Laserfiche WebLink
<br />".,1 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />approval processes would have to be capable of <br />responding to changes in federal regulations. <br />At that time, we configured the site plan <br />that essentially had every imaginable compo- <br />nent and a lot of items that you might even <br />consider as wish list items. It was a worse <br />case scenario that we looked at. We identi- <br />fied a larger site. In going to a larger site <br />than the City currently owns, the land acqui- <br />sition to the south of the existing property <br />and relocating the community ditch was iden- <br />tified. Another item that drove this larger <br />si te requirement was the county setback <br />requirements. The property is annexed now, it <br />is within the City limits and would come <br />under the code timing requirements of the <br />City versus the County. The County require- <br />ment was a 150 foot setback from the center <br />line of the state highway. That essentially <br />rendered a major portion of the site non- <br />usable. with the current City codes, build- <br />ing codes and planning codes we could re- <br />address that issue so that it would back up <br />to the existing City owned property. <br /> <br /> <br />(See attachement) If you look at the current Predesign site <br />Plan you will see that we've pulled the below <br />grade facilities back up closer to the high- <br />way to meet the City setback of nearly 30 <br />feet versus the 150 feet. We've also taken <br />into account, which was a major change on our <br />original plan, access to the site from state <br />Highway 170. We have previously envisioned <br />access more towards the east end of the <br />parcel. Our meetings with the State Highway <br />Department indicated that is not really a <br />cost effective location in that it encumbers <br />some of the on-site facility, increasing on- <br />site paving. Accel/decel lane requirements <br />were substantially different from what we are <br />showing currently. The compromise was that <br />we would locate the site access to meet site <br />distance requirements for turning as well as <br />the accel/decel performance the State Highway <br />Department will impose. We moved the site <br />access to the crest of the hill. The road <br />inset drops away from this point to the east <br />as well as to the west. That allowed us to <br />approach the overall layout in a more compact <br />configuration as opposed to stretching out in <br />the east/west direction, increasing usable <br />on-site area. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />3 <br />