ITEM 2.1ASubmitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council
cc: Lori Johnson, Administrator
Tarni Loff, city clerk
Dan Licht, city Planner
Andy MacArthur, city Attorney
Dale Ernter, Director of Preconstruction, Duke Realty
Keven Teppen, MFRA
Mike Brandt, PE, MFRA
Reviewed by:
Date:
Proposed
Development:
Street Location
of Property:
Ronald J. Wagner, P.E.
Brent M. Larson, P.E.
January 30, 2014
Gateway North Business center
Building No. 0
0700 Queens Ave. NE
Applicant: Duke Realty
1 600 Utica Avenue South, Suite 250
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Developer= Duke Realty
Owners of Record: Duke Realty
Purpose: Construct a 299,904 gross square foot officelwarehouse
building on 18.63 acres in the City of Otsego, Wright county,
Minnesota. The proposed development will be served with
municipal water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and public
streets typical of an urban industrial setting.
Jurisdictional Agencies: city of Otsego, Wright County, Minnesota Department of
(taut not limited to) Health, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,
Minnesota Pollution control Agency, Wright Soil and Water
Conservation District.
Permits Required: NPIDES, Minnesota Department of Health (water), and
(brut not limited to) Minnesota Pollution control Agency (sanitary sewer)
FINAL PLAT
SCHEMATIC DESIGN SET
COVER SHEET
EXISTING CONDITIONS (C2.01 &C2.02)
SITE PLAN (C3.01)
GRADING PLAN (C4.01 & C4.02)
EROSION CONTROL (C5.01 through C5.03)
UTILITY PLAN (C6.01)
STORM SEWER PLAN (C6.02)
SITE LIGHTING PLAN (C8.01)
DETAIL SHEET (C9.01 &C9.02)
STORM SEWER AND HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
SUMMARY AND/OR RECOMMENDATION
PACE 2
S;1Municipal\Aotsego22xx1225712207,021OT2267.02 REVIEW 1,dcc
FINAL PLAT
1. See attached Memo from Charlie Christopherson, RLS to Ron Wagner, City
Engineer. _
SCHEMATIC DESIGN SET — 1/13/14
COVER SHEET — 0000
Location Map -- Site Location -is north of 65th St and south of cSAH37. Site
location is shown south of 65th St. Revise.
EXISTING CONDITIONS - SHEET c2.01
1 . Legend is not complete. Lacks catch basin, sanitary manhole, hydrant, street
light, telephone pedestal, etc. symbols. Line descriptions for water lines, sanitary
sewer lines, etc. are missing. Revise.
2. Trunk Highway 101 and ramps must be shown and labeled. All utilities and
streets within 150' must be shown.
3. Existing Drainage and Utility Easements are not labeled. Revise.
4. Elevations are called out but no datum or benchmarks are shown. Revise.
EXISTING CONDITIONS SHEET c2.02
I. Existing Drainage and Utility Easements are not labeled. Revise.
2. Legend incomplete —fence symbols etc. must be shown. Revise
SITE PLAN SHEET c3.01
I . Lot design creates fence at edge of pavement and within pavement without
protection from incidental or accidental damage from parking trailers or snow
removal.
2. Lot design creates double depth parking within next lot.
3. Queens Avenue curb and gutter removal and possible saw cut and asphalt
replacement at driveway access points to Queens must be noted.
4. Driveways will require concrete valley gutter and concrete driveways aprons.
GRADING PLAN SHEET c4.01
Depict slope of pavement from asphalt curb to concrete curb on along west lot
li ne.
PAGE 3
S;1MunicipallAatsegv22xx1226712267.021oT2257.02 REVIEW l .dac
2. Foundations of street lights and fence posts are directly over HDPE storm sewer
pipe along west lot line.
3. Retaining walls greater than 4' in height require a professional engineer signature
on design sheet.
4, contours are shown across stairs within the loading bay area. Relocate stairs or
provide retaining wall to accommodate stairs,
5. Grading limits exceed lot dimensions. Revise or provide agreement
0. Storm ponds exceed drainage and utility limits. Revise final plat to accommodate
storm ponds within drainage and utility easements,
7. North east corner of lot, provide containment of storm water at least V over top of
curb to minimize potential overflow and erosion.
8. Grading notes need completion. Missing geotechnical company information and
design rate for infiltration,
9. Missing soil boing locations.
GRADING PLAN SHEET 04,02
1. North pond perforated draintile within ring filtration does not depict a connection
to outlet Control Structure #1. Drainage arrows on draintile should indicate
drainage toward outlet control Structure #`l.
2. North pond normal water level is shown at 899.0 although infiltration is shown to
occur to 898,
3. South pond 100 yr HVVL is shown at 917.95. The final ground contour shown is
at 920. The sand section is depicted as 3' thick thus the draintile is at elevation
917.0 or so. Is the 100 yr HVVL correct as it is within the sand and over V lower
than the connected storm pond?
4. South pond is labeled as an infiltration basin in the plan portion and a filtration
basin in the cross section portion. It appears to be working as a filtration basin
based on the draintile. Revise or clarify.
5. outlet control Structure #3 -- the draintile size and type are not labeled.
8. Delete unneeded second typing of structure on each title block of outlet Control
Structure #X.
7. The filtration basin with OCS#3 has contour lines which require touch up and a
drainage arrow is shown in the wrong direction.
Phi G E 4
S;1MunicipaltActsega22xx1226712267,021oT2267.02 REVIEW 1.dvc
EROSION CONTROL PHASE I SHEET c5.01
1 . Please show construction limits. It appears the silt fence does not include all
grading extents -- primarily the north and south ponds are not within the silt fence
limits.
EROSION CONTROL PHASE II SHEET 05.02
'l. Silt fence is not shown around north side of north pond.
EROSION CONTROL DETAILS SHEET c5.03
1. concrete washout area detail shown but no area depicted on other plan sheets.
UTILITY PLAN c6.01
I. Sanitary manhole #1 must be a drop manhole considering likely pipe slope from
building.
2. Recommend large water discharge pipe and valve near sewer line outlet of pipe
from building to be used periodically to flush sanitary .line. Potential love flow use
of water has caused sanitary line blockage in past similar applications.
3. Show elevation inverts in and elevation inverts out of sanitary manholes and
provide 0.1' drop through each structure.
4. Water main and sanitary sewer crossing conflict exists in south Fest corner of lot.
Water main must be lowered to avoid conflict.
5. Hydrant spacing on west side of building does not cover entire building. Building
depicts 8" water service for fire suppression. Elk River Fire Marshall will review
the hydrant spacing along with fire #ruck access requirements.
STORM SEWER PLAN SHEET c6.02
1. Insulation under the storm pipe from the building roof drain to cB#1 07 at the
water main crossing is required.
2. Insulation under the storm pipe from the building roof drain to cB#1 00 at the
water main crossing is required.
3. Insulation under.the storm pipe between MH202a and CB202 at the water main
crossings at is required in two places.
4. FES at outlet of OCS#2 shown at elevation 883.00 and should be 018.0. A
separate drawingldiagram is needed for the storm sewer catch basins labeled.
PAGE 5
S;VII[unicipallRvtsego22xx1226712267,02\oT2267,02 REVIEW I.doc
SITE LIGHTING PLAN SHEET 08.01
1. No comments at this time.
3ETAIL. SHEET 09.01 & C9.02
Missing fence details, concrete valley gutter detail, and concrete driveway apron
detail.
2. Detail labeled 01 Concrete sidewalk Section behind curb and gutter does not
depict concrete curb*and gutter detail shown in detail labeled 05,
3. Standard plates 310 is no longer used.
STORM SEWER CALCULATIONS
i, All storm sewer design and calculations were submitted. A more detailed review
of the storm water management plan and drainage calculations is required to
verify that City requirements and the new NPDES permits are being met. It
appears that the intentions of the storm water management system meets the
requirement of not increasing the discharge rate over pre --developed conditions
as well as no increase in volume being discharged from the site. We have some
concerns that a "no increase in volume" is possible with the existing sails. HAA
will discuss with the developers engineer prior to the Final plat being accepted by
staff .
HYDROLOGY REPORT
1. The hydrology report was submitted. The review will be completed prior to the
2/10/14 council meeting. Any issues found will need to be addressed by the
applicant.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
'l. The number of sewer and water residential equivalent connections (REC's) to be
applied per building for Gateway North developments were set at 2 in an earlier
agreement between the City of Otsego and Duke Realty. Building 6 as proposed
encompasses all or most of the building areas of Buildings 6, 7 and 8 under that
agreement. Therefore, the developers' agreement is recommended to reflect 6
REC's or 2 each for the 3 buildings. For reference, the proposed Building 6
would have approximately 11,328 square feet of office and 288,584 square feet
of warehouse which would equate to 45.9 REC's under the MET Council
guideline, which the City of Otsego uses when determining REC's. Using 3,5
RFC's per gross acre the total REC's would be 62.5.
2. A SWPP Pian is required.
3. A separate document from the final plat depicting an ingress/egress easement is
needed over the south driveway of Building 6 to allow access to future Building 5.
PAGE 5
S:\MunicipallAofsego22xx1226712267.02\OT2267.02 REVIEW I.doc
f
We recommend approval contingent upon the above comments being addressed.
PAGE 7
5:\Munlcipal\Aotsego22xx1226712267.02\OT2267.02 REVIEW I.doc
Kahl office;
Halfanson 3601 Thurston Avenue, Anoka, MSI 55303 3j
Phone: 7631427-5860 Fax: 7631427-0520
-in ioo y
Anderson WWW•ha
Fj -•S �3'S'..�f�']��.r is
..........
TO: Ron Wagner, P.E. Otsego Engineer
FROM: Charles R. Christopherson, P.L.S.
DATE: January 31, 2014
RE: Review of Gateway North 5 final plat, wetland replacement descriptions
.... . ......... .. ...
C onnnents
Restricted access along State Highway 101 if not previously dedicated should be dedicated or
if previously granted, labeled as to the recorded document.
Remnants or small unencumbered areas of Lots should be avoided or additional labels added
to clarify edge of easements.
0 Additional labeling of drainage and utility easements would be helpful,
® Complete final plat drawing to State Statute and Wright County requirements (dimensions
missing, labeling needed, page numbers revised, match line, etc.) before submittal to Wright
County Surveyor for review and approval.
Completed corrected final plat should be submitted for review to the City Engineer before
City of Otsego signatures are affixed before final recordation.
0 The wetland replacement descriptions need to be revised as noted on marked up exhibits,
ot2267.02 rwmenzo