04-25-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

April 11,2005 Mr. Michael P. OafTron Senior Planning Coordinator CilyofOrono Poit Office Box 66 Cryital Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Amber Woods Office Center File No. I39-05-000 Plat No. 05-3010 Dear Mike, We have reviewed the revised site plans dated 4-4-05 Tor the proposed Amber Woods Office Center. The site is located just west of Orono Woods Phase 1 in the northwest quadrant of Wayzata Boulevard (T.II. 12) and North Brown Road. The use fbr this site is proposed as office condos. The site has been revised, but the plans have incorporated most of our comments from our letters dated I -1 1-05 and 2-14-05. The following arc comments with regards to engineering matters: I. 3. Traffic: The proposed parking lot design still causes some concern regarding truck access and turning movements. Turning movement ability could be enhanced by increasing the radius at the first right turn into the parking lot and by reducing the size of the *^bump out*' shown south and west of the center two buildings. A geotechnical report with pavement section recommendation should be submitted for review. 'Hie plan should be submitted to the fire marshal to review hydrant layout and fire vehicle access. A stop sign should be Installed for vehicles exiting the parking lot to the short service road to Highway 12. Gradtag a»d Laadacaplag. The top of the retaining wall shown west and south of the parking lot should be protected with a barrier such as a fence for safety reasons. It may also be necessary to provide some type ofbarrier along the retaining walls shown north of the buildings to provide protection for the neighborhood to the north. The proposed grading In the northwest portion of the parking lot has been lowered considerably from the last submittal. If the city ever intends to connect a roadway to the parking lot the proposed grades shown will require approximately 6-feet of cut across Outlot D. All retaining walls over 4-feet in height require an engineered design and details. The sidewalk north of building number I should not be used as a drainage way. At the back east entrance area of building number 5, the contours and spot elevations show sidewalk steeper than the maximum allowable 5H. Revising this will affect the emergency overflow, handicap access route, and possibly the building elevation. The landscaping plan appears to be generally good overall. We do have one recommendation regarding plant substitution. Honeylocust tend to have insect and disease problems that make them short lived and a maintenance problem. A plant with a similar appearance that is much hardier and disme resistant is the Kentucky Coffee Tree (Gymnocladus dioica). We recommend that this tree be considered as a substitute for the Honeylocust shown on the plan. UttUtles. The sanitary sewer betwemi manhole I and manhole 2 should be lowered to allow gravity service to building number 5. The horizontal and vertical alignment of the sanitary sewer between the existing manhole and MH I needs to be revised. The new sanitary sewer grade should not exceed 1% and should enter the existing manhole closer to 90 degrees from the out going pipe to the cast. A drop manhole upstream of the existing line seems to be the preferred solution. Dralnaia: The storm sewer calculations should include an analysis of the storm sewer downstream from this site to the pond to provide evidence that there is adequate capacity in the system. This should include an analysis of the downstream pipe sizes and grades along with storm sewer calculations for both the existing senior housing site and the applicant's site. This analysis should be based on as-built storm sewer plans and not construction plans as it is our understanding that changes to the storm sewer downstream from this site were made during construction. isL 1