Item 5-9 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Scott Harlicker August 9, 2001 Page Three 6. No traffic information has been provided relative to the proposed widths of the roadways and the narrower rights-of-way contained within the development. In fact, none of the submittal documents even indicate the proposed width of the internal roadways. By scale from the preliminary plat, it appears that most of the roadways are proposed at 28 feet wide with the roadway around the park/pond in Lot 6 being 20 feet wide in a 50-foot right-of-way. Clearly, this width is not wide enough for two-way traffic; however, the submittal does not indicate that one-way traffic is anticipated around Lot 6. 7. This most recent submittal appears to change the first north-south street in the development from a proposed public street to a private street. It appears that there is a lot line through the middle of the street, and no right-of-way is provided. This change is perfectly acceptable to City staff. The Street Department had a concern with the original submittal regarding maintenance of a street that would act more as a parking lot, given the amount of head-in parking provided. B. Drainage Issues 1. A detailed design summary of the internal storm sewer has been provided with the most recent submittal. There are a couple areas where the storm sewer • design calculations do not match the grading plan. These areas should be revisited, and the storm drainage calculations resubmitted or the grading plan revised. There are several drainage areas where areas sized from 0.50-1.86 acres drain to a single catchbasin. From our experience, it is difficult to get more than 0.5 acres of drainage area into a single catchbasin. Any area with more than 0.5 acres should be revisited and additional inlet capacity provided. Also, there still are a couple of areas where additional catchbasins need to be provided to pick up drainage before it sheets onto the internal public roadway system. An example of this would be by Buildings 104-112 and, likewise on the west side of the street, the parking area for Buildings 16, 18, 20, 22, and 24. 2. The grading plan has been revised around the two major pond areas to eliminate the retaining wall from the north side of each of these ponds. The north side is now a 3:1 slope with a ten-foot bench at the normal high water level. Both of these ponds would still need some type of fencing around the three sides that have retaining walls due to the fact that there is sidewalk immediately adjacent to the retaining wall. However, the fence could be more of a decorative nature just to eliminate accidental falls off of the sidewalk over the retaining wall. The secondary smaller ponding area south of the east pond/park area still has a double six-foot high retaining wall around its entire perimeter. We still question • whether or not this type of installation should be allowed, and if so, we would recommend a five- to six-foot high cyclone fence around the entire perimeter to Howarc R.Green Cornoany CONSULTING ENGINEERS