09-28-2005 Additions - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Grading Plan 1. A ten -foot bench graded for vehicle access should be provided around the top of all the ponds for future city maintenance. The access roads to the ponds should be designated on the plan and must be within the drainage and utility easements granted. 2. The plan indicates an ordinary high water level of the wetland to the north. The source of this information should be provided and proof of its accuracy. 3. Boulevard grades appear to be as steep as 3:1 in some areas. The Developer previously agreed to grade a 5 -foot boulevard behind the curb at 2% and a maximum of 3:1 slopes after the boulevard. 4. Several notes are included on the grading plan as to a maximum wall height of 4 feet. It appears that the wall on Lot 3 is six feet high. All walls should be reviewed for a maximum height of 4 feet and top and bottom wall elevations provided on all walls to ensure this. 5. The drainage swale that is shown between Lot 3 and Lot 4 is not contained within the drainage and utility easement that is being dedicated and is very close to the proposed house pad location. The drainage ditch should be widened and constructed per the detail provided in the plans. It may be necessary to grant a larger drainage and utility easement so that the swale is entirely within the easement. It should also be noted that the drainage swales will need to be graded back to the edge of the no disturb zone to ensure that the storm water runoff from each lot does not drain onto adjacent property behind the houses in the area that can be graded and developed. 6. Top of curb elevations should be provided at all radius points. In addition, the existing centerline and edge of bituminous elevations should be shown for McMenemy Street and Viking Drive to ensure smooth connections can be made. 7. As shown there is a retaining wall extending up the east side of the building pad of Lot 11 directly adjacent to the property line. The City requires that a minimum of a 6 -foot drainage and utility easement be provided on each side lot line in order to allow sufficient room to construct a drainage swale centered on the property line to convey runoff between lots. The wall directly adjacent to the lot line on Lot 11 will require that the drainage swale be constructed entirely on Lot 12 to ensure against erosion of the retaining wall. Therefore, a ten -foot drainage and utility easement should be provided along the west lot line of Lot 12 in this area to allow for adequate width to provide a drainage swale between the two homes given the wall location on Lot 11. 8. We have had several discussions with the Developer and their Engineer in regards to this development. One of the main contentions of the meetings was the retaining wall that is currently proposed on the south side of Preserve Court from approximately station 11 +50 to 13 +50. The Developer was proposing a wall that was approximately 10 to 12 feet high and would have been supporting the City street and utilities behind it. The City did not want a wall supporting their infrastructure and felt that the wall was a significant deviation from the preliminary grading plan. At a meeting with the Developer on September 1, 2005 it was discussed that a wall of limited height, a maximum of 4 feet, would probably be allowed, but final approval would need to be granted by the City Council. The Developer revised his final plans and submitted them with a 4 -foot wall in this area. With a possible resolution to the size of the wall, the plan was reviewed in further detail as to the implications of the wall construction and the -4-