Item 5.7 & 5.8 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• Mr. Scott Harliker May 21, 2002 Page Two B. Preliminary Grading Plan • Given the type of proposed development on this property with the multi-family lots, small width single-family lots, and slightly larger single-family lots, the grading plan indicates that the entire site will be clear cut and graded. There are areas where clear cutting is proposed as a method to provide wetland mitigation. This project is not scheduled to be reviewed by the Technical Evaluation Panel relative to wetland issues until May 30, 2002. However, I believe it is highly unlikely that the Technical Evaluation Panel will approve clear cutting of upland areas in order to provide space for wetland mitigation. We have not completed a more detailed review of the grading plan because we feel it is highly unlikely that the grading plan will be approved in its current state, given the amount of clear cutting and grading proposed on the site. C. Preliminary Site and Utility Plan • In order to adequately serve this proposed development with water, it will be necessary to extend watermain along CSAH 13 to the northern tip of the development to provide looping and redundancy to the internal water system. It will need to be discussed by the City relative to who pays for this watermain extension along CSAH 13. • Watermain in Street D cul-de-sac needs to be looped back to Street A. The potential looping of the Street A cul-de-sac will need to be discussed with Bryan Adams, Elk River Municipal • Utilities General Manager. • Attached is a memo from Bryan Adams dated May 3, 2002, discussing the need for additional well and water treatment facility sites in this northern part of the City of Elk River. His memo states that the proposed Twin Lakes Crossing is equivalent to one-half of a well and treatment facility. Mr. Adams would like to investigate whether a site for the next well and treatment facility could be found inside this development. In conclusion, we believe that with the amount of grading and clear cutting of the land and the fact that the Technical Evaluation Panel has not reviewed the wetland issues with this development, that the project should be tabled with direction given to the developer on changes the Planning Commission would like to see. If you have any questions regarding any of these comments, please call. Sincerely, Howard R. Green Company Terry J. Maurer, P.E. • Howarc R. Green Company Ltr-052102-Harliker.doc CONSULTING ENGINEERS