01/09/2002 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• 1i JAN -04 -2002 12:58 Mr. Jeff Smyser City of Lino Lakes January 4, 2002 Page 2 651 292 0083 P.03/04 2. The road improvements are shown as an extension of existing Ruffed Grouse Road but there is no information showing how the new road connects to the existing road. 3. The profile elevations on C5 -1 are not defined, the reviewer is left to assume one is existing grade and the other is proposed finished grade. 4. C3 -1 shows no lot grading information for Lots 1 -5 of Block 2. The lots generally drain to the front and back but how drainage between houses is treated is not shown. 5. All lot and block numbers need to be shown on C3 -1, C4 -1, and C5 -1. 6. Additional detail is required on the proposed pond outlet structures. 7. No proposed street detail is shown. A 24 -foot wide street is proposed but it is not clear whcther the dimension is between curb faces or to the back of same. The pavement section is not shown. Special construction may be required depending on the soils. The presence of catch basins implies an urban road section. A rural road section may be considered as part of a PDO request. The proposed roadway slopes of 0.40% and 0.50% may not drain effectively. 8. Section 302 of the City code sets out street standards. The road width of 24 -feet and the additional cul -de -sac length of 1,300 feet are significantly out of compliance with these standards. The most recent submittal letter indicates this is now to be a private rbad. As the City no longer allows private roads, all of these items arc dependent upon granting of a PDO. If a private road is allowed, a full cul -de -sac should be constructed at the north end of the public portion of Ruffed Grouse Road. We are also concerned about the impact the construction activity will have on existing Ruffed Grouse Road; while this road is adequate to accommodate the additional trips generated by eight lots 9. No soil borings have been submitted. These are necessary to evaluate both the stability of the proposed roadway on the island and the bridge supports. 10. Construction staging should be described. The bridge is the only source of access that is proposed. 11. The bridge design will be a major consideration. Options for connecting the island to the existing roadway could include an earthen berm (if permitted by RCWD and DNR and with significant mitigation), concrete beams, concrete slabs, or timber construction. It is my understanding the applicant has stated the bridge will be constructed in the winter. If accurate, this is likely to avoid constructing a temporary access to the bridge area which would require fill in a wetland and the associated permits. If construction in the winter is a condition of approval, it would have to be defined as frost depth; ice thickness, calendar dates, or the like. The bridge sketch has piers drawn every 100 feet but indicate 50 -foot