TO: Don Wagner, Applicant
Ron Keeney, Architect
Chuck Rotgin, Applicant
FROM: Elaine K. Echols, AICP, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: Staff Comments on Application Plan submitted April 16, 2004
DATE: May 26, 2004
* * * * *
Please find below a consolidated list of staff comments on the above referenced plan. The staff report also contains substantive recommendations, which, if acted on, would need to be addressed on the Application Plan.
1. Sheet C-1 is inconsistent with the application plan. Please remove this sheet from the plan. Engineering will find it acceptable to rely upon sheet C.
2. Road comment 1-a from County comments provided April 1, 2004 has not been addressed. The shown right of way is inadequate, median break spacing is unacceptable, and the section relies upon use of the gutter for the bike lane, which is an unacceptable practice. The shown Leake Road section is considered acceptable.
3. Road comment 1-b has not been addressed. The shown typical section exceeds Engineering’s comment, but the right of way is still not adequate.
4. Road comment 1-c has not been addressed. The shown typical section exceeds Engineering’s comment, but the right of way is not adequate, the placement of the sidewalk is not acceptable, and the sidewalk is only shown on one side of this street.
5. Road comment 1-d has not been addressed. The road section is not consistent with Engineering’s recommendation and no typical section has been provided for the 4lane section of this street.
6. Road comment 1-e has not been addressed. No typical section has been provided and a crossover has been shown on this street despite Engineering’s previous objection to this crossover.
7. Road comment 1-f has not been addressed. No typical section has been provided and no commitment to any improvement has been offered.
8. Road comment 1-g has not been addressed. The shown residential street typical section would be applied to this street, but the proffer 10.2 is unacceptable with regard to restricting use of a public right of way..
9. Road comment 5 has not been addressed. The proffer is not consistent with the labeling on the plan.
10. Road comment 6. has not been addressed. The proffer is not consistent with the labeling on the plan.
Return to staff report