HomeMy WebLinkAboutLIND PROPERTY, 2ND FILING - FDP - 39-94E - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSUnderstood.
#85 "A public access easement from the property to the east needs to be obtained for any
portion of the sidewalk that is being built on their property."
Understood
#86 "The "alley" needs to be called a private drive."
That change has been made.
#59 "Please provide letters of intent from neighboring ditch company approving the
grading that extends to the ditch right of way, as well as the release of flows into the
ditch.
Understood Centex and the ditch company are coming to an agreement regarding this
issue.
#95 "This project is responsible for designing and constructing the sidewalk and bridge
shown along the eastern portion of the site."
This comment no longer applies. The new owner of the adjacent site requested that the
aforementioned pedestrian bridge be removed.
#56 " This set does not meet requirements of appendix E-6. Please see appendix E-6 for
scanning requirements."
Plans have been brought into conformance of the standards set in appendix E-6.
#103 "Does not match the site or utility plans (the daycare center and church have been
removed from the other plan sets.)
We were asked to remove this information in PDP comments, then asked to show the
information with these comments. During our last meeting with staff it was agreed that
the information not be shown on the Final Compliance Plan set.
#104 "The legend needs to include the driveway symbol and various line weights."
VC,"
#105 "Remove all Yd Filing info, all sheets."
Done.
Vignette Studios 5/11/2005 3
#14 "Some of the sheets were illegible and may have more comments to follow with the
next submittal once the text becomes clear. See appendix E-6"
Sheets have been brought into conformance per standards set in appendix E-6, and
additional redline comments.
#33 "Rear access only off lots 3-6, block 6 at the round about, possibly even lots 2 and/or
7. A statement on the plat and site plan to this effect is required. See table 7 for separation
distances between drives and intersections.'
These lots are intended for alley homes, and therefore will be rear load. In addition, a
note has been added per comments and design will conform to the distance specified in
table 7.
#42 " This project will be responsible for the design and construction of Brightwater to
the property line as well as '/2 the cost of the ditch crossing. An additional 500' of
preliminary design for the street is required beyond the property. In lieu of constructing
these improvements the developer may escrow the cost of constructing the
ditch. _..money will be refunded to the developer.
This comment is no longer relevant due to the acquisition of the adjacent property.
Brightwater now ends at Thoreau, and the remaining ROW has been abandoned.
#44 " Easements need to be recorded for any off -site improvements and the reception
number needs to go on the plans.
Please provide letters of intent from the ditch company for off -site grading in order to go
to hearing. The actual easement can be provided during final compliance."
Understood.
#48 "Several of the sidewalk connections do not line up with each other across the street,
or they don't line up with their ramps. "
These connections have been realigned as requested.
#55 "The site and landscape plans do not match the utility plans. The various plan sets
need to be coordinated to show the same information. The utility plans need to provide a
preliminary design before going to hearing to determine if the proposed improvements
meet city standards."
Understood.
#60 "This is being done with the first filing and the improvements will need to be
complete before the issuance of any building permit for the 2"d filing. Just keeping this
comment alive until the DA. This project is responsible for the construction of County
Road 52 along their frontage."
Vignette Studios 5/11/2005 2
•
Response to Comments
Lind Property, Filing II
Transportation Planning
#108 "It seems like it would make more sense for the walkway/path between tracts A and
M to align with the ramp provided further northeast of the round about ... see redlines for
clarification." (CS508)
Alignment has been reconfigured as requested.
#109 "The pedestrian crossing at Seafarer Lane and Clarion Lane needs to be revised.
The current submittal shows a single access ramp which directs ped.'s diagonally across
this "intersection". This design is not desirable.... see redlines for clarification." (CS515)
The existing ramp has been realigned along with the addition of another ramp, to
comply with staffs request.
Stormwater Utility
Comments not applicable to the Site or Landscape plan. All comments will be addressed
in Engineer's drawings.
Current Planning
#69 "The neighborhood center will need to be shown on the final compliance plans,
similar to the PDP."
Staff comments requested the removal of the neighborhood center in the last PDP
submittal comment. In our last meeting with staff it was agreed to that this should not be
shown on the Final Compliance Plan set.
#70 "Will tracts I, J and L be used for the oil pipeline for the proposed well site? If so, it
may need to be called out as a separate easement.
Tracts I, Jand L will be used for the oil pipeline, if the proposed well is ever active.
These tracts have been included in the gas easement requested by the owner of the
mineral rights for this site.
Engineering
Vignette Studios 5/11/2005