HomeMy WebLinkAbout3. Final Plat of Ridge Creek Bluffs-Res. No. 6670
~~
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
CASE LOG NO.: 07-053
TO: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II
SUBJECT: Final Plat of Ridge Creek Bluff
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 1 outlot (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 of 26) 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 ofthe Final Plat of Ridge Creek Bluff based on the attached draft resolution.
h:\cc\2007\1O-08\fp ridge creek bluff 07053.doc
1
Shakopee - Location Maps Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT.C
~IB
/
/' "'"
/ -
/ RIB
// <,,/~
I .?
/ 1/
/ I--~
, I -.......
t. --
t l "'-----...
/ / ------
/ / RIB
/ I
/ /
/) /
v i RIB AG
........... l
--- ~~
---~--~
--- --:::.:::::-----
-----.....::..------
------::::---
AG \~
~......r----
AlG AG
~ N _ Subject Property
W.E
SHAKOPEE ... ..... Shakopee Boundary
COMMUNITY PRIDE SINCE 1857 S I=:J Zoning. Boundary
o Parcel Boundary
Final Plat of Ridge Creek Bluff
http://gis.logis.org/ shakopee/locationmap/map.asp ?title=Final+PlaHof+ Ridge+Creek+Bl... 08/29/2007
RESOLUTION NO. 6670
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA DENYING THE
FINAL PLAT APPLICATION FOR RIDGE CREEK BLUFF
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 is wetland replacement plans were approved by operation of
Minn. Stat. ~ 15.99 in a matter captioned Ric1ee rreek T, Tnc v rity ofSnakopee 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 Bluff' seeking to create 42 single-family
lots and one (1) outlot on 16.53 acres ofthe Property ("Application") legally described as,
That part of the West 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.
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:
FTNDTNGS
1. The Property contains approximately 80 acres ofland which the Applicant
wants to develop for residential housing. The Applicant has made
application to final plat 16.53 acres ofthe Property into 42 single-family
residential lots and one (1) outlot to be known as "Ridge Creek Bluff."
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 of 26) originally dated
11/21/02 with revision dates of 2/22/06 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 ~ 12.09 Subd. I 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
Bluff 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 II dated October 2,2007.
2
7. Despite the Final Plat being premature, the Applicant insisted that the City
review the Final Plat. Accordingly, staffhas reviewed the Final Plat
against all applicable requirements and recommends denial. Memorandum
of Julie Klima, Planner n dated October 2, 2007.
8. Per City Code gg 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 g 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
g 12.24 through 12.33 and 12.35. Memorandum of Julie Klima, Planner n
dated October 2, 2007.
9. The Final Plat fails to comply with the City's Code in the following:
A. Under City Code g 12.34 and the 2007 fee schedule the required park
dedication for the plat is 1.68 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. All ofthe land within
the Ridge Creek Bluff Final Plat is accounted for as residential lots or
right of way with the exception of a sliver like piece labeled Outlot A.
In addition to Outlot A not being dedicated to the City, there is no
public access and it is not suitable for park use. 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 n 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 SS 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 g 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 g 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
of the Plats, the area within the contiguous dripline created by a
grouping of woody plant species contains 680 Trees. This area
constitutes a Woodland, and therefore, the requirements of City Code g
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 g 11.60 Subd. 9(A). Based on Staffs site visit on
October 3,2007, 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 g 11.60 Subd. 9(B)(2). Memorandum of
Ryan Hughes, Natural Resources Coordinator dated October 4,2007.
F. Pursuant to City Code g 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
4
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 42 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, 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 ~ 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 ~ 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. 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 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. 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 5-6 of Block 3 in violation of City Code ~9 4.03, Subd. 2 (D) and
~ 7.18 Subd.1. Memorandum of Joe Swentek, Project Engineer dated
October 3,2007.
J. As detailed in the Memorandum of Joe Swentek 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 Section 4.03, Subdivision 2 (D) and
S 7.18 Subd. 1. Memorandum of Joe Swentek, Project Engineer dated
October 3, 2007.
5
10. The Final Plat fails to comply with the City's Design Criteria in the
following:
A. On the Final Plat Block 1 exceeds 900 feet in length. Section 9(1)(E)
of the Design Criteria states that blocks over 900 feet in length may be
required by the City Council to include pedestrian crosswalks through
the blocks in locations necessary to public health, convenience and
necessity. Based on staffs recommendation arising out of public
safety concerns, convenience and necessity the City Council requires a
pedestrian crosswalks in the location of either between Lots 10 and 11,
Block 1 or Lots 11 and 12, Block 1. The Final Plat does not include
such crosswalks and therefore fails to comply with Section 9 (1 )(E) of
the Design Criteria and City Code SS 12.24 and 12.32. Memorandum
of Julie Klima, Planner II dated October 2, 2007.
B. On the Final plat Oakridge Trail is a dead end street due to the lack of
connection to any existing street to the east. The connection of
Oakridge Trail from the east ofthe Ridge Creek Bluff Plat has not
been constructed by the adjacent development Riverside Bluffs. This
makes Oakridge Trail a dead end street by leaving a gap of
approximately 1130 feet between the applicant's east boundary line to
Foothill Trail. Section 8(6) of the Design Criteria prohibits dead end
streets. The plat fails to comply with Design Criteria S 8(6) and City
Code SS 12.24 and 12.31. Memorandum of Julie Klima, Planner II
dated October 2, 2007.
C. Even if Oakridge Trail were considered a cul-de-sac it fails to comply
with the Design Criteria. 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. The proposed Oakridge Trail is 917.79 feet
in length. The plat fails to comply with Design Criteria 9 8(7)(A) and
(B) and City Code 99 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.
D. The Design Criteria requires sidewalks on both sides of an officially
designated arterial street. See Design Criteria S 9(1 )(D). County Road
16 is officially designated as an arterial street in the City's current
Comprehensive Plan. Per Design Criteria S 9(1)(D), a sidewalk is
required on the north side of County Road 16. Since there is no
sidewalk included on the north side of County Road 16, the plat fails
to comply with Design Criteria S 9 (1 )(D) and City Code SS 12.24 and
12.32. Memorandum of Julie Klima, Planner II dated October 2,2007.
6
E. In lieu of a sidewalk a bituminous trail may be required by the City
Council along a designated trail route. See Design Criteria ~ 9(1)(D).
The north side of Eagle Creek Boulevard (County Road 16) is a
designated transportation trail route that can be utilized as a walkway
to the area school. The Ridge Creek Bluff Final Plat does not include
an 8-foot bituminous trail along the north side of Eagle Creek
Boulevard (County Road 16) connecting the two trail stubs from
adjacent developments. The plat fails to comply with Design Criteria ~
9 (l)(D) and City Code ~S 12.24 and 12.32. Memorandum of Julie
Klima, Planner IT dated October 2, 2007.
F. Several of the proposed street profiles/grades are not in compliance
with the City's minimum design speed standards as outlined in Section
8.4 (Grades) or Section 8.17 (Street Vertical Curves) of the City of
Shakopee's Design Criteria and detailed in the Memorandum of Joe
Swentek, Project Engineer dated October 3,2007. Therefore the plat
fails to comply with Sections 8.4 and 8.17 of the Design Criteria and
City Code ~~ 12.24 and 12.31. Memorandum of Joe Swentek, Project
Engineer dated October 3,2007.
G. 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 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 ~~ 12.24 and 12.33. Memorandum of Joe
Swentek, Project Engineer dated October 3,2007.
H. 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
7
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 SS 12.24 and
12.27. Memorandum of Joe Swentek, Project Engineer dated October
3,2007.
11. The Final Plat fails to comply with the Minnesota State Fire Code in the
following:
A. 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 DI07.1 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. Memorandum of Tom Pitschneider, Fire Inspector dated
October 1, 2007.
12. The Final Plat fails to comply with the City's Stormwater Management
Plan 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 IV.A.9.b of the City of Shako pee's
Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan. Per Section
4(1)(A) ofthe 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) of the 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 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.
8
B. 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.
Memorandum of Joe Swentek, Project Engineer dated October 3,
2007.
C. The proposed storm sewer between Lots 7-8 of Block 3 to between
Lots 8-9 of Block 3 is unacceptable and should be re-routed so as
to provide a separate drainage and utility easement from the deeper
sanitary sewer already proposed between Lots 7-8 of Block 3.
Memorandum of Joe Swentek, Project Engineer dated October 3,
2007.
D. The proposed storm sewer in the rear of Lots 6-11 of Block 1 is
located between fifteen (15) and twenty (20) feet from the back of
the proposed building pads as a result of their lookout design and
their close proximity to the higher elevation County Road 16. This
is not consistent with generally accepted engineering practice. An
alternative to locate the proposed low point catch basins farther
from the building pads, which would provide more usable rear
yards and would provide an additional factor of safety should a
catch basin become blocked with debris, would be to change the
housing styles from lookouts to ramblers, thus bringing the
elevations of the building pads up closer to the elevation of County
Road 16. The applicant has not addressed this concern.
Memorandum of Joe Swentek, Project Engineer dated October 3,
2007.
9
~ON~T J 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 Bluff 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, and State Fire Code as set forth above
and detailed in staff and outside agency reports that a part ofthe record in this
proceeding.
Adopted in the regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota
held on the 8th day of October, 2007.
Mayor of the City of Shako pee
ATTEST:
Judith S. Cox, City Clerk
10
EXHIBIT "A"
[legal description of the Property]
That part of the West Half ofthe Southeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 115, Range
22, Scott County, Minnesota, lying Northerly ofthe North right-of-way line of County
Road 16, Excepting there from the West 410 feet thereof.
The Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast
Quarter excepting the Easterly 591.75 feet thereof; all in Section 14, Township 115,
Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota.
11
-
RIDGE CREEK BLUFF
The North lJM of tMSE 1/4 tti s.c. ,.... T.llS, R.22
."_1
--- ~. Cor.
S ane'18"~_~411--
OUTLO T A eo.31S
1Ill,'
N ere,'2..- E 20 25
--326." II ~ AU. lIEN BY 'IHESE I'lIESEHIS.
00.2l! eo..o2 It {I 10 11 Thot RIdOe CNek 1. lnc... 0 t.Annuoto Corporatfon. ,.. owner and w..twn Bonk. G
eo. Zl It 8 I- ,. ~ ........... -. - of... Iollowlnll -..- ~ ......... In ....
ill 7 I- j ~ Coun\y 01 Scott .... _ 01 _ to ~
II ... 6 - ,. :::
5 :., II ~ ! Thcrt port ot the w.t HctH' tJ/f tN ~ 0U0rter of SeotIon '.... TowMhlp
- .. 1115. Ronoo 22. Scott ~. _... _ __ 01 .... _ _ 01
~ i 3 - " ...,.1Ino0l~_ 'e. ~"""from"" _"0 ...._.
It 3 - :0:
\ ~ on ..... co.- .... _ to ... __ and _ .. ftIOO[ CREEk IlWFF and do _ don.
!! - :0: 20 2. and cNdIocrtit to tM pUlIc fot- pubic UN foNww the TtaH, La,..., Rood and ~ ~
1 - . - . - . ...._.._on....pIal""_andullllll<_...!Y.
\ - 6-1_ - .oe In _ __ _ _ Or.- I. Inc.. . llIn_ Co<porotion. hoe __ _
6-''OIl' . JJIJ :;:
~ .. b_1"'01"20" -- .. ... _ by Ito _ __ lhIo _ day ., 2007.
Sl ()
'!i L S et'31l'.3" ( - AI-.o In wttne. ......, MId w..wn Bank, 0 MInneeoto CorporatIon. haw COUMd thMt
~ __....._bylto_____day., 2007.
Vl LoollJO.OIl --140.12--
;:: 6_'" .....,43.40 b._T'Z1'Ie" Sl .-
_ CMEK '. lIOC. WEsn:IlN _
~ '" .. ....... ~ ~8 -
;:: .- - " "" ""
J Sl -.a b._1'09'04' ~~ 2S.oo " RondofI R. Noeoher. _ ~ ~ R. Corioon, .. ..... _
.. .c .1" 25 N _.n:
- .- b-1W' .e <l .c STAn;: OF ~A
i 'l; 6_rH."2" 18 COUNTY OF
Vl Sl 0.3" . -""-",--~............-_",,,,0I
~ r-.w..,.22"E ... ... J: 30 JO 2OCI7, by _ It. _. .. _ 01 _ Crook 1. Ino.. . _ Co<porotion.
'l; '" - 8 It '" l- .- on_oI....--.
.. <- Il! 6......'.... 1 ~~ k I- ; j
";:, 0 ~9) 13 ~ 12 ,. 11 S 8lI'3YIJ' ( H lIIl'33"3" w l:l Vl
, l ~ " Notcoy -. - Coun\y. -
l:I - 8- :2 '.1.(10 . . 3e.OO . cr ~--
.- .. 'l; ~ ..
, ij 1 ~ :0: :0: I- J~ - STAn;: OF IIINNDOl'A
S ....f.4?" E .. :0:
0.. '" S. ~ 3 j- ;:: ..... COUNTY OF.
'l; W - 2 9 17 t - ""-'" -- _ ~ ........ me _ _ cloy of
I N W41'"" W '137.00 t 2007. by cmthIo It. Oottoon. .. ..... _ 01 W-.. -. . __ ~.
s. c, ;. ll, , on _"'tho_.
X I 00 .. E ... ., r S "'33'13" r N 10'33',:>" w ! Vl
I )( !
2 M.OO 'l; "- ~-'-~.-
w 'l; H "'42'40" W '4'.00 '38.00 "- ~--
~ '" I 2 ~ ~ :, 1-E~~.l..t""W. ~ ~by"" me~-::-'''': ::..e:..,.. and
N V.,'.T W 8 -
'l; " 0 16 ~ ...l _'om 0 dulyllooMM~ ~_.... _ tII "'" _ 01__
! " :0 S ....,.4T E '37.00 ... It It .. ! ro lhlo plot 10 0 _ _ '" _ _ _ at _ ... -.oily
- I ~i I- .. l.. ~ S8O'33'1:>"E _...""'plot to__ _010_ _oN __ -._
I I .. 3 4 i .. 5 ,. ~ S et'31l'13" E 'l; ploood to tho """"'" .. _ or .. 1>0 _ _ In .... """"'" .. doo/9nOtod:
cr ~ ~ ~ 6 i- :; that .... _ -.,. _ ... ~ doolgnoIM on .... plot .... _ tMro ... no
! -k k "'.00 S W - - .. -- r. _ -. -.. 1lOlI.02, SuI>d. '..... ....... hlg"- to
IJUO bI deeIgnatM on aoId plot otMr thon _ ahown.
X " .. " a
'II 7 - I
J .1 -
l Vl ........ R. CouIln, Lond 9urwjIor
! , 15 a:: _ _ No. 10'.
A-r....zr 'l;
L- W STAlE OF llNI!llOfA
\ J COUNlY OF _
H8lI' W'" ... ...... :. The ""-'" __ _ __ ........ me thIo _ """ '"
2ll~_ ~~. ! - 2OCI7. by Lony It. eoww.. Land 9urwjIor.
cr
ll.-3'4Tl!' 14 ) Notcoy -. --~. -
~--
- CITY COUNCIL. ........... _
It ~It W. do honby 00ttIIy ..... ... _ do)' 01 2007. .... ~ CouncIl '"
~ -.-..... - __ ..... ....... thIo plot and tho __ 01 _
-- Soo. _.03, ..... 2. ""'.. _ _
.,
~ 9 ~ ~ 10 ...,... CIorll
" ~
" CITY A'I'IOIIHEY
'--'-- _ofWo tor_ plot.... __ plot for
-. _ do)' 01 2007.
ill
ll.-.2'9J'z. . CI\y~.~-
1. ., 1.:ra
~...,
"./1/18 "'-I8<t7.- ~Ir SC01T CClUHN AI.IllIlOI>/lIl
..""'rA.~ 11loo'OlJy0000000_..._ond~_....... ____...
--- paid - _ _ ___ """ 01 2007.
"'''''''''fTV ~ ROAD H _'W W
....vv,'I, I l:/ ..... ~
''''. 16 -.ny...... 01 Way _ of ~ Rood No. .e- - Coon\Y .--. Scott CownCy _
(EAGLE! 400j'4I'I2' SIfnod .... Oofouty
- CREEK
BOULEVARD) l2 $COlT COUHIY _
- .. _ --. SoclIon _.08 _ I. GO _. ..... .... """
- __ond____""".. 2007.
MEADCW8ROOKE R II U ----- - Coun\lr ~
v ..
SCOTT COUHlY _
~ .... UtIII1;y , Iloo'OlJy OOttIIy_thIo plot __ to_ _ -_.....01
- ... _ Thua: 2OIJ7. crt ---:- O'cIodc _, ... ~ Ooounwnt No
...- . ..... '12" _ ..... w.num.nt '-.M
~ o ~"..:ar ~ J:::'"No.""ICt1~ s.t - Coun\lr _
~ NO MCIM.Iefr M~ attOMf AT Mf( srAU: MIUtC LOQlmOH
IfDCMD It P'lA'r ......". 1HU' ft.L . ID' NC Wh1ClH 8tMU.
. If AACI' 1m.. ONE '!'DR fI 'tHE ~ OF n. ItlAT.
~1IIOIMlIDIJSstt.U.1E f/ZIICH'" WINCH RDNPI!Pf: ~
YiIIM!J) trr UCIi'liU NO. 101'
.. . .. 1SI JIll
rI-- I
-- -- lloIng 101M! In _ od]oIn/nIJ right 01 ...,. _ :: = ~o~-ot..;. Ii.1~ ~ 22
... and ~ fMl to _ odjolnlnfl lot '"- un....
__ la le.t oIIMroloo lndIoolod on !he pIol.
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 of the 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 of the 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
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 arc included in separate memoranda.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
D-Z
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.
Ridqe 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
o of the Minnesota State Fire Code requires separate and approved fire access roads where
the number of dwelling units exceeds 30. (MSFC 0107.1 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-3
. Public and private streets less than 32 feet in width per City of Shakopee design standards
shall be posted for no parking on 1-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.
Ridqe 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 D10l.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 1-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-L}
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
Bluffs Final Plat, Ridge Creek 1 Inc.
INTRODUCTION
I am writing to provide park related staff comments for the Ridge Creek Bluffs 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 Bluffs Final
Plat), City Code S 12.34 and 2007 fee schedule are as follows:
3.0 persons per lot x 42 lots / 75 = 1.68 acres of park land
The applicant states that he is proposing land dedication in the application narrative. The
Area Plat Drawing set including both Ridge Creek and Ridge Creek Bluffs lists 6.12
acres of "Park Land", however there is no parcel indicated as designated "Park Land" on
any drawing. Since Outlot C, formerly discussed in prior communications with the
applicant as the City's preferred park land dedication location, is in the final plat of ridge
creek, and is not a part of this final plat application, there appears to be no park Land
dedication in the Ridge Creek Bluffs Final Plat. All of the land in Ridge Creek Bluffs
shown on the plat (blue line) provided is accounted for as residential lots or right of way
with the exception of a sliver like piece, labeled Outlot A. There is no designated use for
this outlot, nor is there any public access, so it is not suitable for park use.
As per the application and drawings, the required park dedication has not been met, so
staff recommends denial of this final plat.
D-S-
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: City Council
FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II
RE: Final Plat for Ridge Creek Bluff
DATE: October 2 2007
Upon review ofthe proposed final plat for Ridge Creek Bluff, planning staff has 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 Final Plat to an approved
preliminary plat to determine conformity. The Final 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 Final Plat. Accordingly, staffhas reviewed the Final 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 ofthe 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 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-~
5. On the Final Plat Block 1 exceeds 900 feet in length. Section 9(1)(E) of the
Design Criteria states that blocks over 900 feet in length may be required by the
City Council to include pedestrian crosswalks through the blocks in locations
necessary to public health, convenience and necessity. It is staff's
recommendation that based on public safety concerns, convenience and necessity
that the City Council require a pedestrian crosswalks in the location of either
between Lots 10 and 11, Block 1 or Lots 11 and 12, Block 1. The Final Plat does
not include such crosswalks.
6. On the Final plat Oakridge Trail is a dead end street due to the lack of connection
to any existing street to the east. The connection of Oakridge Trail from the east
ofthe Ridge Creek Bluff Plat has not been constructed by the adjacent
development Riverside Bluffs. This makes Oakridge Trail a dead end street by
leaving a gap of approximately 1130 feet between the applicant's east boundary
line to Foothill Trail. Section 8(6) of the Design Criteria prohibits dead end
streets.
Even if Oakridge Trail were considered a cul-de-sac it fails to comply with the
Design Criteria. 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.
The proposed Oakridge Trail is 917.79 feet in length.
7. The Design Criteria requires sidewalks on both sides of an officially designated
arterial street. See Design Criteria S 9(1 )(D). County Road 16 is officially
designated as an arterial street in the City's current Comprehensive Plan. Per
Design Criteria S 9(1 )(D), a sidewalk is required on the north side of County
Road 16. Since there is no sidewalk included on the north side of County Road
16, the plat fails to comply with Design Criteria S 9 (1)(D).
8. In lieu of a sidewalk a bituminous trail may be required by the City Council along
a designated trail route. See Design Criteria S 9(1)(D). The north side of Eagle
Creek Boulevard (County Road 16) is a designated transportation trail route that
can be utilized as a walkway to the area school. The Ridge Creek Bluff Final Plat
does not include an 8-foot bituminous trail along the north side of Eagle Creek
Boulevard (County Road 16) connecting the two trail stubs from adjacent
developments.
D-1
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
MEMORANDUM
To: City Council
From: Ryan Hughes, Natural Resources Coordinator
Date: October 4, 2007
Case Number: 07053
Subject: Ridge Creek Bluff Final Plat
Based on a review of the application materials provided for the Ridge Creek Bluff Final
Plat staff recommends denial due to the following:
1. The City's Woodland Management Regulations are applicable to the proposed Final
Plat as the development is on a parcel ofland 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 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. 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 ~ 11.60 Subd. 9(B)(2). The Woodland Management Plan submitted with the
Ridge Creek Bluff 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 Staff's
site visit in October 3,2007, 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 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
D-<Z
Trees as he as offered no reason as to why these Trees must be removed. Regardless,
based on the review of the Ridge Creek Bluff 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.
A voiding Trees within the natural bluff will not require the elimination of any
developable lots. This would result in saving approximately 42 Trees on the
Woodland Management Plan. For 7 lots on the Ridge Creek Bluff 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 proposed building pads placement of
homes on these lots or setbacks.
4. 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 the 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.
5. 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.
6. The Ridge Creek Bluff Final Plat fails to include an 8-foot bituminous trail along the
north side of Eagle Creek Boulevard (County Road 16) connecting the two trail stubs
from adjacent developments as required by the City's Design Criteria. Section 9 of
the City of Shakopee Design Criteria requires bituminous trails be constructed along a
designated trail route. The north side of Eagle Creek Boulevard is a designated
transportation trail route that can be utilized as a walkway to the area school.
7. Based on the foregoing, the Ridge Creek Bluff Final Plat fails to comply with the
City's Woodland Management Regulations set forth in City Code g 11.60 Subd. 9
and the City's Design Criteria, therefore staff recommends denial.
b-~
City of Shakopee
Memorandum
TO: Julie Klima, Planner n
.
FROM: . Joe Swentek, Project Engineer
SUBJECT: Pinal Plat - Ridge Creek Bluff Addition
PID NO.: 27-914-001-1,27-914001-2,27-914010-0
CASE NO.: 07053
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 Pinal 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 compliance with the City's
minimum design speed standards as outlined in Section 8.4 (Grades) or SeCtion 8.17
(Street Vertical Curves) of the City of Shakopee's Design Criteria. . They include, but
may not be limited to, the following:
Grades:
Eagle Ridge Lane (PVI Stations)
. 12+34.99 (the maximum allowable slope within 100' of a local street intersection is
3.0%; 3:51 % for 62.67' is provided)
Street Vertical Curves:
. Oakridge Trail (PVI Stations):
. 0+00 (provide a continuation of the vertical curve from the development to the
West; currently no vertical curve is provided.)
. 5+92.52 (50' is provided; 90' is required)
. 7+57.70 (0' is provided; 20' is required)
D-1C
. Eagle Ridge Lane (pVI Stations):
. 0+17.50 (0' is provided; 20' is required)
. 1+04.08 (50' is provided; 90' is required)
. 2+26.12 (0' is provided; 20' is required)
. 2+76.12 (50' is provided; 90' is required)
. 8+62.39 (0' is provided; 20' is required)
. 11+47.32 (50' is provided; 90' is required)
. 12+34.99 (0' is provided; 20' is required)
2. The proposed extension of Oak Ridge Trail from the Ridgeview Estates AdditiQn to the
East results in a cul-de-sac exceeding the maximum allowable length 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 maximum allowable discharge rate of 1/10 cubic
feet per second per acre in a l00-year event as established in Section IV.A.9.b ,of the City
of Shakopee'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. 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 storm water flows. Although the City may permit the proposed discharge
rate for the site, thus increasing the flow, this is contingent upon the Applicant's
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 allowable 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 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 Shako~ 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.
5. 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 5-6 of Block 3 iri violation of
City Code ~~ 4.03, Subd. 2 CD) and ~ 7.18 Subd.1.
D-'\ \
6. The proposed landscaping plan denotes se.veral encroachments into drainage and utility
easements containing emergency overflows (BOP) 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. L Landscaping not in compliance includes, but may tiot be limited
to, the following areas:
. The drainage and utility eaSements containing the proposed sanitary sewer between
Lots 7-8 of Block 3.
. The drainage and utility easements containing the proposed storm sewer between Lots
. 8-9 of Block 3.
· . The drainage and utility easements containing the proposed storm sewer in the rear of
. Lots 6-9 of Block 3.
7. 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 in the rear of Lots 5-12 of Block 1, a minimum of
twenty (20) feet of drainage and utility easement is required, centered on the utility
alignment (35' of drainage and utility easement is provided in the rear of these lots;
however, 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 5 provides 7' of easement, Lot. 6
provides from 2' to 3' of easement, Lot 7 provides from 4' to 7' of easement, Lot 8
provides from 7' to 9' of easement, Lot 9 provides from 9' to 8' of easement, Lot 10
provides from 8' to 10' of easement, Lot 11 provides from 10' to 8' of easement, 'Lot.
12 provides from 9' to 8' of easement).
. For the proposed storm sewer between Lots 10-11 of Block 1, a minimum of thirty-
four (34) feet of drainage and utility easement is required, ceIitered on the utility
alignment (20' is provided).
. For the proposed storm sewer between Lots 6-8 of Block 2, a minimum of forty-six
(46) feet of drainage and utility easement is required, centered on the utility alignment
(35' is provided).
. For the proposed storm sewer between Lots 9-11 of Block 2, a minimum of twenty-
eight (28) feet of drainage and utility easement is required, centered on the utility
alignment (35' is provided; however, the easement is not centered on the proposed
storm sewer alignment);
. For the proposed storm sewer in the rear of Lots 3-6 of Block 3, a minimum of twenty
(20) feet of drainage and utility easement is required, centered on the utility alignment
(8.5' is provided on Lot 6).
D-l2.
,
. For the proposed sanitary sewer between Lots 7.8 of Block 3, a minimum of forty-
nine (49) feet of drainage and 'utility easement is required, centered on the utility
alignment (45' is provided; however, the easement is not centered on the proposed
. sanitary sewer; additionally' there is a proposed storm sewer alignment within the
same easement).
. For the requested realignment of the proposed storm sewer between Lots 8-9 of Block
3, a minimum of thirty-one (31) feet of drainage and utility easement is required,
. centered on the utility (10' is provided).
. The applicant has failed to utilize a combination of additional easement and revisions
to the proposed contours to encompass drainage between LOts 10-11 of Block 3
(proposed drainage flows from Lot 11 across Lot 10).
8. 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.
9. The proposed stonn sewer between Lots 7-8 of Block 3 to between Lots 8-9 of Block 3 is
unacceptable and should be re-routed so as to provide a separate drainage and utility
easement from the deeper sanitary sewer already proposed between Lots 7-8 of Block 3.
10. The proposed storm sewer in the rear of Lots 6-11 of Block 1 is located between fifteen (15)
and twenty (20) feet from the back of the proposed building pads as a result of their lookout
design and. their close proximity to the hlgher elevation County Road 16. This is not
consistent with generally accepted engineering practice. An altetnative to locate the proposed
low point catch basins farther from the building pads, which would provide more usable rear
yards and would provide an additional factor of safety shoulq a catch basin become bloc~ed
with debris, would be to change the housing styles from lookouts to ramblers, thus bringing
the elevations of the building pads up closer to the elevation of County Road 16. The
applicant haS not addressed this concern.
11. The applicant has. not agreed to be responsible for grading the new a1igninent of the Prior .
Lake Outlet Channel and the establishment of turf prior to abandoning the existing channel
. and prior to building permit issuance.
12. 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 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 stonnwater 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 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
D-13
incorporation of WSB'g comments may significantly impact the proposed Final Plat
drawings, the proposed grading and erosion control plans and the proposed street and utility
. plans.
Recommendation
'.
Engineering staff recommends denial of the Final Plat as it fails to comply with the City's Code,
Design Criteria and generally accepted engineering practices.
D-\4
.
~
. WSB
& As.rociates. 1nc. . Infrastructure . Engineering I Planning I Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
M~nneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763-541-48l1O
Memorandum Fax: 763-541-1700
10: Joe Swentek, P.E, City of Shako pee
From: Ted Witkowski, Engineering Sp~cialist 11J2--
cc: Bruce Loney, P. E., City of Shakopee
Todd E. Hubmel', P.E., WSB
Julie Klima, City of Shako pee
Kim Kozar, KHB & K, P.A.
Date: May 9, 2007
Be: Ridge Creek Stormwater Management Plan Review
City of Shako pee, MN
WSB Project No. 1281-91
The Ridge Creek Development stonnwater manageme~t plans and preliminary construction plans bave
been reviewed for conformance with the City's overall stormwaternianagement plan. The site is
located immediate.ly north otBagle Creek Bo~levard (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 stormwater runoff memorandum - dated 02/21106
. Summary of drainage calculations - dated 09/21/05 - ~vised 02122/06
. HydroCad stormwater management calculations - dated 02121106
. Ridge Creek preliminary storinwater management delineation maps - Sheets 24-25 - dated
02122/06
. Ridge Creek preliminary construction plans - dated 11121102-modifed 02ll2l06-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 prev~ously
reviewed on January 5~ ~006, and March 9, 2006. The development plans and site layout have
. undergone modification by the developerts 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 tJ:le 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 51. Cloud
Equal Opportunity Employer K:\(I/ 18/ -9/'Atllllin;Dt,c,,'MEMO-j:rw.m.k.fI50lJ(J7,dtl/.'
D- \S
.
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 City's'3
foot frreboard requirements. This must be modified as discussed in greater ,detail later.
. The developer's proposed storinwater management water quality calculations are in
, , conformance, with the City's stormwater management plan requirements for the site. Please' be
. advised that the Pond 1 & 2 depths exceed 10'. maximum recommendations for a water qpality
treatment pond and the dead pool volume being created exceeds the required water quality
, v.olume 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' arca. This revision will be discussed in detail later in the review.
. ,The Prior Lake Outlet Channel ~cture 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 the
structure design would be included as part ,of the final construction plans. The preparation of the
detailed design plans; 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 ~equirements 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 stonn sewer design must be revised to include runoff from the CR21
future right of way and CSAH 16 fully developed conditions in the analysis. It is requeSted that
the fully developed conditions st~rin ,water-runoff from these areas be included in the storm
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
rec'omniended 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 time, 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 orOA as a
runoff coefficient for Crossing Boulevard does not represent the percentage of impervious
K:'.O/ 18/ -9/Admill 1)",:, MEMO:J'lI't!1/1ek-t/JI))}07,doc
D-Ilt,
- .
Mr. Joe Swentek
. May 9, 2007
Page 3
surface in .the road drainage areas. The, nmoff' coefficients for the road should be revised in the
storm .sewer design to reflect the amount of impervious surface within the road right of way .
Based on our review of the preliminary construction plans, 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 ~esign for the upsizing of the Prior La~e Outlet Channel structures to serve as the
emergency overflow route for the Prior Lake Outlet Ch~el should be, forwarded for review. It
was indicated. by "the developer's engineer that th~ structures would be increased in capacity. It is
requested that the structures be increased to include an additional 60 square feet bel,ow 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 !llodifications to insure freeboard to the low building
openings for Lots 1-4. Block 6. The grading pIan of the overflow elevation to the east appears to
be at elevation 756 which is within 1.0 feet of the Jow building openings. (Sheet S)
2. . The low building elevations for Lots 1-18, Block 6 do not appear to have 3' of freeboard to the
Prior Lake Outlet Channel water surface elevation of7SS.3. The low building will require
. modification to meet the freeboard 'reqUirements. The low floor elevation for the structures that
are hydraulically connected to the Prior. Lake Outlet Channel from Pond land 2 should be at
elevation 758.3 or higher. .
Storm Water Modelint!
1. The storm water modeling input for.sub~tchnient 98 of the CSAH 16 right of way should use
an SC8 CN of 85 to reflect the fully developed conditions. The use of an 8C8 CN of 6S does not
reflect the fully developed conditions for the right of way with the future widening and
construction or'the path. Please modify the ~odel input accordingly.
2. The storm water modeling output for the 100-year 24-hour event for subcatchments 98, 128,
: 13S, 14S does not correspond to the notes shown on sbeets 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 148 should be modeled under fully
developed conditions with an SC8 CN of8S. The use of an 8C8 CN of61 is not representative
of the future runoff from this area, The model input should be modified to reflect the fully
developed conditions.
K:'JI)]8NJI'.4dmlll Docs MHMO-js.'cmlek.05IJ'J07.c'm:
D-17
.
Mr. Joe Swentek
. May 9. 2007
Page 4
Sheet 1 - Cover Sheet
1. 11le 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 !lystems will be'approximately 12 feet deep in front of the walkout structures. The
width of the easements in the vicinity of the front of these walkout structures should be
evaluate~ for future replacement or maintenance of the systems. This condition exists in the
following locations:
., Lots 10-11, Block 1 (13 feet)
. ~otsJ8-19, BlockJ-{I5 feet) '-
. Lots 20-21, Block 3 (IS 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 be~een Lots 11-12, Block 4, will encompass a 48-incb
diameter stonnse~er -pipe which rriay 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 th.e pipe depth and diameter to establish the
necessary easement width.
3. The storm sewer drainage utility'eaSement along the lotS 6-iO. Block 1, rear yard "area is
approximately S' 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 be-I 0' in width in
the vicInity orCB 47.
5. The drainage and qtility easement in Lot 16. Block 3 does not appear to be lor from the'storm
seweJ.: on the north side. The easements should be modified in this area.
Sheet 4 - PreliminarvPbit
1. The drainage and utility easement over the storm sewer in the rear y~ds of Lots 16-24, Blos:.k 7,
appears to be within 5' of the stonn sewer pipe on the south side. It is recommended that 10' be
provided on the ,south side of the storm 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: ,/J/28/-9/-Ac/mill Doc.' MEMa-j,<lr<!JI/<!k-05IJ907.ck.c
D- ,~.
"
Mr. Joe Swentek
. May 9, 2007
Page S
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 36-31 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\'tatthe 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 - CD 28, Oak-Creek Drive Low Point- CB 5. Ridge
Creek Drive - CB 31, Ridge Creek Drive Low Point- 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 anticipa~d 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 comer of the site adjacent to the Riverside
Bluffs development through the par~ 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 I' of the low building openings. The overflow
elevations 'mustbe lowered to provide at least 1. foot of freeboard. The emergency overflow
route located in the northwest corner of the 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 C~k 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 comer afLot 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:.(J/ 2HI.9I'AJmill OllC,' MIiMo-j.,wt!lllek..(i51J91J7.J(lc
D-lq
Mr. Joe Swentek
. May 9, 2QO,7"
Page 6
4. The emergency overflow route Ql1d elevation from the Oak Ridge Trait street low point should
.. be illustrated on the grading plan. It appears that conveyance no~ 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 snould 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 adjace!lt to the walkouts was previously
discussed. The grading in this area and low-b~ilding openings will require further review once
the emergency overflow route for the Prior Lake Outlet channel.~ast of Ridge Creek Drive has
been updated.
. .
S.. The drainage and utility easement on Lot 12 and 13, Block 1, for the overland overflow from the
rear-yard depressions to the east should be adjusted to encompass the stormwater 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
eval:uate th~ 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.andlor the overflow route must be
modified to ,provide 1 t of freeboard to ,the structure.
Sheet 7 - Preliminarv Utility. Plan
1. The Pond 1 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 stonn sewer outlet should include a skiinmer structure similar to the Pond 1 outlet
Structure.
3. . . The storm sewer connection to CD 23 (const. plan.ID) indicates that the structure will not have
adequate structure wall between the pipes. It does not appear to be constuctable. Please review
thestonn 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 surfl,lce elevation. Please update the higllwater 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 Ci'eek
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 stonn 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 s~cture type, structure
diameter, and casting type.
D-20 K: O/11J/C9/ Adm/II,DIl"" MfiMO-J.'K'~II/~k.fIS(1907.""c
.
Mi. loe Swentek
May 9, 2007
Page 7
8. The, stonn sewer from CB 4 -5 (const..'plan In) ap~ 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 storm sewer from CB'19-20 (const. Plan In) appears to' be in close proximity with the
sanitary sewer. Please review clearance.
10. The, stonn sewer, from CBMH 15-14, in the ret\l' yard of 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.
, 'i 1. 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 (canst. 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.
SheetS - Preliminarv Utilitv 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 stonn
sewer system at CBMH 52 (canst plan ID) is not recommended. ,
2. The drainage arid utility easement oyer the storm 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 stonn 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.
(, The stonn sewer manhole located in Ridge Creek Lane south of Lot 6, Block 4 should include
structure data.
5. The stann sewer configuration at CB 41 creates a poor hydraulic angle in the system. It is
recommended that the system direct flow from CB 41 north to CB42 and continue in the north
curbIine 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 stann sewer system apron outfalls 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 Shako pee standard details.
2. The storm sewer system aprons and last three pipe joints to all inlets and outfalls should ~e tied
to improve the stonn sewer structural integrity.
.
K: QJ281-9/'AJ/IIin DfK,d.IEMO-j.....OIIlek..()S0911?oItl(!
0-21
Mr. Joe Swentek
. May 9, 2007
Page 8
3. The storm sewer profiles were not verified with the design calculation at this time. O~ce 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 Stonn sewer were not verified as part of
this r~view. The developer~s engineer should verify and resolve conflicts. with other pipe
networks
Sheet 15 - Storm Sewer and Street Profiles
.
1. 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 stonn sewer outfall from CB-31 appears to be a rather steep slope, 10.6%,. It is
recommended that the structu.re build for CB-31 be increased in order to flatten the outfall pipe
to Pond 2. It was anticipated that this will reduce the outfall velocities of the stormwatednto
Pond 2 and reduce erosion.
Sheet 16 - Storm "Sewer Street Profiles
L The stonn sewer pipe profiles from CBMH-53 to CBMH 52 should be flattened to reduce the
velocities in the storm sewer system. It was anticipated that the build for CBMH-53 and
CBMH-52 could be increased in order to reduce the velocities in the sto~ sewer and eliminate
. Ii hydraulic grade line that may exceed the rim elevation of CBMH..52. The hydraulic grade line
. in the storm sewer system design at CBMH-52 should be verified once these calculati()DS have.
been completed..
2. The"storm seWer profiles were not verified at this time.
Sheet i7 - Storm Sewer and Street Profiles
1. The storm sewer pipe from CB-S7 to CB-56 does not appear to provide adequate pipe cover at
Sta. 4+00 based on the proposed design. It is reconunen4ed that a minimum of 1. 7S 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 structure build for CB-4S 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 7-8, Block
3.
K:./J[ ::lltl-V I A/I/IIln' DtIC.' MEMO-j.'\renrt!lc-IlirIlllJ7.d",.
D-1'L
Mr. Joe Swentek
, May 9,2007
Page 9
2. The stonn 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 Stonnwater 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. .
IhIsm
-
K;'O/2IJ/.9/'.4JmfnJJoc.f'MEMO-j.n.r;nltk..flS0907.dclc
D-l~
.
I. ~
.
. . WSB
& Assocl~les, Inc. Infrastructure I Engineering I Planning I Construction 101 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Memorandum Tel: 163-541-4800
Fax: 763-541-1100
To: Joe Swentek, P.E., City of Shako pee
. From: Ted Witkowski, Engineering Specilllist /f" ~
. . cc: Bruce Loney, P. E., City of Shakopee
Todd E. Hubmer, P.E., WSB
Julie Klima, City of Shakopee
Kim Kozar, KHB & If, P.A.
Date: May 16, 2007
Re: Ridge l;reek Storm Sewer Design Calculations Review
City of Shako pee, MN
WSB Project No. 1281-91
The Ridge Creek Development stonn sewer ~esjgn Calculations have been reviewed for confonnance
. .. with the City's overall.stonnwater 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 fot review by Plowe Engineering included the .
following:
. Ridge Creek Storm Sewer Design Calculations - dated 05/09/07 (email)
.. . Ridge Creek Stonn.Sewer Drainage Area MaJl- dated 05/04/-07 (cmail)
The Ridge Creek storm sewer design calculations were previously reviewed on January 5, 2006, and
March 9,2006. The outstanding issu~s from the previous rev:iews.wiIl be included as part of this
document. Based on my review oCtile storm ~e~r design calculations, I offer the following comments
and observations for your consideration:
Comments and Observations
.. The stonn sewer design calculations will require modifications to include the fully develope4
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: '0/18' .9/'Admln'DlJc.t'MEMQ-jrw.nl.Ic-llS/ 5fJ.7.J"c
D-1L\-
J
"
i Mr. Joe Swentek
May IS., 2007
Page 2
. The storm sewer system data in the construction plans should correspond with the stonn sewer
, ~~sign calculations data. ,The plan view data and profile data should be updated.
. It is requested that the stann sewer system hydraulicgradeline from CB 8 (drainage map ID) to
Pond 2 be provided to evaluate the system capacity and comparison of the hydraulic.gradeline
with the slonn 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 stonn sewer system be tied at locations that exceed an 8.00% vertical
slope. The stonn sewer system should include anti siphon diaphragms-ooncrete collars from "
CBMH 8 to CBMH 4, and from CB 7 to CBMH 4. It appears that these segments of the storm
sewer system down the bluff due to the vertical slopes could be susceptible to undennining. '
"
, The 48" apron diameter indicated at the Pond 2 outfaU does not appear to correspond to the 42"
.
diameter pipe from CBMH 1 to.Pond 2. Please verify, and correct as necessary.
. The stonn sewer system tabulation should be included in the construction plans for review.
Please verify the tabulation data with the design dll.tL '
. The majority. of the stoml 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
wi.thin acceptable velocity limits for the design.
Based on my review of the preliminary storm sewer design, I would recommend the design and
constructiO!1 plans for the stonn sewer not be approved at this time. It il! 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 Creek'stonn sewer design and drainage Ilrea map. If you have
, any questions or comments associated with this review, please do not hesitate to contact me at your
convenience. .
lhlsm
D-25' K: :(JIl8 1-9IIAd/llilliDocs'MEM01SWtlllek-OSJ 507.d/}c
....
, WSB'
.
dA~/"r:. Infrastructure. EnglnHrlng . Planning. Construc:tJOll 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
. Minneapolla, MN 55416
Tel: 763 54t-4800
Fax: 763 541-1700
Memorandum
To: Joe Swentek,PE, City of Shakopee
From: . Todd E. Hubmer, PE, WSB & Associates, lnc.
Ted Witkowski, Engineering SpeCialist, WSB & Associlltes, Inc.1\-~
cc: Bruce Loney; PB, city ofSluzkopee
Julie Klima, City of Shakopee
Kim Kozar, KHB&K, PA .
Dille: June S, 2007 .
Re: . Ridge Creek Storm water Management Plan and Grading Plan Review .
City of Shalwpt!e, MN
WSB Project No. 1281-91
The Ridge Creek Development ~tonnwater maiJagement plans and preliminary grading plans have been
reviewed for conformance with the City's overall stormwater management 'plan. The site is located .
". immediately north ofEagie Creek Boulevard CeSAR 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 stormwater management plan response memonmdum to 05/09/07 review
comments -. dated OS/29/01; received the e-mail 05130/07
. Ridge Creek stonn sewer design response memorandum to 05/16/07 revi~w - dated 05/29/07;
received via e-mail 05/30/01
. Response memorandum to ~ity review comments - ~ted OS/29/07; 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 .xIs - undated - received 05/30/07 &.
6/04/07 via e-mail
. Ridge Creek stonn sewer drainage area map - revised OS/29/07 - received 05/31/07
. Ridge Creek storm water drainage area map - revised 0512107 & 2122106 - 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 dminage area mapping was received today.
InO/18/-9JlAdmilllDocsIMEMO-j,ulClIlek-060407.doc
D~2-{P
Mr~ Joe Swentek .
June 5, 2007
Page 2
Therefore, review of the sto~ water design. calculations for conformance with the previous comments
and response IUemorandum will be limited in nature. The stoim sewer system design and dtainage area .
. map are proposed to be.reviewed simultaneously with the construction plans, as indicated in the May 16
review c01llll:lents. The storm sewer design calculations and preliminary utility plans have been.
reviewed as part oftbe submittal documents. However, the final storm sewer desi{tll calculations will
requue verification with the construction plans once the~ have been provided.
Summarv .
. It. is recommended that the grading plan .and preliminary plat not be approved at this time. The
. Prior Lake outlet channel emergency overtlow route east of Ridge Creek Drive bas not been
revised .~om previous submittals. The developer's 'cngiD.eer proposed to construct an emergency
. overflow similar to the grading plan that was previously reviewed in January, 2006 and it was
detennined that significant modificati~tl! to the grading plan, as well as the dminage utility
easements, within Block 7 would be required to accommodate the proposed overland overO.ow
. . route: The following items would be required in the grading plan and plat to accolDID:odate an
overland overflow route as proposed:
0 The grading plan in the rear yards ofLo1:s26, Block 7, on the southeast comer, should be
revised for ~e construction of a channel of adequate capacity belo?ielev. 757.4, which
would require a bottom elevation of756.4 and 30 feet in widtb~ 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 eIev. 757.5 at a minimum to
aCCOmmodate the proposed overflow route.
0 The proposed overland ovedlow route at the elevations defined above will offer
approximately one foot oftlow within.the overflow prior to the Prior Lake outlet
channel overflowing into the rear yards of Block 3 at elev. 757.5. Du.e to the proposel!
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.
o . This emergency overflow at the elevations indicated. above is necessaxy to provide flood
protection for structures upstream of the Ridge Creek development with low building
openings that would be ~bject to potential flooding based on the current grading plan
and emergency overflow elev~ons.
0 It may be necessary to eliminate one or two lots to adequately a~mmodate the
currently proposed emergency overflow. Additionally, the lots containing the overflow
will need additional protections and easement limitations to prevent alterations to the
EOF. Thes,e restrictions should include: no construction of fencing, gar4ens, grading
alterations, or placement of out buildings within the easements. These limitations may
be troublesome, as many of the yards are adjacent to Crossings 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-2.1 /(10/28/.9/lAdlllll/lDocsIMEMO-jslVenll!t.06QI07.dfX
"
Mr. Joe Swentek
June 5, 2007
Page 3
The review of the remaining docun'lents provided indicates that the storm sewer design calculations are
incomplete., The .stonn sewer systems on O~ Creek Drive bave not been incorporated into the design ,
. calculations. Please find the followiiig comments associated with the storm sewer design calculations
and preliminary utility plan (Sheet 7-8).
. The Oak Creek Drive stonn sewer stlUctures CB64A, CB64, CB60B. and CB60C were provided
via e-mail on June 4 in the Iftemoon. 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 for'~ese segments of the system.
. The hydraulIC grade line calculations for the storm sewer system from CBS to CBMH4 should
be provided for review to evaluate the system capacity. Please be adviSed that the addition of .
CBMH4A within the stonn 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 stonnwater discharge velocities fh>m 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 stonn sewer design C8lculationsfor apron pipe diameters to CBS7 and,CB59 should be
verified and corrected as necessary.
. 'The 12-inch di~eter 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 stonn sewer design calculations and
, preliminary utility sheet 7 and 8:
. The apron pipe diameter to CBMH37 should be verified and corrected.
· . The location of CB43 shQuld be moved to the Crossing Boulevard curb line.
. The structure identifications for CB4O. CB41. and CB42 should be shown on the plan sheet.
. The stonn sewer pipe slope from CBMH 52 to CBMH 51 should correspond to the design
.values.
. The pipe slope 'from CB60 to CB60A ~ou1d be verified with the design calculations and
corrected as necessary,
. The stonn sewer pipe slope from CB58A 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 ~e 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 IS-inch diameter at a minimum in
the design calculations and on Sheet 8.
D-l~ KIOJ !81.91 \Admill\DD~.IMEMO-:iswenlek-06(U07,d(J(' ,
Mr. Joe Swentek
, June 5, 2007
Page 4
. The pipe length from MHA to CBi should co~spond to the deSign calculations. Please correct
~d modify as necessary.
. The pipe slope.from CBMH7 :to CBMH6 shoUld.be updated on ~heet 8 to corresPond with the
design calculations.
. The pipe inverts at Ca12 on Shee~ 8 should be verified with the design calculations and
corrected as necessary. .
. The pipe slope from CB 12 to CB8 should be ~pdated to correspond to the design calcula~ODll on
Sheet 8.
. The pipe slope from. CBll to CBlO on Sheet ~ should correspond to the design calculations.
. .
. The pipe slope from CB20 to CB 19 on Sheet 8 should .correspond to the design calculations.
. The pipe slope from CB27 to CB28 should be verified with the design calculati9DS.
. 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 structure for events less than the 100-
year, 24-hour storm. Please review the proposed pond skimmer location and relocate
. accordingly.
Preliminary Plat - Sheets 3 & 4
. The c!rainage and utility easements on Lot 12, Block 3, should be evaluated in the area of the
proposed storm sewer apron.ltappeam 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 separation from the stonn sewer system in the rear.yards. The preliminary utility plan
, did not appear to have 10 feet of horizontal separation.
. The drainage ~d utility easement ool.ot 5, Block 1, does not appear to bave tOfoot of
horizontal separation from CB24. ?lease verify and correct as necessary.
.' The drainage and utility' easement olLots 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 1 and 8 should encompass the overlandovertlowroute to the ov~ow elevation of756 as a
minimum. .
. The Lot 29~ Block 6, proposed gas line easement does not appear to be completed with r~ect
to the tie-in point on the northwest comer oftbe 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.
l)-2q KIOI 18/-9/ IAdnrilllDorsWEMO;iswenlek-06D401,JO<"
.
.
Mr, Joe Swe~ek
f . . June 5, 2007
- Page 5
Storm water Modelin~
. The.stonnwater model appears to.be in conformance with the City criteria for water quality and
water q~tity policies; The stODnwater ~odel dead pool volUqles below the outlet elevations
. will require minor modifications of th~ input to cor.n.:spond with the grading plan. The reviewed \ .
preliminary stormwater management plan drainage area mapping (Sheet 24--25) should indicate
the final revision date and upda~ddate in the signature block, once the mal plans are prepared.
This.completes are review oftbe Ridge Creek development storm water management plan, stonn.sewer
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.
1h
.
--
D-30 KIO! J81-91IAdmi"lDo('sIMEM01Slt'ellIek.060~07.doi:
....
'. WSB,'
.A ' . Infrastructure _ Engineering _ Planning _ ConstrucUon 701 X4mia Avenue South
ell: .uocli1tu./nc.
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN &5416
Tel: 7e3 &41-4800
Fax: 763 &41.1700
. Memorandum
, To: Joe Swentek, PE, City of Shakopee
. From: Todd E. Hubmer, PE, WSB & Associates,lnc. " 1L
Ted Witkowski, Engineering Specialist, WSB & Associates, lne. -1"1. ,
cc: Bruce Loney, PE, City 01 Shllkopee
Julie Klima, ,City 'of Shakopee
Kim Kozar, KllB&K, PA
. Date: June 25, 2007
Re: Ridge Creek Stormwater Management Plan and Grading Plan Review
City of Shako pee, MN .
WSB Project No. 1281-91
. We have reviewed the COUlity Road (CR) 21 right of way stormwater routing to the northeast Pond'
on the Ridge Creek Development as well as avaUable 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. Dir~ct 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 11 portion of the
road typical section would.drain to the n~rth.
. Creditstonn sewer overSiZing of'0.34 acres of CR 21 right-of-way (~" x 1826') based on
geometry file placing sidewalk 10' from Ridge Creek Developmeflt It is assumed that
the typical section would extend 2' past sidewalk prior.to 1:3 sideslope down.to match'
grades.
· . Credit for Pond 1 water quality arid quantity for CR 21 right-of-way for 0.34 acres of
, . grass area on sideslope to rear yard stonn sewer in Block 6.
2. Expand School Pond on the north side ofCR 21 to accommodate right-oi-way and lowpoint
at Statioi1226+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-3\ K: 101281 -91 IAdminlDocsIMBMO-jswenle/(.fI62507.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 storm sewer in Block 6.
· Credit st9nn sewer oversizing of 0.34 acres ofCR 21 right-of-way (8" x 1826') based on
. geometry file placing sidewalk 1 0' 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 resid~ces adjacent to CR
21 ~n the development.
. The City would not need to credit for pond expansion:
.. The same storm sewer and Pond i credit for CR 21 grass right-of-way.
..
4. Construct.a new pond'on the north side ofCR 21 located southwest of the School Pond
. The pond would not reqUire credit to developer.
. .., The pond would require ~ome 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 CR21 grass right-of-way. .
5. Revise CR 21 vertical profile and ,route storm water runoff to a new Pond either on the
Northwest-Northeast quadr!mt of CR 21 & Southbridge ~arkway.
. 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 1 credit for CR 21 grass right-of-way.
These are some of the options available to the County to provide a pond for the CR 21 right-of-way
located north of the Ridge Creek Development The CR 21lowpoint 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-wflY.
D-32 K:101281 -911AdmlnlDocslMEMO-jswenlek-062507.doc
Mr. Joe Swentek
JWle 25, 2007
Page 3 ,
The Ridge Development Gradiitg Plan received via email on JWle 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 elev~on 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 th.e sideslope Will be approximately 4: 1 ftom
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 assume<l: 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 side slope from the bituminous ttail 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 ~oulevard 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 Bo.ulevard from P~nd 1. Please review the proposed vertical curves. with the
. design standards. It appears that the road will be undulating in this ilrea.
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 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. ~.
lh
'D-33 K:\O/28/.9/ \AdmiIJ\DocsIMEMO-jswlltllek-062S07.doc
Page lof4
Kim Kozar
-
From: Ted Witkowski [TWitkowski.@wsbeng.com}
Sent: Thursday. August 23, 20079:41 AM
To: Joe Swentek
Cc:; Todd Hubmer
S!Jb),ct: RE: Ridge ,Creek SWMP & Grading Plan Review
Good Morning Joe.
It is my opinion that the stonnwater 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 COl1structed
as proposed the water quality. water quantity, and rate control provide~ by the ponds is consistent with the SWMP
policies. The pond construction on the northeast comer 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 si1e, may not be expanded due to issues with the property owner to the east. If the
, . northeast pond is not 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
r:neet the criterion discussed with the developer's engine~r.
The June 51h memorandum requested the storm sewer hydraulic gradeline calculations for the stonn 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 damag~ 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 Witkowski
Engineering Specia6st
, 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
r
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-- 3tf
Page 2 of 4'
Joe Swantek
eittor Shakopee
Project Engineer
Ph: (952) 233.9363
Fx: (952) 233.3801
From: Ted Witkowski [mailto:TWitko~ki@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 181h 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
typioal section would extend 2' past sidewalk prior to 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
are~ on sideslope to rear yard l:;torm sewer in Block 6.
2. Expand School Pond on the north side of CR 21 to accommodate right of way and tow pOint at
Station 226+00.
. Design may require a retaining wall to a.djacsnt 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 10'1rom Ridge Cree~ 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 CFt 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-3S
Page 3 of 4
. The same storm sewer and po~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..
. The pond would not require cre~it 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 Rre 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 pr9vide a poild for the CR 21 riQht 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 0; the Fire Station Pond or creation of a new pond. It apPears
that expansion of the Rre Station Pond could be done to accommodate the CR 21 right of way. . .
The Ridge Development Grading Plan received via emait on June 1811l with the .revisedemergency
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 bulldirig pad elevations. The 760
contour elevation should be shown based on the LO house type and the grades in the ~verflow
. swale shou.ld 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 sideslo~ will be approximately 4:1 from the building pad
down to the bottom 9f the swate. This would indicate that the rear yard gr.ading wlll not create 10! of ,
available rear yard behind the structure prior to the down slope to th~ overflow swate. It is assumed
that the grading plcm 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 tt1elow
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 toW 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
questionl!! feel free to give me a call. Thanks.
Ted Witkowski
Engineering Specialist
WSB & Associates
701 - Xenia Ave. So. Ste 300
Minneapolis, MN 5541!3
10/3/2007 D~3lp
Page4of4
Phone 763-541-4800
Oirect763-287 -7165
Fax 763-541-1700
tedw@wsbeng.com
-
from: Joe Swentek [mailto:JSwentek@ci.shakopee.mn.us]
'. Sent: Wednesday, August 22., 2007 2:59 PM
To: Ted Witkowski
Subject: Ridge Creek SWMP &. Grading Plan Review
Ted,
Was the last memo you sent out conceming this project dated June 5, 20071 Please confirm. If .there was.
a mamo after this, could you please a-mail a signed copy to my attention? Thank you.
Joe Swantek
City of Shakopee
Project Engineer
Ph: (952) 233.9363
Fx: (95.2) 233.380~
10/312007 D~31.
SEP-27-2007 08:36 SHRKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES 9524457767 P.03
SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION !
, ,I. l.
"Lighting the Way w Yesterday, Today and Beyond"
I
MEMORANDUM
TO: Shakopee Community Development Department
FROM: Joseph D- Adams, Planning and Engineering Director
SUBJECT: STAFF REVIEW RECORD COMMENTS for:
Final Plat for Ridge Creek Bluff
CASE NO: 07053
DATE: 9/27/07
COMMENTS:
Municipal water service is avaj]able 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 Tmnk
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 installadon is available subject to our standard tenns 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 will be required to submit separate construction plans for ,each
individual plat, Dot 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 tbe 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 tbe Trunk Water Charge is being considered to bring projected
costs in line with revenue.
( cODtinued) D- 3<6
Post Office Box 470 . 255 Sarazin Street. Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-0470
(952) 445-1988 . Fax (952) 445-7767
w ww.shakopeeutilities.com
SEP-27-2007 08:36 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES 9524457767 P.04
:
,
,
,
(continued)
3. We bave requested information from the de'feloper's representatives on the
estimated WQter main construction cost so we can invoice for the water main
plan review and inspection cost deposit. We have been reviewing plans for thjs
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 witJ1
SPUC approval block.
5. Due to the severe sloping, the water main across Lots 6 & 7, Block 3 ofRldge
Creek Bluff will require a greater easement area equal to 12.5 feet on each Jot
for a total of 25 feet.
6. Due to the water main size and depth, the water main across Lots 11 & 12, Block
1 of Ridge Creek BluffwiUrequire a greater easement area equal to 15 feet on
each lot for a total of 30 feet.
I
!
,
,
,
: D-39
,
,
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-40
Permit Application 07 .09 Ri~~~ Creek
Staff Review Report, September ~, 2007
Erosion and Sediment Control: Modification to Prior Lake Outlet Chanel has the potential to
cause significant erosion and sediment transport.
Rate Control: Site is outside of District boundary.
Water Quality: Site is outside of District boundary.
Volume Control: Site is outside of District boundary.
Wetlands:
Analvsis
The following summarizes staffs' analysis of the 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 of the 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. Ifthe 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.
2
D-lfl
Permit Application 07.09 Riq~~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:
The Watershed District staff recommends Alternative
Action Required:
A motion and second authorizing that a permit be issued, with the waiver, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Provision of security as required by the District's Rule L, and replenish the Permit Fee
Deposit (as needed) in accordance with the District's Rule K and Board Resolution 05-
203.
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 bring it to a uniformly friable condition. }.JI disturbed areas that are to be
vegetated. are to receive this treatment prior to placement of topsoil and seed, sod or
similar suitable final vegetative cO'v'er. This is to be done once there will be no more
heavy traffic on the soils and in preparation for establishing final turf. The intention is
that the soil (particularly the subsoil) be finally conditioned and not left in a
damaged/compacted condition '.'lith compromised ability to hold and transmit \'v'ater.
4. Completion of a Declaration and }...cceptance of Conservation Easement (D}...CE) in
conformance with 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 f-or the DACE. The applicant shall supply legal descriptions and drawings of
the buffer areas.
5. Completion of a Development f...greement CDf-...) to memorialize the ditch check and the
connnitment to direct roof and dri'le';/ay areas to pervious surfaces. This is to be done
prior to or concurrent with filing of the final plat and bef-ore selling, transferring or
renting the site or any portions of it. The District will supply standard language for the
Df.... The applicant shall supply a legal description and drawing of the ditch check area.
6. Dedicate Outlot A as a Drainage Easement to the PLSLWD.
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-l{.2 3
Permit Application 07.09 Ri<i~eCreek
Staff Review Report, September., 2007
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 $1 O/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.
l)-tj,3 4