pf_02471 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

¡ , i that Mr. Kehr was working with steve Gatlin to resolve drainage ~ and ponding issues separately and the Development Review Committee was not included in those discussions. Based on the above findings noted at the November 25, 1992 Development Review Committee, Phil Carlson prepared the draft staff report. As indicated, Phil did not discuss these findings with Mr. Kehr before writing the draft report. Subsequent to the 11-25-92 Development Review Committee meeting and while Phil was in the process of finalizing the staff report, Mr. Kehr dropped in unannounced over the noon hour on a Wednesday and indicated to Phil that they were making changes to the plans which would eliminate a unit and change the type of units being proposed. Phil mentioned to Mr. Kehr and subsequently to Jerry Perkins, the archi tect working on the proj ect, that we needed more detail to review these proposed changes and that this could possibly cause the Planning Commission to delay action on the proposal. On 12-8-92, I received the attached memo from steve Gatlin outlining the Engineering concerns about the proposed project relating to streets, utili ties, and drainage which need to be resol ved prior to construction. In the memo, Mr. Gatlin notes the following: 1. Mr. Kehr has obj ected to onsi te ponding and has asked the city to explore other alternatives for off-site regional ponding facilities. 2. Mr. Gatlin notes that the initial site on the leaf dump parcel is unacceptable and other sites will need to be explored. 3. Mr. Gatlin also has concerns about the method which the developer's engineer calculated run off and also noted the need for internal catch basins and storm water systems on the site. 4. Mr. Gatlin also raised issues concerning the fact that the proposed streets would not meet City specs if they are to be conveyed to the public in the future as well as there being inadequate space for snow storage. 5. Mr. Gatlin also notes that there are some problems with the utility plans relating to them not meeting City specs, concerns about how the water main is being looped and the need for additional hydrants. Mr. Gatlin has met with the developer and discussed the plans and concepts but detailed comments have not been transmitted. I will send a copy of Mr. Gatlin's memo to Al Kehr for his information. In summary, the following questions and issues· have not been resolved: 1. No information on staging has been submitted. 2 . Unresolved ponding, drainage, street, and util i ty issues.