Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFREEDONIA BREWERY - BASIC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - BDR160005 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONSCommunity Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview March 09, 2016 Walt Gantt KENNEY LEE ARCHITECTURE GROUP INC. 209 E 4TH STREET Loveland, CO 80537 RE: Freedonia Brewery - Basic Development Review, BDR160005, Round Number 1 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Jason Holland, at 970-224-6126 or jholland@fcgov.com. All responses in Blue bold italic. The drawings have been completely redrawn and re-designed based on our last two meetings. Comment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, jholland@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: Need use information on the site plan table. What are the uses proposed as specifically listed per the LUC, for each of the floors, all of the square footage; existing and /or proposed. Label and dimension biergarten. Also show total bike parking in the land use table. See revised drawings and land use table. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: Label outdoor seating areas. Sketchup plans show fencing, show this on the plans and provide height and material description. Outdoor seating area labeled. Fencing material and height indicated Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: We need a better landscape design. The RMJ's will get too big along the alley, widht issues and also potential height issues with power line. Need more variety than just miscanthus, which also gets very large and is generally not a good choice for confined areas or is best as an accent plant along with other lower shrubs. Add more shrub variety and also more evergreen varieties. Sandstone boulders are also recommended to add variety. Also does not work to have RMJ's in a water quality area. Would suggest that you hire a landscape architect to complete your review more efficiently. Also need standard stie and landscape notes on the plans. See PDP standard notes word file at this page: http://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/applications.php The landscape plan has been re-designed based on revisions necessary. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: Parking spaces are labeled as 9x20, but that is not reflected on the plan layout. In general more labeling and dimensioning is needed of the drive aisles, parking typs., planting widths, etc. Plese tell the complete story across use areas with additional labels and dimensions. See new labeling on site plan Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: Is new asphalt proposed? Is the concrete pad being removed? The surface is disjointed and needs to refreshed. Can this be unified and improved with new surfacing? The concrete pad on the north will remain. The large patch of concrete patch in the middle of the asphalt area is being removed and replaced with a new landscape area. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: Please look at the HC area and think about how this can be used more efficiently. Can you make the HC spaces smaller, and then stripe the rest as an additional pedestrian path. The way it is shown currenly could cause overparking or other issues. Only one space needs to be van accessible. The entire parking area has been redesigned. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: All landscape islands adjacent to and within the vehicle use areas must have 6" concrete curbing. Any cutouts west of the wheel stops would not need curbing. The area adjacent to the parking will have boulders installed vs. a concrete curb to deter vehicles running over landscaping. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: Need more parking lot interior landscaping. There is perimeter landscaping but no interior landscaping per the code. This needs to be addressed with landscape cutouts. Could integrate more overhead trellis features, See updated landscape plan. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: Label the places where you get into the brewery on the site plan. Also is there any outdoor seating proposed? If so, where, how much? What does it look like, how is it arranged? See updated site plan for more info on outdoor seating area and access points. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: What does the bike parking look like, how does it work with the landscaping mentioned in comment 8. See updated bike parking locations around outdoor biergarten. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: All landscape areas including parkway must be irrigated per the city design standards. An irrigation plan will need to be reviewed an approved prior to C/O. Recommend that this be started with the BDR process when the landscape plan is resolved. As per our meeting, all existing landscape areas are irrigated manually. The proposed landscape areas will be irrigated in the same fashion since there is no permanent irrigation system in place. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: Need callouts on the plans and a note to clarify that parkway turf will be overseeded, aerated, and with soil amendments specified as necessary to improve the quality of the soil and eliminate bare areas and compaction. See notes on landscape plan regarding the work necessary at the parkway area. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: Do the HC ramps meet ADA? If so label them as per ADA requirements. Show south ramp and stairs on the site plan. Yes. they do. See notes added regarding ADA compliant access points. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: Is additional rooftop equipment proposed, and how will existing equipment be screened. Show and label No new rooftop equipment is proposed. All existing equipment to remain as is. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: See detailed PDP checklist for an explanation of land use table and other requirements. I have tried to be complete from a design perspective with this initial plan review but may need additonal info on the plans with the review of the resubmittal. See updated land use table on site plan. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 03/09/2016 03/09/2016: Prior to resubmittal, please call me for a routing sheet and coordinate a resubmittal appointment. Confirmed. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/04/2016 03/04/2016: A drainage exhibit was provided for the accompanying drainage, I would want to coordinate with Stormwater to verify if this can just remain an exhibit, or if this project should have a recorded civil plan set/sheet with City approval blocks and accompanying construction notes/details. Due to the extensive revisions to the parking layout, a drainage exhibit will no longer be necessary. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/04/2016 03/04/2016: The site plan indicates a landscape water quality area behind the alley, while the drainage exhibit depicts this also as a rain garden with infiltration. There's a general concern with this infiltration occurring, abutting a paved right-of-way and potentially undermining the integrity of the pavement and would require clay cut-off walls (typically 36" deep) in between the rain gardens and the right-of-way to minimize alley impacts. Based on existing surrounding conditions on the site, rain gardens will not work. These have been removed. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/04/2016 03/04/2016: The existing overhead line running along the alley for the portion abutting the property would need to be undergrounded abutting the property in accordance with 3.3.2(D)(7) of the Land Use Code. An exemption to this exists in subsection (b) that allows the line to remain if conduit is installed to accommodate future undergrounding. See site plan for proposed underground conduit to be installed for future use by others. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/04/2016 03/04/2016: In accordance with the cross section for public alleys, an 8' utility easement behind the right-of-way is specified. This would need to be dedicated with through a utility easement dedication with associated review ($250) and Larimer County recording fees (amount to be determined). The undergrounding of the overhead line (or conduit provided) should be within this utility easement dedication. Utilities already occur along the alley. Isn’t there already a utility easement in place? Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/04/2016 03/04/2016: The use of the rain gardens in what would be within the utility easement, may be of concern for the utility to be located underneath and the rain garden location may benefit from being relocated away from the utility easement as a result. Due to many concerns, the rain gardens are eliminated. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/04/2016 03/04/2016: The plan appears to show the renovation of the entrance such that stairs would be placed in public right-of-way. The plan should be revised such that stairs are not within right-of-way and remain on private property as is the case in the existing condition. The existing stairs already encroach into the ROW. Improvements are to bring the existing stairs into ADA compliance. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/04/2016 03/04/2016: It is unclear to me whether access off the alley is confined to certain areas, or is left unfettered aside from the proposed rain gardens. More information should be provided. More information should be provided indicating access widths off the alley. New parking configuration now allows cars to back out into the alley. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/04/2016 03/04/2016: The presumed trash enclosure on the southeast corner of the site should not reflect having doors that swing into public right-of-way. Please revise the design, perhaps by moving the enclosure further west, such that doors swinging stay on private property. The trash enclosure has now been relocated to allow for the doors to not swing into the ROW Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/04/2016 03/04/2016: Please add the following note to the site plan (and civil plan if ultimately part of the submittal): "As a part of this review and/ or any associated building permit for this review the applicant will be required to repair or replace any damaged public curb, gutter and sidewalk existing prior to this construction, as well as public streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, destroyed, damaged or removed due to construction of this project. All public sidewalk, driveways and ramps existing or proposed adjacent or within the site need to meet ADA standards, if they currently do not, they will need to be reconstructed so that they do meet current ADA standards as a part of this project. The existing driveway will need to be evaluated to determine if the slopes and width will meet ADA requirements or if they need to be reconstructed so that they do. The work shall be at the Developer’s expense prior to the acceptance of completed improvements and/or prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy." Please see note added to the site plan. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/04/2016 03/04/2016: It is anticipated that Stormwater's LID requirements will require either a new development agreement or an amendment to the existing development agreement. Coordination with Stormwater on ensuring necessary items for them to complete legal language as part of this agreement should be considered. Since this proposal doesn’t increase impervious area or involves any improvements to the existing surfaces remaining in place, this requirement will no longer be necessary. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/04/2016 03/04/2016: it appears that the access onto Remington Street isn't utilized and then driveway then should be closed with the drive approach removed and landscaping added in its place. See the closure of the driveway approach off of Remington indicated on the site plan. Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/16/2016 02/16/2016: The project owes an additional $515.50 for the TDRF. The acreage and full first floor square footage was not included in the application submitted. Confirmed. This will be paid prior to approval of the BDR. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: The following is the correct Identification of Street Trees. Label each street tree by species, size, condition, and to retain. South most tree by 218 Remington is a White Ash 11 inch diameter good conditions retain. The existing street trees by 208 Remington are Pecan. There is an existing street tree that is not shown which is between the north street tree, and as shown the next tree to the south of the north tree. There are three Pecans by 218 Remington. The north most street tree by 206 Remington is also a Pecan. From South moving north: Pecan 11 inch diameter good condition to retain Pecan 10 inch diameter good condition to retain Pecan 10 inch diameter good condition to retain The north most street tree by 206 Remington is also a Pecan. Confirmed. See new landscape plan with corrected labels for existing trees. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: The existing lawn area in the parkway by 208 Remington is described as: Existing lawn areas are already irrigated and require no new upgrades or alterations. There are places in the parkway between the sidewalk and curb along Remington that are bare ground with no grass. Generally the lawn appears stressed and is thin. Sprinkler heads are not readily visible in the parkway so the irrigation status could be be uncertain. Review this comment with Jason Holland City Project Planner to receive direction on improvements that might be needed in the parkway. No permanent irrigation exists. Irrigation is manual. Notes regarding amending and treatment along the parkway is added to the landscape plan. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: Rocky Mountain Juniper is a tree so should be specified as 6 foot height B&B. Good cultivars of Rocky Mountain Juniper to specify for the size of the landscape areas would be ‘Gray Gleam’ on the wider area on the south edge of the parking and ‘Woodward’ or ‘Skyrocket’ in narrow area on the east side of the parking. See revised landscape plan for new species. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/01/2016 03/01/2016: Place the City Of Fort Collins General Landscape Notes and Tree Protection Notes on the landscape plan. These notes can be obtained from the City Project Planner or from the City Forester Tim Buchanan 221 6361. A new general notes sheet with all of the City of Fort Collins notes is in the plan set now. Department: Historical Preservation Contact: Maren Bzdek, 970-221-6206, mbzdek@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: The building is located adjacent to a couple of properties that have been designated as Fort Collins Landmarks, and to others that are eligible for designation. Therefore, the project will be reviewed for its compliance with 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code. Please contact Maren Bzdek at mbzdek@fcgov.com; 221-6206 to discuss scheduling a hearing with the Landmark Preservation Commission. It is our understanding that this project is no longer eligible for historic designation. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: For reference, the most pertinent sections of 3.4.7 are provided here. LUC 3.4.7(F)(1) To the maximum extent feasible, the height, setback and width of new structures shall be similar to: (a) those of existing historic structures on any block face on which the new structure is located and on any portion of a block face across a local or collector street from the block face on which the new structure is located; or (b) when a block does not exist, similar to those on any land adjacent to the property on which the new structure is to be located. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this requirement shall not apply if, in the judgment of the decision maker, such historic structures would not be negatively impacted with respect to their historic exterior integrity and significance by reason of the new structure being constructed at a dissimilar height, setback and width. Where building setbacks cannot be maintained, elements such as walls, columns, hedges or other screens shall be used to define the edge of the site and maintain alignment. Taller structures or portions of structures shall be located interior to the site. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: LUC 3.4.7(F)(2) New structures shall be designed to be in character with such existing historic structures. Horizontal elements, such as cornices, windows, moldings and sign bands, shall be aligned with those of such existing historic structures to strengthen the visual ties among buildings. Window patterns of such existing structures (size, height, number) shall be repeated in new construction, and the pattern of the primary building entrance facing the street shall be maintained to the maximum extent feasible. See Figure 6. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: LUC 3.4.7(F)(3) The dominant building material of such existing historic structures adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed structure shall be used as the primary material for new construction. Variety in materials can be appropriate, but shall maintain the existing distribution of materials in the same block.LUC 3.4.7(F)(6), states, "In its consideration of the approval of plans for properties [which] are located within a officially designated national, state or local historic district or area, the decision maker shall receive and consider a written recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission …" Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: LUC 3.4.7(F)(6), states, "In its consideration of the approval of plans for properties containing or adjacent to sites, structure, objects or districts that: (a) have been deter-mined to be or potentially be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the National Register of Historic Places or the State Register of Historic Properties, or (b) are officially designated as a local or state landmark or are listed on the National Register of Historic Places or (c) are located within a officially designated national, state or local historic district or area, the decision maker shall receive and consider a written recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission unless the Director has issued a written determination that the plans would not have a significant impact on the individual eligibility or potential individual eligibility of the site, structure, object or district. A determination or recommendation made under this subsection is not appealable to the City Council under Chapter 2 of the City Code." Please contact Historic Preservation staff to schedule the review before the Landmark Preservation Commission. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/08/2016 03/08/2016: Any exterior changes to or demolition of buildings 50 years old or older need to be reviewed under the City¿s Demolition/Alteration Review Process (Municipal Code Section 14-72). This process is required even if proposed changes to the exterior will not directly alter the original 1906 portion of the building. This process determines a building or structure¿'s eligibility to qualify for recognition as a Fort Collins Landmark and whether the work is considered major or minor. The determination of eligibility requires current color photographs of all sides of each building or structure, provided by the applicant. Sufficient photos should be taken to show the current condition of the building, especially any previous alterations or additions. Additionally, photos of the front elevation of adjacent buildings or structures are also required, to show the context of the building. Digital photos are encouraged, and may be sent to mbzdek@fcgov.com. Hard copies may be sent to P.O. Box 580, 80522; or dropped off at CDNS, 1st Floor, 281 N. College Ave. Department: Light And Power Contact: Todd Vedder, 970-224-6152, tvedder@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/02/2016 03/02/2016: Please coordinate with Todd Vedder regarding electrical service. Currently power is fed from an open-delta bank transformer. Light & Power is looking to improve this 3 phase area and could be fed better quality power coming across the alley located at 215 Mathews St. Confirmed. The site has adequate power for the proposed use. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/03/2016 03/03/2016: FIRE CONTAINMENT Buildings exceeding 5000 square feet shall be sprinklered or fire contained. If containment is used, the containment construction shall be reviewed and approved by the Poudre Fire Authority prior to installation. Containment has been resolved thru the building permit submittal process. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/03/2016 03/03/2016: BASEMENTS The existing basement is reported to be 1,900 sq. ft. This area is required to be equipped with a fire sprinkler system by current code standards and further discussion will be necessary in order to determine how best to proceed with an A-2 occupancy above a non-compliant basement. It is understood that the original building dates back to 1906 and represents a unique set of pre-existing conditions, however approval of the building permit will require special exception. The basement use is proposed to be for mechanical services only and it may be determined that additional fire separation or other systems (eg. smoke detection/alarm system) will be required so as to offset the non-compliant condition. A formal proposal will need to be submitted to the fire marshal for review and approval before the current condition will be accepted. Code language provided below. A monitored fire alarm system has been accepted as an alternate solution to the basement use and square footage. > IFC 903.2.11.1: Stories without openings. Commercial basements exceeding 1,500 square feet shall be provided with an automatic fire sprinkler system. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/03/2016 03/03/2016: GROUP A-2 OCCUPANT LOAD The occupancy load for an type A-2 assembly occupancy in a non-sprinklered building is limited to a maximum of 99 persons per fire area. The actual occupant load (which could potentially be lower than 99 per fire area) will be determined at time of building permit. Occupant loads have been evaluated and more accurately calculated. The use qualifies as a B occupancy based on the number of occupants. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/03/2016 03/03/2016: EXITING An A-2 assembly requires one approved exit from any fire area with an occupant load of 1 to 49 persons. Two approved exits are required from any fire area with an occupant load of 50 to 99 persons (in a non-sprinklered building). The same exiting requirement shall apply to the fenced in, outdoor biergarten on the south side of the building. The exiting plan will be reviewed and approved at time of building permit. The exiting plan has been revised, reviewed, and approved thru the building permit process. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/03/2016 03/03/2016: COMMERCIAL KITCHEN HOODS (as applicable) > IFC 609.2: A Type I hood shall be installed at or above all commercial cooking appliances and domestic cooking appliances used for commercial purposes that produce grease vapors. Not applicable Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/18/2016 02/18/2016: No Comment from Erosion Control. This site; disturbs less than 10,000 sq-ft, is not in a sensitive area, and is not in a larger development under construction. Therefore, no submittal of erosion control material is needed. However, the site still must be swept and maintained to prevent dirt, saw cuttings, concrete wash, and other pollutants from entering the storm sewer at all times or BMPs will be required of the site. If you need clarification concerning this, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com Confirmed. Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/04/2016 03/04/2016: The development is required to meet the City's LID requirements. This would include 50% of the sites impervious area treated by a LID technique and 25% of newly constructed vehicular impervious area to be porous pavement. Newly constructed vehicular impervious area is defined as existing pavement removed to subgrade and replaced or new pavement area that was not in that location before. Please call Wes Lamarque with any questions. Due to the reduction in impervious area and no improvements to the remaining existing surface area, no requirements would be necessary. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/04/2016 03/04/2016: The rain garden locations shown are adequate. The City's soil media specifications will need to be used for this application. Please add these details to the drainage plan. Rain gardens are now deleted from the project. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Please see all plans for revisions to note masking and lines over text corrections. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/26/2016 02/26/2016: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/26/2016 02/26/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/26/2016 02/26/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/26/2016 02/26/2016: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See redlines. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/26/2016 02/26/2016: No comments. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/26/2016 02/26/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/26/2016 02/26/2016: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/26/2016 02/26/2016: There are text over text issues. See redlines. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/26/2016 02/26/2016: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See redlines. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/04/2016 03/04/2016: Can you please provide a narrative memo that describes your anticipated traffic volumes and how the development and adjacent roadway system will handle the traffic? This narration should outline your anticipated max attendance (100 inside, up to another 100 outside), the number of trips that might occur in a peak hour (probably somewhere between 30-50), if people are driving where they will come from and where they will park, and then some sort of statement that the existing roadway system is anticipated to accommodate the additional trips. We need that for our files and in order to make a statement that we concur with and accept the findings. If you have questions or need assistance, just call me. See attached narrative outlining anticipated traffic counts Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/04/2016 03/04/2016: Are any improvements to the water or wastewater service being proposed? No improvements are necessary to the existing water / wastewater systems. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/04/2016 03/04/2016: Please show the services on the site/landscape plan. Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/03/2016 03/03/2016: The landscape setback of 5ft for vehicle use areas is needed along the north property line. This is area still shows concrete all the way to the property line. An effort to introduce a landscape strip is indicated along the north property line. See revised plans. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/03/2016 03/03/2016: The site plan needs to show bike rack location, this more than a note that state bike area. The bike rack should be sized for 4 spaces. Bike rack parking for 30 spaces is now shown Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/03/2016 03/03/2016: The trash/recycling enclosure needs to be designed with walk-in access separate from the main service gate. See revised trash enclosure for new configuration and location. Trash/recycling enclosure is required to be setback 20ft from a public sidewalk. The proposed located is to not in compliance. No public sidewalk exists along the alley. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/03/2016 03/03/2016: Please label the dimensions of the handicap spaces. See revised site plan for space dimensions. Handicap spaces require a vertical sign. See the location of the post mounted handicap signage. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/03/2016 03/03/2016: Is there curb and gutter around the landscaped areas? If not what prevents vehicles driving over these areas? Boulders are installed in lieu of the curb / gutter. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/03/2016 03/03/2016: The landscape setback for vehicle use area along Remington is 10'. The proposed landscaping setback is not in compliance. The existing parkway is to remain. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/03/2016 03/03/2016: The light fixture labeled A is not down direction and is prohibited. This is considered up lighting and not in compliance. Revise plans to eliminate any up-lighting. Fixture A has been revised to a full cutoff downcast. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/03/2016 03/03/2016: The plans and the plat are missing signature blocks. See the addition of the signature blocks on sheet 1 of 5 Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/03/2016 03/03/2016: The plans are missing a sheet index. See the addition of the sheet index on sheet 1 of 5