The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRIGDEN FARM FOURTEENTH - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2008-02-286zSelected Issues Report City of tort Collies 2/4/2008 Date: RIGDEN FARM, 14TH FILING, THE CENTER AT RIGDEN FARM PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS SELECTION CRITERIA: Status = All Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy Topic: General Number:13 Created:1/9/2007 Resolved [1/9/07] Please title the project consistently between the plan sets. Number:14 Created:l/9/2007 Resolved [1/9/07] Remove sight distance triangles as they are not required of this project. All the intersections are perpendicular and the project does not front the inside of a curving street (but thanks for the thought!) Number:15 Created:1/9/2007 Resolved [1/9/07] Please dimension all sidewalks, parking stalls, drive aisles, parkways, etc and label which type of easement it is (existing, proposed, utility, etc). Number:16 Created:1/9/2007 Resolved [1/9/07] Sidewalks must be increased 2' in width where the parking stall is only 17'. 1 think you are meeting this requirement but not 100% sure in all locations. Number: 48 Created:1/16/2007 Resolved [1/16/07] The variance request for the driveway separation has been approved. Please add to line 48 of the General Notes. Thanks! Number:49 Created:1/16/2007 Resolved [4/9/07] [1/16/07] The blanket utility easement in the parking lot is fine but check with the building department to make sure the trash enclosures are allowed in it. I THINK you're ok if the "structure" does not exceed 8 ft but check to make sure. If they won't allow it, then you'll need to block out the area on the plat. The big concern is not placing the enclosure over a waterline or something. Number:55 Created:1/16/2007 Resolved [1116/07] Great plans - ready for hearing and first round of Final Compliance! Number:68 Created:419/2007 Pending [4/9/07] Please add a note to all of the plan sets stating that the City and Utility companies approved the location of the trash enclosures within the blanket utility easement. A good place for this note on the utility plan set would be under line 48 of the General Notes. You can word this note any way you wish, just want to make sure that you won't have trouble Page 1 later at the time of building permit. Chad - do you think it would be appropriate to put this note on the plat as well? Number:76 Created:4/9/2007 Pending [4/9/07] Please provide a barricade after Phase I construction is complete that would block off the driveway access to Phase II. This way people won't be trying to cut across the site (and they will). Topic: Landscape plan Number: 69 [4/9/07] Please show phasing. Topic: Plat Number: 50 [1/16/07] From Technical Services: Created: 4/9/2007 Created: 1/16/2007 Plat matches legal. Number: 51 Created: 1/16/2007 [1/16/07] From Technical Services: Plat closes good, area good. Pending Resolved Resolved Number:52 Created:1/16/2007 Resolved [1/16/07] From Technical Services: Does Tract A need to be an access easement also? Number:53 Created: 111612007 Resolved [1/16/07] From Technical Services: Why not call the small portion of Tract A- Tract B and C - hatching is confusing. Number:54 Created:1/16/2007 Resolved [1116/07] From Technical Services: Please show how exterior roads are dedicated. Number: 86 [4/12/071 From Technical Services: Created:4/12/2007 Pending 1. Boundary and legal close. One bearing does not match in C1 curve. 2. Basis of bearings monument descriptions of N1/4 corner do not match the plat. Topic: Site Number:17 Created:1/9/2007 Resolved [1/9107] Please remove contours, utilities and sight distance triangles. Number:70 Created:4/9/2007 Pending [4/9/07] Please show phasing. Topic: Utility Plans Number:71 Created:4/9/2007 Pending [4/9/07] Remove all reference to Preliminary Plan, not for construction prior to mylar. Number:72 Created:4/912007 Pending [4/9/07] Sheet 3 - Please add a few more notes or labels clarifying the installation/phasing of the sidewalks and onsite utilities. I just want to make sure there won't be any confusion later as we write the DA, DCP and then eventually go to construction. Thanks so much Bob! Page 2 Number:73 Created:4/9/2007 Pending [4/9/07] Sheet 4 - See redlines regarding Note 2. Good note. -would you mind duplicating it under line 48 too? Thanks!! Number:74 Created:4/9/2007 Pending [4/9/07] Sheet 9 and typical - the little @ signs will turn into blobs when scanned. Could you reduce the pen width perhaps? It should scan fine then. Number:75 Created:4/9/2007 Pending [4/9/07] Sheet 11 - Will need to phase this sheet too if the storm inlet isn't getting installed with Phase 1. Number:77 Created:4/9/2007 Pending [4/9/07] Detail Sheets - Please label all onsite details as "on site". Thanks. Number:78 Created:4/9/2007 Pending [4/9/07] Detail Sheet - I will email you the most current ped ramp detail so that you can replace details 1606 and 1607 with it. Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: David Averill Topic: General Number:21 Created:1/10/2007 Unresolved [1/10/071 All sidewalks that are adjacent to head -in parking must be a minimum six feet in width. The walkway in front of lot 5 and lot 6 does not meet this standard. Please double check all other walks of this nature and label the dimensions on the site/utility plans for the next round. Number:22 Created:1/10/2007 Unresolved [1/101071 Handicap access ramps need to be provided in the vicinity of all handicap parking stalls. Please revise the site and utility plans to reflect these changes. Number:23 Created:1/10/2007 Unresolved [1/10/07] There doesn't appear to be enough bicycle parking provided per the LUC. By my calculations a minimum of 13 bicycle parking spaces need to be shown. Please refer to the LUC 3.2.2 C as well as LCUASS chapter 17 for requirements and specifications for bicycle parking areas. Number:24 Created:1/10/2007 Unresolved [1/10/071 We need to see pedestrian crosswalks at the drive aisle crossings off of Iowa and Illinois. See redlined site plan. Number:25 Created:1/10/2007 Unresolved [1/10/071 The ODP for Rigden farm specifies that a bicycle and pedestrian trail traverse this site. This trail is important asa it provides excellent bike and ped access from the planned and developing neighborhood to the commercial developments associated with Rigden Farm. That being said, this design attempts to incorporate the trail into the development, but fall short of an acceptable design in a number of ways. It needs to be 8' in width for the entire length of the site as opposed to the 5' shown. The route from the east needs to be clearly defined and direct, and the current design does not accomplish this. Finally, the Page 3 crossing of drive aisle and pedestrian walkways introduce a number of potential conflicts between different modes and users. I believe there are several tweaks that this design really needs to incorporate to in order to create a safe and viable pedestrian and bicycle trail in order to satisfy the intent of the ODP. Lets discuss and staff review and I will provide some redlines. Number:26 Created:1/10/2007 Unresolved [1/10/07] The alt. modes analysis in the TIS is acceptable. Number:8 Created:1/2/2007 Unresolved [1/2/07] Add a note to the site plan stating that exterior lighting (poles and building - mounted) will be down directional, etc. Number:9 Created:l/2/2007 Unresolved [1/2/07] how tall is the retaining wall? What material is it? Page 4