Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBLOCK 19 LOTS 1-6 BOHEMIAN OFFICE BUILDING 260 EAST MOUNTAIN AVENUE - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2011-09-19ZONING DEPT. BASICS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROJECT DATE: July 31, 2008 TO: Randy Maizland, Engineering PROJECT: 260 E. MOUNTAIN AVENUE. DEMOLISH 2 EXISTING BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCT NEW 4- STORY9 419000 S.F. COMMERCIAL BUILDING. FINAL REVIEW This is a Basic Development Review proposal to construct a 4-story, 41,000 square foot building. The ground floor will be retail/office, the top 3 floors will be office. As a Basic Development Review, the property will need to comply with the applicable regulations in Articles 3 and 4 of the LUC. All comments must be returned to Peter Barnes in Zoning by August 22, 2008 PLEASE ENTER YOUR COMMENTS IN DMS. Note - PLEASE identify your redlines for future reference Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape City of Fort Collins will be removable. The electrical service for the building will be 1,200 Amp 480Y/277 Volt, therefore, the transformer will be a 500KVA unit. Due to this new configuration, we believe we have provided access to the utility company, which will allow them the ability to remove/replace the transformer when required with out the use of hoist lifting device. Number: 3 Created: 8/4/2008 [8/4/08] The electric equipment within the enclosed area must be accessible to utility personnel 24/7 without a special key & without obtaining an 'escort' to obtain access. The utility court will have a locked gate. Next to the gate will be a utility company approved "Knox" box with the access key to the utility court. Number: 4 Created: 8/4/2008 [8/4/08] The landscape plan needs to show the existing streetlights adjacent to the site. Street tree locations then need to be adjusted as necessary to provide 40 feet of lateral clearance between lights and trees (15 feet if the tree is an ornamental type). All existing light location are shown on the landscape plans. Number: 5 Created: 8/4/2008 [8/4/08] The location of electric meters needs to be coordinated with Light & Power Engineering. The utility court will have a locked gate. Next to the gate will be a utility company approved "Knox" box with the access key to the utility court. Department: PFA Issue Contact: Carle Dann Topic: Fire Number: 45 Created: 8/25/2008 [8/25/08] FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION: Fire department connections shall be installed remote from the buildings, and located on the street or fire lane side of buildings, fully visible and recognizable from the street or nearest point of fire department vehicle access or as otherwise approved by the fire code official. If possible, a fire hydrant shall be located within 100 feet of the FDC. PFA Bureau Policy Department: Traffic Operations Issue Contact: Ward Stanford Topic: Traffic Number: 46 Created: 8/26/2008 [8/26/081 TIS- AM southbound Rt volume shows 111 vehicles. This seems to be an error. Please review and address. A revised TIS has been submitted. Number: 47 Created: 8/26/2008 [8/26/08] Traffic is concerned with the lack of sight distance at the underground exit and sidewalk. With the current amount of pedestrians, cyclists and boarders navigating the sidewalks exiting vehicles need some visibility to safely enter the sidewalk. Audible and visual signals require the affected sidewalk users to be attentive to the blind motorists actions, but do not give the motorist any aid in verifying the sidewalk is clear to enter. Therefore all responsibility is placed on the sidewalk user to know of an exiting Page 6 vehicle, and there's little the motorist can contribute to making a safe entry onto the sidewalk. It is felt that the proposed design is suitable for this area. We have tried to bump -out the sidewalk in this location, but this resulted in a rise in 100-year flood elevation at the existing upstream buildings to the northwest of the site. We have since added a flood gate allowing us to lower the finished floor. This created a gradual walking area. We have also proposed a steel barrier to force the travel of pedestrians away from the building. Number: 48 Created: 8/26/2008 [8/26/081 Why is the width of the sidewalk reduced at the underground entry? This seems to worsen the exiting vehicle issue previously described. The width of the sidewalk has been redesigned to a full 8' walk and is now proposed along the street instead of along the building. Number: 49 Created: 8/26/2008 [8/26/08] The location of the parking stall to the east of the underground entry places considerable difficulty on exiting cars and cars on Walnut to see each other. This does not meet LCUASS sight distance criteria and may need a variance or some parking space improvements. We have proposed eliminating one of the stalls to the east and replacing it with a motorcycle/moped parking area. With the street travel lanes being 10' passed the end of the parking stalls, we feel there will be adequate sight for the drivers existing the building. Traffic travels slowly in this area, due to the amount of service vehicles parked along the roadway. Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington Topic: Landscape Plan Number: 15 Created: 8/15/2008 [8/15/08] Show water/sewer services in the correct locations (see utility plans) and adjust trees to provide the required separation distances. The plans have been updated. Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Topic: Stormwater Number: 37 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/081 With more research in the City's Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Section 7.1 states that one foot of freeboard is required for major channels. Due to the high amount of flow in the street, this could be considered a major channel. A variance would be required if the lowest opening into the building is less than 1 foot from the 100-year water surface elevation. The analysis showing that the building elevation is above the street capacity with 1.33 times the flow is part of the justification to support a variance, additional mitigation techniques would have to be incorporated into the design to ensure health and safety for the public. Sump pumps in the parking garage, which are being proposed, is one option. A trench drain on the down slope entrance into the garage that is piped to the storm sewer is Page 7 another option. A flood gate along the garage entrance which would provide one foot of freeboard is another option as well. Overall, the design needs to incorporate as much mitigation techniques as possible to provide the proper safety factor. The primary issue with a street is the wave action caused by cars using the street. The City will evaluate if all of these mitigation techniques are adequate. A floodgate will be utilized that is a minimum of 1' above the 100-yr flood elevation. Specific details will be provided with the architectural plans. Number: 38 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/081 Has there been a decision if any water quality BMPs are going to be incorporated into the design. Tree wells were discussed at a previous meeting as being a possibility. We have every intention of incorporating some sort of water quality BMP with this project, but will decide on how at a later time. Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington Topic: Water/Wastewater Number: 10 Created: 8/15/2008 [8/15/08] Label existing water service on Mountain including note to abandon at main. A label has been added to the Utility Plan. Number: 11 Created: 8/15/2008 [8/15/081 Show existing sanitary sewer services and add appropriate notes as shown on redlined plans. As discussed on the phone, a note has been added to the utility plan that all existing sanitary sewer services shall be abandoned and shall be coordinated with City Utility. Number: 12 Created: 8/15/2008 [8/15/08] Will there be a conflict on Mountain between existing 10-inch water main and proposed storm sewer? If the depth of the existing 10' water main is below the required minimum depth, there is no conflict with the current design. Approximated location have been shown on sheet ST1. A note has been added to the sheet ST1 specifying that the "Location and depth of the existing 10" water main are to be field verified and examined to insure 18" minimum separation. Number: 13 Created: 8/15/2008 (8/15/08] On Walnut, will there be a conflict between existing storm sewer and fire line? The fire line will need to be lowered at this crossing. A note and details have been added to the utility plans. Number: 14 Created: 8/15/2008 [8/15/08] Add Locator Station Standard Detail (#25). Page 8 The detail has been added. Number: 16 Created: 8/15/2008 [8/15/08] See redlined utility plans for other comments. See redlines for responses. Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes Topic: Zoning Number: 7 Created: 8/5/2008 [8/5/08] The "Statement of Planning Objectives" mentions the separation between the new building and the Co-op building in order "to open up views to the existing ghost sign... -and to allow for pedestrian access between Mountain Avenue and Walnut Street". At the ZBA meeting, it was described that the ground floor would be setback from the west lot line approximately 10% but that the upper floors would be setback less. It's hard to tell if that's still the case from the elevations and site plan submitted. It would be helpful if the Mountain Ave. elevation drawing was expanded to show the edge of the Co-op building, and if the site plan showed the upper floor overhangs and perhaps walkway "arrows" can be added indicating the pedestrian connection. The Co-op building has been added to the elevation drawing. Number: 8 Created: 8/5/2008 [8/5/08] The color elevations I received show some awnings, but the black and white elevations don't. Please add them to the black and white. These awnings have been added to the black and white elevations. Number: 9 Created: 8/5/2008 [8/5/08] Add the utility screening fence and gate and the trash enclosure to the black and white building elevations. The code requires that trash enclosures have to be at least 20' from a public sidewalk. That's difficult to do on infill lots in the downtown when the lot doesn't abut an alley. Since your enclosure is closer than 20', we'll need a trash enclosure detail showing the materials matching the building, and probably of a height of at least 8'. The utility screening fence and gate and the trash enclosure has been added to the black and white elevations. Be sure and return all of your redlined plans when you re -submit. If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project, please feel free to call me at (970) 416-2355. Sincerely, Peter Barnes Zoning Administrator Page 9 ZONING DEPT. BASIC" DEVE1,OPMENT REVIEW PROJECT DATE: Sept. 4, 2008 TO: Engineering ROUND 2 REVIEW PROJECT: 260 E. MOUNTAIN AVENUE. DEMOLISH 2 EXISTING BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCT NEW 4- STORY9 419000 S.F. COMMERCIAL BUILDING. FINAL REVIEW This is Round 2 of a Basic Development Review proposal to construct a 4-story, 41,000 square foot building. The ground floor will be retail/office, the top 3 floors will be office. As a Basic Development Review, the property will need to comply with the applicable regulations in Articles 3 and 4 of the LUC. All comments must be returned to Peter Barnes in Zoning by September 11, 2008 PLEASE ENTER YOUR COMMENTS IN DMS. Note -PLEASE identify your redlines for future reference Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Otherrm_m _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape City of Fort Collins llr City of Fort Collins Department: EnLyin Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments Date: September 8, 2008 Project: 260 E. Mountain Basic Development Review All comments must be received by Peter Barnes in Zoning, no later than the staff review meeting: No Review Date Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Randy Maizland Topic: Engineering Number: 52 Created: 9/8/2008 [9/8/08] We need a proposed project name / plan title suggestion before going to mylars. Our Technical Services Department needs to check and approve the name before it can be used on the plans. Be sure that once the name is approved that you change all of the plan titles to match (i.e. Site Plan, Landscape Plan etc... ). You may use the address as a subtitle but it's not required. Number: 53 Created: 9/8/2008 [9/8/08] Please change the plan to reflect 8 foot steel barriers at the garage access rather than 5 foot. Use a bold, heavier line type for the barriers and you will need to provide a simple detail for the type of barrier to be used. Number: 54 Created: 9/8/2008 [9/8/08] Utility Plan sheet - please label the retaining walls in the ROW under separate permit agreement. Number: 55 Created: 9/8/2008 [9/8/08] Walnut Street - an additional street cut on Walnut will be needed to abandon the water service (see redlines). Please show & label the street cut. Based on street patching standards, the three street cuts needed on Walnut are so close together that you will need to mill and overlay the entire area of all 3 cuts for a uniform patch. Please show this on the plan with hatching and labeling as a mill and overlay area. See redlines for clarification. Number: 56 Created: 9/8/2008 [9/8/08] The proposed storm drain within the ROW on Mountain must be a Class III RCP or equivalent pipe. Min. size for RCP is 15 inches. See the redlines for clarification. I have hi - Signature Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site Drainage Report Other Utility Redline Utility Landscape Page 1 L lighted the section of pipe in green that needs to be changed. You will have to check with Stormwater regarding any equivalents. Please remove the associated note on the utility Plan sheet and the Stormdrain Plan sheet. See redlines. Number: 57 Created: 9/8/2008 [9/8/08] The clean outs within the ROW on Mountain for the roof drain laterals must be traffic rated. Please label as such on the plans and provide a typical detail. Number: 58 Created: 9/8/2008 [9/8/08] Please go through the plan set one last time and try to eliminate any line over text conflicts. Number: 59 Created: 9/8/2008 [9/8/08] See redlines for additional minor comments related to labeling or drafting. Number: 60 Created: 9/8/2008 [9/8/08] Please make changes to flood gate - waterproof garage door labeling and notes to satisfy Stormwater requirements. Number: 61 Created: 9/8/2008 [9/8/08] Please provide a detail for the curb and gutter where it transitions fromr outfall to infall on Walnut and on Mountain. Page 2 ii&Project Comments Sheet City of Fort Collins Selected Departments Department: Engineering Date: August 22, 2008 Project: 260 E. Mountain Basic Development Review All comments must be received by Peter Barnes in Zoning, no later than the staff review meeting: No Review Date Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Randy Maizland Topic: Engineering Number: 18 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/08] Please change the title of the Utility Plan set such that the address is not in the title. Addresses can potentially change and the City would prefer to file the project under a unique name or Plat name if a new Plat is being filed (not in this case). You may place the address as a subtitle below the main title if you like. Number: 19 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/08] Development review fees were not calculated correctly. The review fees were underpaid by $804.00. 1 will attach the revised calculation TDRF fee sheet for your review. Please submit this payment prior to any plan approval. Number: 20 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/08] Utility Plan Sheet U1 — The title really only needs to appear on the cover sheet of the Utility Plan set. Please remove the title from the rest of the plan sheets (TYP). Number: 21 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/08] Does the building cantilever over the utility area on the NW corner of the site? Will we need to vacate an airspace easement for the building? This was proposed with the Otter Products concept. There was no easement vacation application submitted with this package. Please clarify and make appropriate submittals if a vacation is needed. Number: 22 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/08] Please show the proposed street tree grates on the Utility Plan on Walnut and Mountain and provide a detail. You will need to check with the City Forester on minimum space needeSl►to plant stre"ees. I think it is 4 feet and you are only providing 3.5 feet on Signature 01)14k Ate CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat < Site Drainage Report Other «S It Utility K Redline Utility k Landscape Page 1 Walnut. If 3.5 is adequate we just need grate details since this is a non standard size and we need to know if it's feasible to obtain. Number: 23 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/08] Utility Plan U1 — Please call out the handicap ramps with the LCUASS Standard and if there is any space available for motorcycle parking in the hatched area adjacent to the ramps, please show that as well. Number: 24 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/08] Utility Plan U1 — Please use a bold line type for the proposed 4" PVC sewer connection on Walnut. Number: 25 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/08] Grading Plan G1 —There are existing inlets and proposed manholes called out on the plans but not shown. Please show those items being labeled. See redlines for clarification. Number: 26 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/08] Please provide a detail for the C&G transition on Walnut to the north. You can provide this detail on the street design sheet or detail sheets but please reference the location in the plan set if on a different sheet than the label. Number: 27 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/08] Grading Plan — The retaining wall adjacent to the sidewalk will need more detail shown. Right now you are showing a simple 6 inch curb wall but that will certainly attract skateboarders and creates more of a tripping hazard than no wall at all with a drop off. You may need to talk with Current Planning and the DDA to see what should be done with this retaining wall cap. We need something that is visually clear that this is the edge of the sidewalk and a drop off exists and at the same time it needs to be designed to deter vandalism from skateboarders. Please revise your cross section detail accordingly. Number: 28 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/08] The retaining wall in the ROW on Walnut street should probably terminate before the driveway cut to the parking garage. On the plan it shows the wall extending north into the flare of the driveway cut. Number: 29 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/08] Please identify on the storm drain plan that portion which is to be maintained by the City and that which is NOT to be maintained by the City. See redlines for clarification. Number: 30 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/08] The storm drain and road design profiles won't scan or copy well. Can you reduce the line over text conflicts by either ghosting out the profile grid or masking out the text ? Number: 31 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/08] Please add a note 7 to sheet R1 stating that retaining walls in the ROW will require a separate encroachment permit. I will check into who should be issuing this encroachment permit and what needs to be submitted to obtain the permit. Number: 32 Created: 8/22/2008 Page 2 [8/22/08] Cross Sections — It appears that you are maintaining a consistent cross slope for the most part on the road section from existing to new asphalt. Can you please show/label the existing street cross slope on the cross sections to show if it is carried through or if there is a change in cross slope at the saw cut line? Number: 33 Created: 8/22/2008 (8/22/08] Please add standard signature blocks to the detail sheets. Number: 34 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/08] Replace the ped ramp detail on D1 with LCUASS 1606 with truncated domes. See redlines for additional details to be added to the detail sheets. Number: 35 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/08] The sight distance coming out of the parking garage needs to be addressed. Per my email sent to Cody Snowden on 8/21, the City will not consider the proposed light and auditable warning system for pedestrians. The standard sight distance triangle at an intersection is 10x10 feet. If you are unable to provide the standard sight distance clear area you will need to propose other creative options for us to consider. I can coordinate any meeting necessary to try and resolve this issue. Number: 36 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/08] Please see redlines for additional minor comments related to drafting or labeling. Page 3 STA FF PROJECT REVIEW City of Fort Collins BHA Design, Inc Date: 08/28/2008 1603 Oakridge Dr Fort Collins, CO 80525 Staff has reviewed your submittal for 260 E. Mountain Basic Development Review, and we offer the following comments: ISSUES: Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Ted Shepard Topic: Stormwater Number: 39 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/081 Staff is concerned about the west elevation that faces the historic district. It appears that there is a reduced level of detail and quality along a significant portion of this elevation and yet the relationship to the historic district remains a sensitive issue. Both Historic Preservation and Current Planning would like to meet with the project team to discuss these concerns. Clark Mapes, Karen McWilliams, and Alyson Mcgee of Advance Planning agree with this comment. Conversation are on going between the architect and the city. Number: 40 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/08] Have you considered using a different material for the roof top mechanical screens? Perhaps a synthetic masonry material would complement the building in a more aesthetic manner than metal. Conversation are on going between the architect and the city. Number: 41 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/08] Please label on the architectural elevations the screen wall and that it screens the electrical transformer, trash dumpster, recycle containers, utility meters, etc. This has been labeled. Number: 42 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/08] Please work with Engineering on providing safe sight distance for cars exiting the underground parking. Perhaps recessing the garage door and more use of ornamental iron would solve the problem. As was discussed, we have been able to level out the entire sidewalk through this area and have provided a fence going perpendicular to building to route pedestrian traffic away from the building and along the street. In looking at many options, this was the only one that would work for all of the elements at hand. Number: 43 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/08] A signature block is not needed for a Basic Development Review. Page 1 In discussing this with Randy, he requested that a signature block be on every sheet of the Utility Plan Number: 44 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/08] The tree mitigation schedule needs to be verified with the City Forestry Department. We have spoken with the city forester and he asked us to provide two 3" caliper trees for every one tree removed. We plan to remove three trees and plant seven trees, providing one extra tree per requirement. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Randy Maizland Topic: Engineering Number: 18 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/08] Please change the title of the Utility Plan set such that the address is not in the title. Addresses can potentially change and the City would prefer to file the project under a unique name or Plat name if a new Plat is being filed (not in this case). You may place the address as a subtitle below the main title if you like. A unique title will be decided upon. We are spending a good amount of time on deciding to insure that the title fits the type of building being designed. Number: 19 Created: 8/22/2008 (8/22/08] Development review fees were not calculated correctly. The review fees were underpaid by $804.00. 1 will attach the revised calculation TDRF fee sheet for your review. Please submit this payment prior to any plan approval. The remaining fee amount is included in this submittal. Number: 20 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/08] Utility Plan Sheet U1 — The title really only needs to appear on the cover sheet of the Utility Plan set. Please remove the title from the rest of the plan sheets (TYP). The title has been removed from all sheets except for the cover and general notes. Number: 21 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/08] Does the building cantilever over the utility area on the NW corner of the site? Will we need to vacate an airspace easement for the building? This was proposed with the Otter Products concept. There was no easement vacation application submitted with this package. Please clarify and make appropriate submittals if a vacation is needed. As stated in the email you sent to me on Tuesday, September 91h; "Based on the latest plan that he (Doug Martine) saw on Friday sent over by Chuck Polson, the utility meter cluster area is not affected by the partial cantilever overhang and there is no real need to vacate easement airspace or rededicate any new easements." Number: 22 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/081 Please show the proposed street tree grates on the Utility Plan on Walnut and Mountain and provide a detail. You will need to check with the City Forester on minimum space needed to plant street trees. I think it is 4 feet and you are only providing 3.5 feet on Page 2 Walnut. If 3.5 is adequate we just need grate details since this is a non standard size and we need to know if it's feasible to obtain. The proposed street tree grates are shown on the Utility Plans. Roger Sherman with BHA spoke with Tim Buchanan (City Forester) about minimum space needed to plant street trees. He verified that 3.5' was acceptable, but would like to see an increased length (5-6') with the adjusted width. Number: 23 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/08] Utility Plan U1 — Please call out the handicap ramps with the LCUASS Standard and if there is any space available for motorcycle parking in the hatched area adjacent to the ramps, please show that as well. The LCUASS 1606 detail has been called out at both proposed ramps. Number: 24 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/08] Utility Plan U1 — Please use a bold line type for the proposed 4" PVC sewer connection on Walnut. The line type for the 4" PVC connection on Walnut has been doubled. Number: 25 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/08] Grading Plan G1 — There are existing inlets and proposed manholes called out on the plans but not shown. Please show those items being labeled. See redlines for clarification. The proposed inlets and manholes have been added to the plans. Number: 26 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/08] Please provide a detail for the C&G transition on Walnut to the north. You can provide this detail on the street design sheet or detail sheets but please reference the location in the plan set if on a different sheet than the label. As discussed per our conversation, I can show an enlargement of the area and spot elevations on the grading plan. The transition is from a typical curb and gutter to the three existing spot elevations shown. These grades will be a straight grade through out the transition. Number: 27 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/08] Grading Plan — The retaining wall adjacent to the sidewalk will need more detail shown. Right now you are showing a simple 6 inch curb wall but that will certainly attract skateboarders and creates more of a tripping hazard than no wall at all with a drop off. You may need to talk with Current Planning and the DDA to see what should be done with this retaining wall cap. We need something that is visually clear that this is the edge of the sidewalk and a drop off exists and at the same time it needs to be designed to deter vandalism from skateboarders. Please revise your cross section detail accordingly. The cross-section still has a 6" curb wall on top, but a note and a detail has been provided to include skate wall deterrents throughout the length of the wall. The deterrents are angle iron and will have reflectivity in using metal. Page 3 Number: 28 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/081 The retaining wall in the ROW on Walnut street should probably terminate before the driveway cut to the parking garage. On the plan it shows the wall extending north into the flare of the driveway cut. With the revised grading on Walnut, the wall terminates shortly after the front entrance to the building. Number: 29 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/08] Please identify on the storm drain plan that portion which is to be maintained by the City and that which is NOT to be maintained by the City. See redlines for clarification. All of the storm sewer between ST MH A2 through ST Inlet A4 will be owned and maintained by the Mountain 252 LLC. A note has been to sheet ST1. Number: 30 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/08] The storm drain and road design profiles won't scan or copy well. Can you reduce the line over text conflicts by either ghosting out the profile grid or masking out the text? The line over text conflict has been resolved. Number: 31 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/08] Please add a note 7 to sheet R1 stating that retaining walls in the ROW will require a separate encroachment permit. I will check into who should be issuing this encroachment permit and what needs to be submitted to obtain the permit. A note has been added to sheet R1. Number: 32 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/08] Cross Sections — It appears that you are maintaining a consistent cross slope for the most part on the road section from existing to new asphalt. Can you please show/label the existing street cross slope on the cross sections to show if it is carried through or if there is a change in cross slope at the saw cut line? Existing cross -slope grades have been added to the cross -sections. Number: 33 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/08] Please add standard signature blocks to the detail sheets. The standard signature block has been added to the details. Number: 34 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/081 Replace the ped ramp detail on D1 with LCUASS 1606 with truncated domes. See redlines for additional details to be added to the detail sheets. The LCUASS 1606 detail has been added replacing the previous detail. Number: 35 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/081 The sight distance coming out of the parking garage needs to be addressed. Per my email sent to Cody Snowden on 8/21, the City will not consider the proposed light and Page 4 auditable warning system for pedestrians. The standard sight distance triangle at an intersection is 10x10 feet. If you are unable to provide the standard sight distance clear area you will need to propose other creative options for us to consider. I can coordinate any meeting necessary to try and resolve this issue. It is felt that the proposed design is suitable for this area. We have tried to bump -out the sidewalk in this location, but this resulted in a rise in 100-year flood elevation at the existing upstream buildings to the northwest of the site. We have since added a flood gate allowing us to lower the finished floor. This created a gradual walking area. We have also proposed a steel barrier to force the travel of pedestrians away from the building. Number: 36 Created: 8/22/2008 [8/22/081 Please see redlines for additional minor comments related to drafting or labeling. See redlines for comments. Department: Forestry Issue Contact: Tim Buchanan Topic: Water/Wastewater Number: 17 Created: 8/21/2008 [8/21/08] There needs to be 8 upsized mitigation trees. In addition to the 4 new Honeylocust along E. Mountain that already are specified at the large size the 4 Honeylocust along Walnut shall also be specified at 3.0 inch caliper or greater. We had originally planned to lose 4 trees but have reduced that count to three. If we add (2) 3" caliper trees for every one mitigation tree, we need a minimum of 6 mitigation trees (we are showing 7). We plan to keep the tree in front of the co-op building to the west, although when previously submitted we thought we would have to remove it. Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Doug Martine Topic: Light & Power Number: 1 Created: 8/4/2008 [8/4/08] The utility screening fence & gate must be a type of material that provides for air flow (i.e. wrought iron). This is necessary because the electric transformers inside the gate are air cooled devices. The utility screening fence and gate will allow air flow and will be similar to the requested "wroght iron". The utility screening fence and gate will allow air flow and will be similar to the requested "wroght iron". Number: 2 Created: 8/4/2008 [8/4/08] The architect & developer previously agreed to provide a hoist lifting device to lift the electric transformers from the enclosed area to a point outside of the building. The utility plans need to show the details of this hoist. The utility court has been modified since that discussion. The transformer for this building will not be located totally under the building as previously discussed. It will only be half under the building overhang. The fence material around the transformer Page 5