The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12.D. Preliminary Plat of Maple Ridge Estates-Res. No. 6648 /2. 0, CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CASE LOG NO.: 07 -025 TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator I FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II i , SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat of Maple Ridge Estates , , MEETING DATE: !September4,2007 REVIEW PERIOD: May 10 - October 7, 2007 INTRODUCTION Associated Capital Cotp (ACe) has submitted an application for preliminary plat approval of property located south of CSAH 78 and west of CSAH 17. The plat, as currently proposed, contemplates the creation of 69 single-family residential lots on approximately 40.95 acres. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Please find attached a/copy of the August 23 memorandum to the Planning Commission. This report includes significant discussion regarding the Residential Project Scoring Guide (RPSG) relative to this project. Following th~ preparation of that report and prior to Planning Commission review, the applicant provided a revised phin that included a trail connection from Jennifer Lane to CSAH 17 in the southeast corner of the project. In addition, to the proposed trail connection, the applicant is proposing the placement of benches and signage as a part of the wetland/trail area. Staff has concluded that this design would increase the points awarded for the RPSG beyond the threshold needed for a recommendation of approval. Also attached for the Council's reference is a memo prepared for the Planning Commission discussing the revisions and their impact on the RPSG. The Planning Commission reviewed the preliminary plat at its July 6, 2006 meeting, and voted to recommend approval of the preliminary plat application, with conditions. A copy of the staff report to the Planning Commission has been attached for the Council's reference. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve Resolution No. 6648, a resolution approving the Preliminary Plat for Maple Ridge Estates, subject to the conditions presented. 2. Approve Resolution No. 6648, a resolution approving the Preliminary Plat for Maple Ridge Estates, subject to revised conditions. 3. Do not approve the preliminary plat and direct staff to prepare a resolution consistent with the direction ofthe Council for action at the Council's next meeting. 4. Table the matter and request additional information from staff and/or the applicant. VISIONING RELATIONSIDP This action supports: Goal D: "Vibrant, resilient and stable" 1 ACTION REQUESTED Offer a motion to approve Resolution No. 6648, a resolution approving the Preliminary Plat for Maple Ridge Estates, subject to th~ conditions presented, and move its adoption. I I . i h:\cc\2007\09-04\ppmaplendge esates 07025.doc I I I I i I I i I I I I ! 2 RESOLUTION NO. 6648 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF MAPLE RIDGE ESTATES WHEREAS, Ass~ciated Capital Corp (ACe) , applicant and property owner, has made application for preliminary plat approvlal of Maple Ridge Estates; and WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as: The Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 19, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, on August 23, 2007, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed preliminary plat with conditions; and I WHEREAS, on September 4, 2007, the City Council reviewed the proposed preliminary plat. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota that the preliminary plat of Maple Ridge Estates is hereby approved subject to the following I conditions: ! I. The folloiving procedural actions must be completed prior to the submission of a I final plat! for approval: A. Tbe applicant will revise the plat to include features and/or amenities to meet the required 60% of the applicable base points for the Residential Project Scoring Guide. B. R.eplacement trees are required to be planted as follows: 1. A minimum of four feet from impervious surfaces. 2. A minimum of ten feet from property lines. 3. Not in easements containing utilities. 4. Not in City owned right-of-way. 5. Not below overhead utilities. 6. Not below high water levels (HWL) in existing or created ponds or wetlands. 7. No planted tree species shall comprise more than 30% ofthe total quantity of trees to be planted on the site. 8. Consistent with the Shakopee Tree Planting Guidelines. 9. Ash (Fraxinus sp.) and Colorado Blue spruce (Picea pungens) are not allowed to be planted. C. The applicant plant a diversity of tree species on site consistent with the existing woodlands to prevent impacts from future disease. D. The applicant plant replacement trees between the County Roads and houses to address visibility issues for future property owners. E. The applicant work with staff to address the wetland delineation report issues and submit a Minnesota Local/StatelFederal Application Form for Water/Wetland Projects permit application for Local Government Unit (LGU) approval, if necessary. This application shall include a replacement plan for 3 the management, maintenance, monitoring, and performance standards for the we~land mitigation site(s). F. The applicant work with staff to determine if altering setbacks for the building pads for lots along the southern boundary of the site within the Natural Resource Corridor to preserve additional trees and reduce wetland impacts is feasible. G. Th,e applicant provide a 25-foot no-disturbance natural buffer from the delineation line around all delineated wetlands. H. A temporary cul-de-sac shall be required at the end of Jennifer Lane. If Lot 14, Block 2 and Lot 1, Block 3 shown on the preliminary plat are removed, the temporary cul-de-sac shall not be required. I. Arecreation trial link be provided to connect CSAH 17 via the cul-de-sac at maple Ridge Court or near the south property line and leading along the wetland (Outlot A) to Jennifer Lane, with trail amenities. J. Any trails proposed to be constructed not adjacent to the right-of-way shall be within a 20 foot wide trail easement dedicated to the City of Shakopee. K. The applicant shall work with the County Highway Department to determine if adequate area exists to dedicate an additional 15 feet of right-of-way on Lot 1, Block 2 rather than dedicating a drainage, utility and trail easement on that lot. L. With the final plat submission, a minimum 15 foot drainage, utility, and trail easement shall be provided along the rights-of-way for CSAH 17 and County Road 78. M. ~he conservation easement over Outlot A shall be removed. N. All lots within the proposed final plat will conform to the required design standards for the applicable zoning district. II. The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the Final Plat: A. Approval oftitle by the City Attorney. B. Execution of a Developers Agreement, which shall include provisions for security for public improvements within the Final Plat, as well as payment of engineering review fees, and any other fees as required by the City's adopted fee schedule. 1. Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 2. Electrical system to be installed in accordance with the requirements ofthe Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 3. Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 4. Installation of sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems, and construction of streets in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. 5. The developer shall be responsible for payment of Trunk Storm Water Charges, Trunk Storm Water Storage and Treatment Charges, and Trunk Sanitary Sewer Charges, as required by the most current City of Shakopee Fee Schedule. 4 6. Payment of all storm water management review charges as required by the most current City of Shakopee Fee Schedule. 7. The applicant shall meet park dedication requirements by providing cash in lieu of land dedication. 8. Park dedication fees in the amount required by the City Code and adopted City fee schedule shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. If any portion of the property is being platted as out10ts to accommodate a phased development, the park dedication fees for each future phase shall be based on the fees in effect at the time of final plat approval for those outlots and shall be paid before the final plat for those outlots is recorded. C. The street name of Maple Ridge Drive shall be modified either east or west of Jennifer Lane and shall be subject to approval by City staff. D. The applicant shall provide a contractor's estimate for the cost of removal of the emergency access to CSAH 17. The applicant shall then provide a cash escrow in that amount for the removal ofthe emergency access at such time as a second access into the development is provided. E. Temporary street signs shall be provided until such time that permanent street signs are installed. F. The applicant shall obtain the appropriate permits for all structures to be removed from the site and/or demolished. G. Compliance with the Woodland and Tree Management Ordinance. The applicant is approved to remove 277 trees and is required to plant 277 replacement trees within one year of removal. If the number of plantings can not be met on site the following is required: L A cash payment of $400.00 per replacement tree shall be provided to the City to complete the vegetative or environmental alternatives, or; 2. Trees shall be planted in City owned or managed land as approved by the Natural Resources Coordinator. H. A County access permit shall be required for the proposed Jennifer Lane access onto CSAH 78. III. The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the issuance of a grading permit: A. The applicant must meet the City's Woodland and Tree Management Ordinance requirements. The applicant contact the Natural Resource Coordinator, 952-233-9510, prior to any land disturbing activities for an inspection of the tree protection/silt fence installed at the drip line of trees to be preserved. B. Silt fence and/or tree protection fence shall not be installed within delineated wetland. C. The developer should implement the use of Best Management Practices for erosion control and stormwater management during construction. D. The applicant adhere to the NPDES Phase II permit requirements for erosion control before, during, and after earth moving activities. E. All trails and sidewalks be constructed to meet ADA requirements or guidelines and be installed at the time or road construction in the plat. 5 F. Cross sections shall be provided to the City and County every 50 feet along the County roads and near culverts. G. Detailed drainage calculations shall be submitted to the County Engineer. H. Any private driveway/field accesses to the property shall be completely removed from the County right-of-way and graded to match the existing ditch. 1. No public improvements shall be constructed until the City Engineer and the Shflkopee Public Utilities Commission (SPUC) approves the Final Cdnstruction Plans and Specifications. J. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permission, right-of-way and/or easements to perform all work offsite. K. The applicant shall obtain the necessary Scott County permits/approvals (access, right-of-way, drainage, etc.). L. The applicant shall obtain a NPDES permit prior to any land disturbing activity. A copy of this permit shall be provided to the City. M. TJ:1e applicant shall obtain the appropriate Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) p~rmits and approvals for all proposed wetland impacts. No grading permit sl1all be issued until the City approves a mitigation plan. N. The applicant shall provide a slope no greater than four (4) feet horizontal to one (1) foot vertical adjacent to all wetlands (existing and mitigated). O. The applicant shall make the necessary revisions to proposed basement elevations to provide a minimum of two (2) feet of freeboard from approved, a~jacent high water elevations (existing/mitigated wetlands and storm water b'asins). I P. ~he applicant shall make the necessary revisions to proposed building opening ~levations to provide one (1) foot plus the depth of the high flow of freeboard from all emergency overflows. The minimum freeboard allowed is one and a ~a1f (1.5) feet. Q. The applicant shall make the necessary revisions to contours in the rear of Lots 4,5,6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of Block 2 so as to encompass drainage within the drainage and utility easements. Larger drainage and utility easements may be necessary. R. The applicant shall work with City staff to re-route the proposed storm sewer between Lots 1 and 2 of Block 2 to the easternmost property line of Lot 1 of Block 2. The storm sewer should be located within an extension of Outlot A from the South. S. If required, the applicant shall provide a form of permanent energy dissipation/erosion and sediment control measure(s) at the flared end section East of CSAH 17 (Marschall Road). T. The applicant shall work with City staff to re-route the proposed trunk sanitary sewer East along CSAH 78 to Jennifer Lane and then extend it to the southern plat boundary. U. The applicant shall work with City staff to provide a trunk sanitary sewer within Samara Street to the West plat boundary. V. The storm water management plan/calculations shall be approved by the City. IV. The following items shall be completed prior to Final Plat approval: 6 A. Additional right-of-way, in the form of sight triangles fifteen (15) feet in dimension, shall be provided at all local street intersections. B. Additional right-of-way, in the form of sight triangles twenty-five (25) feet in dimension, shall be provided at all local street intersections with County roads. C. The applicant shall work with City staff to revise Lot 9 of Block I so as to eliminate the narrow segment near its southernmost boundary. The portion of the lot eliminated shall be incorporated into the Maple Ridge Drive right-of- way. D. Minimum drainage and utility easements for sanitary sewer and storm sewer less than five (5) feet deep in non-paved areas shall be twenty (20) feet. The easements shall be centered along the utility alignment. E. Minimum drainage and utility easements for sanitary sewer and storm sewer deeper than five (5) feet in non-paved areas shall be provided at a one (1) to one and a half (1.5) ratio, depth versus width, plus one (1) foot. The easements shall be centered along the utility alignment. F. Easements shall be shown on the Final Plat as approved by the City Engineer. They shall include, but not be limited to, the following: a) Provide a minimum of twenty (20) feet of drainage and utility easement adj acent to all County roads. b) Provide a minimum of twenty-six (26) feet of drainage and utility easement centered on the proposed storm sewer between lots 2 and 3 of block 5. G. Outlot A shall not be dedicated as a conservation easement. v. Following approval and recording of the final plat, the following conditions shall apply; A. Building construction, sewer, water service, fire protection and access will be reviewed for code compliance at the time of building permit application(s). B. Noise issues along the County roadways may arise as traffic levels increase in the area. The developer and/or their assigns shall be responsible for any required or desired noise mitigation measures. C. The developer should implement the use of Best Management Practices for erosion control and stormwater management during construction. D. The applicant must meet the City's Woodland Management Ordinance requirements. E. The developer utilize the MPCA Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas as a technical reference for erosion control. F. The developer adhere to the Minnesota Local/State/Federal Application Form for projects within the development area, dated June 30, 2005 and any following revisions to the application. This includes, but is not limited to, the management, maintenance, monitoring, and performance standards included in the permit narrative extended to 10 years. G. No landscaping, ponding, berming, or signage shall be permitted within the County right-of-way. 7 H. Any change in drainage entering the County right-of-way requires detailed stormwater calculations to be submitted to the County Engineer for review and approval. 1. Sidewalks shall be constructed as shown on the plat drawing dated 7/12/07 with the addition of sidewalk to be constructed on Jennifer Lane south of Maple Ridge Drive. l The applicant shall install open space and trail boundary signage as determined to be needed by the city. K. The applicant shall provide six inches of topsoil for the establishment of turf and plantings. The soil composition should be similar to the MnDOT topsoil borrow requirements. L. One overstory shade deciduous tree is required in the front yard of each lot. M. Buildings require sod placement in front yards and seed or sod placed in side an,d rear yards. N. Inrigation systems require rain sensors. O. Storm ponds should be seeded with a native wetland seed mixture and erosion control blanket should be placed four feet either side ofthe normal water level and around outlets to prevent erosion and sediment deposits downstream surface waters. P. The applicant is responsible for preserving all trees indicated as saved on the plans. If, as a result of mass grading, any of these trees are determined to be wounded sufficiently to be considered dead or dying by the Natural Resources Coordinator, the developer will be required to replace the tree(s) according to the Woodland and Tree Management Ordinance. Q. Tree protection fence for mass grading is to remain in place the duration of the land disturbing activities, including the building of residential homes. Removal of the silt fence and tree protection fence for mass grading will be the responsibility of the developer. R. The homes shall provide year-round climate control. S. The exterior to interior sound attenuation of the homes is 30 dBA or greater (specific construction requirements shall be met as specified in the August 10, 2007 noise assessment conducted by David Braslau Associates, Inc. T. Berms and fencing shall be constructed on the site consistent with the assumptions made in the August 10, 2007 noise assessment. U. Provide electronic (AutoCAD and PDF) files of the Final Plat and all record drawings to the engineering department. Adopted in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the _ day of , 2007. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk 8 CITY OF SHAKO PEE Memorandum CASE NO.: . 07 -025 TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat of Maple Ridge Estates MEETING DATE: August 23,2007 REVIEW PERIOD: May 10 - October 7, 2007 DISCUSSION The August 23,2007 staff report to the Planning Commission for the Preliminary Plat of Maple Ridge Estates requested that the applicant prepare and submit potential revisions to the plat that would allow for additional Residential Project Scoring Guide (RPSG) to be captured prior to the submission of the Final Plat. The applicant has prepared a drawing that incorporates a trail from CSAH 17 through Outlot A and provides a connection to Jennifer Lane. In addition, the applicant proposes the placement of benches and signage as part of the wetland/trail area. Staffhas reviewed the original submittal against the RPSG and determined that 280 base points are applicable to this development (the original staff memo states 295 base points are applicable, however, staff has revised that number to 280 based on reevaluation of the applicability of the criteria regarding homes facing arterial roadways). Therefore, a total of 168 points would be necessary for a recommendation of approval. The original submittal reached a score of 135 and staffhas determined that 40 additional points for creation of open space should be awarded based on the recent revision (for a total of 175 points). Furthermore, if additional details regarding monument signage, new landscaping associated with the outlot/trail area, etc. were to be provided, the potential exists for awarding additional points within the identifiable neighborhood focal point category. ACTION REQUESTED This information is being provided for reference purposes only. No action is requested at this time. , MAPLE RIDGE ESTATES FOeALPQINT & USABLE OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT "- "- ...~ \' tOl- n 0 p",,~ " WATtR ElEV 92'1 AS Of 1,./21,101 0 Z 0 ::::; - .... ,..... I /;;~~~:~'~':;~~~~~---~_..._-~,-~~~- ~~~~~ ,,/ //- I ~ 0 / I €TI:... / ./ CITY OF SHAKO PEE Memorandum CASE NO.: 07 -025 TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat of Maple Ridge Estates MEETING DATE: August 23,2007 REVIEW PERIOD: May 10 - October 7,2007 SITE INFORMATION Applicant: Associated Capital Corp. (ACe) Property Owner: Associated Capital Corp. (ACe) Location: South of CR 78 and West of CSAH 17 Existing Zoning: Urban Residential (R-IB) and Low-Density Residential (R-1A) Adjacent Zoning: North: Urban Residential (R-IB) South: Rural Residential (RR) West: Rural Residential (RR) East: CSAH 17 Compo Plan: Single Family Residential Acreage: Approximately 40 acres MUSA: The site is within the MUSA boundary. DISCUSSION: Associated Capital Corp (ACC) has submitted an application for preliminary plat approval of Maple Ridge Estates, proposed for property south of County Road 78 and west of CSAH 17 (Exhibit A). The plat, as currently proposed, contemplates the construction of 69 single family homes on 40.95 acres, with right-of-way proposed for 11.61 acres and an outlot of 4.18 acres that encompasses the wetland area and storm ponding area. (Exhibit B). Residential Project Scoring Guide The Residential Project Scoring Guide (RPSG) was adopted by the City Council in September 2005 in order to provide a mechanism to insure that the quality of design and materials used in new residential development is of the highest caliber possible. This policy was proposed, revised, and adopted at a time when development activity was occurring at a much more brisk pace than currently exists. Furthermore, at the time of adoption of the RPSG, staff informed Council that the RPSG would require further revisions and updating as the policy was tested through application. Shortly after the implementation of the RPSG, the number of new projects and plats slowed, thereby not providing opportunities to test the PRSG, identify unforeseen issues with the RPSG, and resolve them. 1 The RPSG requires that a project must receive at least 60% of the applicable points in order to receive a favorable recommendation from city staff. Staff has applied the RPSG to the proposed development. Staff determined that a total of 295 points were applicable to the proposed project. Ofthe 295 possible points, the applicant captured 135 (45.76%). The applicant would need to acquire an additional 42 points to meet the threshold needed for a favorable recommendation from staff. Some of the areas in which the proposed development failed to score (and where the potential exists for capturing the most additional points) include: 1. Provision of an identifiable neighborhood focal point (40 points possible); 2. Creation of usable open space accessible to the public (40 points possible); 3. Preservationof greenway corridors (15 points possjble); and 4. Architectural elements of individual residential units (40 points possible). Staff is proposing that the applicant provide some revisions to the proposed plat in order to capture the additional necessary points. The applicant is responsible for proposing and providing revisions to staff in order for staff to provide feedback. Potential modifications may include (but are not limited to): 1. Elimination of Lot 14, Block 2, and Lot 1, Block 3 to provide for preservation of high quality trees in a greenway corridor and creating a focal point for the development; 2. The construction of a trail along the north and east sides of Outlot A to connect the CSAH 17 trail to Jennifer Lane; this trail could provide access to open space. The applicant has provided correspondence regarding the results of the RPSG as completed by staff. These co~ents have been attached as Exhibit C. In response to these comments, staff has the followi~g remarks: 1. Exhibit C references Resolution No. 6279 and the Growth Management Policy. The Growth Management Policy was discussed by the City Council but was never adopted. Resolution No. 6279 actually approved the preliminary plat of Riverside Bluffs. 2. The objectives of the Growth Management Policy and the RPSG were distinctly different. The Growth Management Policy sought to limit development, possibly through the issuance of building permits, while the RPSG is intended to provide a mechanism to measure the City's expectations for quality of design and materials. 3. Exhibit C contends that because the lots are intended to be built upon by custom builders that the applicant, as developer, does not have any control over the homes that are constructed within the project. However, a tool to address this issues could be that as a part of the development, covenants be adopted and enacted to assure specific construction design elements. 4. Exhibit C states that the developer does not have any control over identifiable neighborhood focal points. While some properties may be equipped with identifiable focal points (such a historic structures, etc) there is nothing in the RPSG to prevent a developer from constructing/installing a neighborhood focal point. In this case the high quality woodlands provide an opportunity for a focal point. 5. The applicant states that nearly 1/3 of their lots provide home fronts that face arterial or collector roadways but that no points have been awarded. The intent of this provision of the RPSG is that the dwelling unit would front the collector or arterial roadways, not just 2 provide lot frontage on these roadways. City staff is unaware of any lots that will provide a home that directly faces a collector or arterial roadway. 6. The RPSG allows points to be awarded for the identification of greenway corridors to be preserved. No points have been awarded to the applicant for this category because Lot 14, Block 2 and Lot 1, Block 3 proposed where the primary area of the greenway is identified in this development. The construction of homes on these lots would eliminate the greenway corridor in this area. In previous reviews, the EAC/PRAB did recommend that Jennifer Lane be located as it is currently proposed to eliminate disruption of the wetland area in the southeast comer of the plat. However, much ofthe greenway could be preserved by eliminating Lot 14, Block2 and Lot 1, Block 3 while still providing a roadway connection to the property to the south as required by Section 8 of the City's adopted Design Criteria. Comments from City Departments/Outside Agencies The City's Engineering Department has provided comments that are attached as Exhibit F. The recommended conditions of approval have been incorporated into the staff recommendation. The Scott County Highway Department has provided comments attached as Exhibit D. Specifically, the County notes that it is conducting a study regarding the upgrade ofCSAH 17. Because the study is not yet complete, a specific design is not available to analyze against the proposed plat for issues such as right-of-way widths, access points, drainage, etc. The County Highway Department also expresses concern about the proposed location for the emergency access off of Maple Ridge Court. The emergency access is provided in order to meet requirements of the Fire Code. Currently only one access point (Jennifer Lane at Co. Rd. 78) is provided into the development. Fire Code requires that two access points be provided. Therefore, at the time that either Samara Street or Jennifer Lane are able to provide connections, the emergency access would no longer be necessary. Taking this concern into consideration, city staff proposes that the applicant provide a contractors estimate of the cost to remove the emergency access and provide a cash escrow to the City in that amount. A recommended condition of the plat approval would then be that at such time as a connection is made to other developments, the city would utilize the escrow to remove the emergency access point to CSAH 17. \. The applicant has provided a traffic noise assessment for the proposed development. The noise assessment states that the noise standards can be met if the following provisions are made: 1. The homes shall provide year-round climate control; 2. The exterior to interior sound attenuation of the homes is 30 dBA or greater (specific construction requirements shall be met as specified in the August 10, 2007 noise assessment conducted by David Braslau Associates, Inc. 3. Berms and fencing shall be constructed on the site consistent with the assumptions made in the August 10, 2007 noise assessment. The Natural Resources Coordinator has provided comment attached as Exhibit E. Staffhas incorporated these conditions into the recommended conditions of approval. 3 The Fire Inspector has commented that emergency access from Maple Ridge Court to CSAH 17 is required and that a temporary cul-de-sac is required at the end of Jennifer Lane. The temporary cul-de-sac is required because the proposed roadway is over the 150 foot length threshold. However,ifLot 14, Block 2 and Lot 1, Block 3 are eliminated as previously mentioned there is not a need to construct a temporarycul..de-sac. Also recommended is a street name change on Maple Ridge Drive either east or west of Jennifer Lane. These changes are included in the recommended list of conditions. Shakopee Public Utilities (SPUC) has commented that it has an easement across this property for a future 16" transmission watermain. That easement may be re-defined to coincide with the proposed path of the 16" watermain to be installed with the project at the Utilities Commission's expense. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the approval ofthe Preliminary Plat of Maple Ridge Estates, subject to the following conditions: I. The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the submission of a final plat for approval: A. The applicant will revise the plat to include features and/or amenities to meet the required 60% of the applicable base points for the Residential Project Scoring Guide. R Replacement trees are required to be planted as follows: 1. A minimum of four feet from impervious surfaces. 2. A minimum of ten feet from property lines. 3. Not in easements containing utilities. 4. Not in City owned right-of-way. 5. Not below overhead utilities. 6. Not below high water levels (HWL) in existing or created ponds or wetlands. 7. No planted tree species shall comprise more than 30% of the total quantity of trees to be planted on the site. 8. Consistent with the Shakopee Tree Planting Guidelines. 9. Ash (Fraxinus sp.) and Colorado Blue spruce (Picea pungens) are not allowed to be planted. C. The applicant plant a diversity of tree species on site consistent with the existing woodlands to prevent impacts from future disease. D. The applicant plant replacement trees between the County Roads and houses to address visibility issues for future property owners. E. The applicant work with staffto address the wetland delineation report issues and submit a Minnesota Local/StatelFederal Application Form for Water/Wetland Projects permit application for Local Government Unit (LGU) approval, if necessary. This application shall include a replacement plan for the management, maintenance, monitoring, and performance standards for the wetland mitigation site(s). F. The applicant work with staff to determine if altering setbacks for the building pads for lots along the southern boundary of the site within the 4 Natural Resource Corridor to preserve additional trees and reduce wetland impacts is feasible. G. The applicant provide a 25-foot no-disturbance natural buffer from the delineation line around all delineated wetlands. H. A temporary cul-de-sac shall be required at the end of Jennifer Lane. If Lot 14, Block 2 and Lot 1, Block 3 shown on the preliminary plat are removed, the temporary cul-de-sac shall not be required. 1. A recreation trial link be provided to connect CSAH 17 via the cul-de-sac at maple Ridge Court or near the south property line and leading along the wetland (Outlot A) to Jennifer Lane, with trail amenities. J. Any trails proposed to be constructed not adjacent to the right-of-way shall be within a 20 foot wide trail easement dedicated to the City of Shakopee. K. The applicant shall work with the County Highway Department to determine if adequate area exists to dedicate an additional 15 feet of right- of-way on Lot 1, Block 2 rather than dedicating a drainage, utility and trail easement on that lot. L. With the final plat submission, a minimum 15 foot drainage, utility, and trail easement shall be provided along the rights-of-way for CSAH 17 and County Road 78. M. The conservation easement over Outlot A shall be removed. N. . All lots within the proposed fmal plat will conform to the required design standards for the applicable zoning district. II. The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the Final Plat: A. Approval of title by the City Attorney. B. Execution of a Developers Agreement, which shall include provisions for security for public improvements within the Final Plat, as well as payment of engineering review fees, and any other fees as required by the City's adopted fee schedule. 1. Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 2. Electrical system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 3. Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 4. Installation of sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems, and construction of streets in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications ofthe City of Shakopee. 5. The developer shall be responsible for payment of Trunk Storm Water Charges, Trunk Storm Water Storage and Treatment Charges, and Trunk Sanitary Sewer Charges, as required by the most current City of Shakopee Fee Schedule. 6. Payment of all storm water management review charges as required by the most current City of Shakopee Fee Schedule. 7. The applicant shall meet park dedication requirements by providing cash in lieu of land dedication. 5 8. Park dedication fees in the amount required by the City Code and adopted City fee schedule shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. If any portion of the property is being platted as outlots to accommodate a phased development, the park dedication fees for each future phase shall be based on the fees in effect at the time of final plat approval for those outlots and shall be paid before the final plat for those outlots is recorded. C. The street name of Maple Ridge Drive shall be modified either east or west of Jennifer Lane and shall be subject to approval by City staff. D. The applicant shall provide a contractor's estimate for the cost of removal of the emergency access to CSAH 17. The applicant shall then provide a cash escrow in that amount for the removal of the emergency access at such time as a second access into the development is provided. E. Temporary street signs shall be provided until such time that permanent street signs are installed. F. The applicant shall obtain the appropriate permits for all structures to be removed from the site and/or demolished. G. Compliance with the Woodland and Tree Management Ordinance. The applicant is approved to remove 277 trees and is required to plant 277 replacement trees within one year of removal. If the number ofplantings can not be met on site the following is required: 1. A cash payment of $400.00 per replacement tree shall be provided to the City to complete the vegetative or environmental alternatives, or; 2. Trees shall be planted in City owned or managed land as approved by the Natural Resources Coordinator. H. A County access permit shall be required for the proposed Jennifer Lane access. onto CSAH 78. III. The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the issuance of a grading permit: A. The applicant must meet the City's Woodland and Tree Management Ordinance requirements. The applicant contact the Natural Resource Coordinator, 952-233-9510, prior to any land disturbing activities for an inspection of the tree protection/silt fence installed at the drip line of trees to be preserved. B. Silt fence and/or tree protection fence shall not be installed within delineated wetland. C. The developer should implement the use of Best Management Practices for erosion control and stormwater management during construction. D. The applicant adhere to the NPDES Phase II permit requirements for erosion control before, during, and after earth moving activities. E. All trails and sidewalks be constructed to meet ADA requirements or guidelines and be installed at the time or road construction in the plat. F. Cross sections shall be provided to the City and County every 50 feet along the County roads and near culverts. G. Detailed drainage calculations shall be submitted to the County Engineer. 6 H. Any private driveway/field accesses to the property shall be completely removed from the County right-of-way and graded to match the existing ditch. 1. No public improvements shall be constructed until the City Engineer and the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission (SPUC) approves the Final Construction Plans and Specifications. 1. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permission, right-of-way and/or easements to perform all workoffsite. K. The applicant shall obtain the necessary Scott County permits/approvals (access, right-of-way, drainage, etc.). L. The applicant shall obtain a NPDES permit prior to any land disturbing activity. A copy of this permit shall be provided to the City. M. The applicant shall obtain the appropriate Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) permits and approvals for all proposed wetland impacts. No grading permit shall be issued until the City approves a mitigation plan. N. The applicant shall provide a slope no greater than four (4) feet horizontal to one (1) foot vertical adjacent to all wetlands (existing and mitigated). O. The applicant shall make the necessary revisions to proposed basement elevations to provide a minimum of two (2) feet of freeboard from approved, adjacent high water elevations (existing/mitigated wetlands and storm water basins). P. The applicant shall make the necessary revisions to proposed building opening elevations to provide one (1) foot plus the depth of the high flow of freeboard from all emergency overflows. The minimum freeboard allowed is one and a half (1.5) feet. Q. The applicant shall make the necessary revisions to contours in the rear of Lots 4,5,6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of Block 2 so as to encompass drainage within . the drainage and utility easements. Larger drainage and utility easements may be necessary. R. The applicant shall work with City staff to re-route the proposed storm sewer between Lots 1 and 2 of Block 2 to the easternmost property line of Lot 1 of Block 2. The storm sewer should be located within an extension of Outlot A from the South. S. If required, the applicant shall provide a form of permanent energy dissipation/erosion and sediment control measure(s) at the flared end section East of CSAH 17 (Marschall Road). T. The applicant shall work with City staff to re-route the proposed trunk sanitary sewer East along CSAH 78 to Jennifer Lane and then extend it to . the southern plat boundary. U. The applicant shall work with City staff to provide a trunk sanitary sewer within Samara Street to the West plat boundary. V. The storm water management plan/calculations shall be approved by the City. IV. The following items shall be completed prior to Final Plat approval: A. Additional right-of-way, in the form of sight triangles fifteen (15) feet in dimension, shall be provided at all local street intersections. 7 B. Additional right-of-way, in the form of sight triangles twenty-five (25) feet in dimension, shall be provided at all local street intersections with County i roads. i C. \The applicant shall work with City staff to revise Lot 9 of Block 1 so as to \\eliminate the narrow segment near its southernmost boundary. The portion pf the lot eliminated shall be incorporated into the Maple Ridge Drive liight-of-way. D. Minimum drainage and utility easements for sanitary sewer and storm sewer less than five (5) feet deep in non-paved areas shall be twenty (20) feet. The easements shall be centered along the utility alignment. R l\4inimum drainage and utility easements for sanitary sewer and storm sewer deeper than five (5) feet in non-paved areas shall be provided.at a one (1) to one and a half (1.5) ratio, depth versus width, plus one (1) foot. The easements shall be centered along the utility alignment. F. Easements shall be shown on the Final Plat as approved by the City Engineer. They shall include, but not be limited to, the following: a) Provide a minimum of twenty (20) feet of drainage and utility easement adjacent to all County roads. b) Provide a minimum of twenty-six (26) feet of drainage and utility easement centered on the proposed storm sewer I between lots 2 and 3 of block 5. I G. Outlot A shall not be dedicated as a conservation easement. v. Following lprovaI and recording ofthe final plat, the following conditions shall apply; A. Buil \' ng construction, sewer, water service, fire protection and access will be re \iewed for code compliance at the time of building permit application(s). B. Noise ~ssues along the County roadways may arise as traffic levels increase in the area. The developer and/or their assigns shall be responsible for any required or desired noise mitigation measures. C. The developer should implement the use of Best Management Practices for erosion control and stormwater management during construction. D. The applicant must meet the City's Woodland Management Ordinance requirements. E. The developer utilize the MPCA Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas as a technical reference for erosion control. F. The developer adhere to the Minnesota LocallState/Federal Application Form for projects within the development area, dated June 30, 2005 and any following revisions to the application. This includes, but is not limited to, the management, maintenance, monitoring, and performance standards included in the permit narrative extended to 10 years. G. No landscaping, ponding, berming, or signage shall be permitted within the County right-of-way. H. Any change in drainage entering the County right-of-way requires detailed stormwater calculations to be submitted to the County Engineer for review and approval. 8 1. Sidewalks shall be constructed as shown on the plat drawing dated 7/12/07 with the addition of sidewalk to be constructed on Jennifer Lane south of \ Maple Ridge Drive. 1 The applicant shall install open space and trail boundary signage as ,determined to be needed by the city. K. \The applicant shall provide six inchesoftopsoil for the establishment of ~urf and plantings. The soil composition should be similar to the MnDOT tppsoil borrow requirements. L. Cj)ne overstory shade deciduous tree is required in the front yard of each lot. M. Buildings require sod placement in front yards and seed or sod placed in side and rear yards. N. Irrigation systems require rain sensors. O. Storm ponds should be seeded with a native wetland seed mixture and erosion control blanket should be placed four feet either side of the normal water level and around outlets to prevent erosion and sediment deposits downstream surface waters. P. Th~ applicant is responsible for preserving all trees indicated as saved on the plans. If, as a result of mass grading, any of these trees are determined to be wounded sufficiently to be considered dead or dying by the Natural Res~urces Coordinator, the developer will be required to replace the tree(s) aCCO~ding to the Woodland and Tree Management Ordinance. Q. Tree protection fence for mass grading is to remain in place the duration of the land disturbing activities, including the building of residential homes. Rem6val ofthe silt fence and tree protection fence for mass grading will be the re~ponsibility of the developer. R. The hbmes shall provide year-round climate control. \ S. The exterior to interior sound attenuation of the homes is 30 dBA or greater (specific construction requirements shall be met as specified in the August 10, 2007 noise assessment conducted by David Braslau Associates, Inc. T. Berms and fencing shall be constructed on the site consistent with the assumptions made in the August 10, 2007 noise assessment. U. Provide electronic (Auto CAD and PDF) files ofthe Final Plat and all record drawings to the engineering department. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Offer a motion to recommend to the City Council the approval of the Preliminary Plat of Maple Ridge Estates, subject to the conditions as presented by staff. 2. Offer a motion to recommend to the City Council the approval of the Preliminary Plat of Maple Ridge Estates, subject to revised conditions. 3. Offer a motion to continue the public hearing to request additional infonnation from the applicant and/or staff. 4. Offer a motion to table a decision and request additional information from the applicant and/or staff. 5. Offer a motion to recommend denial to the City Council of the Preliminary Plat of Maple Ridge Estates. 9 ACTION REQUESTED: Offer a motion to recommend to the City Council the approval of the Preliminary Plat of Maple Ridge Estat~s, subject to the conditions as presented by staff, an ove its adoption. h:\boaa-pc\2007\08-23\pp maple ridge estates 07025.doc 10 - -0- - -- - --- RR RR RR ~ N m Subject Property w. SHAKOPEE .. .......... Shairopee Boundary CoMMUN\T'iP1Ut>ESINcll857 S CJ Zoning Boorniary c:J Parcel B9undary Preliminary Plat of Maple Ridge Estates http:// gis.logis.org/shakopee/locationmap/map.asp ?title=Preliminary+Plat+of+Maple+Ri... 05/11/2007 fX HIJ:S1T I( ~/- II A I I "j C" C" r>L'''1 -1 ~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION v n L. L. V L- L- v. , ~ I " \j - The Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 19, Township 115, Range 22. Scott County, Minnesota. .",~~... \ - -- - -- - - -- - -- - -- _r....~. .' ..;;:,"f. . \ --- ZONING INFORMATION KALLIO " r> ~ ~ ;) ~. !l.. EXISTING 70NING = R1A Engineering -'-' .\ --TliE NORTH UNE OF THE NW 1/+ OF lHE NE 1/4 Ut- :x:.~ I!:I, 1.115, R. N89"1.3'07"w-T3;5 . (APPLIES TO 8LOCK 1; LOTS 4-8. 8LOCK 2; 8LOCK 4; LOTS 1-6. ENGINEER/SURVEYOR LOTS 13-15. 8LOCK 5. ANO 8LOCK 6 10775 Poppltz Lane \ KALLIO ENGINEERING INC. Chaska,MN 55318 ::l MINIMUM LOT 'MOTH = 60 FEET 10775 POPPITZ LN \ MINIMUM LOT DEPTH = 100 FEET CHASKA. MN 55318 P: 952-448-S725 ~ MINIMUM LOT AREA = 6000 SQ. FT. CONTACT: CURT KALLIO. P.E. F: 952-400-8492 MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK = 30 FEET 952-448-5725 MINIMUM 51DE YARD. 5ETBACK = 10 FEET www,kallloenglneenng.com MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK = 30 FEET MINIMUM SIDE STREET SETBACK = 20 FEET OWNER/DEVELOPER .. '" ...~2 0 Ol EXISTING ZONING = R1/\ ASSOQATED CAPITAL CORPORATION . ,." <0 15'g'C Q) N ~I (APPLIES TOLOTS 1-3 & 9-14. 8LOCK 2; LOTS 7-12. 8LOCK 3: AND 327 S. MARSCHALL RD ..,.;:::1 0: ci 8LOCK 5.' SHAKOPEE. MN 55379 5aE..... z 952-445-5020 c..c 0 w MINIMUM LOT 'MOTH = 95 FEET ;~,j j 2 0 ~ w MINIMUM LOT AREA = 12.800 SQ. FT. -[~;~ . ~ '" MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK = 35 FEET ~. MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK = 15 FEET :E~]-: ~ - - - MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK = 35 FEET :~5~ -j MINIMUM SIDE STREET SETBACK = 20 FEET lieClilfl 00.'- ::a (fJ II :'~'~a; ~~ LOT INFORMATION ",'1i:! .~gs '55~'g..s u -.J PROPOSED LOTS = 69 liiJ JUL u.z.... ClJ g l- I 1'i OUlLOTS = 1 J 8 i~~].~ ~ OUlLOT AREA = 4.18 ACRES QJU C~ 2 -- I~ :: g.E~o <( ..., GROSS AREA = 40.95 ACRES 0 ;: I PROPOSED R.O.W. = 11.61 ACRES ~ - = I .. GROSS DENSITY = 1.7 LOTS PER ACRE d / NET LOT DENSITY = 2.7 LOTS PER ACRE III . - c:: \!; 0 ./ :; 135 ~.J SITE INFORM A TlON OJ rr---ll .... trl ---- !l1 I ~ MINIMUM LOT 'MOTH AT SETBACK LINE IN SU8D1V1SIDN = 72 FEET o 0 '" ~ ~ I 3 I ~I ~ MINIMUM LOT DEPTH IN SUBDIVISION = 135 FEET $ I") l!l [ lI,748 sq. fl. I ~+ :; LL__-=J~ I > 1Il :; ;l ~'" a '0"- ~ r r-jJ5-11 I " ~'" ~ It;; I 2: ~I wi I ~ N 1'L: c3 ~ ~ l!l ...J /;l i-. .;: "0 -5Z 0 <I) EZ ~ I 11.]45 sq. II Q. 'c 0 0 ~ ro w'" <( lL L ~_-=J~ g 01 ._ ::: dI. ~ Z 0 U a. w ~ ~~ r r-,;!5-ll u a:: ill <( a.. <t: N.J:: I 1 I "'I ~ w "'1Il F a:: I Q. I 12.775, sq. fL I Ul ; L l-'O"=~ II ~ - ~ 0 SAMAB,A 0 -!<J STREET 0: 1;; <Il I <I) i-. ,(,. p:; (;j ~ I r12.5-.., -r a-a C- Jj~ b 18 I 7 I ~ ,:.: OJ .. U (\l 00 " ~ !'J >:: "0 1:L ~ - 113,451 sq.. n.l 0 I o .- i2~ L 13, j .J I ff .s OJ ..0 "<I..... 0.'" I r--,' (1) I w .... al r::!o... ~ IN 1= 0- PlO 279190112 w ~ I w ) :J: '\. If) ( di'lfi-~ n ~ I 0 I! Q) .-_# I '" L o. I :z , , 0 , , ..I I , 4 , , , ..., - g , - , , :;: , , I I ~- z 0 Vi '" 1---- :> '" w r- " I '" :>- :z I i=! m s--j <( 0 ./'" O! 0 -5 - ./ -1 ~ L L PROJECJ . NQ: - - 43 254 484 75 0412 - I 0 80 160 /--THE SCUlH UN€: Of' THE NW 1/04 Of THE NE 1/4 OF SEe. 1e, l.tlS, R.22 S89019'45"E , PIO 273350100 PlD 271350010 H~I<H::::DE ~ S ~ , 1'"'1 l"'\ , "T" I f"\ Id - - - 8EING 5 FEET IN \\lOTH AND ADJOINING SCALE IN FEET SHEET ~ f"'\ U LJ I , I V 1'1 LOT LINES. AND 10 FEET IN \\lOTH AND BEARINGS ARE ASSUMED. 1 -!- -I-- I ADJOINING RIGHT OF WAY LINES AS - - - - - - - I SHOWN ON THIS PLAT. OF PID 271350020 . DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND 1 SHEETS . EXHIBITC. ASSOCIATED CAPITAL CORPORATION 327 Marschall Road, Suite 305 Shakopee, MN 55379 'Julie Klima City of Shakopee 129 Holmes St. Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: Maple Ridge Estates Residential Project Scoring Dear Julie: It is our understanding that our Maple Ridge Estates project does not meet the minimum 60% of applicable base points required for staff approval. This letter addresses our concerns ofthe scoring system and how it applies to our subdivision. According to Resolution No. 6279, some purposes of the "Growth Management Policy" were to: A. Promote development that generally occurs adjacent to existing development, can be readily served by urban services, and uses land efficiently. B. Add new areas to MUSA called for in the Comprehensive Plan. e. Development of "desirable and livable neighborhoods" which includes the appearance of neighborhoods and important corridors in the city D. A void inadequately planned developments E. Add additional comprehensive development review procedures to supplement the existing subdivision ordinances F. Establish a five-year phasing program for development which accomplishes the following goals: 1. Pre".ent premature development in the 'absence of necessary utilities and municipal servIces 2. Coordinate city planning and land regulation in a manner consistent with the land use plan 3. Implement the goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan 4. Prevent unplanned growth which has no relationship to community needs and. capabilities 5. Encourage developers to dedicate additional public open space These were the purposes of the "Growth Management Policy" and the "Residential Project Scoring Guide", yet our Maple Ridge Estates project has not scored the required 60% of applicable points. Maple Ridge Estates has utilities readily available, has already been granted MUSA, and in our opinion is a "desirable and livable neighborhood", which in itselfis a very subjective term. The current Maple Ridge plat as submitted is the result of several city department and county comments. The comments have prompted significant changes that preserve wetlands and protect the greenway corridor to what we believed was an acceptable plat. , <, C-.l Unfortunately, it appears the "Residential Project Scoring Guide" is dictating the type of homes to be constructed while giving a benefit to large builder/developers. The Unit Scale criteria is not applicable to a "developer only" for the following reasons: Unit Scale Criteria 1. Guarantee that model faf;ade treatments will not be repeated within "X" lots of each other. Our lots are sold to custom builders who put in the home their client desired. Since they are custom homes, the potential for repeated homes is small, but not guaranteed. 2. Creation of a pattern book that provides detailed descriptions and depictions of the organization of the neighborhood, unit architecture, and materials, colors of materials to be used, landscaping, other proposed improvements: Our lots are sold to custom builders who put in the home their client desired. Because they are custom, we cannot guarantee anything about the house or landscaping. 3. Architectural Elements a. Front porches provided that front on either a street or green space outside the entry are: Our lots are sold to custom builders who put in the home their client desired. All ofthe homes have some kind of stoop/modified porch, but we cannot guarantee a front porch within the vision of the city. Therefore, we are not able to score any points. b. Garages set back at least as far as the front face of the structure, or side loaded. Our lots are sold to custom builders who put in the home their client desired. c. Use of brick, stone, or stucco Although we have used covenants in the past requiring this, a more affordable housing development would be unfairly susceptible to this requirement. The Unit Scale Criteria is not mentioned anywhere in the "Growth Management Policy", so it is unknown where this scoring criteria came from. We believe the market should dictate the type of home being constructed, not a scoring system. We already have covenants that control the architectural we believe is important in our subdivisions. The same subdivision design and covenants were used in the A.C.C. Second Addition and Valley Creek Crossing projects. Neither of these projects would have received at least 60% for the reasons as mentioned above. Other areas within the scoring system we believe are unfair include: Neighborhood Scale Criteria A.a. Identifiable neighborhood focal points While this criterion is worth 40 points, a developer has no control over it. Within our project, the Marschall Farm is located within a 1/4 mile of over 75% of our lots, so additional scoring may be warranted. . . ~ G-3 A.d. Vehicular access from the rear or below grade Our lots are sold to custom builders who put in the home their client desired. A "tuck under" garage is not a desirable home design within our current market. A.i. Interior perimeter roads are not parallel to arterial or collector roadways. We believe this criterion is in conflict with A.k. Grid or modified grid street pattern. A grid is essentially a series of parallel lines, yet no scoring is allowed for being parallel with major roads. On a small site)t would be very difficult to achieve a cost effective lot density while being both non-parallel to major roads and having parallel interior roads. It should be noted that our subdivision is not parallel with Co. Rd. 17, thus more points may be warranted. Aj. Homefrontsface arterial or collector roadways Nearly 1/3 of our lots meet these criteria, yet no points were rewarded. Ap. Greenways We have proposed to deed 4.18 acres of open space to the city, yet are not receiving any credit for it. Part 1 of the greenway criteria discusses conservation easements in favor of the city and that is exactly what we have proposed. It should be noted that a previous submittal preserved more greenway, but the city desired to have a road stubbed to the south directly through the green space. SUMMARY In summary, we believe the entire Unit Scale Criteria portion of the scoring system is not applicable to a developer, is not consistent with our past or current market for housing, and is not defined in the cities "Growth Management Policy". Our lots are sold to custom builders who put in the home their client desires. Requiring front porches or tuck under garages will cause the home buyer to look elsewhere and provide an advantage to builders without such requirements. We also believe there are not applicable portions of the Neighborhood Scale Criteria and some of the criteria are in conflict with each other. Finally, we believe there are applicable portions of the scoring in which should receive additional points. We look forward to discussing this further with you in future. ITAL CORPORATION < ~)(H1BIT D " SCOTT COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION HIGHW AY DEPARTMENT. 600 COUNTRY TRAIL EAST. JORDAN, MN 55352-9339 (952) 496-8346 . Fax: (952) 496-8365 'www.co.scott.mn.us LEZLlE A. VERMILLION PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR August 9, 2007 Julie Klima City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: Preliminary Plat Maple Ridge Estates Dear Julie: We have reviewed the request for a preliminary plat and offer the following comments: / t/ As you are aware, the County's TIP identifies the proposed upgrade of CSAH 17 to a four lane divided highway in 2013. The County is also conducting a study ofCSAH 17 that will detail a preliminary design for CSAH 17 from St. Francis to CSAH 42. -. The minimum right-of-way dedication for CSAH 17 shall be 75 feet from centerline. We also recommend dedication of a minimum. ~ 5 foot drainage, utility and trail easement outside the right- of-way along CSAH 17 and CSAH 78. If setbacks can be maintained, we recommend that Lot 1, Block 2, dedicate an additional 15 feet of right of way for CSAH 17 instead of having a drainage, utility, and trail in an easement on that lot. .i The County does not recommend a conservation easement on Outlot A. The County is conducting the CSAH 17 study and may need to utilize the Outlot to meet stromwater ponding requirements as part of the future road improvements. We suggest a drainage and utility easement be placed on the Outlot instead of a conservation easement. f/ The proposed emergency access to CSAH 17 is not in an acceptable location. The County recommends the access be located at the southern property line along CSAH 17. A trail/emergency access should then be provided from CSAH 17 to Jennifer Lane along the southern property line of Outlot A and Lot 14, Block 2. This would both serve the emergency access requirement and allow pedestrians using the trail along CSAH 17 to loop to a local street instead of coming to a dead end on the trail. . The County needs to verify ifthe proposed grading in the CSAH 17 and CSAH 78 right-of-way meets County standards for ditch bottoms and side slopes between County roads and the proposed trails. Before any grading permits are approved, we recommend, cross sections are provided to the County and City every 50 feet along the County roads and near culverts. . D-1 ~ Maple Ridge Page 2 . It appears some drainage patterns are being changed along CSAH 17 and CSAH 78. The way the drainage is flowing into the CSAH 17 ditch from the proposed stormwater pond may need to be modified. Detailed drainage calculations shall be required to be submitted to the County Engineer. . Any private driveways/field accesses to the property shall be completely removed from the County . right-of-way and graded to match the existing ditch. . Noise issues along CSAH 17 and CSAH 78 may arise as traffic levels increase in the area. Noise attenuation is the responsibility of the developer and City. . A County access permit shall be required for the proposed Jennifer Lane access onto CSAH 78. . No landscaping, ponding, berming, or signage shall be permitted within the County right-of-way. . Any work within the County right-of-way shall require a County permit. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, ~ Craig Jenson Transportation Planner EXHIBIT E"-J . CITY OF SHAKOPEE MEMORANDUM To: Julie Klima, Project Manager From: Ryan Hughes, Natural Resource Coordinator Date: August14,2007 Case Number: 07025 Subject: Preliminary Plat for Maple Ridge Estates (2nd Submittal) Based on a review of the application materials provided to staff and the Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC), staff and the EAC (see June 14, 2007 memorandum on behalf of the EAC) have the following conditions of approval: Prior to submission of final plat for approval: 1. Replacement trees are required to be planted as follows: a. A minimum of four feet from impervious surfaces. b. A minimum of ten feet from property lines. c. Not in easements containing utilities. d. Not in City owned right-of-way. e. Not below overhead utilities. f. Not below high water levels (HWL) in existing or created ponds or wetlands. g. No planted tree species shall comprise more than 30% of the total quantity of trees to be planted on the site. h. Consistent with the Shakopee Tree Planting Guidelines. i. Ash (Fraxinus sp.) and Colorado Blue spruce (Picea pungens) are not allowed to be planted. 2. The applicant plant a diversity of tree species on site consistent with the existing woodlands to prevent impacts from future disease. 3. The applicant plant replacement trees between the County Roads and houses to address visibility issues for future property owners. 4. The applicant work with staff to address the wetland delineation report issues and submit a Minnesota Local/State/Federal Application Form for Water/Wetland Projects permit application for Local Government Unit (LGU) approval, if necessary. This application shall include a replacement plan for the management, maintenance, monitoring, and performance standards for the. wetland mitigation site(s). 5. The applicant work with staff to determine if altering setbacks for the building pads for lots along the southern boundary of the site within the Natural Resource Corridor to preserve additional trees and reduce wetland impacts is feasible. 6. The applicant provide a25-foot no-disturbance natural buffer from the delineation line around all delineated wetlands. Prior to recording of final plat: 1. Compliance with the Woodland and Tree Management Ordinance. The applicant is approved to remove 277 trees and is required to plant 277 replacement trees &-2- within one year of removal. If the number of plantings can not be met on site the following is required: a. A cash payment of $400.00 per replacement tree shall be provided to the City to complete other vegetative or environmental alternatives, or; b. Trees shall be planted in City owned or managed land as approved by the Natural Resources Coordinator. Prior to issuance of grading permits: 1. The applicant must meet the City's Woodland and Tree Management Ordinance requirements. The applicant contact the Natural Resource Coordinator, 952-233- 9510, prior to any land disturbing activities for an inspection of the tree protection/silt fence installed at the drip line of trees to be preserved. 2. Silt fence .and/or tree protection fence shall not be installed within delineated wetland. 3. The developer should implement the use of Best Management Practices for erosion control and stormwater management during construction. 4. The applicant adhere to the NPDES Phase II permit requirements for erosion control before, during, and after earth moving activities. Following the release and recording of the final plat the following shall apply: 1. The applicant shall provide six inches of topsoil for the establishment of turf and plantings. The soil composition should be similar to the MnDOT topsoil borrow requirements. 2. One overstory shade deciduous tree is required in the front yard of each lot. 3. Buildings require sod placement in front yards and seed or sod placed in side and rear yards. 4. Irrigation systems require rain sensors. 5. Storm ponds should be seeded with a native wetland seed mixture and erosion control blanket should be placed four feet either side of the normal water level and around outlets to prevent erosion and sediment deposits downs.tream surface waters. 6. The applicant is responsible for preserving all trees indicated as saved on the plans. If, as a result of mass grading, any of these trees are determined to be wounded sufficiently to be considered dead or dying by the Natural Resources Coordinator, the developer will be required to replace the tree(s) according to the Woodland and Tree Management Ordinance. 7. Tree protection fence for mass grading is to remain in place the duration of the land disturbing activities, including the building of residential homes. Removal of the silt fence and tree protection fence for mass grading will be the responsibility of the developer. E~3 CITY OF SHAKOPEE MEMORANDUM To: Julie Klima, Project Manager From: Ryan Hughes, Natural Resources Coordinator On behalf of the Environmental Advisory Committee Date: June 14,2007 Subject: Maple Ridge Estates Preliminary Plat INTRODUCTION The Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) reviewed and approved the Maple Ridge Estates Preliminary Plat at the June 13, 2007 meeting. BACKGROUND This 40.95 acre site is located in the southwest corner of Marschall Road South and County Road 78 south of the Valley Creek Crossing development. According to the environmental and park plan review, the site is currently used as rental property and agricultural uses. The site includes two residential homes. The applicant proposes to grade 71 single family residential lots on the site. DISCUSSION The following issues were discussed by the EAC during the meeting: Wetlands The site includes delineated wetlands in the nQrthwest, southwest, and southeast corners of the site. The project does not propose impacts within delineated wetland. However, the applicant has submitted a Wetland Delineation Report requesting an exemption for a wetland area that appears to have been excavated/dredged. Spoil piles from excavating/dredging were observed during the site visit conducted with the Engineering department on June 5,2007. Based on the Farm Service Agency aerial photos the pond was excavatedldredged prior to 1979. Unless the applicant can provide sufficient evidence that the area was upland prior to excavation the Wetland Delineation Report will be denied. The applicant is filing for a wetland exemption under 8420.0122 Subp. 5.C claiming the area is an incidental wetland because the wetland was created solely as a result of "actions by public or private entities that were taken for a purpose other than creating a wetland." The primary concern is that the area may have been a wetland prior to excavation/dredging and that the purpose for the excavation/dredging may have been to provide a watering hole for livestock. The Wetland Delineation Report is scheduled to be reviewed at the Technical Evaluation Panel at a July 9, 2007 meeting. The EAC requested if a wetland s-t.} replacement plan is necessary that it be brought back to the EAC in a future meeting for discussion. Woodlands The applicant proposes to remove approximately 273 of the 500 surveyed trees on the site. The proposed woodlands on site to be removed are considered high quality. The applicant is proposing to replace removed trees at a 1:1 ratio i.e. 273 trees, and preserve the trees within and adjacent to the wetlands. According to the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System evaluation the high quality woodlands on the site consist of high and medium quality Maple- Basswood Forest. Based on the site visit staff would concur with this determination. The site contained large maple and basswood trees with an understory of sugar maples and ironwood. trees. The majority of the plat discussion focused on the woodland impacts. Conditions based on these discussions are included at the end of the report in the conditions of approval. Wildlife Habitat Based on the wetlands and woodlands present on the site the area provides habitat for wildlife such as deer, turkeys, birds, ducks, and reptiles. Following development only wildlife adaptable to an urban environment will be present on the site. Currently the area provides a corridor for wildlife movement between County Road 17 and the woodlands and wetlands to the west of the site. Noise and Visual Issues The site is bordered on the east by County Road 17, on the north by County Road 78, on the south by large lot residential, and on the west by natural wetlands and woodlands. A noise study was not submitted with the application. The Planning department is reviewing the road classifications to determine if a noise study is required. The applicant indicates on the plans and is required to plant trees between the building pads and the roadways to minimize noise and visibility concerns. The proposed trees to be planted consist of a variety to deciduous and coniferous trees. Natural Resource Corridor The Natural Resource Corridor is within the site. Areas identified as Good, Better, and Best corridors are within the site and connect to areas identified as Good, Better, and Best to the west of the site. The high quality woodlands and presence of wetlands on the site contributes to the corridor values. The applicant has met with staff to address the natural resource corridor issues on the site and the plat reflects conversations with the applicant to attempt to preserve 50% of the trees and reduce or eliminate wetland impacts within the site. ~-5 The EAC discussed the location of the Natural Resource Corridor through the site. The corridor through the site connects to the undeveloped area to the west. Most of the land to the east has been developed and provides little potential as a primary wildlife corridor. The resources on this site are considered important becaus'e they are a connected "finger" to the natural areas west of the site. The proposed development meets the Woodland and Tree Management Ordinance requirements and does not appear to create any environmental issues with regards to water conveyance, water quality, woodlands, grasslands, soils, wildlife habitat, and noise. Staff will address the wetland delineation report cooperatively with the Engineering department and, jf necessary, the Technical Evaluation Panel. ACTION The Environmental Advisory Committee recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat for Maple Ridge Estates and the proposed impacts and mitigation measures to the water conveyance system, water quality, wetlands, woodlands, grasslands, soils, wildlife habitat, and noise to the Planning Commission with the following recommended conditions for approval: Prior to Preliminary Plat Approval: 1. The applicant work with staff to address the wetland delineation report issues and submit a Minnesota Local/State/Federal Application Form for WaterlWetland Projects permit application for Local Government Unit (LGU) approval, if necessary. This application shall include a replacement plan for the management, maintenance, monitoring, and performance standards for the wetland mitigation site(s). 2. The applicant work with staff to determine if eliminating the public access to CR 17/Marschall Road and creating a fire access at a cul-d.e-sac to maximize preservation of the high quality Maple-Basswood forest and minimize wetland impacts while addressing the emergency access issues is feasible. 3. The applicant work with staff to determine if altering setbacks for the building pads for lots along the southern boundary of the site within the Natural Resource Corridor to preserve additional trees and reduce wetland impacts is feasible. 4. The applicant provide a 25-foot no-disturbance natural buffer from the delineation line around all delineated wetlands. Prior to Grading Permit Approval: 1. The developer should implement the use of Best Management Practices for erosion control and stormwater management during construction. 2. The applicant must meet the City's Woodland and Tree Management Ordinance req uirements. 3. One overstory shade deciduous tree is required in the front yard of each lot. 4. Final grading requires the placement of 6 inches of topsoil with a composition similar to the MnDOT topsoil borrow requirements. 5. Buildings require sod placement in front yards and seed or sod placed in side and rear yards. 6. Irrigation systems require rain sensors. E-~ 7. The applicant adhere to the NPDES Phase II permit requirements for erosion control before, during, and after earth moving activities. 8. Replacement trees shall be planted according to the following conditions: a. Trees shall be planted a minimu.m of four feet from impervious surfaces. b. Trees shall be planted a minimum of ten feet from property lines. c. Trees shall not be planted in easements containing utilities. d. Trees shall not be planted in City owned right-of-way. e. Trees shall not be planted below overhead utilities. f. Trees shall not be planted below high water levels (HWL) in existing or created ponds or wetlands. 9. Ash (Fraxinus sp.) and Colorado blue spruce (Picea pungens) are not allowed to be planted due to current insect and disease issues. 10. The applicant plant a diversity of tree species on site consistent with the existing woodlands to prevent impacts from future disease. 11. The applicant seed proposed storm ponds with a native wetland seed mixture and erosion control blanket be placed four feet either side of the normal water level and around outlets to prevent erosion and sediment deposits from discharging to downstream waterbodies. 12. The applicant is responsible for preserving all trees indicated as saved on the plans. If, as a result of mass grading, any of these trees are determined to be wounded sufficiently to be considered dead or dying by the Natural Resources Coordinator, the developer will be required to replace the tree(s) according to the Woodland and Tree Management Ordinance. 13. Tree protection fence for mass grading is to remain in place the duration of the land disturbing activities, including the building of residential homes. Removal of the silt fence and tree protection fence for mass grading will be the responsibility of the developer. 14. Silt fence andlor tree protection fence shall not be installed within delineated wetland. 15. The applicant plant replacement trees between the County Roads and houses to address visibility issues for future property owners. E.XH\8lT F City of Shakopee Memorandum TO: Julie Klima, Planner II FROM: Joe Swentek, Projecti Engineer SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat - Maple Ridge Estates Addition PID NO.: 27-919001-1,27-919002-0,27-919003-0, 27-919004-0,27-919005-0 CASE NO.: 07025 DATE: August 17, 2007 The application indicates a request for Preliminary Plat approval of a single-family (R1-A and R1-B) residential development located southwest of the intersection between CSAH 17 (Marschall Road) and CSAH 78. This review should be considered preliminary, as more comments are to follow with additional submittals. However, I offer the following comments at this time for the applicant and for the planning department: General Comments The following items shall be completed prior to release of the Final Plat for recording: 1. Execution of a Developer's Agreement, which shall include provisions for security for public improvements within the Final Plat and the engineering review fees. 2. Payment of Trunk Sanitary Sewer Charges shall be made, as required by the most current City of Shakopee Fee Schedule. 3. Payment of Trunk Storm Water Charges and Trunk Storm Water Storage and Treatment Charges shall be made, as required by the most current City of Shakopee Fee Schedule. 4. Payment of all storm water management review charges as required by the most current City of Shakopee Fee Schedule. 5. Provide electronic (Auto CAD and PDF) files of the Final Plat and all record drawings to the engineering department. C:IDocuments and SettingsllKJimalLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FileslOLKA IPrelim.Plat.Review .Maple.Ridge.Estates.doc Page 1 of3 F:z. The following items shall be completed prior to approval of a grading permit and/or a street/utility plan: 1. No public improvements shall be constructed until the City Engineer and the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission (SPUC) approves the Final Construction Plans and Specifications. 2. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permission, right-of-way and/or easements to perform all work offsite. 3. The applicant shall obtain the necessary Scott County permits/approvals (access, right-of- way, drainage, etc.). 4. The applicant shall obtain a NPDES permit prior to any land disturbing activity. A copy of this permit shall be provided to the City. 5. The applicant shall obtain the appropriate Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) permits and approvals for all proposed wetland impacts. No grading permit shall be issued until the City approves a mitigation plan. 6. The applicant shall provide a slope no greater than four (4) feet horizontal to one (1) foot vertical adjacent to all wetlands (existing and mitigated). 7. The applicant shall make the necessary revisions to proposed basement elevations to provide a minimum of two (2) feet of freeboard from approved, adjacent high water elevations (existing/mitigated wetlands and storm water basins). 8. The applicant shall make the necessary revisions to proposed building opening elevations to provide one (1) foot plus the depth of the high flow of freeboard from all emergency overflows. The minimum freeboard allowed is one and a half (1.5) feet. 9. The applicant shall make the necessary revisions to contours in the rear of Lots 4,5,6,7, 8, 9 and 10 of Block 2 so as to encompass drainage within the drainage and utility easements. Larger drainage and utility easements may be necessary. 10. The applicant shall work with City staff to re-route the proposed storm sewer between Lots 1 and 2 of Block 2 to the easternmost property line of Lot 1 of Block 2. The storm sewer should be located within an extension of Outlot A from the South. 11. If required, the applicant shall provide a form of permanent energy dissipation/erosion and sediment control measure(s) at the flared end section East of CSAH 17 (Marschall Road). 12. The applicant shall work with City staff to re-route the proposed trunk sanitary sewer East along CSAH 78 to Jennifer Lane and then extend it to the southern plat boundary. C:\Documents and Settings\JKlirna\Local Seuings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKAlPrelim.PlaI.Review.Maple.Ridge.Estates.doc Page 20f3 F3 13. The applicant shall work with City staff to provide a trunk sanitary sewer within Samara Street to the West plat boundary. Preliminary Plat The following items shall be completed prior to Final Plat approval: 1. Additional right-of-way, in the form of sight triangles fifteen (15) feet in dimension, shall be provided at all local street intersections. 2. Additional right-of-way, in the form of sight triangles twenty-five (25) feet in dimension, shall be provided at all local street intersections with County roads. 3. The applicant shall work with City staff to revise Lot 9 of Block 1 so as to eliminate the narrow segment near its southernmost boundary. The portion of the lot eliminated shall be incorporated into the Maple Ridge Drive right-of-way. 4. Minimum drainage and utility easements for sanitary sewer and storm sewer less than five (5) feet deep in non-paved areas shall be twenty (20) feet. The easements shall be centered along the utility alignment. 5. Minimum drainage and utility easements for sanitary sewer and storm sewer deeper than five (5) feet in non-paved areas shall be provided at a one (1) to one and a half (1.5) ratio, depth versus width, plus one (1) foot. The easements shall be centered along the utility alignment. 6. Easements shall be shown on the Final Plat as approved by the City Engineer. They shall include, but not be limited to, the following: . Provide a minimum of twenty (20) feet of drainage and utility easement adjacent to all County roads. . Provide a minimum of twenty-six (26) feet of drainage and utility easement centered on the proposed storm sewer between lots 2 and 3 of block 5. 7. Outlot A shall not be dedicated as a conservation easement. Storm Water Mana2ement Plan Review Please see the attached memorandum from Todd Hubmer and Ted Witkowski ofWSB & Associates, Inc. dated August 1, 2007. Recommendation Engineering staff recommends approval ofthePreliminary Plat subject to approval ofthe storm water management plan/calculations and subject to the conditions above being addressed by the applicant prior to Final Plat approval. _ C:\Documents and SettingsllKlimalLocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKAIPrelim.Plat.Review.Maple.Ridge.Estates.doc Page 3 of3 ~..- - Ftf .~ b.-----.------.-------.-__.___._____"_.______.___1 ---.------ .. WSB & Associates, Inc. Infrastructure I Engineering I Planning I Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 Memorandum To: Joe Swentek, City of Shako pee Curtis Kallio, Kallio Engineering From: Todd E. Hubmer, PE, Project Manager1.J- Ted Witkowski, Engineering Specialist~ cc: Bruce Loney, City of Shakopee Date: August 1, 2007 Re: Maple Ridge Estates Plan Review Shako pee, MN WSB Project No. 1381-12 The Maple Ridge Estates Stormwater Management Plan and preliminary construction plans have been reviewed for conformance with the City of Shakopee's Water Resources Management policies. The documents received from Kallio Engineering for review included the following: 1. Stormwater Management Plan and Calculations for Maple Ridge Estates - dated 7/12/2007, received 7/23/2007. 2. Maple Ridge Estates Pre-Development Drainage Areas - dated 6/12/2007, received 7/23/2007. 3. Maple Ridge Estates Post-Development Drainage Area Map - dated 6/1212007, received 7/23/2007. 4. Maple Ridge Estates Storm Sewer Drainage Area Map - dated 6/12/2007, received 7/23/2007. 5. Maple Ridge Estates Construction Plans for Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control - dated 7/12/2007, received 7/23/2007. 6. Maple Ridge Estates Construction Plans for Street, Storm Sewer, Sanitary Sewer, and Water Main - dated 7/12/2007, received 7/23/2007. The above documents have been reviewed for conformance with the City's Water Resources Management Plan policies for water quantity, water quality, and storm sewer system capacity. Based on our review we offer the following comments and observations for your consideration. Minneapolis I St. Cloud Equal Opportunity Employer K: \0 J 3 8 J - J 2\Adm inIDocsIMEMO:iswenlek-080 J07.doc - I- 5 Summary 1. The Water Resources Management Plan for the development requires that 1/3 CF8 per acre allowable discharge rate for the post-developed conditions. The discharge from the proposed ponds on-site exceeds the 1/3 CFS per acre allowable rate. 2. The 10-day snowmelt event should be simulated with antecedent moisture content CAMe) setting of 4 to represent frozen ground conditions during the snowmelt event. The 10-day snowmelt event high water elevation should be compared with the 100-year 24-hour event to determine the critical event high water elevations for each ponding area. 3. The water quality volume for Ponds 2 and 3 appear to meet the City criteria for NURP treatment. Water quality volume in Pond 1.1 does not meet the City criteria for NURP treatment. The 0.71 acre-feet of water quality treatment volume is less than the 1.0 acre-feet required for the drainage area tributary to Pond 1.1. 4. In general, the storm sewer system design for the site appears to provide the 10-year event capacity outlined in the City's design criteria. The design calculations will require minor modifications as outlined in this review. The following are detailed review comments associated with the submittal documents. Stormwater Management Calculations 1. The post-development stormwater model calculations indicate that Subcatchment 83.4 will discharge to Pond 3 located on the southeast comer of the site. The grading plan and utility plan do not indicate that this subcatchment is hydraulically connected to Pond 3. The stormwater model calculations or drainage plan should be revised to accurately reflect the stormwater routing for this subcatchment. 2. It is requested that an explanation as to why Pond 3 is not discharged into Wetland 3 as simulated in the City's Water Resources Management Plan. This connection is necessary to maintain wetland hydrology and to reduce the discharge rate through the County Road 17 centerline culvert. 3. ,Pond 1.1 high water elevation of915.9 appears to exceed the rim elevations ofCB 24 and 25 at the Maple Ridge Drive lowpoint and overflows west to Pond 1.2. If this overflow from the lowpoint was simulated in the stormwater model the discharge rate to the west would exceed the currently modeled 24.6 CFS discharge rate. The allowable discharge rate from Pond 1.1 is 5.3 CFS per the City requirements of 1/3 CFS per acre allowable rate. Furthermore, the adj acent structure elevations do not meet City standards, and additional comments are provided later in this letter. 4. The Pond 2 proposed discharge rate of 15.6CFS exceeds the allowable discharge rate of 2.3 CFS based on the 1/3 CFS per acre requirement. The Pond 2 discharge rate shall meet the City criteria. K: 10138 J -12IAdminIDocsIMEMO-jswenlek-080J07.doc Ii 5. Pond 3 proposed discharge rate of 5 CFS exceeds the allowable rate of 1/3 CFS per acre allowable discharge rate requirement. The discharge rate from Pond 3 shall meet the City criteria. Drainage Area Mapping 1. The drainage area for Subcatchment S 1.2 on the northeast quadrant of Maple Ridge Drive and Jennifer Lane should be revised to correspond with the drainage area delineations for CB18A as shown on the storm sewer drainage area map. 2. Please be advised that approximately 8.2 acres of additional surface water runoff is tributary to the existing 21-inch Rep centerline culvert on County Road 17 from the south. This drainage area includes the southbound lane of CR 17 and a portion of the properties located to the south that abut CR 17. It is anticipated that the additional runoff from this drainage area may create a tailwater on the Wetland 3 and Pond 3 outlets. Please be advised the Wetland 3 hydrology may be dependant on the runoff generated by the drainage areas south of the development. The Water Resources Management Plan requires an outlet control structure to limit the discharge rate east into the Dominion Hills development. 3. The storm sewer drainage area map appears to be consistent with the proposed storm sewer system layout with the exception that the drainage area tributary to the storm sewer structure located on County Road 78 west of Jennifer Lane within the curb and gutter section has not been delineated. This delineation is necessary to design the erosion control measures at the storm sewer outfall. The pre:-developmentdrainage area map should include the off-site drainage tributary to the 'Vetl8.l}4Jo~atedin the southw~stcomer of ~e site. The analysis of this drainage area should j~nclucleilie:anticipated depth offlow through the site to insure that drainage and utility . for Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block3 are adequate to convey the flow. Storm SewerSystem Design Calculations and Layout 1. The storm sewer system. design calculations should include the rainfall intensity for the total time of concentration (travel time plus direct Tc) in the design calculations, and include a summation of the cumulative CA's for each storm sewer segment in the design. This will speed our review tine 2. The runoff coefficient of 0.3 for the drainage area tributary to FES-5 from the County Road 78 right-of-way and Block 1 drainage area is to low. The typical composite runoff coefficient is calculated with 0.2 for grass and 0.9 for impervious surfaces. The runoff coefficient of 0.4 to CB-4 and CB-14 appear to 'be low based on the amount the impervious surface shown in the plans. The runoff coefficients should be increased to 0.5 at a minimum in the design calculations. 3. The structure identification for CB-27 should be changed to MH-27. The structure rD should be modified in the construction plans to correspond with the revised identification. K: 101 381.12\Admin IDocsIMEMO-jswentek.080J07.doc . r; 4. The CB-4A structure build of 10.6 feet appears to be excessive for the design structure type 4002. The design of this segment of storm sewer at this depth does not appear to be required. It is requested that the system go over the water main within Maple Ridge Drive, and use the Design 4002 structure. 5. The FES-S design indicates that standard plate 4006 will be used within the County Road 78 right-of-way. It is requested the clear zone within CR 78 be verified and a determination be made whether a 1:6 apron is required. 6. The CB-22 structure design 4004 should be changed to a structure design type 4001 with a stool grate casting. This is recommended due to the flowthrough of two IS-inch diameter pipes that are anticipated to reduce the stru.ctural integrity. 7. The storm sewer system within Block 6 should be extended from CB 23, east along the property boundary and additional structures installed to minimize the number oflots water flows through before reaching the storm sewer. Currently, stormwater is proposed to flow across approximately seven lots prior to interception in the rear yards of Block 6. This length has proven to be troublesome to maintain in perpetuity. 7. Mh-12 shall be relocated to the east an adequate distance to insure the hydraulic gradeline in this system stays below the rim elevation. 8. The storm sewer design casting types for Structure CB-18A and CB-27 (MH-27) should be verified and corrected as necessary. 9. It is requested that additional catch basins be placed at Sta 34+00 on Maple Ridge Drive and a storm sewerc<mnection from CB-24 be directed to the south to connect to the additional catch basins, and that FES-6 be relocated to outfall on the south end of Pond 1.2 to reduce short circuiting of stormwater prior to discharge at FES-7. This design criterion is outlined in the City's Water Resources Management Plan as part of the water quality design policies that does not allow short circuiting. (See Attached layout) 10. It is requested that an additional set of catch basins be located on Maple Ridge Drive at Sta 6+00 and that the storm. sewer system from CB-4 be connected to the structure located on the westbound lane, and that CB-2 be re-routed to CB-3, and CB-3 be connected to the new structure located at 6+00 left. It is anticipated that the structure builds for CB-2 and CB-3 will be reduced and the pipe diameter connection from CB- 3 to the new catch basin will be less than the 21-inch diameter pipe currently proposed. In addition, the water main lowering should be relocated to accommodate the proposed realignment at Sta 6+00. This will also reduce short circuiting in Pond 2. (See Attached layout) 11. The storm sewer structure diameters that exceed the typical 48-inch diameter should be indicated on the construction plans. It appears that CB-14 and MH-12 require structures that are greater than 48 inches in diameter. The developer's engineer should i~entify the structure diameters on the plans. K:\OJ 381-1 2\AdminIDocsIMEMO:i.wenlek-0801 07.doc Fi Construction Plan Comments Sheet 2 1. The pipe class for the I8-inch RCP from CB-5 to CB-7 should be verified. It appears that the depth of the pipe may require Class IV pipe with Class C pipe bedding. If this design is to incorporate Class B becj.ding with a Class III pipe, the storm sewer profile should indicate the type of bedding to be used for this segment of the storm sewer system. 2. The CB-5 profile data stationing should use the Jennifer Lane stationing location. The CB-9 and CB-1 0 structure data in the profile should indicate their distance right of centerline from Jennifer Lane. It appears that these structures will not have a typical offset .from centerline. It is requested that all of the structure data include a directional offset - RTor LT, and a distance from the road centerline. 3. The CB-9 and CB-1 0 structure design 4003 and the profile data does not correspond to the structure design type in the storm sewer calculations. Please correct the data as necessary. 4. The CB-9 structure invert data in the profile does not correspond to the storm sewer design data. Please correct as necessary. The CB-18 structure profile data should include the invert of the pipe from CB-18A. 5. The CB-18A structure design type in the profile data does not correspond to the structure design type in the storm sewer design calculations. The profile data and design data should be consistent. 6. The pipe length from FES-5 to CB-19 in the plan view and profile data do not correspond. These should be consistent. Sheet 3 1. The CB-28 rim elevations in the profile data does not correspond to the storm sewer design calculations. Correct as necessary. 2. The CB-28 invert elevations in the profile data for Maple Ridge Court does not correspond to the storm sewer design calculations. Correct as necessary. 3. The CB-27 (MH-27) rim elevation of 927.34 appears to be approximately 2.8 feet above the grading plan elevations in the vicinity of Lots 1-2, Block 2, rear yards. The rim elevations and design of this system should correspond to the grading plan. Please be advised that the minimum build of CB- 2 7 may have the same type of hydraulic grade line effect as was previously discussed for MH-12. It is recommended that the location and build ofCB-27 be located on the storm sewer profile to avoid the hydraulic gradeline reaching the rim elevation. 4. The structure identification for FES-9 in the plan view should be made visible. K:\01381-12\AdminIDocsIMEMO-jswentek-080J07.doc ~ . , Sheet 4 1. The CB-5 profile data should be made visible. 2. The CB-4A storm sewer design and profile data should be updated as previously discussed. It appears that this segment ofthe storm sewer system could use a design 4002 structure and decrease the build and depth of this segment of the system. 3. The CB-4 structure profile data for the pipe connection from CB-4A should be updated in the event that the system is redesigned. 4. The pipe length from CB-24 to FE8-7 in the plan view and profile should correspond. 5. The pipe class from CB-4 to CB-5 should be verified based on the pipe bedding used for the storm sewer system. It appears that a Class IV pipe is required with Class C bedding. It is requested that the pipe bedding requirements for the storm sewer system be defined in the plans. 6. It appears that the Maple Ridge Drive lowpoint at 8ta 34+85 will be inundated approximately 0.9 feet based on the current storrnwater management design and the high water elevation of Pond 1.2. The-inundation of Maple Ridge Drive was previously discussed in the stormwater management comments. The inundation of Maple Ridge Drive should not occur as part of the stormwater management plan for the site. 7. The Maple Ridge Drive profile grid elevations do not appear to correspond to the pipe inverts or profile elevations. The grid elevations or profile location should be modified as necessary. Sheet 5 1. The pipe profile data from CB-17 to CB-20 does not correspond to the storm sewer design calculations. The pipe profile data should correspond to the plan view data and storm sewer design calculations. 2. The pipe slope from CB-20 to CB-21 in the profile data does not correspond to the design calculations. Please correct as necessary. 3. The invert elevation 935.04 in CB-21 profile data should be removed. Sheet 6 1. The rim elevation for CB-28 in the profile data does not correspond to the storm sewer design calculations. Please correct as necessary. 2. The water main and sanitary sewer crossings at Maple Ridge Drive and Jennifer Lane should be shown in the profiles. K:\OI381-12IAdminIDocsIMEMO-jswentek-080 I07.doc ,--- ho . 3. The rim elevation for CB-26A (OCS-26A) does not correspond to the grading plan elevations at the structure. The rim elevations for the structure should be based on the grading plan or the structure should be relocated so that the rim elevation corresponds to the grading plan. 4. It is requested that the structure identification for CB-26 be changed to OCS-26 (outlet control structure). The CB-26A (OCS-26A) structure data in the profile should correspond to the structure ID in the plan view. 5. The CB-26A (OCS-26A) structure design 4003 does not correspond to the manhole design 4001 in the City)s standard plates. The structure diameter should be specified for CB-26A (OCS-26A)in the profile data. The rim elevation for CB-26 (OCS-26A) does not appear to correspond to the grading plan elevations at the structure. The structure location in the plan or grading plan should be revised if the rim elevation of91S is proposed. 6. The MH-12 rim elevation is below the Pond 1.1 high water elevation 915.9, which would indicate that the hydraulic grade line (HGL) for this system will be above the rim elevation and may result in the casting being impacted during major storm events. The relocation of MH-12 in the pipe profile to a point where the casting is above the HGL is requested. 7. The MH-12 structure diameter should be indicated on the plans. It appears that this structure will require a diameter greater than the typical 48 inch structures required for this . project. The strUcture casting type should be identified in the plans. 8. The stationing data for CB-13 on the profile should be verified and corrected as necessary. 9. The finished grade profile west of Jennifer Lane does not appear to correspond to the grading plan. The emergency overflow elevation 925.0 illustrated between Lots 2-3, Blk 5 does not correspond to the finished grade profile. Please correct the finished grade profile. 10. The drainage and utility easement for the storm sewer system on Lot 17, Block 6, does not appear to provide a minimum of 10 feet for the storm sewer system from the CB-14 to CB- 22. ,The drainage and utility easement should be modified. Sheet 7 1. The pond skimmer table indicates that 8-inch orifices will be used with a weir wall within the structures. The detail does not illustrate the weir wall within the pond skimmer structure detail. The pond skimmer structure diameters should be increased to accommodate the weir wall and provide enough space on either side of the weir wall to remove debris or sediment, and to perform maintenance activities. It is requested that the structure identifications be changed to OCS-l, OCS-26, and OCS-31 to reflect that these structures are outlet control structures for the ponds on-site. K: 101381 - I 2IAdm in lDocsIMEMO-jswentek-080 1 07.doc . {.{( Sheet 9 1. The typical pond section side slope from the bottom of the pond bench to the pond bottom of 4: 1 does not correspond to the 3: 1 side slope on the grading plan. The typical pond section detail should correspond to the grading plan. 2. The pedestrian curb ramp detail should be replaced with the latest version of Mn/DOT Standard Plate 7036F1 and 7036F2. Gradin2 Plan 1. The low floor elevation of915.3 on Lot 15, Blk 5 is below the Pond 1.2 highwater elevation which does not meet the City criteria for freeboard. The low floor elevation should be revised to meet the City freeboard policies. 2. The emergency overflow (EOF) at elevation 930.8 from the County Road 78 ditch section between Lots 1-2, Blk 1 is not entirely encompassed by a drainage and utility easement. It appears that surface water would extend into the rear yards before overflowing south to Maple Ridge Drive. The drainage and utility easement should be increased in width between the Lots and into the rear yards to encompass the area of inundation to approximately elevation 931.3. In addition, the EOF provides 0.2' of flow depth in the overflow with 1.0' of freeboard. It is requested that a minimum of 0.5' of flow depth with 1 'of freeboard be provided in the EOF. The City polices indicate that an EOF should assure l' of freeboard to the low building openings. It appears that installation of windows in the basement along the lot line would be at an elevation in proximity to the EOF. Please revise the easements and grading plan accordingly. 3. . The grading in the County Road 78 right of way should create the clear zone requirements for the proposed path and construct a ditch bottom width consistent with the county requirements for depth. The grading plan shall incorporate these requirements in the event that the Trail is proposed to meet bikeway standards. 4. The drainage from the rear yards of Block 1 should be directed entirely into the drainage and utility easements in Lots 5,6,7, and 8. It appears that the grading plan with the berms directs flow across portions of the adjacent lots outside of the easements limits. The direction of flow across the adjacent property outside of the easements is not recommended. 5. The emergency overflow from the Maple Ridge Drive street low point in the vicinity of Pond 1.1 and 1.2 should be shown on the plans. 6. The drainage and utility easement in the rear yards of Lots 1,2, and 3, Blk 5 do not encompass the Pond 1.2 high water elevation of915.9. The drainage and utility easements should be revised to cover any area inundated by the high water elevation. 7. The grading plan in the County Road 78 right of way north of Block 4 appears to expose the existing storm sewer and does not appear to account for the future discharge from this system. It is requested that the grading plan provide a flow path for the discharge from this system that will contain erosion control. K: \0 1381-12\Adm in lDacsIMEMO-jswenlek.080 I 07.doc . ~2- 8. The proposed berm on the east side of Lot 9, Blk 1 appears to direct starnl water runoff toward the proposed structure. It is requested that swales be illustrated on the grading plan to direct storm water away from the structure. 9. The grading plan should include erosion control at the outfall from Samara Street on the western property boundary. It would appear that erosion of the rear yards in Lots 6-7, Blk6 and Lots 1-2, Elk 4 may occur as a result of runoff from Samara Street. 10. The Lot 9, Elk 2 house type and low floor elevation should be verified. It appears that the building should be a lookout. 11. The pond sideslopes should be indicated on the grading plan. 12. The partial grading of Lot 1, Blk 3 within the grading plan limits does not appear to be complete. The elevation 926, 928, and 930 contours from Lot 2 should tie into the existing contours on Lot 1. 13. The emergency access road from County Road 17 to Maple Ridge Court should provide a minimum of 1.75' of cover over the proposed culvert. The grading plan of the ditch appears to raise the profile and reduce the depth of the ditch. The reduction in depth of the ditch to the shoulder PI and location of the ditch bottom should be approved by the County. 14. The partial grading of Lot 14, Elk 2 should illustrate the tie into the existing contours. It appears that the grading of this lot will extend outside of the property to the south with 3: 1 sideslopes. 15. The potential erosion from point discharge at the FES 1 outlet at Pond 2 into Wetland 2 is a concern. The installation of additional erosion control to minimize the creation of a channel in this area should be addressed in the design. 16. It would appear that the driveway to the south of the site would have culverts in the CR 17 right of way and approximately 400' west at the driveway lowpoint. It is requested that these locations be examined verify the method of conveyance to the CR 17 right of way and for the drainage area south of Wetland 3. This completes our review of the Maple Ridge Estates Stormwater Management Plan and preliminary construction plans. If you have any questions or comments associated with this review, do not hesitate to contact us at your convenience. lh K: \01381 -12\AdminIDocsIMEMO-jswenlek-OBOI07.doc --- < "- - "- if.il;~l\' ..:l:~ ~~. l "- 8M ELEV. 776.74 SEE RIGHT TOP IRON N 1 4 COR. SEC. 19 . . . . -~~ () ;11") \..N; . .. ...... ....... ................................... ..-.......... , ..' . -. . '" . . ... ":w"l"~~"','::'" .. ....,..~~~-:-_~"'~tt<:..:::':o........"..."'t>:":......---.-,..-...._., ...... . -.-. '_"'_ , I I t (J gf -~t;. j~~!., L--' ~\i;"\W~\$.", ",,1 "~. ---I r--~l r -l@IIP?ili.lflAi "I ~~~,~I\i~'"I i:;i :~~l~~tf~~~}1 ~ . I I I I I I I I r.14~~~~'Jl.~.;,. I ' . .~~~~ ~<'J>/' 920.5 I I 916.5 I I 909.3 I ~~~ ~'~-~6' . <=z,~ :i.a,..-; ,.Af/A 4 '6'0)\ , LO 918.0 LO 914.0 WO 910.0 ,;ft, .' o:..;~ b) \ ~. I .;;! I I . I I . I I<ALl /: / /' I "~ f-L I ~ tv 1 I W I _ Englnel ~ :/ ~ 1il TB 918.7 / / /' (J) " TB 926.7 1. . TB 9227 10775 POPI ,. ~ / /"" " I -I I; I G 925.7 I I G 921.7 . I' I G 918.3 \ Ch"':"'l,M ~/~\'? -toe. . _ \.~ !\ L I L J L _ _ iC8\ I ~~ 95~:: ,,,' 0 q.~-'2 m; - - - .....J - - - ~ . ... iJ 'b(Y~ t ,k \, <} "'"..n 01- . -, -I <!ii' www.kallloengi '\. <?- 'D I- " , " LL '~-ld"I---- -I--+~-I 1 I .1 I I I '" ,\~lcf'l W 32 33. I ' . >-. -0 . "Vo.?/ --.J l' . 'MAPLE / '-~~U; V W 4.00%- . 0 c '" '" A W '~i. . . ,_ _.,,_ . , ,. __.. _ t' ~ oE:S ~~liifAr. ~ 1 ~IO;.' ~J-'- "Y1,i I . ", ~ ~~. 0 0 '"- V / U) g-",OO '/ -l'--- '--_E=~ " . I c>.o~ ~ E.D:5Q) ~ '" "~'_'r I 1\ ~6 G 923.6 .~~ -g :S \ !9.0 <D TB 924.0 ' ,_ :S 8. 0 ~ '\ I ~ f-L:r: z~- +J ~ 5 c J1 f-L s :5i! !il 0 0.';;; :::J .p.. Ul po ,- '" :S '- I I ~/<D l/l r: lB . :::''1] .c g (1) \1) I'" ..0 .- o.c. LO 915 3 ~) 1!1' '" z +J ;:1'- 0 __~"'II WO 919.3 '. O!l' I '" ~,g': ~g~ 918.6 917.8 ~Jv Ir E.~ e:""'~ I I \ . \ ~~J.. ~ 1i 'i'. . E I/o.) I '" '" >-. ..- ..c 0. (.)-.....:. I I _l/lE~o J L f'J 1:1 I- .9 \ ill ~ \\ W 1:j:g I (Yl \\ '~'lf) ~ \ \ W 3i _ ill ~cr SCALES: D RIV E V);'i ~ C ,50 FT HOR'II 5 FT VERT., .. ~ ~ .' . . . 0:: U 2: ~O~~;~ ~EWE~ PIPE: S~OPES: ANDLE~G~S ARE'c6M~U~D:F~O~ J~-~LOF: M~'S e ~ ~ 2. . STORM ?EWER STRUCTURE DESIGN REFERS TO THE CITY DETAIL !'I?: .' . vi ~ 940 940 3. SEE SHEET 9 FOR INTERSECTION ELEVATlON DETAILs.. . . . . I' . ' . , . 940" ~ .. .............................. .........(........... ............... ...;.. .... ~'f;