Laserfiche WebLink
Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission <br />August 2, 2002 <br />Page Two <br />Grading, Drainage, & Erosion Control Plan: <br />1. No grading information is shown from McMenemy Street to approximately 115 feet east <br />of McMenemy Street. The grading plan should address this area. <br />2. The access roads for maintenance of the proposed storm water ponds should be shown <br />and addressed on the grading plan. <br />3. Spot elevations should be shown at radius points to determine drainage patterns around <br />street corners. It appears it may be necessary to provide additional catch basins on <br />Preserve Trail at the intersections with Preserve Court and Viking Drive. <br />4. Several of the first floor elevations shown are below the street grade (up to 5-feet <br />below). This will result in driveways draining back into the homes and can create ice <br />and water problems both on the driveway and in the house and garage. <br />5. Proposed driveway locations and grades should be shown for all lots. <br />6. The difference between the first floor elevation and basement floor elevation vary from 7- <br />feet to 24-feet. Information should be provided as to the style of homes to be <br />constructed on the lots. <br />7. It appears that there may be a 2-foot to 4-foot cut over the Williams Pipeline gas mains, <br />however the mains are not shown on the grading plan. We questions if this grade <br />change would be allowed. <br />8. It appears that a portion of a retaining wall and possibly a portion of a William Pipeline <br />building will fall within the proposed new City street right-of-way. We question if any <br />responsibility for the building or the wall will accompany the dedicated right-of-way. <br />9. There are areas along the street in which grades appear to exceed 2:1 (H:V) from the <br />back of the curb. A flatter boulevard area should be provided for snow storage and <br />safety. <br />10. It is indicated that the grading limits go beyond the property boundaries. Easements will <br />need to be obtained for working outside the property. <br />11. Two proposed retaining walls are indicated in the notes, however only one is shown. <br />There are many issues that need to be resolved regarding the construction of the wall. <br />• It appears it may be in excess of 12-feet at its highest point. The wall will <br />need to be tiered or engineered. The letter accompanying the submittal <br />indicated that the wall would be engineered. A fence and/or guardrail will be <br />required on the retaining wall. <br />• The construction of the retaining wall will impact the adjacent property owners <br />and easements will need to be obtained for its construction. <br />• A low area will be created on the south side of the retaining wall. The low <br />area is proposed to be drained using a storm sewer structure. An easement <br />and access road must be provided along the bottom side of the retaining wall <br />for access to the drainage structure for maintenance. It should also be noted <br />that if the structure becomes plugged, water could pond along the retaining <br />wall. This situation will need to be addressed in its design. <br />12. Emergency overflows and elevations should be shown for all low points and ponds. <br />13. The storm water ponds should be designed using Best Management Practices as stated <br />by the MPCA. The pond slopes should be at a maximum of 4:1 slopes above normal <br />water level, a ten foot bench provided at normal water level, and a maximum of 3:1 <br />slopes below normal water level. <br />Ltr OS-02-02 LC-CC - 2 2 - <br />