Laserfiche WebLink
5 <br /> <br />that could be slightly over this ratio with the longest lot having a ratio of 3.2:1. <br />If these ratios are rounded to the nearest whole number we would also meet <br />this code requirement. In any case we believe we meet the intent of the code <br />as well as how the code has been implemented in past Residential Estate <br />developments but are bringing this up proactively in case fiexibility is <br />needed. <br /> <br /> <br />9. Storm Water Treatment <br /> <br />Unlike past Residential Estate Development, we will need to meet today’s modern <br />storm water treatment requirements which will require more ponding areas than <br />previous RE developments. We are working with Valley Branch Watershed District <br />(VBWD) on designing a storm water system to meet their code. This will likely <br />include a combination of ponds and flltration areas. We will likely have met with <br />VBWD prior to the February Council Meeting and will be able to better address how <br />we will comply with their rules. <br /> <br />As mentioned above the storm water system will be designed with flltration areas <br />and ponds but will also include swales. These swales will contribute to the <br />treatment of the water but also convey water between the lots to the ponding and <br />flltration areas. Most of these swales will be located in drainage and utility <br />easements and not in outlots. <br /> <br />As shown we have placed the ponds and ponds accesses in city outlots. We would <br />prefer that these also be located within in the lots and in drainage and utility <br />easement and not outlots. This appear to have been the practice in all Residential <br />Estate developments in the City to date. <br /> <br />10. Roadway <br />You may recall that one of the fiexibilities we were asking for was to use a rural <br />roadway without ribbon curb. From our discussions it was clear that this City <br />wanted more protection of the roadway edges. We discussed the City’s ribbon curb <br />standard which had been used in more recent rural roadway projects. While I <br />believe that there are numerous rural roadways across the state that function <br />without this added protection we are no longer asking for that fiexibility and plan on <br />following the standard (Exhibit A) for rural roadways. <br />