Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 2 <br />Rick Jopke <br />December 8, 1992 <br /> <br />This is unacceptable. Projection shows that the entire <br />area is needed for the continued leaf operation. To re- <br />orient the site is not practical. For this reason, an <br />alternate location must be sought for the regional pond. <br />This could be on the developer's property or adjacent <br />park property along Dale street. <br /> <br />b. storm water runoff was calculated by the developer's <br />engineer as a percentage of the drainage area. Instead <br />of this analysis technique, runoff contributions should <br />be analyzed based on volume of runoff not percent of <br />. area. Tributary areas must be weighted to indicate type <br />of development and runoff factors. The final <br />feasibility report for drainage improvements will <br />include this concept. <br /> <br />c. The internal drainage scheme shows direct surface runoff <br />off from the streets. This type of drainage does not <br />work well and should not be allowed if it is considered <br />that the streets in the future would be public. Instead <br />the street design should be redone with internal catch <br />basins and a storm sewer system. <br /> <br />2. street design <br /> <br />a. If the streets are contemplated for future public <br />conveyance, a minimum of 50 feet of right-of-way should <br />be dedicated at this time. This will necessitate <br />variances for the proposed building locations. <br /> <br />b. Roseville minimum street standards must be used for the <br />design of streets including our typical section. <br /> <br />c. If the streets are to become public, snow removal in the <br />future would be extremely difficult because of minimal <br />boulevard snow storage. For this reason, we recommend <br />that the concept of conveying the streets to the city <br />not be explored. <br /> <br />3. utility construction <br /> <br />a. The specifications prepared by the developer's engineer <br />are in conflict. They refer to the use of the city <br />standard specifications for utility system construction. <br />However, several of the items detailed in the plans are <br />substandard under our specification and conflict. In <br />all cases, the utilities must be built to city <br />standards. It is suggested in this case that the <br />utilities be built to city standards and conveyed to the <br />