Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. McPherson <br />June 22, 2000 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />center of the site. This location appears to meet that requirement with that <br />retaining wall located approximately ten feet from the neighboring property and <br />no grading needed between the retaining wall and the property line. <br /> <br />This is not true of the proposed retaining wall behind building 40/41 and 42/43. <br />Here there are missing contours between the retaining wall and the property to <br />the south. The original grading plan dated May 15, 2000, showed approximately <br />six to eight feet of fall from the neighboring property line to the retaining wall. <br />There were contours throughout the area between the retaining wall and the <br />property line. Clearly, this area would not meet the requirement of no grading <br />under the drip line if in fact this area of the neighboring property is treed. This is <br />difficult to determine because nowhere on the Pioneer submittal is existing <br />vegetation showing. <br />Crossing under Twin Lakes Road (CSAH 13) near Building 71 there is an <br />existing 66" RCP culvert. The storm sewer plan shows building a manhole over <br />this structure and extending storm sewer each direction. It is unclear how this <br />will be accomplished since a manhole structure around a 66" pipe would need to <br />be huge. Another issue in this location is the fact that the storm sewer shown will <br />be a private utility but it is shown constructed partially in the Twin Lakes Road <br />right-or-way. We question whether or not there is even sufficient room for this <br />construction with the other utilities which may be located here. We also question <br />whether a private utility should be built in a public right-of-way. <br />Elsewhere throughout the site, the private storm sewer is constructed through the <br />driveways of the various homes. We would suggest that it would be a better <br />design to add an additional manhole structure where necessary and keep the <br />storm sewer construction in the street locations, rather than having it shortcut <br />through the driveways. <br />On Thursday, we just received revised storm drainage calculations which we <br />have not yet reviewed. We will advise you of our findings after the review is <br />complete. <br /> <br />Preliminary site and utility plan <br /> <br />1. The road layout in the development provides for cul-de-sacs coming from various <br /> directions. City staff asked for these roads to be constructed as cut-de-sacs to <br /> eliminate any potential cut-through traffic from CSAH 13 to Barrington Place in an <br /> attempt to shortcut the collector roads in the area. The site plan does show a <br /> 20'-wide fire lane access detail for construction linking the two cul-de-sacs in the <br /> northern part of the development. This should adequately address emergency <br /> vehicle concerns. <br />2. The water main is looped throughout the site connecting at two locations to the <br /> existing water main on CSAH 13 and in a third location to the existing water main <br /> in 6th Street. There appeared to be adequate hydrants and valves shown on the <br /> <br />Ltr-062200-McPherson.doc <br /> <br />Howard R, Green Company <br /> CONSULTING ENGINEERS <br /> <br /> <br />