HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 - Villas at Pleasant
To: Planning Commissioners
From: John Hinzman, Community Development Director
Date: September 14, 2020
Item: TABLED - Villas at Pleasant - Preliminary Plat, and Final Plat #2020-36 - Simek Property
Group
Planning Commission Action Requested
Remove from the table and review development of 32 villa home sites by Simek Property Group.
The 10.38 acre property consists of two parcels located at the northwest corner of Pleasant Drive
and Northridge Drive and currently owned by Lawrence Property, LLC:
1) Preliminary Plat - Creation of 32 villa home sites.
2) Final Plat - Subdivision of the 1st phase of development consisting of 16 lots.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 24th
On August 24th the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the Preliminary and
Final Plat along with the Rezoning of the Villas at Pleasant. During the public hearing several
individuals provided comment sharing concerns of the location of proposed cul-de-sacs in relation
to existing backyards, zoning, stormwater, market for homes, screening, and traffic flow. The
Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the rezoning to the City Council. Action on the
Preliminary and Final Plat was tabled to the September 14th meeting to review options for the
western cul-de-sacs. Please see meeting minutes for further information.
Plan Revisions
The developer has responded to the concerns of the August 24th Planning Commission Meeting as
follows:
• More fencing has been added along the west and north sides of Melody Court to provide
better screening to neighboring properties. This is in addition to the six foot evergreen
plantings as originally proposed.
Developer examined other options including:
Planning Commission Memorandum
• Reducing the size of the cul-de-sacs - not supported by the City’s Engineering and Fire
Departments
• Linking cul-de-sacs - more homes placed closer to western property line and new homes
created within the island of streets would have multiple frontages and would not be
desirable.
• Private cul-de-sacs - Privately maintained cul-de-sacs would allow for a smaller cul-de-sac,
but is not supported by the developer based upon additional maintenance responsibilities
of the future home owner’s association.
Please see the attached letter from the developer for further information.
Staff Analysis
Providing additional visual separation between existing homes and new homes is a priority. The
addition of fencing along the north and western areas of Melody Court in addition to tree planting
improves separation. Similar fencing should also be provided at the western extent of Orchard
Court. Private maintenance of cul-de-sacs would reduce the size and distance of the cul-de-sacs
from neighboring property owners, but would burden future property owners with the
management and expense of two short streets.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat based on the revised changes and
per the conditions of the August 24th Planning Commission Staff Memo as amended as follows:
1) Addition of six foot privacy fencing along the western and northern boundaries of Melody
Court, and along the western boundary of Orchard Court. Fencing is in addition to proposed
landscaping.
ATTACHMENTS
• Letter from Simek Property Group - September 9, 2020
• Planning Commission Staff Memo - August 24, 2020
Simek Property Group
90 Dale Street South
Saint Paul, MN 55102
September 9, 2020
Re: Pleasant Drive and Northridge Drive
Dear Planning Commission Members,
Since our last planning commission meeting on August 24th we listened to commission members and
neighbors’ concerns and report back with the following:
1. Cul-de-sacs/Turn Around: Requested smaller cul-de-sacs from city engineers. Unfortunately,
engineering staff and fire department are unwilling to reduce the size of standardized cul-de-
sacs or allow a hammer head turn arounds, even though they will have limited use. This is a non-
negotiable with the city.
2. Privacy Fences & Landscaping: Neighbor Todd Siewert was presented with a privacy fence
option in addition to the evergreen landscaping to increase any headlight blocking and indicated
this would be a good and welcome improvement. Siewert’s home will be approx. 51 ft from any
street which is similar to homes on Pleasant Ave. and is located 3-5 ft higher elevation than the
turn around (see diagram)
3. Reduced Density & Alternative Layout: The alternative layout plan that was offered by Mr.
Siewert does not work for the following reasons: 1) Storm/Water drainage (see #4 below) 2)
Homes are pushed closer to the neighbors and property line. 3) There are 4 homes that are
placed on an “island” that would not be attractive to buyers.
4. Storm Water Engineering & Drainage: Many hours and expense has gone into the current plan
to meet required storm water calculations/requirement. It is not easily re-engineered due to the
unique characteristics as evidenced by where it requires retention ponds as shown on the
current plan. The original major concern from neighbors was proper drainage to correct the
existing spring flooding conditions. Our plan makes significant drainage improvements to the
site for which neighbors will benefit.
5. Private Streets: Are not a viable option as it would reduce the cul-de-sac width only 4 ft and
force street and all underground utilities to become private adding additional maintenance
easements.
6. Visual Impact: Single level homes will have minimal visual impact to any neighbors back yards
due to their height, when compared to two story traditional homes. Based on our market
studies and knowledge; the 55+ buyer does not want to be on the outskirts of town or next to a
a cornfield which makes this location desirable. They want to be a part of the community and
not isolated from the community.
We are hopeful that you will approve the plan with the addition of privacy fencing on both cul-de-sacs
as this is a highly desirable home type that meets the needs of current and future community members.
Respectfully,
Stuart R. Simek
Simek Property Group
4
3
2
1
1
1234
5
1 2 3
1
0
1
3 3
2
3
0
6
0
VILLAS AT PLEASANT
SIMEK PROPERTY GROUP
28 AUGUST 2020
I
H
E
R
E
B
Y
C
E
R
T
I
F
Y
T
H
A
T
T
H
I
S
P
L
A
N
,
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
,
O
R
R
E
P
O
R
T
W
A
S
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D
B
Y
M
E
O
R
U
N
D
E
R
M
Y
D
I
R
E
C
T
S
U
P
E
R
V
I
S
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
H
A
T
I
A
M
A
D
U
L
Y
L
I
C
E
N
S
E
D
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
U
N
D
E
R
T
H
E
L
A
W
S
O
F
T
H
E
N
A
M
E
:
S
I
G
N
A
T
U
R
E
:
D
A
T
E
:
L
I
C
.
N
o
:
REV DESCRIPTION BY
S
T
A
T
E
O
F
M
I
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
E
L
I
R
U
P
N
O
W
4
6
6
8
1
SITE PLAN
MELODY COURT
STA: 30+00 TO 33+23
C2.3
K
E
Y
N
O
T
E
S
C
I
V
I
L
S
I
T
E
L
E
G
E
N
D
:
6
5
4
3
2
1
14321654321123451 2 3 4 5 678910 1
1
2 3
O
U
T
L
O
T
A
OUTLOT B 3 2
5
0
1
0
0
VILLAS AT PLEASANT
SIMEK PROPERTY GROUP
28 AUGUST 2020
I
H
E
R
E
B
Y
C
E
R
T
I
F
Y
T
H
A
T
T
H
I
S
P
L
A
N
,
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
,
O
R
R
E
P
O
R
T
W
A
S
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D
B
Y
M
E
O
R
U
N
D
E
R
M
Y
D
I
R
E
C
T
S
U
P
E
R
V
I
S
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
H
A
T
I
A
M
A
D
U
L
Y
L
I
C
E
N
S
E
D
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
U
N
D
E
R
T
H
E
L
A
W
S
O
F
T
H
E
N
A
M
E
:
S
I
G
N
A
T
U
R
E
:
D
A
T
E
:
L
I
C
.
N
o
:
REV DESCRIPTION BY
S
T
A
T
E
O
F
M
I
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
E
L
I
R
U
P
N
O
W
4
6
6
8
1
SITE PLAN
OVERVIEW
C2.0
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
G
E
O
M
E
T
R
I
C
A
N
D
P
A
V
I
N
G
N
O
T
E
S
:
S
I
T
E
D
A
T
A
S
I
G
N
A
G
E
A
N
D
M
A
R
K
I
N
G
N
O
T
E
S
:
K
n
o
w
w
h
a
t
'
s
b
e
l
o
w
.
b
e
f
o
r
e
y
o
u
d
i
g
.
C
a
l
l
R
To: Planning Commissioners
From: John Hinzman, Community Development Director
Date: August 24, 2020
Item: Villas at Pleasant - Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, and Final Plat #2020-36 - Simek Property
Group
Planning Commission Action Requested
Hold a public hearing and review the following actions for development of 32 villa home sites by
Simek Property Group. The 10.38 acre property consists of two parcels located at the northwest
corner of Pleasant Drive and Northridge Drive and currently owned by Lawrence Property, LLC:
1) Rezoning - Rezone entire property from A - Agriculture and R-1 Single Family to R-3
Medium-High Density Residence - Planned Residential Development
2) Preliminary Plat - Creation of 32 villa home sites.
3) Final Plat - Subdivision of the 1st phase of development consisting of 16 lots.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Comprehensive Plan
The property is guided Low Density Residential (LDR) within the current 2030 and draft 2040
Comprehensive Plans. LDR includes single family and two family housing with allowable densities
of 2.5-6.0 housing units per net acre and lots sizes of at least 6,000 s.f. The proposed development
plan is consistent with the LDR designation with all lot sizes exceeding 6,000 s.f. and having a net
density of 5.5 units per acre.
Zoning
The western parcel is zoned A - Agriculture and the eastern parcel is zoned R-1 Single Family
Residential. The applicant has requested a rezoning to R-3 - Medium-High Density Residence -
Planned Residential Development.
Existing Condition
The site is generally flat, treeless, and used for agriculture. A small grove of trees exists near the
southwest corner.
Planning Commission Memorandum
Proposed Condition
Development into 32 villa home sites marketed towards senior and empty nesters. The villa
homes would be detached single family homes belonging to an association to provide for grounds
maintenance including landscaping and plowing.
Adjacent Zoning and Land Use
The following land uses abut the property:
Direction Use Comp Plan District Zoning District
North Single Family Residential Low Density Residential R-1 Single Family
East Pleasant Drive
Single Family Residential
Low Density Residential
R-1 Single Family
South Northridge Drive
Single Family Residential
Low Density Residential
R-1 Single Family
West Single Family Residential Low Density Residential R-1 Single Family
Planning Committee of City Council
The Planning Committee of City Council (Chair Vaughan, Balsanek, and Leifeld) reviewed the
concept plan on April 22, 2020. The Committee generally supported the concept.
Neighborhood Meeting
The developer held a neighborhood meeting via Zoom on June 11. 2020 to discuss the proposal
with surrounding property owners. The neighbors expressed concerns on the proposed rezoning
and the location of the new homes in proximity to existing housing.
Public Notification
Notification of the meeting was sent to all property owners within 350 feet of the proposed
property. The following comments have been received to date:
• Ken and Barb Angerman - 1351 21st Street - Wrong housing, too many homes, values
should match surrounding area.
• Tom and Pam Sullivan - 2443 Rivershore Court - Concerns over density, home values,
appearance, drainage, maintenance, need\marketability.
• Howard & Michelle Nevanen - 1431 Rivershore Drive - This is what we need; impressed by
plans, quality and flexibility of project
The full text of comments is attached.
REZONING REVIEW Request
Rezone property from A - Agriculture and R-1 Single Family Residential to R-3 - Medium-High
Density Residence - Planned Residential Development. The actions serve as an amendment to
Hastings City Code Chapter 155.01 - Official Zoning Map.
R-3 - Medium-High Residential Zoning District
City Code Chapter 155.24 identifies the following uses within the R-3 District:
Uses permitted.
(1) Multiple-family and single-family dwellings when part of a PRD;
(2) Residential care facility, dependent and semi-independent, residential senior facility-
independent, dormitories, public and parochial schools and churches, fire stations,
professional offices, day care center, library, gift or craft shop and similar uses of a
public service nature;
(3) Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses such as private garages and
sheds;
(4) Home occupations in accordance with § 155.07; and
(5) Planned residential developments pursuant to § 155.07
Uses by special permit.
(1) Neighborhood commercial subject to the requirements of § 155.07.
(2) Towers as regulated by § 155.07.
Planned Residential Development
Multiple-family and single-family development within the R-3 Zoning District must
adhere to the Planned Residential Development (PRD) requirements of City Code
Chapter 155.07, Subd. H, which include:
(1) Variety. Within a comprehensive site design concept, a mixture of land uses,
housing types, and densities;
(2) Sensitivity. Through the departure from the strict application of minimum lot
requirements and other performance standards associated with traditional zoning,
planned residential developments can maximize the development potential of land
while remaining sensitive to its unique and valuable natural characteristics;
(3) Efficiency. The consolidation of areas for recreation and reductions in street lengths
and widths and other utility related expenses; and
(4) Density transfer. The project density may be clustered, basing density on number of
units per acre versus specific lot dimensions.
PRD Analysis - PRD’s are intended to provide flexibility from standard zoning
requirements (such as minimum setback and lot size requirements) in exchange
design innovations. In larger developments, activities can be clustered to allow for
preservation of natural features and open space. Most PRD developments within
the City have contained a variety of residential uses (i.e. single family and townhome)
encompassing larger residential developments.
Application of PRD standards on smaller, single use developments can be
challenging. The developer has creatively designed each home site to incorporate
private courtyards along the side of homes, as opposed to the rear. The design
provides more privacy to both adjacent residences and future homeowners by
limiting rear yard activity.
Analysis
• Rezoning of the property to R-3 is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, meeting both
minimum lot size and maximum density restrictions.
• Proposed homes are single family detached, similar to surrounding homes, albeit lot sizes
will be smaller.
• Incorporation of the side yard courtyard is an innovative design feature consistent with
the goals of Planned Residential Development. They will provide privacy for both future
and adjacent home owners and limit activities within the rear yards.
RECOMMENDATION - REZONING
Approval of the Rezoning to R-3 Medium-High Residence-Planned Residential Development is
recommended subject to the following condition:
1) Conformance with the plans submitted with the Planning Commission Staff Report dated
August 24, 2020.
PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW
Request
Preliminary Plat approval of the Villas at Pleasant containing 32 villa home lots.
Difference Between Preliminary Plat and Final Plat
Preliminary Plat approval includes the plan for future subdivision of the entire development
including a review of lots, streets, grading, stormwater, utilities, public land dedication, and
landscaping. Final Plat approval is the formal subdivision of all or a portion of a Preliminary Plat
into lots of record for construction. The Preliminary Plat establishes the plan for development,
while the Final Plat formally puts the plan into effect.
Villa Homes
All homes will be developed as Villa Homes under the design of Epcon Communities. Homes will
be one story. Outdoor activity spaces for each home will be located on the side as opposed to the
rear yard to offer a private courtyard space. The homes will be marketed towards empty nester
and seniors. The development will include an association responsible for all outdoor maintenance
including landscaping and snow removal. Please see the attached pictures for further information.
Epcon has been constructing homes since 1986 providing housing to more than 30,000 families.
Specializing in constructing single-story living communities they are based in Ohio and have
constructed communities in 28 states. Further information can be found at
www.epconcommunities.com.
Lot Layout
Proposed lots meet the following minimum requirements of the R-3 Zoning District:
Minimum
Requirement
Proposal
Lot Area 5,000 s.f. 6,000 - 14,550 s.f.
Front Yard Setback 20’ 20’
Interior Side Yard Setback 7’ 7’
Corner Side Yard Setback 10’ 10’
Rear Yard Setback 20’ 20 - 70’
Outlots
Outlots are parcels of land that are restricted from immediate development. Development
restrictions may be permanent (such as stormwater basins), or temporary (such as future phases
of a development). The outlots included in the preliminary plat are designated for private
stormwater basins common open space, and future development phases.
Streets
Development includes the extension of both Old Bridge Lane and 23rd Street. Melody Court and
Orchard Court would be established to serve areas west of Old Bridge Lane. All streets would be
publicly dedicated and meet minimum size requirements. Cul-de-sac lengths are less than the
maximum 500 foot length limit.
Pedestrian Access
Pedestrian access is adequate. A trail exists on the south side of Northridge Drive and a sidewalk
along the west side of Pleasant Drive. A new sidewalk is proposed along the east side of the
extension of Old Bridge Lane and along the south side of 23rd Street to provide access to existing
facilities.
Landscape Plan
The landscape plan identifies boulevard tree plantings every 50 lineal feet along all new right-of-
ways. Additional coniferous tree plantings have been included along the cul-de-sac bulbs to
buffer activities from adjoining home owners. Front yard trees will be required for every unit as
part of the building permit.
Civil Plan Review - Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control, and Municipal Utilities
The site is generally flat. Existing homes adjacent to the north and west sides of the proposed
development experience drainage issues at present. Stormwater rules require that all site
drainage be treated within the boundaries of the plat. Stormwater runoff cannot exit the site.
The developer proposes to create drainage swales along the north and west boundaries of the
plat to channel drainage on site to proposed stormwater basins. The Public Works Director is
conducting an in depth analysis of stormwater drainage to ensure conformance with
requirements.
Buffering to Existing Homes
Coniferous tree plantings have been incorporated along the north and western extents of the
development to provide further separation between existing homes and new homes and streets.
The trees will be six feet tall at the time of planting and will be grouped to limit visibility.
RECOMMENDATION - PRELIMINARY PLAT
Approval of the Preliminary Plat to create 32 new villa home is recommended subject to the
following conditions:
1) Conformance with the plans submitted with the Planning Commission Staff Report dated
August 24, 2020.
2) Gutters must be included on all lots abutting the rear yard swale along the northern and
western boundaries which include Phase 2, Block 2, Lots 1-8 to channel drainage into
swales so as not to exit the boundary of the development.
3) Final approval of all Civil Plans including Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, and
Utility Plan by the Public Works Director.
4) All disturbed areas on the property shall be stabilized with rooting vegetative cover to
eliminate erosion control problems.
5) Establishment of sureties and payment of escrow prior to commencement of site grading
and utilities.
6) Approval is subject to a one year Sunset Clause. The project must commence within one
year of the approval date or approval is null and void.
FINAL PLAT REVIEW
Request
Final Plat approval of the Villas at Pleasant - Phase 1. Development includes 16 villa home lots,
three outlots, and construction of Orchard Court and a portion of Old Bridge Lane.
Civil Plan Review - Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control, and Municipal Utilities
The Final Plat must be constructed in conformance with the Civil Plan approvals granted by the
Public Works Director.
Temporary Turnaround - Old Bridge Lane
Only a portion of Old Bridge Lane will be constructed as part of the Final Plat. A temporary turn
around is necessary at the northern extent of construction during the first phase that would be
removed upon full completion of the street. The applicant proposed construction of a
“hammerhead” type turnaround that is not desirable from a snow removal and maintenance
standpoint to the City. The turnaround will be acceptable as follows:
1) The proposed hammerhead turnaround at the north edge of Old Bridge Lane will only be
acceptable if developer agrees to perform road maintenance (including snow and ice
removal) until the road is extended with a cul-de-sac to City standards.
Stormwater Maintenance Agreement
The developer must execute a stormwater maintenance agreement over all private stormwater
utility systems to ensure private maintenance and to allow for emergency public access prior to
recording of the final plat.
Association Maintenance Agreement
A homeowner’s association or similar mechanism will be required to ensure maintenance of
private common infrastructure including cul-de-sac islands prior to recording of the final plat.
Park Land Dedication
On August 19, 2020 the Park and Recreation Commission recommended the payment of cash in
lieu of land to satisfy park dedication requirements. Payment of $35,200 ($2,200 x 16 units) to
satisfy park dedication requirements prior to release of the final plat mylars for recording will be
required.
Interceptor Sewer Fee
Payment of sewer interceptor fees in the amount of $7,760 ($485 x 16 units) is required prior to
release of the final plat mylars for recording.
Development Agreement
The City and developer shall enter into a Development Agreement to memorialize conditions of
approval and to establish applicable escrow amounts to ensure completion of public
improvements.
RECOMMENDATION - FINAL PLAT
Approval of the Final Plat of the Villas at Pleasant is recommended subject to the following
conditions:
1) Conformance with the plans submitted with the Planning Commission Staff Report dated
August 24, 2020.
2) Final approval of all Civil Plans including Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, and
Utility Plan by the Public Works Director.
3) All disturbed areas on the property shall be stabilized with rooting vegetative cover to
eliminate erosion control problems.
4) Execution of a Development Agreement to memorialize conditions of approval and to
establish applicable escrow amounts to ensure completion of public improvements.
5) Execution of a stormwater access and maintenance agreement between the City and
property owner prior to recording of the final plat.
6) A declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions or the equivalent document shall
be submitted for review and approval by the City before release of the final plat mylars
to ensure maintenance of open space, median plantings, cul-de-sac plantings, common
drives, and common utilities. The declaration shall include, but is not limited to, the
following:
a. A statement requiring the deeds, leases or documents of conveyance affecting
buildings, units, parcels, tracts, townhouses, or apartments be subject to the terms
of the declaration.
b. A provision for the formation of a property owners association or corporation and
that all owners must be members of said association or corporation which may
maintain all properties and common areas in good repair and which may assess
individual property owners proportionate shares of joint or common costs. The
association or corporation must remain in effect and may not be terminated or
disbanded.
c. Membership in the association shall be mandatory for each owner and any
successive buyer.
d. Any open space restrictions must be permanent and may not be changed or
modified without city approval.
e. The association is responsible for liability insurance, local taxes and the
maintenance of the open space facilities deeded to it.
f. Property owners are responsible for their pro-rata share of the cost of the
association by means of an assessment to be levied by the association which
meet the requirements for becoming a lien on the property in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes.
g. The association may adjust the assessment to meet changing needs.
7) Submission of certification of taxes paid in full for the property prior to release of the
final plat mylars for recording.
8) Payment of $35,200 ($2,200 x 16 units) to satisfy park dedication requirements prior to
release of the final plat mylars for recording.
9) Payment of $7,760 ($485 x 16 units) in sewer interceptor fees prior to release of the final
plat mylars for recording.
10) Individual mailboxes for each home are not permitted. Mailboxes must be grouped into
clusters.
11) Developer shall plant "boulevard" trees of at least 1.5 caliper inches according to the
submitted tree plan. An escrow is required for any unplanted trees before a
certificate of occupancy is issued.
12) One front yard tree of at least 1.5 caliper inches must be planted by the builder or
developer on every platted lot. An escrow is required for any unplanted trees before
a certificate of occupancy is issued.
13) Development of the platted outlots shall be prohibited until replatted as lots of
record.
14) Blanket drainage and utility easements shall be recorded against all outlots, unless they
are further delineated to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
15) Any uncompleted site work (including landscaping) must be escrowed for prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
16) Approval is subject to a one year Sunset Clause; the plat must be recorded with Dakota
County within one year of City Council approval or approval is null and void.
ATTACHMENTS
• Site Location Map
• Preliminary Plat
• Final Plat
• Architectural Plans
• Civil Plans
• Comments from Neighbors
• Application
LOCATION MAP
Δ
Δ
Δ
6
5
4
3
2
11
4321
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 5
12345 6 7 8 9102
1
2
3
OUTLOTC
OUTLOT A
OUTLOT B
OUTLOT A
O
U
T
L
O
T
D
MELODY COURT
O
L
D
B
R
I
D
G
E
L
A
N
E
:EST 23RD STOUTLOTB
ORCHARD COURT
NORTH RIDGE DRIVE
PHASE IPHASE IIPHASE IPHASE II
PHASE I
PHASE II
P
H
A
S
E
I
P
H
A
S
E
I
I
1
3PHASE II
P
H
A
S
E
I
4
7
3
2
5
4200
L
E
G
A
L
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
S
U
R
V
E
Y
N
O
T
E
S
T
K
H
I
R
O
O
R
Z
L
Q
J
L
H
J
D
O
D
H
V
F
U
L
S
W
L
R
Q
L
V
D
V
V
K
R
Z
Q
R
Q
W
K
H
D
C
A
T
L
W
O
H
D
V
D
J
H
Q
W
I
R
U
O
O
G
R
H
S
X
E
O
L
F
N
D
W
L
R
Q
D
O
T
L
W
O
H
I
Q
V
X
U
D
Q
F
H
C
R
P
S
D
Q
\
T
L
W
O
H
C
R
P
P
L
W
P
H
Q
W
)
L
O
H
N
R
2
0
0
5
0
0
4
2
R
R
G
D
W
H
G
A
S
U
L
O
3
0
W
K
2
0
2
0
P
D
U
F
H
O
1
T
K
H
N
R
U
W
K
9
5
7
3
9
I
H
H
W
D
V
P
H
D
V
X
U
H
G
D
O
R
Q
J
W
K
H
:
H
V
W
O
L
Q
H
D
Q
G
W
K
H
P
R
V
W
N
R
U
W
K
H
U
O
\
E
D
V
W
O
L
Q
H
R
I
W
K
H
I
R
O
O
R
Z
L
Q
J
W
U
D
F
W
T
K
D
W
S
D
U
W
R
I
W
K
H
E
D
V
W
H
D
O
I
R
I
S
H
F
W
L
R
Q
3
2
T
R
Z
Q
V
K
L
S
1
1
5
N
R
U
W
K
R
D
Q
J
H
1
7
:
H
V
W
G
H
V
F
U
L
E
H
G
D
V
I
R
O
O
R
Z
V
C
R
P
P
H
Q
F
L
Q
J
D
W
D
S
R
L
Q
W
3
5
U
R
G
V
:
H
V
W
R
I
W
K
H
S
R
X
W
K
H
D
V
W
F
R
U
Q
H
U
R
I
W
K
H
:
H
V
W
H
D
O
I
R
I
W
K
H
E
D
V
W
H
D
O
I
R
I
V
D
L
G
S
H
F
W
L
R
Q
3
2
U
X
Q
Q
L
Q
J
W
K
H
Q
F
H
N
R
U
W
K
1
0
9
U
R
G
V
D
Q
G
2
1
O
L
Q
N
V
W
K
H
Q
F
H
:
H
V
W
6
U
R
G
V
W
K
H
Q
F
H
N
R
U
W
K
7
3
U
R
G
V
W
K
H
Q
F
H
:
H
V
W
2
9
U
R
G
V
W
K
H
Q
F
H
S
R
X
W
K
1
8
2
U
R
G
V
D
Q
G
2
1
O
L
Q
N
V
W
K
H
Q
F
H
E
D
V
W
3
5
U
R
G
V
W
R
W
K
H
S
O
D
F
H
R
I
E
H
J
L
Q
Q
L
Q
J
E
;
C
E
P
T
W
K
D
W
S
U
R
S
H
U
W
\
O
\
L
Q
J
E
D
V
W
R
I
W
K
H
:
H
V
W
O
L
Q
H
R
I
P
O
H
D
V
D
Q
W
D
U
L
Y
H
D
V
Q
R
Z
O
R
F
D
W
H
G
A
N
D
D
O
V
R
H
[
F
H
S
W
W
K
D
W
S
D
U
W
Z
K
L
F
K
O
L
H
V
Q
R
U
W
K
H
U
O
\
R
I
W
K
H
V
R
X
W
K
O
L
Q
H
R
I
H
L
J
K
O
D
Q
G
H
L
O
O
V
)
R
X
U
W
K
A
G
G
L
W
L
R
Q
D
D
N
R
W
D
C
R
X
Q
W
\
M
L
Q
Q
H
V
R
W
D
P
D
U
F
H
O
2
T
K
D
W
S
D
U
W
R
I
W
K
H
:
H
V
W
H
D
O
I
R
I
W
K
H
S
R
X
W
K
H
D
V
W
4
X
D
U
W
H
U
R
I
S
H
F
W
L
R
Q
3
2
T
R
Z
Q
V
K
L
S
1
1
5
R
D
Q
J
H
1
7
D
D
N
R
W
D
C
R
X
Q
W
\
M
L
Q
Q
H
V
R
W
D
G
H
V
F
U
L
E
H
G
D
V
I
R
O
O
R
Z
V
C
R
P
P
H
Q
F
L
Q
J
D
W
W
K
H
S
R
X
W
K
Z
H
V
W
F
R
U
Q
H
U
R
I
W
K
H
V
D
L
G
:
H
V
W
H
D
O
I
R
I
W
K
H
S
R
X
W
K
H
D
V
W
4
X
D
U
W
H
U
W
K
H
Q
F
H
N
R
U
W
K
0
0
G
H
J
U
H
H
V
1
9
P
L
Q
X
W
H
V
5
4
V
H
F
R
Q
G
V
:
H
V
W
D
V
V
X
P
H
G
E
H
D
U
L
Q
J
D
O
R
Q
J
W
K
H
:
H
V
W
O
L
Q
H
W
K
H
U
H
R
I
D
G
L
V
W
D
Q
F
H
R
I
2
0
5
9
4
7
I
H
H
W
W
R
W
K
H
N
R
U
W
K
Z
H
V
W
F
R
U
Q
H
U
R
I
O
O
G
B
U
L
G
J
H
)
L
U
V
W
A
G
G
L
W
L
R
Q
D
V
R
Q
I
L
O
H
D
Q
G
R
I
U
H
F
R
U
G
L
Q
W
K
H
O
I
I
L
F
H
R
I
W
K
H
C
R
X
Q
W
\
R
H
F
R
U
G
H
U
D
Q
G
W
K
H
S
R
L
Q
W
R
I
E
H
J
L
Q
Q
L
Q
J
R
I
W
K
H
O
D
Q
G
W
R
E
H
G
H
V
F
U
L
E
H
G
W
K
H
Q
F
H
F
R
Q
W
L
Q
X
L
Q
J
N
R
U
W
K
0
0
G
H
J
U
H
H
V
1
9
P
L
Q
X
W
H
V
5
4
V
H
F
R
Q
G
V
:
H
V
W
D
O
R
Q
J
W
K
H
:
H
V
W
O
L
Q
H
D
G
L
V
W
D
Q
F
H
R
I
5
7
6
0
7
I
H
H
W
P
R
U
H
R
U
O
H
V
V
W
R
W
K
H
N
R
U
W
K
Z
H
V
W
F
R
U
Q
H
U
R
I
V
D
L
G
:
H
V
W
H
D
O
I
R
I
W
K
H
S
R
X
W
K
H
D
V
W
4
X
D
U
W
H
U
W
K
H
Q
F
H
S
R
X
W
K
8
9
G
H
J
U
H
H
V
0
4
P
L
Q
X
W
H
V
2
6
V
H
F
R
Q
G
V
E
D
V
W
D
O
R
Q
J
W
K
H
N
R
U
W
K
O
L
Q
H
W
K
H
U
H
R
I
D
G
L
V
W
D
Q
F
H
R
I
1
6
2
0
9
I
H
H
W
P
R
U
H
R
I
O
H
V
V
W
R
D
O
L
Q
H
S
D
U
D
O
O
H
O
Z
L
W
K
D
Q
G
1
1
5
5
0
0
I
H
H
W
:
H
V
W
D
V
P
H
D
V
X
U
H
G
D
O
R
Q
J
D
O
L
Q
H
S
D
U
D
O
O
H
O
Z
L
W
K
W
K
H
S
R
X
W
K
O
L
Q
H
R
I
W
K
H
:
H
V
W
H
D
O
I
R
I
W
K
H
S
R
X
W
K
H
D
V
W
4
X
D
U
W
H
U
I
U
R
P
W
K
H
H
D
V
W
O
L
Q
H
R
I
V
D
L
G
:
H
V
W
H
D
O
I
R
I
W
K
H
S
R
X
W
K
H
D
V
W
4
X
D
U
W
H
U
W
K
H
Q
F
H
S
R
X
W
K
0
0
G
H
J
U
H
H
V
0
2
P
L
Q
X
W
H
V
2
3
V
H
F
R
Q
G
V
:
H
V
W
D
O
R
Q
J
V
D
L
G
O
L
Q
H
S
D
U
D
O
O
H
O
Z
L
W
K
W
K
H
E
D
V
W
O
L
Q
H
R
I
W
K
H
:
H
V
W
H
D
O
I
R
I
W
K
H
S
R
X
W
K
H
D
V
W
4
X
D
U
W
H
U
D
G
L
V
W
D
Q
F
H
R
I
5
7
5
8
8
I
H
H
W
P
R
U
H
R
U
O
H
V
V
W
R
W
K
H
N
R
U
W
K
O
L
Q
H
R
I
V
D
L
G
O
O
G
B
U
L
G
J
H
)
L
U
V
W
A
G
G
L
W
L
R
Q
W
K
H
Q
F
H
N
R
U
W
K
8
9
G
H
J
U
H
H
V
0
7
P
L
Q
X
W
H
V
0
7
V
H
F
R
Q
G
V
:
H
V
W
D
O
R
Q
J
V
D
L
G
N
R
U
W
K
O
L
Q
H
D
G
L
V
W
D
Q
F
H
R
I
1
5
8
3
5
I
H
H
W
P
R
U
H
R
U
O
H
V
V
W
R
W
K
H
S
R
L
Q
W
R
I
E
H
J
L
Q
Q
L
Q
J
A
E
V
W
U
D
F
W
P
U
R
S
H
U
W
\
0
N
O
R
T
H
5
0
1
0
0
LEGEND UNDERGROUND ELECTRICUNDERGROUND CABLE TVUNDERGROUND )IBER OPTICUNDERGROUND TELEPHONEOVERHEAD UTILITYUNDERGROUND GASSANITARY SE:ERSTORM SE:ER:ATERMAIN)ENCECURB >TYPICAL@CONCRETE SUR)ACEBITUMINOUS SUR)ACE )OUND MONUMENTSET 12 IRON PIPEMAR.ED RLS NO 25718CABLE TV PEDESTALAIR CONDITIONERELECTRIC MANHOLEELECTRIC METERELECTRIC PEDESTALELECTRIC TRANS)ORMERLIGHT POLEGUY :IREPO:ER POLEGAS MANHOLEGAS METERTELEPHONE MANHOLETELEPHONE PEDESTALSANITARY CLEANOUTSANITARY MANHOLECATCH BASINSTORM DRAIN)LARED END SECTIONSTORM MANHOLE )IRE DEPT CONNECTIONHYDRANTCURB STOP:ATER :ELL:ATER MANHOLE:ATER METERPOST INDICATOR VALVE:ATER VALVEBOLLARD)LAG POLEMAIL BO;TRA))IC SIGNUN.NO:N MANHOLESOIL BORINGTRA))IC SIGNALCONI)EROUS TREEDECIDUOUS TREE
P
I
D
1
9
0
3
2
0
0
8
2
0
1
3
C
O
N
T
A
C
T
E
O
L
R
X
S
Q
R
Z
P
E
L
E
E
D
A
P
¬
¬
¬
S
L
W
H
D
H
V
L
J
Q
L
L
C
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
6
5
1
4
2
8
7
2
6
5
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
E
L
I
2
0
0
0
2
S
U
R
V
E
L
I
0
2
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
P
L
A
T
C
O
U
N
T
Y
C
I
T
Y
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
-
E
C
T
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
L
A
N
D
S
U
R
V
E
Y
I
N
G
I
N
C
C
O
R
N
E
R
S
T
O
N
E
S
X
L
W
H
2
0
0
1
9
7
0
N
R
U
W
K
Z
H
V
W
H
U
Q
A
Y
H
S
W
L
O
O
Z
D
W
H
U
M
N
5
5
0
8
2
P
K
R
Q
H
6
5
1
2
7
5
8
9
6
9
G
D
Q
#
F
V
V
X
U
Y
H
\
Q
H
W
D
A
T
E
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
P
R
O
-
E
C
T
N
O
)
I
L
E
N
A
M
E
;
;
;
;
P
L
E
A
S
A
N
T
D
R
I
V
E
C
I
T
Y
O
)
H
A
S
T
I
N
G
S
D
A
.
O
T
A
C
O
U
N
T
Y
7
2
3
2
0
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
P
L
A
T
V
I
L
L
A
S
A
T
P
L
E
A
S
A
N
T
1
B
E
A
R
I
N
G
S
A
R
E
B
A
S
E
D
O
N
T
H
E
D
A
.
O
T
A
C
O
U
N
T
Y
C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
S
Y
S
T
E
M
N
A
D
1
9
8
3
2
U
N
D
E
R
G
R
O
U
N
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
S
H
O
:
N
P
E
R
G
O
P
H
E
R
O
N
E
L
O
C
A
T
E
S
A
N
D
A
S
B
U
I
L
T
S
P
L
A
N
S
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
B
Y
T
H
E
C
I
T
Y
O
)
H
A
S
T
I
N
G
S
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
3
T
H
E
R
E
M
A
Y
S
O
M
E
U
N
D
E
R
G
R
O
U
N
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
G
A
S
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
E
T
C
N
O
T
S
H
O
:
N
O
R
L
O
C
A
T
E
D
4
S
E
E
S
H
E
E
T
S
2
3
A
N
D
4
)
O
R
T
O
P
O
G
R
A
P
H
Y
A
N
D
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
D
E
T
A
I
L
B
E
N
C
H
M
A
R
.
S
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
B
A
S
E
D
O
N
I
N
)
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
A
S
S
H
O
:
N
O
N
T
H
E
M
N
D
O
T
G
E
O
D
E
T
I
C
:
E
B
S
I
T
E
S
U
R
V
E
Y
D
I
S
.
1
9
1
0
4
:
I
T
H
A
N
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
O
)
9
4
4
0
1
:
A
S
U
S
E
D
T
O
E
S
T
A
B
L
I
S
H
V
E
R
T
I
C
A
L
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
)
O
R
T
H
I
S
S
U
R
V
E
Y
N
A
V
D
8
8
P
R
O
-
E
C
T
B
E
N
C
H
M
A
R
.
S
S
H
O
:
N
O
N
S
U
R
V
E
Y
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
N
O
T
E
S
T
K
H
I
R
O
O
R
Z
L
Q
J
V
X
U
Y
H
\
L
Q
J
U
H
O
D
W
H
G
H
[
F
H
S
W
L
R
Q
V
D
S
S
H
D
U
R
Q
W
K
H
D
C
A
T
L
W
O
H
D
V
D
J
H
Q
W
I
R
U
O
O
G
R
H
S
X
E
O
L
F
N
D
W
L
R
Q
D
O
T
L
W
O
H
I
Q
V
X
U
D
Q
F
H
C
R
P
S
D
Q
\
T
L
W
O
H
C
R
P
P
L
W
P
H
Q
W
)
L
O
H
N
R
2
0
0
5
0
0
4
2
R
R
G
D
W
H
G
A
S
U
L
O
3
0
W
K
2
0
2
0
S
W
U
H
H
W
D
Q
G
X
W
L
O
L
W
\
H
D
V
H
P
H
Q
W
L
Q
I
D
Y
R
U
R
I
W
K
H
C
L
W
\
R
I
H
D
V
W
L
Q
J
V
R
Y
H
U
W
K
H
S
R
X
W
K
4
0
I
H
H
W
R
I
P
D
U
F
H
O
V
1
D
Q
G
2
S
H
U
D
R
F
X
P
H
Q
W
N
R
1
6
7
0
7
2
0
A
S
S
H
O
:
N
O
N
S
U
R
V
E
Y
P
O
H
D
V
D
Q
W
A
Y
H
Q
X
H
S
H
U
4
X
L
W
C
O
D
L
P
D
H
H
G
D
R
F
N
R
3
6
2
9
3
1
A
S
S
H
O
:
N
O
N
S
U
R
V
E
Y
P
I
D
1
9
0
3
2
0
0
8
0
0
1
0
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
E
R
S
W
X
D
U
W
R
S
L
P
H
N
C
C
I
M
P
U
H
V
L
G
H
Q
W
_
¬
S
L
P
H
N
P
U
R
S
H
U
W
\
G
U
R
X
S
¬
6
5
1
2
8
9
1
5
5
2
9
0
D
D
O
H
S
W
U
H
H
W
S
_
S
D
L
Q
W
P
D
X
O
_
M
N
_
5
5
1
0
2
V
V
L
P
H
N
#
V
L
P
H
N
S
J
F
R
P
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
DESCRIPTION DETAILNO SCALENORTH
C
E
R
T
I
)
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
I
K
H
U
H
E
\
F
H
U
W
L
I
\
W
K
D
W
W
K
L
V
S
O
D
Q
Z
D
V
S
U
H
S
D
U
H
G
E
\
P
H
R
U
X
Q
G
H
U
P
\
G
L
U
H
F
W
V
X
S
H
U
Y
L
V
L
R
Q
D
Q
G
W
K
D
W
I
D
P
D
G
X
O
\
L
L
F
H
Q
V
H
G
L
D
Q
G
S
X
U
Y
H
\
R
U
X
Q
G
H
U
W
K
H
O
D
Z
V
R
I
W
K
H
V
W
D
W
H
R
I
M
L
Q
Q
H
V
R
W
D
D
D
Q
L
H
O
L
T
K
X
U
P
H
V
R
H
J
L
V
W
U
D
W
L
R
Q
N
X
P
E
H
U
2
5
7
1
8
D
D
W
H
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
7
2
3
2
0
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
D
A
T
A
T
O
T
A
L
A
R
E
A
O
)
P
A
R
C
E
L
A
S
S
H
O
:
N
4
5
2
2
8
4
S
4
)
T
1
0
3
8
A
C
R
E
S
T
O
T
A
L
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
L
O
T
S
3
2
P
H
A
S
E
I
1
6
L
O
T
S
P
H
A
S
E
2
1
6
L
O
T
S
1
0
10 ARE SH
O
:
N
A
S
T
H
U
S
DRAINAGE
A
N
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
S
NOT
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
5
0
0
BEING 10 )EET IN :ID
T
H
A
N
D
A
D
-
O
I
N
I
N
G
STREET LINES AND PL
A
T
B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
L
I
N
E
S
AND BEING 500 )EET
I
N
:
I
D
T
H
A
N
D
AD-OINING LOT LINES
U
N
L
E
S
S
O
T
H
E
R
:
I
S
E
SHO:N ON THE PLAT
PRO
P
O
S
E
D
T
Y
P
I
C
A
L
L
O
T
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
L
A
Y
O
U
T
R
E
)
E
R
T
O
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
)
O
R
S
P
E
C
I
)
I
C
L
O
T
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
A
S
L
O
T
D
I
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
S
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
P
A
D
S
A
N
D
S
E
T
B
A
C
.
S
M
A
Y
V
A
R
Y
L
O
T
L
I
N
E
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
P
A
D
70
L
O
T
N
U
M
B
E
R
5
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
5
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
70
2
0
0
10
DRAINAGE UTILITY EASEMENT
10
DRAINAGE UTILITY EASEMENT
2
0
1
3
V
A
R
I
E
S
CURB
CURB
1
1
8
56
8
1
9
2
0
R
E
V
I
S
E
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
S
V
I
L
L
A
S
A
T
P
L
E
A
S
A
N
T
L
A
N
D
S
U
R
V
E
Y
I
N
G
,
I
N
C
.
C
O
R
N
E
R
S
T
O
N
E
I
D
a
n
i
e
l
L
.
T
h
u
r
m
e
s
d
o
h
e
r
e
b
y
c
e
r
t
i
f
y
t
h
a
t
t
h
i
s
p
l
a
t
w
a
s
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
b
y
m
e
o
r
u
n
d
e
r
m
y
d
i
r
e
c
t
s
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
i
o
n
;
t
h
a
t
I
a
m
a
d
u
l
y
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
d
L
a
n
d
S
u
r
v
e
y
o
r
i
n
t
h
e
S
t
a
t
e
o
f
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
;
t
h
a
t
t
h
i
s
p
l
a
t
i
s
a
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
s
u
r
v
e
y
;
t
h
a
t
a
l
l
m
a
t
h
e
m
a
t
i
c
a
l
d
a
t
a
a
n
d
l
a
b
e
l
s
a
r
e
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
l
y
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
o
n
t
h
i
s
p
l
a
t
;
t
h
a
t
a
l
l
m
o
n
u
m
e
n
t
s
d
e
p
i
c
t
e
d
o
n
t
h
i
s
p
l
a
t
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
,
o
r
w
i
l
l
b
e
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
l
y
s
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
o
n
e
y
e
a
r
;
t
h
a
t
a
l
l
w
a
t
e
r
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
a
n
d
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
,
a
s
d
e
f
i
n
e
d
i
n
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
S
t
a
t
u
t
e
s
,
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
5
0
5
.
0
1
,
S
u
b
d
.
3
,
a
s
o
f
t
h
e
d
a
t
e
o
f
t
h
i
s
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
a
r
e
s
h
o
w
n
a
n
d
l
a
b
e
l
e
d
o
n
t
h
i
s
p
l
a
t
;
a
n
d
a
l
l
p
u
b
l
i
c
w
a
y
s
a
r
e
s
h
o
w
n
a
n
d
l
a
b
e
l
e
d
o
n
t
h
i
s
p
l
a
t
.
D
a
t
e
d
t
h
i
s
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
d
a
y
o
f
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
,
2
0
_
_
_
_
_
.
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
D
a
n
i
e
l
L
.
T
h
u
r
m
e
s
,
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
d
L
a
n
d
S
u
r
v
e
y
o
r
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
N
o
.
2
5
7
1
8
S
T
A
T
E
O
F
M
I
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
C
O
U
N
T
Y
O
F
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
T
h
i
s
i
n
s
t
r
u
m
e
n
t
w
a
s
a
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
d
b
e
f
o
r
e
m
e
t
h
i
s
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
d
a
y
o
f
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
,
2
0
_
_
_
_
_
_
,
b
y
D
a
n
i
e
l
L
.
T
h
u
r
m
e
s
,
a
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
d
L
a
n
d
S
u
r
v
e
y
o
r
.
(
s
i
g
n
e
d
)
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
(
p
r
i
n
t
e
d
)
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
N
o
t
a
r
y
P
u
b
l
i
c
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
,
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
.
M
y
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
E
x
p
i
r
e
s
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
,
H
A
S
T
I
N
G
S
,
M
I
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
H
a
s
t
i
n
g
s
,
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
,
t
h
i
s
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
d
a
y
o
f
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
,
2
0
_
_
_
_
.
B
y
:
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
,
C
h
a
i
r
p
e
r
s
o
n
B
y
:
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
,
S
e
c
r
e
t
a
r
y
C
I
T
Y
C
O
U
N
C
I
L
,
H
A
S
T
I
N
G
S
,
M
I
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
T
h
i
s
p
l
a
t
o
f
V
I
L
L
A
S
A
T
P
L
E
A
S
A
N
T
w
a
s
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
a
n
d
a
c
c
e
p
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
o
f
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
H
a
s
t
i
n
g
s
,
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
,
a
t
a
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
r
e
o
f
h
e
l
d
t
h
i
s
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
d
a
y
o
f
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
,
2
0
_
_
_
_
,
a
n
d
i
s
i
n
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
o
f
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
S
t
a
t
u
t
e
s
,
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
5
0
5
.
0
3
,
S
u
b
d
.
2
.
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
o
f
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
H
a
s
t
i
n
g
s
,
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
S
i
g
n
e
d
:
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
,
M
a
y
o
r
S
i
g
n
e
d
:
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
,
C
i
t
y
C
l
e
r
k
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That Simek Property Group, LLC a limitedliability company, owner of the following described property:Parcel 1:The North 957.39 feet, as measured along the West line and the most Northerly E
a
s
t
line of the following tract: That part of the East Half of Section 32, Township 115North, Range 17 West, described as follows: Commencing at a point 35 rods West
o
f
the Southeast corner of the West Half of the East Half of said Section 32, runningthence North 109 rods and 21 links; thence West 6 rods; thence North 73 rods; t
h
e
n
c
e
West 29 rods; thence South 182 rods and 21 links; thence East 35 rods to the pla
c
e
o
f
beginning; EXCEPT that property lying East of the West line of Pleasant Drive as n
o
w
located. AND also except that part which lies northerly of the south line of Highla
n
d
Hills Fourth Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota.Parcel 2:That part of the West Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32, Township 115,Range 17, Dakota County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at theSouthwest corner of the said West Half of the Southeast Quarter; thence North 00degrees 19 minutes 54 seconds West (assumed bearing) along the West line there
o
f
a
distance of 2059.47 feet to the Northwest corner of Old Bridge First Addition, as
o
n
file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder, and the point of beginning
o
f
the land to be described; thence continuing North 00 degrees 19 minutes 54 sec
o
n
d
s
West along the West line a distance of 576.07 feet, more or less, to the Northwestcorner of said West Half of the Southeast Quarter; thence South 89 degrees 04 mi
n
u
t
e
s
26 seconds East along the North line thereof a distance of 162.09 feet; more of le
s
s
,
to a line parallel with and 1155.00 feet West, as measured along a line parallel wi
t
h
the South line of the West Half of the Southeast Quarter, from the east line of saidWest Half of the Southeast Quarter; thence South 00 degrees 02 minutes 23 seco
n
d
s
West along said line parallel with the East line of the West Half of the SoutheastQuarter a distance of 575.88 feet, more or less, to the North line of said Old Brid
g
e
First Addition; thence North 89 degrees 07 minutes 07 seconds West along said N
o
r
t
h
line a distance of 158.35 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning.Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as VILLAS AT PLEASANT and does h
e
r
e
b
y
dedicate to the public for public use the public ways and the easements for drainage
a
n
d
utility purposes as created by this plat.In witness whereof said Simek Property Group, LLC a limited liability company, has c
a
u
s
e
d
these presents to be signed this ___________ day of _____________________ , 20______.Simek Property Group, LLC a limited liability company By: Simek Property Group, LLC a limited liability company Its: President By: ____________________ Stuart R. Simek, PresidentSTATE OF ______________________________COUNTY OF _____________________________This instrument was acknowledged before me this _________ day of______________________ , 20______ , by Stuart R. Simek, President of Simek PropertyGroup, LLC a limited liability company. (signed)_________________________________(printed)_________________________________Notary Public ________________, County, Minnesota.My Commission Expires________________________
S
H
E
E
T
1
O
F
2
S
H
E
E
T
S
C
O
U
N
T
Y
S
U
R
V
E
Y
O
R
,
D
A
K
O
T
A
C
O
U
N
T
Y
,
M
I
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
I
h
e
r
e
b
y
c
e
r
t
i
f
y
t
h
a
t
i
n
a
c
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
S
t
a
t
u
t
e
s
,
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
5
0
5
.
0
2
1
,
S
u
b
d
1
1
,
t
h
i
s
p
l
a
t
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
t
h
i
s
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
d
a
y
o
f
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
,
2
0
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
.
B
y
:
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
T
o
d
d
B
.
T
o
l
l
e
f
s
o
n
,
D
a
k
o
t
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
S
u
r
v
e
y
o
r
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
O
F
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
T
A
X
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
R
E
C
O
R
D
S
,
D
A
K
O
T
A
C
O
U
N
T
Y
M
I
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
P
u
r
s
u
a
n
t
t
o
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
S
t
a
t
u
t
e
s
,
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
5
0
5
.
0
2
1
,
S
u
b
d
.
9
,
t
a
x
e
s
p
a
y
a
b
l
e
i
n
t
h
e
y
e
a
r
2
0
_
_
_
_
o
n
t
h
e
l
a
n
d
h
e
r
e
i
n
b
e
f
o
r
e
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
p
a
i
d
.
A
l
s
o
p
u
r
s
u
a
n
t
t
o
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
S
t
a
t
u
t
e
s
,
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
2
7
2
.
1
2
,
t
h
e
r
e
a
r
e
n
o
d
e
l
i
n
q
u
e
n
t
t
a
x
e
s
a
n
d
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
e
n
t
e
r
e
d
t
h
i
s
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
d
a
y
o
f
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
,
2
0
_
_
_
_
_
.
B
y
:
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
J
o
e
l
T
.
B
e
c
k
m
a
n
,
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
,
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
T
a
x
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
R
e
c
o
r
d
s
C
O
U
N
T
Y
R
E
C
O
R
D
E
R
,
D
A
K
O
T
A
C
O
U
N
T
Y
,
M
I
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
I
h
e
r
e
b
y
c
e
r
t
i
f
y
t
h
a
t
t
h
i
s
p
l
a
t
V
I
L
L
A
S
A
T
P
L
E
A
S
A
N
T
w
a
s
f
i
l
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
o
f
f
i
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
R
e
c
o
r
d
e
r
f
o
r
p
u
b
l
i
c
r
e
c
o
r
d
o
n
t
h
i
s
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
d
a
y
o
f
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
,
2
0
_
_
_
_
_
,
a
t
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
o
'
c
l
o
c
k
_
_
_
_
_
.
M
.
a
n
d
w
a
s
d
u
l
y
f
i
l
e
d
i
n
B
o
o
k
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
o
f
P
l
a
t
s
,
P
a
g
e
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
a
s
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
N
o
.
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
.
B
y
:
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
J
o
e
l
T
.
B
e
c
k
m
a
n
,
C
o
u
n
t
y
R
e
c
o
r
d
e
r
Δ
Δ
Δ
6
5
4
3
2
1
4321
1 2 3 4 5 6
1
2
3
OUTLOT A
OUTLOT B
O
L
D
B
R
I
D
G
E
L
A
N
E
ORCHARD COURT
NORTH RIDGE DRIVE
DE6CRI3TION DETAILNO 6CALENORTH
1
1
A
R
E
6
H
O
:
N
A
6
T
H
U
6
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
A
N
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
<
E
A
6
E
0
E
N
T
6
N
O
T
T
O
6
C
A
L
E
5
B
E
I
N
G
1
)
E
E
T
I
N
:
I
D
T
H
A
N
D
A
D
-
O
I
N
I
N
G
6
T
R
E
E
T
L
I
N
E
6
A
N
D
3
L
A
T
B
O
U
N
D
A
R
<
L
I
N
E
6
A
N
D
B
E
I
N
G
5
)
E
E
T
I
N
:
I
D
T
H
A
N
D
A
D
-
O
I
N
I
N
G
L
O
T
L
I
N
E
6
U
N
L
E
6
6
O
T
H
E
R
:
I
6
E
6
H
O
:
N
O
N
T
H
E
3
L
A
T
V
I
L
L
A
6
A
T
3
L
E
A
6
A
N
T
L
A
N
D
6
U
R
V
E
<
I
N
G
I
N
C
C
O
R
N
E
R
6
T
O
N
E
6
H
E
E
T
2
O
)
2
6
H
E
E
T
6
N
O
R
T
H
1
I
N
C
H
5
)
E
E
T
L
E
G
E
N
D
D
H
Q
R
W
H
V
I
R
X
Q
G
1
2
L
Q
F
K
L
U
R
Q
P
R
Q
X
P
H
Q
W
X
Q
O
H
V
V
R
W
K
H
U
Z
L
V
H
Q
R
W
H
G
D
H
Q
R
W
H
V
1
2
L
Q
F
K
[
1
4
L
Q
F
K
L
U
R
Q
S
L
S
H
V
H
W
D
Q
G
P
D
U
N
H
G
Z
L
W
K
0
L
Q
Q
H
V
R
W
D
L
L
F
H
Q
V
H
N
R
2
5
1
P
R
Q
X
P
H
Q
W
V
W
R
E
H
V
H
W
Z
L
W
K
L
Q
R
Q
H
\
H
D
U
D
I
W
H
U
U
H
F
R
U
G
L
Q
J
R
I
W
K
H
S
O
D
W
N
O
R
T
H
5
1
V
I
C
I
N
I
T
<
0
A
3
6ITE
6
E
C
3
2
T
:
3
1
1
5
R
N
G
1
D
A
.
O
T
A
C
O
U
N
T
<
0
N
NOT TO
6CALE
3
L
E
A
6
A
N
T
D
R
)
R
U
W
K
H
S
X
U
S
R
V
H
V
R
I
W
K
L
V
S
O
D
W
W
K
H
Z
H
V
W
O
L
Q
H
R
I
R
I
W
K
H
:
H
V
W
1
2
R
I
W
K
H
6
R
X
W
K
H
D
V
W
1
4
R
I
6
H
F
3
2
T
1
1
5
R
1
L
V
D
V
V
X
P
H
G
W
R
E
H
D
U
6
1
3
2
E
OUTLOT C
16TH 6T E
C6AH NO 4
NORTHRIDGE
DR
22ND 6T CT
:23RD 6T
6ITE
ROCK MULCH WITH RANDOM BOULDERS
MATCH LINE
MATCH LINE
ROCK MULCH WITH RANDOM BOULDERS
4
3
2
1
1
1 2 3 4 5
1
2
3
4
5
6 7
8
9
10
1
1
OUTLOT
C
OUTLOT A
O
U
T
L
O
T
D
NORTH CUL-DE-SAC
WEST 23RD ST.
OUTLOT
B
PHASE I
PHASE II
P
H
A
S
E
I
P
H
A
S
E
I
I
PHASE I
PHASE II
3
2
QUANTITIES SHOWN IN THE PLANTING SCHEDULE ARE FOR THE CONTRACTOR'S CONVENIENCE.
CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY QUANTITIES SHOWN ON THE PLAN.
TREE PLANTINGS.
1.Tree requirements. A street/boulevard tree shall be required for every 50
linear feet of street frontage in a subdivision. One front yard tree shall also be required
for every lot in the subdivision. The subdivider shall submit a tree plan indicating the
location and species of trees. Only those varieties of trees approved by the City Forester
will be used. The minimum size shall measure 1 and 1/2 inches in diameter at ground
No trees shall be planted within 30 feet of the intersection of curb lines on corner
lots.
2.Time of tree planting. The front yard tree and boulevard trees as identified
on the approved tree plan shall be planted prior to a residence receiving a certificate of
occupancy. If it is not practical to plant trees because of inclement weather, the builder
or owner shall provide a cash escrow, bond, or letter of credit in the amount of 125% of
the estimated cost of the tree(s) and installation.
3.Front yard trees. The front yard trees shall be planted on private property 5
to 15 feet inside the property line and not in the utility and drainage easement, side strip
or boulevard. No trees shall be planted within 30 feet of the intersection of curb lines on
corner lots.
4.There shall be 1 tree in the boulevard and 1 tree planted in the front yard by the
homeowner. If there is not enough room in the front yard, the homeowner may elect to
have the tree placed in the rear of the lot.
CITY OF HASTINGS LANDSCAPE CODE
BOTANICAL NAME
DECIDUOUS TREES
KEY COMMON NAME
1.5"BB 6
SIZE ROOT QTY.
1.5"BB 7
1.5"BB 9
1.5"BB 12
HL
BL
HB
RM
EVERGREEN TREES
6'BB 17Picea glauca var. DensataBH
FU
L
L
F
O
R
M
TO
G
R
A
D
E
LANDSCAPE LEGEND
ST
R
A
I
T
L
E
A
D
E
R
N
O
"
V
"
C
R
O
T
C
H
1.5"BB 11SM
INSTALL
HEIGHT
MATURE
HEIGHT
10'50'
15'60'
15'50'
14'50'
14'50'
6'40'
Picea abesNS 166'BB 6'60'
1.5"BB 8DE 14'50'
NATIVE WET PRAIRIE MN SEED MIX 34-271 (OLD BWSR W2)
WETLAND FRINGE MN SEED MIX 35-221 (OLD BWSR U6)
COMMERCIAL TURF - SOD HIGHLAND SOD
MNDOT 260 MN SEED MIX 25-131 (OLD MNDOT 260) &
ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY
CONSTRUCTION NOT INTENDED (USE EROSION CONTROL BLANKET
SODDED, OR RETENTION BASINS FOR SLOPES OVER 3:1)
MESIC GENERAL ROADSIDE MN SEED MIX 25-131
FOR GENERAL STABILIZATION (USE EROSION CONTROL BLANKET
OF PAD AREAS FOR SLOPES OVER 3:1)
HARDWOOD MULCH (NATURAL COLOR)
SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH
1-1/2" RIVER ROCK RIVER ROCK
SEED MIXTYPESYM.
SEED MIX LEGEND (FOR ALL SHEETS)
SHADEMASTER HONEYLOCUST
BOULEVARD LINDEN
HACKBERRY
SUGAR MAPLE
NORTHWOODS MAPLE
PATRIOT ELMUlmus x 'Patriot'
Acer rubrum 'Nothwoods'
Acer saccharum
Celtis occidentalis
Tilia americana 'Boulevard'
Gleditsia triacanthos var.
inermis 'Shademaster'
BLACK HILLS SPRUCE
NORWAY SPRUCE
VI
L
L
A
S
A
T
P
L
E
A
S
A
N
T
24
J
U
L
Y
2
0
2
0
Date: License No. 45071
James A. Kalkes, RLA ASLA
I hereby certify that this plan or report
was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Registered Landscape Architect under
the laws of the State of Minnesota.
07/24/2020
www.DreamScapesMN.com
DRAWN BY:JOB NO:DATE:
CHECK BY:
1
2
3
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION BY
JAK 20-0011 07/17/20
JAK FIELD CREW:Rude & Sons
---
4
5
6
7
L
1
SI
T
E
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
P
L
A
N
BF 36'BB 6'40'BALSAM FIRAbies Balsamea
ROCK MULCH WITH RANDOM BOULDERS
MATCH LINE
MATCH LINE
ROCK MULCH WITH RANDOM BOULDERS
PLAN
12"
6"
2'
(
M
I
N
.
)
6"
6"
8" 2-PLY NYLON STRAPS
DOUBLE STRAND 12 GAUGE WIRE
PAINTED FLUORESCENT ORANGE
WHITE FLAGGING (TYP.)
TREE WRAP
Primary roots shall be at
finished grade
4" HARDWOOD MULCH &
4" DEEP SAUCER
8' STEEL TEE
POST-3 REQUIRED AT 120°
BACKFILL MIX UNDISTURBED
SUBSOIL
REMOVE BURLAP & ROPE FROM
TOP 1/3 OF THE BALL
NOTE: SEE PLANTING NOTES FOR THE TYPE OF MULCH MATERIAL TO USE.
Planting depth: Trees shall be installed so primary roots are at finished grade. do
not plant too deeply or trees shall be rejected and will require corrections.
VI
L
L
A
S
A
T
P
L
E
A
S
A
N
T
24
J
U
L
Y
2
0
2
0
Date: License No. 45071
James A. Kalkes, RLA ASLA
I hereby certify that this plan or report
was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Registered Landscape Architect under
the laws of the State of Minnesota.
07/24/2020
www.DreamScapesMN.com
DRAWN BY:JOB NO:DATE:
CHECK BY:
1
2
3
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION BY
JAK 20-0011 07/17/20
JAK FIELD CREW:Rude & Sons
---
4
5
6
7
L
2
SI
T
E
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
P
L
A
N
SIDEWALK
2ND REQUIRED OVERDTORY
TREE IN REAR OF YARD
PATIO
SMS
1
SMS
1
DBB
4
BJD
5
MYS
3
DBB
4
UNDERSTORY TREE
SIDEWALK
BOULEVARD TREE
BOTANICAL NAME
DECIDUOUS TREES
KEY COMMON NAME
1.5"BB -
SIZE ROOT QTY.
1.5"BB -
1.5"BB -
1.5"BB -
HL
BL
HB
RM
EVERGREEN TREES
6'BB -Picea glauca var. DensataBH
FU
L
L
F
O
R
M
TO
G
R
A
D
E
TREE LEGEND
ST
R
A
I
T
L
E
A
D
E
R
N
O
"
V
"
C
R
O
T
C
H
1.5"BB -SM
INSTALL
HEIGHT
MATURE
HEIGHT
10'50'
15'60'
15'50'
14'50'
14'50'
6'40'
Picea abesNS -6'BB 6'60'
1.5"BB -DE 14'50'
SHADEMASTER HONEYLOCUST
BOULEVARD LINDEN
HACKBERRY
SUGAR MAPLE
NORTHWOODS MAPLE
PATRIOT ELMUlmus x 'Patriot'
Acer rubrum 'Nothwoods'
Acer saccharum
Celtis occidentalis
Tilia americana 'Boulevard'
Gleditsia triacanthos var.
inermis 'Shademaster'
BLACK HILLS SPRUCE
NORWAY SPRUCE
VI
L
L
A
S
A
T
P
L
E
A
S
A
N
T
24
J
U
L
Y
2
0
2
0
Date: License No. 45071
James A. Kalkes, RLA ASLA
I hereby certify that this plan or report
was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Registered Landscape Architect under
the laws of the State of Minnesota.
07/24/2020
www.DreamScapesMN.com
DRAWN BY:JOB NO:DATE:
CHECK BY:
1
2
3
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION BY
JAK 20-0011 07/17/20
JAK FIELD CREW:Rude & Sons
---
4
5
6
7
L
3
TY
P
I
C
A
L
L
O
T
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
BF -6'BB 6'40'BALSAM FIRAbies Balsamea
Euonymus alatus 'Compactus'DWARF BURNING BUSH #5 CONT.DBB 4
SHRUBS
BOTANICAL NAMEKEY COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT QTY.REMARKS
PERENNIALS
Rhus aromatica 'Gro-Low'GRO-LOW FRAGRANT SUMAC #5 CONT.GLS -
#5 CONT.SVJ 3
#5 CONT.SMS 2
Hemerocallis 'Baja'BAJA DAYLILY #1 CONT.BDL 5
Hemerocallis 'Pardon Me'PARDON ME DAYLILY #1 CONT.PMD -
#5 CONT.3
Spiraea x bumalda 'Anthony Waterer'ANTHONY WATERER SPIREA #5 CONT.-AWS
Juniperious Horizoantalis 'Savin'SAVIN JUNIPER
Spiraea nipponica 'Snowmound'SNOWMOUND SPIREA
Calamagrostis acutiflora 'Karl Foerster'KARL FOERSTER FEATHER REED GRASS #1 CONT.KFG -PLANT 2' O.C.
Sporobolus heterolepis PRAIRIE DROPSEED #1 CONT.PDS -PLANT 2' O.C.
Viburnum trilobum 'Bailey Compact'COMPACT AMERICAN CRANBERRYBUSH #5 CONT.BCA -
SHRUB LEGEND
1.5'4'x4'
INSTALL
HEIGHT
MATURE
HEIGHT
1'3'x4'
1'2.5'x5'
1.5'4'x4'
1.5'3'x4'
1.5'3'x4'
1'3'x4'
6"4'x2'
6"2'x2'
6"2'x1.5'
6"1.5'x1.5'
MYS Spiraea thunbergii 'Ogon'MELLOW YELLOW SPIREA
QUANTITIES SHOWN IN THE PLANTING SCHEDULE ARE FOR THE CONTRACTOR'S CONVENIENCE.
CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY QUANTITIES SHOWN ON THE PLAN.
YELLOW FLOWER
RED FLOWER
#5 CONT.TAU -Taxus x media 'Tauntoni'TAUNTON SPREADING YEW 1'3'x4'
1.5'3'x3'BOX CHICAGOLAND BOXWOODBuxus 'Glencoe'CONT.#5 CONT.-
6
5
4
3
2
1
14321654321123451 2 3 4 5 678910 1
1
2 3
O
U
T
L
O
T
A
OUTLOT B 3 2
5
0
1
0
0
VILLAS AT PLEASANT
SIMEK PROPERTY GROUP
13 AUGUST 2020
I
H
E
R
E
B
Y
C
E
R
T
I
F
Y
T
H
A
T
T
H
I
S
P
L
A
N
,
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
,
O
R
R
E
P
O
R
T
W
A
S
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D
B
Y
M
E
O
R
U
N
D
E
R
M
Y
D
I
R
E
C
T
S
U
P
E
R
V
I
S
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
H
A
T
I
A
M
A
D
U
L
Y
L
I
C
E
N
S
E
D
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
U
N
D
E
R
T
H
E
L
A
W
S
O
F
T
H
E
N
A
M
E
:
S
I
G
N
A
T
U
R
E
:
D
A
T
E
:
L
I
C
.
N
o
:
REV DESCRIPTION BY
S
T
A
T
E
O
F
M
I
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
E
L
I
R
U
P
N
O
W
4
6
6
8
1
SITE PLAN
OVERVIEW
C2.0
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
G
E
O
M
E
T
R
I
C
A
N
D
P
A
V
I
N
G
N
O
T
E
S
:
S
I
T
E
D
A
T
A
S
I
G
N
A
G
E
A
N
D
M
A
R
K
I
N
G
N
O
T
E
S
:
K
n
o
w
w
h
a
t
'
s
b
e
l
o
w
.
b
e
f
o
r
e
y
o
u
d
i
g
.
C
a
l
l
R
6
5
4
3
2
1
14321654321123451 2 3 4 5 678910 1
1
2 3
O
U
T
L
O
T
A
OUTLOT B 3 2
5
0
1
0
0
VILLAS AT PLEASANT
SIMEK PROPERTY GROUP
13 AUGUST 2020
I
H
E
R
E
B
Y
C
E
R
T
I
F
Y
T
H
A
T
T
H
I
S
P
L
A
N
,
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
,
O
R
R
E
P
O
R
T
W
A
S
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D
B
Y
M
E
O
R
U
N
D
E
R
M
Y
D
I
R
E
C
T
S
U
P
E
R
V
I
S
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
H
A
T
I
A
M
A
D
U
L
Y
L
I
C
E
N
S
E
D
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
U
N
D
E
R
T
H
E
L
A
W
S
O
F
T
H
E
N
A
M
E
:
S
I
G
N
A
T
U
R
E
:
D
A
T
E
:
L
I
C
.
N
o
:
REV DESCRIPTION BY
S
T
A
T
E
O
F
M
I
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
E
L
I
R
U
P
N
O
W
4
6
6
8
1
GRADING PLAN
OVERVIEW
C3.0
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
G
R
A
D
I
N
G
A
N
D
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
N
O
T
E
S
:
K
n
o
w
w
h
a
t
'
s
b
e
l
o
w
.
b
e
f
o
r
e
y
o
u
d
i
g
.
C
a
l
l
R
G
R
A
D
I
N
G
L
E
G
E
N
D
:
6
5
4
3
2
1
14321654321123451 2 3 4 5 678910 1
1
2 3
O
U
T
L
O
T
A
OUTLOT B 3 2
5
0
1
0
0
VILLAS AT PLEASANT
SIMEK PROPERTY GROUP
13 AUGUST 2020
I
H
E
R
E
B
Y
C
E
R
T
I
F
Y
T
H
A
T
T
H
I
S
P
L
A
N
,
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
,
O
R
R
E
P
O
R
T
W
A
S
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D
B
Y
M
E
O
R
U
N
D
E
R
M
Y
D
I
R
E
C
T
S
U
P
E
R
V
I
S
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
H
A
T
I
A
M
A
D
U
L
Y
L
I
C
E
N
S
E
D
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
U
N
D
E
R
T
H
E
L
A
W
S
O
F
T
H
E
N
A
M
E
:
S
I
G
N
A
T
U
R
E
:
D
A
T
E
:
L
I
C
.
N
o
:
REV DESCRIPTION BY
S
T
A
T
E
O
F
M
I
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
E
L
I
R
U
P
N
O
W
4
6
6
8
1
UTILITY PLAN
OVERVIEW
C4.0
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
N
O
T
E
S
:
K
n
o
w
w
h
a
t
'
s
b
e
l
o
w
.
b
e
f
o
r
e
y
o
u
d
i
g
.
C
a
l
l
R
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
L
E
G
E
N
D
:
COMMENTS FROM NEIGHBORS
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 11:44 AM
To: PublicComment <PublicComment@hastingsmn.gov>
Subject: Villas at Pleasant
John Hinzman
We think this is the wrong housing for this property.
There are too many houses for this property.
You should be putting houses in this area like the ones in the surrounding area, in the $400,000 to
$500,000 range.
Sincerely
Ken and Barb Angerman
1351 23rd St. W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 10:14 AM
To: PublicComment <PublicComment@hastingsmn.gov>
Subject: Rezoning Villas at Pleasant and Northridge
We have seen via Zoom and mail the proposal for development at Pleasant and Northridge and are opposed to the requested zoning change. We realize that the homeowners affected by this development are severely at a disadvantage by a lack of resources, experience and visibility compared to a large realty
development corporation, but we hope that our elected officials will take our concerns seriously and protect our position.
Unfortunately, we will be unable to attend the Zoom meeting where this proposal will be officially presented. Please accept this letter of objection in our place.
Neighborhood Impact
Concerns, Question, Issues
Zoning
The obvious objective for the proposed change from R1 to R3 is to enable Lawrence Property to increase
the asking price of the 10 acres at Pleasant and Northridge. However, the negative impact to the existing homeowners in the surrounding neighborhood must be considered and given a higher priority by our city council.
High density “villa” homes are inconsistent with the existing single family homes that surround the proposed development. Long term city plans call for development consistent with neighborhoods. Isn’t this a conflict?
In addition to higher density, R3 allows for multi-story rentals.
If the proposed project falls through, does zoning remain at R3, therefore opening the door for apartment buildings or other structures inconsistent with surrounding homes, or does it revert to R1? These questions should be answered before considering a zoning change.
Density
The proposed density for this project is inconsistent with any other development within established R1 neighborhoods in Hastings. High density housing is common south of Rt. 47, near the Cub/Wal-Mart
business area, north on Pleasant Drive and off Featherstone. In all of these areas land is still available for further development of high density, villa type housing. Another mixed villa/single family development is already proposed for land near St. Elizabeth's church.
The Pleasant/Northridge plan does not allow for open space other than drainage ponds. No guest parking is designated. Will Pleasant and Northridge become de facto guest parking lots?
Home Values
High density/low cost housing in the middle of an R1 neighborhood contributes to concerns from surrounding homeowners regarding impact on property values. Our home purchases, designs and prices paid were somewhat contingent on R1 zoning and a city plan that calls for “consistency” and “open
spaces” as a desired goal.
A similar zoning change request for villas off of General Sieben Drive in Wyndham Hills was recently rejected by the city council. The proposal was for land that was mostly surrounded by empty property, yet
it was turned down. This quote from the minutes supports our argument on home values:
"Informational Meeting – September 13, 2018 The Developer will hold a second informational meeting on September 13, City Hall. Notification for the
meeting has been expanded to include 329 households comprising homeowners in Wallin 1-17 Additions.
Effect on Property Value
Staff has contacted Dakota County Assessing to learn more about how approval of the plat and
construction of the proposed villa homes may affect the property values of homes within the
neighborhood. Dakota County did not give any specific information related to Wallin 18 , but did state
that home size, quality of construction, and architectural style all factor into determining
value. Homes that differentiate from norms established in the neighborhood may have an effect on value. Homes in closest proximity to those homes outside of the established norm have the strongest likelihood of effect."
Assuming that it is true that there will be a negative impact on home values in the surrounding area, how
is this considered a positive development for Hastings? And how will homeowners be compensated for their loss?
Need/Marketability
Developer presented homes as 55+ “lock and leave” in a price range of $350-400k.
Recent understanding is that only 80% of homes can be 55+, leaving the door open for a much higher number of families with children or even rentals if older couples do not buy these homes in sufficient quantity.
What makes these homes “lock and leave”? No proposals for fencing or security are in the plan. Do lawn mowing and snow removal constitute “lock and leave”? This proposal for high density, over 55 development is in no way similar to other developments where there are amenities and security as well as maintenance.
At the original Zoom meeting with homeowners the developer said that many of the proposed high density homes will be purchased by local seniors looking to “downsize”. At almost $100,000 more than the average home in Hastings today, why would these attract people looking to downsize? Don’t most
people who downsize look for less expensive housing?
All of these issues beg the question – what if these units don’t sell according to plan, which has been presented as 2-3 years. Will the developer drop the 55+ requirement? Will the developer switch to another
type of housing? With R3 zoning anything is possible and mostly undesirable to the surrounding neighborhood.
Appearance
Eleven back walls with possible transom windows and minimum separation will be facing existing neighborhood homes and streets along Pleasant. Similarly, four (4) more back walls will face Northridge. Could this possibly be considered attractive? The rear design could very well be mistaken for storage
buildings. Developer has proposed a few shrubs and trees as resolution, but the plan submitted is at best sketchy. Also, the backs of these buildings will be very close to the existing sidewalk. How much landscaping is really practical?
Drainage
All of the existing homes backing up to the current vacant land suffer from backyard drainage issues. Standing water even after average rain and snowmelt is normal. This problem was known, but overlooked when original occupancy inspections were completed. Problem now has been passed on to homeowners to resolve.
If drainage issues worsen as a result of high density building, who will take responsibility? Assuming non-local developer/builders will be gone, will the city take responsibility?
It is important to note that the developer has not cited any local builders involved in this project.
Therefore it is safe to assume that once the project is completed, anyone involved or responsible for
problems will be gone.
Maintenance
Developer has promised “professional” management. Once the developer is out of the picture, anything could happen, especially elimination of the professional management team. In our personal experience with three different homeowners associations, expensive management companies are routinely dropped as
a way to keep monthly assessments down. Maintenance becomes the responsibility of homeowner "boards" whose priority is low cost.
Is the city prepared to step in when this development ages and owners start bickering over replacing dead trees and repairing driveways?
Traffic
Addition of 31 villa homes adds potential for 62 additional vehicles using not only Pleasant, but Northridge and Old Bridge as well. Proposed intersection at Northridge and an exit road from the development runs directly into Old Bridge, which suggests that Old Bridge will likely become the point of access to Pleasant at south end therefore increasing traffic on Old Bridge.
Developer maintains that over-55 owners will not be using roads at high traffic “rush hour” times. Common sense says that age 55 is not a universal or even common retirement age for Hastings residents. Also, what about the 20% who are not in the 55+ age range?
Proposed cul-de-sacs end within feet of the back-facing walls of existing homes on River Shore Court. This will create a nuisance with auto headlights shining into family rooms and bedrooms at night when residents are home. Landscaping is not a viable solution in winter or at second story level. One cul-de-sac
runs along the length of the rear boundary of an existing home creating a new street in the backyard.
Conclusion
Density, Home Values, Appearance, Drainage, Maintenance, Need/Marketability and Traffic are
legitimate concerns for the surrounding neighborhood and should not be taken lightly.
Neither the developer nor the realty firm (Simek) are local companies. They are proposing a one-size-fits-all project into an established Hastings neighborhood with no guarantee that they will not walk away if
the project fails. Lawrence Property stands to gain financially without any responsibility for the long or short term effects on the neighborhood.
My understanding is that R1 housing is viable for the property in question and that serious proposals have been made for just this type of development. The barrier to R1 is the owner's asking price.
The landowners desire to maximize price potential by finding a buyer who will cram more homes into the same space is understandable, but should not be subsidized by the City of Hastings at the cost of the surrounding neighbors. The legacy of this project could well be devalued homes and a lowered standard of living.
Concern about a potential lawsuit by a developer with deep pockets against a small town city council if a zoning change is refused is laughable. Mixed housing already exists in Hastings. The city council can certainly provide examples of other villa/townhouse/quad home developments that have already been
built with more being proposed on property that does not negatively impact established neighborhoods.
We respectfully request that the City Council turn down the request for rezoning as not a benefit to our local economy, not an improvement in lifestyle and not consistent with city plans.
Submitted by: Tom and Pam Sullivan 2443 River Shore Court
Hastings, MN 55033
_____________________________________________________________________________________
We are in support of the proposed rezoning at Northridge & Pleasant.
We are neighbors of this development and approaching our retirement years. The Villas at Pleasant are
exactly what we, and many people our age are looking for. We attended the first Zoom meeting hosted
by the developer and were impressed by the plans, quality and flexibility of the project.
Thank you for your consideration.
Howard & Michelle Nevanen
1431 River Shore Drive
Hastings, MN 55033
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing in opposition to the re zoning of the property at Northridge Dr and Pleasant Ave.
I live at 2467 River Shore Ct. I am the original owner of the property. I built the house myself. When I
purchased the property in 2004 and completed the house in 2005, land in question was zoned R1/Ag so I
always knew that someday I was going to have a neighbor to the back of our home. If this was to be an
R1 development you wouldn't hear a word from me.
However, this proposal is absolutely non-conforming to the area and will have an immense impact on
my property value. After consulting with my realtor, I stand to easily 15% of my property value if not
more.
1. The proposed plan places a cul-de-sac at my rear property line. When I bought my lot, I had a
curb in the front only, now I may have one on my rear property line? That alone will result in a
huge loss in value. I will also then have to deal with light pollution as headlights from vehicle will
now be shining directly in my main floor and upstairs. It also raises a security issue for us. I have
children and now a car could theoretically drive right through into my yard. I hate to sound
selfish but my property matters more than this development. I have been here 15 years, paying
taxes.
2. The R3 high density housing will obviously reduce my property value. That is well established
fact that was the legal reason for not allowing it to happen less the 1/2 mile to the west of this
location.
3. Once you rezone this there's no going back. How will you stop this from being an apartment
complex when this product doesn't sell?
4. This product is also going to be available 1/2 mile away in the newly annexed part of town south
of SEAS church, correct? 113 units? There is no shortage of the product. Do not allow this in our
"backyard" causing financial harm to us.
I hope that this doesn't fall on deaf ears. I know you will not hear any support for this. We, the citizens
and taxpayers, should be your #1 priority all of the time. This market was crushed in the last recession
and this will affect our values in the same way. Just because the land is way over priced for this market
to build R1 homes, that cost or profit should not be coming out of the pockets of established
constituents. If this passes, I believe someone will have negligence in my financial loss. Will it be the city,
the developer, or land owner? It isn't my actions that will harm me. But the cities action tonight surely
may.
Again, you are expected to protect the citizens of Hastings, first and foremost. Please do.
Paul Hiller
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Hastings,
I am writing my concerns of the rezoning on the pleasant property. Correct me if I am wrong, but a
zoning ordinance is put into place to protect homeowners of not only their property, but also the value
that goes along with it. I feel to put such a high density of villas right in the middle of town and the
middle of a residential area is just wrong. The preliminary plan that we saw also had a road right in the
back of my yard. I do not want to have to worry about my Grand kids playing in our yard and being that
close to a road. The design of the villas was made so that there could be privacy, however the side
facing pleasant drive and all the homes in the back, will be looking at only a very small window on the
top, making it look more like storage garages. I am all for development and a growing community, but
also want to protect homeowners with their property purchase. I believe you can get 24 or 25 nice villas
back there with nice green space and keep it in R1 zoning. This is why it was zoned that way many years
ago, and I feel should stay the same.
Thank you Joni Siewert
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To whom it may concern: As a resident of the neighborhood, living on River Shore Court and in the Wyndham
Hills development, we are concerned with the rezoning of this property from A-Agriculture and R-1 Single Family to R-3 Medium to high density residence. Our understanding was that this property was zoned as Single Family Residence which made us more comfortable when purchasing our lot/residence 17 years ago. We are concerned with the rezoning and the affect it will have on our property value as well as
the current status quo of the surrounding neighborhoods. We would strongly oppose anything but R-1 Single Family residences to be built on this property. Thank you for your consideration Dave and Deb Reinke
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is in regard to the Villas at Pleasant. Attached you will find maps which I will explain in the
letter.
First – I am all for seeing this land developed behind my house. I’m are very sick of having corn and
beans planted for the past 30 years.
My big concerns is the density and the rezoning to a R3. As a city, your comprehensive plans that you
perform go through areas of the city designating what areas would be best suited for developments and
zone that parcels according to your expertise as city staff and elected officials. The land is currently
zoned R1, which from a city view is logical from the fact that the surrounding developments are all R1
residential neighborhoods. So obviously I would like it to remain that to protect the value of my home. I
feel if it goes to R3 my value of my house may be compromised.
With that, the maps attached indicate my other concerns if this development moves forward.
Highlighted in orange is a cul-de-sac that is directly butting up to my back yard. First the street services 5
villas of which I feel a smaller cul-de-sac could be used there along with pulling it to the east further. The
other plans are options I believe the developer could look at and consider - I really do not want a street
in my back yard – it’s truly poor planning.
The last plan is what I had drawn up when considering the land which is a single family development
which I feel it should be.
Thanks for your time – look forward to the meeting tonight.
Todd Siewert
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
We do have some questions for the Rezoning. We feel the biggest concern is R1 to R3 and the field
flooding issue.
Attached please find some of the pictures we took when we had flooding from the field and water in
basement.
Here are our questions. Thank you so much!
1. When the plan was originally presented by the contractor we were informed the zoning
would be R1 to R2. At the meeting the contractor indicated they are wanting R1 to R3? We
asked what the difference was between R2 and R3 as far as number of structures on the
property and there was no response. Is the current plan from the contractor truly a plan based
on R2 zoning or R3 zoning?
2. Can you please provide an example where a property went from R1 to R3 in Hastings?
3. Can you provide examples in Hastings of R3 zoned properties?
4. If the contractor decides to pull out and the city rezones R1-R3 then will the city allow
anything to be built on that property or will they zone it back to R1?
5. Flooding – There is a serious issue with draining in the field. This absolutely has to be
addressed in order to not cause future issues for homeowners around the field. Can the city
assure that by rezoning the property from R1 to R3 which allows for additional structures will
decrease the flooding issues and not increase the issues? Currently the field is all natural soil
and can hardly absorb the water and snow melt. How will the city assure that the additional
building structures allowed under R3 zoning will not increase the water drain off issues?
6. Can the City hire a third-party unbiased zoning company to review the flooding plans for
water management based on zoning to R3? We would like to see different scenarios based on
all the possibilities for R3 building, including if the contractor decides to pull out of development
and what the unknown building possibilities could potentially be i.e. row homes or attached
townhomes, apartments?
7. Have all surrounding parties been included to join the meeting with the contractor? People
living on Old Bridge Lane, West 21st, and West 23rd Street?
8. What other structures are allowed to be built on R-3 property?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jeff Bussey <Jeff.Bussey@oldnational.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 1:38 PM
To: Trevor Lund
Subject: FW: Villas at Pleasant
We are in support of the proposed rezoning at
Northridge & Pleasant. Jeff & Diana Bussey
1620 Greystone Road
Hastings, MN 55033
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Darin Berg
Date: August 24, 2020 at 6:51:42 PM CDT
To: publiccomment@hastings.gov
Subject: Rezoning Villas at Pleasant - Northridge and Pleasant.
Once again our neighborhood has to try to defend their property values because a
developer wants to make as much money as possible by inserting what equates to
“Cluster Housing”. There is obviously no consideration for the surrounding residents
by Simek Property Group or Lawrence Property.
First and foremost, the negative impact of this kind of development to the
surrounding single family homes will be significant. House property values will
reduce greatly, this has been historically proven when medium to high density
housing is forced into an area of higher valued homes.
This area has always been advertised to new and existing homeowners and home
builders that this is single family home only development. I have absolutely no
problem with building single family homes on this property. The R3 rezoning is not
consistent, nor advantageous in any way to the surrounding community.
Something to consider is that Lawrence Property seems to greatly over value this
property and the only way a developer/builder can make any reasonable profit, is
to build these type of R3 zoned Medium to high density homes. This should not be a
premise to even consider such a zoning. Our neighborhood should not suffer
because of their greed.
The city council has been tasked to represent the best interests of the community.
The rezoning of this property does not represent the best interests of the existing tax
paying residents surrounding the land in question.
Darin R Berg - 2456 Rivershore Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Mark,
Attached is an alternate plan that I would prefer for the land behind my house.
Please pass this along to your fellow council members - the current plan is upsetting to me, especially in
regards to a street directly in my back yard.
Hope this will help with a
possible option. Thanks
-----Original Message-----
From: todd@starrealtymn.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 19,
2020 3:07 PM To: Todd Siewert
Subject: Message from "RNP002673E53BE3"
This E-mail was sent from "RNP002673E53BE3" (MP C3004ex).