05/10/2000 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Memorandum DATE: May 2, 2000 TO: Jeff Smyser, City Planner FROM: John Powell, City Engineer 11 RE: Bluebill Ponds Preliminary Plan Review Comments A new submittal package for the referenced project was received by the City in the afternoon on April 28, 2000. While the submittal addresses key concerns regarding access to the site, the following deficiencies were noted during our initial review of the documents: 1. Most of the routing diagrams for the HydroCad model are illegible. 2. No pond outlet details are provided. 3. No pond, pond access, or wetland easements are shown. 4. The size of the storm sewer pipes is not shown on the utility plan or contained in a schedule of segments. 5. The staging of the water elevations in the infiltration ponds behind the lots in Block 4 is not provided. Emergency overflows for these areas are not shown. Effectiveness of the infiltration areas will be minimal during periodic raising of the groundwater levels. 6. Lowest opening elevations have not been provided. These must take into consideration normal and 100 -year pond levels and emergency overflow elevations. 7. The RCWD permit for this project has been tabled pending receipt of additional submittals. 8. Cul -de -sacs are not shown for the southeast and west roadways terminations. Temporary cul -de -sacs, which meet City standards, could be considered in these locations. 9. Written documentation from House of Praise church indicating they have agreed to purchase terms is not provided. 10. No landscape plan is included. 11. No tree preservation plan is included for the forested areas on the west and east edges of the site. 12.The engineer's registration number on sheets 2 -5 must be verified. 13. Wood Duck Trail is a minor collector in the City's Transportation Plan. 40 foot setbacks are needed along collector roads. 14. If the developer controls abutting properties, a concept plan should be provided. 15.The minimum watermain size is 8 inch, the east cul -de -sac shows 6 inch. 16. The engineer is proposing 12 inch sanitary sewer throughout the project. The diameter must be reduced to 8 inch where projected flows do not justify 12 inch. 17. It is not clear whether or not the proposed 28 foot street width has been incorporated into the hydraulic and hydrologic design. The above comments were noted during a cursory review of the submittal, there may be additional deficiencies. The information as submitted is insufficient for the City's preparation of an engineering recommendation on this project. Please advise regarding our further review of the documents as submitted. • •