The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMAPLE HILL THIRD REPLAT - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2008-04-28Selected Issues Report City of of iv��llin 4/15/2008 MAPLE HILL (WITHDRAWN) 3RD REPLAT - TYPE I (LUC) SELECTION CRITERIA: Status = All ISSUES: Date: Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Katie Moore Topic: General Number:3 Created:6/7/2004 Pending [6/7/04] Please add a signature line for the Baker Lateral Ditch Company. Number:4 Created:6/7/2004 Pending [6/7/04] Please correct the plat language on the cover sheet as redlined. Number:5 Created:6/7/2004 Pending [6/7/04] Please add the following note, which appears on the original plat and is applicable to this replat: All driveways are to be a minimum of 20' in length as measured from the back of sidewalk. Number:6 Created:6/7/2004 Pending [6/7/04] The outer boundary of Block 17 is different than on the original plat. Please correct boundary and tract H acreage. Number:7 Created:6/7/2004 Pending [6/7/04] This replat no longer shows the Baker Lateral easement. Was this intended? Whether or not the easement remains, a representative of the Baker Lateral will have to sign the plat. Number:8 Created:6/7/2004 Pending [6/7/04] If Tract EE is intended as an easement and not as public ROW, then it should not be named an alley. It should be labeled as a private drive. Number:10 Created:6/8/2004 Pending [6/8/04] Please take a very close look at how the utilities will fit with street trees and driveways on these narrower lots. The detail provided on the utility plans still has the wider lots shown. It appears that there will be at least a few front -loaded lots where driveways will not fit. Number: ll Created:6/8/2004 Pending [6/8/04] The private drive (private alley) design shows a fair amount of water point discharging over the public sidewalk. This is prohibited under LCUASS. Please divert the water to an under -walk drain (use D-10 from the stormwater manual). Number: 12 Created:6/8/2004 Pending Page 1 [6/8/04] The lot detail showing lots with private alley frontage still shows all lots taking driveway access from the street. Was this intended? Number:13 Created:618/2004 Pending [6/8/04] The utility plans show a detail of the alley being in ROW, with 4' utility easements on either side, but this does not match the plat, nor does it match the intent of having the alley be a private drive. Please revise. Number:16 Created:618/2004 Pending [6/8/04] See redlines for additional comments. Number:17 Created:6/8/2004 Pending [6/8/04] FYI - a copy of my comments on the minor amendment: Maple Hill Replat 3 Minor amendment comments 6.8.04 Phasing: Some changes need to be made to the phasing plan proposed: County Road 11 still needs to be shown as Phase 1 at least south of Maple Hill Road. I've been told that the grading has been completed for this portion of CR11, but the $ for improvements still needs to be City in Phase 1. North of Maple Hill Road, the grading and $ for CR11 should be put up with the first phase to go in (Phase 4?). Please show the entire Maple Hill site phasing (revise sheet 1 of the site plan?). -Also, Phase one will also require a temporary turnaround (with easement) for Summerpark Lane's east dead-end, and Phase Two will require a temporary turnarouns (with easement) for the north dead-end of Bar Harbor Drive. -Which phase is the alley in Block 26 in? -Please work closely with your engineer to ensure that utilities, driveways, and street trees will all fit with the newly narrow lots. It currently appears that some lots will not be able to have driveways. Number:18 Created:6/10/2004 Pending [6/10/04] Because of the existing DA for Maple Hill, a very close look needs to be taken at the proposed re -phasing of the project. If the conditions of the DA need to be altered to reflect differences in phasing, then an amendment to the DA will be necessary, requiring all affected parties to sign. The utility plan sheets showing phasing need to be revised to coincide with the changes proposed on the site plan. Topic: Plat Number:27 Created: 6/1812004 Pending [6/18/04] Comments from Technical Services: 1. Some curves and distances do not match the original Maple Hill plat. 2. Basis of bearing statement and plat do not match. 3. Because of potential confusion with title companies, assessor data, and the City, it is preferable to have the blocks in this replat numbered 1 thru 5 (not the same block numbers as the original plat). 4. Fade back text should be darker. Topic: Utility plans Number:9 Created:6/8/2004 Pending [6/8/04] The proposed revisions are quite messy. At least half of the sheets refer to the wrong sheet to be revised. Please take another look at the plans and label them correctly. Page 2 There are two options for revising utility plans: the first is to bubble out areas on the original sheets and make revisions on that sheet, and the second is to bubble out areas on the original sheets and add notes referring to new sheets (ie 20C, 20D) where the revisions are shown. Please use one of these two choices (except sheet 80, which should be revised on the original sheet). In going through the revisions for the first and second replats, this was not done. Please correct those revisions as well. As the plans stand, there is no way of knowing that revisions were made to the original sheets if all a person sees is the original sheet (which is where most people would stop looking). Sheets that I found to need revising: 20, 32, 58, 80, 65, 28, 29, 19, 24, 25, 25A, and the cover sheet. Please double- check this, as there may be more sheets that need to be included. Number:14 Created:6/8/2004 Pending [6/8/04] Marshfield land flowline design: While sag curves are allowed for centerline profiles, a minimum of 0.5% straight grade should be maintained on flowlines into inlets. Please revise. Number:15 Created:6/812004 Pending [6/8/04] Where the sidewalks cross the private drive on block 23, the cross slope of the sidewalk should be 2%. There is an area of the drive shown at 2% but it does not match the location of the sidewalks. Department: Transportation Planning Topic: Plat Number: 28 [7/26/04] No comments Issue Contact: David Averill Created:7/26/2004 Pending Page 3 Selected Issues Report Cihctf fr�fl Date: 4/15/2008 MAPLE HILL THIRD REPLAT PDP - TYPE I (FORMERLY BLOCK 2 LOTS 5 & 6 AND TRACT C REPLAT) AND FINAL PLANS SELECTION CRITERIA: Status = All ISSUES: Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy Topic: General Number:7 Created: 8/1712007 Pending [10/2/07] Please submit utility mylars for signature. Once signed off, I will return them to you for copies (one mylar set and seven wet -stamped paper copies). [8/17/07] The utility plan revisions are ready for mylars. Topic: Plat Number:3 Created:8/15/2007 Resolved [8/15/07] The plat in plan view has mislabeled the lots and blocks.., should be tract C, lot 5 and 6, block 2 not lots 1 and 2 block 1, Tract A. With that said, my comment takes the back seat to Shelby Sommer and Tech Services. It is they who will determine the appropriate titling of the property. Thanks. Number:4 Created:8/15/2007 Resolved [8/15/07] Should Tract A also be dedicated as a private irrigation easement as well? I'm not sure that the drainage and utility easement is giving somebody the easement that they really need. Number:5 Created:8/15/2007 Resolved [8/15/071 Corrections required to the statement of ownership and subdivision, see redlines. Number:6 Created:8/15/2007 Resolved [8/15/07] The tract table has the lots and the tract incorrectly labeled if the project title stays the same. Number: 15 [8/22/07] From Technical Services: Created:8/22/2007 Resolved 1. Boundary closes. 2. Change Title. 3. Remove Block One 4. Who owns and maintains Tract A? Department: Traffic Operations Issue Contact: Ward Stanford Topic: Traffic Number:11 Created:8/21/2007 Unresolved [8/21/07] If re -grading of 2 lots is it, no Traffic issues. Page 1