01-13-00 Planning Comm. Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission January 6, 2000 Page Two •:• The development of the pond in its current location precludes any type of access to Outlot A. Outlot A does not have access to Park Avenue at the east side of the development. What is the intention of Outlot A? Is it planned to be combined with some of the other property on the east side of the proposed plat. :• There is a catchbasin in the northeast corner of the parking lot that shows connection to an existing storm sewer line on Lot 2 behind the storage building. Does this existing storm sewer line have sufficient capacity to accept additional drainage? The drainage calculations submitted should include documentation as to the ability of this existing line to accept additional drainage. If this cannot be documented, another solution would be to direct this catchbasin into the drainage systerrr for the remainder of the parking area down to the proposed pond. !f this drainage is continued the way it is shown there will need to be across-access agreement for storm drainage from Lot 1 to Lot 2. •:• In this same area there is a proposed retaining wall shown along the property line between Lot 1 and Lot 2. This wall is approximately 6-feet tall at the north end. Where the wall is placed along the property line it will be within the required drainage and utility easements. Goes the City want to allow a retaining wall of this height in their drainage and utility easement? If so it should be made clear that maintenance of this retaining wall is not the responsibility of the City, even though it falls within the City's easement. •: Lot 2 which contains the existing storage building is part of :hat plat. As such, topography should be provided on that !ct as required by tine ordinance. Also additional topography should be shown around the perimeter in areas \~ihere it is important to match into the adjacent property. ,Such as along the east edge of Lot 1. :• No information is provided as to the !oca±~on, if any, of driveways on the west side of Rice Street to determine how the,propor`ed dri~~eways matcFi up. Rice Street is currently the jurisdiction of Mn/DOT, but is planned io be turned back to Ramsey County. ,4ccess permits for the proposed driveways will be required most likely from Ramsey County. •:• The driveway at the south end of the site should be provided with a high point to eliminate any surface drainage from exiting the site onto Rice Street. :• Is there any need or desire for a sidewalk along Rice Street abutting this property? C. Utility Plan Domestic water service lines are not shown. Domestic service lines must be separate from the sprinkler service. Easements must be provided to the City up to and including the curb stop on the domestic service line. :• There is an existing hydrant shown along Rice Street at approximately the center of the proposed buildings. There is a propose,-) new hydrant to be ir\stalled at the southeast corner of the proposed auto service building. This will be on a long dead-end line extended from Rice Street. We would suggest that consideraY`on be given to pooping fhe watermain around the proposed development and placing at least one additional hydrant on the site. O:\PROJ\809320)\0240\Itr 1-6-00 a i V \~C'~l'I' cr Page 47 ~pany