Staff presented its analysis of the request, noting the site was zoned for residential development.
The site was within the existing MUSA.
Staff stated the R -1X minimum lot size was 12,825 sf of upland. All of the lots met or exceed
this minimum lot size. The proposed lot widths were compliant with the minimum standard of a
width of 90 feet for interior lots and 115 feet for comer lots. The minimum lot depth was 135
feet. All the lots except Lot 8 comply with this standard. Lot 8 had a depth of 127 feet, which
required a variance.
Staff indicated the ordinance stated that in considering requests for variance the City shall make
a finding of fact that:
Franning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 27
1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use of used under
conditions allowed by the official controls.
2. That the plight of the landowners was due to physical circumstance unique to his
property not created by the landowner.
3. That the hardship was not due to economic considerations alone and when a
reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance.
4. That granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any
special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures,
or buildings in the same district.
5. That the proposed actions would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the
ordinance.
Staff stated the Planning and Zoning Board may consider that the site was impacted by wetlands
and it was located at the intersection of two collector roads thereby limiting design options as a
basis for granting the variance.
Staff indicated the applicant had submitted grading information that was subject to the review
and approval of the City Engineer.
Staff stated an existing shed and pole building were located win the new street right-of-way
and must be removed.
Staff indicated utilities existed in both 12t and Holly ;;and extension of utilities down the
proposed cul-de-sac was proposed. The water main nee 1 to be looped to 12th Street. The
utilities plan was subject to City Engineer review and appeal. Holly and 12th were both major
collector roads. The purpose of major collector34s,to channel traffic, and direct access from
lots was discouraged. The number of lots front ag�on Avenue had been reduced from five
lots in the concept plan to one lot in tl;keztelimin4ry plat. The number of lots fronting on Holly
Drive had increased from zero to one The rest ofie lots were proposed to front on a new cul-
de-sac street. Based on modificationto hh'i which reduced the number of accesses staff
supported the layout.
Staff stated a trail was envisioned along Holly Drive, but had not been designed vet. It had not
been decided whether the trait would be on the north or south side of Holly. It would be within
the road right-of-way. A trail exi;Lted on the east side of 12th Ave. as part of Peregrine Pass.
Park dedication for this new development would be cash.
Staff stated wetlands exist in the north central and southeast portions of the site. Although the
boundaries of wetlands are shown on the preliminary plat, a wetland delineation report had been
submitted. Rice Creek Watershed District has granted a TWAFAA (tabled with approval for
administrative action) for the development.
Staff indicated the site was a former pine tree plantation. A plan for tree preservation has been
submitted. The Environmental Board had suggested that some of the trees might be moved.
Staff stated because the site was located at the intersection of two collector roads staff would
work with the applicants to develop a landscaping plan to provide a buffer between the right-of-
way and the homes to be constructed.
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 28
Staff indicated the Environmental Board reviewed the project on January 3, 2001. The
Environmental Specialist's memo included the Board's comments.
Chair Schaps asked if the developer had been asked about eliminating Lot 8 as opposed to a
variance. Mr. Smyser replied there were a couple previous designs of this project the developer
had discussed with staff including a number of accesses onto the road. Staff worked out with
them to remove most of them. If they make the access on Lot 2 go onto the cul-de-sac, then only
Lot 8 and 1 would access the roads themselves. All of the other lots would meet the
requirements. There were wetland issues to be addressed also. Because of the safety issues that
were addressed with this design, staff was supportive of the variance than the other designs that
would require more accesses onto the roadways. He indicated this had been negotiated with the
developer.
Mr. Lyden expressed concern that Lot 1, 2 and 8 were not a part of the neighborhood. He
suggested Lot 8 be made part of Lots 7 and 9 and incorporate Lot 1 and 2 and face Lot 2 to the
cul-de-sac. This would make a neighborhood.
Mr. Lyden asked about the Gemini Estates tree issue and stated.that issue needed to be done
prior to any approval of this development.
Jeff Ruus (?sp), developer's representative, replied the_ 'Were requesting they proceed with the
variance request. He said if they combined lots, they- yvould end up .with crooked lot lines and
this was not desirable either. With respect to Gemini Estates, he had no information regarding
this.
7
Ms. Lane stated while she also believed in deve opiiigneighborhoods, she believed Lots 8 and
Lots 1 would become part of the neighb rhoods along side of them and may not specifically be a
part of this neighborhood.
Mr. Zych agreed that Lots 1 anda2.should:be.combined because of their size, but had no opinion
about Lot 8.
Mr. Corson agreed that Lots 1and 2ahould be combined due to safety issues. Mr. Ruus stated
lot designs did not create neighborhoods. He stated the plat met every ordinance, except one.
dimension. He stated they could do some lot line manipulation that would meet their criteria, but
believed this plat was the solution. He indicated they might have misunderstood what the City
wanted.
Mr. Lyden asked if the cul-de-sac could be brought the opposite way. Mr. Ruus stated that had
not been looked at and he was not sure if the previous designer had looked at those options or
not. He stated they were limited however by wetlands and topography. He also indicated that by
doing that, he did not believe it would eliminate access off of 12th and Holly.
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to closed the public hearing at 10:45 p.m. and was supported by
Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5-0.
Mr. Rafferty stated he would like to see the lot lines realigned to create a better neighborhood.
He would strongly support that effort so it would all come off of the same cul-de-sac. Mr. Ruus
anning & Zoning Board
une 13, 2001
Page 29
stated he understood the Board's concerns, but Lot 8 could be the problem. He stated Lot 1 was
more workable.
Chair Schaps also agreed in combining Lots 1 and 2 and splitting Lot 8. Mr. Ruus stated if that
was the direction, they would need to start all over. He indicated the economic impact would
affect them and they would need to redesign this area. Mr. Rafferty expressed his concern about
them starting over again because of the loss of two lots. He stated this was very close to being a
very acceptable plan without redesigning the whole area.
Mr. Ruus stated it was his understanding this was what the City was looking for.
Ms. Lane stated she did not have concern about Lots 1 and 8, but did have concerns about the
access on 12th and Holly and would not support this because of that.
Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to deny the preliminary plat application, and was supported by Ms.
Lane. Motion carried 5-0.
Chair Schaps stated the reasons for denial were as follows:
1. There was a reasonable use of the property in quesfon.
2. There was no plight of the landowner due to phfsica:•vircumstances unique to this
property.
3. There is an economic consideration.
4. Not applicable.
5. The Ordinance did allow for reasonable use and there was also a question of access
and safety.
With respect to the preliminary plat,)heason ffr denial was because of access and safety
issues; no neighborhood consistence andiriveways located on the cul-de-sac.
J. CONTINUEDPUBLIC=HEARING, Pinnacle Towers, 870 Birch Street,
Rezone, Amended OU.P.Amend Zoning Ordinance
This item was withdrawn by applicant
Chair Schaps reopened the hearing at 11:00 p.m.
There being no comments made, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close the Public hearing closed at 11:00 p.m. and was supported
by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 5-0.
K. North American Composites, Amend Condition of Approval for Site Plan
Staff presented the application by explaining the City Council approved a minor subdivision and
site and building plan for North American Composites on November 13, 2000. One of the
conditions of approval was:
4. The precise concrete panels will be Fabcon Wide Rack 3/8" grooves at 3" O.C.
with smooth concrete cattails design, or similar design. Decorative concrete
Environmental
Memo
To: Jeff Smyser
From: Marty Asleson
Date: May 30, 2001
Re: Environmental Board Recommendations/May 30, 2001
Ryan Target Project
he Environmental Board would like to review and comment on the Environmental
ssessment Worksheet after the a
taff will w• _ an opportunity for further review and comment by the
mental Board. Brian will look into the feasibility of moving the items currently
cheduled to be reviewed in the June P&Z meeting to the July P&Z meeting.
Land Holding Group/12th and Holly/Preliminary Plat Review
Recommendations:
1. Do not approve this project until the Environmental Board has seen and reviewed
an adequate tree inventory and vegetation management plan.
2. This and any subsequent development projects by this developer should not be
given consideration by the city until such time as the agreement made in the
Gemini Estates development to replace trees has been fulfilled (see letter,
attached). If this tree replacement does in fact take place, the city is still advised
to act in accordance, and to take appropriate steps to minimize the possibility of a
future repeat of this undesirable situation.
3. January 31st Environmental Board recommendations on 12th and Holly
project proposal are restated. (below):
• Environmental Board regards this development proposal as a step backwards
in terms of the city's efforts to preserve and conserve open space and
• Page 1
environmental amenities. Conservation development principles are not
employed. They should be.
• It does not seem to be good planning to have lots with driveways on the
collector streets (12th Ave. and Holly Dr.). Removing those lots would better
allow for conservation of open space and desirable attributes within the
development.
• The street appears to be longer than needed. Make it shorter.
• Include the standard recommendations as listed on the developer check list
from the EB.
Environmental Board member Trehus made a motion to deny approval of 12th
and Holly project until the Environmental Board has had an opportunity to
review an adequate tree inventory and vegetation management plan.
Motion 2nd by Connie Grundhofer
Motion approved/All in favor.
'Oland -adows West 3rd Addition
indings:
. Highland Meado s West 3`d addition is not a
2. The Highland Mea. •ws West 3`d Ad
significant tree loss.
3. The Oak Savanna on the
site should be preserved,
conservation developmen
4. The Environmental B
management.
Recommendatio
onservation Development.
on development proposal plans for a
d of the parcel should and many other trees on
his could be made possible through utilization of
pies and a P.D.O.
rd did no
ave adequate information on surface water
1. if this prosal moves forward essentially s it stands, this developer should
satisfy city that all steps possible have -en taken to preserve trees. To
acco ►.fish this with the existing plat, it seeme• ..ppropriate to reduce the scope
of t grading plan, which may dictate the buildi of structures without walkout
b.•ements. The developer has objected to this suggestion, but has not
demonstrated that satisfying the city's concems about the trees constitutes a
hardship.
%notion Py ivil 'rebus:
• Page 2
Engineering
RA
McCombs Frank Roos
Associates, inc.
August 2, 2001
Mr. Jeff Smyser, Planner
City of Lino Lakes
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014-1182
SUBJECT: 12th Avenue and Holly Drive Development
Land Holding Group
MFRA #13306
Dear Mr. Smyser:
Planning r Surveying
RECEIVED
AUG 0 2 2001
CITY OF LINO LA. ,.
h1=5
At the Planning Commission meeting on June 13, 2001 it was recommended that this preliminary
plat be denied based on the following reasons:
1. There was a tree issue with a non -related project, Gemini. It is a development being done
by the Land Holding Group.
2. The Commission did not see adequate hardships for the granting of the lot depth variance
on Lot 8 Block 1.
3. One commissioner expressed the desire to have all the lots on the cul-de-sac so that every
lot would be a part of a close-knit neighborhood.
4. There was a concern about the number of lots (three), which had direct access to either
12th Avenue or Holly Drive.
The action of the commission caught us by surprise since during concept review several changes
had been made to the initial preliminary submittals. The plans reviewed by the commission had
been amended and had received concept approval. During concept review one lot had been
eliminated and the cul-de-sac had been realigned. It was thought that all the major changes had
been accomplished. After having already made these changes, which significantly affected the
feasibility of the project, the commission's suggestion to just eliminate two more lots was simply
not feasible.
15050 23rd Avenue North • Plymouth. Minnesota • 55447
phone 763/476-6010 • fax 763/476-8532
e-mail: mfra@mfra.com
Mr. Jeff Smyser, Planner
August 2, 2001
Page2
It was possible, however, to make minor changes that do address two of the plat related concerns
raised by the commission. Lot 8, Block 1 was reconfigured and no longer needs a depth variance.
The access to Lot 2, Block 1 was removed from Holly Drive and reoriented to the cul-de-sac. This
particular lot will now have an end -loaded garage.
In summary, we are requesting that this preliminary plat request, with the changes noted, be put on
the City Council agenda for August 27, 2001 for their consideration. Overall three major concerns of
the Commission have been removed or alleviated in that 1) the Gemini tree issue has been resolved,
2) there is no longer a need for a variance, and 3) one of the Holly Drive accesses have been
removed.
In the meantime we will be pursuing an extension of our permit approvals with the watershed.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us.
Very truly yours,
MF,
)'ef. Roo P.E.
JJR:jky
s:\main:\ an 13 306:\Correspondence\smyser7-30
A
9.
O
m
n
v
0
b
ry
co •
6uKanong • 6uiuuo/o
IV
N00'02'07"E
600.01
tO I
;117 I
,(D
1.Z]
I;<
I{m i
GLI
I1
a
Fr
co ▪ Co g4.
� N
0
^^
•
r = -A. 'm
---_-
o p rs3 3 e
01 'Lli
3 Ocl, d6-.)
)"
2C0 = r
W ) A
fa2 \ 0 4:,,,
a. r a M
m
(1)
C7 -T1-0-0-` K
o 0 -01
O x00 a o
a 0
..� O --4,� c ul
CD -a, -A—..._..- 5 D p
.+ m01�m m X-
1 Jm D
o 03 0) o c 7J
: (l 0) 1 0 • W OO
N 0 z 0
o010
.A 0
J n
0
goctl :'0N 31H NMI
IW
9
N
0
1 0.
1
(TT
cD
cn
-P
• J 0
• 0
rn -1 0
CO
(11
cD
o n -a
r 0 LD
O ".<
(D 0) -i
0
Z
C11J
01
0
12TH AVE.600:01 --
S00'02'07"Ws
�1 CI C71 .p. W N -i
0
Z ® —I 13 -0 n3 '0
x CD -a -a -a -a -a
..•. co CD CD CD CD
rri
C4 n S. O C C
m 419. co to co ea co
o
-p --1=G7-0
m CD = ..ii D3
v -CI •*.
S.
W. d -13
CA
� O
CD C
.0+„...
CD
co)
co
co
slam ID xapu
0
0
r
m
52
13'
Z r4
P
de
E' 'a.
O
N
3
DO
th-
0
rn
0
3
0
0
n
0
O
6muuoJo . 6u!JaauOu3
a -o
a
H
0
NI"
V
0
•
•ii
8
8
z
0
c.)
y
m G
rn
rn
c
._
10
r
10
30
g
0
N00 -02'07"E
600.01
Yt
— —135` — -I-I
I\ N I
q
+
I --- — Y7t' — — 191' 7 80'
/6.
/ �D
I �
/ mz
mm
I i -z16
L J
I
J
//'\
r— —1-436!-- — —
1I
Flo
1
CN
I
-
/ ' \
— // 4
17p
N
0.I 10 I
I 11
L_II
—135• �
I
�— 113'
n
I /
I / )
/ /w
/ / O Cn // \
N
/ / \
y
/,,a. \
-----
IIL-- L. J
I
I
p�
3.
1,1
,a
,>
1
I
I •
i 1
I 1I
I o II
I I
r oti
1
l
`� I
I
109
/--1--1
/ I
i I
NI �I
.,D
Dm
o NDjJ
m
_
90'
L,,
o, J
o I
L— JJ
90'
La,
I
L___1
95'
l ,az
I I
L_ --J115'
109'
'� -( I f 't
S,LNSy1Iasva 'IvDIau
Ot
1
2
N
12TH AVE 6-00.01---
S00-02'07"W
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-( -4 -( --1 -( -1 -1 -( -1 -1 -1 -4 ti
t0 m V Ol VI A 4 N
-1 (J N rO
mComD m mmmmmmmm
21
(oil
a
0
AW 01 W A A CO 01 O O 91
ccVnn PNP J0p0pUpUcO•-• '4 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
t‘l W`I �l'Ki
C4 u u u u u W u w u A u u
CI, -Cs-CApbl m (n in m ;C,, of
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NIN 01 Al 01 01 V Al 01 COA N A W O
H N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N „I..
0 A A A AA A A A A 01 A A
00 N N U N 0' Ca N 0' N 10 NN
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
•
Pl00 0 N k H N 01 H M N H N
J P U
LOT SIZE TABULATION/IMPERVIOUS COVER/BUILDING COVER
STREET NAMES ARE SUBJECT TO CITY APPROVAL
EASEMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED AS REQUIRED.
S1011(10 S3Qf110X3•
W
:SNOU.V1fl9V1 101
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
N
V321V 3115 SS0210
S3210Y 00'9 )10 4S 994'94f
S31ON 1N3Wd013A30
3
m
3
3
4.
0
6
0
r
'0
a
t
00 0t 0m v m mm
A A A A AE A X X
- 13 -0
$cn�
MO) 0000 to O
g. A O �0
1:1
m d 0 Z
CAOZO-1 OA>C -10
J >- N m y
4 N
m > do u
m
m : zoz
z o
z
0
0
U
8
N
0
0
�-3
1
PI
0
PI
z
0
m
m
z
0
m
1
--1
-n
m
z
0
rn
1\10.0'02'07"E— __.- y s
In
0
m
o0
< n
T
30
916
916
914
912
61 Si?,
;�N
01
--1
git
7
8
( 913.5 )
MI"
m
(918.0)
ote
.127111A V.E
S00'02'07"W
•CI
Io S. a
-am
m .Z
90CC :'ON 311.1 %%Hi
rn
cl
rn
rn
tl
VallfgXX
1911
Aan
Ra
.);4 34Natii
D. PROPOSED CONTOURS ARE TO FINISHED SURFACE GRADE.
1A OS
in 0
Ln
0
en TI
NOI1VO
1
rrW6
J.
NO
gfi
Id
1N3W3b
'1!:i.dr11§
9' ii569
:S'Odd
1A 416a;;I
I 0AN1:1
Nii;!:; b!iiX
!ION '
!!1P6UT ;0741
-A4VN8m .q;2
ocr
4,0
20
WI
aR
ge
000 m
m� �x
CI 5
m0 m=-1
Om>0
P1
00 R.
gal
3-1
P PP
Sqg
letki
lg
T 14 114! 51
OA
O
0
o,
0
C
z
D � T
R
0
O
u)
1.1
z
O
3 a�
w�
r 40
ti
W7
A
0
7i
Y
7
rn
roZc_mo *>- - mnomm ozzc' 020C m zogz m IPZIR mOPOm ISn
mm0on0nmrox
?cmmmpm4-mAzY
m O0 t> r)�0jzA2z KmGim;h nr0mror Z•ircms
IAryvppmOc�r[0)Ar-.
nZENZ� 0=Omm 0Zmmutz Zmo (nmmnm Omr 8,0 A0-Ofrn+i (rn z,"Imim rn(001ul^immm
N ZZ i
"'> XO�mRm;.q m� mm mR 4my m�Amo 31--'m2
�m0 aAm 1/iR OmO�< :20
p��m�mn'z
Z 0mm �m -��_ O O OF
O--'m2-{ OD p ::!0 z..y)°*:cW )*9
MOO�ZmmyZpm Ul m0 Z Dro � m,'p mm.'OA in lCl om{0-1� n >7J<MKrx>
x.00 c
z.=mm52,m0p Zmmm�(1i �0d0- m n0 FO ormpzAm m2g 921 38
00r t(U >Dm- 0NU10mm g4-IZ� .�m;4 �- ut t0*i -ipom 0 01 - Zmpm N0-
Sn 0 Ominmu!0 o�� -{ rn -1 n. In m o
z.
)"y namomZmzf�.i 8m>-1°
-�-iiam0'n -+gg 'tn 'n mnrAmC' R`t'D "�v�in0c m
-10DmAmOgo ' elwm00 xoDcx xnr p� SO<rmZ -t A t.y 1- ODmA •n
(A')ZOm�DCfmn "iOz DOO�Z'i mpz�r pm:Or am mz -Qm Dbr DVIZDO�mm
x�ZZz roim*1 p yD zX'!�)C�� ,,,mm --4 �� �m m my iCZmOry -LA n rO pZZMM
m m rP1000n MMmrnm z0m RO 00Rmiy Z ()Z �N u0
4 mp A xm
-.ma.yy OpOm,>O> x_zAm mrom0 00V)m mm mOR�jm 00A0p�On rr
lx CrnOTCO �z A 0 mr-pop rom0ro �1 O -i D.. �r ZZ�yDz.�
mW-0<mMZ< mrN Ai Z ZAP pNzO �� mz AZ or v y�t0 ur
00-72 ARZrm m n<--��r Dm zM CM pANtZiI OW nm-Im0OZ mZm f=*I J1'pO�ZUiD
O�"1ylrzzompC>0-1 PtM*Smmrp mmt)Z �'<mco AC OO�ro�O >so �rofmy uony >0
Dm�O Zlm zm0 OAO~mpM �oZgm Z �m W➢ nomOOmp 6mc AZQmORximO
'Z"208-Du)z �rmiviSA mNmm-c 'im*izA mm _{zo�R m"'o�yx m R
*in A- roti r- ZOz mD AF O
Zr�3Z1-1Zro'ODk m mmM 0Wx z Z0> mut Om0<j> -1mm o OrmZ=
p ui r�*1 tA)soomA 0110 01 metro- R0r ?J N mSZR m+O" V Z mmr� 031n
to o„mmmzAZ ,,nm -1 O� rrZ >ocn0 -1 "'ocm
!!!
~m.,=AymzZop,Z_'Q m>rZiy 40')04 (mj onmm 0Zz0 AAi m0M1 !!!!!
Diol frn'm�OmNr� p ?io mr Z��ZZ p0N0 RDAc rzr -<om'(miZop -° O Z0 >0 <r0o(tD `Sm z-y� "i Flrorym+O'top�q�Zl*x10zmDri"my�m� yx5 A00 o ooxoil i*t mz m zoom mZ fm*I -1 pmoi0fm+7 55zz>7.0to
0 mmZD �_pzz'110A za 28mW—, 0-mm'� 04= z`n z zW x�c))'x .ms pcno0.,›
-lu"I'n 8omz m>mbn0 ,_GZ)m0m 0 ZD x0 om mAOZ7ny Du(J0
�Au1��0 pVImR ZZ Zf'XC r r OAR m u/0 Cmp0 ZOp NDu1C�-"40
r5['�xm�yz rcm 1 04'F' Dmmm fmitrC�^rz V)m �puAiO�in 0Z{v ,---g--;'0.?-,
m (+irr=pmpC� mpmz mrC_Rz yyO20 pc m.,1-13
--m.�}}�ro QV, C��urA
mmA-iA 1447,10 �mmz0Z rm,Atm*1 .UZ � -rte V' 1, oM 'ro C>la :::8:171-›
iGimz O :ilm�ZOZ mOmul� Am D pC mp&l
Ax m�Zno�cimz { cm)mm mn z0m n< n.M,iR€00 00-1{
°>-um
rr"omimil�O00Z arm �tyrt f�OV1mn 0 00 Op CA<ZZlZl1 m*y Dmro RC"4� �rz tr5 0� CD 0-190 roZ my X� rr .P2-0-m-"'0
-r,mmro�� noonAmRn �opr�iyzozrr,.mmzpmC omn rr."2.
r Zp omzm02 M a'i �rxmo OM 00 :2. '9 17".) 2, in rmT12mDR"'X
O -t zt r, -i r* c)m ur -a
-Npz-iz0Z-im 0K -o ,mm -(z. (--,, 1 Metal Z cm0 000
Dmo-yoo z> a urimrcwz 0a oho K -no mz zzZmQ"--{{-n 00> m7mazus,
Arom4Am'4 u1 ImTI N` -m �1 aA m 0 �'7`mY A�O` }m o{Anzo
gm
�RmD"tmz��m a zm0 fi n z m� z' 0 m m'
ret_ O_z '0 m0 r=. -x-rX 0 Fintr) i ->
p mrn `R rfz R z
(TI ~O r N 0 .l) --I . '� 0
5. RIP RAP SHALL BE Mn/DOT CLASS 3.
MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY.
Cc,r ypjN m- ow•
QA mm4c' car iz,
O 0r - 1C
Z 2 < C Z Z 0 A
mE oz> Or nRC
mz
-i c< m o°K of.LI-cl Z- m c<
uri �f+7 mpz0 Uf0 Arg
o >d oom-z mx NiinM
r u)r >10OZ m Rtro*t�
m m 1X 0 m Mom
-Iro omS 0 00(x)
IAi MAX Cmp z f=r7 m
m "O M-tR{Z Oma?
0 0z OC> n d
M WO mzm 0>471to to m CrriZ 0 o0
01_ izn Vi° Z :i1CO
z }n_
c z me A crani
0 ojz 0 00(0
0 mm
0n.T1i m QRZ
R c m 0 x m n
N R� > n -(r
o m7m m rim
0 o m Z m m
o -♦oo
00 0m* 0--{ z LI)
A ' u03 O p {
nzc
r mm•-mazo
r m -Ai C "o m0
> mx O 0Nz
K
Om'n mmi mpn
O - Moo o
z y�=+m n i H
> mj0 0 MN czx z0
$m$ ny1 0 00
A Rm -1 �g2
K m0 zZ�
Dm z N a m
z
m y >
1d30X3 SNOIl7'OIJI03dS
'NI3L13H 0313I00W
NOO'02'07"€ ------
600.01 -
-
3
I�
CI
ro
a
4
d
03 4.0
R5z,
O1
ma
N
VE AREA
=MOO NIMIIMIllf
•
I
rrx wwwxous 12TH AVE
--._..600,01_ �}�
S00'02'07"W�a:
O
ft
1
m
0
m
0
z
O
H
m*D CO V] 0D
mD >1-
m = r Z 0
rZ� 00>> Zm
zU Dx m
•mmm 0 0 0
mW M
-1 - DC°. WO
Z -1 C -I
r
0D = Z-1
-+r mm 6 z
(nm ON OZ
1 0 C Z O K
o
-1> m* zy
U3
-< rmiz C 73 m
-O A0 Ow
0D -fm _1
Oxi mO Ow
m0 ZD
=O �0 rr-
XI
Z Om D co
z m
0 m --1 0
X 0 r='1 m Z
Z< 0D —1
Dr _m
m 0 -0r
-p rm
> K 2.-< 0
0z mm m
-1 Z 2:1
C 0 O
-Ig m 70
-i r = 0
-<W D
m r
r
90CEL rON 31id %HIV
4'-0" MIN. COVER
5' MIN.
10' MAX.
rn
4'-0" MIN. COVER
c)
co
ri
0)
5
a
CO
R. 7411 in
• C17 as
so
C5
y 0
S
CD I
c a
90c£ G ='4N 3114 VIJAW
N°)
Cia
Cid
2•-2' 1'3_I/4' l'3_1/4
MIN.
E0Ui
cnm0
0 O g
mz >
> 1C
y�PD m 0 Z
]nC00
o
o c z
a
--ID
CD 0
O r
1 U}
n _{
0 0 Z
n0y�'
r<<vf
00m=
n
an1r
1 m
0-I>M
�7Jc�
z D • m
• 0
u)
C D
--I = U)
fT7
Q
0
M o 6-
o
yc
mmo
zM
C
C � m
Vi __ o
-f_>
�w Sm>
0 0
= a a
L.oW
A z0
zr-)
v m Z
i
-'C.+ 0-(r 0-'Z
)v- co
m
�n �,,D 0
r m0 P1
< 1> 71 -z-1 0 -1 U7 z [Ii
'-"c, •c0> > z
"D zN
O m > w 0 0 Z
_ O
r -
_<z �r0 m -o
D
m - i ZM
x0n
• r C 0 0 n
C� �� CCI
a<>
(/) 0 z ij
O
MI --i
� m0
M� c 1-11u) zn
2 X 0 0 GI r
m 0m 2D0
0 M
m�
z� x
Z
�-1 0 n --5- z
--IDC0 ZD 0
0 1) 0 Z 0 m m
z a
o N 0 XI m (/i
nP1 >
rzi �o ��
A)w Z --1 vn
m Z O I0
mS
< X 0
o� 1
rn
=z N
D
0
z
0
m
14
0
n
0
c3
r
0
0
D
m
0
z
1
0
m
0
rn
DEPTHS
e
A
D
co
O
O
0
Engineering • Planning . Surveying
=,1
11_11=1I=11 -II -11.4
PROP. LINE
I in
11
CD
4D MIN
90E£t :'ON Till VdAW
N*1
N
.Or