Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• <br />• <br />14) The radius in the southwest corner of Street B and Street C will need to have <br />the concrete curb tipped out, or a cross gutter, to prevent water from ponding. <br />15) The street grade arrow on Street C is pointed in the wrong direction. <br />16) The proposed contours on the grading plan need to be labeled. <br />17) For Lot 21, Block 3 the low floor elevation needs to be raised to 907.0. <br />18) The side yard setbacks are 10' on the house side and 5' on the garage side. <br />The standard detail calls for 10' in both cases. <br />19) Verification of soil types used in model must be provided. <br />20) If proposed Reach 100 corresponds to existing Reach 2, then the discharge for <br />the 2 year and 10 year proposed condition exceeds the existing condition. <br />21) It is unclear where Pond 6 discharges according to the routing information <br />provided. <br />22) The 100 -year flood elevations of backyard ponding in subcatchment 78 and 79 <br />need to be provided. <br />23) The RCWD reviewed this project at their May 24, 2000, meeting. The permit <br />has been "TWAFAA" pending additional submittals. <br />24) Cul -de -sacs are not shown for the southeast and west roadways terminations. <br />Temporary cul -de -sacs, which are completely contained within the proposed <br />rights -of -way, will be allowed at these locations. <br />25) It is our understanding the developer does not control abutting properties at this <br />time. <br />26) It is not clear whether or not the proposed 28 foot street width has been <br />incorporated into the hydraulic and hydrologic design. <br />Overall, most of the issues raised by our last review have been addressed. <br />