Laserfiche WebLink
t <br />' ITEM ORIGINAL REVISED <br />Street: <br />Surfacing Width <br />Collector {ft.) 44 36 <br />Residential {ft.} 36 30 <br />Cul-de-sac (f t. ) 36 26 <br />86'dia. 80' dia. <br />Depth Design -- Ton Rating , <br />Collector 9 ~ <br />Residential 5 5 <br />Cul-de-Sac 5 5 <br />Concrete Curb and Gutter _ <br />Collector Yes No <br />Residential & Cul-de-Sacs Yes No <br />Rolled Bituminous Curb <br />All streets No Yes <br />-Cost of collector street assessed to abutting benefitted <br />lots at $10.20 per assessable front foot. Remaining cost <br />of construction assumed to be paid by riuni~ipal State Funds. <br />These revisions resulted. in land development costs as sY?o~~m or. Exhibit <br />D. <br />The following standards should be considered as reruir_ements far sub- <br />division platting. <br />SITE GRADING <br />Permit greater yard grades to utilize advantages of the existing <br />topography - balance costs of retaining structures to exc~~=atien <br />and embankment costs. <br />STORid SEWER UTILITY " <br />Design lateral lines based on 2 year storm frectuency ~~,ith a. mini.-- <br />mum pipe diameter of 18". <br />Design sub-gunk lines based on 5 year storm f?-equenc~=. <br />Both design criterias reauire consideration of: <br />a. Utilization of ponding areas as an amenity to platting. <br />b. Utilize open land, parking areas and streets as te~~por.ary <br />retention areas to reduce impa~. Ls o; high volu.~.e ~: ~> <br />Purpose to reduce the size of pipe. Pipe costs are prapoa-tion-- <br />ately higher in the overall cost than in sanitar~,= set~~'Y' and <br />water installations. <br />SANITARY SE~~TER UTILITY <br />Pipe costs are not relatively high in the overall construction <br />of sanitary sewers; therefore, savings obta ~ neci by lo~•rering <br />73 <br />