Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Katie Larsen <br />May 9, 2014 <br />Page 2 <br />2. Curve Numbers used in the HydroCAD model should match standards outlined in <br />RCWD Rules. The HydroCAD output shows varying curve numbers used despite the <br />report stating only 74 was used for the proposed development. <br />3. Verify the total runoff area as the HydroCAD output shows an increase from existing to <br />proposed conditions, while the watersheds shown on plans did not change. <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) <br />data for Anoka County shows Pond B, portions of proposed Street B and Block 4 lots <br />may be in a future special flood hazard area Zone A. The preliminary data can be <br />downloaded from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources at: <br />ftp://ftp.dnr.state.mn.us/pub/waters/floodplain/County data/Anoka/ <br />5. Note, the seasonally high groundwater elevation of 897.0 is higher than the permanent <br />pool elevation of 895.5, besides constructability issues, the groundwater may seep into <br />the pond, reducing the active storage capacity. <br />6. Provide inlet sediment control protection for all inlets to ponds (rear yards especially). <br />Grading Comments: <br />1. Benchmark or datum not shown on grading plan. <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 (612) 360-1298 or <br />dhankee@wsbeng.com. <br />