Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHUMAN BEAN AT SPRING CREEK - FDP - 37-06/A - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 -IS Topic: Stormwater Number: 44 Created: 12/27/2006 11/23/07] This item needs to be resolved before a hearing with location of outfall identified and agreed upon by City Stormwater and Environmental Planner. 112/27/06] Since a new outlet pipe will be used, the outfall needs to meet current standards. This may include additional erosion protection and realignment of the outfall pipe to enter Spring Creek more in parallel with flows. Response: On January 29, 2007 representatives of QED and MTA met with Shelby Sommer, Wes Lamarque, Dana Leavitt, and Tim Buchanon in the field to discuss the trees and drainage outfall. Collectively we agreed that the best solution was to leave the existing riprap blanket intact, abandon the existing storm drain in place, and align a new storm drainage pipe between existing trees to outfall in the same location as the existing pipe, but to be buried in alignment with the riprap. Number: 45 Created: 12/27/2006 [1/23/07] Will be resolved at final. (12/27/06] Please revise water quality outlet structure detail to the current City standard. I can email an electronic copy to you Response: The City standard water quality outlet structure detail has been added to the Utility Plans, with site - specific pond data included. Number: 46 Created: 12/27/2006 [1/23/07] Will be resolved at final. [12/27/06] Please label storm sewer on the Drainage Plan including size, length, and type. Response: The Utility Plans submitted with this letter have been modified to label the proposed storm sewer pipe as commented. Number: 47 Created: 12/27/2006 [1/23/07] Will be resolved at final. [12/27/06] Please include a basin and a water quality pond summary table on the Drainage Plan. Response: A basin and water quality pond summary table has been added to the Drainage Plan included with the Utility Plans submitted with this letter. Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington Topic: Water/Wastewater Number: 30 Created: 12/26/2006 [1/23107] Adjust location of water service to avoid conflict with benches. Would prefer to have curb stop/meter pit in landscaped area if practical. 112126/061 Coordinate water service location with landscaping to provide minimum separation distances. Response: Acknowledged Number: 32 Created: 12/26/2006 (1123/07] [12/26/06] Show curb stop on water service. Response: Acknowledged Number: 35 Created: 12/26/2006 [1/23/07] [12/26/06] Provide evidence of a recorded easement from the property to the north to this property for the offsite portion of the sewer service. Response: We provided a letter of intent prior to hearing. We are working on getting the final versions of the off - site easement. We will provide these signed easements prior to the signing of mylars. Number: 92 Created: 1/23/2007 [1/23/07] See redlined utility plans for other comments. Response: Acknowledged Page 6 Response: Acknowledged Number: 20 Created: 12/22/2006 [1/23/07] Per telephone discussion, exiting improvements maybe shown based on rough field measurements and known utility locations. An accurate survey is not needed to satisfy this comment. [12/22/06] Please show and label any existing buildings or improvements within 50 feet of the site on all 3 sides. Response: Acknowledged Number: 21 Created: 12/22/2006 [1123/07] In addition to showing off -site easements on the Utility Plans, these proposed offsite easements shall also be shown and labeled on the Plat. The recorded reception numbers for these off -site easements will need to be provided for reference on the final Plat prior to recording. [12/22/06] Please show and label any off -site easements needed by separate document on the Utility Plan and Grading Plan sheets. Response: Acknowledged Number: 89 Created: 1/23/2007 [1/23/07] All signed deeds of dedication or letters of intent must be submitted for off -site easements prior to scheduling a hearing for the project Response: We provided a letter of intent prior to hearing. We are working on getting the final versions of the off - site easement. We aill provide these signed easements prior to the signing of mylars. Topic: Engineering - Technical services Number: 91 Created: 1/23/2007 [1/23/07] Legal matches, area closes good. Used wrong diagram at section comers. See redline comments. Response: Acknowledged Department: PFA Issue Contact: Carle Dann Topic: Fire Number: 97 Created: 1 /24/2007 [1/24/07] No further comments or concerns at this time. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Topic: Floodplain Number: 43 Created: 12/27/2006 [1/23/07] Will be resolved at final. [12/27/06] 1. It appears a very small portion of the site is located in the Spring Creek 100-year floodplain. It is in the flood fringe, not the floodway. Please modify the report to reflect this. Response: The drainage report has been modified to refer to the small portion of the site located within the flood fringe of the Spring Creek 100-year floodplain. 2. The City floodplain map included in the report has now been officially adopted by FEMA, therefore there is a new map panel number. Please use FIRM Panel 08069C0987F, Community number 080102 in the report and include the attached copy of the new map. Response: A copy of the appropriate FEMA FIRM Panel 08069CO987F has been included in the report attachments. 3. From the plan it appears some landscaping will occur in the floodplain. This is allowed in the flood fringe. Please indu de a note in both the report and the Drainage and Erosion Control Plan: An approved Floodplain Use Permit is required prior to the start of any construction or site improvements in the floodplain. Response: A note has been added in both the report and on the Drainage and Erosion Control Plan in this regard. 4. Please draw and label the floodplain line on the plat, drainage plan and landscaping plan. We do not yet have the digital version of the new FEMA map, however, you can use the City floodplain line since the two should be one and the same. Response: With the attached set of Utility Plans the floodplain line has been added to the grading and drainage plans. The line has also been added to the plat and landscape plan. 5. Floodplain Admin. Contact: Susan Hayes, 416-2233 Response: Acknowledged Page 5 Ci Response: Please see the revised site and landscape plans Number: 59 Created: 1/3/2007 [1/23/07] Comment that turning radii have been carefully calculated only pertains to the area immediately to the east of the drive trough lanes. The remainder of the curbline can be shifted to meet the 5 foot buffer requirement. [1/3/07] Insufficient buffer along east property line. Unless turning radius templates preclude using a consistent outer traffic flowline, the parking lot edge can be offset a minimum of 5 feet per Section 3.2.2(J) of the LUC. Response: We are now providing the five feet of buffer. Number: 61 Created: 1/3/2007 [1/23/07] The depth of the parking bay is measured from the face of curb as you depict it, but the 19 foot depth extends beyond the face of the curb line at the open end of the parking bay. Will resolve at final. [1/3/07] The parking bay is dimensioned to 19 feet. Upon measuring the depth, it appears to be 18 feet. Resolve deficiency. Response: Please see revised site and landscape plans. Number: 64 Created: 1/312007 [1123/071 Will be addressed at final. (1/3107] With all parking stalls ending at the curb line, which has less than 2 feet of overhang, there is less than 12' of clear travel lane in the drive -through lane. This conflict has to be resolved. Response: We have widened out this area between the parking and that travel lane. Please see revised site and landscape plan. Number: 69 Created: 1/3/2007 [1/23/071 Will address at final. [1/3/07] Hand railing shown on island next to building should extend further to direct pedestrians to cross driving lanes at pedestrian crossing. Response: See the revised site plan. Number: 98 Created: 1/24/2007 [1/24/07] The bike parking is shown partially on the turf area. To minimize impacts to the turf provide paved surface for entire bike parking area. Response: We are thinking that the usage of the bicycle parking spaces will be infrequent enough that the turf will be about to withstand the amount of usage. Number: 99 Created: 1 /25/2007 [1125/07] There is an existing curb ramp into the Visionland building that extends into your parking lot. How is that going to be dealt with? Response: See the revised site plan. We now have a crosswalk from Vision Eveland. Number: 100 Created: 1/25/2007 11/25/07] Accessible parking sign needs to identified as "van accessibl a". Will be addressed at final. Response: Please see revised site plan. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Randy Maizland Topic: Engineering Number: 15 Created: 12/22/2006 11/23/071 CDOT access permit to be obtained after the plans have been approved and prior to issuance of a development construction permit. [12/22/06] A CDOT Access Permit will be required for this project. Per discussions with CDOT, a standard LCUASS driveway with radius curb on both sides will be required. Please clearly show both sides of proposed d riveway curb cut and call out standard driveway with a detail added to the detail sheets. Any additional ROW or off -site easements must be dedicated if needed to construct the driveway to standard. Response: We have mailed CDOT our access permit application. We will provide a copy of the approval as soon as we have it. Number: 19 Created: 12/22/2006 11/23/07] It is still unclear on the plans how much R.O.W. will be available after the proposed dedication. Please clearly show, label and dimension the new R.O.W. on College Avenue. Please show on the Plat and Utility Plan drawings. 112/22/06] Clearly show, label and dimension the limits of ROW for College Ave. on the Utility Plan sheet and Grading Plan sheet. Existing and proposed. Page 4 Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Shelby Sommer Topic: Modification of Standard Number: 9 Created: 12/20/2006 (1/19/07] The modification request to reduce the rear setback still cannot be supported by staff. Can you revise the plans to have at least a 5 foot setback on the north side of the east property line, and request a modification just for the area adjacent to the drive-thru lanes? [12/20/06] The justification for the modification of standard request to allow less than 5 feet of vehicular use area setback along the rear property line (Modification request #4) is not specific as to why you cannot satisfy the standard. Please clearly justify this modification request and show the dimentions of the proposed setback on the site plan. Response: We withdrew this modification request and simply provided the 5 feet as required. Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Dana Leavitt Topic: Modifcation of Standard Number: 55 Created: 1/3/2007 [1/23/07] The tree in question is on city property next to the storm drain line to be replaced. Part of the proposed on -site meeting will be to discuss the drainage outfall. Will be resolved at final. [1/3/07] Buffer Zone Standards 1.e response is in conflict with plans regarding the preservation of significant existing trees. Upon resolving grading, utility and landscape plan issues, this statement may need to be modified. If so, address. Response: On January 29, 2007 representatives of QED and MTA met with Shelby Sommer, Wes Lamarque, Dana Leavitt, and Tim Buchanen in the field to discuss the trees and drainage outfall. Collectively we agreed that the best solution was to leave the existing riprap blanket intact, abandon the existing storm drain in place, and align a new storm drainage pipe between existing trees to outfall in the same location as the existing pipe, but to be buried in alignment with the riprap. In this way, existing trees on City property will be minimally affected. Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Shelby Sommer Topic: Site Plan Number: 49 Created: 12/28/2006 [1/19/071 Please address this issue at the Final Plan stage. [12/28/061 The vault on the western edge of the site is not a Light & Power transformer. Can this be rotated to gain clearance? Response: This is a City traffic control vault. The vault will be replaced with a traffic rated vault, as per discussions with city traffic staff. Number: 86 Created: 1 /19/2007 [1/19/07] 1 believe there is a bus stop in front of this property. Please verify and label on the site plan. Also, your cover page indicates that only 2 bicycle parking spaces are provided, but on your site plan there appears to be 8 bicycle parking spaces. Please correct. Response: Please see the revised site plan and cover page. Number: 88 Created: 1/23/2007 [1/23107] The handicap accessible parking space needs to be van -accessible (8 feet wide with 8 foot wide access aisle). Your site plan shows a regular handicap accessible space that is only 13 feet wide. Response: Please see the revised site plan. Number: 90 Created: 1123/2007 [1/23/07] Several of the written documents reference the existing 6 foot privacy fence along the eastern property line, but it is not shown on the site plan. Please revise. Response: Please see the revised site plan. Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Dana Leavitt Topic: Site Plan Number: 57 Created: 1/3/2007 [1/23/07] Site Plan calls out asphalt pavement and the utility plans call out concrete pavement. Will be resolved at final. [1/3/07] Show all existing surface conditions and label. Show existing trees with canopy/dripline. Include driveway access and plant material at the north property boundary adjacent to College Ave. Show and label proposed improvements, i.e. asphalt or concrete pavement, type of walks, island surface, curb cuts, etc. Response: The utility plan is correct. The site plan no longer says it's asphalt. Number: 58 Created: 1/3/2007 [1/23/07] Existing conditions are not shown on plan. Add information to plan. [1/3/07] Difficult to read site plan - not enough darity between existing conditions and proposed improvements. Proposed improvements need to stand out from the existing conditions. Recommend using a grey scale line type for existing conditions. Page 3 0 [1/3/07] General Note # 11, Cover Sheet refers to the Utility Plan for exact geometry of parking areas. Utility plans do not show any geometry or layout information. Provide complete layout information on Site Plan. Response: General layout and dimensioning for the parking and drive aisles has been added to the Utility Plan. Number. 101 Created: 1/25/2007 (1/25/071 To meet the standards of Section 3.4.1(E)(1)(c) the lighting plan will need to address the amount of light spilling over along the buffer zone. Back shield screens have to be part of the pole mount fixtures. Response: Please see the revised lighting plan. Topic: Landscape Plan Number. 71 Created: 1/3/2007 [1123/07] The existing and proposed conditions can be differentiated now. The proposed planting symbols do not stand out from the rest of the plan. Will address at final. [1/3/07] Clearly show difference between existing and proposed conditions. Plant symbols do not stand out. Existing conditions that will be removed do not need to be shown. Response: Existing trees to remain are now shown in a lighter pen width than proposed trees. Additionally existing trees are labeled as such. Number. 74 Created: 1/3/2007 [1123/07] Trees are identified. Tree protection standards - Section 3.2.1(G) are not included on the plan. Add to the plan. Will address at final. [1 /3/07] Identify significant existing trees to remain and protect per Section 3.2.1(F&G) of the LUC. There are two trees along the College Ave. frontage to be considered, and one tree off -site on the slope of the Spring Creek embankment adjacent to the existing/proposed storm drain pipe to be addressed. Proposed grading impacts both street side trees. Response: The tree protection standards have been added to the landscape notes as note N 14. Number: 78 Created: 1/3/2007 [1/23/07] The planting plan shows a single row of plants along the majority of the landscape buffer. Additional plantings are needed to create a visual and physical buffer and establish a viable wildlife habitat in this area. [1/3/07] The proposed plant material along the south property line is not robust enough to provide an adequate buffer. Large openings in the buffer will occur where trees will be located. Additional plant materials in denser planting groups will provide the type of buffer described in your Request for Buffer Modification. Response: Please see the rev sed landscape plan. Number: 95 Created: 1 /23/2007 [1/23/07] The parking island is only as wide as two curb widths. The planting plan shows plant material in this very narrow area. There is not enough room to have a plant bed in this area. Response: This area has been widened out. Please see revised site & landscape plans. Number: 96 Created: 1 /23/2007 11/23/07] The tree well shown on the Site Plan is next to the accessible ramp. A tree grate that meets ADA standards will need to be used to provide a solid surface so that disabled pedestrians can have a safe travel route from the curb cut to the sidewalk. Response: We have added a leader to the tree grate clarifying that it meet ADA standards. Number: 102 Created: 1/25/2007 [1/25/07] Plaza and existing tree are in conflict. The paving around the tree needs to be pulled back as it is too close to the tree. Tree protection standards 3.2.(G)l. A redesign of the plaza is required to protect the existing significant tree. Will be addressed at final. Response: The plaza has been re -designed to be pulled back from the existing significant tree. Number: 103 Created: 1 /2512007 [1/25/07] The three shrubs on the south edge of the plaza are within the stated separation between utilities and plant material of 4 feet. Move shrubs to create required separation. Will be addressed at final. Response: The shrubs have been reconfigured as requested. Number: 104 Created: 1/25/2007 (1/25/071 Note #12 states that all trees shall be installed as shown on the landscape plan. Show planting details for trees and shrubs on Landscape Plan. Will be addressed at final. Response: See the planting details, now on the landscape plan Page 2 f Response to Comments 2/21 /2007 HUMAN BEAN AT SPRING CREEK PDP ISSUES: Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Dana Leavitt Topic: Elevations Number: 83 Created: 1/3/2007 [1/23/07] Dimension counter height or add note that walk up window shall meet accessibility requirements. Will address at final. [1/3/07] Walk-up window will have to be accessible. Indicate on elevations with dimensioning which service window is accessible. Response: The counter height is now dimensioned on the building elevations. Number: 94 Created: 1/23/2007 [1/23/07] Trash enclosure dimensions at 14'-3" on the Site Plan. The elevation shows the dimension to be 9'-4". Resolve conflicting information and revise plans accordingly. Will be addressed at final. Response: The trash enclosure is now sized the same on both the site plan and the elevations. Topic: Engineering Number: 84 Created: 1/3/2007 [1/23/07] The utility plan shows an existing evergreen plant symbol adjacent to the water line. The Site and Landscape Plan do not show this tree/shrub. Will address at final. [1/3/07] Clearly delineate the location of the existing water line along the front of the property in relation to the existing vegetation. Locate existing trees and shrubs accurately, including dripline of tree. Response: The evergreen in question was inadvertently shown, but it does not actually exist. We have removed all references to it. Number: 85 Created: 1/3/2007 [1/23/07] A meeting is needed as suggested in the response to comments. The Utility Plan calls for a new 18" storm drain line in place of the existing one. Replacing the line will have impacts upon the tree next to the location of the existing line. This tree is on City property. Tim Buchanan will need to be party to the site visit. Will resolve at final. [1/3107] The 18 inch storm pipe outfall -is that existing pipe to remain or new pipe. The existing tree next to the pipe may be impacted by the installation of a new pipe. Clarify outfall pipe and accurately show the type of tree and dripline so that it can be determined if this tree can be saved. If not, contact Tim Buchanan to discuss tree mitigation strategies. Section 3.2.1(F&G) have to be considered and addressed in locating any need pipe. Coordinate with Landscape Plans in regard to preservation or removal of this and any other trees on -site. Response: On January 29, 2007 representatives of QED and MTA met with Shelby Sommer, Wes Lamarque, Dana Leavitt, and Tim Buchanen in the field to discuss the trees and drainage outfall. Collectively we agreed that the best solution was to leave the existing riprap blanket intact, abandon the existing storm drain in place, and align a new storm drainage pipe between existing trees to outfall in the same location as the existing pipe, but to be buried in alignment with the riprap. In this way, existing trees on City property will be minimally affected. Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Shelby Sommer Topic: Exception Request Number: 87 Created: 1/19/2007 [1/19/07] For the exception to the build -to line request you state that this proposal satisfies the standard better than a compliant plan. Staff cannot support that this alternative is better, but would support justification that this alternative complies with the standard equally as well as a compliant plan. Also, your justification for the exception includes a statement that you will post signs and provide pedestrian lighting. Please include this on the site plan or remove this from your justification statement. Response: The revised build -to line exception request was provided and was approved as part of the PDP approval on 2/15/2007. Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Dana Leavitt Topic: General Number: 53 Created: 1/3/2007 [1/23/07] While you show dimensioning on the Site Plan, the utility plans contain no geometric layout of parking areas is shown. Will this be part of the final package submitted by the civil engineer? If not, remove note. Page 1