Laserfiche WebLink
<br />DEC-21-~4 WED 16:~~ MSR ST ~RU~ <br /> <br />r- . IQ <=> <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Mr. Steve Ach <br />December 21, 1994 <br />Page Two <br /> <br />B. Preliminary Grading Drainage and Erosion Control Plan <br /> <br />Since the site is greater than 5 acres in area, an MPCA Permit will be required <br />prior to initiating grading operations. <br /> <br />It is not clear whether the ponding area will be completely constructed prior to <br />grading of the twin home site. If this is the case, silt fence should be placed around <br />the perimeter of the pond adjacent to any grading to preclude material from washing <br />into the pond. If final grading of the pond is part of the grading of the overall twin <br />home site, this additional silt fence will not be necessary. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />The grading plan needs to be revised in many areas to accurately reflect the way in <br />which the site will need to be graded. As an example, between Lots 50 and 51, <br />there is an 884 contour connecting the fronts and the rears. Both Lots 50 and 51 <br />are proposed to be at a finished grade of 884. This would indicate that the grade <br />between the two buildings would be somewhat less than this, perhaps 883.5. <br />Clearly, if that is the case, with an 84 contour in the front, and an 84 contour in the <br />rear, this would create a low spot between the two homes, which would not drain. <br />There are several other examples of similar areas where the grading plan needs to <br />be revised to reflect how the site will actually be graded. This has been discussed <br />with the developer, and with John Oliver & Associates, so that they understand the <br />changes that are required. <br /> <br />In the northwest comer of the site, there is an existing 886 contour, which runs <br />underneath a proposed 884 contour. Obviously, this cannot happen. The 886 <br />contour needs to be re-routed around that area, which may cause a small amount of <br />grading off of the project site, onto the comer of the lot, within Sandpiper States <br />Addition. This should be accurately reflected, as to how the developer plans to deal <br />with this comer on the grading plan. <br /> <br />The street section proposed is 26 feet from back of curb to back of curb. The <br />curbing is proposed to be a surmountable type of concrete curb and gutter. This <br />will provide approximately 241h to 25 feet of total driving area. There was much <br />discussion relative to this width roadway at the concept review meeting. The Fire <br />Chief was quite concerned about whether or not this would provide adequate width <br />for emergency vehicles, assuming cars may be parked on the street. He has done <br />some additional research on surrounding communities, and has concluded that the <br />width is adequate if the streets are signed, no on street parking. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />All home sites should be adjusted, if necessary, to provide a minimum of 20 feet <br />driveway length from the garage door to the curb line. At areas where the homes <br />