HomeMy WebLinkAboutAV 99-04; Granada Villas; Administrative Variance (AV) (3)Memorandum
a1 TO: Princip Planner, Chris DeCerbo
FROM: Assistant Engineer, David Rick
DATE: August 5,1999
AV 99-04: Granada Villas
COMPLETENESS & ISSUES REVIEW
Engineering Department staff has completed a review of the above-referenced project
for application completeness. The application and plans submitted for this proposed
project are considered complete. Additionally, staff has conducted a review of the
project for engineering issues of concern. Engineering issues which need to be
resolved or adequately addressed prior to staff making a determination on the proposed
project are as follows:
I.
2.
3.
4.
Indicate flow line elevations at several points along brow ditch. Elevations need
to be designated at the north and south end of the brow ditch. Also, express the
grade of the flow line as a percentage.
On the cross-sectional wall detail, extend the proposed grade line to the edge of
the house and show the proposed grade vs. the existing grade. On the site plan,
provide proposed and existing spot elevations on the pad. Also, show proposed
drainage patterns on the pad. Is the slope shown next to the wall existing or
proposed? Indicate the grade of this slope.
The property currently has an approved grading plan (see attached DWG 309-2A
for CT 88-06) which allows a 5'4" high wall. The proposed variance plans
indicate that the wall is only 5 feet high. Is the wall height actually 5 feet high or
is it 5'4" high as the proposed grading plans indicate? Also, is the proposed wall
height consistent throughout the length of the wall?
According to the project description, the objective of this variance is to redirect
surface water to Lewis Lane. To establish drainage flow toward Lewis Lane, the
retaining wall height would need to be raised in order to increase the grade to
establish flow. Drainage is currently approved to enter onto the abutting
properties to the north (Lots 15 and 16 of Knowles Park, Map 3382) in
accordance with the design shown on the approved grading plan. This design is
h
acceptable since the amount of water entering the neighbor‘s property is minimal
in quantity and concentration. Although establishing a new direction for drainage
flow may be preferable, changing the drainage flow is not necessary. Therefore,
increasing the wall height is not necessary.
Please ensure that the building department is given the opportunity to respond to
this request for a variance. I’ve discussed this variance proposal with Mike
Peterson and its my understanding that they may have to add a 5 foot high fence
on top of the retaining wall so that the neighbors will not be precluded from
constructing a pool or spa if they so choose. If you or the applicant have any
questions, please either see or contact me at extension 4324.
”
DAVID RICK
Engineering Technician
Land Development Division