Laserfiche WebLink
• Mr. Harlicker <br /> October 16, 2002 <br /> Page Two <br /> 5. Another issue that we discussed with the developer and his engineer was the location of <br /> sidewalks throughout the project. Based on this discussion, sidewalks have now been <br /> added on both sides of all public streets, although in some cases, the sidewalks are <br /> located outside of the public rights-of-way. In addition, sidewalks are shown around Block <br /> 1 and Block 3 of the townhouse units, which are located on the north side of the project. <br /> One issue yet to be decided would be who maintains the sidewalks adjacent to the public <br /> streets: the City Street Department or the Townhouse Association. <br /> 6. The two most recent submittals, the Preliminary Site Plan/PUD and Concept Commercial <br /> Plan, are in conflict with one another. Some of these conflicts are as follows: <br /> • Driveway locations shown differently on each of the plans. <br /> • Parking areas segregated on one plan while combined on another plan. <br /> • There is no ponding shown on either plan for the area west of Twin Lakes Road. <br /> • The Concept Commercial Plan shows a layout for property on the west side of Twin Lakes <br /> Road, which we understand is not owned by the developer. <br /> • The proposed access into the site on the east side of Twin Lakes Road does not line up <br /> with the existing access into the MnDOT park and ride facility on the west side of Twin <br /> Lakes Road. <br /> • Both of these plans, the Concept Commercial Plan and the Preliminary Site Plan/PUD <br /> • show Street A accessing Twin Lakes Road at a full access intersection, providing for left <br /> turns into Street A and left turns onto Twin Lakes Road. This is not acceptable; Street A <br /> must be a right-in/right-out only. <br /> 7. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)for this development has been revised, <br /> reviewed and approved by City staff. We believe it is still in the period of public comment. <br /> From an engineering standpoint, the major change in the EAW caused by the change in <br /> usage from the original proposal for Elk River Station is a much lower traffic count. The <br /> current proposal of this property will generate traffic that can be handled by the two access <br /> points shown, one being full movement at the southwest corner of the site, and the other a <br /> right-in/right-out at the northwest corner of the site. <br /> If you have any questions regarding this information, please call. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> Howard R. Green Company <br /> ;--- <br /> "74-e-e-e-e-c7 <br /> Terry J. aurer, P.E. <br /> TJM:sgw <br /> • <br /> Ltr-101602-Harlicker Howarc R.Green Corn oany <br />