03-09-00 Planning Comm. Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Honorable Chairman January 6, 2000 Page Two and Planning Commission •:• 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 systerrt 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 agreerrrent 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. does the City want to allow a retaining wall of this height in their drainage and utility easement? If so it should he 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 lot as required by tl;e ordinance. Also additional topography should be shown around the perimeter in areas where it is important to match into the adjacentproperty. ,Such as along the east edce of Lot 1. •:• No information is provided as to the !oca?ion,. if any, of driveways on the west sid:: of Rice Street to determine how the proposed driveway<~ matcf~ ug. Rice Street is currently the jurisdiction of Mn/DOT, but is planned to be turned back to Rarnsey 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 proyided with a hir,h point to eliminate any surface drainage from exiting the site onto Rice Street. •:• Is there any need or desire far a sidewalk along Rice Street abutting this property? C. Utility Plan :• Domestic water service lines are not shown. Domestic ser/ice lines must be separate from the sprinkler service. Easements must be provided to the City up to and including the curb stop an the domestic service line. :• There is an existing hydrant shown along Rice Street at approximately the center of the proposed buildings. There is a proposedi new hydrant to be ir\stalled at the southeast corner of the proposed au±o service building. This will be on a long dead-end line extended from P.ice Street. We would suggest that considerat_on be given to moping the watermain around the proposed development: and placing at least one additional hydrant on the site. O:\PROJ\809320)\0240Utr 1-6-00 a i a Page 43 ~pany .~. ~~...,,u v~u lJ