Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutADRIAN SUBDIVISION, 1ST FILING - FDP - 42-03C - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONSResponse: This item was already addressed in previous submittals On sheet 10 of the utility plans - the slopes on the entries to the private drive do not meet City standards. Response: The profile was simplified to show centerline, fiowime, and back of walk grades only. Because there is curb and gutter, the grades shown are not truly reflective of actual oradps More detail has been added to the profile to illustrate the curb and gutter section. Stormwater: On the grading plan and subdivision plat it must be identified where the storm water from the gutters on the houses will go to. Response. Added roof drain note to subdivision plat and grading plan More spot elevations for the retaining walls (top & bottom) must be provided. Response: More spot elevations have been shown on the wal!: A request for a variance not to detain on -site must be provided if that is the intent. Response Detention is provided on -sit-- Water/Wastewater: The proposed fire hydrant at the northeast corner of West Vine Drive and North Impala Drive must be relocated. Response. Tne tyre nyorani nas peen mcveu. Light & Power: There should be paired water services between the lots to enable Light & Power to provide electric services. Response: Water services were paired when possible. Electric services were coordinated at a prior meeting and transformer locations are shown on the plan. Natural Resources: The limits of development must be shown on the development plans. Response: The limits of development are now shown on the plans. Page 9 ti Number: 114 Created: 12/8/2004 [12/8/04] The meter pit and curb stop for the proposed irrigation service may not be in the bottom of the detention pond. Provide contours so as to create an island for the proposed curb stop and meter pit. Response: The meter nas peen moved. Number: 115 Created: 12/8/2004 [12/8/04] Maintain the required landscape and utility separation distance on the landscape plans. See site, landscape and utility plans for other comments. Response: The required utility/landscaping separations are now met. Refer to the landscape plan. +xwxr++r+rr+rr+r++r+rrrxr+xwxxwxxxxwxxxxxwwwx+xwx+xw+x+xwxxx+rrrrrrrxrxxxxxxxr++rr++wxxxxxxx The following comments and concerns were expressed at staff review on December 8, 2004: Engineering: Additional street sections are needed for North Impala Drive. Response. :)niy one typical secaon is propose- for ivOrtr, Impala Drive The portion of North Impala Drive next to the existing house on the Adrian property needs to be dedicated with this subdivision plat. Response: This comment has been incorporated into the revisions Please dimension, on the utility plan sheets, the street rights -of -way and utility easements for West Vine Drive and North Impala Drive. Response: Additional have heen added The utility plans must show how the crown in North Impala Drive will be tapered into the existing street to the south. Response: This item has been addressed. A U wide bicycle lane must be provided along the south side of West Vine Drive. Response The bicycle lane is 6' wide Details are needed for the proposed retaining walls. Response: 1 he disclaimer note has been deietea from the wall detail. On Sheet 9 of the utility plans - a flowline is needed on the east side of Impala Drive from this property to the ditch to south. Page 5 Number: 121 Created: 12/10/2004 [12/10/04] The water quality outlet structure is not designed specifically to the site and there still is some missing design elements that are needed for construction. The City is developing a standard detail that can be used for this site and should be completed in a couple of weeks. Response: I gladly await your standard detail. Topic: Erosion/Sediment Control Number: 137 Created: 12/13/2004 [12/13/04] 1. The erosion control surety utilizes the wrong number for the cost of revegetation. Cost to reseed/mulch is $775/acre for areas less than 5 acres, $725/acre for areas larger than 5 acres. Your calculations also indicate only 265 feet of silt fencing, the plan shows considerably more. Also, $1.00/1-F is fairly cheap. 2. There should be a note on the plan indicating what areas are to be seeded/mulched, and/or sodded (e.g. the WO pond, etc?). 3. There is one construction entrance indicated on the south leg of the circle drive. The north end of this drive is unprotected. Why? It probably should have silt fencing across it until it is paved, or the drive is completed to the point it won't erode. If you have any questions regarding erosion control, please call Bob Zakley at 224-6063. Response: Costs have been revised. There is no seeding/mulching on this site. ail developed areas will be sod. Only one construction entrance is necessary for this size of site. Dmirace n- the nor+h ertr?nce will flow toward the site not away from it Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: David Averill Topic: Utilities Number: 116 Created: 12/10/2004 [12/10/041 No further Comments Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Topic: Plat Number: 112 Created: 12/8/2004 [12/8/04] Provide a copy of the proposed 14.5' separate easement document for the utility easement on Northerly Portion for our review. Response- dasea on the cngineermg uepanrneni s coi �ner;ts. we rave revised this said easement. It is not a 1.5' ROW dedication, and a 13'easement =nd those separate documents are included. Topic: Utilities Number: 113 Created: 12/8/2004 [12/8/04] Place the proposed fire hydrant at the north east comer of Impala and Vine Drive between the curb and gutter not behind the sidewalk. Response The fire hydrant leas been moves Page 7 removed. The trees that are now proposed to be preserved are southeast corner. well away from t�,-- c+,etP^fin^ pond. Topic: Grading Plan Number: 119 Created: 12/10/2004 [12/10/04] Proposed grading is occurring within L.O.D. preserving existing trees in the south east corner of the site. Grading will not be allowed in this area, proposed grading must reflect the protection. Response: The proposed grading has been revised so that the area outside the LOD (specified to be preserved) has no proposed disturbance. Topic: Utilities Number: 117 Created: 12/10/2004 [12/10/041 L.O.D. and L.O.D. Fencing needs to be shown on all appropriate utility drawing (example: demolition, grading and erosion control plans) Response: The LOu nas been mown on the �emolit;on Plan Number: 118 Created: 12/10/2004 [12/10/04] A detail needs to be added to the detail sheet showing how the L.O.D. fencing is to be installed. Resper-. Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Topic: Drainage Number: 89 Created: 9/3/2004 [12/10/04] More detail and spot elevations are needed for this area. A meeting may be required to go over the requirements. Response: More detail and notes have been added to assure proper drainay_. [9/3/04] The grading plan needs to clearly show that all drainage within a proposed basin that was designed to drain to the detention pond will actually drain to the pond after construction. Due to the building footprints being proposed very near the slope grading along the east and part of the south sides of the site, lots 1 through 4 may act more like Type B lots than Type A lots. This would result in drainage entering the private drive which can not be allowed. A retaining wall may have to be designed or the building footprints reduced and the grading plan has to clearly show that drainage will flow to the private drives west of the lots. Spot elevations need to be shown with high points, swale inverts, etc. which clearly illustrates the flows going around the structures and to the private drive. Response: This item has been addressed Number. 120 Created: 12/10/2004 [12/10/04] There are a lot of detail items that still need attention on the plans. See redlined plans. A meeting is suggested to go over the remaining issues. Response: These items have been addressed Page 6 Response The disclaimer note has been deleted from the wall detail Number. 126 Created: 12/13/2004 [12/13/04] Sheet 6 - There appears to be grading into Vine Drive at Impala. Is this an error? Response: The contour is an artifact and has been remove Number: 127 Created: 12/13/2004 [12/13/04] Please provide slopes on the street profiles, several are missing. Response. These slopes are for the existing centerline or inipaia inat we are not changing. We have annotated the slopes for your reference anyway. Number: 128 Created: 12/13/2004 [12/13/04] Sheet 10 - Profile, where is the flat spot for the sidewalk? Grades at both drive entrances exceed the max. Code says 1:12 max so this would need to be approximately 8.3% max. Also please show the points called out in the profile in the plan view as well. Response: The profile was simplified to show centerline, flowline, and back of walk grades only. Because there is curb and gutter, the grades shown are not truly reflective of actual grades +c tHnrnfile to illustrate the ,rh and gutter section. Number: 129 Created: 12/13/2004 [12/13/04] Sheet 11 - This comment is already addressed elsewhere and it is more of a reminder. The bike lane on the south side of Vine needs to be a minimum of 6' wide and doesn't appear to meet that requirement from roughly station 22+00 to 24+00. Response: Acknowledged Number: 136 Created: 12/13/2004 [12/13/04] Sheet 8 - Please provide a note something like: Transition the proposed 2% crown to existing from station _ to station OR over x amount of feet (whichever you prefer). Response: More information has been added to the plans to note the transition in paving. Department: Natural Resources Issue Contact: Doug Moore Topic: General Number: 8 Created: 7/27/2004 [12/10/04] (7/27/04) A tree removal and protection plan should be included with the final utility plans. This plan should clearly communicate which trees are to be preserved and which are being removed. Orange construction fencing / Limits of Development, required by the tree preservation standards, needs to be mapped on this plan showing were the fencing is to be placed. The grading shown for the detention pond in Outlot A does not comply with the tree preservation standards and need to be redesigned to preserve the existing trees located in the southwest comer of the site. Response: We have coordinated the new "tree removal and protection plan" into the utility plan set as part of the Demolition Plan. There are no longer any trees being preserved in the southwest corner of the site. All trees in the southwest corner are now either transplanted or Page 5 Topic: Utilities Number: 62 Created: 7/30/2004 [12/10/04] [9/8/04] [7/30/04] See redlines for other comments. Response: ACKnowledged Number: 67 Created: 7/30/2004 [12/10/04] The legend needs to be corrected on each sheet. Currently shows the same line weight for everything on the list and some of the line work on the plans are missing from the legend. [9/8/04] All of the line weights are the same and it's hard to read the plans. Please differentiate the line weights so that the plans are more clear. [7/30/04] Please include in the design and the legend both the existing and proposed row and utility easements. Response: An error in the drawing setup caused lines in the legend to plot without embedded text. The error has been corrected. Number: 69 Created: 7/30/2004 [12/13/04] Please provide a street intersection approach detail at Impala and Vine. See detail 7-28. [9/8/04] [7/30/04] Please show how the proposed improvements to Impala and Vine tie into the existing. Response: Spot elevations have been added to the grading plan to show this detail. Number: 100 Created: 9/8/2004 [12/13/04] Repeat comment. [9/8/04] Vine Drive Improvements - Need to show/label/dimension all existing row and easements. Show existing and proposed striping. Must provide a 6' bike lane both sides of street and widen out Vine as necessary to accommodate that. Show eoa. Label Taft Street. Resnonse Added labels for ROW and paving �rrcrovements on Vine nr Number: 106 Created: 9/8/2004 [12/13/04] [9/8/04] ROW, property lines and easements must be dimensioned and labeled. Plan sets (landscape, site, utility) do not match. Response: The plan sets are now coordinated. Number: 123 Created: 12/13/2004 [12/13/04] Sheet 6 - The note regarding the roof drains needs to be placed on the plat as well. Response: Added roof drain note to subdivision plat. Number: 125 Created: 12/13/2004 [12/13/04] Sheet 6 - The retaining wall needs to be designed and included in this plan set. Can be designed by DMW or others, either one. Will need a typical section and or separate sections where the wall differs. Page 4 Topic: Plat Number: 79 Created: 7/30/2004 [12/13/04] Corrections still required, see redlines. [9/8/04] Corrections required to the Statement of Ownership and Subdivision. [7/30/04] The plat language as shown is wrong. Please email me at sjoy@fcgov.com and I can email you the correct language in a word document. Response: Correction was made to the Statement of Ownership and Subdivision. Number: 124 Created: 12/13/2004 [12/13/04] See comment 123 under Utilities. Response Added roof drain note to subdivision plat. Number: 130 Created: 12/13/2004 [12/13/04] The 14.5' utility easement needs to be 13' and the 1.5' of row needs to be dedicated as well. I can send you both dedication statements that you'll need by email if you send me an email at sioy(o)fcgov.con,. Response. uedicated 1.50 feet right or vva� easemenit per separate aocu;-rent. Dedicatee 13.00 feet utility easement per separate document. A.t!,�rhed to this submittal package you will find the legal description and exhibit. Topic: Site Plan Number: 72 Created: 7/30/2004 [12/10/04] Repeat. [9/8/04] Dimension existing and proposed row. [7/30/04] Show, dimension and label all easements and row. Response All ROW and easements are labeled and dirnens-oner• Number: 73 Created: 7/30/2004 [12/13/04] [9/8104] [7/30/04] Dimension all sidewalks. Response: All sidewalks have been dimensionec Number: 132 Created: 12/13/2004 [12/13/04] Please provide a project title. Response. A project title is now provided on the site plan. Number: 133 Created: 12/13/2004 [12/13/041 The site plan doesn't match the utility or plat. Response The plan sets are now coordinated. Number: 135 Created: 12/13/2004 [12/13/04] Please label the retaining walls. Response: The retaining walls are now labeled. Page Adrian Subdivision, First Filing is a development plan for just 7 residential lots and an outlot for a detention pond, which is 1.196 acres in size. Response. Acknowledged and correctec Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy Topic: General Number: 15 Created: 7/27/2004 [12/10/04] The plans still have scanning problems. Please see redlines - I've highlighted some of the problem areas in pink highlight. The shading doesn't scan at all and will need to be changed to some sort of hatching. [9/8/04] Correct all overlapped labeling and rotate all labeling to the reader. Do not shade areas of removal as this will not scan. Hatching works much better. Please see Appendix E6 for scanning requirements. [7/27/041 Please see Appendix E6 for scanning requirements. Response: DMW has made every effort to make the drawings as scannable as possible. Please let us know if there are still items that may be an issue. Number: 23 Created: 7/27/2004 (12/10/04] Repeat comment, plan sets still do not match. The plat doesn't match the utility plans, see redlines. [9/8/04] Repeat comment. Plan sets do not match. [7/27/04] Show all easements on all plan sets (Site, Landscape, Utility) and they need to match. The back of the sidewalk needs to be at the row line. It appears from the plans that the row is overlapping the sidewalk. Respol— Thu = =a's =-- - coordinated Number: 122 Created: 12/13/2004 [12/13/04] Will need to dedicate the additional foot and a half of row along the undeveloped tract to Vine Drive row so that the sidewalk can be installed. You may do this by separate document and will need to provide a legal description and exhibit along with the dedication statement. I can email you this document in word if you send me an email at s o c r orr Response: Dedicated 1.50 feet right of way easement per separate document. Attached to this submittal package you will find the legal description and exhibit. Number: 134 Created: 12/13/2004 [12/13/04] Please show and dimension the row and easements on the Site and Landscape Plans. All plan sets need to match. Response: The plan sets are now coordinated. The ROW and easements are now shown and dimensioned. Topic: Landscape Plan Number: 78 [12/13/04] Created: 7/30/2004 [9/8/04] [7130/04] Show, dimension and label all row and easements. Response: All ROW and easements are now shown, dimensioned and labeled. N VP. 7. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADRIAN SUBDIVISION, FIRST FILING - FINAL COMPLIANCE - #42-03C ISSUES: Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt Topic: Landscape Plan Number: 138 Created: 12/14/2004 [12/14/04] Need to change the Botanical Names of 2 trees in the Tree Schedule on the Landscape Plan (see red -lined plan). Response This change has been made Refer to the Landscape Plan Number: 139 Created: 12/14/2004 [12/14/04] The word "separate" is misspelled in the note about the 14.5' utility easement along North Impala Drive (see red -lined plan). Response Acknowledged and corrected. Number: 140 Created 12/14/2004 [12/14/04] The Ash tree species "Pennsylvania" is misspelled in the Tree Schedule on the Landscape Plan (see red -lined plan). Response: Acknowledged and corrected. Topic: Plat Number: 143 Created: 12/14/2004 [12/14/04] The subdivision plat contains a Sight Distance Easement Restrictions block, however, there are no sight distance easements shown on the plat. Sight Distance Triangle is located within the existing right-of-way. Therefore, the Sight Distance Easement Restrictions block was removed. Number: 144 Created: 12/14/2004 [12/14/04] The word "separate" is misspelled in the reference to the 14.5' utility easement along North Impala Drive (see red -lined plat). Resoonse Corrected the spelling of "separate". Topic: Site Plan Number: 141 Created: 12/14/2004 [12/14/04] The Title Block is missing from the right hand edge of the Site Plan. Response This was a mistake and has been corrected in this submittal Number: 142 Created: 12/14/2004 [12/14/04] There are land area discrepancies between the Site Plan and the subdivision plat. The plat shows (in the Statement of Ownership and Subdivision) that the "said parcel" (being the Adrian Subdivision, First Filing) is 1.196 acres, more or less. The Site Plan, in the Land Use Data table, shows the total site area to be 1.85 acres and the 7 lots to be 1.47 acres. The Page I