HomeMy WebLinkAbout2. Final Plat of Ridge Creek-Res. No. 6669
CITY OF SHAKOPEE ~a
Memorandum
CASE LOG NO.: 07-054
TO: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II
SUBJECT: Final Plat of Ridge Creek
,
MEETING DATE: October 8, 2007
REVIEW PERIOD: August 13 - October 12,2007
DISCUSSION
Ridge Creek I, Inc. has submitted an application for final plat approval of property located north of CSAH
16 and east of Pike Lake Road (please see Exhibit C). The plat, as currently proposed, contemplates the
creation of 42 single-family residential lots and 4 outlots (please see Exhibit B). The final plat application
submittal consisted of:
1. Final Plat drawing, undated and prepared by Carlson & Carlson, Inc.;
2. Construction Plans for Sanitary Sewer, Watermain, Storm Sewer & Streets (sheets 1 -24) dated
7/26/07, prepared by Plowe Engineering;
3. Landscape Plan (sheet 20 of26) originally dated 11/21/02 with revision dates of 2/22/06 and
7/26/07, prepared by Plowe Engineering;
4. Area Plat Drawing dated 7/26/07 and prepared by Plowe Engineering;
5. Grading and Erosion Control Plan (sheets 1 -11) originally dated 11/21/02 with revision dates of
2/22/06 and 7/26/07, prepared by Plowe Engineering;
6. Tree Inventory Plan sheets, handwritten date of 11/22/06 and prepared by Carlson & Carlson,
Inc.;
7. Tree Removal and Preservation Plan sheets and Tree Planting Plan sheets, originally dated
11/21/02 with a revision date of 7/26/07, and prepared by Plowe Engineering.
Information submitted with the application for final plat was distributed to the following internal
departments and outside agencies:
City Administrator Planning County Environmental
City Attorney Police Chief Health
City Clerk Public Works Centerpoint Energy
Natural Resource Specialist Finance Xcel Energy
City Engineer Park and Landscape Designer Qwest
Building Official SPUC Comcast Cable
Addressing County Engineer Prior Lake WMO
Fire InspeCtor
Attached to this memo are the comments received from various departments and outside agencies.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the Final Plat of Ridge Creek based on the attached draft resolution.
h:\cc\2007\10-08\fp ridge creek 07054.doc
I
Shakopee - Location Maps Page 1 of 1
EXH181rC
'\ '\ '\? \./'18'/ ---.(~' Y Ii 'x' 11'--,\ (-;'" ".....>.v-.~o-- 'r \ '\ \ 'j"..~''\--' [J]J:[[J \ \.. >~, . '''~
\..... ~" '- '-.,( 'I _ r\ ~...:..- .? "A"I:'\) '- ,
',"-. 1,../\. '. .I -.! .I /y.....~ . -^- \, >~ _-..... \ / 47 "'"'. r'l/;w-...~ ",' " "'" "
,,' " '" )..: /'" / I " I" )F /'; \ x . ',"'~' ).
"~~~Q>~G~~\~~S ~y ~
RIB "'\'\ \-;=(r\./)\f--II I \/ Z~:'/I ~)/ ~ ~ ~~~:./ //-' -',
\\\/.'\ ... .\ ...../ \\ -~ #' l'
\ \, _,..J..~ A "'-'1'"
\ \;::._____ __---~, ~ "'\, I /"........
.? .A~lj) / ->"'-{~. -.....
".-1/'- k\..". - ~
/ "\,J,,()r"::; " \.
",/ ~-m
1/ // ~fB ffi ffg g
/ /..---- m m~-
I I '
/ I ~-i.__: . ',"
I l [PRDJ --
/ / \<Lm1::[~
/ / -
f /
! mB AG
.....~~
~-- -~
~------:::::..-----
----- ------
---...........;
-----
-- 'eSA;b
A. . . G'" ... " ' ~---!~-l6--__
, -"\. ~ ----- ~
h~ .m ---
f,. .... t
-}"~ \\ I .....,....~....
\ \ j
~ .~ _ Subject Property
SHAKOPEE W~E ........ ShakopeeBoundary
COMMUNrfYPRlDESINCE1657 S I=:J zoning Boundary
D Parcel Boundary
Final Plat of Ridge Creek
http:// gis.logis.org/ shakopee/locationmap/map .asp ?title=Final+ Plat+of+ Ridge+Creek&M... 08/29/2007
RESOLUTION NO. 6669
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA DENYING THE
FINAL PLAT APPLICATION FOR RIDGE CREEK
WHEREAS, Ridge Creek I, Inc. ("Applicant" or "Ridge Creek") is the owner of
approximately 80 acres of property located in the City of Shakopee legally described on
attached Exhibit "A" (hereinafter referred to as the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted a preliminary plat application on November
18, 2005 to subdivide the Property; and
WHEREAS, the Shakopee Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the
preliminary plat application and recommended denial of the requested preliminary plat; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and denied the preliminary plat application
at its meeting of July 18, 2006; and
WHEREAS, in December 2006 the Applicant commenced a district court action in
Scott County challenging the City of Shakopee's denial of the preliminary plat
application and asserting that its wetland replacement plans were approved by operation
of Minn. Stat. S 15.99 in a matter captioned R10ee Creek T, Tnc v Clty ofShHkopee Court
File No: 70-CV 07-19 ("Action); and
WHEREAS, final judgment has not been entered in the Action; and
WHEREAS, while the Action was pending in district court the Applicant submitted
an application for final plat entitled "Ridge Creek" seeking to create 42 single-family lots
and four (4) outlots on 62.99 acres ofthe Property ("Application"). The legal description on
the final plat for Ridge Creek is incorrect because it assumes the approval and prior
recordation of Ridge Creek Bluff; and
WHEREAS, City staff studied the Application and related matters, made a report,
and provided other information to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, City staff circulated the Application to outside agencies for their
review and comment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council' at its October 8, 2007, meeting has considered the
matter.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Shakopee makes the
following:
FlNnTNGS
1. The Property contains approximately 80 acres of land which the Applicant
wants to develop for residential housing. The Applicant has made
application to final plat 62.99 acres of the Property into 42 single-family
residential lots and four (4) outlots to be known as "Ridge Creek."
2. The Applicant has submitted, for the City's review and approval, the Final
Plat drawing undated and drafted by Carlson & Carlson, Inc and attached
hereto as Exhibit "B"(hereinafter referred to as the "Final Plat").
3. The Applicant also submitted Construction Plans for Sanitary Sewer,
Watermain, Storm Sewer & Streets (sheets 1 -24) dated 7/26/07, prepared
by Plowe Engineering; Landscape Plan (sheet 20 of26) originally dated
11/21/02 with revision dates of2/22/06 and 7/26/07, prepared by Plowe
Engineering; Area Plat Drawing dated 7/26/07 and prepared by Plowe
Engineering; Grading and Erosion Control Plan (sheets 1 -11) originally
dated 11/21/02 with revision dates of 2/22/06 and 7/26/07, prepared by
Plowe Engineering; and Woodland Management Plan comprised of the
following: Tree inventory plan sheets prepared by Carlson and Carlson,
Inc. with a handwritten date of November 11/22/06; Tree removal,
preservation plan sheets, and tree planting plan sheet prepared by Plowe
Engineering dated 11/21/02 but signed by the engineer on 7/26/07.
4. Minnesota Statues Section 462.358, grants the City, for the purpose of
protecting and promoting the public health, safety and general welfare, the
authority to adopt subdivision regulations providing for the orderly,
economic and safe development ofland within the City.
5. The City had adopted subdivision regulations in Chapter 12 of the City's
Code.
6. City Code S 12.09 Subd. 1 sets forth the City's final plat approval process
which provides that "after the approval of, or during the review of, the
preliminary plat. . . the Developer may submit a final plat drawing and
related documentation for all or a part of the land covered in the
preliminary plat." There is no approved preliminary plat for Ridge Creek
and the final plat was not submitted concurrently with a preliminary plat.
The City is, therefore, unable to compare the proposed Final Plat to an
approved preliminary plat to determine conformity. The Final Plat
application is premature and fails to comply with the City's final plat
procedural process in City Code S 12.09 Subd. 1. Memorandum of Julie
Klima, Planner IT dated October 2, 2007.
2
7. Despite the Final Plat being premature, the Applicant insisted that the City
review the Final Plat. Accordingly, staff has reviewed the Final Plat
against all applicable requirements and recommends denial. Memorandum
of Julie Klima, Planner II dated October 2, 2007.
8. Per City Code SS 12.09 Subd. 3 and Subd. 4 the Final Plat must be in
substantial conformity with the preliminary plat, any conditions of
preliminary plat approval, Chapter 12 and the City Code. Further, per City
Code S 12.24, each subdivision ofland must comply with the City's
Design Criteria adopted by the City Council and referenced in Chapter 12
of the City Code. The Design Criteria was most recently revised on May
4,2004 by Resolution No. 6041 ("Design Criteria") and is applicable to
this application. All grading, erosion control, storm sewer, sanitary sewer,
utilities, street lights, streets and alleys, sidewalks and trails, lots and
blocks, and landscaping must comply with the City's Design Criteria. See
9 12.24 through 12.33 and 12.35. Memorandum of Julie Klima, Planner II
dated October 2, 2007.
9. The Final Plat fails to comply with the City's Code in the following:
A. Under City Code 9 12.34 and the 2007 fee schedule the required park
dedication for the plat is 4.44 acres of parkland. Although the
applicant proposed land dedication in the application narrative, and the
Area Plat Drawing text lists 6.12 acres of "parkland," there is no parcel
indicated as designated "parkland" on any drawing. Staff previously
discussed with the applicant the dedication of Outlot C for "parkland."
However, this is not reflected on the Final Plat. Further, the acreage
cannot be confirmed and there are additional concerns regarding Outlot
C as parkland which include unacceptable grades, the use of Outlot C
for soil exchange/borrow after dedication to the City, and refusal to
continue a trail along the outlet channel to match adjacent approved
development plans. In lieu of parkland dedication, the Applicant has
not proposed to pay any park dedication fees either. Therefore, the
final plat fails to comply with City Code 9 12.34 park dedication
requirements. Memorandum of Andrea Weber, Parks and Recreation
Landscape Design dated October 1,2007; Memorandum of Julie
Klima, Planner II dated October 2, 2007.
B. In City Code Sections 10.35 and 10.351 the City has adopted the
Minnesota State Fire Code and Standards of the National Fire
Protection Association. The Final Plat fails to comply with the
Minnesota State Fire Code and therefore fails to comply with City
Code 99 10.35 and 10.351. Shakopee Fire Department Memorandum
Dated October 1,2007. See discussion below.
3
C. City Code Sections 12.24 through 12.33 and 12.35 require that each
subdivision of land comply with the City's Design Criteria adopted by
the City Council. Memorandum of Julie Klima, Planner II dated
October 2, 2007. The Final Plat fails to comply with the Design
Criteria as discussed below and therefore fails to comply with the
City's Code.
D. The City's Woodland Management Regulations are applicable to the
proposed Final Plat as the development is on a parcel of land
containing a "Woodland." The City's Code defines "Woodland" to
mean "the area within the contiguous drip line created by a grouping of
woody plant species ifthe grouping contains at least one (1) Tree. City
Code S 11.60 Subd. 9(A). A "Tree" means "a living specimen of a
woody plant species that is either a deciduous tree whose diameter is
six (6) inches or greater at DBH [Diameter Breast Height as defined in
City Code S 11.60 Subd. 9(A)], or a coniferous tree whose height is
twelve (12) feet or greater." City Code S 11.60 Subd. 9(A). The
Applicant submitted one overall Woodland Management Plan for the
proposed final plats of Ridge Creek and Ridge Creek Bluffs. On both
of the Plats, the area within the contiguous drip line created by a
grouping of woody plant species contains 680 Trees. This area
constitutes a Woodland, and therefore, the requirements of City Code S
11.60 Subd. 9 apply to this Plat. Memorandum of Ryan Hughes,
Natural Resources Coordinator dated October 4,2007.
E. The specific requirements for the Woodland Management Plan are set
forth in City Code S 11.60 Subd. 9(B)(2). The Woodland Management
Plan submitted with the Ridge Creek Final Plat does not meet these
submission requirements because it does not include all Trees as
defined in Code S 11.60 Subd. 9(A). Based on Staffs site visit on
October 2,2007, there are Trees (as defined in City Code) on the site
that have not been included on the Tree inventory. Therefore staff
cannot determine how many actual Trees are on each proposed final
plat, how many will be removed on each plat, or how many will be
saved on each. The applicant has not met these requirements by failing
to inventory all Trees per S 11.60 Subd. 9(B)(2). Memorandum of
Ryan Hughes, Natural Resources Coordinator dated October 4,2007.
F. Pursuant to City Code S 11.60 Subd. 9(B)(I) any Applicant who
desires to remove any Tree on any parcel of land containing a
Woodland must demonstrate that there are no feasible or prudent
alternatives to removing any Tree. The Applicant has failed to
demonstrate that there are no feasible or prudent alternatives to
removing the Trees as he as offered no reason as to why these Trees
must be removed. Regardless, based on the review of the Ridge Creek
Final Plat, a feasible and prudent alternative could be to avoid the
4
elimination of Trees within the Natural Resource Corridor Map
approved by City Council at the November 9,2005 regular meeting.
This would result in saving approximately 42 Trees on the Woodland
Management Plan. Avoiding Trees within the natural bluffwill not
require the elimination of any developable lots. For 6 lots, only the 40-
50 feet from the back lot line would contain an easement prohibiting
the removal of Trees. This would not interfere with the building pads,
placement of homes on these lots or setbacks. Memorandum of Ryan
Hughes, Natural Resources Coordinator dated October 4,2007.
G. City Code 9 11.60 Subd. 9(C) requires the replacement of removed
trees in accordance with a specific schedule set forth therein. The
Ridge Creek Final Plat proposes to plant replacement trees in areas
inconsistent with the Shakopee Tree Planting Standards. In
accordance with City Code 9 7.05 Subd. 1 and adopted by Resolution
No. 3923, the Shakopee Tree Planting Standards restrict planting trees
within City right-of-way. The Ridge Creek Final Plat proposes to
plant replacement trees within City right-of-way which violates City
Code 9 7.05 Subd. 1. Memorandum of Ryan Hughes, Natural
Resources Coordinator dated October 4, 2007.
H. Prior to approving a Woodland Management Plan a conservation
easement is required be provided to preserve the natural bluff features
such as woodlands, steep slopes, and erodible soils within the Natural
Resource Corridor Map and that the conservation easement be
executed prior to approval ofthe Final Plat. The Applicant is required
to execute a conservation easement consistent with MN Statute 84C to
protect these natural resources. There is no staff approved
conservation easement provided over the natural bluff and no
conservation easement agreement has been executed. Memorandum of
Ryan Hughes, Natural Resources Coordinator dated October 4,2007.
I. The Final Plat includes the location of a retaining wall in the drainage
and utility easements to be dedicated to the City in the rear of Lots 9-
10 of Block I (Ridge Creek Addition) in violation of City Code 99
4.03, Subd. 2 (D) and 97.18 Subd.1. Memorandum of Joe Swentek,
Project Engineer dated October 3,2007.
J. As detailed in the Memorandum of Joe Swentek, Project Engineer
dated October 3,2007, the proposed landscaping plan denotes several
encroachments into drainage and utility easements containing
emergency overflows (EOF) and drainage and utility easements
containing public utilities. This is in violation of City Code 9 4.03,
Subdivision 2 (D) and 97.18 Subd.1.
5
10. The Final Plat fails to comply with the City's Design Criteria in the
following:
A. Section 10 (2)(A) and (B) ofthe Design Criteria restricts residential
blocks to a maximum length of 1,300 feet to provide for convenient
access, circulation control and safety of street traffic. Block 1 of the
Final Plat is 2072.52 feet in length and exceeds the maximum length
permitted in the City Code by 772.52 feet. Therefore the plat fails to
comply with Section 10 (2)(A) and (B) of the Design Criteria and City
Code ~ 12.24 and ~ 12.33. Memorandum of Julie Klima, Planner II
dated October 2, 2007.
B. Section 8 (7)(A) and (B) ofthe Design Criteria restricts permanent and
temporary cul-de-sac streets in urban areas to 750 feet in length. On
the Final plat Crossings Boulevard is proposed as an over length cul-
de-sac. Crossings Blvd. has been constructed to the east property line
of Ridge Creek. However, Crossings Blvd. does not have a connection
on the west side of Ridge Creek. Until that connection is made,
Crossings Blvd. within Ridge Creek will be 2075.27 feet in length
which exceeds the maximum length allowed in Section 8 (7)(A) and
(B) of the Design Criteria by 1325.27 feet. Therefore the plat fails to
comply with the Design Criteria ~~ 8 (7)(A) and (B) and City Code ~~
12.24 and 12.31. Memorandum of Julie Klima, Planner II dated
October 2,2007; Memorandum of Joe Swentek, Project Engineer
dated October 3,2007.
C. Several ofthe proposed street profiles/grades are not in compliance
with the City's minimum design speed standards as outlined in Section
8.17 (Street Vertical Curves) of the City of Shako pee's Design Criteria
and detailed in the Memorandum of Joe Swentek, Project Engineer
dated October 3,2007. Therefore the plat fails to comply with Section
8.17 of the Design Criteria and City Code 9912.24 and 12.31.
Memorandum of Joe Swentek, Project Engineer dated October 3,
2007.
D. The Final Plat fails to dedicate to the City the minimum drainage and
utility easements for sanitary sewer and storm sewer in non-paved
areas as required by the City of Shako pee's Design Criteria, Section
10.1 (A-D). The easements not in compliance are detailed in the
Memorandum of Joe Swentek, Project Engineer dated October 3,
2007. The Final Plat fails to comply with Design Criteria Section 10.1
(A-D) and City Code 99 12.24 and 12.33. Memorandum of Joe
Swentek, Project Engineer dated October 3, 2007.
6
E The applicant did not submit a storm water management plan with the
Final Plat as required by the Design Criteria Section 4. Based on prior
communications Staffhas advised the Council that the applicant
maintains that he submitted a stormwater management plan with his
preliminary plat which was previously denied by the City Council and
additional drafts during settlement negotiations. The City's consultant
WSB has reviewed many iterations of the applicant's stormwater
management plan during preliminary plat review and settlement
discussions. At no time has WSB or the City approved any version of
the applicant's storm water management plan for the site. WSB's
comments on the many iterations are contained in WSB's memoranda
including but not limited to those dated May 9,2007, May 16, 2007,
June 5, 2007, June 25,2007, and e-mail of August 23, 2007. The
incorporation ofWSB's comments may significantly impact the
proposed Final Plat drawings, the proposed grading and erosion
control plans and the proposed street and utility plans. The Plat thus
fails to comply with Design Criteria Section 4, City Code ~~ 12.24 and
12.27. Memorandum of Joe Swentek, Project Engineer dated October
3,2007.
F. The applicant is proposing to fill wetlands on site but has not received
approval from the City Council as required by the City's
Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan, Design Criteria
Section 4(1)(A) and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act
administered by the City. There is no approved wetland mitigation
plan for the site. The plat fails to comply with Design Criteria ~
4(1 )(A), City Code ~ 12.24 and the Wetland Conservation Act Minn.
Stat. ~ 103G.222 et seq. And Minn. R. 8420.0100 et seq.
Memorandum of Joe Swentek, Project Engineer dated October 3,
2007.
II. The Final Plat fails to comply with the Minnesota State Fire Code in the
following:
A. The plat contains 42 lots accessible from 2 access points along
Crossings Boulevard. To date, the applicant has refused to construct
Crossings Boulevard from Pike Lake Road eastward to the west
property line of the proposed plat. Appendix D of the Minnesota State
Fire Code requires separate and approved fire access roads where the
number of dwelling units exceeds 30. (MSFC DI07.1 and 503.1.2)
Because Crossing Boulevard is not constructed to connect to two
locations, then the plat fails to comply with the State Fire Code.
Memorandum of Tom Pitschneider, Fire Inspector dated October 1,
2007.
7
B. Dead-end roadways in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided
with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus. (MSFC
503.2.5) Failure to connect Crossings Boulevard to Pike Lake Trail
will create a dead-end road greater than 150 feet in length and, thus,
the plat does not to comply with the State Fire Code. Memorandum of
Tom Pitschneider, Fire Inspector dated October 1, 2007.
12. The Final Plat fails to comply with the City's Stormwater Management
pHm in the following:
A. The Final Plat fails to comply with the maximum allowable
discharge rate of 1/10 cubic feet per second per acre in a 100-year
event as established in Section N.A.9.b ofthe City of Shako pee's
Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan. Per Section
4(1)(A) of the Design Criteria the applicant's stormwater
management plan must comply with the City's Comprehensive
Stormwater Management Plan. Since the proposed Final Plat is in
excess of the maximum allowable discharge rate, it fails to comply
with Section 4(1)(A) ofthe Design Criteria, City Code SS 12.24
and 12.27. Memorandum of Joe Swentek, Project Engineer dated
October 3, 2007.
13. The Final Plat fails to comply with generally accepted engineering
practices and reasonable requirements in the following:
A. The radii of concrete curb and gutter leading into all cul-de-sacs
shall be fifty (50) feet. The right-of-way adjacent to this curb and
gutter shall be parallel. The proposed Final Plat drawing does not
reflect this right-of-way. Memorandum of Joe Swentek, Project
Engineer dated October 3,2007.
B. The applicant is proposing excavation on site for borrow purposes
which is likely to take place below the groundwater table and
creates concerns with regard to groundwater contamination.
Memorandum of Joe Swentek, Project Engineer dated October 3,
2007.
C. The applicant has not agreed to be responsible for grading the new
alignment of the Prior Lake Outlet Channel and the establishment
of turf prior to abandoning the existing channel and prior to
building permit issuance. Memorandum of Joe Swentek, Project
Engineer dated October 3,2007.
D. The applicant has not agreed to grade the entire site in one phase
prior to October 15,2008. Grading shall be defined as bringing the
site up to the proposed finished grade with materials deemed
8
acceptable by the City of Shakopee engineering department,
providing topsoil per City requirements, applying seed and mulch
or sod per City requirements and providing an as-built grading plan
prior to issuance of building permits per Section 2.5 (As-built
Grading Plan) of the City of Shakopee's Design Criteria.
Memorandum of Joe Swentek, Project Engineer dated October 3,
2007.
CONCT I TSTON
NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the information received and the above Findings,
be it resolved by the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA as
follows:
The Application for Ridge Creek final plat is hereby denied because there is no
approved preliminary plat and therefore the final plat application is premature.
Additionally, the Application is denied because it fails to comply with the City's Code,
Design Criteria, Stormwater Management Plan, Wetland Conservation Act, and State Fire
Code as set forth above and detailed in staff and outside agency reports that are a part of
the record in this proceeding.
Adopted in the regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota
held the 8th day of October, 2007.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
Judith S. Cox, City Clerk
9
EXHIBIT "A"
[legal description of the Property]
That part ofthe Fest Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 115, Range
22, Scott County, Minnesota, lying Northerly of the North right-of-way line of County
Road 16, EXCepting there from the West 410 feet thereof.
The Southwest uarter of the Northeast Quarter; the Southeast Quarter ofthe Northeast
Quarter excepting the Easterly 591.75 feet thereof; all in Section 14, Township 115,
Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota.
!
!
10
..- )(H 1 B IT
SOUTH8RID(/[ r IRS T ADDITION
-
- RIDGE CREEK
~ a COUNTY ROAD NO. 21
a
The North.lJrM: 01 the . 1/4 of the N! 1/'" of s.c. 14. T.fte. R.22 ...---- 1M NrorItt UM' of tM SE 1/4 t:1I tfM HE 1/4 of s.c. 14, T.ll5. It.22
~.I
~l __ AU. Ml!N 81' 1HESE PRESO<TS:
Thot Afdspo- CrNk 1, Inc... a YnnMota Corporation, f-. 0WMr and w..t.m 8ank. a
5 _ CorporatIon, ~ of.... _ ......... _ _.In ....
C<>unto<of___oflOn_b>w/t
l! outlot A. _ CIl!EI( 8WFF GO</ ... __ _ of ... _
;; =~::"'~"~-:""'~l:='~~~
-
i. _ ......., tho _ to be .....,... ..... ....- GO RlOCI CllEEK .... do _ _
j ~ and _ to tho ..._ lor puOlIc .- _ .... T>alI. Lano. Road .... ..... -..
lIlo _ .. ........ on ... plat lor _ Oftd _ _ only.
J l! In wItr.- wMAot eGkf RIdfI CrMk 1, Inc.. 0 ~ Corporation, hot cowed ttMM
~ to be 0Ign0d by ... _ ___ _ _ ..... of aoo7.
1; ;; Alto fn wftrMileI wMrtot .old w..twn Bank. a lrlInnMoto Corporotien" t)oI1 oa.-.d tI)eM
; ~ to be 0Ign0d by'" ........--_..... of 2007,
~ i. z _ CIGJ( '. lNC. W!S7ERH _
if OUTLOT D j ~ ~ by by
J 1; ~ =1 AandotI R. Hoectcw. 1M PrMIdent. CynlhIo R. _ .. \Iloo _
1; ~ 0 ;:: STAlE OF _
~ ; Q .. COUNTY OF
Tho /orogoIrI9 _ _ _ __ .... .... _ ..... of
-< ~ 2007, by_ ... _. GO _ of _ c.- " /no., . _ CorponIlIon,
I J j onboholfoftho_
J 15 ... 15
15 ~. 'J -." PuIlIIo, _ Cowlllr, -
I co: - lly - """"'
II - !t STAlE OF ~
I J ... J COUNTY OF
Tho /orogoIrI9 _ _ _ __ .... .... _ ..... of
\ 15 15 2007, by c,nuw R. _, .. .... _ 01 -.. _ a _ Corporation.
,..,. J-~ on_of tho_
.........
.... ,....nrw R ~ ., Nolory PuIlIIo, ~.-
.
I --- R i ~l lly - """"'
~ ...... :.~~: ~ '; -=--= ':': ~ .=% ":::"" ...;;..::.. -:'''
-- . ..... "J ,I _._ a du\lI ~ LonlI~_Illo_ at tho_ of _,_
_ plat to a _ __,...lk.., at _ """'"1' _ all _ ... ~
. ...,.. I 15 .. ! _...lheplatln_....h_ofa_ _alI___ ~
_Inllle-"'oo........... be.........uy_...... ""'-00-'-:
............. ~ i.. .I :: \ _tho _ --,._.... ~_ on tho plat ....__.... no
wi ....,. GO __ In _ -. _ 805.02, $ubd. t,ar public """'__ to
- ~ I ~ be~..._,....__GO.........
I III ~
lorry R. C>IutIow, LonlI _
_ u....o .... 8011
... STAlE OF _
Q COUNTY OF _
OUTLOT B - Tho fotogoIng ............ _ _ __ .....ii.i. .....of
OUTLOT C ... 2007. by lorry R. eo.mr.. Land _.
co:
... Nolory PtiI>IIc, I/enftop/n ~. ,.,.,.,....
Ii ,. lly--
- C1TY <XlUNQl.. ~ _
.. ..
... .. w Ww do .....,. GMHY _ on _ ..... of 2007, tho CI\>' Couooll at
.. _ _ __.... _ 11* plat ond the __ of_
-< .... __llO&03._z.___.
..
.. -- Clooi<
...
C1TY ATTaIHa
,__,_ __ __ 0I_1or_ plat.... _.... plat lor
__ day of 2007.
.
... CI\>' Attmloy. ShoIoopeo. -
-
,.
SCOTT_~
,......" GMHY- _ __ ond __ on.... _ __ _....
paid and ........ _ ___ ..... 01 2007.
-~- Scott "-'IY T-.-
w ~w M...... SIgMd by. Ilopu\y
"
Q s~w "-....... South L* of the R 1/4 of'" JC 1/4,. s.o. 14,. toftl. R.22 SCOTT COIJHlY SUIl\€>'Ofl
- M~"'I _ to _ _ -. _.00 _ '. GO ......-. .... plat ....
co: -. IWYhowwd ond __ _ _ day at 2007.
.. RIVERSID[ 8~UrrS f' I" S T ADDITION
RID 0 E CREEK 8~Urr --........,...
SCOTT COUNTY RECORDER
-naoo ond UlIIIty ,......,,___plat__............... ""'of
z.ocn. ot _ o"oIodc _ N. (Ie Document No
EoMm.ntI ON Sho1WI Thua:
......... . ~1/r","""''''''''''''CIUfMI -~-
~ !b o :r-......:o-.: J::..:"No.....8Ot~ 8ft
NO ....... ~ .... Kr Nfr I'DilnII' MQUND I.DOtinOH
1ClII.::IiQ'D;' P\IIf.......11t\TJaL. errNCJ...:::H fiIC.L
. If PlACE w;MH ON( YIM OF lHI M:aJfIM OF 'THIS PUIf.
.., IlfClHllMDQI JIW.l. IE 112 NCH ., t. ItCH ItON PF[ ~
Ir6IiNlID ... l.Jl;:IHSI NO. 101.
'00 0 ... - -
-- r'4.""\.- I
IlC 8oI"l1 '0 feet In _ od)olnlng rlvl>l 0/ woy _ = = ~.I[~ -:,~ ~':::- 22
8o&le IJo r_ and & foot .. __ adjoining lot -. ....-
ol'*- _ on .... pial
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: City Council
FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II
RE: Ridge Creek/Ridge Creek Bluffs Final Plats Comments
DATE: October 2, 2007
RIDGE CREEK FINAL PLAT
City Administrator comments:
1. The Final Plat must comply with all City Codes and Ordinances, as defined by
Shakopee's Planning, Engineering, and Natural Resources Divisions.
City Clerk comments:
1. Should be renamed to Ridge Creek Second Addition.
2. Signature block ok.
Building Official comments:
1. Prior to issuing building permits street identification shall be provided.
Police Dept. comments
Recommends approval.
Fire Dept. comments
Under City Code Sections 10.35 and 10.351 the City has adopted the Minnesota State
Fire Code and Standards ofthe National Fire Protection Association. The Shakopee Fire
Department recommends denial based on the failure to comply with the State Fire Code.
Finance Dept. comments
No impact.
Centerpoint Energy comments
Recommends approval.
D-l
RIDGE CREEK BLUFFS FINAL PLAT
City Administrator comments
1. The Final Plat must comply with all City Codes and Ordinances, as defined by
Shakopee's Planning, Engineering, and Natural Resources Divisions.
City Clerk comments
1. Should be renamed Ridge Creek First Addition.
2. Signature block is ok.
Building Official comments
1. Prior to issuing building permits street identification shall be provided.
Police Dept. comments
Recommends approval.
Fire Dept. comments
Under City Code Sections 10.35 and 10.351 the City has adopted the Minnesota State
Fire Code and Standards ofthe National Fire Protection Association. The Shakopee Fire
Department recommends denial based on the failure to comply with the State Fire Code.
Finance Dept. comments
No impact.
Centerooint Energv comments
Recommends approval.
These are all the comments received from other departments and outside agencies to date.
If any additional comments are received, I will be sure to forward them to you ASAP.
Comments from Engineering, Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation, Planning and
Fire Department are included in separate memoranda.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
D-2
Memorandum
TO: City Council
FROM: Tom Pitsch neider, Fire Inspector
SUBJECT: Final Plat Ridge Creek Bluff and Final Plat Ridge Creek
DATE: October 1, 2007
The City has received requests for final plats of Ridge Creek and Ridge Creek Bluff. Following are
comments and concerns from the Shakopee Fire Department.
Ridae Creek Bluff
. The plat contains 42 lots all accessible from an existing roadway stub to the west. This
existing roadway already provides access to 14 additional lots in Ridge View Estates. Appendix
D of the Minnesota State Fire Code requires separate and approved fire access roads where
the number of dwelling units exceeds 30. (MSFC Dl07.1 and 503.1.2)
The plat does not comply with the State Fire Code since there is no secondary
emergency access point separate from the existing Oakridge Trail connection. In case
the primary access is blocked a second access is required for emergency purposes.
. Dead-end roadways in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved area
for turning around fire apparatus. (MSFC 503.2.5)
As the plat is currently proposed it does comply with the State Fire Code as there are
no dead-end roads greater than 150 feet in length that are not provided with approved
turnarounds.
. Signs shall be installed with address identification at both intersections of Eagle Ridge Lane
and Oakridge Trail. Address signs shall be approved. (MSFC 505.1, 505.2 and 503.3)
During an emergency finding an address can be critical. Placing addresses at each
intersection allows for quicker response by emergency providers. This is only required
when a street has multiple access points.
. Temporary street signs shall be installed by the developer prior to the issuance of any building
permits. (MSFC 505.2)
Without temporary street signs it is more difficult for emergency responders to located
incidents.
D--,
. Public and private streets less than 32 feet in width per City of Shakopee design standards
shall be posted for no parking on i-side. (MSFC 503.2.1)
The minimum width of a fire access road is 20 feet as required by MSFC 503.2.1. A
typical parking lane is 8 feet in width thereby reducing the access width of the road to
24 feet with parking on 1 side and 16 feet with parking on 2 sides.
. If the plat will be phased a phasing schedule shall be provided. Phasing of the plat may create
additional fire safety concerns that will need to be addresses prior to construction.
. Staff recommends denial based on the failure to comply with the State Fire Code.
Ridge Creek
. The plat contains 42 lots accessible from 2 access points along Crossings Boulevard. It is my
understanding that the applicant has refused to construct Crossings Boulevard from Pike
Lake Road eastward to the west property line of the proposed plat. Appendix D of the
Minnesota State Fire Code requires separate and approved fire access roads where the
number of dwelling units exceeds 30. (MSFC Dl07.1 and 503.1.2)
Because Crossing Boulevard is not constructed to connect to two locations, then the plat fails
to comply with the State Fire Code.
. Dead-end roadways in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved area
for turning around fire apparatus. (MSFC 503.2.5)
Failure to connect Crossings Boulevard to Pike Lake Trail will create a dead-end road
greater than 150 feet in length and the plat does not to comply with the State Fire
Code.
. Temporary street signs shall be installed by the developer prior to the issuance of any building
permits. (MSFC 505.2)
Without temporary street signs it is more difficult for emergency responders to located
incidents.
. Public and private streets less than 32 feet in width per City of Shakopee design standards
shall be posted for no parking on i-side. (MSFC503.2.1)
The minimum width of a fire access road is 20 feet as required by MSFC 503.2.1. A
typical parking lane is 8 feet in width thereby reducing the access width of the road to
24 feet with parking on 1 side and 16 feet with parking on 2 sides.
. If the plat will be phased a phasing schedule shall be provided. Phasing of the plat may create
additional fire safety concerns that will need to be addresses prior to construction.
. Staff recommends denial based on the failure to comply with the State Fire Code.
D-~
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
MEMORANDUM
To: Julie Klima, Project Manager
From: Andrea Weber, Parks and Recreation Landscape Design
Date: October 1, 2007
Subject: Parks, Open Space and Trails Staff Review of the Ridge Creek
Final Plat, Ridge Creek 1 Inc.
INTRODUCTION
I am writing to provide park related staff comments for the Ridge Creek Final Plat,
proposed by Randy Noecker of Ridge Creek 1 Inc.,.
DISCUSSION
This application has not been reviewed by The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.
Park Dedication
Park dedication calculations based on the current proposal (Ridge Creek Final Plat), City
Code Section 12.34 and 2007 fee schedule are as follows:
3.0 persons per lot x 111 lots I 75 = 4.44 acres of park land
The applicant is proposing land dedication in the application narrative. The Area Plat
Drawing text lists 6.12 acres of "Park Land", however there is no parcel indicated as
designated "Park Land" on any drawing, Outlot C, which was discussed in prior
communications with the applicant as the City's preferred park land dedication location,
is not referenced as park, and there is no acreage described for Outlot C on plat or
survey drawings.
As per the application and drawings, the land required for park dedication has not been
met, so staff recommends denial of this final plat.
t)-S
Discussion of Outlot C as park land dedication
Park Land
Even if Outlot C were to be dedicated for park, which is not reflected on either Final
Plat, and the correct acreage could be confirmed, there are several additional staff
concerns regarding the acceptance of Outlot C as park.
Grading
The grading plans for Outlot C show 5.7% and 8% slopes moving away from the road
and then there is the center of the parcel, which has no slope indicated by contours.
There is a note on the drawing stating "grade park to slope toward channel" however,
there are no slopes indicated by number or percentage as is typical and as are found on
other areas of the grading drawings The grading for Outlot C does not conform to
standard grading plan practices. Using the drawing scale, the area calculates to be
around 0.5% slope (2' drop over 400' length). This is not an acceptable slope for park
use, as it is virtually flat, and will certainly hold ponding water during and after rain
events. Two percent slope is a standard grade for a level area in a park.
The entire outlot C is indicated for soil exchange/borrow. This is not acceptable for park
land dedicated to the City. Existing soils shall be graded to approved grades, and if
needed, MnDoT specification topsoil borrow may be brought in to achieve the approved
grades. Soils existing on the site shall not be removed or replaced with other materials
as the land is to be dedicated to the City for park purposes.
In addition, the City requires six inches of (MnDoT specification) topsoil to be installed
over the entire park site. The Park and Recreation Landscape Designer will allow up to
half of the topsoil requirement to be substituted with MNDOT Type 2 compost (from an
MNDOT approved supplier). Prior to seeding, rocks and other debris greater than %"
shall be removed from the site. Seeding shall take place during MNDOT acceptable time
periods and MNDOT approved temporary erosion control shall be used.
Trails and Sidewalks
In prior discussions of this site related to park dedication of Outlot C, staff recommended
the applicant provide an 8' wide bituminous trail along the outlet channel continuous
through the development. While adjacent developments have agreed to provide this
trail, the applicant refuses.
In addition, the developer is also required by the subdivision ordinance and/or
Engineering Design Standards to construct a trail along CR16 and trail and sidewalk
along Crossings Blvd. Sidewalks on both sides of all through streets and on one side of
longer cul-de-sac streets are also recommended by staff. These are not shown on the
Plats.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends denial due to failure to meet the park dedication requirements.
Even if Outlot C were proposed for park dedication, the following conditions would need
to be met for Outlot C to be acceptable for credit as park dedication prior to Recording of
the Final Plat:
1. The applicant shall meet park dedication requirement by providing land in a
single parcel adjacent to the east Property line on the north side of the
development, in the full amount in accordance with the number of lots (currently
D-tp
shown as 11110ts==4.44 acres). The land dedicated for park and a measurement
of the acreage and S.F. of the parcel shall be indicated on drawings and shall
meet the requirement. The land must be dedicated to the City free and clear of
all encumbrances.
2. The Trails and Sidewalks and Grading Plans must be shown to match adjacent
approved development plans (Riverside Bluffs and Ridge View Farms, Liesener
parcel).
3. The applicant be required to install sidewalks on all streets in the development
that are not cul-de-sacs as shown on plans. Trails shall be installed on CR 16,
Crossings Blvd and along the Outlet Channel through Outlot C.
4. Grading of the parcel to be dedicated as park shall have a useable park slope,
with a minimum of 2% and a maximum of 8% only in areas where steep slopes
are unavoidable.
5. No soil exchange or soil borrow shall be allowed in the parcel to be dedicated as
park.
After Recording of the Final Plat but before Release of Letter of Credit:
6. In the park area, the developer shall:
A) Fine grade the site, picking rocks and dirt clumps %" and greater in size
B) Provide a finished grade that is approved by the city as suitable for park use and
which ties in to the adjacent developments (between 2% and 8%).
C) Appropriate topsoil or 50% topsoil and 50% compost shall be installed over the
entire site, 6 inches deep.
D) Apply a grass seed mixture "Pro Turf Lawn Mix" at a rate of 120 pounds per acre
that meets the followinq criteria:
Item % of Mix Minimum Purity
Germination
Alene Kentucky 30 90 95
Blueqrass
Denim Kentucky 30 90 95
Bluegrass
Secretariat 20 90 99
Perennial Rye
Mardigras 20 90 99
Perennial Rye
E) The Prior Lake Spring Lake Outlet Channel shall be graded and stabilized by the
developer, in accordance with PLSLWSD and City standards.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
D-1
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: City Council
FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II
RE: Pinal Plat for Ridge Creek
DATE: October 2, 2007
Upon review of the proposed final plat for Ridge Creek, planning staffhas the following
comments to provide:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed final plat due to the following:
1. The submission of the final plat is premature. City Code S 12.09 Subd. 1 sets
forth the City's final plat approval process which provides that "after the approval
of, or during the review of, the preliminary plat. " the Developer may submit a
final plat drawing and related documentation for all or a part of the land covered
in the preliminary plat." There is no approved preliminary plat for Ridge Creek
and the final plat was not submitted concurrently with a preliminary plat.
Therefore, there is no ability to compare the proposed Pinal Plat to an approved
preliminary plat to determine conformity. The Pinal Plat application is premature
and should be denied as it fails to comply with the City Code requirements.
2. Despite the Final Plat being premature, the Applicant has insisted that the City
review the Pinal Plat. Accordingly, staffhas reviewed the Pinal Plat against all
applicable requirements and recommends denial.
3. Per City Code SS 12.09 Subd. 3 and Subd. 4 the Final Plat must be in substantial
conformity with the preliminary plat, any conditions of preliminary plat approval,
Chapter 12 and the City Code. Further, per City Code S 12.24, each subdivision
ofland must comply with the City's Design Criteria adopted by the City Council
and referenced in Chapter 12 of the City Code. The Design Criteria was most
recently revised on May 4,2004 by Resolution No. 6041 ("Design Criteria") and
is applicable to this application. All Grading, erosion control, storm sewer,
sanitary sewer, utilities, street lights, streets and alleys, sidewalks and trails, lots
and blocks, and landscaping must comply with the City's Design Criteria. See S
12.24 through 12.33 and 12.35
4. The Final Plat plat does not satisfy park dedication as required by City Code
Section 12.34. The final plat drawing and dedication statements do not include
any references to parkland dedication and the application materials do not propose
any payment of park dedication fees. The Park Dedication requirements of S
12.34 have not been met.
D-<6
5. Section lO(2)(A) and (B) of the Design Criteria restricts residential blocks to a
maximum length of 1,300 feet to provide for convenient access, circulation
control and safety of street traffic. Block 1 of the Final Plat is 2072.52 feet in
length and exceeds the maximum length permitted in the City Code by 772.52
feet
6. Section 8 (7) (A) and (B) of the Design Criteria restricts permanent and temporary
cul-de-sac streets in urban areas to 750 feet in length. On the Final plat Crossings
Boulevard is proposed as an over length cul-de-sac. Crossings Blvd. has been
constructed to the east property line of Ridge Creek. However, Crossings Blvd.
does not have a connection on the west side of Ridge Creek. Until that
connection is made, Crossings Blvd. within Ridge Creek will be 2075.27 feet in
length which exceeds the maximum length allowed in Section 8(7) (A) and (B) of
the Design Criteria by 1325.27 feet.
D-'l
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
MEMORANDUM
To: City Council
From: Ryan Hughes, Natural Resources Coordinator
Date: October 4,2007
Case Number: 07054
Subject: Ridge Creek Final Plat
Based on a review of the application materials provided for the Ridge Creek Final Plat
staff recommends denial due to the following:
I. The City's Woodland Management Regulations are applicable to the proposed Final
Plat as the development is on a parcel of land containing a "Woodland." The City's
Code defines "Woodland" to mean "the area within the contiguous drip line created by
a grouping of woody plant species if the grouping contains at least one (1) Tree. City
Code S 11.60 Subd. 9(A). A "Tree" means "a living specimen of a woody plant
species that is either a deciduous tree whose diameter is six (6) inches or greater at
DBH [Diameter Breast Height as defined in City Code S 11.60 Subd. 9(A)], or a
coniferous tree whose height is twelve (12) feet or greater." City Code g 11.60 Subd.
9(A). The Applicant submitted one overall Woodland Management Plan for the
proposed final plats of Ridge Creek and Ridge Creek Bluffs. On both ofthe Plats, the
area within the contiguous dripline created by a grouping of woody plant species
contains 680 Trees. Therefore, the requirements of City Code S 11.60 Subd. 9 apply
to the Final Plats.
2. The specific requirements for the Woodland Management Plan are set forth in City
Code 9 11.60 Subd. 9(B)(2). The Woodland Management Plan submitted with the
Ridge Creek Final Plat does not meet these submission requirements because it does
not include all Trees as defined in Code 9 11.60 Subd. 9(A). Based on Staffs site
visit in October 2,2007, there are Trees (as defined in City Code) on the site that
have not been included on the Tree inventory. Therefore staff cannot determine how
many actual Trees are on each proposed final plat, how many will be removed on
each plat, or how many will be saved on each. The applicant has not met these
requirements by failing to inventory all Trees per S 11.60 Subd. 9(B)(2).
3. Pursuant to City Code g 11.60 Subd. 9(B)(1) any Applicant who desires to remove
any Tree on any parcel of land containing a Woodland must demonstrate that there
are no feasible or prudent alternatives to removing any Tree. The Applicant has
failed to demonstrate that there are no feasible or prudent alternatives to removing the
D-IO
Trees as he as offered no reason as to why these Trees must be removed. Regardless,
based on the review of the Ridge Creek Final Plat, a feasible and prudent alternative
could be to avoid the elimination of Trees within the Natural Resource Corridor Map
approved by City Council at the November 9, 2005 regular meeting. This would
result in saving approximately 34 Trees on the Woodland Management Plan.
A voiding Trees within the natural bluff will not require the elimination of any
developable lots. For 6 lots on the Ridge Creek Final Plat, only the 40-50 feet from
the back lot line would contain an easement prohibiting the removal of Trees. This
would not interfere with the building pads placement of homes on these lots or
setbacks.
4. City Code 9 11.60 Subd. 9(C) requires the replacement of removed trees in
accordance with a specific schedule set forth therein. The Ridge Creek Final Plat
proposes to plant replacement trees in areas inconsistent with the Shakopee Tree
Planting Standards. In accordance with City Code S 7.05 Subd. 1 and adopted by
Resolution No. 3923, the Shakopee Tree Planting Standards restrict planting trees
within City right-of-way. The Ridge Creek Final Plat proposes to plant replacement
trees within City right-of-way which violates City Code S 7.05 Subd. 1.
5. Prior to approving a Woodland Management Plan a conservation easement must be
provided to preserve the natural bluff features such as woodlands, steep slopes, and
erodible soils within the Natural Resource Corridor Map and that the conservation
easement be executed prior to approval of the Final Plat. The Applicant is required to
execute a conservation easement consistent with MN Statute 84C to protect these
natural resources. There is no staff approved conservation easement provided over
the natural bluff and no conservation easement agreement has been executed.
6. For administration and monitoring purposes the conservation easement boundary is
required to be in straight line segments from property line to adjacent property line.
In this case, there is no staff approved conservation easement provided.
7. Based on the foregoing, the Ridge Creek Final Plat fails to comply with the City's
Woodland Management Regulations set forth in City Code S 11.60 Subd. 9 and the
Shakopee Tree Planting Standards set forth in City Code S 7.05 Subd. 1 and therefore
staff recommends denial.
D~1\
City of Shakopee ,
Memorandum
TO: JlJlie Klima, Planner n
FROM: Joe Swentek, Project Engineer
SUBJECT: Final Plat - Ridge Creek Addition
PID NO.: 27-914-001-1,27-914001-2,27-914010-0
CASE NO.: 07054
DATE: October 3, 2007
The application indicates a request for Final Plat approval of a single-family (R1-B) residential
development located North of County Road 16 (Eagle Creek Boulevard) and South of proposed
County Road 21. ' The development is between the Ridgeview Estates Addition and the Riverside
Bluffs Addition. This review should be considered preliminary, as more comments are to follow
with additional submittals.
The Final Plat fails to comply with the City Code and Design Criteria in the following:
1. Several of the proposed street profiles/grades are not in cOlIl;pliance with the City's
minimum design speed standards as outlined in Section 8.17 (Street Vertical Curves) of
the City of Shakopee's Design Criteria. They include, but may 'not be limited to, the
following:
. Crossings Boulevard (pVI Stations):
. 2+68 (90' is provided; 138' is required)
. 7+00 (0' is provided; 20' is required)
. 10+00 (0' is provided; 20' is required)
. Il-H>O (25' is provided; 90' is required)
. 13+10.33 (50' is provided; 90' is required)
. 15+62.50 (0' is provided; 20' is required)
. 17+62.50 (50' is provided; 90' is required)
. 22+19.13 (the proposed' 0.78% street profile does not match the 'proposed
1.00% street profile of the development to the East)
. Ridge Creek Lane (pVI Stations):
. 0+17.50 (0' is provided; 20' is required)
. 6+50n+00 (the applicant should make an attempt to consolidate the two
proposed vertical curves into one)
. 14+44.31 (25' is provided; 90' is required)
Page of S
D-r2-
. 16+00 (50' is provided; 90' is required)
. Ridge Creek Drive (pVI Stations):
. 0+ 17.50 (0' is provided; 20' is required)
. 2+46.40 (50' is provided; 90' is required)
. 4+44.50 (50' is provided; 90' is required)
2. The applicant is showing, but has refused to construct Crossings Boulevard West from
the Ridge Creek Addition to existing Pike Lake Road. The result will be a cul-de-sac
exceeding the maximum allowable ~ength of seven-hundred fifty (750) feet as outlined in
Section 8.7 (Cul-de-sacs) of the City of Shakopee's Design Criteria.
3. The Final Plat fails to comply with the nuiximum allowable discharge rate of 1/10 cubic
feet per second per acre in a lOO-year event as established in Section N.A.9.b of the City
of Shakopee's Comprehensive Stonnwater Management Plan. Per Section 4(1)(A) of the
Design Criteria the applicant's stonnwater management plan must comply with the City's
Comprehensive Storm.water Management Plan. However, as per' the joint powers
. agreement with the Prior Lake - Spring Lake Watershed District, the City of Shakopee is
obligated to pay for its share of improvements to the Prior Lake Outlet Channel based on
contributing stonn water flows. Although the City may permit the proposed. discharge
rate for the site, thus increasing the flow, this is contingent upon the Applicant'l3
agreement (memorialized in a Development Agreement) to reimburse the City the
additional amount incurred ($11,280.00). This amount is in addition to the Trunk Storm.
Water Charges. The applicant has refused to reimburse the City and therefore must
comply with the maximum. allow'able discharge rate in the City's Comprehensive
Stormwater Management Plan. Since the proposed Final Plat is in excess of the
maximum allowable discharge rate, it fails to comply with City Code requirements.
. 4. The Final Plat includes the location of ~ retaining wall in the drainage and utility easements
to be dedicated to the City in the rear of Lots 9-10 of Block 1 (Ridg~ Creek Addition) in
violation of City Code ~~ 4.03, Subd. 2 (D) and ~ 7.18 Subd.1.
5. . The proposed landscaping plan denotes several encroachments into drainage and utilitY
easements containing. emergency overflows (BOF) and drainage and utility easements
containing public utilities. This is in violation of City Code Section 4.03, Subdivision 2 (D)
and ~7.18 Subd.1. Landscaping not in compliance includes, but may not be limited to, the
following areas:
. The drainage and utility easements containing the proposed storm sewer in the rear of
Lots 10-15 of Block 1.
. There are several conflicts between proposed emergency overflows, proposed storm.
sewer, proposed sound walls and proposed landscaping within Outlot D adjacent to
the County Road 21 right-of-way.
Page ofS
D-r~
6. The Final. Plat fails to dedicate to the City the minimum drainage and utility easements
for sanitary sewer and storm sewer in non-paved areas as required by the City of
. Shakopee's Design Criteria, Section 10.1 (A-D). The easements must also be centered
along the utility alignment. Easements not in compliance include, but may not be limited
to, the following:
. For the proposed storm sewer along the West property line of Lot 6 of Block 1, a
minimum of twenty (20) feet of drainage and utility easement is required, centered on
the utility alignment ( 8' is provided to the South).
. For the proposed storm sewer between Lots 6-7 of Block 1, a minimum of thirty-
seven (37) feet of drainage and utility easement is required, centered on the utility
(20' is provided).
. Adequate drainage and utility easements in the rear of Lots 7-9 of Block 1 to
encompass the proposed drainage patterns (proposed drainage flows from a high point
within Lot 8 to the West across Lot 7 and to the East across Lot 9) .has not been.
provided.
. For the proposed storm sewer in the rear of Lots 9-11 of Block 1, a minimum of forty
(40) feet of drainage and utility ~asement is required, centered on the utility alignment
(the easement is not centered.on the proposed storm sewer alignment; From West to
East, the following lots provide the following easements along the North side of the
proposed storm sewer alignment: Lot 9 provides 10' of easement, Lot 10 provides
10' of easement, Lot 11 provides from 7' to 14').
. For the proposed storm sewer in the rear of Lot 13-14 of Block 1, a, minimum of
.
twenty-five (25) feet of drainage and utility easement is required, centered on the
utility alignment (10' is provided).
. For the proposed sanitary sewer between Lots 11-12 of Block 1, a minimum of forty-
. three (43) feet of drainage and utility easement is required, centered on the utility (30'
is provided).
. For the proposed storm sewer between Lots 12-13. of Block 1, a minimum of forty-
three (43) feet of drainage and utility easement is required, centered on the utility (30'
is provided).
. A minimum of seventy (70) feet of drainage and utility easement,.centered on the
approved alignment of the Prior Lake Outlet Channel is required.. This easement shall
be dedicated to the City of Shakopee and to the Prior Lake -.Spring Lake Watershed
District (none is provided).
. The applicant has yet to submit an application for the City of Shakopee and the Prior
Lake - Spring .Lake Watershed District to vacate the existing easement over the
current location of the Prior Lake Outlet Channel.
. For the proposed storm sewer between Lots 11-12 of Block 2, a minimum of forty
(40) feet of drainage and utility easement is required, centered on the utility (30' is
provided).
D-I1
Page of5
7. The applicant did not submit a storm water management plan with the Final Plat as
required. by the Design Criteria Section 4. Based. on prior conununications it is Staff's
understanding that the applicant maintains that he submitted a stormwater management
. plan with his preliminary plat which was previously denied by the CIty Council and
additional drafts during settlement negotiations. The City's consultant WSB has
reviewed many reiterations of the applicant's stormwater management plan during
. preliminary plat review 'and settlement discussions. At no time. has WSB or the City
approved any version of $e applicant's stOrIn water management plan for the site. WSB' s
comments on the many reiterations are contained in WSB's memoranda including but not
. limited to those dated May 9, 2007, May 16,2007, June 5, 2007, June 25,2007, and e-
mail of August 23; 2007 attached hereto. The incorporation of WSB's comments may
significantly impact the proposed. Final Plat drawings, the proposed grading and erosion
control plans and the proposed street and utility plans.
8. The applicant is proposing to fill wetlands on site but has not received approval from the
City Council as required by the City's Comprehensive Storwmwater Management Plail,
Design Criteria Section 4(1)(A) and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act
administered by the City. There is no approved wetland mitigation plan for the site.
9~ The applicant has not agreed to pay the assessment, in the amount of $236,253.24, for the
trunk . sanitary sewer project nor has the applicant requested an apportionment of this
amount among any lots.
10. . The applicailt has not agreed to be responsible for grading the new alignment ot the Prior
Lake Outlet Channel and the establishment of turf prior to abandoning the exi~ting
channel and prior to building pennit issuance. .
11. The applicant has not agreed to grade the entire site in one phase prior to October 15,
2008. Grading shall be defined as bringing the site up to the proposed finished. grade with
materials deemed acceptable by the City of Shakopee engineering department, providing
topsoil per City requirements. applying seed and mulch or sod per City requirements and
providing an as-built grading plan prior to issuance of building permits per Section 2.5
(As-built Grading Plan) of the City of Shakopee's Design Criteria.
12. The radii of concrete curb and gutter leading i.nto all cul-de-sacs shall be fifty (50) feet.
The right-of-way adjacent to this curb and gutter shall be parallel. The proposed Final
Plat drawing does not reflect this right-of-way.
13. The applicant is proposing excavation on site for borrow purposes which is likely below
the groundwater table and creates concerns with regard to groundwater contamination.
Page of 5 .D-15
Recommendation
Engineering staff recommends deniai of the Final Plat as it fails to comply with the City's Code,
Design Griteria and generally accepted engineering practices.
D-I(O
Page of5
.
.
r WSB
& Associates, 1m:. Infrastructure . Engineering I Planning I Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763-541-4800
Memorandum Fax: 763-541-1700
To: Joe Swentek, P.E., City of Shako pee
From: Ted Witkowski, Engineering Specialist 1'1J2-
cc: Bruce Loney, P. E., City of Shakopee
Todd E. Huhmer, P.E., WSB
Julie Klima, City of Shakopee
Kim Kozar, KIlB & X, P.A.
Date: May 9, 2007
Re: Ridge Creek Stormwater Management Plan Review
City of Sltakopee, MN
WSB Project No. 1281-91
The Ridge Creek Development stormwater management plans and preliminary construction plans have
been reviewed for conformance with the City's overall stormwater nianagement plan. The site is
located immediately north otEagle Creek BO]Jlevard (CSAR 16) and east of the proposed Pike .Lake
Road extension to the north. The documents provided for review by Plowe Engineering included the
following:
. Ridge Creek storm water runoff memorandum - dated 02/21/06
. Summary of drainage calculations - dated 09/21/05 - revised 02/22/06
. HydroCad storm water management calculations - dated 02/21/06
. Ridge Creek preliminary storinwater management delineation .maps - Sheets 24-25 - dated
02122/06
" Ridge Creek preliminary construction plans - dated 11121/02-modited 02122/06-signed 05/07/07
. Ridge Creek Storm Sewer Design Calculations - dated 05/09/07
. Ridge Creek Storm Sewer Drainage Area Map - dated 05/04/07
The Ridge Creek storm water management plans and preliminary construction plans were previously
reviewed on January 5, 2006, and March 9,2006. The development plans and site layout have
undergone modification by the developer's engineer. The outstanding issues from the previous reviews
will be included as part of this document. Please be advised that Mr. Todd Hubmer has not had an-
opportunity to review the documents due to the shorted review time requested by the City. Based on my
review of the stormwater management plans and preliminary construction plans, I offer the following
comments and observations for your consideration:
Minneapolis I St. Cloud
Equal Opportunity Employer K: '0 /28/-9/ ;A"III;n:D(jc,"MEM(}-jsll'~llIfk-lljIJlJ1l7.d(j"
D.)l
Mr. Joe Swentek
May 9,2007
Page 2
Summarv
. The IQw building opening for Lots 1-18, Block 6 does not appear to conform with the Cityts 3
foot frreboard requirements. This must be modified as discussed in greater detail later.
. The developer's proposed storinwilter management water quality calculations are in
. conformance with the Cityts stormwater management plan requirements for the site. Please be
, advised that the Pond 1 & 2 depths exceed 10'. maximum recommendations for a water q~ality
treatment pond and the dead pool volume being created exceeds the required water quality
. volume by 10 times. It is .recommended that the Ponds be constructed to a depth of 8' below the
normal water elevation due to safety concerns for the residents adjacent to the ponds.
. The majority of storm water management rate control model for the site appears to be in
conformance with the site requirements. The storm water modeling for the CSAH 16 drainage
area will require minor modification to reflect .the fully developed conditions and adjustment .of
the SCS CN for the drainage area. This revision will be discussed in detail later in the review.
. The Prior Lake Outlet Channel structure design for Ridge Creek Lane and Ridge Creek Drive
was not included as part of this submittal. It was indicated by the developer's engineer that tbe
stru<:ture design would be included as part of the final construction plans. The preparation ofthe
detailed design planst hydraulic risk assessment, permits, and coordination with the regulatory
agencies are anticipated to be primarily the responsibility of the developer's engineer.
. The developer's engineer has indicated that the Prior Lake Outlet Channel structures at Ridge
Creek Lane and Ridge Creek Drive will be increased in capacity to serve as the emergency
overflow route. The additional capacity requirements to be used in the final design documents
will be discussed in detail later in the review.
. The storm sewer system design calculations do not appear to include storm 'water discharge from
CR 21 and CSAH 16. The storm sewer design must be revised to include runoff from the CR 21
future right of way and CSAH 16 fully developed conditions in the analysis. It is requested that
the fully developed conditions storm water. runoff from these areas be included in the stonn
sewer design calculations.
. The preliminary stormwater management plan delineation map should include the entire CR 21
right of way north of the site. The CSAH 16 right of way drainage area to the centerline of the
road should be used in the storm sewer drainage area map and analysis. The storm water
drainage of this area should reflect the fully developed conditions in the analysis. It is
recommended that the developer's engineer obtain a copy of the proposed CSAH 16 road plans
for the analysis.
. The storm sewer design calculations provided for review contain discrepancies between the
structure identification in the plans and design calculations. Due to the limited review timet the
utility plans could not be reviewed to verity adequate system capacity. In order to complete the
review the structure identification discrepancies must be corrected for future submittals.
. The storm sewer design calculations should include catch basin spacing calculation for Crossing
Boulevard in the event that this road is added to the City State Aid routes. The use of 0.4 as a
runoff coefficient for Crossing Boulevard does not represent the percentage of impervious
K:'lJ/ 21i/-9/.Atlmill Dllt'S MEMO.j.~II'eJllek-(Jj(19U7.Juc
D~11
Mr. Joe Swentek
. May 9, 2007
Page 3
surface in the road drainage areas. The. runoff coefficients for the road should be revised in the
stonnsewer design to reflect the amount of impervious surface within the road right of way.
Based on our review ofth"e preliminary construction phmst the project,. as currently proposed, does not
meet the City's stormwater management policies. I would recommend the plans not be approved at this
time. The following contains a list of items that should be addressed by the developer in future
submittals:
General Comments
1. The design for the upsizing of the Prior Lake Outlet Channel structures to serve as the
emergency overflow route for the Prior Lake Outlet Chl;lnnel should be_ forwarded for review. It
was indicate~ by the developer's engineer that the structures would be increased in capacity. It is
requested that the structures be increased to include an additional 60 square feet below elevation
755. It is requested that this design element be addressed in the construction plans. Please be
advised that the overflow route going north over Crossings Boulevard into Block 6 from the
Prior Lake Outlet Channel will require modifications to insure freeboard to the low building
openings for Lots 1-4, Block 6. The grading phin of the overflow elevation to the east appears to
be at elevation 756 which is within 1.0 feet of the low building openings. (Sheet 5)
2. - The low building elevations for Lots 1-18, Block 6 do not appear to have 3' offreeboard to the
Prior Lake Outlet Channel water surface elevation of755.3. The low building will require
- modification to meet the freeboardreqiJirements. The low floor elevation for the structures that
are hydraulically connected to the Prior Lake Outlet Channel from Pond 1 and 2 should be at
elevation 758.3 or higher.
Storm Water Modelin2
1. The storm water modeling input for subcatchment 9S of the CSAH 16 right of way should use
an SC8 CN of 85 to reflect the fully developed conditions. The use of an SC8 CN of 65 does not
reflect the fully developed conditions for the right of way with the future widening and
coristruction or"the path. Please modify the model input accordingly.
2. The stonn water modeling output for the lOO-year 24-hour event for subcatchments 98, 129,
138, 148 does not correspond to the notes shown on sheets 24 & 25. The water volume and
discharge rate notes should correspond to the model output.
3. The Pond 1 and 2 outlets should be modeled with skimmer devices to be consistent with the City
policies. The construction plans should include skimmer device details that correspond to the
outlet structure model input.
4. The CR 21 right of way subwatersheds 128, 138, and 14 S should be modeled under fully
developed conditions with an SCS CN of 85. The use of an SCS CN of 61 is not representative
of the future runoff from this area. The-model input should be modified to reflect the fully
developed conditions.
K::O/281-9/-.4dmlll Doc.' MHMO-jsu'.IlI.k.OSU907.,IlI"
D-Ig
Mr. Joe Swentek
. May 9. 2007
Page 4
Sheet 1 - Cover Sheet
1. T~e Oak Ridge Trail street name should be correspond with the Ridgeview Farms development
street name of Oak Ridge Avenue..
Sheet 3 - Preliminary Plat
.1. It is requested that the City evaluate easement .widths for the following lots. It is estimated the
. storm sewer systems will be approximately 12 feet deep in front ofthe walkout structures. The
width of the easements in the vicinity of the front of these walkout structures should be
evaluated for future replacement or maintenance of the systems. This condition exists in the
following locations:
. Lots 10-11, Block 1 (13 feet)
. Lot8.18-19, Block J{l5 feet)
. Lots 20-21, Block 3 (lS feet)
. Lots 11-12, Block 4 (16 feet)
. Lots 1-2, Block 7 (14 feet)
. Lots 7-8, Block 7 (14 feet)
. Lots 10-12, Block 6 (12 feet)
2. The drainage and utility easement between Lots 11-12, Block4, will encompass a 48-inch
diameter storm sewer pipe which may require additional width due to the trench bottom required
for removal or installation of a new system at this locati9n. The drainage and utility easements
along this property boundary should also incorporate the pipe depth and diameter to establish the
necessary easement width.
3. The storm sewer drainage utility easement along the Lots 6-10. Block I, rear yard area is
approximately 5' on the north side of the system. It is recommended that 10' of width be
provided in this area.
4. . The drainage and utility easement on the east side of Lot 19, Block 3 should 00.10' in width in
the vicinity ofCB 47.
5. The drainage and ~tiJity easement in Lot 16, Block 3 does not appear to be 10' from the storm
seweI: on the north side. The easements should be modified in this area.
Sheet 4 - Preliminarv Phit
1. The drainage and utility easement over the storm sewer in the rear yards of Lots 16-24, Blos;k 7,
appears to be within 5' of the stann sewer pipe on the south side. It is recommended that 10' be
provided on the south side of the stann sewer system. The drainage and utility easements in this
area should be modified.
2. The proposed gas line easement across Lots 29, Block 6, appears to overlap the proposed
building pads. Easements in this area should be verified and corrected as necessary.
K: .111181.111..4<1111111 Doc,. MIiMCJ:/.t,,'<m<k-OjD907.dflC
D-20
Mr. Joe Swentek
.. May 9, 2007
Page 5
3. The Outlot C boundary located on the.northeast comer of the site does not appear to be
accurately defined. The property boundaries in this area should be modified as necessary to
reflect the Lot 30-31 property limits.
4. Th~ drainage and utility easements on Lot 7-8, Block 6 should encompass the overland overflow
route.
5. 'the storm sewer drainage and utility easemen~ across Lot 1, Block 6, over the storm sewer
from CB 3 to CB 4 should be verified. It appears t~at the proposed system does not have a 10.
drainage and utility easement on the west.
Sheet 5 - Preliminary Gradine Plan
1. The emergency overflow routes and elevations from all street lowpoints, rear-yard depressions,
and the Prior Lake Outlet Channel overflow route should be included in the plans. The spot
elevations indicating the overflow elevation must be shown on the plans for the following
locations: Oak Creek Drive Low Point - CB 28, Oak Creek Drive Low Point- CB 5, Ridge
Creek Drive-CB 31, Ridge Creek Drive LowPoint-CB 36, Ridge Creek Drive- CB 33, and
. Oak Creek Drive - CB 5.
2. The overflow from the Prior Lake Outlet Channel appears to be directed across Lot 25, Block 3,
into the rear yard areas at elevation 756 based on the proposed grading plan. The overflow from
the channel was not anticipated to be directed to this area. Please show the top of berm elevation
between the Prior Lake Outlet Channel and the rear yard of Lot 25, Block 3. The Prior lake
outlet Channel should not be allowed to overflow to this area.
3. The extension of the proposed trail on the southeast corner of the site adjacent to the Riverside
Bluffs development through the park area should be illustrated on the grading plan.
4. The overflow elevations for the rear-yard depressions of Block 6 adjacent to the future CSAH 21
right-of-way on the north east appear to be within l' oftbe low building openings. The overflow
elevations'must be lowered to provide at least 1 foot of freeboard. The emergency overflow
route located in the northwest comer oftbe site should be located within a drainage and utility
easement.
Sheet 6 - Preliminary Gradinl! Plan
1. The emergency overflow route and elevations from the street lowpoint on Ridge Creek Lane at .
CB 36 should be illustrated on the gra~ing plan.
2. The drainage from the street low point in the northeast quadrant of Ridge Creek Court and Ridge
Creek Drive intersection .should be addressed with storm sewer. It appears that a depression will
be created in this location adjacent to the curb based on the street grades.
3. The emergency overflow elevation on the southeast corner of Lot 12, Block 2, does not appear
to provide the required freeboard to the low building opening for Lot 13, Block 2. The overflow
elevation at this location should be modified to provide the required freeboard to the low
building opening or the structure type should be changed from a lookout to a rambler for Lot 13
in order to provide sufficient freeboard.
K:-(1I2/i1-9I'Adm/n Om,.. MIiMO-j.'lI'tm,.k.(Jj(/907.d'I('
D-'21
Mr. Joe Swentek
May 9, 2007
Page 6
4. The emergency overflow route ~nd elevation from the Oak Ridge Trail street low point should
, be illustrated on the grading plan. It appears that conveyance noJ,ih from the street lowpoint to
the walkouts located in Lots 19-23, Block 3, may not have adequate freeboard to the low
building opening. The overflow elevations and the rear yard depressions should be shown on
the grading plan. The issue of the grading plan providing an overflow from the Prior Lake
Outlet Channel into these rear-yard depressions adjacent to the walkouts was previously
discussed. The grading in this area and low-b1,1ilding openings will require further review once
the emergency overflow route for the Prior Lake Outlet channel east of Ridge Creek Drive has
been updated.
S. The drainage and utility easement on Lot 12 and 13, Block I, for the overland overflow from the
rear-yard depressions to the east should be adjusted to encompass the stonnwater conveyance
route. It appears that the overland overflow route will be iil close proximity to Lot 13, Block 1,
walkout. The grading plan in this area should define a swale for the overflow from this area
. which is inward of a drainage and utility easement
6. The emergency overflow elevation between Lots 10-11, Block 2, should be defined in order to
evaluate the freeboard provided to the low building openings within the rear yards of Block 2.
The overflow route elevation of 778.5 appears to be within 0.9' of the Lot 10, Block 2 finished
grade at the structure. The proposed building elevation, and/or the overflow route must be
modified toprovide l' offreeboard to.the structure.
Sheet 7 - Preliminary Utility Plan
1. The Pond I stonn sewer outlet structure should be illustrated in the utility plan. The storm
sewer outlet from Pond 1 should include a skimmer structure as outlined in the City's
stormwater policies. The structure detail should be included in the final construction plans.
2. The Pond 2 storm sewer outlet should include a skimmer structure similar to the Pond 1 outlet
structure.
3. The stann sewer connection to CB 23 (canst. plan,ID) indicates that the structure will not have
adequate structure wall between the pipes. It does not appear to be constuctable. Please review
the storm sewer configuration and constructability of the system.
4. The high water elevation of Pond 1 and 2 is 755.3 based on tail water from the Prior Lake Outlet
, Channel water surface elevation. Please update the highwater elevations on all plan sheets for
Pond 1 & 2.
5. The Prior Lake Outlet Channel structures sizes and types at Ridge Creek Lane and Ridge Creek
Drive should be illustrated on the plans. The final plans should include the plan sheet for these
structures.
6. The stonn sewer structure identification numbers do not correspond to the design calculations.
The stom1 sewer system data will not be reviewed at this time due to limited review time.
7. The utility plans should include a structure schedule to verify the structure type, structure
diameter, and casting type.
K: 1I128/~91 Adm;II.!)"".. MEMO-j....III.k-115IJ907.,ltlC
D': 2.2.
Mr. Joe Swentek
May 9, 2007
Page 7
8. The storm sewer from CB 4 -5 (canst. 'plan In) app~rs to be in close proximity to the sanitary
sewer in Oak Ridge Trail. The utility clearance should be reviewed by the developer's engineer.
9. The stQnn sewer from CR 19-20 (canst Plan In) appears to.be in close proximity with the
sanitary sewer. Please review clearance.
10. The. stann sewer from CBMH 15-14 in the re~ yard {)f Lot 28, Block 7 does not appear to have
10' of drainage and utility easement on the west side of the pipe. Please review the easement
width at this location.
it. The. drainage of the northwest quadrant of Ridge Creek Court and Ridge Creek Drive should be
provided in the design which should include a catch basin.
12. The structure identification upstream ofCB 34 (const. plan ID) should be added to the plan.
13. The watennain in the northwest quadrant of Crossings Boulevard and Oak Creek Drive appears
to be incomplete.
Sheet 8 - Preliminarv Utility Plan
1. The drainage and utility easement over the storm sewer on Lots 16, Block 3, should be verified
for 10 feet of horizontal distance from the storm sewer system.. The hydraulic angle of the storm
sewer system at CBMH 52 (canst. plan ID) is not recommended.
2. The drainage arid utility easement over the stOrnl sewer system from CB-72 to CB-69 in the rear
yards of Block 1 should be verified for 10 feet of horizontal distance on the north side.
3. The stann sewer pipe between CB-42 and CB-41 appears to be in close proximity to the sanitary
sewer manhole within Ridge Creek Lane. . It may be beneficial to move CB-41 east in order to
create horizontal separation between the two utilities.
4. The storm sewer manhole located in Ridge Creek Lane south of Lot 6, Block 4 should include
structure data.
5. The storm sewer configuration at CB 41 creates a poor hydraulic angle in the system. It is
recommended that tbe system direct flow from CB 41 north to CB42 and continue in the north
curb line to CB 40.
Sheet 14 - Storm Sewer and Street Profiles
.
1. The riprap quantity should use the standard plate volumes included in the City of Shakopee
details plates. The entire storm sewer system apron outfaUs should use the quantities listed in
the City of Shakopee standard plates. The apron outfalls and inlets should include trashguards
as shown in the City of Shakopee standard details.
2. The storm sewer system aprons and last three pipe joints to all inlets and outfalls should be tied
to improve the storm sewer structural integrity.
K: {}J]8J.9I'Aumill Duc:.<'A{[;MO-j,"fllllldc-Oj09i/7.cIIIc
D~23
Mr. Joe Swentek
. May 9, 2007
Page 8
3. The storm sewer profiles were not verified with the design calculation at this time. Once the
developer's engineer updates the structure identification in the plans with the design
, calculations, we will verify the profiles.
4. The sanitary sewer and watermain crossings with the storm sewer were not verified as part 'of
this review. The developer's engineer should verify and resolve conflicts, with other pipe
networks
Sheet 15 - Storm Sewer and Street Profiles
l. The Ponds 1 and 2 pipe outlet profile should include skimmer structures'as previously indicated.
The pipe profiles will require modifications to include the outlet skimmer structures. The
structure detail should be incorporated into the plans.
2. The storm sewer outfall from CB-31 appears to be a rather steep slope, 10.6%. It is
recommended that the structure build for CB-31 be increased in order to flatten the outfall pipe
to Pond 2. It was anticipated that ~is will reduce the outfall velocities of the storrnwater into
Pond 2 and reduce erosion.
Sheet 16 - Storm 'Sewer Street Profiles
L The storm sewer pipe profiles from CBMH-53 to CBMH S2 should be flattened to reduce the
velocities in the storm sewer system. It was anticipated that the build for CBMH-S3 and
CBMH-52 could be increased in order to reduce the velocities in the storm sewer and eliminate
a hydraulic grade line that may exceed the rim elevation of CBMH-52. The hydraulic grade line
in the storm sewer system design at CBMH-S2 should be verified once these calculations have,
been completed.
2. The storm sewer profiles were not verified at this time.
Sheet 17 - Storm Sewer and Street Profiles
1. The storm sewer pipe from CB-57 to CB-S6 does not appear to provide adequate pipe cover at
Sta. 4+00 based on the proposed design. It is recommemJed that a minimum of 1.75 feet of '
cover be provided above the pipe in this area.
2. The CB-45 structure build proposed on the pipe profile does not appear to be necessary at this
location. It is requested that the s1ructure build for CB-45 be reduced in depth in the final
design.
3. The storm sewer profiles were not verified at this time.
Sheet 18 - Storm Sewer and Street Profiles
1. It is recommended that the pipe slope from CB-56 to CB-51 be flattened in order to reduce the
anticipated velocities within the system and limit the hydraulic grade line through CB-51, which
may exceed to 4.45 foot build proposed in the design. It would appear that this system could be
flattened to a slope which is consistent with the sanitary sewer that it is between Lots 1-8, Block
3.
K:'/J /211/-9/ Adll/;/l'/)oc.o .Mli"MO-j.nvenrek-l/jl/9/J7,tltJt,
D.2lf
Mr. Joe Swentek
, May 9,2007
Page 9
2. The storm sewer profiles were not verified at this time.
Sheet 21- Preliminarv Park Trail Plan
.
1. The future park trail on the northeast side of the Prior Lake Outlet Channel within the park
should be illustrated on the plan sheet.
This completes my review of the Ridge Creek Stormwater Management Plan and preliminary
construction plans. If you. have any questions or comments associated with this review, please do not
hesitate to contact me at your convenience.
Ihlsm
K:'O/2/1/-9/'AJmin JJoc.fMI:.'MO-j.f1I'l1Jllek-OSIJ907.J,,"
D~25
~
L A.
,
. WSB
& Associates, Inc. Infrastructure I Engineering I Planning I Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis. MN 55416
Memorandum Tel: 763.541-4800
Fax: 763-541-1700
To: Joe Swentek, P.E., City ofShakopee
From: Ted Witkowski, Engineering Specialist ~ JJil-
cc: Bruce Loney, P. E., City of Shakopee
Todd E. Hubmer, P.E., WSB
Julie Klima, City of Shakopee
Kim Kozar, KHB & K, P.A.
Date: May 16, 2007
Re: Ridge Creek Storm Sewer Design Calculations Review
City of Shakopee, MN
WSB Project No. 1281-91
The Ridge Creek Development storm sewer ~esign calculations have been reviewed for conformance
. . with the City's overallstormwater management plan. The Ridge Creek development is located
immediately north of Eagle Creek Boulevard (CSAH 16) and east of the proposed Pike Lake Road
extension to the north. The documents provided for review by Plowe Engineering included the .
following:
. Ridge Creek Storm Sewer Design Calculations - dated 05/09/07 (email)
. Ridge Creek Storm Sewer Drainage Area Map - dated 05/04/07 (email)
The Ridge Creek storm sewer design calculations were previously reviewed on January 5, 2006, and
March 9,2006. The outstanding issues from the previous reviews will be included as part of this
document. Based on my review of the storm sewer design calculations, I offer the following comments
and observations for your consideration:
Comments and Observations
.. The storm sewer design calculations will require modifications to include the fully developed.
conditions CR 21 and CSAH 16 right-of-way areas. The design calculations should reflect.
runoff coefficients that are consistent with the amount of impervious surface within the right-of-
way corridors. The runoff coefficient is assumed to be approximately 0.7 to reflect the amount
of impervious surface in the right-of-way. The fully developed conditions for the right-of-way
should be used in the design calculations.
. The stonn sewer system design calculations do not appear to match pipe crowns or at least 80%
of the pipe size difference (0.2' per pipe size increase). It is recommended that the design
calculations include this typical design.practice.
Minneapolis I St. Cloud
Equal Opportunity Employer K:'11I11i 1-91IAtlmln\DfJc..WEMO-.J..wU/,,~k'(IJ J JO'.tlIIC
D-2lo
J
.
Mr. Joe Swentek
I May 15, 2007
Page 2
. The storm sewer system data in the construction plaris should correspond with the storm sewer
. <I~sjgn calculations data. The plan view data and profile data should be updated.
. It is requested that the storm sewer system hydraulicgradeline from CB 8 (drainage map 10) to
Pond 2 be provided to evaluate the system capacity and comparison of the hydraulic.gradeline
with the storm sewer rim elevations.
. The storm sewer system configuration at CBMH 60, CBMH 5, and CBMH 33 (drainage map
ID) appears to create poor hydraulic angles. Please provide a system configuration that improves
the hydraulic angles at these locations.
. It is recommended that the storm sewer system be tied at locations that exceed an 8.00% vertical
slope. The storm sewer system should include anti siphon diaphragms-concrete collars from
CBMH 8 to CBMH 4, and from CB 7 to CBMH 4. It appears that these segments of the stonn
sewer system down the bluff due to the vertical slopes could be susceptible to undermining.
. The 48" apron diameter indicated at the Pond 2 outfall does not appear to correspond to the 42"
.
diameter pipe from CBMH 1 to Pond 2. Please verify. and correct as necessary. .
. The storm sewer system tabulation should be included in the construction plans for review.
Please verify the tabulation data with the design data..
. The majority of the storm sewer system appears to be designed to meet the 3 feet per second
velocities criteria with the exception of the following segments: CBMH 44 to CBMH 43
(2.5fps), 12" Apron to CBMH 63 (2.8 fps). The segments of the system at 2.9 fps appear to be
within acceptable velocity limits for the design.
Based on my review of the preliminary storm sewer design, I would recommend the design and
construction plans for the storm sewer not be approved at this time. It h~ requested that the design be
updated to address these issues. In addition, it is requested that the updated design calculations arid
construction plans be submitted simultaneously to expedite the review process.
This completes my review of the Ridge Creekstorm sewer design and drainage area map. If you have
any questions or comments associated with this review, please do not hesitate to contact me at your
convenience.
Ihlsm
K: :()/18/.9 /\AcJmilliDocs}.{EMO-j,'1l'illlrk.OJI J07.cJrJC
D-21
...
. WSS.
& Asgocialu. Inc. Infrastructure _ Engineering _ Planning _ Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 30D
. Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763541-48DO
Fax: 763 541.1700
Memorandum
To: Joe Swentek, PE, City of Shako pee
From: Todd E. Hubmer, PE, WSB & Associates, Inc.
Ted Witkowski, Engineering SpeCialist, WSB & Associates, Inc.1\-d...
cc: Bruce Loney, PE, City of Shakopee
Julie Klima, City of Shakopee
Kim Kozar, KHB&K, PA .
Date: June 5, 2007
Re: Ridge Creek Storm water Management Plan .and Grading Plan Review
City of Shako pee, MN
WSB Project No. 1281-91
The Ridge Creek Development stonnwater management plans and preliminary grading plans have been
reviewed for conformance with the City's overall stonnwater management plan. The site is located
. immediately north of Eagle Creek Boulevard CCSAR 16} and east of the proposed Pike Lake Road
extension to the north. The documents provided for review by Plowe Engineering included the
following:
. Ridge Creek stonnwater management plan response memorandum to 05/09/07 review
comments - dated OS/29/07; received the e-mail 05/30/07
- Ridge Creek storm sewer design response memorandum to 05/16/07 review - dated OS/29/07;
received via e-mail 05/30/07
. Response memorandum to ~ity review comments - ~ted OS/29/01; received via e-mail
05/30/07
. Ridge Creek preliminary plat - sheets 3 & 4 - signed 05/30/07; received 05/31/07 via e-mail
. Ridge Creek grading plan - sheets 1, 6 - signed OS/29/07; received 05/30/07 via e-mail
. Storm sewer design calculations - 02612 pipe sizing .x1s - undated - received 05/30/07 & -
6/04107 via e-mail
. Ridge Creek stonn sewer drainage area map - revised OS/29/07 - received 05/31/07
. Ridge Creek storin water drainage area map - revised OS/2107 & 2/22/06 - received 06/04/07
The documents provided do not completely address the review comments from May 9 and May 16,
2007. This review will primarily focus on the preliminary plat and preliminary grading plans. The
stormwater management calculations and stormwater drainage area mapping was received today.
1..'10 /18/.9 JlAd/llilllDocsIMEM()..isN'tJllIek-060407.do~
D-2~
Mr. Joe Swel1tek
June 5, 2007
Page 2
Therefore, review of the storm water design calculations for conformance with the previous comments
and response memorandum will be limited in nature. The stoim sewer system design and drainage area .
. map are proposed to be reviewed simultaneously with the construction plans, as indicated in the May 16
review c01I1IIlents. The storm sewer design calculations and preliminary utility plans have been.
reviewed as part of the submittal documents. However, the final storm sewer desi~ calculations will
require verification with the construction plans once they have been provided.
Summary.
. It is recommended that the grading plan and preliminary plat not be approved at this time. The
Prior Lake outlet channel emergency overflow route east of Ridge Creek Drive bas not been
revised from previous submittals. The developer's engineer proposed to construct an emergency
. overflow similar to the grading plan that was previously reviewed in January, 2006 and it was
determined that significant modificati~ns to the grading plan, as well as the drainage utility
easements. within Block 7 would be required to accommodate the proposed overland overflow
. . route. The following items would be required in the grading plan and plat to accommodate an
overland overflow route as proposed:
0 The grading plan in the rear yards of Lois 26, Block 7, on the southeast comer, should be
revised for the construction of a channel of adequate capacity below elev. 757.4, which
would require a bottom elevation of756.4 and;30 feet in width. This emergency
overflow channel section will also be required across Lotsl-2, Block 6 and 17,18, and
19 of Block 7.
0 The drainage and utility easements within Lots 1-2, and 17-34, Block 7, will require
modification to encompass the area of inundation to elev. 757.5 at a minimum to
accommodate the proposed overflow route.
0 The proposed overland overflow route at the elevations defined above will offer
approximately one foot of flow within the overflow prior to the Prior Lake outlet
channel overflowing into the rear yards of Block 3 at elev. 757.5. ~e to the proposed
emergency overflow route by the developer's engineer, significant modifications to the
grading plan and plat north of Crossing Boulevard within Block 7 will be required.
0 TIlls emergency overflow at the elevations indicated above is necessary to provide flood
protection for structures upstream of the Ridge Creek development with low building
openings that would be subject to potential flooding based on the current grading plan
and emergency overflow e1ev~ons.
0 It may be necessary to eliminate one or two lots to adequately accommodate the
currently proposed emergency overflow. Additionally, the lots containing the overflow
will need additional protections and easement limitations to prevent alterations to the
EOF. These restrictions should include: no construction offencing, gardens, grading
alterations, or placement of out buildings within the easements. These limitations may
be troublesome, as many of the yards are adjacent to Ctossings Boulevard and residents
will want fences for security, safety and aesthetics.
0 We still prefer and recommend the option of a third box culvert or three-sided structure
to provide an adequate EOF.
D-2q KIOI281-PllAdllllnIDOl'slMEMO-jswel/lek.060407.dor
Mr. Joe 8wentek
June 5,2007
Page 3
The review of the remaining documents provided indicates that the storm sewer design calculations are
incomplete.. The storm sewer systems on O~ Creek Drive have not been incorporated into the design
calculations. Please find the followmg comments associated with the stonn sewer design calculations
and preliminary utility plan (Sheet 7-8).
. The Oak Creek Drive stonn sewer structures CB64A, CB64, CB60B, and CB60C were provided
via e-mail on June 4 in the afternoon. Due to the limited time for review, we may.provide
additional comments at a later date. The calculations contained discrepancies and errors from
CB 64 to CB 60 based on the pipe lengths and slopes. Please correct the design calculation pipe
lengths and slopes fofthese segments of the system.
. The hydraulic grade line calculations for the storm sewer system from CB8 to CBMH4 should
be provided for review to evaluate the system capacity. Please be advised that the addition of
CBMH4A within the storm sewer system includes a 4-foot drop which may reduce the hydraulic
grade line below the structure rim elevations. Please provide the hydraulic grade line
calculations as previously requested.
. The stormwater discharge velocities from CB38 to Pond 2 at 13 ft. per second during full flow
should be reduced to minimize the potential erosion at the apron outfall.
. The stann sewer design calculations for apron pipe diameters to CBS7 andCB59 should be
verified and corrected as necessary.
. The 12-inch diameter pipe from CB2 into CBMHl in the design calculation should be modified
to.a IS-inch diameter pipe.
. The following comment items require verification between the storm sewer design calculations and
preliminary utility sheet 7 and 8:
. The apron pipe diameter to CBMH37 should be verified and corrected.
. The location ofCB43 should be moved to the Crossing Boulevard curb line.
. The structure identifications for CB40, CB41, and CB42 should be shown on the plan sheet.
. The storm sewer pipe slope from CBMH S2 to CBMH S 1 should correspond to the design
values.
. The pipe slope .from CB60 to CB60A should be verified with the design calculations and
corrected as necessary.
. The storm sewer pipe slope from CBS8A to MHD should be verified with the design
calculations and corrected as necessary.
. The pipe apron diameter to.CB34 on Sheet 8 should be verified and corrected as necessary.
. The pipe slope from CB34 to CB33 on Sheet 8 should be verified with the design calculations.
. The pipe data from CB32 to MHC should be updated on Sheet 8 to correspond with the design
calculations.
. The apron elevation on Lot 12, Block 3, to CB32 should be verified with the design calculations
and cOlTected as necessary.
. The pipe diameter from CB2 to CB 1 should be increased to a 15-inch diameter at a minimum in
the design calculations and on Sheet 8.
D-?i) KID/ 18/-9 JlAdRli"lDocslMEMO;iswentek-06D407.dOl'
Mr. Joe Swentek
. June 5, 2007
Page 4
. The pipe length from MIlA to CB 1 should correspond to the design calcmations. Please correct
and modify as necessary.
. The pipe slope from CBMH7 to CBMH6 should be updated on Sheet 8 to correspond with the
design calculations. . .
. The pipe inverts at CBl2 on Sheet 8 should be verified with the design calculations and
corrected as necessary.
. The pipe slope from CBl2 to CB8 should be ~pdated to correspond to the design calculations on
Sheet 8.
. The pipe slope from. CB 11 to CB lOon Sheet 8 should correspond to the design calculations.
. The pipe slope frQm CB20 to CBl90n Sheet 8 should correspond to the design calculations.
. The pipe slope from CB27 to CB28 should be verified with the design calculati9ns.
. The Pond 1, skimmer structure should be located above the normal water elevation of the grading
plan. The pond should not overflow into the skimmer strucQu'e for events less than the 100-
year, 24-hour storm. Please review the proposed pond skimmer location and relocate
. accordingly.
Preliminarv Plat - Sheets 3 & 4
. The 4rainage and utility easements on Lot 12, Block 3, should be evaluated in the area of the
proposed storm sewer apron. It appearS that the apron is located outside of the drainage and
utility easement.
. The drainage and utility easement on Lot 17, Block 3, should be verified for 10 feet of
horizontal sepaxation from the storm sewer system in the rear yards. The preliminary utility plan
did not appear to have 10 feet of horizontal separation.
. The drainage and utility easement on Lot 5, Block 1, does not appear to have 10 feet of
horizontal sepaxation from CB24. Please verify and correct as necessary.
. The drainage and utility easement of Lots 7~8, Block 6 (Sheet 4), does not appear to encompass
the overland overflow route to elev. 756 as shown on the grading plan. The easements across
Lots 7 and 8 should encompa55 the overland overflow route to the overflow elevation of756 as a
minimum. . .
. The Lot 29, Block 6, proposed gas line easement does not appear to be completed with respect
to the tie-in point on the northwest comer of the lot. Please verify and correct as necessary.
. The drainage and utility easement over the overflow route to the northwest should be
incorporated into the plat
. The drainage and .utility easement over Lots 17-34, Block 7, should be revised to encompass
elev. 757.5 as the result of the proposed emergency overflow route in this area. This issue was
discussed with Mr. Charles Plowe on 06/04/07 based on the proposed overflow system for the
Prior Lake outlet channel.
D-31 KID /28/ -9/lAtflllilllDocsIMEMO;js ",,,,,.k-060407.,lor
MI. Joe Swentek
! . . June 5, 2007
Page 5
Stormwater Modelin~
. The stormwater model appears to be in confonnance with the City criteria for water quality and
water quantity policies. The stormwater model dead pool volumes below the outlet elevations
will require minor modifications of th~ input to correspond with the grading plan. The reviewed I
preliminary stormwater management plan drainage area mapping (Sheet 24-25) should. indicate
the final revision date and updat~d date in the signature block, once the final plans are prepared.
This completes are review of the Ridge Creek development stormwater management plan, stolUlsewer
design, grading plan, and preliminary plat. If you have any questions or comments associated with this
review, please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience.
lh
.
D-32 KIO 128/.9/lAdl/liIlIDOfS lMEMO-jswell'ek.060407.clof
..
., WS8
& Associates. lnc. Infrastructure _ Engineering _ Planning _ Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763 541-4800
Fax: 763541-1700
Memorandum
To: Joe Swentek, PE, City of Shakopee
From: Todd E. Huhmer, PE, WSB & Associates, Inc.. ~
Ted Witkowski, Engineering Specialist, WSB & Associates, Inc. /fl. .
cc: Bruce Loney, PE, City 01 Shako pee
Julie Klima, .City of Shakopee
Kim Kozar, KHB&K, PA
Date: June 25, 2007
Re: Ridge Creek Stormwater Management Plan and Grading Plan Review
City of Shakopee, MN
WSB Project No. 1281-91
We have reviewed the County Road (CR) 21 right of way stormwater routing to the northeast pond
on the Ridge Creek Development as well as available ponding options in the area. Based on our
review of the draft CR 21 geometry file and hydrologic delineation file received from SRF, please
find the following ponding options for the CR 21 right..-of-way.
1. Direct the stonn water from the CR 21 right-of-way as originally proposed to the northeast
pond..
. Credit property owner for 6.439 acres ofCR 21 right-of-way directly north of Ridge
Creek based on delineation from SRF. The area credited assumes that a portion of the
road typical section would drain to the nQrth.
. Credit stann sewer oversizing of 0.34 acres of CR 21 right-of-way (8" x 1826') based on
geometry file placing sidewalk 10' from Ridge Creek Development. It is assumed that
the typical section would extend 2' past sidewalk priorto 1:3 sideslope down to match'
grades.
. Credit for Pond 1 water quality and quantity for CR 21 right-of-way for 0.34 acres of
. grass area on sideslope to rear yard storm sewer in Block 6.
2. Expand School Pond on the north side ofCR 21 to accommodate right-of-way and lowpoint
at Station 226+00.
. Design may require a retaining wall adjacent to the pond within the drainage and utility
easement to maintain existing trail at current location.
. The City would not need to give the developer pond expansion credit.
D-33 K:ID/28J.9 JlAdll/l/I\DocsIMEMO-jswenlek.Q62S07.doc
Mr. Joe Swentek
June 25, 2007
Page 2
. Credit for Pond 1 water quality and quantity for CR 21 right-of-way for 0.34 acres of
grass area on sideslope to rear yard stonn sewer in Block 6.
. Credit stonn sewer oversizing of 0.34 acres ofCR 21 right-of-way (8" x 1826') based on
geometry file placing sidewalk 10' from Ridge Creek Development. It is assumed that
the typical section would extend 2' past sidewalk prior to 1:3 sideslope down to match
grades.
. The storm water would be conveyed to the north away from the Eagle Creek watershed
into Savage.
3. Revise CR 21 vertical profile and route stonn water runoff to expanded Fire Station Pond.
. Existing outlet structure modifications.
. Raising the grade in the area may. result in increas~ in noise to residences adjacent to CR
21 in the development.
. The City would not need to credit for pond expansion:
.. The same storm sewer and Pond 1 credit for CR21 grass right-of-way.
.4. Construct a new pond on the north side ofCR2110cated southwest of the School Pond.
. The pond would not require credit to developer.
.. The pond would require some of the trees in the area to. be removed and reduce
sCfeemng.
. The outlet could be. connected to the School Pond for conveyance to the north away from
the Eagle Creek watershed into Savage.
. The same storm sewer and Pond 1 credit for CR 21 grass right-of-way. .
5. Revise CR 21 vertical profile and route stann water runoff to a new Pond either on the
Northwest-Northeast quadrant of CR 21 & Southbridge Parkway.
. The pond construction may require wetland mitigation (Increase Cost). ,
. The expansion of the Fire Station'Pond would not be required to increase developable
area.
.. Raising the grade in the area may result in increase in noise to residences adjacent to CR
21 in the development.
. The same storm sewer and Pond I credit for CR21 grass right-of-way.
These are some of the options available to the COlUlty to provide a pond for the CR 21 right-of-way
located north of the Ridge Creek Development. The CR 2110wpoint at approximately Station
202+75 east of South Bridge Parkway will require either expansion of the Fire Station Pond or
creation of a new pond. It appears that expansion of the Fire Station Pond is feasible to
accommodate the CR 21 right-of-way.
D ~ 3t} K:IOJ 28/.9 /lAdnrinlDocsIMEMO-jswetllek-062507.doc
Mr. Joe Swentek
June 25,2007
Page 3
The Ridge Development GradiDg Plan received via einail on June 18, with the revised emergency
overflow through Block 7, does not appear to meet the parameters provided to the developer's
engineer. Based on our preliminary review, we offer the following comments:
1. The 760 elevation contour on Lot 18 is not accurate based on the building pad elevations.
The 760 contour elevation should be shown based on the LO house type and the grades in
the overflow swale should be adjusted accordingly.
2. . The sideslope grades should be shown on the plan from the Lot 18 building pad to the
bottom of the overflow swale. It appears that the sideslope will be approximately 4:1 from
the building pad down to the bottom of the swale. This would indicate that the rear yard
grading will not create 10' of available rear yard behind the structure prior to the down slope
to the overflow swale. It is assumed. that the grading plan for the rear yard ofLat 18 does not
meet the City grading standards. Please advise me if this grading is acceptable.
3. . The side slope from the bituminous trail on the north side of Crossing Boulevard to the
bottom of the swale appears to be 3:1. Please advise me if,these side slopes are acceptable.
4. The vertical profile of Crossings Boulevard has been modified at the overflow to 0.5% to the
low point. The vertical curve was also modified at the EOF route over CB 45 and 46 on
Crossings Boulevard from Pond 1. Please review the proposed vertical curves with the
design standards. It appears that the road will be undulating in this area.
5. . Please be advised that the low floor elevations below 757.5 in Block 7 may be subject to
saturation in the event that the. overflow route is immdated for an extended period of time.
. This completes my review of the grading plan and CR 21 right-of-way pond options. If you have
any. questions feel free to give me a call. Thanks.
Ih
D-3) K:IOI281.91IAdmlll\DocsIMEMO-Jswent~062507.doc
Page 1 of 4
Ki.m Kozar
........., .".. .~- "' ,.~~ .... - . -- .-.. . . ...
From: Ted Witkowski [TWitkowski.@wsbeng.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 23,20079:41 AM
To: Joe Swantek
Cc: . Todd Hubmer
S~bject: RE: Ridge Greek SWMP & Grading Plan Review
Good Morning Joe,
It is my opinion that the stormwater management plan is not complete due to the unsatisfactory overland overflow
route for the Prior Lake Outlet Channel. I would not recommend approval of the SWMP until the Prior Lake Outlet
Channel overflow meets the criterion discussed with the developer's engineer. However, if the plan is cOf1structed
as proposed the water quality, water quantity, and rate control prOVided by the ponds is consistent with the SWMP
policies. The pond construction on the northeast corner of the site appeared to be an issue based on our last
meeting with the developer. It is my understanding based on our meeting with Randy Noecker that the pond on
the northeast corner of the site may not be expanded due to issues with the property owner to the east. If the
. northeast pond is Iiot expanded the SWMP for the site should not be approved. If all of the ponds and
outlet control structures are built as planned the water quantity, water quality, and rate control criterion is
consistent with the SWMP.
The overland overflow route is not satisfactory in the rear yards of Block 7 on the north side of Crossings
Boulevard. The latest grading plan of the emergency overflow was not accurate as outlined below and .does not
meet the criterion discussed with the developer's engineer.
. .
The June 5th memorandum requested the storm sewer hydraulic gradeline calculations for the storm sewer from
CB 8 to CBMH 4. I would request that these calculations be provided to evaluate if the system will surcharge.and
exceed the storm sewer rim elevations. The storm sewer system pipe design with steep grades as shown has
resulted in significant damage to structures in the past which have resulted in maintenance and replacement.
issues. It is my opinion that the design of this segment of the system requires additional review and evaluation of
the system design.
If you would like to discuss these issues or require additional information feel free to give me a call. Thanks.
Ted Witk(jwski
Engineering Specialist
WSB & Associates
701 - Xenia Ave. So. Ste 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Phone 763-541-4800
Direct 763-287-7165
Fax 763-541-1700
. tedw@wsbeng.com
~ . v - -
From: Joe Swentek [mailto:JSwentek@ci.shakopee.mn.us]
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 8:58 AM
To: Ted Witkowski
Cc: Todd Hubmer
Subject: RE: Ridge Creek SWMP & Grading Plan Review
Ted,
Would. you say that Ridge Creek has an approved storm water management plan? I know from your memos that
they have satisfied the City's water quality/quantity criteria.
10/3/2007 D~3h
Page 2 of 4.
Joe Swantek
City of Shakopee
Project Engineer
Ph: (952) 233.9363
Fx: (952) 233.3801
From: Ted Witkowski [mailto:TWitkowski@wsbeng.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 3:36 PM
To: Joe Swentek
Cc: Todd Hubmer
Subject: RE: Ridge Creek SWMP & Grading Plan Review
Good Afternoon Joe,
I sent out an email on June 19 that contained my comments concerning the June 18th grading plan
. documents received via email from Plowe Engineering. The comments have been put in a memorandum .
and are attached for your review. I have included a copy of the June.19lh email that contains the review
comments in the memorandum. If you require additional information feel free to contact me. Thanks.
Good Afternoon Gentlemen,
I have taken a look at the CR 21 drainage area to the northeast pond on the Ridge Creek Development.
Based on my review of the geometry file and hydrologic delineation file received from SRF please find the
following options for the CR 21 right of way pond.
1. Direct the storm water from the CR 21 right of way as originally proposed to the northeast pond.
. Creqit property owner for 6.439 acres of CR 21 right of way directly north of Ridge Creek
based on delineation from SRF. The area credited assumes that a portion .of the road typical
section would drain to the north.
. Credit storm sewer oversizing of 0.34 Acres of CR 21 right of way (8" X 1826') based on
geometry file placing sidewalk 10' from Ridge Creek Development. It is assumed that the
typical section would extend 2' past sidewalk prior to 1:3 sidestope. down to match grades.
. .Credit for Pond 1 water qualittand quantity for CR 21 right of way for 0.34 Acres of grass
area on sideslope to rear yard ~torm sewer in Block 6.
2. Expand School Pond on the north side of CR 21 to accommodate right of way and low point at
Station 226+00.
. Design may require a retaining wall to ~djacent to the pond within the drainage and utility.
easement to maintain existing trail at current location.
. The City would not need to give the developer pond expansion credit.
. Credit for Pond 1 water quality and quantity for CR 21 right of way for 0.34 Acres of grass
. area on sideslope to rear yard storm sewer in Block 6.
. Credit storm sewer oversizing of 0.34 Acres of CR 21 right of way (8" X 1826') based on
geometry file placing sidewalk 1 O'from Ridge Creek Development. It is assumed that the
typical section would extend 2' past sidewalk prior to 1:3 sideslope down to match grades.
. The storm water would be conveyed to the north away from the Eagle Creek watershed into
Savage.
3. Revise CR 21 vertical profile and route storm water runoff to expanded Fire Station Pond.
. Existing outlet structure modifications.
. Raising the grade in the area may result in increase in noise to residences adjacent to CR 21
in the development.
. The City would not need to credit for pond expansion.
10/3/2007 D-31
Page 3 of 4
. The same storm sewer and pon.d 1 credit for CR 21 grass right of way.
4. Construct a new pond on the north side of CR 21 located southwest of the School Pond.
. Th~ pond would not require cre9it to developer.
. The pond would require some of the trees in the area to be removed and reduce screening.
. The outlet could be connected to the School Pond for conveyance to the north away from the
Eagle Creek watershed into Savage.
. .The same storm sewer and pond 1 credit for CR 21 grass right of way.
5. Revise CR 21 vertical profile and route storm water runoff to a new Pond either on the Northwest-
Northeast quadrant of CR 21 & Southbridge Parkway.
. The pond construction may require wetland mitigation (Increase Cost).
. The expansion of the Fire Station Pond would not be required to increase developable area.
. Th~ Raising the grade in the area may result in increase in noise to residences adjacent to
CR 21 in the development.
. The same storm sewer and pond 1 credit for CR21 grass right of way.
These are. some of the options available to the County to Pl'9vide a pond for the CR 21 right of way located
north of the Ridge Creek Development. The CR 21 low point at approximately station 202+75 east of South
Bridge Parkway will require either expansion of the Fire Station Pond or creation of a new pond. It appears
that expansion of the Fire Station Pond could be done to accommodate the CR 21 right of way. . .
The Ridge Development Grading Plan received via email on June 18th with the revised emergency
overflow through Block 7 does .not appear to be completed. Based on my preliminary review I offer the
following comments:
1. The 160 elevation contour on Lot 18 is not accurate based on the building pad elevations. The 760
contour elevation should be shown based on the LO house type and the grades in the overflow
swale should be adjusted accordingly.
2., The side slope grades should be shown on the plan from the Lot 18 building pad to the bottom of
the overflow swale. It appears that the sideslopl't will be approximately 4:1 from the building pad
down to the bottom of the swale. This would indicate that the rear yard grading will not create 10' of '.
available rear yard behind the structure prior to the down slope to the overflow swale. It is assumed
that the grading plan for the rear yard of Lot 18 does not meet the City grading standards. Please
advise me if this grading is acceptable.
3. The ~ide slope from the bituminous trail on the north side of Crossing Boulevard to the bottom of the
swale appears to be 3:1. Please advise me if these side slopes are acceptable.
4. The vertical profile of Crossings Boulevard has been modified at the overflow to 0.5% to tl1e low
. point. The vertical curve was also modified at the EOF route over CB 45 and 46 on Crossings
Boulevard from Pond 1.. Please review the proposed. vertical curves with the design standards. It
appears that the road will be undulating in this area.
5. Please be advised that the iow floor elevations below 757.5 in Block 7 may be subject to saturation
in the event that the overflow route is inundated for an extended period of time.
This completes my review of the grading plan and CR 21 right of way pond options. If you have any
questions feel free to give me a call. Thanks.
Ted Witkowski
Engineering Specialist
WSB & Associates
701 . Xenia Ave. So. Ste 300
Minneapolis, MN 5541 ~
10/3/2007 D- 3<6
Page 4 of 4
Phone 763-541-4800
Direct .763-287-7165
Fax 763-541-1700
tedw@wsben9.com
.~ h ~ 'N _ . ~- - , - " -~- " " "~.
From: Joe Swentek [mailto:JSwentek@ci.shakopee.mn.us]
. Sent: Wednesday, August 22,20072:59 PM
To: Ted Witkowski
Subject: Ridge Creek SWMP & Grading Plan Review
Ted,
I
Was the last memo you sent out concerning this project dated June 5. 20071 Please confirm. If there was
a memo after this, could you please e-mail a signed copy to my attention? Thank you.
JOe Swentek
City of Shakopee
Project Engineer
Ph: (952) 233.9363
Fx: (952) 233.3801
10/312007 D~39
"
SEP-27-2007 08:37 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES 9524457767 P.08
"
SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMNnSSION
"Lighting the Way - Yesterday, Today and Beyond"
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sh~opee Community Development Department
FROM: Joseph D. Adams, Planning and Engineering Director
SUBJECT: STAFF REVIEW RECORD COMMENTS for:
Final Plat for Ridge Creek
CASE NO: 07054
DATE: 9/27/07
COMMENTS:
Municipal water service is available subject to our standard tenns and conditions. These
include, but are not limited to: installing a lateral water main distribution system in
accordance with utility policy, paying the associated inspections costs, paying the Trunk:
Water Charge, and paying the Water Connection Charge. (see attached summary)
Underground electric service is available subject to our standard terms and conditions.
These include, but are not limited to: entering into an Underground Distribution
Agreement, granting any necessary easements) and paying the associated fees.(see
attached summary)
Street Lighting installation is available subject to our standard terms and conditions.
These are contained in the current City of Shakopee Street Lighting Policy. Applicant
must pay the associated fees.
Applicant should contact Shakopee Public Utilities directly for specific requirements
relating to their project.
Note:
1. The developer wlll be required to submit separate construction plans for each
individual plat, not a combined plan for the two or three projects.
2. Trunk Water Charge and Water Connection Charge to be based on
current rates in effect at the time water main plans are approved and
building permits issued respectively, per standard practice. The Utilities
Commission is reviewing the state of both funds at this time and an increase of
up to 25% in the Trunk Water Charge is being considered to bring projected
costs in line with revenue.
(continued) D - LJ.O
Post Office Box 470 .255 Sarazin Street. . Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-0470
(952) 445-1988 . Fax (952) 445-7767
www.shakopeeutilities.com
SEP-27-2007 08:37 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES 9524457767 P.09
. \
,.
,
I (continued)
:
3. We have requested information from the developer's representatives OD the
estimated water main construction cost so we can invoice for the water main
plan review and inspection cost deposit. We have been reviewing plansforthi~
project over the past one and a half years without a deposit. A deposit is
necessary at this time to continue with the plan review process. Costs to date
are approximately $1,500, for the combined projects.
4. The water main construction plans lack the required overall plan sheet with
SPUC approval block.
S. Due to the severe sloping, the water main across Lots 10 & 11, Block 1 of'Ridge
Creek will require a greater easement area equal to 12.5 feet on each lot for a
total of 2S feet.
. 6. Water main will not be looped until "future development" area is c.onstrutted.
An Agreement to Complete Water System (Looping Agreement) 'Will 'be
required.
,
D-Li-l
Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District
Staff Report on Review of Application for Permit
Application Number: 07.09
Project Name: Ridge Creek
Applicant: Randy Noecker
Engineer: Plowe Engineering
Date Application was Complete:
Date of Report Completion:
Date of Board Meeting:
Introduction
Proposed development is outside of the District boundary, but involves the re-alignment of the
Prior Lake Outlet Channel.
Notice to Adiacent Landowners
Note to Permit Applicant:
Physical Site Characteristics
Total site area: The development will occur on a 79.4 acre site.
Topography:
Vegetation: Site has most recently been agricultural land.
Wetlands: There are no wetlands associated with this review.
Shoreland: There is no shoreland associated with the project.
Proposed Plan
Brief Narrative.
Project is located outside of the District boundary, however the Prior Lake Outlet Channel
crosses the site, and will be crossed and modified (alignment and stream bed structure
installation).
Hydrology and Hydraulics:
D-1f2
Permit Application 07.09 Creek
Staff Review Report, September 2007
Erosion and Sediment Control: Modification to Prior Lake Outlet Chanel has the potential to
cause significant er~sion and sediment transport.
Rate Control: Site is outside of District boundary.
Water Quality: Sit~ is outside of District boundary.
I
i
I
Volume Control: S~te is outside of District boundary.
I
I
Wetlands:
Analysis
The following summarizes staffs' analysis ofthe proposed development as documented in the
permit application.
Hydrology and Hydraulics: The Prior Lake Outlet Channel XP-SWMM model is currently
being updated and evaluated by Wenck Associates, Inc., this section will be appropriately
updated upon completion of model runs.
Erosion and Sediment Control:
Rate Control: Site is outside of District boundary.
Water Quality: Site is outside of District boundary.
Volume Management: Site is outside of District boundary.
Wetlands: JIM
Watershed District Board Decision:
The application was initially received on and determined to be complete on
. To meet the procedural requirements of Rule B and Minnesota Statutes Section
15.99 regarding time deadlines for Board action, the Board must make a decision to either
approve or deny the permit within 60 days (before ), or provide written
notice to the applicant of an extension ofthe 60-day period and state the reasons for the
extension and its anticipated length, which may not exceed 60 days unless approved by the
applicant.
Alternatives:
1. Approve the application subject to the conditions noted herein.
2. Table the item until a date specific, and provide the applicant with direction on the issues
that have been discussed. If the item is tabled to a date beyond the 60-day decision
period, the Board must also state the reasons for the extension and its anticipated length,
which may not exceed 60 days unless approved by the applicant.
D-43 2
Permit Application 07 .09 Ri1~~Creek
Staff Review Report, September., 2007
3. Deny the application, stating the reasons for the denial.
4. Other specific actions as directed by the Board of Managers.
,
Recommendation: i
The Watershed District staff recommends Alternative
\
I
I
\
!
Action Required:
A motion and secOI~.d authorizing that a permit be issued, with the waiver, subject to the
following conditionis:
I
1. Provision o~security as required by the District's Rule L, and replenish the Permit Fee
Deposit (as rteeded) in accordance with the District's Rule K and Board Resolution 05-
I
203. I
I
i
2. Obtain all permits and approvals required by the County, the State of Minnesota and
other regulatory entities.
3. Mitigation of disrupted soils: Subsoil is to be cultivated/tilled to a depth of at least 6 to 8
inches to brirlg it to a uniformly friable condition. .^,Jl disturbed areas that are to be
vegetated are!to receive this treatment prior to placement of topsoil and seed, sod or
similar suitab~e final vegetative cover. This is to be done once there Vtill be no more
heavy traffic ~m the soils and in preparation for establishing final turf. The intention is
that the soil cParticularly the subsoil) be finally conditioned and not left in a
damaged/corn!pacted condition with compromised ability to hold and transmit water.
I
!
4. Completion of a Declaration and f..cceptance of Conservation Easement (DACE) in
conformance \\'ith District Rule J to memorialize the buffer strip areas. The DACE is to
be completed prior to or concurrent \vith filing of the final plat and before selling,
transferring or renting the site or any portions of it. The District will supply standard
language for the DACE. The applicant shall supply legal descriptions and drawings of
the buffer areaa.
5. Completion of a Development f..greement (D.^..) to memorialize the ditch check and the
commitment to direct roof and driveway areas to pervious surfaces. This is to be done
prior to or concurrent with filing of the final plat and before selling, transferring or
renting the site or any portions of it. The District 'Hill supply standard language for the
D.\. The applicant shall supply a legal description and drawing of the ditch check area.
6. Dedicate Outlot A as a Drainage Easement to the PLSL WD.
7. Dedicate in a Drainage Easement to the PLSL WD that part of Outlot B from the northern
Outlot boundary to 15 ft from the top of channel elevation (topo line 756 ft), away from
the channel centerline.
D-Lflt 3
Permit Application 07.09
Staff Review Report, September
8. Dedicate in a Drainage Outlet to the PLSL WD that part of Outlot B and Block 1 which
lies between the two lines defined as 30 ft from the 750 ft elevations, away from the
channel centerline.
9. Provide a detailed construction sequence indicating the timing of all proposed channel
diversions. Include details how the receiving channel will be stabilized prior to flow
diversion.
10. Include rock vanes and riffles on the grading plan. Suggested locations and details are
attached.
11. Performance escrow at $10/LF of new channel. 2,692 LF of new channel. Therefore,
$26,920 escrow to be released upon stabilization of the new channel or completed
segments.
D - 4S- 4