Laserfiche WebLink
r4;5400• <br /> -., Howarc R. Green Comoany <br /> v <br /> L_ CONSULTING ENGINEERS <br /> June 22, 2000 <br /> File: 809790J-0240 <br /> Ms. Michele McPherson <br /> Director of Planning <br /> City of Elk River <br /> 13065 Orono Parkway <br /> Elk River, Minnesota 55330 <br /> RE: TWIN LAKES TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT <br /> CITY OF ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA <br /> Dear Ms. McPherson: <br /> As requested, we have reviewed the submittal package for the Twin Lakes Townhome <br /> Development. The plan set contained three sheets: preliminary site and utility plan, preliminary <br /> grading plan, and preliminary landscape plan. All three plans were prepared by Pioneer <br /> Engineering and had a revision date of June 19, 2000. Based upon our review, we offer the <br /> • following comments: <br /> A. Preliminary grading plan <br /> 1. There are several locations on the grading plan with rear yard storm sewer inlets <br /> and storm sewer which flows through side yards. In each of these locations an <br /> emergency overflow elevation needs to be established and shown on the grading <br /> plan. City policy is that all adjacent buildings to these emergency overflows need <br /> to have the lowest opening at least one foot above the emergency overflow. <br /> 2. The large wetland complex in the southwest corner of the site has a hundred <br /> year high water level shown at 908.8. It appears from the existing topography <br /> that this elevation may come very close to flooding the building located just west <br /> of the site on 5th Street. More information is needed relevant to this high water <br /> level. <br /> 3. There are wetland impacts shown in the east corner of the plat where the existing <br /> ditch flows. These will need to go through Steve Rohlf's office relative to the <br /> wetland process. It is my understanding that the developer's intent is to take that <br /> portion of the plat and make it a second phase so that there is adequate time <br /> allowed for the wetland process to be followed. <br /> 4. Building 34/35 has been lowered slightly so that the proposed retaining wall <br /> between that building and the adjacent property is lower in height. It appears <br /> that the retaining wall will be approximately four feet in height. As discussed at <br /> the last Planning Commission meeting, no grading should be allowed within the <br /> drip line of trees along the perimeter of the two private properties located in the <br /> 4110 Ltr-062200-McPherson.doc <br /> 1326 Energy Park Drive • St. Paul, MN 55108 • 651/644-4389 fax 651/644-9446 toll free 888/368-4389 <br />