Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout13.B.2. Grading Permit Application from Randy Noecker of Ridge Creek I-Res. No. 6769 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Grading Permit Application from Randy Noecker of Ridge Creek I - Resolution No. 6769 DATE: May 20, 2008 INTRODUCTION: A grading permit application has been submitted by Randy Noecker of Ridge Creek I to grade 80 acres. Staff's review with Council memo and attachments and Resolution No. 6769 were submitted with the May 5, 2008 agenda. The purpose of this agenda item is to review the grading permit, which was delayed due to a request from the property owner, to the May 20, 2008 City Council meeting. BACKGROUND: Previously, staff submitted a Council memo with attachments along with Resolution No. 6769 in the May 5, 2008 City Council packet. City Council should bring back previous memo, dated Mav 2, 2008, along with the resolution for consideration for approval at the Mav 20, 2008 City Council meeting. This item was requested to be postponed until the May 20, 2008 Council meeting by the applicant, as he could not attend the May 5, 2008 meeting. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Offer Resolution No. 6769, A Resolution Approving a Grading Permit for Ridge Creek I, Inc. and mave its adoption. 2. Deny Resolution No. 6769 and provide staff with specific findings of denial for the record. RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend Alternative No. 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 6769, A Resolution Approving a Grading Permit for Ridge Creek I, Inc. and move its adoption. ruce Loney, Public Works Director BL/pmp ENGR/2008-PROJECTS/2008-COUNCIL./MEM6769-FINAL 05/20/2008 16:21 + BRIGGS MORGAN MPLS PAGE 02/40 ' l~r ? ~ i 220010S Center ~ I ~ ~ C 60 South 8th Street ~ ~ 1 ~.,J MinneaDOlis MN 55402-2757 p , a N o • tel 612,977.8400 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ fax 612,977,8650 May 20, .2005 Jack Y. Perry 61~ 2.977.8497 J~enT@briggs.com VIA FAX Shakopee Ciry Council C1ty of Shakopee Shakopee City Hail 129 South. Holmes Street Shakopee, IvIN 55379 . Ra: Ridge Creek Z, plc.'s applieatlon :foX grading pex~uuit .Dear Council Members: This Council should reject proposed Resolution No~ 6769, which cabs for a supposed approval of Ridge Creek's grading permit application witb. such burdensome and unwarranted conditions that. the resolution would, in fact, effectively deny the application. Jn short, the proposed resolution fails to account for the Court-approved pz'eliuminary plat tb,at governs the developmeztt of the subject property .and, therefoze, impxoparly requires changes that would eviscerate he Court-approved preliminary plat. A chart addressing eaekt of the proposed conditions is .attached.. before the specific contents of the. attached charts are. addressed, however, it is necessary to review the related applications and litigatio>cx so this Council can properly understand why the proposed.conditions are overreaching and would likely be struck down bythe district court. A. PROCEDURAL ~STOR~ A. Wetland ne~rnaxt applicatlopts ~ November of 2005, Ridge Creek .submitted to City a wetland permit application and prelaxninary plat application. City extended its deadline to respond to the preliminary plat application but failed to timely respond to or extend its deadline to respond to the wetland permit application, which included, among other things, a wetland delineation. ..The wetland permit application was granted by operatiozl of law due to City's failure to timely grrant, deny, or extend its deadline to grant oz deny the application. In February of 2006, Ridge Czeek submitted to City a revised prelixxtinary plat application, which supplanted its then pending November, 2005 preliminary plat application. Ridge Czeek simultaneously submitted a wetland replacement plats, which sought to amend tl~e already-granted wetland petxnit application by calling for the removal and off site replacement of B[Iggs and Morgan, Professional ASbocidtio0 Minneapolis I StPaul 1 www,brlggs,com Member -Lei Mundi, a Global PssoClailon of Independent Law Fans 85/20/2008 .16:.21 + BRIGGS MORGAN MPLS PAGE 03/40 BRIGGS Ago _MORGAN Page 2 IirZay 20, 2008 certain. wetlatzds on the subject property. City again extended its deadline to respond to the pxelimixiary .plat application but failed to timely respond to the wetland replaceixiez1t plan.. As a result, the wetland replacement plan was granted by operation of law in A.pxil, 2006. Ridge Cxeek then sought and was granted partial summary judgzxient in the district court iui: Case No. 70-CV-07-19. Tl1e Courtt held that P~idge Cxeek was entitled to~a writ of inandainus ordering issuance of the wetland permit application ao.d wetlaxid replacem.exit plan under Minn. Stat. § 15.99. .The Court specifically rejected City's. defense, which was that .its deadlines to zespond to ~e wetland permit application axed wetlaxid replacement plan application were.. extended wk~en the deadlines to grat~it o~ deny the preli~xninary plat applications wexe extended. As a result, City's subsequent attempted rejection of the wetland applications were deemed untimely. 2. pxelimiu~a lit a licatio~z Ridge Creek also sought axed was granted summary judgixaent witb, respect to its prelimixxary plat, applicationz because City's attempted denial was. arbitrary and capricious as a matter of law. City had attempted to base its rejection of Ridgy Creek's preliminary plat applications on l~i,dge Creek's alleged failure to obtaiu~ approval of its wetland permit application or wetlaxzd replacement plan, but the Court kteld that reason for denial was invalid because the wetland applications. had in fact been approved by law. As a result, the Court ordered approval of the preliminary plat. T'he parties stipulated to entry of tlzat judgmezat. City atterxapted to appeal, but. the Court of Appeals rejected the appeal as prenasture. 3. Final p at apul£c_atiot~ Ridge Cxeek then submitted to City a final plat application that substantially complied with the Court-approved preliminary plat. Rather thao. reviewing. the final plat application for confoxxz1ance with tlae preliminary plat - as is required by law.-~ City ze^viewed tlae application as if there wexe no approved prelixnimary plat .anal issued a wide range of reasons for denial based on its improper de novo revzevv. .City's solitaz-y argument ,for its improper review relied on the following underlined insertion froze Minn. Star. § 462.358, subd. 3b: [Following preliminary appzoval the applicant ;~xzay request final approval by the znuxiicipality, and upon such request the municipality shall .certify final approval :within 60 days if the applicant -has coxzzplied. with [1] all conditioxis and xe uirexuients of a,~plicable regulations axed [2] all coziditions axed requizemei~,ts 05/20/2008 16:21 + BRIGGS MORGAN MPLS PAGE 04/40. BRIGGS No- MORGAN Page3 May 20, 2008 upon which the preliminary approval is expressly conditioned either through per~orrrxance or the execution o£ appropriate agreements assuring perforimance.] (Brackets and en~pktasis added). City implicitly. conceded than the non-underliixed second statutory provision was met because xt imposed no such "conditions axed requirements" on its pxelinaiz~ary plat denial. But,- City argued that the underlined first provision in Mizw.. Stat. § 462.35$, subd. 3b, provided an unfettered second opportunity for City to review items that were approved in the preliminary plat for conformance with City Code. This second bite at the apple argument is clearly wrong. There is only one way in which to fairly read this pzovisiozt without. makixxg a mockery of the judicially-recognised preezninenee of the preliminary platpxoeess. That is, the provision onl allows City to review the additional oz new izxformation contained in the fi~aal plat application for compliance with those City Code provisions which ware-not alzeadydeterrrtined to be satisfied in the pzeliminary plat process. Fixial plat applications are distinct from. anal more limited in scope than preliminary plat applications.. Specifically, per City Code, the final plat application was comprised of: (a) copies o£ a d awi of the final lit; (b) copies of a drawing of the area blat; (c) :construction ins for all public. improvements; and (d) when applicable, .construction laps for: streets, -sewer mains, storni drainage facilities, sidewalacs, -txaXls, street lights, watermaix~s and :other ..public improvements governed by ShalCOpee Public Utilities .design c~xteria. City Code § 12.22; see Ridge Creek Resp. Mem. at 13. 1'ursua~oit to City Code and the statutozy provision at issue, these new plans-notably, the construction plans-were to be raviewed fox compliance with the City. Code pzovisions that were not already deterixiined to be satisfied in the preliminary plat process. -For exau~~l.e, if the construction plans fox the storm sewez and streets showed a technical problem with the described .construction (i.e., a problem with the fti~uished grade off' a street or a . violation of City Code regarding sewer construction .that was .not before the City in the. preliminary plat process), then City could identify that problem and, ii' possible, propose a condition to zesolve the pxoblem. Tn contrast, if these sarxie construction plans showed axi alleged ixiconsistency wiUa City Code for the design and layout, which was. identified in. detail in the preliminary plat application, then that issue could not be revisited on the final plat application. Similarly, grading .plans, utility ease1nezits and trail .design axe all defined by the preliix~inary plat. Tf the construction plans submitted with the final plat. application showed technical violations of City Code not idezttifiable from the preliminary plat, then those could be .addressed, but no new trails could be zequixed: Likewise, if the #"ixial plat dravvixi,g differed substantially from the pzelirl~aty .plat or showed details that were zlot decipherable in the 05/20/2008 16:.21 + BRIGGS MORGAN MPLS PAGE .05/40 BRIGGS nn+~ MORGAN Page 4 May 20; 2008 preliminary plat application, then City could .reject or propose .conditions to address. those newfound concerns. The limited scope of the final plat application artd the technical nature of those submissions explains why dal plat review is described as "mechanical." Semler Constr., Inc. v. City of ;~anover, 667 N.W.2d 457, 461-462 .(Minn. App. 2003).. A,Ilowing a second review of items approved in -the .preliminary plat at the final plat review stage would elevate the "mechanical" final plat review. process above the preliminary plat, in contravezrtXon of Semler. 8. GRADING ~'ER1V~I'I' APPLICATION 1. ~mAx'oper colpdations sb~ould. be struck Ridge Creek now seeks approval' of its gradizrg permit application. Ridge Creek believes. that the proposed resolution would simply zepeat the ezxors that caused City to improperly deny -..the preliminary axed final plat applications, namely, the refusal to recognize or even acknowledge the Court-approved prelirn~izaary plat, which controls this development. See Semler Constr., one. v. City of ,~anover, 66'7 N.W.2d at 46 f . ,A.s with the final- plat ap~lxcation,-City's review of the grading permit application should be lixzxzted to determining whethex the application :complies with:. (1) .the Court-approved preliminary plat; and (2) to tlxe extent rtew or zx~ore detailed inforAnatior~ is contaix<ed in the grading pezxnit application, whether tkie new ix~formatioz~ complies with applicable. provisions of the City Coda. Theresolution shows. that City failed to make eitherdetermination. With respect to (1), the proposed resolution co~,tains no analysis ofwhether the grading permit application substantially cozx~.plies with the Court-approved preliminary plat. .A.z~d, with respect to (2), City failed to limit its review of the grading perarnit application to new information that was not. included in the preliminary plat. To the contrary, the proposed resolution would require wholesale re-drafting of the preliminary plat if the zesolutioz~ were passed wit1a. all of the co>ditions proposed. Indeed, through the grading pernnit approval process, City seeks to require. Ridge Creel to; amoaag other thing:, (1) install trails that are not part of the preliminary plat; (2) expand drainage utility easements that were defined by the preliminazy plat; (3) eliminate all borrow ~ City has z~ot argued that its concezx~s with the final plat application were not present or identifiable in the prelizxtinary plat application. To the con>~rary, City admits that it sixnply failed to address tllose co~.cerns .whet, it reviewed the preliminary plat application, See City Reply Mexn. at 11n.6. 05/20/2008 16:21 + BRIGGS MORGAN MPLS PAGE 06/40 BRIGGS aNO MORGAN Page 5 May 20, 2008 below the water table, contrary to the pxeliminazy grading plan included in the preliminary plat; require a new wetland replacement. plan/wetland delsneatioxt; (5) require a new woodland management plan; {6) require grading of the parkland that differs from the graduag plan included in tlae preliminary plat application; azad (7) agree that the entire gradiztg plan could be revised iz~ the evexrt a future prelixn:'~.ary plat is approved. . On top of all of that, the ,proposed resolution would provide an warealistic completion. date of October 15, 2008. The deadline for completion should consider tlae litigation between City and Ridge Creek, ixa which City hopes to invalidate the wetland pexnaits aaad prelimazaaxy plat issued by tb~e Court, az~d in which Ridge ..Creek. seeks final plat ~ appxoval. Furthexro,ore, give. City's legal counsel's promise to :appeal, .the Litigation could extend years into the future. Uzrder tl~cse circumstances, it xo.alces iao sense to recluixe the grading tv eommex~ce - rx~uch less be coxzxpleted -before the litigation has finally ended.. Fox that reason, R,~idge Creek should have until two .years. after the litigation between Ridge - Creek aaad City has ceded to complete the gradi~ag. 2. ,A,ttached charts The attached charts List .each proposed coxadition contained in the xesolutiozt and the xxaemoranda incorporated therein. Tlae charts axe color-coded as Follows: • Conditions that are eitb~er appropriate because they are based on the new iuformatiox~ contai~aed in the grading permit application oz which axe so minor that Ridge Creek does not believe _it is efficient or appropriate to contest them are highlighted in green. • Proposed conditioxxs that axe inappropriate because they conflict .with the Court- approved preliminary plat and/or aze otberwise arbitrary and, capricious axe highlighted in red. • Proposed condition that are or easy be partially acceptable, per tlae explanations given, are highlighted in yellow. Zt is up to the City Council to recognize tb,at prelizxiiz~aty plat approval has teed ordered; that Fact cannot be ignored. Failing to recognize the pxelirninazy plat wih cause needless additi.oxaal litigation, the likely result of which would be Court-ordered appxoval of the .grading application. 05/20/2008 16.:21 + BRIGGS MORGAN MPLS PAGE 07/40` 'o BRIGGS nrvv MORGAN Page 6 . May 20, 2408 Because Mae conditions contaizaed in the proposed resolution .are excessive axed improper, Ridge Creek requests that the Council approve the application with only the conditiozls agreed to by Midge Creek xn the attached charts. Sincerely, Jack X. Perry CRB/jn A;ttachbn.ents cc: -.:Ridge Creep T, Iu,c. Craig R. Baune George C. Ho~£ (via £ax) 21781o6v3 CHART #l (RESOLUTION 6769) FINNING ACCEPTABILITY OF NO. CITY CONCERN CONDITION EXPLANATION ~ I. A. l . Contractor's bid required Yes LA. 2. Certificate of insurance Yes I. A. 3. Letter of credit Partial Anew letter of credit on commercially reasonable teens can be issued prior to grading. I. A. 4. Permit fee requirement Yes 1. B. Red-line from Swentek See below These criticisms are identical to those contained in Swentek's memorandum and are addressed in a chart I. C:. Comments from Swentek See attached exhibit See separate chart (Exhibii. C;} I. D. WSB written comments No These comments were made in response to Ridge Creek's February 22, 2006 preliminary plat application. Imposing those changes on the grading permit application is an improper attempt to change that plat, which has been approved by the Court. I. E. Re-submit grading plan after Yes, but only appropriate Ridge Creek will re-submit after incorporating changes are incorporated changes the changes that are acceptable/enforceable I. F. Woodland Management Plan to Yes, but Ridge Creek denies Woodland Management Plan was submitted be on one page that City is authorized to with and is part of the Court-approved require changes to the preliminary plat.. But this is a simple change, so Woodland Management Plan Ridge Creek will accommodate City's request FINDING CITY CONCERN ACCEPTABILITY OF F;XFLANATION NO. CONDITION I. G. Conservation easement should No/partial Conservation easement was established on sheet match the one shown o~1 three of preliminary plat. Ridge Creek will Hughes memorandum execute an easement consistent with the one shown on the Court-approved plat. I.:EI. Resubmit Woodland No The Woodland Management Plan was approved. Manageme-nt Plan as part of the preliminary plat. There is no valid basis to require a second plan. Specific requirements in Hughes memoranda are described in a separate chart. L L Revise final grading plan and Partial Ridge Creek will agree to revise as described Woodland Management plan to herein, but revisions must still be consistent assure consistency and with the preliminary plat, as described in these conformity with this Resolution charts. I. J. Comply with Natural resources See separate chart See separate chart Coordinator (Hughes) memorandum I. I~.. Wetland mitigation plan No Wetland mitigation plan was previously required submitted and approved by operation of law. The District Court has held that approval is _ _ _ - _ binding. There is no need for a second plan. I. L. NPDES permit required Yes Ridge Creek will seek the NPDES pern~it. I. M. Other approvals required Yes Ridge Creek will seek approvals from other regulatory agencies as required by law. -2- FINDING ACCF,PTABILITY OF NO. CITY CONCERN CONDITION EXPLANATION I. N. Conservation easement Partial Ridge Creek will execute conservation easement that complies with the Court-approved preliminary plat. City is not pernlitted to expand the easement at this stage. 1. O. Approval letters to alter Prior As needed Ridge Creek will obtain approvals required by Lake Channel law to alter the channel. I. P. October 15, 2008 deadline for No Grading should not be required to begin until grading completion after all litigation between City and Ridge Creek concet~ning or relating to the wetlands, preliminary and final plat has been completed.. Ridge Creek. should then ha~~e two calendar years to complete the grading. I. Q. Remove private driveways/field Yes Ridge Creek will comply with appropriate access from County right-of- County requirements way by County-imposed deadline L. R. Remove and properly dispose of No Ridge Creek will remove the waste bl~rff and "waste bluff' mix with other fill where appropriate {per soils engineer) on the Property. Unless hazardous waste is discovered, the waste bluff soil should not need to be removed and. disposed of. This is consistent with the preliminary plat. -3- FINDING accEPTABILITY of NO. .CITY CONCERN CONDITION EXPLANATION L S. Direct haul route to be provided Yes Direct haul route should not interfere with for tricks bringing in fill, and Ridge Creek's ability to install utility/sewer shall be approved by City pipes and streets on any portions of the Property Engineer in which grading has been completed while grading continues elsewhere on the property. Any direct haul route should be altered when installation of pipes or streets begins on any portion of the property. I. T. Tree protection silt fence Yes -per Woodland Per the Woodland Management Plan, Ridge Management Plan Creek will provide silt fences and tree protection tI. A. Comply with. Natural resources See separate chart See separate chart Coordinator (Hughes) memorandum lI. B. Coinme.~.zts from Swentek See attached chart See attached chart (Exhibit C) IL C. Comply with General Yes conditions for Grading Permit II. D. Approvals subject to Partial The grading should comply with the approval, completion of and compliance integrating the changes requested herein, and with City Code and regulations with the preliminary and final plats, which are the subject of litigation. Additional requirements should not be added subsequently. i -4- FINDING ACCEPTABILITY (~F NO. CITY CONCERN CONDITION .EXPLANATION II. E. Must comply with Wetland No Wetland mitigation plan was previously Mitigation Ilan approved by submitted and approved by operation of law. City District Court has held that approval was binding. There is no need for a second such. plan.. I1. F. Must be revised to No District Court has approved a preliminary plat accon~ax~odate future for the Property. The application complies with preliminary plat approval the preliminary plat. In the event that the C_ourt- approved preliminary plat is subsequently revised by the Court or subsequent agreement of the parties, then the grading plan may need to be revised accordingly. i1. G. Pavement design calcu ations No District Court has approved a preliminary plat are not approved. as part of this for the Property, and pavement design applicatio~l but mast be calculations are part of that approved reviewed with future preliminary plat, thus Ridge Creek is not preliminary plat application required to re-submit those calculations. 217R103v1 _S_ CHART #2 (EXHIBIT C - SWENTEK MEMORANDUM) Sheet 1 BULLET ACCEPTABILITY OE NO. CITY CONCERN CONDITION EXPLANATION 1 Conservation easement must be Partial Ridge Creeic will execute conservation easement shown that complies with the Court-approved preliminary plat. City is not permitted to expand the easement at this stage. 2 Drainage and utility easements No The easements were established. by the must comply with City's design.. prcli~ninary plat. They may ~aot be changed. as criteria part of grading permit review. 3 Provide snore legible vicinity 1'es map ~ Provide note. that changes to No ['relitninary plat has been app~•oved by Court plans maybe necessary upon order, Grading plan co~ild require changes if review of future prelin7in<iry Court-approved. preliminary plat is changed. by flat the Court or agreement of the parties. 5 1~lot.e that storm sewer has not No Storm sewer was approved with preliminary been approved plat. 6 ~ Provide contractor(s) contact Yes ~ Will be provided at a later date (contractor will information and an earthwork be hired after litigation and appeals concei-~zing sun~mazy plat applications is complete). Sheet 3 BULLET ACCEPTABILITY OF NO. CITY CONCERN CONDITION EXPLANATION 1 Drainage and utility easements No The easements were established by the must comply with City's design preliminary plat. They may not be changed as criteria part o~ grading permit review. 2 Provide the quality level of the Uncertain This requirement is unclear. plan set beneath the general notes 3 .Provide note that minimum. Noipartia] Minimum slope outside of Outlot C (the slope in non-paved areas is 2°r~ parkland) is 2°,~a. Ridge Creek is not required to provide the requested parkland. grading a?ader the Court-approved preliminary plat. 4 Provide current surveyed spot Partial No surveyed spot elevations should be required ` elevations on property until after litigation and appeals concerning boundaries preliminary and final plats and any appeals are complete. Otherwise, some elevations could change if grading is completed by neighbors on botuldary. Ful-ther, this requirement is and will be unnecessary to the extent adjacent properties provide City with as-built plans showing elevations at property boundaries. 5 Clearly denote all emergency Yes Most are provided already, remainder will be overflows for all low points provided. 6 Provide intersection details Yes Most are provided already, remainder will be ' provided. -2- BULLET ACCEPTABILITY OF CITY CONCERN EXPLANATION NO. CONDITION 7 Proposed storm sewer in rear of Partial Ridge Creek will eliminate any conflict between Block 2 conflicts with the storm sewer pipe and landscaping. Ridge Creek proposed noise wall and denies that a noise wall is required, and notes landscape plan. Revise to that none is required by the preliminary plat. eliminate conflicts Replace all proposed flared end No The flared end sections were approved in the sections in the rear of Block 2 Court-approved preliminary plat; they were with catch ba.sia~ shown in the grading plan (and in tyre f nal plat application). 9 Proposed low point catch basins Partial The design shows a very small stagger, which in Oak Creek Drive shall be at corresponds with lot lines and is more efficient. same station City's method would require the pipe to cut across front yards, which is less desirable. l0 Slopes exceed 3:1 between Lots Yes 5 and 6 on Block 1 I 1 Show the extension of the No This would require a change to the Court- proposedbituminous trail along approved preliminary plat, which does not call Crossings Boulevard to for Ridge Creek to provide the requested trail. existing .Pike Lake Road Ridge Creek does not agree to provide that trail. 12 Provide note: "install clay lirrex No Clay liner is not included in Court-approved per- City requirements" and preliminary l~~la . Preliminary grading plan install clay liner to City depicts no clay liner; anal the proposed Iincr is requirements. unnecessary because the pond will be installed into the water table. ~ -3- i BULLET ACCEPTABILITY OF NO. CITY CONCERN CONDITION EXPLANATION 13 Proved note: "Class IV rip rap Partial Construction plan profiles in final plat to be installed at each flared end application identify quantity of rip rap to be section to the bottom of the installed into water. This condition is basin." acceptable to the extent it complies with those plans. I 14 Resolve the emergency No The challenged design was established by the overflow issues in WSB report Court-approved preliminary plat, and cannot Ue in rear of Lots 17-19, Block 1. changed by City at this stage. - - 15 Align the street dimensioning in Yes Crossings Boulevard to the curb and gutter 16 Revise contours and/or drainage Yes Contours will be adjusted and utility easements from Lot 15, Block 1 across Lot 14, Block 1 17 Revise contotus and/or drainage Yes Contours will be adjusted and utility easements from Lot 24, Block 1 across Lot 23, Block 1 18 Provide legible text at Yes intersection of Oak Creek Drive and Oak Creels Court 19 Denote the radius dimension of Yes 'i Oak Creek Court as typical -4- BULLET ACCEPTABILITY OF NO. CITY CONCERN CONDITION EXPLANATION - 20 Coi-~-ect the misspelled Yes "Crossings Boulevard" just east of Ridge Creek Drive II I~ -5- I - - - - - Sheet 4 BULLET ACCEPTABILITY OF NO. CITY CONCERN CONDITIOiV' EXPLANATION 1 Drainage and utility easements No The easements were established by the must be provided per City's preliminary plat. They may t,lot be changed as Design Criteria part of grading permit review. 2 Provide the quality level of the Uncertain This requirement is unclear. plan set beneath the general tloteS 3 Provide note that minimum Nolpartial Minimum slope outside of Outlot C (tlle slope in non-paved areas is 2°,~o parkland) is 2%. Ridge C'reck is not required to provide the requested parkland grading under the Court-approved preliminary plat. 4 Provide current surveyed spot Yes/partial No sui-~~eyed spot elevations should be required elevations on property until after litigation and appeals concerning boundaries preliminary and final plats and any appeals are complete. Otherwise, some elevations could change if grading is completed by neighbors on boundary. Further, this requirement is and will be unnecessary to the extent adjacent properties provide City with as-built plans showing elevations at property boundaries. 5 Clearly denote all emergency Yes Most are provided already, remainder will be overflows for all ]ow points provided. i 6 Provide intersection details Yes Most are provided already, remainder will be provided. -6- BULLET CITY CONCERN .ACCEPTABILITY OF EXPLANATION NO. CONDITION 7 Proposed storm sewer its rear of Partial Ridge creek will eliminate any conflict between Block 2 conflicts with the stone sewer pipe and landscaping. Ridge Creek proposed noise wall and denies that a noise wall is required, and notes landscape plan. Revise to that none is required by the preliminary plat. eliminate conflicts 8 Replace all proposed flared end No The flared end sections were approved. in the sections in the rear of 131ock 2 Court-approved preliminary flat; they were with catch basin shown in the grading plan (and ii1 the final plat application). 9 Re-route the proposed storm Unclear Ridge creek is not aware of a problem with the sewer between Lots 32 and 33, referenced storm sewer. More information is Block 1 needed. 10 Provide right-of--way street Yes width dimensions for Oa1c Creek Drive 1 1 Reduce proposed driveway Yes slope for Lot 31, Block 1 to less than 10% __._.__r . -____.___~T_,_.______--__-~__-__ ~ 12 Resolve the emergency No The challenged design was established by the overflow issues in WSB repoz•t Court-approved preliminary plat, anal camlot be in rear of Lots 17-19, Block 1. changed by City at this stage. 13 Revise contours and/or drainage Yes _ The contours will be revised. ~ and utility easements from Lot ~ 2~ across I,ot 23, Block l -7- i BULLET ACCEPTABILITY OF NO CITY CONCERN CONDITION EXPLANATION 14 Provide legible text a.t Yes intersection of Oak Creek Drive and Oak Creek Court 15 Correct the misspelled Yes "Crossings Bou}evard" just east of Ridge Creek Drive l h Revise contours through Outlot No Per the Court-approved preliminary plat, C)utlot C to reflect a 2° slope t~ozxz C is to be parkland, and Ridge Creek is not ~i Crossings Boulevard to the responsib}e for grading t'he parkland except as realigned Prior L.,ake Outlet shown in the preliminary plat. Cha?~nc} 17 ~ Revise the contours. in the rear No This would require a change in the Court- . of Lots 31-35, Block 2, to approved lalat, and would conflict with the final reflect the construction of a plat application. In addition, this criticism does s~w~zle between this property and not account far the more recent grading that has the property tv the Bast occttn•ed on the neighboring property. i i I -8- ii I Sheet 5 .BULLET CITY CONCERN ACCEPTABILITY OF EXPLANATION NO. CONDITION 1 Conservation easement must be Partial Ridge Creek will execute consen~ation easement shown that complies with the Court-approved preliminary plat. City is not permitted to expand the easement at this stage. 2 Drainage and utility easements Na The casements were established by the I~ must comply with City's design preliminary plat. They may not be changed as !i criteria part of grading permit review 3 Provide the quality level of the Uncertain This requirement is unclear. plan set beneath the general notes ~_-.T _ T ~ ~T_ _ - 4 Provide note that minimum No/partial Min~i~lzum slope outside of Outiot C (tlae slope in non-paved ~rcas is 2~% parkland.} is 2%. Ridge Creek is not required to provide the requested parkland grading under the Court-approved preliminary plat. - - 5 Provide current swweyed spot Yes/pal~tiai No surveyed spot elevations should be 5equired elevations on property until after litigation and appeals concerning boundaries preliminary and final plats and any appeals are complete. Otherwise, some elevations could change if grading is completed by neighbors on boundary. Further, this requirement is and will be unnecessary to the extent adjacent properties provide City with as-built plans showing d elevations at property boundaries. 6 Clearly denote all emergency Yes Most are provided already, remainder will be overflows for all low points provided. i i -9- BULLET CITY CONCERN ACCEPTABILITY OF EXPLANATION NO. CONDITION 7 Provide intersection details Yes Most are provided already, remainder will be I provided. 8 Site's contours must match the Yes property to the west 9 Minimum low floor elevations Yes for Lots 1-4, Block 1 shall be 758.3 10 Minimum low floor elevations Yes for Lots 13 and 14, Block 1 shall be 759.3 11 Revise slopes on northeastern Yes corner of Lot 1, Bloclc 1 to no more than 3:1 12 Revise slopes on northernmost Yes corner of Lot 1. Block 2 to no more than 3:1 13 Revise slopes between Lots 14 Yes and 15 and 15 and 1 C, Block 2 to no more than 3:1 14 Lessen the slopes along the Unclear This does not appear to be consistent with northern portion of Lot 16, preliminary plat. But Ridge Creek maybe Block 2 for maintenance and willing to perform this grading and allow the access purposes. easement, but would need more specific information than is provided by City. ~ 0- i I BULLET ACCEPTABILITY OF CITY CONCERN EXPLANATION NO. CONDITION 15 Provide note: "install clay liner No Clay liner is not included in Court-approved. per City requirements" and preliminary plat. Preliminary grading plan install clay liner to City depicts no clay liner; and the proposed linen is requirements. unnecessary because the pond t~,•ill installed itato thc~ water table. - l6 Proved note: "Class IV rip rap Partial Construction plan profiles in final plat to be installed at each flared end application identify quantity of rip rap to be section to the bottom of the installed into water. This is acceptable to the basin." extent it complies with those plans. 17 Replace the proposed flared end No The flared end sections were approved in the sections in the rear of Lot 6, Court-approved preliminary plat. They were Block 3 and the one extended to shown. in the grading plan (,and in the final plat the conservation easement with application). In addition, this change would catch basin structures require the removal of additional trees. - 18 Provide legible text in the rear Yes of Block 3 lots - -T - _ _ _ - _ _ - - - - 19 Remove tl~e proposed retaining No Retaining wall is in Court-approved preliz~~inaz'y wall ftozrz within the drainage plat (as well as final plat application). and utility easement in the rear Removing the wall would require additional of Lots 9 and 10, E31ock 3 excavating and tree removal. -11- I' i Sheet 6 BULLET ACCEPTABILITY OF NO. CITY CONCERN CONDITION EXPLANATION i 1 Conservation easement must be Partial Ridge Creek will execute conservation easement shown that complies with the Court-approved ~ preliminary plat. City is not permitted to expand the easement at this stage. 2 Drainage and utility easements No The easements were established by the must comply with City's design preliminary plat. They may not be changed as criteria part of grading hermit review. ~ 3 Provide the quality level of the Uncertain This requirement is unclear. plan set beneath the general i notes 4 Provide ,note that minimum Nc~/partial Minimum slope outside of Uutlot C' (the slope in .non-paved areas is 2"/o parkland) is 2%. Ridge Crcclc is not required to ' provide the requested parkland grading under the Court-approved preliminary plat.. - - 5 Provide current sur-~~eyed spot ~'es/partial No surveyed spot elevations should be required elevations on property until after litigation and appeals concerning boundaries preliminary and tu~al plats and any appeals are i complete. Otherwise, some elevations could change if grading is completed by neighbors on boundary. Further, this requirement is and will be unnecessary to the extent adjacent properties provide City with as-built plans showing ~ elevations at property boundaries. - 6 Clearly denote all emergency Yes Most are provided already, remainder ~~~ill be ' overflows for all low points provided. -12- i i BULLET ACCEPTABILITY OF NO. CITY CONCERN CONDITION EXPLANATION - - - - - 7 Provide intersection details Yes Most are provided already, remainder will be . provided. 8 Re-label the "existing creek Yes location" as "existing Prior Lake Outlet Channel" Label "waste bluff' and denote No Ridge Creek will excavate the waste bluff and its removal from the site and nlix with other fill where appropriate (per soils proper dasposal engineer) on the Property. Unless hazardous waste is discovered, the waste bluff soil should ~~I not need to be removed and disposed of. This is consistent ~~~ith preliminary plat. _ _ 10 Provide note: "Grade Park to No ~ Per the Court-approved preliminary plat, Qutlot ~ slope toward channel at 2% Cis to be parkland, and Ridge Creek is not minimum" responsible for grading the parkland except as shown in the preliminary plat - - 11 Minimum low floor elevations Yes for Lots 13 and 17, block 1 shall be 759.3 12 Lessen the slopes along the Unclear This does not appear to be consistent with the northern portion of Lot 16, preliminary plat. Ridge Creek maybe willing to Block 2 for maintenance and perform this grading and allow the easement, access purposes. but would need more specific infornlation than is pro~~ided by City. ' 13 Remise stapes betti~-een Lots 14 Yes and 15 and 1 S and I h, Block 2 to no more than 3:1 13 - - BULLET ACCEPTABILITY OF CITY CONCERN EXPLANATION NO. CONDITION 14 Replace the proposed flared end No The flared end sections were approved in the section in tlae rear of Lot 19, Court-approved preliminary plat, they were i Block ~ with a catch basin shown in the gra-ding plan (and in tl~e final plat structure application). 15 Denote the radius of the curb Yes and gutter entering Ridge Creek Court as typical 16 Remove the proposed retaining No Retaining wall is depicted vad approved in wall from. within the drainage Court-approved preliminary plat. and utility easement in the rear of Lots ~ and C, Block. 1 I -14- i Sheet 7 - BULLET ACCEPTABILITY OF X NO. CITY CONCERN CONDITION E PLANATION i 1 Conservation easement must be Partial Ridge Creek will execute conservation easement shown that complies with the Court-approved preliminary plat. City is not permitted to expand the easement at this stage. 2 Drainage and utility easements No T11e easemeztts were established by the must cormply with. City's design preliminary plat. They may not be changed as criteria _ _ part of grading permit revie~~~ 3 Provide the quality level of the Uncertain This requirement is unclear. plan set beneath the general notes I 4 Provide note that minimum No/partial Minimum slope outside of Outlot C (the slope in non.-paved areas is 2% parkland) is 2%. Ridge Creek is not required to provide the requested parkland grading under the Court-approved preliminary plat. 5 Provide current surveyed spot Yes/partial No surveyed spot elevations should be required elevations on property until after litigation and appeals concerning boundaries preliminary and final plats and any appeals are complete. Otherwise, some elevations could change if grading is completed by neighbors on boundary. Further, this requirement is and will be unnecessary to the extent adjacent properties provide City with as-built plans showing elevations at property boundaries. 6 Clearly denote all emergency Yes Most are provided already, remainder will be overflows for all low points provided. -15- BULLET ACCEPTABILITY OF NO CITY CONCERN CONDITION EXPLANATION I i 7 Provide intersection details Yes Most are provided already, remainder will be provided. Provide the correct: existing Yes/partial Because the grading is not likely to take place contours for the property to the before litigation concerning the preliminary and West final plats has been completed, including any appeals, this will be done after that litigation and appeals are complete. 9 Provide the correct existing Yeslpartial Because the grading is not likely to take place contours for the property to the before litigation concerning the preliminary and East final plats has been completed, including any appeals, this will be done after that litigation and appeals are complete. 10 Redesign contours in the front Yes ~ of Lots 1-4, Block 3 to drain I directly to street 11 Redesign contours in the front Yes ' of Lots 12-15, Block I to drain directly to street I - ~ i 2 Minimum to«~ floor elevation No 7h7.5 should be the minimum elevation for the for Lot 11, :Block 1 shall be lowest opening, rather than the low floor 787.5 elevation. 13 Minimum low floor elevation No 779.5 should be the minimum elevation for the. i for Lot l0, Block 2 shall be lowest opening, rather than the low floor I jy,~ ~iav~Yinn_ ~-----_I_-- ? ~ - -1~- BULLET CITY CONCERN ACCEPTABILITY OF EXPLANATION NO. CONDITION 14 Reduce proposed driveway Yes slope for Lot 1 L 81ock 2 to less than l0% I 15 Revise slopes between Lots 14 Yes aYZd 15, Block 1 to no more than 3:1 i 16 Revise contours and/or drainage Yes The contours will be adjusted and utility easements from Lot 7, Block 2 across Lot ~ of block 2 17 Delete note: "Existing driveway Partial Because the time frame for completing grading shall be removed and graded to should be delayed as described above (2 years 1 proposed plan grades on or after completion of litigation regarding before Dec. 31st 2008" preliminary and final plats), this date should ~ also change. That route should remain open i until after completion of grading. 18 Provide note: "Rock Yes constn,7ction entrance (see detail)" I -17- I Sheet 8 BULLET T ACCEPTABILITY OF iT C CERl~ P N C Y ON EX LA ATION NO. CONDITION 1 Provide symbol for erosion Yes control blanket 2 Revise plans to show Na Requirement should only apply to slopes greater installation of erosion control than 3:1. blanl<.ets on all slopes equal to 3:1. 3 Revise plans to show No This requirement would go beyond preliminary installation of erosion. control plat. Plan calls for seeding and silt fence blankets fow- feet above and installation, which will suffice to prevent below the normal. water level of erosion. each. storm water basin. - - - 4 Note that "Additional erosion No/partial This requirement si~ould only apply if and sediment control measures unforeseen conditions are encountered. may be required by City" -18- Sheet 11 BULLET CITY CONCERN .ACCEPTABILITY OF EXPLANATION NO. CONDITION 1 Provide note: "There shall be no No This is inconsistent with preliminary plat ~~'i boia-ow taken from below tha gl-ading plan. Furthermore, there is no water table." justification for this restriction, a~~d tl~~is restriction does z~ot appear to have been imposed on othEr developments. Ridge Creek has called for a soils engineer to monitor, and tlae soils engineer would be in a positioal to stop excavation below the water table if there were a reason to believe contamination would likely ~ OCCLII'. - - 2 Provide note: "Borrow limits Yes/partial Changes should only be required if Lulexpected are subject to change due to conditions requiring changes are encountered. field conditions. These changes are subject to City approval" ~ 3 Delete the proposed borrow No There is no basis for barring bot~row from. that area from. the rear of Lois g-2C~, area.. 1 Block 2. 4 Delete the proposed borrow No There is no basis for barring borrow from that area from the rear of Loy 19, area. Block 1 -19- Supplemental Conditions in the Swentek Memorandum are addressed in the chart below: SUPPLEMENTAL CONDITIONS BULLET .ACCEPTABILITY OF CITY CONCERN EXPLANATION NO. CONDITION - 1 Approval of grading permit Yes does not constitute approval of a preliminary or final plat __.T_.___-___---.T_._.._-_.-,_~.-------_-__--------.---- 2 Changes tv plates may 1'e No Preliminary plat has been approved by Court. required due to future Grading plan. could require changes if Court- preliminary plat approved preliminary plat is changed by Court. or agreement of the parties. f - - 3 Applicant accepts risk that Partial Preliminary plat has been approved by Court. changes to grading plan may be Applicant accepts risk that changes to grading necessary to accommodate plan could be required if the Court-approved future preliminary plat preliminary plat is changed applications ~ 4 Certificate of insurance required Yes 5 Letter of credit Partial Anew letter of credit nn commercially reasonable terms can be issued prior to grading. I 6 Permit fee requirement Yes 7 On-site preconstzuction meeting Yes required f ~ Permit required for work in City Partial Consistent with the Court-approved preliminary right-of--way ptat, City is required to grant this permit. -20- BULLET CITY CONCERN ACCEPTABILITY OF EXPLANATION NO. CONDITION 9 Erosion control measures Yes required to be in place before soil disturbing activity begins 10 A ro riate ernlits re aired Yes To the extent these are otherwise re aired b pP P p q Y before grading within the law. City may not attempt to deny or withhold easement held by the City and any such permits. the J?rior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District i 1 1 Appropriate permits required Yes before grading in easement held by Centelpoint energy ---.T _ _ _ 12 Wetland delineation required No Wetland delineation was approved by operation of law as part of Wetland Permit Application submitted in November 2005 and revised in J February 2006, No further delineation is required. 13 Wetland replacement plan No Wetland replacement plan was submitted in required February 2006 and «~as approved by operation of law. That approval is the subject ofa Court order. 14 Permission/easements may be Yes To the extent any work on or use or other required to perform work on properties is otherwise required. adjacent properties -21- I l BULLET ACCEPTABILITY OF NO. CITY CONCERN CONDITION EXPLANATION - - 15 No construction traffic allowed No/partial If construction activities such as installation of on Pike Lake Road or Crossings pipes and/or road construction on a portion of Boulevard without written the property make other entrances commercially permission of engineer impractical, then construction traffic should be allowed on those roads after such construction activities have begun. 16 All fill shall be clean, structural No/partial Any hazardous waste should be removed. Fill fill free from deleterious with some other materials could in some cases materials (including large rocks, be used for controlled fill, when and where street sweepings, organic, appropriate. recycled or hazardous waste). Materials deemed unacceptable by City staff shall be removed. ~ _T_ ~ 17 Applicant sha1.1 grade Crossings No Court-approved preliminary plat does not show Boulevard to existing Pike Lake Ridge Creek grading to Pikc Lake Road. This Road additional requirement cannot be added. at this stage, when it was not part ofi'the preliminary plat, i i r i i -22- i I BULLET CITY CONCERN ACCEPTABILITY OF EXPLANATION NO. CONDITION l g No over-excavation for borrow No This is inconsistent with the preliminary plat pii~-poses below existing grading plan. Furthermore, there is no tactual. Csroundwater table justification for this restriction, and it does not i appear to have been imposed on other developments. Ridge Creek leas called for a soils engineer to monitor, and. the soils engi~.Zeer would be in a position to stop bon•ow below the water table if there were a reason to believe contamination would likely occur. City has cited no reason or factual basis justifying this extremely restrictive condition. - 19 Provide contractor with most Yes current set of grading and erosion control plans before on- ~ site construction meeting i 20 Ezztis•e site to be graded in one No Completion date should be taro ,years after all p}ease; topsoil, seed and mulch litigation and any appeals have been completed per City requirements; in the litigation concerning tl~e preliminarv and coxnpieted by October l5, 2008 final plat applications. Topsoil and mulch requirements should comport with recommendations of soils engineer. 21 By accepting grading permit, Partial Per the notes and explanations above. applicant agrees to above conditions -23- I~ i In addition, Ridge Creek addresses the remaining concerns identified in the Swentek Memorandum (Ex. L) as follows: Landscape Plan: Ridge Creek will adjust the location of the landscaping identified in the Resolution so that the proposed 1 landscaping will not infringe on the referenced drainage and utility easements. Summary of estimated earthy orks: Ridge Creek will provide quantities of import and export on site as requested. Pavement design: The pavement design was approved with the Court-approved preliminary plat. Ridge Creek is not required to resubmit that design. Storm Water Mana ement Plan: The Storm Water Mana ement Plan was a roved as art of the Court-a roved reliminar pp p Pp p Y g g plat. A second such plan is not required. i i~s~os~~ I -24- CHART #3 (HUGHES MEMORANDA) February 13, 2008 Memorandum FINDING ACCEPTABILITY OF CITY CONCERN EXPLANATION NO. CONDITION 1 Lack of staff-approved Partial Conservation easement is depicted in Court- conservation easement approved preliminary plat. Easement consistent with that depiction would be executed. 2 8-foot bituminous trail along No This would require a change to the Court- Eagle Creek Boulevard approved preliminary plat, which does not call for Ridge Creek to provide a bituminous trail. Ridge Creek does not agree to provide that trail.. 3 8-foot bituminous trail. along Nc~ This would require a change to the Court- Crossings Boulevard approved preliminary plat, which does not call far Ridge Creek to extend th.e bituminous trail from Ridge Creek property to Pike Lake Road. Ridge Creek does not agree to provide that trail extension. 4 Tree replacement/landscaping Partial Woodland Management Plan was submitted component of Woodland with and is a part of Court-approved preliminary Management Plan does not plat, and is therefore already approved. indicate size of replacement Replacement trees will be in accordance with trees City Code. 5 Move tree from the fiont Yes easement in Lot 24, Block 1 ' b rcecommencls replacement trees No None are required per l.:ourt-approved along Crossings Boulevard Preliminary Plat FINDING ACCEPTABILITY OF NO. CITY CONCERN CONDITION EXPLANATION 7 Woodland Management Plan No condition is stated. Ridge Creek will consult the referenced contains no tree planting detail standards. May 2, 2008 Memorandum FINDING CITY CONCERN ACCEPTABILITY OF EXPLANATION NO. CONDITION l Ridge Creek adhere to City's Partial Ridge Creek will comply with the Court- Woodland and Tree approved preliminary plat, the final plat Management Ordinance application and the grading plan. It is unclear what, if any, additional requirements this condition seeks to impose. 2 Ridge Creek must preserve all Yes trees shown as preserved on its Woodland Management Plan 3 Lack of staff-approved Partial Conservation easement is depicted in Court- conservation easement approved preliminary plat. Easement consistent with that depiction would be executed. 4 Trees planted must be 1.5 inch Yes diameter 5 Tree planting and shrub Partial This resolution appears to post-date the placement must comply with preliminary plat, and is inapplicable to the Resolution 6719 extent it would alter the approved landscaping plan. To the ~xteiit this is ca~isisterit with ilre preliminary plat, Ridge Creek will comply.. -2- FINDING ACCEPTABILITY OF NO. CITY CONCERN CONDITION EXPLANATION 6 Fencing required around trees Yes 7 Tree protection to remain in Yes place during grading 8 Silt fence and tree protection to Yes be maintained as required by plans or City staff ____-~__-_~____..____.______T_~~_T~~___ , ___T___~_~___._-- ~ q Man-made debris to be removed 1`dv This requirement has nothing to dv with frozr~ proposed, conservation grading, s%nce tit only applies to portion of easement property not being graded. 10 Silt fence and tree protection to Yes be removed after vegetation is established following inspection 11 8-fioot bituminous trail along No Tlais would require a change tv the Court- . Eagle C.ceek Bouleva;•d approved pxelirninazy plat, which does not call for Ridge Creek to provide a bituminous trail... Ridge Creek does not agree tv provide that trail.. 12 13-foot bituminous trail a-lung No This would require a change tv the Court- Crossings E3oulevard approved preliminary plat, which dues not call for Ridge Creek to extend the bituminous trait from Ridge Creek property to Pike Lake Rvad. Ridge Creek does not agree to provide that trail extension. 217R1Op7vl