HomeMy WebLinkAboutALPINEBUSINESS PARK PDP - 2-07 - CORRESPONDENCE -Project: ALPINE BUSINESS PARK PDP - TYPE I
PDP - Subdivsion Plat
Request for construction of two buildings, the western most building is intended to be a speculative building with a flexible approved use and the
eastern most building is intended to be a "vehicle minor repair servicing and maintenance establishment" to be located on the southwest corner of
North College Avenue and Alpine St. The zoning is CN (Commercial North College).
Request for 60 day extension granted - new resubmittal deadline is July 17, 2007
Project Type:
Project Desc:
File ID: 2-07 Planner: Anne Aspen DMS Project Num: CP071954
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
1 General [1/26/07] Please verify that the existing primary line going south from Alpine
is located within the access and utility easement. It would be helpful to add it
to the Utility Plan.
Active 1 Janet McTague 01/26/2007
2 General [1/26/07] Please verify that the tree just south of the streetlight at Alpine and
Harmony meets the separation guidelines, i.d 15' for ornamental and 40' for
large shade tree.
Active 1 Janet McTague 01/26/2007
3 General [1/26/07] Please verify that the electric cabinet along Alpine, north of Building
#2 is protected during construction.
Active 1 Janet McTague 01/26/2007
4 Zoning [2/9/07] No issues Active 1 Gary Lopez 02/09/2007
5 Plat [2/12/07] The development is required to dedicate right-of-way and utility
easement along both Alpine Street and College Avenue in the same manner
as the Human Bean plat. In this regard, Lot 1 requires right-of-way and utility
easement dedication on Alpine and College.
Resolved 1 Marc Virata 02/12/2007
6 Plat [6/26/07] While a vicinity map was added there isn't much clarity of the map
provided (shading, not showing street names). Please improve the
information.
[2/12/07] The vicinity map is missing on the plat.
Active 1 Marc Virata 02/12/2007
3/7/2011 Page 1
Project: ALPINE BUSINESS PARK PDP - TYPE I
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
7 General [6/26/07] Though you state in your response to comments that you have
modified it, note #18 has not been changed to reflect this comment. Also,
comment #10 was not all inclusive of the uses that would be disallowed.
Permitted uses include businesses with "only vehicle bays and/or service
doors for intermittent/infrequent nonpublic access to equipment, storage, or
similar rooms."
[2/12/07] You will need to submit a modification of standard for the
connecting walkway standard (Section 3.5.3 (B)(1)) unless all of the units
have internal access from the unit with the connecting walkway, or unless the
uses in Building 2 are revised to ones that have "only vehicle bays and/or
service doors for intermittent/infrequent nonpublic access to equipment,
storage, or similar rooms." Otherwise, all units must "accommodate
pedestrians as the first priority" and provide access "without requiring
pedestrians to walk across parking lots or driveways, around buildings or
around parking lot outlines which are not aligned to a logical route." Please
see Section 3.5.3 (A), (B)(1) and the definition of 'connecting walkway.'
Active 1 Anne Aspen 02/12/2007
8 General [6/25/07] No trash enclosure elevations provided.
[2/12/07] Show elevations of trash enclosure in reference to previous
comments from D. Moore (9/30/06).
Active 1 Dana Leavitt 02/12/2007
9 General [6/25/07] Comment not fully addressed. Single row of ornamental rees
insuffiecient to meet the Sections 3.4.1(I) and 3.4.1(L). Additional plant
groupings from ground level up to canopy height are needed to mitigate the
bulk and mass of the building.
[2/12/07] Repeat comment from previous review by Doug Moore. Address
all comments listed herein. [9/13/06] This project will be required to meet
design and aesthetics (LUC 3.4.1I) & the compatibility with public natural
areas standards (LUC 3.4.1L). Some thoughts that I have on how your
project might be able to meet this standard would be to limit access behind
the building, maintain the proposed staggering of units and add landscaping
to provide help screen and soften the mass of the building as viewed from the
habitat and natural areas. The design of the building and site should be
designed with natural elements and colors similar to how the Human Bean
project was designed to meet the design and aesthetics standard.
Active 1 Dana Leavitt 02/12/2007
10 General [2/12/07] Dog day-care facilities, print shops and galleries would have both
pedestrian and vehicular traffic that would not be accommodated by the
proposed plan.
Active 1 Anne Aspen 02/12/2007
3/7/2011 Page 2
Project: ALPINE BUSINESS PARK PDP - TYPE I
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
11 Site Plan [2/12/07] Per the building inspection reviewers, any portion of the building
that is less than 3 feet from the property line will need to be fire protected.
Please check with Carie Dann if you have further questions about that.
Active 1 Anne Aspen 02/12/2007
12 Site Plan [6/26/07] Though you state that this has been revised, the change is not
reflected on the plans.
[2/12/07] Please show and dimension the railroad row and identify the
natural area beyond.
Active 1 Anne Aspen 02/12/2007
13 Landscape Plan [6/26/07]
[2/12/07] Is turf proposed for the detention pond? If so, please label. Also,
landscaping is allowed in detention ponds and could enhance this design.
Please consider.
Active 1 Anne Aspen 02/12/2007
14 Elevations [2/12/07] This project is small enough that the elevations should be shown
through the site, not just of each façade of each building. I would especially
like to see the site elevation from College.
Resolved 1 Anne Aspen 02/12/2007
15 Lighting Plan [2/12/07] Two of the fixtures chosen are not full cut-off luminaires. Please
select fixtures that meet the code and will not create glare along College or
Alpine.
Resolved 1 Anne Aspen 02/12/2007
16 General [2/12/07] The following reviewers have no further comments on this proposal
at this time: Park Planning, Water Conservation, Comcast, Xcel Energy, and
GIS.
Active 1 Anne Aspen 02/12/2007
17 General [2/12/07] CDOT comments as follows:
+If any landscaping is proposed in CDOT right-of-way, a landscaping permit
from this office will be required.
+The closing/removal of the access to College will require an access permit.
Active 1 Anne Aspen 02/12/2007
18 General [2/12/07] The Post Office comments that the developer must provide
mailboxes for all possible tenants at an approved location.
Active 1 Anne Aspen 02/12/2007
19 General [2/12/07] The Building Inspection department has included the building
codes and standards that will be applicable to this project. Remember to
schedule your pre-submittal meeting with them.
Active 1 Anne Aspen 02/12/2007
3/7/2011 Page 3
Project: ALPINE BUSINESS PARK PDP - TYPE I
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
20 Water/Wastewater [6/26/07] Revise notes on re-location/abandonment as shown on red-lined
plans.
[2/13/07] Show the three existing water services that extend to the south
from the water main in Alpine. These services must be used or abandoned
at the main. Add appropriate notes directing the contractor to coordinate with
the Water Utility (416-2165) on the abandonment. (I have information
regarding the location of these curb stops.)
Active 1 Roger Buffington 02/13/2007
21 Water/Wastewater [6/26/07] (Repeat comment) Coordination needed.
[2/13/07] As noted at the PDR, there are problems with the existing sewer
that crosses the site. The City plans to replace the sewer and would prefer to
locate the sewer in the N/S utility/access easement. Please schedule a
meeting to discuss this City project and the coordination with the proposed
development.
Active 1 Roger Buffington 02/13/2007
22 Water/Wastewater [2/13/07] Include correct meter pit detail. Resolved 1 Roger Buffington 02/13/2007
23 Water/Wastewater [2/13/07] See plans for other comments. Resolved 1 Roger Buffington 02/13/2007
24 Stormwater [2/13/07] The southwest detention pond cannot just drain out at the property
line with no designated outfall or drainage easement. The property owner
downstream would need to approve and grant a drainage easement.
Drainage law requires this when runoff quantity, quality, or character change
from existing conditions. I suggest we set up a meeting between me, Bob,
and Ed Zdenek to discuss this issue. Please contact me to arrange this
meeting at 416-2418.
Resolved 1 Wes Lamarque 02/13/2007
25 Stormwater [2/13/07] There seems to be another on-site basin that is not labeled or
mentioned in the report that will be draining onto the Human Bean site. The
flows from this basin need to be documented and accounted for. This could
mean a drainage easement off-site, detaining these flows, and/or oversizing
the other detention ponds to account for this basin to free release.
Resolved 1 Wes Lamarque 02/13/2007
3/7/2011 Page 4
Project: ALPINE BUSINESS PARK PDP - TYPE I
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
26 Stormwater [2/13/07] 1. It appears that most of the site will be higher then the FEMA
flood elevation and therefore a LOMA would be able to remove it from the
floodplain. Some parts of the site may still be in the 500-year floodplain and
others may be completely out of the 500-year floodplain. The southwest part
of the site and part of the storage building appear to still be in the 100-year
floodplain. If any portion of the storage building is in the floodplain, then the
entire building is in the floodplain and subject to the elevation and critical
facilities requirements. I suggest we meet again after you have gathered
additional survey information (spot elevations) and determined which portions
of the site will be removed from the floodplain via a LOMA.
2. If a building remains in the floodplain, please see the floodplain checklists
for all of the notes and details that are required on the plans and in the
drainage report.
3. Critical Facilities issue - For those portions of the site that do receive a
LOMA, if they are still in the 500-year floodplain, they are still subject to the
critical facilities requirements for the Poudre. It appears that the entire
storage building portion of the site may still be in the 500-year floodplain (see
first floodplain comment). However, City Council is currently considering
removing hazardous materials from the regulated critical facilities in the
500-year floodplain. We will know more on this issue by the beginning of
March. If Council removes the prohibition of hazardous material critical
facilities in the 500-year floodplain and if critical facility-type uses are desired
for the storage building, it is our suggestion that the building be split into two
separate buildings one that is in the 100-year floodplain and one that has
been LOMAd out of the 100-year, but may still be in the 500-year. Again, I
suggest we meet to discuss these options based on the more detailed survey
information.
4. If the Quick Lube building is in an area that receives a LOMA, then it can
have the basement (pit area) and it can be below the flood elevation.
However, you may want to consider floodproofing this basement area with a
sealant as an extra precaution.
5. The Plat will need to have the floodplain lines included on it. I suggest
waiting until the LOMA is approved to include this information.
6. Drainage Report, P. 9 - Please revise and revise the wording about the
Resolved 1 Wes Lamarque 02/13/2007
3/7/2011 Page 5
Project: ALPINE BUSINESS PARK PDP - TYPE I
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
LOMA. There is not a CLOMA process because a LOMA is based off of the
existing ground information on the site, not the proposed condition. The
description about the LOMA will need to be expanded to describe the details
of the LOMA after they are worked out.
27 Site Plan [6/26/07]
[2/13/07] I concur with Current Planning's take on whether or not a
modification of standard is required for the lack of a connecting walkway to
the "flex space" buildings. The uses that are proposed do not appear to be
the type that would have "intermittent/infrequent non-public access".
Active 1 David Averill 02/13/2007
28 Site Plan [2/13/07] The alternative mode analysis within the submitted TIS is
acceptable.
Active 1 David Averill 02/13/2007
29 Site Plan [6/26/07]
[2/13/07] Show the sidewalk ramp on the northside of Alpine. Show how the
new construction ties into exisiting conditions to the south.
Active 1 David Averill 02/13/2007
3/7/2011 Page 6
Project: ALPINE BUSINESS PARK PDP - TYPE I
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
30 Landscape Plan [6/26/07] Did you meet with Tim? Is any mitigation required? There is no
response to this request in the response letter. Legacy sugar maples are still
shown as street trees on the landscape plan.
[2/13/07] Tim Buchanan from Forestry comments as follows:
"1. Applicant should contact the City Forester to evaluate existing trees and
need for mitigation.
2. Add these landscape notes:
The soil in all landscape areas, including parkways and medians, shall be
thoroughly loosened to a depth of not less than eight (8) inches and soil
amendment shall be thoroughly incorporated into the soil of all landscape
areas to a depth of at least six (6) inches by tilling, discing or other suitable
method, at a rate of at least three (3) cubic yards of soil amendment per one
thousand (1,000) square feet of landscape area.
A permit must be obtained from the city Forester before any trees or shrubs
as noted on this plan are planted, pruned or removed on the public
right-of-way. This includes zones between the sidewalk and curb, medians
and other city property. This permit shall approve the location and species to
be planted. Failure to obtain this permit may result in replacing or relocating
trees and a hold on certificate of occupancy.
The developer shall contact the City Forester to inspect all street tree
plantings at the completion of each phase of the development. All trees need
to have been installed as shown on the landscape Plan. Approval of street
tree planting is required before final approval of each phase. Failure to obtain
approval by the City Forester for street trees in a phase shall result in a hold
on certificate of occupancy for future phases of the development.
3. Change Street Tree species to an approved species.
Legacy Sugar maple is used as a street tree but is not on the City Street
Tree List. It needs to be changed to a species on the list such as Burr Oak."
Active 1 Anne Aspen 02/13/2007
3/7/2011 Page 7
Project: ALPINE BUSINESS PARK PDP - TYPE I
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
31 Architecture Plans [2/13/07] The roof-mounted sign is not allowable under the sign code. See
Section 3.8.7 (A)(2). It is a modifiable standard, but none of the modification
rationales available in Section 2.8.2 would apply. All buildings must meet
Sections 3.5.1 and 3.5.3. Please call out all materials and colors proposed.
Add elevation details of the trash enclosures. All buildings must meet the
base and top standards or you must submit a request for modification.
Resolved 1 Anne Aspen 02/13/2007
32 Construction Plans [6/26/07] Slope easements will be needed for the retaining wall as it affects
the sidewalk/right-of-way. Handrails should be looked at because of the
elevation drop, especially at the 3' drop location.
[2/13/07] Please provide additional information regarding the retaining walls
shown along Alpine Street and College Avenue. Are they intending to provide
some slope stabilization for the sidewalk/streets that easements are needed?
Please provide cross sections as evidence of their intent.
Active 1 Marc Virata 02/13/2007
33 Construction Plans [2/13/07] The westernmost driveway out to Alpine Street does not intersect
Alpine substantially at a right angle. While the design may appear acceptable
to vary from the standpoint of vehicles heading west on Alpine off of College
and backing in, the fact that the access control plan specifies Alpine become
a right-in/right-out access implies that most truck traffic would likely be
coming from the light at Pinion and heading south along Mason Street -- in
this scenario it would appear that vehicles backing in to the driveway would
benefit from a more right angle design for the driveway out to Alpine.
Resolved 1 Marc Virata 02/13/2007
34 Construction Plans [6/26/07] The plan and profile for College Avenue specifies a .4% flowline
grade which is less than the minimum requirement of .5%.
[2/13/07] The construction plans have a note indicating that College Avenue
design improvements have been done with the Human Bean, this is not the
case as the design for the Human Bean was only enough to ensure that this
parcel could tie into the Human Bean improvements. College Avenue design
is needed along the frontage as well as north of the site to demonstrate that
the College and Alpine improvements will work for the properties north of
Alpine.
Active 1 Marc Virata 02/13/2007
3/7/2011 Page 8
Project: ALPINE BUSINESS PARK PDP - TYPE I
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
35 General [6/27/07] The lack of clarity and consistency of the property boundary is still
apparent between the various drawings. Please note that it appears likely
that the proposed westernmost driveway out to Alpine Street occurs on
private property owned by the Schraders and they would need to grant
permission for this. Please clearly label and distinguish the property
boundary from existing right-of-way and private property.
[2/13/07] The site plan, construction plan, and plat all have apparent different
indications of the northern property line boundary, making review of the
project difficult. Please rectify the representation of property boundar lines
across all documents.
Active 1 Marc Virata 02/13/2007
36 Fire [2/13/07] WATER SUPPLY: Fire hydrants, where required, must be the type
approved by the water district having jurisdiction and the Fire Department.
Hydrant spacing and water flow must meet minimum requirements based on
type of occupancy. Minimum flow and spacing requirements include:
Commercial, 1,500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not further than
300 feet to the building, on 600-foot centers thereafter; residential within
Urban Growth Area, 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not
further than 400 feet to the building, on 800-foot centers thereafter; residential
outside Urban Growth Area, 500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not
further than 400 feet to the building, on 800-foot centers thereafter.
These requirements may be modified if buildings are equipped with automatic
fire sprinkler systems. 97UFC 901.2.2.2
Active 1 Carie Dann 02/13/2007
3/7/2011 Page 9
Project: ALPINE BUSINESS PARK PDP - TYPE I
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
37 Fire [6/27/07] As was stated during the PDR last September, if a dead-end fire
lane exceeds 150 feet in length, a turnaround for emergency apparatus shall
be provided. At 150 feet, the building may not be in access. If the EAE is
extended to the entire length of the building, approximately 175 feet, it will
improve the likelihood that the building is within access; at 170-175 feet in
length, we will allow the EAE without having to provide a turn-around. This
EAE shall be shown on the plat as not extending south past the 11,000-SF
building. Please note: If the building is considered out of access for
emergency vehicles, it will be required to be equipped with an approved,
automatic fire-extinguishing system.
[2/13/07] REQUIRED ACCESS: A fire lane is required. This fire lane is
required to be designated on the plat as an Emergency Access Easement;
the preliminary plat currently shows only a 20-foot access and utility
easement. This fire lane shall be visible by painting and signage, and
maintained unobstructed at all times. A fire lane plan shall be submitted for
approval prior to installation. In addition to the design criteria already
contained in relevant standards and policies, any new fire lane must meet the
following general requirements:
Be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface (asphalt or
concrete) capable of supporting fire apparatus weights. Compacted road
base shall be used only for temporary fire lanes or at construction sites.
Have appropriate maintenance agreements that are legally binding and
enforceable.
Maintain the required minimum width of 20 feet throughout the length of
the fire lane.
If a fire lane cannot be provided, the building shall be fire sprinklered. 97UFC
901.2.2.1; 901.3; 901.4.2; 902.2.1
Active 1 Carie Dann 02/13/2007
3/7/2011 Page 10
Project: ALPINE BUSINESS PARK PDP - TYPE I
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
38 Fire [6/27/07] Applicant acknowledged that both structures will be addressed off
Apline Street. However, plans still list the site as 825 (and 822) N. College
Ave. Again, just so the applicant is aware, a College Avenue address is
neither accurate nor acceptable for either of the two proposed buildings.
[2/13/07] ADDRESSING: Address numerals shall be visible from the street
fronting the property, and posted with a minimum of six-inch (6) numerals on
a contrasting background. (Bronze numerals on brown brick are not
acceptable). Structures shall be addressed off the street from which they are
accessed; both buildings are required to be addressed off Alpine Street.
97UFC 901.4.4 (For future reference, structures on the south and west side
of streets are odd-numbered, and buildings on the north and east side of
streets are even-numbered. The location of Alpine Business Park shown on
all the plans is 822 North College Avenue; however, the area is on the west
side of College, so it should be an odd number.)
Active 1 Carie Dann 02/13/2007
39 Construction Plans [2/13/07] With Alpine Street proposed to only be built for a portion along the
property, just past the main drive aisle, there needs to be additional
information on the plan set to show how the improvements tie into the
existing Alpine/Mason (and whether the work proposed falls within
right-of-way or on private property.)
Active 1 Marc Virata 02/13/2007
40 Construction Plans [2/13/07] In general, we need information on the construction plan set to
reflect the phased nature of improvements onsite. How is it that the existing
business is to function and operate with access to the site while the
improvements proposed on the plan set are being built? Where is the existing
building in relation to the proposed building? How will utility connections work
fo the new building while the existing remains. What type of driveway access
will occur on College? How will sidewalk be built along College? A demo and
phasing plan set is needed and CDOT will require this information as well to
consider the phased aspect fo the project.
Resolved 1 Marc Virata 02/13/2007
41 General [2/14/07] The Master Street Plan map currently shows the collector network
to extend along Mason Street south only to Hemlock and not out to Alpine
Street. I'm frnakly not sure why this is the case and will follow up with
Transportation Planning to verify if this is an error. Please note though that
street oversizing reimburement eligibility for Alpine Street is contingent upon
Alpine and Mason being shown as collectors and technically it is not at this
time.
Resolved 1 Marc Virata 02/14/2007
3/7/2011 Page 11
Project: ALPINE BUSINESS PARK PDP - TYPE I
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
42 Variance request [2/14/07] The variance request submittal for the centerline radius of Alpine
into Mason Street needs to be signed and stamped. In addition, the variance
request needs to attest to the design on the plans that it will meet health,
safety, and welfare criteria (perhaps in conjunction with stating that this will be
met provided certain signing measures are in place).
Resolved 1 Marc Virata 02/14/2007
43 Stormwater [6/25/07] South Pond needs to be in a drainage easement as well.
[2/16/07] Drainage easements are needed for the limits of the detention
ponds and any 100-year conveyance elements.
Active 1 Wes Lamarque 02/16/2007
44 Plat [7/3/07] Technical Services has provided the following comments for this
reound of review:
1. Boundary & legal close.
2. Alpine Street dedication is inaccurate, see plat for Human Bean. Indicate
how Alpline Sreet was dedicated.
3. A thicker line for the lots wold help make the plat more readable.
4. Remove much of the detail on the Human Bean site, it's not necessary,
just show as adjoining.
[2/19/07] Technical Services has the following comments:
1. Boundary and legal don't close and do not match.
2. Additional right-of-way is needed on College Avenue.
3. The 3-' wide easement is not locatable.
4. Plat does not need to designate "blocks".
5. What is the "shaded" area (see redline) at the north end of the 20' access
easement (not in this plat)
6. Provide a vicinity map.
7. There are issues of lines overlapping text.
8. Show College Vacation Area -- July 9, 1925.
Active 1 Marc Virata 02/19/2007
3/7/2011 Page 12
Project: ALPINE BUSINESS PARK PDP - TYPE I
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
45 Floodplain [6/25/07] 1. Please include a note on the plans that a LOMA is being
submitted to FEMA.
2. Please include a note on the plans and in the drainage report that the
Quick Lube, assuming it has a pit area, could not begin construction until the
LOMA is approved by FEMA, because the lowest floor elevation would be
below the BFE.
3. Critical Facilities - Hazardous materials are no longer regulated in the
500-year floodplain. Therefore, hazardous materials would be allowed if the
storage building receives a LOMA removing it from the 100-year floodplain.
4. The Plat will need to have the floodplain lines included on it. I suggest
waiting until the LOMA is approved to include this information. - REPEAT
5. The LOMA will require a drawing that better shows the existing ground
elevations with the cross-sections included. Meets and Bounds of the area
being removed will also be required. Please include the LOMA drawing with
the plan set.
6. Draiange report - Please correct the map number. It should be
08069C0977F, dated Dec. 19, 2006, revised April 19, 2007.
Active 2 Wes Lamarque 06/25/2007
46 Landscape Plan [6/26/07] Identify all grass and plant bed areas. Avoid irrigated turf within the
detention ponds. Use water tolerant native grass species.
Active 2 Dana Leavitt 06/26/2007
47 General [6/26/07] If you wish to request a modification of standard for the build-to line
concurrently with the PDP, you will need to submit that request prior to the
public hearing with sufficient time to be reviewed by staff.
Active 2 Anne Aspen 06/26/2007
48 Architecture Plans [6/26/07] Building 2's north elevation needs articulation per Section 3.5.3(D)
(2)(a)(1).
Active 2 Anne Aspen 06/26/2007
49 General [6/26/07] See redlines for additional minor comments. Please return all
redlines on resubmittal.
Active 2 Anne Aspen 06/26/2007
50 Construction Plans [6/26/07] The striping plan specifies an open access at Alpine along College,
the Access Control Plan in the long range specifies a median along College
limiting Alpine to right-in right-out. Please rectify.
Active 2 Marc Virata 06/26/2007
3/7/2011 Page 13
Project: ALPINE BUSINESS PARK PDP - TYPE I
ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date
51 Construction Plans [6/26/07] The project will need to provide for its portion of Alpine Street
abutting the project which is proposed to remain as gravel. (This should also
appear to require the drainage improvements shown as future.)
Active 2 Marc Virata 06/26/2007
52 Construction Plans [6/26/07] It is difficult to do much review of the cross sections without flowline
and spot elevation information along College Avenue. A more thorough
review will need to be done when that information is provided. Given that
proposed grades along the centerline are being shown at .4% (less than
standard), the cross sections may need to be tweaked.
Active 2 Marc Virata 06/26/2007
53 Water/Wastewater [6/26/07] Move trash enclosure out of access/utility easement. Active 2 Roger Buffington 06/26/2007
54 Water/Wastewater [6/26/07] Provide sand/oil interceptor for drains from service bay/garage
area.
Active 2 Roger Buffington 06/26/2007
55 Water/Wastewater [6/26/07] See red-lined plans for other comments. Active 2 Roger Buffington 06/26/2007
56 General [6/27/07] On all plans, please show a more discernable interim and ultimate
condition for how site improvements tie into the portion Alpine Street not
proposed to be built at this time. The interim condtion should show on the
perinent plan sets, existing and proposed spot elevations, proposed interim
street trees, limits of proposed paving for the new driveway, etc. It appears
the ultimate condition for the landscape plan should show additional street
trees to complete the project's frontage, while in the interim condition it would
appear that street trees shown on the existing plan would be in the existing
unpaved roadway.
Active 2 Marc Virata 06/27/2007
57 Water/Wastewater [6/28/07] Show proposed sewer re-location (by City) and add appropriate
notes that we should work on during final review.
Active 2 Roger Buffington 06/28/2007
3/7/2011 Page 14