My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6.1. - 6.5. SR 08-27-2001
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2000 - 2010
>
2001
>
08/27/2001
>
6.1. - 6.5. SR 08-27-2001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:32:37 AM
Creation date
5/14/2003 6:49:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
8/27/2001
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
80
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mr. Scott Harlicker <br />August 9, 2001 <br />Page Four <br /> <br />preclude access to the pond since there is no way for a small child to exit from <br />the pond. We also question how maintenance will be accomplished in this pond <br />since the double retaining wall around the entire perimeter seems to preclude <br />maintenance access to the pond itself or the area between the two retaining <br />walls. <br /> <br />We question the construction material for these retaining walls. The normal <br />water level in all these ponds would be at the base of the lowest retaining wall. <br />The high water level in these ponds would overtop the lowest retaining wall. It is <br />our experience that modular block walls will not withstand exposure to this type <br />of water. Are these walls to be poured in place, or will some other measure be <br />taken to counteract the exposure to water? <br /> <br />The drainage pond on the west side of Tyler Street also has a double retaining <br />wall around its entire perimeter. There is no outlet shown from the pond nor was <br />this area included in the drainage calculations. <br /> <br />Aisc, there is no way possible to build this pond as shown on the grading plan. <br />There is a grading difference of over ten feet across this pond. Plus, it is built <br />immediately adjacent to an existing wetland. Either one side of the retaining wall <br />is ten feet above natural ground, or the other side is 16 feet into the ground. <br /> <br />We still question the overall storm drainage design for this development. As I <br />have indicated in my past memos, when the ponds reach the hundred-year flood <br />elevation of 887.3, there will be a number of catchbasins in this system where <br />water will be surcharged to within one foot of the casting. As you are aware, in <br />all developments we require an emergency overflow route to be provided so that <br />in the event of a larger frequency storm or back-to-back storms the route for <br />stormwater flow can be determined such that no buildings will be endangered. In <br />this development, if the emergency overflow route needs to be utilized because <br />of a larger frequency storm or back-to-back storms, a major portion of the <br />roadway system will be flooded and access may actually be cut off to the eastern <br />part of the development. The attached drawing indicates the area according to <br />the grading/drainage plan that would be flooded in the event that the emergency <br />overflow route needs to be utilized. <br /> <br />C. Utility Issues <br /> <br />No design analysis has been provided to indicate to determine whether an eight- <br />inch water main Iccp through the development can deliver sufficient water <br />necessary for domestic consumption and fire fighting capabilities. In addition to <br />the water main loop shown through the public street area, additional water main <br />loops need to be provided through the buildings themselves in order to <br />strategically place hydrants for fire fighting capabilities throughout the <br />development. <br /> <br />Howard R, Green Company <br /> CONSULTING ENGINEERS <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.