Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Katie Larsen <br />April 2, 2014 <br />Page 3 <br />3. The required minimum rear yard swale is 2%. The grading plans appear to show 1.5% <br />swales. <br />4. Note that the proposed project exists in an area of Anoka County that was previously <br />unmapped by FEMA. The 2013 revised preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) data <br />for Anoka County shows Pond B, portions of proposed Street B and Block 4 lots may be in a <br />future special flood hazard area Zone A. The preliminary data can be downloaded from the <br />Minnesota Department of Natural Resources at: <br />ftp://ftp.dnr.state.mn.us/pub/waters/floodplain/County data/Anoka/ <br />5. The high water elevations on grading plan for Pond B must match results shown in <br />HydroCAD output and on Detail Sheet. <br />6. The seasonally high groundwater elevation of 897.0 is higher than the permanent pool <br />elevation of 895.5, besides constructability issues, the groundwater may seep into the pond, <br />reducing the active storage capacity. <br />7. Pond G outflows increase under proposed conditions, verify existing outlet protection is <br />adequate for these increased flows. <br />8. Emergency overflow locations and elevations not shown for Pond G. <br />9. Benchmark or datum should be provided on grading plan. <br />Detail Sheet Comments: <br />1. The invert shown on the pond outlet weir wall detail does not match rest of plans. <br />2. High water elevation does not match HydroCAD model results. <br />Erosion Control Comments: <br />1. Specify seed mixture and/or planting details for disturbed areas in Ponds B and G. <br />This concludes our plan review comments at this time. If you, or the applicant, have any <br />questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (763) 287-8520 or <br />jwedel@wsbeng.com. <br />