My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
07/10/2002 P&Z Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Packets
>
2002
>
07/10/2002 P&Z Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/6/2014 4:11:08 PM
Creation date
6/6/2014 9:32:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Packet
Meeting Date
07/10/2002
P&Z Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
92
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
oTKDA <br />• <br />TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON <br />AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED <br />ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS <br />MEMORANDUM <br />To: <br />1500 PIPER JAFFRAY PLAZA <br />444 CEDAR STREET <br />SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101-2140 <br />PHONE: 651/292 -4400 FAX: 651/292 -0083 <br />Jim Studenski Reference: Drainage Review for <br />Copies To: John Powell Spirit Hills Center (Village Hills) <br />From: Scott A. Brink <br />City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota <br />Date: June 26, 2002 Commission No. 12475 -002 <br />The following documents, submitted on June 24, 2002, to the City of Lino Lakes, were used to <br />review the proposed Spirit Hills Center, Site, Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan <br />(Sheet 1 of 6): <br />1. Plan set dated February 13, 2002, revised June 21, 2002, and signed on June 21, 2002 <br />(full size and half size copies provided) <br />2. HydroCAD calculations dated June 20, 2002 <br />3. TKDA memorandum from Stephen Hartley dated May 1, 2002 <br />After reviewing the above documents, I have the following comments: <br />General Comments: <br />In order to provide for better understanding and clarification of the Plan, the following <br />information should be provided: <br />1. Grading notes should be numbered and referenced to and from the Plan accordingly. <br />2. It is not noted on the Plan whether the spot elevations provided are existing or proposed. <br />They are presumed to be proposed, but must be distinguished and stated clearly on the <br />Plan. There are some spots (particularly between buildings at the south end of the site) <br />that do not show clearly that they will drain. In addition, drainage flow direction should <br />be more clearly defined at the site entrances (i.e., drainage to Ware Road vs. on site, etc.) <br />• 3. Denotations on the Plan such as FL, FCL, LP, D etc., should be noted in a glossary or <br />index as to what they identify or stand for. <br />An Equal Opportunity Employer <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.