My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2011_0411_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2011
>
2011_0411_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/9/2012 4:22:02 PM
Creation date
12/20/2011 1:01:37 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
106
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Attachment D <br />'38 Applicant Representative,, Clark Wicklund, Alliant Engineering <br />Wicklund addressed the issues addressed by Ms. Bloom: sanitary sewer, storm sewer and sidewal <br />40 extension on Walnut; and addressed the status of each component. I <br />41 Storm Sewer <br />42 Mr. wicklund advised that site drainage was sufficient based on the previous development on the site; and <br />4'3 while there was no capacity issue, N best treat the runoff remained in process. Mr. Wicklund noted that <br />4-4 there were a variety of options to treat the drainage as the site developed, while addressing drainage from the <br />45 City is perspective and the network of available surrounding storm sewers and concern that the site may • <br />46 tributary to a local regional retention pond. Mr. Wicklund advised that, in working with staff, it was determined <br />4 7' to route the northern portion of the site to an already-�installed storm sewer N Road C2 and Walnut, <br />48 thus bypassing the regional pond, which had been • primary concern to City Engineer Bloom based on a history <br />49 of flooding at that lift station. <br />50 Mr. Wicklund noted that the site was already developed and surrounded by runoff capacity, but that with the <br />51 addition of newer stormwater management requirements, discharge would be reduced from the site. However, <br />52 Mr. Wicklund advised that until more detail was known as individual users came forward, additional mitigation <br />5'3 remained an unknown. Mr. Wicklund advised that based on current use, the site drained northerly; however, <br />54 when demolition was done and the site graded, grades were revised inward onto the site and drained the site <br />55 northerly into the stormwater system, providing adequate drainage for the interim and providing additional <br />56 space as lots develop. <br />5 7' Sanitary Sewer <br />58 Mr. Wicklund noted that the sanitary sewer was already in place on this developed site, and while talked about <br />59 to-clate only conceptually, it was proposed to provide a ten inch (10") extension connecting to the manhole and <br />60 south to another location, meeting City design criteria. Mr. Wicklund advised that to make the sanitary sewer <br />61 possible would require an easement outside existing righ of for installation and maintenance; and assured <br />62 M�embers that it was more than sufficient to meet City requirements. <br />6'3 At the request of ber Gottfried, Ms. Bloom confirmed that she had not yet reviewed the sanitary sewer <br />64. proposal from the consulting engineer in detail. <br />65 Sidewalk <br />66 Mr. Wickland advised that there was adequate room for a five foot (T) walk on the west side of Walnut, as well <br />6 7' as sufficient room within the right-of-wa► for installation of that sidewalk. <br />68 Mr. Wicklund noted that the Planning Commission did not have the detailed information available for their <br />69 review for this meeting, he assured bers that all outstanding components were cloable. <br />ro=- <br />7'1 M�ember Gottfried advised that, without the City Engineer's detailed review, a request for approval was <br />7'2 premature, and while it created challenges to meet the 610-clay land use review process, it prevented due <br />7'3 diligence by the Planning Commission. M�ember Gottfried opined that the Planning Commission relied on staffs <br />74. analysis and sign off for any review, and even with assurances by the Applicant's consulting engineer, and by <br />7'5 City Engineer Bloom, he further opined that it was in the best interest of the City to delay approval, following <br />7'6 more detailed review and recommendation of the City Engineer. <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.