HomeMy WebLinkAboutPIERCE MINOR SUBDIVISION - 74 93 - CORRESPONDENCE - CITY STAFF (5)tell the developer what improvements must be made.
d) There must be a minimum 0.4% slope down the street
(going back to the conceptual review comments). The
proposed 0.3% slope is less than desirable and does
not meet the City's requirements. This could cause
the need for installation of a storm sewer inlet at
the low point and an outfall .system which would
need to go to Vine Drive to the north. What are the
potential impacts to the properties upstream as you
move west on Cherry Street?
3. When the stormwater detention is provided there will have
to be a maintenance entity established within the private
development to take care of it.
A few telephone conversations between Evan Gilmartin or Jack Blake
and the City Engineering Department took place during the
winter/spring of 1994 to discuss what is needed to move ahead with
the minor subdivision.
Mr. Gilmartin has not been in contact with Glen Schlueter of the
Stormwater Utility since about the first of the year, 1994.
Kerrie Ashbeck met with Evan Gilmartin and Jack Blake on April 29,
1994 to reconfirm the status of the Pierce Minor Subdivision and,
where it is in the City review process. At that time Kerrie was
made aware that Mr. Gilmartin wanted to add another (7th) lot to
the subdivision. A minor subdivision, as defined in the City Code,
is 6 lots or less.
1. Mr. Gilmartin submitted the results of a soils test dated
.April 4, 1994. The report recommended a pavement section
to be built, but staff and his engineer agreed that
additional information is needed to describe what steps
the developer plans to take to remove/reconstruct the
material that is in place (subgrade, preparation, etc.).
2. After discussing Mr. Gilmartin's concerns expressed in
the meeting with other City Engineering staff, Mr.
Gilmartin was told that he would have to build a 40' wide
section on Cherry Street, flowline to flowline to match
the existing street width, and reconstruct the existing
asphalt (which is not built to current City standards).
He would also have to construct curb, gutter, and
sidewalk on the north side of Cherry Street and curb &
gutter on the south side (Putnam School).
To date Mr. Gilmartin has not resubmitted revised utility plans.
City staff does not feel that Mr. Gilmartin has initiated pushing
the project forward. Staff feels that they should not be placed in
the role of project management for private developers.
n
Memo to: Steve Burkett
Greg Byrne
Rich Shannon
Ron Phillips
Bob Smith
May 16, 1994
PIERCE MINOR SUBDIVISION
A Planning Department Application Form, dated October 26, 1993 and
signed by Evan Gilmartin, for a Minor Subdivision (a total of 6
lots) development review was submitted to the Planning Department
along with the required utility plans.
Water & Sewer Department, Engineering Department, and Stormwater
Utility comments were sent to Stewart & Associates, the engineers
for Mr. Gilmartin, on November 26, 1993.
A meeting was held in the offices of the Planning Department on
December 2, 1993, to discuss the concerns about the development
proposal. Present were Evan Gilmartin, Jack Blake of Stewart &
Associates, Dave Klockman of the City Engineering Department, Glen
Schlueter of the City Stormwater Utility, and Kerrie Ashbeck⢠and
Steve Olt of the Development Review Division of the Planning
Department. The topics of discussion were:
1. There are concerns about the off -site storm drainage, the
constraints and long-term effects on the property to the
north.
a) There is an absolute need for stormwater detention
at the northeast corner of the property and control
the release rate into Cherry Street.
b) Need to solve the 100-year floodplain situation on
Cherry Street. May have to move the houses back to
a minimum rear setback configuration. The houses
will have to be elevated. A drainage easement may
be needed on the Putnam Elementary School site.
2. Cherry Street was initially built with enough width (301)
to create a safer area for the children coming to and
going from the school site.
a) There was 3" of asphalt, 30' wide, put down. No
soils testing was done at that time (1992).
b) There is no curb & gutter on the south side, along
the school.
c) The developer must tell the City what is out there
now, from the street standpoint, and the City will