Laserfiche WebLink
• Mr. Steve Rohlf <br /> June 4, 1993 <br /> Page Four <br /> be dry and a two-inch runoff volume entirely held within the ponds is not valid. <br /> If this assumption is not valid, the ability of the ponds to reduce sediment prior <br /> to discharging to the existing wetland is compromised. We believe it is <br /> appropriate to be more conservative in the design and to follow the Best <br /> Management Practices. <br /> 3. No information is provided in the storm drainage calculations indicating what type <br /> of particles will be settled out in the ponds. This information needs to be <br /> provided and should be based on a design which settles out medium silts up to <br /> 0.02 mm in diameter. <br /> 4. As indicated previously, the slopes on the ponds are too steep. No slope should <br /> be provided on any ponds more steep than 4:1. <br /> 5. As indicated in the review comments on the grading plan, we would recommend <br /> that the pond shown over the realigned U.P.A. easement be relocated to an area <br /> outside of the easement boundaries. <br /> • 6. A cursory review of the pipe sizes indicates that they may be too small. <br /> However, detailed plans and specifications on the storm sewer system will need <br /> to be provided at a later date. This information can be reviewed in detail at that <br /> time. <br /> D. TRAFFIC ISSUES <br /> 1. A Traffic Impact Study was previously completed, analyzing the traffic and <br /> transportation concerns relative to this development. All the recommendations for <br /> improvements necessary to the external facilities to accommodate the increase in <br /> traffic generated by this development need to be considered and the improvements <br /> programmed along with the development of this project. <br /> 2. The access road to TH 169 near the middle of the development is now shown <br /> wide enough to accommodate two westbound lanes as recommended in the <br /> summary of findings in the Traffic Impact Study. Also, we understand that the <br /> location shown for this access to TH 169 is in a slightly different location than the <br /> actual access point. This will require a request to MnDOT to officially move the <br /> access point to the location indicated on the site plan. <br /> 3. The total number of handicapped accessible parking spaces shown on the site plan <br /> • appears to be below the number that is needed. This should be revisited and <br /> handicapped accessible parking spaces need to be shown in the parking lots for the <br /> outlots. <br /> 152-0401.jun <br />