Laserfiche WebLink
MEMO <br /> August 3, 1998 <br /> To: Planning and Zonin <br /> From: Paul Palzer I�w <br /> Re: The Woods of Clerwater Creek <br /> *xak ak ac at a�: *:;a<x, ;r:Fxa,[NMTx, k.>t *at a�x *Mare ak a�:kye:kae *ak ak ae ieM * # *Mk Ntxx�e:k ix .',� *ak -h, is akx ae ak ia�; ias >;x *-X, a'e aex a'e <br /> The following are issues that should be addressed before approval of the preliminary <br /> plat for this development. <br /> 1. The lowest floor elevations are to be 2 feet above the ordinary high water level and the <br /> DNR wetland 4545 has a level of 907 plus or minus as shown. This elevation needs to be <br /> determined and the lowest floors of the adjoining homes are required to be 2 feet higher. <br /> 2. The plat shows a 10 feet trail easement and the city has been requiring 20 feet for trails <br /> due to snow removal issues. A culvert or bridge over the existing ditch should be shown <br /> for access to the park on Revoir Street. <br /> 3. Consideration should be given for looping the watermain to Revoir Street or have <br /> some money put in escrow towards this purpose. <br /> 4. The length of Brian Drive, roughly 960 feet, is longer than allowed by ordinance (800 <br /> feet maximum) and a variance would be required to approve a longer cul -de -sac. <br /> J 5. The sidewalk along the west side of Brian drive should be extended to the north <br /> boundary of the plat to provide access to the trail and park system <br /> 6. The Engineer should review this plat for conformance to the City's Standards. <br /> 7. Recently Jim March and myself viewed the area north of this plat on the west end and <br /> standing water in a pond is visible from the Revoir street park. This pond is not identified <br /> on the plat or its extent into the future road extension to the north. <br /> 8. An outlet or drainage flow for the wetland areas are not shown for the central portion <br /> between the two ten acres areas. Will this flow to the north or south and are existing <br /> storm drainage systems able to accommodate these additional flows. <br /> 9. I have not seen the Rice Creek Watershed report on this parcel and their comments and <br /> requirements. <br />