CCP 05-24-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 5 e Update. The applicant has submitted additional information pertaining to some of the above conditions below is the status of each condition: Condition 1. At this time the City Attorney is awaiting additional information to satisfy this condition. This condition needs to be satisfied prior to recording the final plat. Condition 2. The applicant is adequately showing this on the plat to satisfy this condition. e Condition 3. The applicant has satisfied this condition. The City Engineer has reviewed information pertaining to drainage and found the plans submitted will substantially improve existing drainage. However, there is an existing 4" pipe that is on Mr. Wessland's property that is not adequate to handle high discharge rates. The City Engineer is recommending the placement of an orifice on the outlet of the pond to restrict high flows. It should also be noted if the Wessland pipe were to become clogged drainage in the area may be altered, this condition exists with or without the plat. Also the outlet pipe from the proposed pond should be increased from 10" to 12" to meet Arden Hill's minimum pipe size requirements. He also noted a possible condition of a wetland delineation for the area referred to as pond 2 be completed to determine if it is a wetland. Rice Creek Watershed District has reviewed this area and determined a wetland delineation is not needed. It is Staffs recommendations that the basement elevations for this plat not be constructed below an elevation of 887.8 feet and that the plans for the subdivision be modified to accommodate the City Engineers comments. Condition 4. The applicant has been informed of the recommended park dedication amount. Staff has not received a response, thus we assume they agree with the recommended fee. Condition 5. Staff has received a letter from Geoffrey A. Miller, Attorney representing the applicant. (Exhibit I) In response, staff offers the following comments pertaining to this condition: . "Our biggest concern is the proposed requirement that we make an escrow payment for future extension of Shoreline Lane to the north property line." The City Code Section 22-10 (3) requires a sum equal to one hundred twenty five percent (125%) of the estimated cost of improvements to be constructed and furnished within the subdivision as determined by the city engineer. City Code Section 22-10 (3), b, 1 states "all streets shall be improved with pavement constructed to specifications of the City Engineer...." e First, an escrow (equal to 125% of improvements to be constructed) will be required for the whole project (i.e. construction of cul-de-sac and future extension of Shoreline Lane to north property line). This is determined by the applicant sending out their roadway detail plan set for bids. The City Engineer then uses the bids to determine