HomeMy WebLinkAboutCHOICE CENTER MIXED-USE REDEVELOPMENT - FDP - FDP110002 - CORRESPONDENCE - (5)Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes
Topic: Zoning
Number: 51 Created: 7/24/2008
[1/26/11] The applicant's response comment letter states that this comments is
"acknowledged", but there wasn't any documentation in the materials I received stating that
they were requesting that the 4 bedroom units be occupied by 4 people. The best way to do
this is to add a note on the site plan (sheet 2 of 3) in the "Residential Dwelling Unit Table" for
Building 1 and Building 2. The note can be something like "4 bedroom/4 bath units (to be
occupied by 4 unrelated people)". This can be a typical note for all of the 4 bedroom types
in the two buildings.
[9/12/08] Your request letter asks to increase the number of unrelated persons "to a
maximum of 3 individuals for 3 bedroom units and 4 individuals for 4 bedroom units". The
request to allow 3 individuals is not necessary and should be deleted. Section 3.8.16(A)(2)
allows "2 adults and their dependents, if any, and not more than 1 additional person". This
means that you are allowed 2 adults plus 1 other person, for a total of 3 persons, all of
whom can be unrelated to each other. Therefore, your request should only be to allow 4
unrelated persons in the 4 bedroom units.
[7/24/08] Clarification is needed regarding the request to allow the number of unrelated
persons to be "increased to one individual per bedroom for each unit". If this means that
they are planning on having only 1 person per bedroom, then the request should simply be
to allow 4 unrelated persons in each 4 bedroom unit. The current wording - "increased to
one individual per bedroom" when taken literally would imply that if the variance isn't
granted, a 1 bedroom unit won't be allowed to be occupied by anyone.
Be sure and return all of your redlined plans when you re -submit.
If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project,
___please feel -free -to call -me -at (97.0)_221-6750._____________—__
Sincerely:
Ted Shepard
Chief Planner
Page I I
Number: 184 Created: 2/17/2011
[2/17/11] There is a few areas that need more detail regarding grading to help clarify
drainage patterns and to ensure the site gets built per the plans. Please see redlines.
Number: 185 Created: 2/17/2011
(2/17/11] Please provide an erosion escrow amount in the drainage report.
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington
Topic: WaterMastewater
Number: 103 Created: 9/23/2008
[2/15/11]
[9/23/08] Water/sewer mains must be a minimum of 5 feet from gutter flowline. Water main
in Choice Center Drive appears to be closer than 5 feet from west flowline.
Number: 137 Created: 2/15/2011
[2/15/11] Provide water service sizing calculations for the buildings with residential units.
Number: 138 Created: 2/15/2011
[2/15/11] The area between Proposed Bldg 2, Discount Tire and Existing Bldg 3 is very
congested with utilities. Re -locate the fire line for Proposed Bldg 2 to the west side of the
building.
Number: 139 Created: 2/15/2011
[2/15/11] A utility coordination meeting is strongly encouraged. It's been a long time since
this project has been in for review and a refresher is needed on the conflicts and pinch
points for utilities.
Number: 140 Created: 2/15/2011
__[2/_1.5L1.1.] The_existing_water_main-to_the.west_of_Existing_Bldg_4_appears_to_have-several___
conflicts with landscaping and new curb and gutter. Please schedule a meeting to review
re-routing this main.
Number: 141 Created: 2/15/2011
[2/15/11] Sht 4 doesn't reflect the water quality device in Stuart Street that is shown on Sht
11. Please clarify. This may be in conflict with the new sanitary sewer manhole.
Number: 143 Created: 2/15/2011
[2/15/11 ] Show easements on utility plans consistent with comment 142 and plat.
Number: 144 Created: 2/15/2011
[2/15/11] Show/label all curb stops and meter pits on 3/4-inch through 2-inch inch water
services and meter vaults and shut-off valves on services larger than 2-inch.
Number: 145 Created: 2/15/2011
[2/15/11] Label elevation of the existing sewer invert at San MH-1.
Number: 146 Created: 2/15/2011
[2/15/11] See redlined utility plans for other comments.
Page 10
Number: 122 Created: 9/26/2008
[2/17/11] In progress.
[9/26/08] Verification needs to take place on the condition of the existing storm sewer that is
being used as the outfall for the proposed storm sewer. The City can coordinate this and
even perform the inspection. The City has TV equipment to verify that the existing pipe is
still in working condition.
Number: 174 Created: 2/17/2011
[2/17/11] The report states that sub -basins C1b and C1c are being treated for water quality
in the grass swale used as the floodway channel. This channel could be used for water
quality mitigation if the 3-foot pan was removed. If the pan can not be removed, other
mitigation would be required.
Number: 175 Created: 2/17/2011
[2/17/11] The Contech hydro separator needs to be sized and construction details provided
in the plan set. The sizing needs to be based on a 80% efficiency removal at a particle size
of 50 microns.
Number: 176 Created: 2/17/2011
[2/17/11] The proposed Contech water quality device is proposed to be located in the public
ROW. Private infrastructure is not allowed in the public ROW. There is a process to allow a
public utility in the ROW, but it could be long and undesirable. A location on private property
(on -site or off -site) would be the best solution.
Number: 177 Created: 2/17/2011
[2/17/11] Please make sure the sizing calculations for the PLDs include the entire areas
draining to them.
Number: 178 Created: 2/17/2011
_[2/_1.7/-11.]_Please .include_construction_details_for_the_P_LDs_per_the-Urban-Drainage- Man ual.--_
Number: 179 Created: 2/17/2011
[2/17/11] Please provide easement documentation for the storm sewer located on City
Park's property.
Number: 180 Created: 2/17/2011
[2/17/11] Water draining from the south parking lot has increased the flows onto City Park's
property and written permission is required to increase these flows. City Stormwater staff
can assist in acquiring this.
Number: 181 Created: 2/17/2011
[2/17/11] Please provide a detail (cross-section) for the grass buffer being proposed to
provide water quality mitigation for the southern parking lot.
Number: 182 Created: 2/17/2011
[2/17/11] Please provide a drainage easement with a minimum width of 20 feet for the
storm sewer in Choice Center Drive. The pipe should be centered within the easement.
Number: 183 Created: 2/17/2011
(2/17/11] Please provide 100-yr HGLs for all storm sewer profiles.
Page 9
26. Change all references to "Nolte", Nolte's", and "Nolte Associates CLOMR" to the
"Choice Center CLOMR". Add CLOMR report to the references section.
27. Page 15 of the drainage report — if conclusive evidence of SWMM and CLOMR
integration is not available, this report is incomplete and cannot be considered a final
document for review and approval.
Flood Plain Use Permit:
28. Please clarify in drainage report when floodplain use permit will be applied for.
September 29, 2008 Comments:
29. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued for structures in the current effective
floodplain until the LOMR is approved by FEMA, and until an Elevation Certificate is
approved for any buildings in the floodplain, especially at Building #1.
30. A Letter Of Map Revision (LOMR) is required immediately after completion of non-
structural development activities at the Choice Center site, per City Code 10-45(2)(b). The
LOMR application shall be approved by City staff and FEMA before a building permit can be
issued. A floodplain use permit shall be approved for Building #1 before the building permit
can be approved.
31. Please refer to the 100% floodplain review checklist for additional information required
on the construction plans and drainage report.
32. Please make sure that all information (plans, designs, calculations, descriptions, etc.)
in the CLOMR and LOMR submittals match the Development Plans.
Additional Comment - Drainage Report:
33. All cross section WSELs must be reported in dual units of ft-NGVD 29 and ft-NAVD 88
at all locations within the drainage report text.
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington
___--Topic:_Landscape
Number: 173 Created: 2/17/2011
[2/17/11] Revise Plant Note 6 to include 10' separation between trees and water or sewer
mains. Adjust tree placements accordingly.
Topic: Plat
Number: 142 Created: 2/15/2011
[2/15/11] Provide utility easements as follows: Water mains - 10 feet each side of main (20
feet total); Sanitary sewer - 15 feet each side of sewer (30 feet total). This applies to
existing and proposed lines.
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
Topic: Stormwater
Number: 59 Created: 7/25/2008
[2/17/11] Reminder Comment.
[9/26/08] Repeat Comment. Drainage easements are still needed for the storm sewer, and
for all areas that are being used for water quality mitigation.
[7/25/08] Drainage easements dedicated to the City of Fort Collins are required for all of the
storm sewers and the flood control swale.
Page 8
3. RFPE = 4987.74 ft-NGVD 29, 4990.74 ft NAVD 88, include in plans and drainage
report as redlined.
4. Please address and resolve all comments on the 100% Development Review checklist.
5. Please include a typical drawing detail for each foundation type proposed, see 100%
development review checklist, pg 4.
6. All plan sheets that are marked as redlines, please revise per redlines.
Plat:
7. Please modify per redlines.
8. Add the following notes: 1) All activities in the current effective floodplain and floodway
are subject to the requirements of Chapter 10 of City Municipal Code. 2) No storage of
materials or equipment in the floodway before, during and after construction. 3) All activities
in the floodplain and floodway must be pre -approved through floodplain use permit and no -
rise certifications. No certificate of occupancy will be issued without no -rise re -certifications
and FEMA Elevation Certificates. 4) Landscape changes in the floodplain and floodway
must be pre -approved through floodplain use permit and no -rise certifications.
Site Plan:
9. Please modify per redlines.
10. Label proposed conditions FEMA floodway and floodplain per redlines.
11. Show current effective floodplain and floodway boundaries and label per redlines.
12. Add notes: 1) All proposed conditions determined by CLOMR Case # 09-08-0735R
effective January 29, 2010. 2) Proposed uses will be subject to Chapter 10 requirements
consistent with approved CLOMR conditions.
Drainage and/or Grading Plan:
13. Remove all corrected effective floodway and floodplain line work per redlines.
14. Remove pre 1997 floodplain line work per redlines.
15. Show current effective floodplain and floodway boundaries and label per redlines.
_16.__Label_proposed_conditions_floodway per_redlines.___
17. Show cross section lines on plans.
18. Show BFE lines on plans in both NGVD 29 and NAVD 88.
19. Show lowest floor elevation in both NGVD 29 and NAVD 88.
20. Add the following notes: 1) All activities in the current effective floodplain and floodway
are subject to the requirements of Chapter 10 of City Municipal Code. 2) No storage of
materials or equipment in the floodway before, during and after construction. 3) All activities
in the floodplain and floodway must be pre -approved through floodplain use permit and no -
rise certifications. No certificate of occupancy will be issued without no -rise re -certifications
and FEMA Elevation Certificates. 4) Landscape changes in the floodplain and floodway
must be pre -approved through floodplain use permit and no -rise certifications. 5) All
proposed conditions determined by CLOMR Case number 09-08-0735R effective January
29, 2010.
21. Remove note 9 on sheet 6 of 28.
22. Sheet 7 of 28 remove note 8.
23. Sheet 11 and 12 of 28, Correct orientation of North Arrow.
Drainage Report:
24. Please see redlines for changes and comments.
25. Clearly specify in report that if floodplain use permit will be submitted at the time of
building permit application or another time.
Page 7
responsible for installation of the new electric service from the transformer to the meter on
the building.
Number: 131 Created: 1/25/2011
[1/25/11] It appears that there is only 24 Ft. between buildings 2 & 3. The plan shows 2
sewer services, a water service, a fire water line, and an electric service in this area.
Installation as well as maintenance of these is such close proximity may be challenging or
impossible. A utility coordination meeting is encouraged before plans are finalized.
Number: 132 Created: 1 /25/2011
[1/25/11] The water main in Choice Center Dr. will need to be moved a minimum of 7 Ft. to
the east of the location shown to provide space for installation of the high voltage electric
system. This may result in the necessity to relocate the sewer main. A utility coordination
meeting is encouraged before plans are finalized.
Department: Natural Resources Issue Contact: Lindsay Ex
Topic: Utility Plan
Number: 134 Created: 2/15/2011
[2/15/11] Add the Limits to Development line to the legend on the Utility and Grading Plans.
Department: PFA Issue Contact: Carle Dann
Topic: Fire
Number: 136 Created: 2/15/2011
PUBLIC -SAFETY RADIO AMPLIFICATION SYSTEM
Where adequate radio coverage cannot be established within a building, public -safety radio
amplification systems shall be installed in the following locations:
1. New buildings greater than 50,000 SF in size or addition(s) to an existing building that
_—cause_the_building_to_be_greater_than_50,000_SF._Forthe-purpose _ of_this_section,_fire_walls—_ __
shall not be used to define separate buildings.
2. All new basements greater than 10,000 SF where the designed occupant load is
greater than 50, regardless of the occupancy classification.
3. Existing buildings meeting the criteria of Items 1 and 2 of this section undergoing
alterations exceeding 50 percent of the aggregate area of the building.
Public -safety radio amplification systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with
criteria established by Poudre Fire Authority.
PFA Fire Prevention Bureau Administrative Policy 07-01
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
Topic: Floodplain
Number: 171 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11 ]
General Comments:
1. The drainage report and associated plans are incomplete and contain errors, and
cannot be fully reviewed at this time. These comments are not final since identifiable
revisions from this review period will change the submittal package during the next round of
review.
2. BFE = 4986.24 ft-NGVD 29, 4989.24 ft-NAVD 88, include in plans and drainage report
as redlined.
Page 6
Number: 166 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] The plan and profile sheet for Stuart Street seems a little unclear as one profile
line is indicated that it's finished grade for both existing and proposed left and right flowline
while a different indication of the same line indicates to see additional curb return profiles on
the same sheet. Will the flowline profiles on both sides of the street be the same? Having
the flowline and centerline profiles individually separate might be preferred for clarity in this
regard.
Number: 167 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] Please label on the Stuart Street plan and profile sheet where on the centerline (in
plan view) the transition starts to remove the crown from the street intersecting onto College
Avenue.
Number: 168 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11 ] On the Stuart Street signing and striping plan the location of the "STOP"
pavement painting directly west of the public right-of-way ending for Stuart Street seems in
an odd location as it appears to define the stop location where opposing westbound traffic
would cross into. Shouldn't this be shifted south to the south half of this driveway opening?
Number: 170 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] A detail of the concrete headwall for the storm outfall didn't seem to be included in
the plan set.
Number: 187 Created: 2/18/2011
[2/18/11] There is apparently an existing irrigation line/tap for the existing landscaped
median on College. If that irrigation line isn't utilized with the reworked College Avenue
improvements, the line will likely need to be abandoned.
_---Number:--188---_ _-_-___-- -----.---__---__------Created:- 2118/20--_--
[2/18/11] CDOT met with the City on 2/18 and indicated that they needed to have additional
discussion internal to CDOT as to how the median improvements should be constructed
given the successive overlays to College (referring back to #151 and #152). They anticipate
having comments completed by next Friday (the 25th).
Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Doug Martine
Topic: Electric Utility
Number: 2 Created: 7/7/2008
[1 /25/11 ]
[9/15/08]
[7/7/08] It appears that several existing electric facilities will need to be relocated.
Relocation of existing electric will be at the developer's expense, in addition to normal
electric development charges.
Topic: Utility Plan
Number: 130 Created: 1 /25/2011
[1/25/11] The electric service to the existing Discount Tire store is 120/240 Volt open delta 3
phase. If this service is relocated as shown on the utility plan, it will be 120/208 Volt wye
three phase. The developer will need to coordinate with Discount Tire to change the
voltage, which may involve replacing equipment in the building. The developer will be
Page 5
Number: 152 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] The apparent new concrete "ribbon" median extending the left turn stack into the
site should have additional information on sheet 15. Please indicate a flowline to flowline
width of this median. If it's intended that the existing median along the west side of College
is to remain, how will the new median transition to the existing median? It seems that the
existing median no longer has the gutter at existing finished grade due to successive
overlays and the new median gutter would need to then be set below finished grade in order
to tie into existing. Please provide spot elevations along the gutter (or final pavement grade
if gutter is set below) along with cross -sections at several locations in order to understand
how drainage along the extended turn lane is intended to function.
Number: 153 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] In consultation with the City's Traffic Engineer, please provide SU-30 turning
template information for the left turn movements off of College onto the site and onto Parker
Street in order to demonstrate that the median nose design will accommodate these vehicle
types.
Number: 157 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] Please provide detail on the northeast portion of the site as to how the tie-in to the
existing sidewalk along College Avenue will occur. Label the width of existing attached
sidewalk the proposed is tying into. Show the existing landscape bed behind the attached
sidewalk and how this will be terminated (Sheet 10 of the landscape plan seems to imply the
continuation of the curb that defines the northern boundary but there is no indication if rock,
turf, plantings, etc. will be provided.)
Number: 159 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] Please provide a note on the storm drainage sheets that the manhole locations
along storm drain B-1 shall be adjusted to be at the center or middle of the travel lanes
along Stuart Street. It appears that the manholes B6 and 136b should be shifted slightly
--south-to the. center -(crown) -of -Stuart -Street -with- B7. appearing.to_be.fine_with_the_taper_for.____—_—_—_____
the turn lane.
Number: 160 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] Sheet 13 of the construction plans shows a CDS2020 water quality device that
doesn't seem to be indicated elsewhere on the set and a detail is not provided. Will an
access manhole be needed and where will this be situated in relationship to the lane lines?
Will this be traffic rated? [Stormwater indicated that is a private improvement. Private
improvements should not be placed in public right-of-way and is considered problematic as
a result.]
Number: 162 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] On sheet 3 of the construction plan please change "County" to "City" on Note 5.
Number: 163 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11 ] In the construction plan set, existing features (such as contours and utilities) are
too difficult to analyze with the line weight used. It appears in some instances that proposed
contours don't tie into proposed contours.
Number: 165 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] Please remove the incorrect labeling of the private drive as Stuart Street on sheet
12 of the construction drawings.
Page 4
Number: 164 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] Thought/suggestion: The access ramp east of Building 4 on the north side might
be better served for the pedestrian if it faced directly south and not angle southeast as the
eastbound pedestrian crossing the drive aisle is angled by the current design to not as
easily see oncoming southbound traffic from the property to the north. As this in on private
property and does not impact public right-of-way, this is more of a thought/concern rather
than requirement.
Number: 169 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] Is there a reference document already compiled that lists the various dedications
and vacations of easements that are required both onsite and offsite? It is suggested that
this document be provided for review and will then be used as a "check -off' for verification
and agreement with all that all the required approvals are obtained prior to final plan
approval.
Number: 189 Created: 2/18/2011
[2/18/11 ] CDOT and the City would like to see an updated traffic memo/letter with the
consultant's traffic engineer indicating.what changes (if any) to the proposed land use and
resulting trip generation may have taken place between the PDP (pre -hearing) submittal and
with the present final plan submittal, and the impacts (if any) that may result.
Topic: Plat
Number: 161 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] The plat indicates the use of "access easement", "public access easement", and
"sidewalk easement". When dedicated to the City, these should all just use the "access
easement" designation.
Number: 186 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/_16/_11]_There -would _be_no_objection_from_the City -if _on_the_plat-all_the_various-separate--
document dedications/vacations of easements were to just be noted as to be dedicated (or
vacated as appropriate) by separate document, instead of the various blank lines for
reception numbers that would need to be filled in before the plat is filed.
Topic: Utility Plan
Number: 150 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] CDOT M&S Standards should be provided in the construction details pertaining to
the improvements in College Avenue and referenced in the plans. The City is meeting with
CDOT at our monthly coordination meeting this Friday and may have additional
comments/concerns following the Wednesday morning meeting. The following three
comments are thoughts I had specific to the new construction/reconstruction along the
median in College Avenue and may be further refined pending input from CDOT.
Number: 151 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11 ] The new concrete median for the left turns onto the site and Parker Street should
have additional design information on sheet 15. Please provide spot elevations along the
gutter along with cross sections of College Avenue in at least a couple of locations along
this median. Is the hatching around this median intended to indicate concrete pavement? If
so, please provide a concrete jointing plan detail for this area (from the CDOT M&S
Standards).
Page 3
redevelopment of the buildings, or does it pertain to the infrastructure within those phases?
Of concern if phasing is being looked at with lots 3 and 4, is that the frontage improvements
along College Avenue (sidewalk, street trees, etc.) are built with Phase 1 (the plan does not
indicate what phase the frontage improvements are intended to be built). Of additional
concern is how the infrastructure within lots 3 and 4 would be able to tie into the frontage
improvements along College Avenue to be built in Phase 1. Bringing in sidewalk detached
would have an impact on the existing parking. The construction drawings and site plan
would need to show how the interim would tie into the frontage improvementt without being
problematic for both the parking lot and frontage improvements.
Number: 148 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11 ] The right-of-way vacation proposed on the southeast portion of the site no longer
seems relevant with the further detachment of the sidewalk along College at this area (the
plat should then remove from the legal description "that portion of vacated College
Avenue...". Ideally additional right-of-way should be dedicated to match the back of sidewalk
along this further detached area instead of providing access easement and/or vacating
existing right-of-way along this location.
Number: 149 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] What is the manner in which the landscaping being removed will be mitigated with
the median reduction taking place in College Avenue that removes several trees and
landscaping? I'm understanding that Community Development and Neighborhood Services
has a general concern about the landscaping and trees that along the median in College
Avenue that would be removed with the construction of the larger left turn lane onto the site.
Will the installation of the new median directly north result in the installation of low lying
plantings as mitigation for the lost landscaping. Will the narrowed down median that creates
the longer left turn lane have landscaping installed?
Number: 154 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11]_It doesn't appear__that"Choice_Center_Drive' street_signs.are_indicated_to_be_
installed on the signing and striping plan. If desired (or required) however, wherever street
signs are posted indicating the private "Choice Center Drive", please provide separate
informational signage (black lettering on white background ) below (at about 5' off the
ground) indicating "Choice Center Drive privately owned and maintained". Please provide a
detail of this on the details sheet. This is in the same manner as to how Council Tree
Avenue (a private drive) in Front Range Village was addressed.
Number: 155 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] Please ensure the title on all the drawings is coordinated (the plat has
"Subdivision" at the end of the title which does not match the site and construction plans).
Number: 156 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] There is a location along College Avenue and a location along Stuart Street where
the public sidewalk is apparently shown to ramp down along the direction of travel. Why is
the ramp down being proposed?
Number: 158 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] Has formal discussion taken place with City Real Estate (Helen Matson) for the
offsite work that is shown on City property in order to formalize the appropriate easements?
Is it understood how the City's process and timeframe in potentially granting these coincides
with anticipated final plan approval by the applicant?
Page 2
STAFF PROJECT REVIEW
City of Fort Collins
Date: 2/18/2011
Jim Sell Design
153 W. Mountain Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Staff has reviewed your submittal for Choice Center Mixed -Use Redevelopment PDP -TYPE
I AND FINAL PLANS, and we offer the following comments:
ISSUES:
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Dana Leavitt
Topic: General
Number: 78 Created: 7/29/2008
[2/16/11] After speaking with our attorney, please change the Buffer Land Use Code
reference (on the site plan and plat) to only reference Land Use Code Section 3.4.1 (instead
of the subsections). Thank you.
[9/23/08] Do not see on Site Plan. Unable to comment for Plat until I review drawing.
[7/29/08] The following note shall be added to the Site Plan and Plat at final review:
For allowable uses within a buffer zone, refer to Section 3.4.1(E)(2) of the Land Use code.
Topic: Grading Plan
Number: 81 Created: 7/29/2008
[2/16111] Asper Dana Leavitt's original comment, thank you for providing the profile of the
storm headwall. However, as Spring Creek is not depicted in this profile, one cannot assess
the connection between the storm outfall and the creek. Please revise this profile to illustrate
Spring Creek and provide a detail, similar to those on Sheet 14, that is a cross-section of
[9/23/08] have not seen utility plans, as soon as I do, I'll provide comment.
[7/29/08] Provide plan and profile of storm drain line adjacent to Spring Creek, between
SDMH-OS1and SDMH-OS2. The creek and the retaining wall are very close together,
which may have impacts to the creek.
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Randy Maizland
Topic: Engineering
Number: 39 Created: 7/23/2008
[2/16/11] The typical cross-section for Stuart does not show what the separation distance
from the back of sidewalk to the retaining wall is proposed to be (and should be at least 2'
per the original comment).
[7/23/08] Grading Plan — Please dimension sidewalk and parkway ROW improvements on
College and Stuart. Show one cross section for Stuart showing the relationship to the
proposed retaining wall which should have 2 feet minimum clearance from the sidewalk.
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata
Topic: General
Number: 147 Created: 2/16/2011
[2/16/11] Sheet SP3 of the site plan shows all of lots 3 and 4 as being built in a future
phase(s). This does not seem to coincide with the construction plans that show no phasing
of the infrastructure. Is the indication of the future phases only with regards to
Page 1