Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWATERS EDGE - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2010-08-03Selected Issues Report t:'it� of i�r�rt C'csll.irty Date: 7/29/2010 WATERS EDGE AT RICHARD'S LAKE PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS SELECTION CRITERIA: Department = Engineering; Status = All ISSUES: Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy Topic: Before Hearing Number:138 Created:7/11/2006 Resolved [12/26/06] [7/11/06] In order to go to hearing, please address all "Before Hearing" comments but basically what I need is the Morningstar/Turnberry intersection design showing the reworked median with the striping called out and dimensioned, an interim striping sheet for Turnberry showing the existing row, proposed edge of pavement, burrow ditch(?) on the Lind side and the taper lengths called out to the north so we can see if offsite row is needed, and the left turn at Douglas design with the taper lengths called out and the row shown (offsite row needed?). We can leave the retaining wall cross section to Final Compliance if all agree that it may need to be moved back into the site to avoid offsite grading or that offsite easements may be required. I'm not going to return any redlines since we're going to work out the important issues informally. All other comments are Final Compliance comments and do not apply at this time. Topic: Genera/ Number:11 Created:5/8/2006 Resolved [5/8/06] There is a trail shown on the Site Plan parallel to Barnswallow Circle in Tract F that does not appear on the utility plans. Number:20 Created:5/8/2006 Resolved [5/8/06] A sidewalk is shown to the north from Tract A but doesn't show what it connects to on the utility plans. The Site plan vaguely shows an equestrian trail but nothing is dimensioned and it is not shown where the trail goes to the east. Where does the existing equestrian trail go? It disappears at the northeast corner of the property (site plan), does not appear on the utility plans except for "kind of, sort of on sheet 12 which is the grading plan. In addition, there appears to be an existing trail on the north side of lots 112-114 and a driveway of some sort onto Turnberry. Is this being realigned? If not, will need access easements on these lots. This driveway may need to be closed. Will need more info before a determination can be made. Number:21 Created:5/8/2006 Resolved [12/26/06] [7/4/06] Repeat. Final Compliance item with the understanding that we'll have to work through any new issues at that time. Page 1 [5/8/06] Richard's Lake subdivision stubbed out Barnswallow to your property line and this development is tying into it in such a way that the existing street stub is left going nowhere. This development will need to turn the intersection into a T-Intersection and remove the existing street stub or realign your streets so they tie in better. Number:18 Created:5/8/2006 Resolved [5/8/06] Provide directional ramps on the north side of Brightwater and at Morningstar/Turnberry (currently showing the old radius style). Number:31 Created:5/9/2006 Resolved [5/9/06] The minimimum centerline radius of 600' is not being met on Brightwater (minor collector). Please see chapter 7 in LCUASS for other standards not being met. Number:32 Created:5/9/2006 Resolved [12/26/06] [7/4/06] Before Hearing - Just concerned with interim Turnberry improvements and where the existing row is (do we need offsite row?), the taper to the north (do we have enough row to accommodate it?) and the left turn at Douglas. John Gooch is submitting that information with the intention of clearing up these questions and going to hearing August 17th. All other comments will follow in the Final Compliance submittal. [5/9/06] Little to no information was provided for existing offsites within 150' of the project. The next submittal showing this information may trigger new comments and may require additional changes to the plan sets. Number:33 Created:5/9/2006 Resolved [7/4/06] [5/9/06] Morningstar is considered a collector unless this development goes through the formal process to have it downgraded. No crosspans are allowed in collectors so the one at Morningstar and Turnberry will have to come out (unless the road is formally downgraded of course). Number:34 Created:5/9/2006 Resolved [5/9/06] SW corner of Morningstar and Turnberry - Is PFA ok with the deadend drive in front of lots 1 and 2? Number:35 Created:5/9/2006 Resolved [7/4/06] Before Hearing - Still missing Turnberry design, please provide the utimate design (full street section) and both interim and ultimate striping sheets. Will need to provide cross sections for all street classifications equal to or higher than a Collector (includes Morningstar). See Appendix E4 for minimum information that must be shown prior to hearing. [5/9/06] No plan and profiles were given for any street in this submittal. Please see Appendix E4 for the minimum information required before going to hearing. Expect more comments to follow in the next round. Number:36 Created:5/9/2006 Resolved [5/9/06] Eyebrows must be designed in accordance with Figure 7-23, those shown are not. Number:37 Created:5/9/2006 Resolved [5/9/06] Sight distance triangles and calcs need to be shown on all plan sets and dedicated on the plat. Page 10 Number:38 Created:5/9/2006 Resolved [5/9/06] Culdesacs must be designed in accordance with Figure 7-19 and 7-21 with detached sidewalks. See 19.2.3 for minimum parking requirements in a culdesac. Number:39 Created:5/9/2006 Resolved [5/9/06] Private drives can not exceed 150' in length without a turnaround. Maximum distance from the street to the furthest corner of a building is 150' per PFA or units will require sprinklers. Number:43 Created:5/9/2006 Resolved [7/4/06] Before Hearing - Typical cross section #8 and 9 does not meet standard (why the 10' sidewalk?) and does not tie into the existing street stub. Repeat - this development is responsible for the design of both the interim and ultimate for Turnberry plus 1000' of offsite preliminary design. See comment 44. [5/9/06] The typical street sections on the utility plan cover sheet are incorrect. Please see chapter 7 in LCUASS and redliens. Need an ultimate typical street section for Turnberry in addition to the two additional sections for Morningstar (if the median stays). Number:44 Created:5/9/2006 Resolved [7/4/06] Final Compliance - Turnberry is missing from the plan and profile sheets. The plans need to show where the existing row is and the taper length to match into existing on the north. Do you need to obtain more row in order to do this? Still need the left turn design at Douglas and Turnberry and the 1000' offsite prelim design. [5/9/06] This project is responsible for the design and construction of the interim along their Turnberry frontage plus a 1000' of preliminary design to the north and south. Some of the preliminary design may have been done by the Lind development and may be used to fulfill all or a portion of this requirement. This project is also responsible for the ultimate design along their frontage plus the 1000' offsite. Number:46 Created:5/9/2006 Resolved [5/9/06] Consistant radii shall be used in accordance with 7.4.1.A.3. Number:47 Created:5/9/2006 Resolved [12/26/06] [7/4/06] Before Hearing - Carrying this comment forward until the plans show how the proposed is tieing into the existing (see comment 32). [5/9/06] See 7.4.1.A.6 for transitions for roadway shifts and lane drops. Number:48 Created:5/9/2006 Resolved [5/9/06] See 3.6.6 for emergency access requirements. Number:81 Created:5/11/2006 Resolved [7/4/06] Before Hearing - Please provide both the interim and ultimate striping for Turnberry. Final Compliance - The striping sheet should be separated from the horizontal control sheet for clarity but see Ward Stanford in Traffic to see what he prefers. [5/11/06] A striping sheet must be provided and approved before going to hearing. Number: 137 [12/26/06] Created: 7/11 /2006 Resolved Page 11 [7/11/06] Final Compliance - The Morningstar median has been approved with the condition that the median west of the roundabout is carried through to the Hearthfire intersection. The proposed center turn lane is unnecessary as there are no access points or driveways on either side of the street. Unused pavement breaks down faster and increases the maintenance cost to the city so no variance can be granted. The other option the developer has to remove the median for the entire length of the road to Turnberry. Note - This comment does NOT need to be addressed prior to hearing. Topic: Street Names Number:8 Created:5/8/2006 Resolved [5/8/06] Zephyr is already taken (south of Kechter, west of Timberline). Number:45 Created:5/9/2006 Resolved [5/9/06] Streets have not been named in accordance with our street naming criteria. Suggest a meeting between PFA and Tech Services to clear up the issues as soon as possible. Topic: Utility Plans Number:22 Created:5/8/2006 Resolved [12/26/06] [7/5/06] Thank you for submitting the checklist with this round. Just as a reminder, only highlighted items are required and reviewed before going to hearing. All unhighlighted items on the checklist are required in Final Compliance and are not reviewed prior to that. You will turn in a "fresh" E4 at the first round of final showing that all required items have been addressed in the plan sets or it'll trigger other comments. [5/8/06] See Appendix E4 for all information that must be shown on the plans before going to hearing. Please complete the checklist and submit with the next round of review. Any information not shown on the plans required by the checklist will become a new comment that will need to be addressed before going to hearing. Number:23 Created:5/8/2006 Resolved [7/4/06] Before Hearing - Will need to show how the proposed striping lines up with the existing striping where tieing into existing streets. Will need to show how the proposed striping ties in across intersections (especially at Morning Star and Turnberry intersections - there appears to be quite an offset). But because Lind 3 hasn't submitted yet, the conceptual information really needs to come off this plan set. At such time they submit, they will need to match and tie into whatever this development gets approved for. Sheets C110 and 111 have some scanning and legibility issues - might want to break them out into separate striping and horizontal control sheets or decrease the scale a little. The HC sheet needs to dimension all driveways and taper lengths. [5/8/06] Horizontal Control Sheet - Please label and dimension all sidewalks, crosspans, parking stalls, drive aisles, easements, etc. Number:28 Created:5/8/2006 Resolved [5/8/06] Incomplete Legend. Number:29 Created:5/8/2006 Resolved [12/26/06] [7/4/06] Final Compliance, issue still remains open. Page 12 [5/8/06] Sheet 13 shows an existing street stub or driveway on the north side of Brightwater just west of Longboat Way. This will need to be closed. Please provide a ped ramp as required for a T-Intersection. Number:112 Created:7/4/2006 Resolved [12/26/06] [7/4/06] Key Map needs to be updated to match current layout. Number:113 Created:7/4/2006 Resolved [12/26/06] [7/4/06] Before Hearing - There seems to be some confusion about the cross section requirement. The spots for FL and CL are only for Locals where CL and FL stationing is being used in lieu of using only CL stationing (as the code requires). Cross sections are still required every 50' for all Arterial and Collector streets and they need to contain all information required on the checklist or LCUASS. Spots for the locals are required in final compliance, cross sections for collectors and arterials are required before hearing. *Update - Sheri has agreed to take a striping sheet showing existing row and the proposed edge of pavement on the east side of Turnberry versus cross sections at this time. Topic: Utility Plans - Cover Sheet Number:168 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/071 Please add "for reference only" to the index under Sheets 1-6 Plat. Topic: Utility Plans - Cross Sections Number:276 Created:10/25/2007 Resolved [5/17/10] [10/25/07] Please label the slopes on sheet 321. Topic: Utility Plans -Demo Number:180 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] There appears to be several existing trails or sidewalks throughout the site. Are they staying or being removed? Number:257 Created:10/16/2007 Resolved [5/17/10] [10/16/07] Regarding the note next to the existing Brightwater asphalt... Improvements must be built in accordance with these plans and the timing is such that they must be completed prior to the issuance of any building permit along that street frontage. Topic: Utility Plans - Detail Sheets Number:283 Created:10/26/2007 Resolved [5/17/10] PRC to PC provided on one side only. [10/26/07] 605 - I think some of the curb return transistion detail is missing. Number:284 Created:10/26/2007 Pending [5/17/10] Please provide 703, 704B, 705, 705A. Remove Interim details 1606a and 1607a and replace with the updated details 1606, 1606a, 1607. Please provide the entire 1608 detail. Sheet 606 - Please provide detail D10, D11, D12 or D13 as appropriate and remove or label the detail provide on the left bottom side of the sheet as "private". [10/26/07] Please provide details 705a, 707, 1603, and the complete 1608 (only partial shown). Page 13 Topic: Utility Plans - Erosion Control Number:194 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] Please use grey lineweights for existing and dark for proposed (typical, all sheets). Remove the Lind III info. Topic: Utility Plans - General Number:26 Created:5/8/2006 Resolved [6/8/07] Scanning issues with the plan sets, in particular the grading sheets. I marked up sheet C172 pretty good so you can see what the problems are. I didn't do that for the rest of the sheets though. Main issue is the line over text. Spots are difficult to read and will not be scannable. Take another shot and we'll go to tech services with the next round to see if the sheets will scan ok. [12/26/06] [7/4/06] Final Compliance - May want to visit with JR in Tech Services after the first final compliance submittal to get his input as early as possible. The set still has scanning problems but this does not need to be worked out prior to hearing (it's more of a FC issue). [5/8/06] Please see Appendix E6 for scanning requirements. May need to change the scale and break some sheets into more sheets so that they scan properly. Number:166 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [5/17/10] [10/17/07] Still shown on the Demo Sheet. [6/20/07] Please remove all conceptual Lind III information since it has not been approved yet and we can't infer that this layout has been reviewed and approved in any way. Number:167 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] Remove shading from the key maps. Just box out the area being shown on the sheet : ) Number: [5/17/10] [10/17/07; 176 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] See redlines for other comments. Number:177 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] Please correct the street cut note by removing the word "current", each sheet. Number:178 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [10/17/07] [6/20/07] Please label all offsite street names, all sheets where shown. Number:278 Created:10/25/2007 Resolved [5/17/10] [10/25/07] See redlines for other comments. Topic: Utility Plans -Grading Number:27 Created:5/8/2006 Resolved [6/20/07] Please provide spot elevations for TOW and BOW on all retaining walls and make sure that the site and landscape plans are clearly showing and labeling all retaining walls as well. [12/26/06] [7/4/06] Final Compliance. Page 14 [5/8/06] Slopes can not exceed 4:1 and grades at the back of walk must be flat to nearly flat for a minimum of 2'. Some areas have extremely steep slopes shown (not labeled) and may require a retaining wall. Utilities are another concern (no structures are allowed in utility easements). All lots less than 50' will need to show the driveway and utility locations on the plan sets to make sure everything fits, including the street tree. A utility coordination has been set for 2pm next Wednesday, the 17th of May to work out all the issues. All items must be resolved and approved by the utilities prior to going to hearing. Number:169 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] Please provide spot elevations for TOW and BOW on all retaining walls and make sure that the site and landscape plans are clearly showing and labeling all retaining walls as well. Number:195 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] All retaining walls must show TOW and BOW spots and refer to sheet/detail. All retaining walls must be located outside of the utility easements. All grades next to public sidewalks must be flat to nearly flat for a minimum of 2' behind the walk. Number:196 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] Existing/proposed sidewalks are both shown in greyscale. It's hard to tell where the new and the old are tying in. Number:197 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] There is a retaining wall shown along Turnberry which needs to be at least 2' behind the sidewalk with the sidewalk being widened out an additional 2'. The utility companies will require a variance to allow this within the first 15' along Turnberry. Number:198 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] Missing spot elevations on several lot corners. Number:199 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] Please label all slope ratios. Slopes can not exceed 4:1 in public row or where it effects public row. See stormwater for permission to grade tract J 3:1. Number:200 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] Sheet C191 is showing what appears to be a retaining wall on the west side of Fleet in front of lots 66-69. If this is true, please show as such on the grading plans (TOW, BOW, sheet, detail) and remove from the UE. Number:201 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [5/17/10] [10/17/07] Per your response, this is an existing easement. Please label as such (recept# or however it was dedicated). [6/20/07] Sheet C178 is showing an offsite stormline. Please provide a legal and exhibit for our review and approval. I will give you the appropriate dedication statement to dedicate the area to the city. Number:202 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] Missing three areas on the grading sheets — not enough overlap. See redlines on sheet C179. Page 15 Number:203 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [5/17/10] [10/17/07] We will need the grading information since you are proposing grading in the interim. I know we had a conversation about this and the only thing I can think of is that I confused the ultimate with the interim... or something. I messed up John. I wish I could waive the grading requirement but I can't see a way around it since you'll be out there grading within the slope and construction easement you're proposing. I'm sorry. While we're on the subject, we'll need the actual easements before the mylars can be signed. The slope easement will need to be dedicated to the city and the construction easement is private. If stormwater is ok with just a letter than so am I. The temp easements can mess up the titlework later on and I am sensitive to that. [6/20/07] Please provide contours and grading information for at least 50' to the east side of existing Turnberry row. The typical street section in the interim is showing an existing ditch under the proposed shoulder. See comments under Typical Street Section as well. Number:268 Created:10/25/2007 Resolved [5/17/10] [10/25/07] Need to show approximate limits of the street cuts and add the street cut note to the notes. Number:269 Created:10/25/2007 Resolved [5/17/10] [10/25/07] Please note to tie the proposed sidewalk into the existing. Number:270 Created:10/25/2007 Resolved [5/17/10] [10/25/07] Sheet 179 is showing a new grading on the southern property boundary. Where does this water go? Will you need an easement/agreement from the property owners to the south? Topic: Utility Plans - Horizontal Control Number:179 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] Curve and coordinate tables are missing all information. Number:181 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] See comment 180. Number:182 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [5/17/10] [10/17/07] [6/20/07] Please dimension sidewalks, parkways, parking stall widths, depths and drive aisles. Number:183 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] Please dimension Turnberry row plus label and dimension all easements. Existing edge of pavement shown, please show existing and proposed row. Number:256 Created:10/16/2007 Resolved [5/17/10] [10/16/07] A new note at the taper for the right turn lane into the site indicates that this is "constrained"? This should be at the utlimate... why is this constrained? I know the client was deciding whether or not to install the curb and gutter on his side of the street and has apparently decided to do so, so the curb and gutter needs to be in the ultimate location. Page 16 Topic: Utility Plans - Intersection Details Number:228 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [5/17/10] Repeat comment. [10/17/07] Still missing some spots, see 7-27 and 28. [6/20/07] Missing spot elevations. Number:229 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [5/17/10] [10/17/07] Some of the intersection details are missing the transition lengths. [6/20/07] The minimum transition length is 30' - there are several intersections that are not meeting this requirement. Number:230 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [5/17/10] 1 couldn't find the details but then I might be missing them completely. Could you refer me to the sheet you put them on? [10/17/07] [6/20/07] Please provide a detail and cut section of the median ramps in Morningstar (typical is ok). Topic: Utility Plans - Plan and Profiles Number:212 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] Sheet 262 — How about adding spots for cross slopes on this sheet instead of providing cross sections? What if we did the pc's at the nose of the medians and 2 or 3 places along them? Would that work for you or? *Update - I just found some of the info on the intersection detail sheets. That's ok... but is there a way we could come up with something that will put all the info in one area so that it's easy to review and ultimately build? Number:213 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] Cruiser Lane is not meeting 2% cross slope requirements in some areas. Sheet mislabeled as just Navigator Lane. Can you move the Navigator plan and profile over so that is more easily seen? Number:214 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] Morningstar CL - Is this the true CL or theoretical? We'll need some more info on the plans so we can see how this will drain. Number:215 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] Barnswallow and Brightwater not meeting 2% cross slope requirements in some areas. Try going to just one decimal point and maybe it'll round up just fine ; ) Gangway not meeting 2% cross slope requirements. Sheet mislabeled as Cruiser. Number:216 Created:6/2012007 Resolved [6/20/07] Sheet 279 showing more retaining walls in UE. Need to be located outside of them or get a variance for the utility companies. Number:217 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [5/17/10] [10/17/07] Got the dimensionings (thanks!) but still need some spots. See redlines. [6/20/07] All street widenings must be dimensioned in accordance with figure 7-24. Please provide spot elevations as shown in the redlines so that I can verify that the min 2% cross slope requirement is being met. Page 17 Number:218 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] Parkside, Midship, Longboat, Fleet - Please provide spot elevations at all beginning, middle and end of VCs and PCs as well as through the median so that I can see that the min 2% cross slope requirement is being met. Number:219 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] The culdesacs are showing a CL with an angle point. Please correct. Number:220 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] Midship Way requires 4 flowlines or enough spots to review and eventually build it. Number:221 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [5/17/10] [10/17/07] Street patch needs to go either to the middle of a travel lane at the the edge of the travel lane. Some of the layers are turned off on some sheets. Offsite grading shown in the Richards Lake detention pond ... will need either a contruction easement or slope easement from this property. [6/20/07] Offsite Improvements on Turnberry — Please dimension existing row and label Lind 1 st filing. Is the retaining wall proposed or existing? Lineweights are too similar — hard to tell where the proposed sidewalk meets existing. It doesn't look like the correct row has been dedicated. We need to dimension or label that the proposed edge to edge asphalt width has to be 36' minimum. Please provide a right flowline. Need to show striping so that we can see that the sawcut and patching is falling on a lane line or in the middle of a travel lane. Patch also needs to be cut at least 2' into existing and patched in accordance with LCUASS. Please show existing ditch. Provide stationing. Number:222 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [10/17/07] Ok per Sheri [6/20/07] Turnberry profiles are not meeting the minimum .5% slope requirement in some locations. Number:223 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] Please take Turnberry profiles all the way out to Douglas. Number:224 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [5/17/10] [10/17/07] A new note is indicating a shorter taper because of the constrained conditions in this area. Since this area is now being built to the ultimate location (previously the interim/no curb was shown), this taper needs to be built in the final location. A variance would be required to do a shorter turn bay... is there a reason why it can't be built to the ultimate? [6/20/07] Please identify the taper and length of the right turn lane into the development. Number:225 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] Rollover curb is shown on sheet 302 - should be VC. Number:226 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] Douglas Road improvements — Please show existing row and the ditch in the typical section as well as the plan view. Need to show how the existing grading ties into the proposed and if the work can be done within the existing row. Please show and dimension Page 18 the existing row and asphalt. Please show existing grades for at least 50' either side. Please provide a 6' bike lane to the intersection on the east side of Turnberry if possible. Number:227 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] South Trail Profile — retaining wall needs to be set back 2' from the walk and the sidewalk width increased 2' for the duration of the wall. Number:277 Created:10/25/2007 Resolved [5/17/10] [10/25/07] Minumimum cross slope is 2% and max is 3%. It appears that not all streets are meeting this requirement. All cross slopes must be labeled to at least one decimal place. Can you provide at least 3 to 4 per median along Morningstar? Number:280 Created:10/26/2007 Resolved [5/17/10] [10/26/07] Morningstar: Please note on these P&P sheets to see sheets xx through xxx for the median profiles. Number:281 Created:10/26/2007 Resolved [5/17/10] [10/26/07] Plank/Gangway - Missing the entire culdesac. Please check all of the sheets for proper overlap. There still seems to be a problem with this in the plan set. Number:282 Created:10/26/2007 Resolved [5/17/10] [10/26/07] Midship Way - please provide more spots around the median or provide median flowlines. Please show the cross slope to one decimal place in at least 3 cross sections each side. Need to provide more information on how the ends are draining. See redlines. Topic: Utility Plans - Roundabout Plan and Profile Number:206 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] Roundabout — Please provide spot elevations so that I can see that a 2 to 3% cross slope is being met. Number:207 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [5/17/10] [6/20/07] Pavement Management will need to be routed the roundabout plan and profiles with the next round so that they can review the control joint pattern. Feel free to submit something to them before the next round to get their input as early as possible. Number:208 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] The roundabout striping and signage plan should go on the striping and signage sheet. What we have now on the plans is hard to read and has scanning issues. Number:209 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] Please provide flowlines and spot elevations all the way around the roundabout. Number:210 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] Please station the couple of driveways on sheet 261. Number: 211 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved Page 19 [5/8/06] All sheets, all plan sets, need to show all existing features within 150' of the project boundaries so we can see how you're tying in and that all separation distances, street alignments, etc, are being provided. Number:24 Created:5/8/2006 Resolved [5/8/06] Need to dimension all sidewalks and trail widths. Number:25 Created:5/8/2006 Resolved [5/17/10] See comment #254. [10/16/07] See new comment #254. [5/8/06] Is this project being phased? If so, each phase will need to meet emergency access requirements. Each phase must be stand alone and do not leave necessary improvements to future phases. Number:30 Created:5/9/2006 Resolved [5/9/06] A modification is required where street spacing exceeds 660'. This spacing requirement has been exceeded in numerous areas. Number:42 Created:5/9/2006 Pending [5/17/10] The developer has chosen to vacate the row and the vacated row must be shown on the plat with a note saying that "ROW vacated by ordinance XX". [10/16/07] Only a driveway is shown on the plan sets, please show all proposed landscaping (this area needs to be seeded at the minimum). As stated previously, this development will be responsible for the landscaping and maintenance of this area unless you process a row vacation and notify the other HOA that they are taking over the maintenance. The city will need to reserve an access easement for the portion of the sidewalk that falls offsite. [6/8/07] The row for the existing street stub needs to be landscaped and maintained by this development (unless you wish to pursue the vacation process as discussed previously). Please update the landscape plans to reflect that and make the appropriate notes on the plan set. The DA will have language regarding this as well. [12/26/06] [7/4/06] Repeat. Final Compliance. The developer has two choices for the street stub's existing row. First choice is to research who would receive the row (neighbor to north? Or the other site's HOA?) and then work out an access easement to connect your sidewalk through there OR leave the row as is and then agree to maintain the area with this development's HOA. If this is the option you would prefer, then the sidewalk could be repositioned away from the lot to the south and the area could be landscaped as more of an entry feature to your development. [5/9/06] Need to show the existing rights of way and what you are planning to have vacated. Will need legals and exhibits for each proposed vacation along with an $800 filing fee for each vacation. Larimer County Filing Fees also apply but those will be determined at a later time. Number:49 Created:5/9/2006 Resolved [5/9/06] Parking stalls need to be 9x19'. Can overhang a sidewalk up to 2' and reduce the parking stall to 17' but the sidewalk width needs to be increased an additional 2' to make up for it. Number:50 Created:5/9/2006 Resolved [5/9/06] Does the sidewalk between the MF units off Cruiser qualify as a major pedestrian spine in lieu of a public street? Will need a utility coordination to make sure the utillities can serve the MF areas as proposed. Page 2 [6/20/07] Please tie the right and left flowlines into existing Number:239 Created:6/21/2007 Resolved [6/21/07] The landscape plan is showing the center island landscaped. Is this correct? Number:279 Created:10/26/2007 Resolved [5/17/101 [10/26/07] Erika Keeton with Pavement Management has the control joint pattern for the roundabout and comments (if any) are forthcoming. Please include the CDOT m-412-1 detail and note that epoxy coated dowels are not required by the City (its just a CDOT requirement that the dowels are epoxy coated). Please either add figure 8-15 to the detail sheet or add the note regarding the colored truck apron. Topic: Utility Plans - Signage and Striping Number:190 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] Morningstar striping must continue all the way to the intersection to the east. Please label existing street names in neighborhood to the west. Number:191 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] Brightwater striping must be continued all the way to Turnberry. If already existing, please show as existing and dimension so we can see that the proposed striping is tying into it correctly. Number:192 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] Please show and dimension existing striping on Turnberry and how your striping ties into it. Number:193 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07) Please provide type III barricades at all dead end sidewalks on this sheet. Topic: Utility Plans - Stormsewer Number:204 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] Stormsewer C cannot be located within a private lot. Please relocate. Number:205 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [5/17/10] [10/17/07] Repeat... Still have a cover problem on some of the pipes even with the encasements gone. [6/20/07) Structures (encasements, pipes) are not meeting requirements in 12.2.2 on sheets 245, 248, 250, 253. Topic: Utility Plans - Stormsewer Plan & Profile Number:275 Created:10/25/2007 Resolved [10/25/07] Sheet 243 - Please provide detail and sheet number for all encasements each sheet where applicable. Topic: Utility Plans - Turnberry Interim Cross Sections Number:231 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] Please show, label and dimension all slopes & row (existing and proposed). Show the ditch on the east side. Show the sidewalk and parkway on the west side. Number:232 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved Page 20 [6/20/07] Please provide cross sections every 50' for the ultimate Turnberry design. Topic: Utility Plans - Typical Sections Number:184 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] The typical cross section for the private drive (6) is not showing any UE's. Were any required by the utility companies or will they stay in the drive area? Also, remove all reference to "public alley" or "row". Number:185 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] Interim Turnberry cross section needs to dedicate row to the back of the proposed sidewalk as well as the 15' UE. A sidewalk is required in the interim and that is not shown either. Also, the row on the east side is shown as proposed. Is this being dedicated with this project or should this be labeled "future" instead? Number:186 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/071 Please provide a typical section for Ultimate Turnberry. Number:187 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] Please label Turnberry sections "from station XX to station XX". Number:188 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] Cross section 13 looks the same as 11. Number:189 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] Section 9 is showing barrow ditches on both sides of the street. Section 11 and 13 are showing this ditch filled in on both sides of the street. Are you filling in the east side ditch with this project? If not, is there enough room to add the bike lane in? We'll need to see more info on the plans. Sheet C298 isn't really showing the ditch, the existing row and how or how the proposed grading is tying into the existing. Can all of this work be done within the existing row? If not, this development will need to obtain the additional row to construct the proposed improvements. Topic: Utility Plans - Water Plan Number: 271 [5/17/10] Created:10/25/2007 Resolved [10/25/07] Please provide approximate limits of the street cuts and add the street cut note to the notes. Number:272 Created:10/25/2007 Resolved [5/17/10] [10/25/07] The project limits on sheet 193 do not include the offsite stormpipe and the street stub removal, please correct. Also, please add the reception number to the existing easement or you can put all easement information on the horizontal control sheet - whatever is easier for you. Number:273 Created:10/25/2007 Resolved [5/17/10] [10/25/07] Sheets 192 and 194 are missing info - not enough overlap. If you get rid of the Richards Lake info (not really needed) then you will have the space you need to get all of the info on. Page 21 Topic: Utility Plans -Sanitary sewer Plan Number:274 Created:10/25/2007 Resolved [5/17/10] [10/25/07] Show all street cuts - see redlines. Topic: Utillity Plans - Notes and Legend Number:172 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07) Please darken proposed intermediate (interim?) contours. The lighter lineweight makes it appear as existing. Missing existing features like row, ramps, sidewalks, etc. Topic: Utillity Plans - Phasing Plan Number:173 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] Please label the future city park. Number:174 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] Please replace the 9-ball sign (OM4-2)'s for type III barricades. Or are these the same things? : ) Number:175 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] The removals shown for the existing street stub east of Barnswallow appears to be incomplete. Do you not want the rest of the sidewalk and the rest of the street stub removed? Page 22 Selected Issues Report C'itt� at i�urE Callia�s Date: 7/29/2010 WATERS EDGE AT RICHARD'S LAKE PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS SELECTION CRITERIA: Department = Technical Services; Status = All ISSUES: Department: Technical Services Issue Contact: Jeff County Topic: Landscape Plans Number:295 Created:5/4/2010 Resolved [5/4/10] Please correct the line over text & text over text issues on the Landscape Plans. Topic: Plat Number:287 Created:5/4/2010 Pending [5/4/10] The boundary & legal close. Number:288 Created:5/4/2010 Resolved [5/4/10] Please correct "Heartfire PUD Filing One" to "Hearthfire PUD First Filing". Number:289 Created:5/4/2010 Resolved [5/4/10] All easements both existing & proposed, must be locatable. Number:290 Created:5/4/2010 Resolved [5/4/10] The Plat needs a note as to the restrictions in the oil well areas. Number:291 Created:5/4/2010 Resolved [5/4/10] Please define the use of all tracts. Number:292 Created:5/4/2010 Resolved [5/4/10] The Plat needs a note: Vacating existing easements affected by this plat, and re- dedicating as shown. Number:293 Created:5/4/2010 Resolved [5/4/10] The Plat needs a note: Existing right of ways affected by this plat have been vacated by separate document. Number:314 Created:6/28/2010 Resolved [6/28/10] There is one "Hearthfire PUD First Filing" reference, that did not get corrected. Number:315 Created:6/28/2010 Resolved [6/28/10] There are still Tracts that are not defined for use. Topic: Site Plan Number:294 Created:5/4/2010 Resolved [5/4/10] Please correct the mispelled word "alley" on sheet 4 of 17. Page 1 Z abed 'xady y}!M y000E) uyor jo pioM ayl uo paseq aejAw 01 Bu!oB sueld Al!mn ay} yl!M Ae� o s! AlleM 'sueld Al!I!in ay} panoidde �g paAoayo oqm sao!ivas leoluyoal u! (AlleM 12 mar) sn of snolnaad euoawos yl!M juaweei6e ue seM away} aou!s [06/9/L] Bu!puad OLOZ/9/L :pa}eaao gl,£ :aagwnN 'Mou aN!l Tool sueld ayj legm ao 'sueld ayl yl!M swalgojd ayj 10 9Bp91MOUN ou aney aM 'sueld asayl paMa!naJ sey SGOIN9S leoluyoal u! Alluaiino auo ou aou!s 'o6e sje9A Mal a sao!njas leoluyoal Aq p9ABNo 18 paMalnaj aJaM sueld 4mn ayj 'xady /M y000E) uyor aad 10 UOZ/91 Bu!puad 060Z/9Z/9 :pa}eaao £t,£ :aagwnN M91AW }xau ayl JOI way} aas o} paau UP aM 'sueld At!l!in ay} palnoi }ou aaaM aM IO M7/91 Bulpuad 060Z/t,/5 :pajeajo 96Z :jagwnN sueld Ailign : oidol Selected Issues Report C'itV of Fort Collins Date: 7/29/2010 WATERS EDGE AT RICHARD'S LAKE PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS SELECTION CRITERIA: Department = Traffic Operations; Status = All ISSUES: Department: Traffic Operations Issue Contact: Ward Stanford Topic: Landscape Plans Number:249 Created:10/13/2007 Unresolved [10/13/07] Nearly all internal street corners have trees indicated right about the PC's. This is too close for adeqaute signt distance of motorists and peds. Please do not place a tree within 40' feet of intersections and no ornamentals within 100' of an intersection, unless it's canopy height can meet sight distance requirements from initial planting. Number:250 Created:10/13/2007 Unresolved [10/13/07] Please coordinate the landscape plan (tree Planting) with the Engineers signing and striping plan. Trees should not be placed within 40' of the front of regulatory and cautionary street signage. Topic: Signing and Striping Number:248 Created:10/13/2007 Unresolved [10/13/07] Please provide signing and striping for Turnberry as it approaches Douglas Rd. Please show proper bay taper striping. Number:251 Created:10/13/2007 Unresolved [10/13/07] Please provide a seaparte and Larger signaing and striping plan for Turn berry adjacent to the site with full dimensioning for turn lanes and transitions. Topic: Traffic Number:93 Created:5/15/2006 Resolved [5/15/06] Per the Street Master Plan, Brightwater is the collector street and the portion of Morningstar west of the Parkside Dr is a Collector. The TIS indicates that more traffic will enter/exit the subdvision at Morningstar and Turnberry than at Brightwater and Turnberry. The TIS needs to include the expected volumes on Morningstar (east and west of the Rbt), and on the southern portion of Brightwater. Resolution: Neither street is expected to carry Collector volumes, and Morning Star is expected only carry volumes in the low end of a Connector Local street. Therefore Traffic does not have any further classification issues with the two streets. Number:94 Created:5/15/2006 Resolved [5/15/06] The TIS indicates the possibility of some streets being "over classified" and a re- evaluation may be appropriate. At this time and per the City Traffic Engineer, the City is not adverse to the developer doing the work to achieve the re-classification. The City will act as Page 1 the review and approval entity if the project development team chooses to undertake the reclassification work. Number:95 Created:5/15/2006 Unresolved [7/5/06] [5/15/06] Per the City Traffic Engineer, the Rbt shown internal to the project is too large. The inscribe diameter should not be greater than 100'. The large size promotes faster circulation speeds. Speed profiles and fastest path drawings should be developed and submitted with the revised Rbt. Number:96 Created:5/15/2006 Resolved [5/15/06] Scaling of the circulating roadway width indicates about 20-21'. The City recommendation is to hold the width no greater than 16' fl-apron edge, unless justification is provided to consider wider. After further review the Traffic Engineer has revised the width back to a 20' circulating width. Number:97 Created:5/15/2006 Unresolved [7/5/06] [5/15/06] Traffic has safety concerns with the proposed medians at the intersection of Morningstar and Turnberry. These wide medians are problematic for left turning traffic as well as thru movement traffic. Left turns have increased ability to conflict and and have a reduced ability to see advancing thru vehicles while trying to make their left turn. The medians are acceptable further into the project but they need to be significantly reduced, or eliminated at the Turnberry intersection. Number:98 Created:5/15/2006 Resolved [5/15/06] Morningstar does not meet any of the LCUASS local residential spec's. As such Traffic is basically ok with the median configuration (except at the Turnberry intersection), but believe the parking should be inset/recessed parking, versus an on -street configuration. The proposed configuration is wide and we would prefer to see more curb line and the crosswalk locations at a position to the left of the parking area, to improve visibility between motorists and peds. Traffic Engineer has accepted the non -inset parking. Number:99 Created:5/15/2006 Unresolved [7/5/06] [5/15/06] Per Fig 8-1 LCUASS and TIS Fig. 8 data, Turnberry @ Brightwater and Turnberry @ Morningstar require north bound left turn lanes. Number:100 Created:5/15/2006 Unresolved [7/5/06] [5/15/06] Per Fig. 8-1 LCUASS, any arterial intersection requires left turn lanes. This development is increasing the north bound left turn volume 6 fold at Douglas Rd and Turnberry. As such this development should provide the left turn lane or provide appropriate funding towards the future left turn lane at Douglas Rd. Number:101 Created:5/15/2006 Unresolved [7/5/06] [5/15/06] This project has completed its intersection capacity reservation at Lemay and Vine. Page 2 Number:102 Created:5/30/2006 Resolved [5/30/06] The 3 "court" streets are a problem for us. The accesses are too close together. The accesses need greater separation in line with City standards or possibly regular cul-de- sac configuration. Fleet Court is the most troubling due to its narrowly spaced accesses and it being opposed by Fleet drive. Too many turning conflicts at this location. These 3 Courts need to be revised with separation distances per City standards. This includes the median location at Gangway Drive as well. Number:121 Created:7/5/2006 Unresolved [7/5/06] Did not receive any plans for the second round of reviews. As such my comments are possibly incomplete. Number:122 Created:7/5/2006 Unresolved [7/5/06] TIS Response comments: The Rbt evaluations were based on the City ordinace. Since it was not stated as waived in the TIS Base Assumption, the eval's. were requested. No further comment on street reclassifications. City Traffic staff apparently did not get to comment on the Boma Property project and does not know why the project was not required to provide/assist with the NbLt lane at Turnberry and Douglas. The project is in the UGA and the LCUASS requirements dictate the arterial requirements. Regardless though, this development's responsibility for the NbLt is still required per the LCUASS, and its impacts. Number:123 Created:7/5/2006 Unresolved [7/5/06] Please provide Site, Landscape and Utility plans with the next submittal. Page 3 No Text Selected Issues Report C:'itvo.f Fort Collins Date: 7/29/2010 WATERS EDGE AT RICHARD'S LAKE PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLANS SELECTION CRITERIA: Department = Transportation Planning; Status = All ISSUES: Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Jennifer Petrik Topic: General Number:297 Created:5/5/2010 Pending [5/5/10] Bicycle parking is required at the club house. Parking facilities should be in a well light area, on a hard surface, convenient to the entrance and out of the elements if possible. Number:298 Created:5/5/2010 Pending [5/5/10] At roundabout, entrance and exit for bicycles to bypass roundabout along shared sidewalk section is required for all legs of intersection including streets that do not have bike lanes. Department: Transportation Planning Topic: Ped Connections Number: 85 Issue Contact: David Averill Created:5/15/2006 Resolved [5/15/06] Connection from Barnswallow Circle to Ganway; then through block as a more direct access to the future park. See redlined site plan for clarity. Number: 86 Created: 5/15/2006 Resolved[5/15/06] Please ensure that Tracts A,C,D,E, and F are designated as public access easements. Number:87 Created:5/15/2006 Resolved [5/15/06] Need ramps at the trail crossing of Navigator. Number:88 Created:5/15/2006 Resolved [5/15/06] Remove the ramps at the apex's of Jetty Ct., Fleet Ct., and Companion Ct. please. Number:89 Created:5/15/2006 Resolved [5/15/06] Please doubel check the cross -slopes of driving ways which cross sidewalks. The grade of the sidewalk cannot deviate over 2% and these crossings. Thanks. Number:90 Created:5/15/2006 Unresolved [7/5/06] repeat comment [5/15/06] Please show some striping and design for the piece of Brightwater that is to be taken from 'interim' to 'ultimate' with this proposal. Number: 91 Created:5/15/2006 Resolved Page 1 Number:58 Created:5/9/2006 Resolved [5/9/06] There are so many requirements not shown on the various plan sets that it is difficult to review this set with any detail. Some comments will change the layout slightly which may trigger more comments if the changes still do not meet standards. See LCUASS for all other standards and requirements not already commented on and bring the plan sets into conformance. More comments to follow when more detail is given. Number:80 Created:5/11/2006 Resolved [5/11/06] Please contact Eric Bracke regarding the roundabout design. Number:82 Created:5/11/2006 Resolved [5/11/06) See redlines for other comments. Jim - we might want to go over the typical street sections before you resubmit. I noticed you're mixing curb types with this one and we need to make sure its real clear what goes where. Thanks!! Number:104 Created:7/4/2006 Resolved [6/8/07] [12/26/06] [7/4/06] Before Hearing - Comment 100 by Ward Stanford in Traffic will require that this required left turn lane will have to be either designed and constructed with this development or just designed with an equivalent cash amount to construct it in the future in the form of a contribution in aid. I will bring the matter to Trans Coordination today if possible or next week at the latest. Will need a preliminary design/layout prior to going to hearing. Number:105 Created:7/4/2006 Resolved [12/26/06] [7/4/06] Final Compliance - The ramps at Jettyand Skiff are not correct. Please treat as a T-Intersection. Number:106 Created:7/4/2006 Resolved [12/26/06] [7/4/06] Before Hearing - Please provide a section through the proposed retaining wall on the north side of lots 112 and 113 so that we can determine if offsite easements are required. Please indicate the property line on the section and consider the excavation requirements to install the wall. How tall will it be? Will need bottem and top of wall spots on the utility plans. Number:107 Created:7/4/2006 Resolved [12/26/06] [7/4/06] Final Compliance - Missing ramps at Fleet and Morningstar as well as a ped refuge area in the median. Also, there is an extra ped refuge shown on Morningstar that has no purpose (located east side of Longboat), please remove. Number:109 Created:7/4/2006 Resolved [7/4/06] Before Hearing - The taper at Longboat and the alley is on the wrong side. It needs to be on the south side, not the north. Number:110 Created:7/4/2006 Resolved [12/26/06] [7/4/06] Final Compliance - Shouldn't the ramp and the sidewalk line up at the south side of the MF/Parkside and Cruiser? Page 3 [5/15/06] Can we get the ramp configurations at Brightwater/Fleet and Brig htwater/Long boat to provide a straigh crossing of the cross streets? See redlines for clarity. Page 2 Number:111 Created:7/4/2006 Resolved [5/17/10] [10/16/07] Just carrying this comment through until the DA. [6/20/07] (12/26/06] [7/4/06] Final Compliance - Please note on the Site and Utility Plans that driveway access will not be allowed for the "A" lots on Daysailor and Outrigger and that all garage/driveway access must occur off the alley or private drive. This note will also be made in the Development Agreement. Number:117 Created:7/4/2006 Resolved [12/26/06] [7/4/06] Driveways must be perpendicular to the road (plus or minus 10 degrees) for a minimum of 25'. Number:143 Created:12/26/2006 Resolved [12/26/06] All comments from the last round were carried forward because only a modification request was received with this round. Number:144 Created:12/28/2006 Resolved [12/28/06] The proposed median in the local street will not be landscaped or maintained by the city. In addition, it must remain in row (not in a tract) and no structures of any kind are allowed within it. Number:146 Created:12/28/2006 Resolved [12/28/06] A Utility Coordination is required to make sure the lots can be served with the proposed layout and before the layout can be approved. Number:165 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] The row along Turnberry needs to be dedicated to the ultimate cross section (including the right turn lane into the site) plus the 15' UE. Number:170 Created:6/20/2007 Pending [5/17/10] The wall heights do not match between the Site, Landscape and Utility Plans. Site plans say 1-2' and the Utility Plans are calling them out to be 4'? Please coordinate the plan sets so they are showing the same thing. [10/16/07] [6/20/07] Please show and label all retaining walls. Number:254 Created:10/16/2007 Pending [5/17/101 Please adjust the phase lines at lots 262 and 263 so that the lots can pull building permits for Phase 1. Lots 297 and 298 can not pull building permits until Phase 2. Please place a note on the plan sets (site, utility, landscape) to reflect that and I'll put that in the DA too. A note on the overall phasing sheets is fine John. I think that will work. [10/16/07] Phase I at Companion at Brightwater exceeds the 660' dead end maximum and needs to be terminated in a temp turnaround (see PFA for possible sprinkler requirements) OR build Brightwater to connect to Morningstar and your problem is solved. Both street frontages must be complete in order to pull a building permit for lot 272. You can either split the phase between lot 271 and 272 OR build the street along the south side of 272 in Phase 2. (See landscape redlines) Number: 285 Created:10/26/2007 Resolved Page 4 [5/17/10] [10/26/071 Traffic Engineering redlines were just received today and placed up at the front counter along with mine. Please add Traffic Engineering to the next routing on the submittal routing sheet. Number:311 Created:5/19/2010 Pending [5/19/10] Please show the previously dedicated row with Hearthfire and Richard's Lake on the Plat, Site, Landscape and the horizontal control sheet of the Utility Plans and place a note that says that the row has been vacated by Ordinance #. Then show the areas to be retained as the agreed upon easements on the same plan sets/sheets. Number:312 Created:5/19/2010 Pending [5/19/101 Remove the revisions from the revision block on the site and landscape plans before printing the mylars :) Topic: Grading Number:40 Created:5/9/2006 Resolved [5/9/06] Maximum drainage across a public sidewalk is 750sf or provide a sidewalk chase. Number:41 Created:5/9/2006 Resolved [12/26/06] [7/4/06] Final Compliance - Please show slope info. [5/9/06] Sidewalk grades are an issue. It appears that you are exceeding maximum slopes per ADA requirements. Please label all sidewalk slopes where appropriate. Number:108 Created:7/4/2006 Resolved [6/20/071 [12/26/06] [7/4/06] Before Hearing - Show existing grading for a minimum of 50' and tie proposed into existing. Hard to tell if offsite grading is occuring due to the large property boundary line weight. Will need to see this to determine if offsite easements are required. Please reduce the line weight widths on the extra thick ones for legibility - all sheets. I can push this to Final Compliance IF it is agreed that if offsite grading easements are needed and can't be obtained, then the grading will need to change to pull everything back on site. Topic: Landscape Plans Number:51 Created:5/9/2006 Resolved [5/9/06] All landscaping within the medians must conform to the sight distance note. There may be sight distance issues with the landscaping within the medians at the intersections along Morningstar. Number:52 Created:5/9/2006 Resolved [5/9/06] Show all utilities. Number:53 Created:5/9/2006 Resolved [5/9/06] Show, dimension, label all sight distance easements. Number:54 Created:5/9/2006 Resolved [5/9/06] Show, label, dimension all easements, row. Number:55 Created:5/9/2006 Pending Page 5 [5/17/10] [10/16/07] [6/8/07] [12/26/06] [7/4/06] Final Compliance - Just keeping this comment alive until these conditions are included in the DA. [5/9/06] Landscaping in the median will not be maintained by the city nor will any damage to the road caused by the irrigation system. All landscaping/road damage must be maintained by the development and the future HOA and language as such will be included in the Development Agreement. Landscape medians must include drainage facilities to handle sprinkler runoff and nuisance flows. Refer to Appendix C for all other requirements. Number:171 Created:6/20/2007 Resolved [6/20/07] Please show and label all retaining walls including TOW and BOW spot elevations. Number:233 Created:6/21/2007 Resolved [6/21/07] The landscaped center island is really nice but (unfortunately), the city won't allow artwork or anything else that might encourage people to walk out to the middle and look at it. The dry creek bed might come across as a pathway and people might start trying to cut through. Is there any way to end the path a little before the edge or hide the opening with planting materials so that people won't see it? Or do you have any other ideas Terence? We can talk about this more before you submit again. It wouldn't hurt to get Eric Bracke's take on it too. Number:234 Created:6/21/2007 Resolved [6/21/07] Show Phasing ... just a suggestion but what if you put this on the overall landscape plan sheet and take off some of the information so help with scannability. Or ?? Number:235 Created:6/21/2007 Resolved [6/21/07] Label and dimension all easements. Number:236 Created:6/21/2007 Resolved [6/21/07] Add sight distance note. Number:237 Created:6/21/2007 Resolved [6/21/07] Label/identify all retaining walls. Number:266 Created:10/25/2007 Pending [5/17/10] [10/25/071 Please see comments under "General". Number:310 Created:5/17/2010 Pending [5/17/10] Please label phasing on sheets 8 through 11. Topic: Overall Utility Plan Number:114 Created:7/4/2006 Resolved [12/26/06] [7/4/06] Final Compliance - Hard to read, probably won't scan. Suggest breaking this out into more sheets for legibility. Topic: Pavement Management Number:7 Created:5/8/2006 Resolved [7/4/06] [5/8/06] From Rick Richter: Some high swell soils, will need to address that in the pavement design later. Page 6 Topic: Ped Connections Number:9 Created:5/8/2006 Resolved [5/8/06] Need to provide ped connections to Beamreach and Catmaran Courts. Tract F needs to include an access easement in addition to drainage and utility easement specified. Number:19 Created:5/8/2006 Resolved [5/8/06] Provide enough space between lots 168 and 169 at the corner of Companion/Helmsman for the sidewalk connection in Tract A. Typically, an additional 2' is required on either side of the sidewalk at minimum but this might present landscaping problems. May want to make it wider or just put the whole width in concrete and widen out the sidewalk 4'. Topic: Plan and Profiles Number:115 Created:7/4/2006 Resolved [7/4/06] Final Compliance - Vertical curves must be designed in accordance with Figures 7- 17 and 7-18. Number:116 Created:7/4/2006 Resolved [7/4/06] Before Hearing - Provide a detail showing all the required dimensions in 7-24 for all street widenings on the appropriate plan and profile sheet. Number:136 Created:7/11/2006 Resolved [12/26/06] [7/11/06] Final Compliance - turn on existing layer. Topic: Plat Number: 63 [12/26/061 [7/4/06] Repeat. [5/9/06] From Technical Services: numbers do not match. Number: 64 [12/26/06] [7/4/06] Created:5/9/2006 Resolved Boundary and legal close but do not match. Several Created:5/9/2006 Resolved [5/9/06] From Technical Services: Please show ties to oil radii. Locate easement. Number:65 Created:5/9/2006 Resolved [7/4/06] [5/9/06] From Technical Services: Does the City own Tract J? If so, it should be excepted out of ownership. Number:66 Created:5/9/2006 Resolved [7/4/06] [5/9/06] From Technical Services: Sub title needs to be fixed to include unplated area of Richards Lake and except out the City owned parcel. Number:118 Created:7/4/2006 Pending [5/17/10] Boxelder has included easement language on the plat so they will need to sign the plat in addition to any other easement holder. Page 7 [10/16/07] A maintenance table was provided however, it also needs to say who owns it. [6/21/07] [12/26/06) [7/4/06] Provide a tract table (who owns and maintains each tract). Number:119 Created:7/4/2006 Resolved [6/8/07] [12/26/06] [7/4/06] Scanning requirements in Appendix E6 aren't being met. Number:133 Created:7/11/2006 Resolved [6/8/07] [12/26/06] [7/11/06] From Technical Services: Text over text and line over text. Please correct and see Appendix E6 for scanning requirements. Number:134 Created:7/11/2006 Resolved [6/8/07] [12/26/06] [7/11/06] From Technical Services: How was Turnbeny dedicated? Number:135 Created:7/11/2006 Resolved [12/26/06] [7/11/06] From Technical Services: This is a preliminary plat - will need to see again in Final Compliance for more detailed comments. Number:145 Created:12/28/2006 Resolved [6/20/07] Just checking .... do we have all of the easements needed by the utility companies or do we need to dedicate the 8' UE either side of the drive still? [12/28/06] An 8' utility easement is required on both sides of the "alleys" or private drives. Number: 155 [6/8/07] From Technical Services: Created:6/8/2007 Resolved 1. Boundary and legal close but do not match. See redlines. 2. Same problem with text and lines. Also line weight for lot boundaries is too light (fine) to reproduce. 3. Sheet 3 of 6 - "Apparent prescriptive easement", no such animal. Perscriptive easements are ejudicated, list case # and ruling. 4. There are a number of red line comments on plat - missing data, poor expression of data. The text quality is minimal - dithered test is not effective. Number:240 Created:6/21/2007 Resolved [6/21/07] Darken the "proposed line" and state what the line is for. See redlines. Number:241 Created:6/21/2007 Resolved [6/21/07] Correct the spelling of "site" in the sight distance easement label. Number: 247 [10/11/07] From Technical Services: Created:10/11/2007 Resolved 1. Boundary and legal close. 2. Remove "County Road #11 ". 3. See redlines - many concerns. 4. Lots must be shown as a whole on at least one sheet. 5. Show on the Plat how Turnberry was dedicated. 6. Line over text issues. Number: 308 Created: 5/17/2010 [5/17/101 Please see comments under "General". Pending Page 8 Topic: Site Plan Number:238 Created:6/21/2007 Resolved [6/21/07] See comments under Landscape Plans. Number:267 Created:10/25/2007 Pending [5/17/10] [10/25/07] Please see comments under "General". Number:309 Created:5/17/2010 Pending [5/17/101 Please label phasing on sheets 3 through 6. Topic: Soils Report Number:242 Created:6/21/2007 Resolved [6/21/071 Please provide a soils report and reference it on the cover sheet notes. Topic: Street Design Number:10 Created:5/8/2006 Resolved [5/8/06] There is existing row dedicated for Saratoga Corte to the north of this development and this project is required to design and construct the street to Serramonte Drive. This will reconfigure Companion Court and several lots. Number:12 Created:5/8/2006 Resolved [12/26/06] [7/4/06] Before Hearing - The proposed section of Morningstar west of Navigator does not tie into existing and does not meet standard. Why are there 10' sidewalks proposed for two sections west of the roundabout? [5/8/06] Only one typical section is provided for Morningstar when there appears to be three according to the horizontal control sheet in the utility plans. What are the typical sections for the remaining two? Will need to see these before any approvals are given. Number:13 Created:5/8/2006 Resolved [5/8/06] The median in Morningstar is being discussed and has not been approved as of yet. Number:14 Created:5/8/2006 Resolved [5/8/06] The T-Intersection at Gangway and Brightwater needs a ped ramp on the north side. Number:15 Created:5/8/2006 Resolved [5/8/06] The intersection of Morningstar and Parkside needs ped ramps on the east side. Number:16 Created:5/8/2006 Resolved [5/8/06] Remove the north south ped ramps on Gangway. Number:17 Created:5/8/2006 Resolved [7/4/06] Final Compliance - You could move the sidewalk connection over and away from lot 332. This area would need to be vacated as row and depending on how the row is dispersed back to either this development or the property owner to the north, a portion of it could become part of the Tract and the space used more efficiently. This development will need to contact our Real Estate Services department as soon as possible to start the process of vacating the existing Barnswallow street stub row. Page 9