Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneousR +~ SUBMIT APPLICATION AND THIS LIST CHECKED-OFF WITH 16 FOLDED COPIES OF SITE PLAN FOR REVIEW MINLMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR SITE PLAN PROPOSALS ((ALL CITT OORD~N~ ITED TOiTH E FOLLTOWING: INCLLII)ING BU ^" 1. Sheet size - 24" x 36" ^ 2. Title block to include: a.) Name, address, location, and legal description.... b.) Name, address, and telephone number of applicant c.) .Name, address, and telephone number of developer/owner d.) Narne, address, and. telephone number of architect/engineer e.) Date of submittal f) Total site area 3. Ownership and current zoning ofparcei and all. abutting parcels. l~ 4. 'A key map (not necessarily to scale)... C~ 5. Scale should be largest standard engineering scale possible on sheet. l~' 6. Provide a north arrow. ^° 7. Topography, final grading plan, and other pertinent drainage information. (If plan has too much information, show drainage on separate sheet.) 8. All existing streets, drives, buildings, .and water courses on or adjacent: to the proposed: project site. Cif 9. Locate. 100 yr. floodplain on or adjacent to the proposed project site, note. if there is none on the site. 10. Location and size of existing utilities within or adjacent to the proposed project site. 11. Proposed location, type, .and size of the following::. a.) Buildings and structures b)Off-Street parking areas with parking spaces drawn, tabulated, and dimensioned c.) Sidewalks d.) Common open. space sites e:) Sites for solid waste containers 12. Proposed streets, drives, and curb cuts: For each proposed curb cut (including driveways, streets, alleys, etc.) locate existing curb cuts on .the same and opposite side of the street to determine separation distances between existing andproposed curb cuts. Indicate .driveway. throat length as measured in the Driveway Ordinance. (See. Ordinance 1961 for driveway location and.design requirements.). ^ 1.3. The total. number of residential buildings:and units to be constructed on the proposed project site. G3~ 14. Landscape plan as required in Section 11 of the Zoning Ordinance (See Ordinance # 1638.) The landscaping `plan can be shown on a separate sheet if too much information is on the original site plan. Attempt to reduce or eliminate plantings in easements. Include information on the plan such as: a) existing landscaping to remain b) required point: calculations c) proposed new plantings with points earned 15. Indicate unit type (number of bedrooms).. ^ 16. The density of dwelling units. per acre. of the proposed project. ^ 17. The gross square footage of buildings and the pro}?osed Use of each building. ~ Staff Project .Review Committee Meeting Jan. 10, 1996 PARKING LOT PLAN Crystal Park Center (95-419) Requirements: Electric Service Request Form (see attached) fill out and return. ~~ fiemporary ket Easeme ` constructio urpo s (see atta d) fill ou a ,retur : ' Whe onstruc 'on co ete, meets bou s des ipti ~ easement ill necessary to release blanket. easement. (20 ft. easements). Developer-is responsible for 20% of the cost of electrical service. I ~ Developer installs all conduit per city design and requirements. Developer pours concrete transformer and junction box pads per city specs. Information Needed: uired Mam size. (Outside disconnect req. ) I Voltage (120/208 three phase or 277/480 three phase) Electric load data (Total KW of lighting, AC, ect.) L I I i I ~~ D CRYSTAL PARK Pj~ j b SS ~QP ~~ PS From: Jim Smith To: CITY HALL(SKUENZEL) Date: 9/25J95 11:3bam Subject: crystal park plaza -Reply I don't know how high. the container will need to be off of the ground. Note that the higher we go with the container, the higher the screening fence will need to be. Let me know... what you. come up with. Thanks!' ~~ 1 ''i i -- -- Bridgette George - Re: Karbrooke 9 (~ From: Bob Mosley To: Jan Schwartz Date: 10/9/00 2:59PM Subject: Re: Karbrooke In discussing this with Paul Urso, he indicated. that this is behind Chrystal Park Plaza and has been a problem fora long time. It is currently private maintenance and detention with a need to clean and maintain the area at regular intervals and a significant cost.. I assume that is the reason why they are wanting to dedicate it to the City so that the City will assume that responsibility. I do not know why we would want to assume responsibility for that. I would vote to leave it private. »> Jan Schwartz 10/09/00 02:18PM »> I'm sorry. I meant to attach a diagram. of the easement area. I'll refax it to you. They want to dedicate the easement to the city. »> Bob Mosley 10/09/00 02:02PM »> Concerning your fax, is Karbrooke trying to dedicate a drainage easement for maintenance by the.: City or, as you described, are they are "requesting" it from the City? It appears that they own the property where the drainage easement is described. From looking at the Kerr survey graphics, i cannot determine where the parcel is located. Some time ago I remembered receipt of something about Karbrooke from Horlen, Holt & Hollis, PLLC. Not knowing what it was all about or why I had received it, I assume it got filed in our storage area. The memo (attached) dated June 5th was sent to the attorneys in response to their inquiry about not having received a response.. I am still unclear what this is all about. CC: Bridgette George; Mark Smith; Paul Urso yv .vTq{r k:: { ,,~,.;>..;. .,..-...... - • • ~•,~~ GlT1` 4?~' ~QLl..i~~E ~;TATtON `-"`;':';':':::'•;'.;:`::`:::`:• ~, x 7 \ 1 •.y"t't't' i~ ~~~'.-vvt-vvvvv\-v\.\.\. J'•J':~;:J~:t•:'J r (3EUElUPPiE~;T` ~•IERUi~ES `~:,...,i.,r.l.~.,~.t.e.t.[.r.r.!•r•J•J J r t. •. t t•.Jt J` ~f\•.'t,• ~; t `a ,fir\.\-1 \ \ \ \ \ l \ l l l \ \ \ \ \ \ \•\ l' \ ,',.,\.,.\.'.....;,,\.,•,- 1i0i TEXAS ALiE },~_,:,,., r rJ J r JJJ• J JJ:1 .r r n r JJJ `: ~ ~ • \ •: \ \ J!•r-rr•J•r J r.r.J..•.r .:•r•r•r•J•J•rJ•r.J•r•J .•r•.•r•J J! J.J. J r J r J J J..':'J•J•J•;~ ~•t}LLE~E ~TATIClIV, TEXAS 7784Q _r.:••.':•••\~•~•~•~\~•~\•••••\••~•••••\•••~-••,••••••••••-••\•,• •.•\.\.,,.\.~•t.~.y•\•\•\•\•\•\-..\•\•\•\•\•\.\•\•\• ~,jt.r.:.r.J.J.;.J.J...;.J.J.r.r.J.r.J.r.J.J.r.r.r.J...r.J...r.;.r ~.. ;.J.,.J.J.J.J.:.J.J.r.J.:.J.J.;.J.J.J.J.J.J.J.! \.\.\.\.;.\.:•\•\•\•\•\•\•\•t•\•\•\•\•\•\•t•\•\'\'\•\•\•\•\•'~•\,. Facsimile Cover Sheet `____ Company: ~ Phone: Fax: __~ / ~ - /S~-~ G~ Fr®m: Company: Phone. ~ --~ S `7,~) Fax: ®ate: S i Pages including this cover page: .~ A~R~~r~~ Cowmen#s: ~; ~~~~ 1~C/G 7-c~ ~~°~~ mr.% ~I ~A~ . __~t ~t.- F J J f!! J I J t J•J-J J-i -; ~J•J ~: ~,~. ~J r rrJJJ JJJJ JJJ.r.>•r4 +~l J l J J 7 J J/ J I r r J J J I J J-r•i •r• t•1 t•1 t 1 1.1 1 1 4•\•1•t•\•• ;..J.x.J.J:J.J./•J •J•J•l•J.J. e. J.J. J.J.~.J.J. \,~•\,\,\.y.\•i•t•\.4.\.l.t.t.\.\. t...\.4.\ r•r•J•rJV.J.J.r.>.J.r.J.r.J.J.J.J.J.J.J. .i •J~J,J~J~i+J•J,J'J•!'J•J'J'J`J ''(,~~. .J.J.J.J.J.J.t.J.J.r.r.:.J., rJ`J-J.J•J.J.J•J.i•F •!•!•i•I•J•J•J •J •J •J,J •.•. r•J•J q F~ ..\.\. \.\.l.\.\.\.}.\. `..t•v\•\•yy . f 1 ! J ! J i•J~J•I•J•J •1 •f•!•J•J •i~r•r•J~f •i•r•J•fl .f..... .JaJaJa t `JtJtJ •J•J'J•J4J'!• `11J\,1`4F\,1 \t\'l•\t v/9 ~~' ~ .~ -~S ~-r~Di~ Pf ~t a~Z~ c~~J DRAINAGE ANALYSIS ~,~5 ~.,~.c.c- t~ ~Y ; .~ ~,~e-~ ~~ Ac-L w ore ~ /~! ~G~~ ~ I FOR ~c~G°~~/eh'C? o~.! a,~ r ~ ~ ~ vnv7~L e~-~~ s ~P2~~~ ~,~~ Block ~~~,~~ ,~- ~~-min-" ~ ~ ss~c~ University Park, Secton_ Ii Richard Carter Survey, A-8 ~~ ~ ~~7u2 uE~ ~/ ~ , College Station, Texas ~,,t ~S m ~=~7-5~ L'~_ October 27, .1993 Revised May 13, 1996 DEVELOPED BY° Scott Eidson 2700 East Bypass Suite 2000 College Station, TX .77845 (409) 693-2467 PREPARED BY: Kling Engineering. & Surveying 4103 Texas Avenue, Suite 212 Bryan, TX 77802. (409) 846-6212 _, :y, Drainage. Analysis Block "Y° University Park, Section II Richard Carter Survey, A-8 College Station, Texas Block "Y"- is located near the intersection of Spring Loop and University Drive and is currently undeveloped. The .tract. is approximately 1.218 acres and is mostly wooded with some open areas. The west half of the tract is impacted by a tributary to Burton Creek while the remainder is cut by several smaller drainageways and gullet's. The owner is proposing to stockpile material on the east portion of the .site. Maximum fill slopes will. be 4:1 with a .maximum height of 5' . Erosion protections (hay bales) will be installed on the downstream side. This material is .excavated silt that had collected in the culverts at .the Crystal Park Plaza parking lot. The majority of the tract is within the 100 Year Flood Hazard Area, but is not within any portion of a Floodway area,'according to the Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 48041C0142C for .College Station, Texas. A .portion of the area. used by the existing stockpiled material does encroach into the floodplain which is permitted by F.E.M.A. sfh4u. - ' The fill area will be seeded and silt fencing or haybales ou be placed along the creek side of the area receiving fill until grass cover, adequate to prevent erosion, is established. In summary, the placement of fill material does encroach into the floodplain, but ~ the floodway (this stream has no floodway). The existing material will be cleared: of organic material, graded to drain, seededy and protected from erosion. An increase in peak runoff is not expected since ultimately the ground cover will return to its original state. "I hereby certify that this report (plan) for the drainage design of Block "Y" was prepared by me (or under my supervision) in accordance with the provisions of the-City,~~~ege Station Drainage Policy and Design Standards for the owners thereof." ~ ~ ~'" ~'~h ~~ ~;e °~~~~ ~r Registered Professional State of Texas No. 24705 kea-93-03b: \bikyunv.prlt ~P (1,, l C.. 3 (so~w~, o tJE w I ((, nl ~% f)mol,~,~ ot- 21ST -~'j-L~ M ~ f~ l C, ~f 7~ O F r JL 24705 ~~~ a.r.-~ .. .~ ~.AY[B~® ~tL ~C~-~4 ~E~7M~ 'T~'I1S ~C.OG(C o~ G~~ To Sc"Z~ /N~ '~~I-4T (> 1( C... I nt'~ I ~Z~ -T~-~'tS ~f lL~t~st''D °F-/C.L~ f~5 ~~1~/C.t4a-i~ STD ~-i4lSC ~~ L.~l~~'Q C..L-Z~L~S.. TO T?'~'AT -~ i ~-1c= s-t 22cx~,,~11~ irL G cam.?-G~'S. FILE .NOTE Date: May 20, 1996 To: DDP File -Block Y, University Park II Frorn: Steve Homeyer Graduate Engineer S I met with Scott Eidson at Block "Y" University Park II on May 17, 1996. He has filled in a channel and has rerouted it onto TxDOT right-of-way. stated that l was concerned with this unapproved fill and that I did not have a drainage report to satisfy the City's drainage ordinance. I also stated that TxDOT would .need to approve this channel since it was. on their ROW. was_able to get with Jay_ Page from TxDOT at the site on Friday also. The three of us discussed what would be required to correct this problem.. This morning, Jay called me back and said that Pat Williams wanted to see what was going to be proposed. I told him that I would forward any information submitted for their review. The .following. are requirements indicated. to Stuart Kling, Scott's engineer, necessary #or the City's review: 1. Submit a plan. sheet that .indicates. the location of the existing (old) channel and the proposed channel. The proposed channel should be as close to the trees without jeopardizing their root. system, It would be OK if the .channel was on the ROW if it was as far back as possible. 2. In addition to the plan sheet,. a profi a of the proposed channel and a typical section will also need. to be submitted. 3. The .proposed side slopes show d be no greater than 4:1. 4. A drainage report must be submitted. to determine the velocities within the channel. to indicate whether or not the channel would need to be lined. When I cal ed Stuart this. morning, he said that he would try to have the information in .for .review by Friday,. May 24 or the first part of the following week. cc: Veronica Morgan: r/S`hirley Volk ~~~~ ~~~ ,~,~ ti ~ ~,~,~ ~ aE~~Ew~~s.oR. ~9~,sss CRYSTAL PARK CENTER Applicant submitted site, grading & drainage plan for review 9-22-95 Staff determined there were too many problems concerning fl®odplain/floodway with the plans submitted; no PRC scheduled. i .~ A~ ~'~ ~~~~~ ~r 4~'~ k~°~~ 9-28-95 Staff had "predevelopment type" meeting with Scott Eidsonand Karl Pitts of Karbrooke (applicant) Stewart Kling and Fred Payne of Kting Engineering (applicant's engineer) to discuss problems identified on plans submitted on 9-19. Staff recommended scheduling a drainage conference to discuss the floodplain/floodway/detention problems in depth. 12-13-95 a Applicant submitted 4 sets of revised plans for review. (Development Coordinator made a mistake at`this time in that the plans were routed for review by Planning, Engineering & Electric staff -without having held a PRC review of the plans. 12-19-95 Development Coordinator called applicant to tell him Planning. Staff still had some questions regarding the location of .property lines and. the setback (24 foot landscape reserve for streetscape), and additionally that Engineering comments had not yet been received. 12-29-95 Development Coordinator called. applicant to tell him Engineering Staff had completed preliminary review of preliminary plans, and are ready to be picked up to use to prepare site plan for submittal for PRC review. 1-3-96 Applicant submitted 16 sets of plans for formal review by PRC 1-10-96 PRC review held; site plan approved with comments; comments sent to applicant on 1-12-96 1-30-96 Applicant submitted 4 sets of plans for review 2-9-96 Review completed and plans returned for minor corrections TO DATE, NO BUILDING PLANS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE CITY FOR REVIEW; THEREFORE, NEITHER A BUILDING PERMIT NOR A SLAB PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED. HOWEVER, A DRAINAGE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT COULD PROBABLY BE ISSUED WITH THE CIVIL PLAl~JS THE CITY HAS RE!/IEWED TO DATE.. THE COMMENTS MADE ON THE LAST SET OF PLANS ARE SO MINOR THEY CAN BE HANDLED BY WRITTEN RESPONSE, WITH EXCEPTION OF A DRIVEWAY CONFIGURATION WHICH WAS DIFFERENT FROM ANYTHING PREVIOUSLY REVIEW, AND DID NOT MEET OUR MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. c~ CRYSTAL PARK CHRONOLOGY February 16, 1996 3/7/94 Request for Driveway Permit 3/10/94 Driveway Permit Granted 9/7/94 Request for Fill Permit 9/15/94 Fill Permit Granted 11/30/94 Request to .place fill material in the floodplain but not floodway 12/15/94 Discussion with Engineer regarding floodway determination Staff concern was regarding the means by which the .floodway was shown and .determined. Engineer, agreed to revise floodway, using the BFE numbers from FEMA instead of FEIVIA's graphical interpretation. 2/15/95 Revised floodway calculations from Engineer 2/20/95 Approval of revised floodway calculations 2/28/95 Request for Fill Permit 3/16/95 Fill Permit Granted Date: ??? Request to Construct approximately 8' high Retaining Wall ~- Date: ??? Discussion with Engineer regarding retaining wall and intent of the wall. Staff concern was that the .wall .would be defining an edge of a proposed parking lot. Engineer confirmed. that this was indeed the... purpose of the wall Staff explained that the. wall could not be approved at ,this time because a site plan had not been reviewed, much less approved. Staff explained that the wall could be reviewed and approved once a ',site plan was approved. which would establish the parking lot/building layout. Rec°d 6/2/95: Clint Bertrand impact study. / Ret'd '??? /' Rec°d 7/17/95: Clint Bertrand impact study -- revised No Return We kept this for our files, as it was complete. o:\deve ser\gladness\chrono.doc Recd 8/4/95: Crystal Park Center: Placed Water Line Plans on Hold Engineer's Estimate for WL Request for O.P. for WL Engineer was informed that due. to the fact that a site plan has not been submitted or approved, waterline plans would be placed on hold until that occurred. Water .line plans established fire hydrant locations on site. (Fire hydrant locations again depend entirely on buildings location/parking lot layout -which staff had not seen,) Recd 12/7/95. Ret'd 12/14/95:Crystal Park Center: Revised Water Line Plans Grading Plans The grading plan, I believe, was simply used as a reference sheen for the waterline layout, not as a separate design for review. Recd 12/13/95:Crystal Park Center: Placed on Hold Site Construction Documents Since this project had not yet been to PRC for review, we performed only a cursory review of the these sheets, explaining.. that PRC could yield additional concerns. These plans were .also held until receipt of a revised drainage report, since the drainage design will affect the site construction. Rec°d 12/19/95:Ceystal Park Center: Ret°d 1/10/96 Drainage Development Permit Application Ret'd 1/10/96 Revised Drainage Report Ret°d 12/29/95 Site Construction Documents Recd 2/2/96 Ret'd 2/7/96:. Crystal Park Center: Water Line Plans for City's Approval Engineer was informed that these plans were ready to be approved for construction. However, there were unresolved parking lot changes which needed to be drawn, based on a small triangle of property which did not belong... to this developer. Since the parking lot configuration affects the fire lane placement, we will eventually need to see the configuration with respect to the waterline, etc. Expressed to engineer that such changes can be handled as ' an "As-Built" submittal in the interest of allowing construction of the waterline to begin. o.\deve_ser\gladness\chrono.doc Rec"d 1/31/96 Ret'd 2/9/96: Crystal Park Center: Revised Site Construction Documents Grading/Drainage Plans This .review was late because staff overlooked the plans in the review room. Other than the cursory review comments which -.had been made in December, this was our first time to review a complete grading plan. o.\deve ser\gladness\cf~rono.doc From: Veronica Morgan To: svolkshomeyer,klaza,ehard Date: 3/26/96 1:SOpm Subject: crystal park plaza texdot permit Shirley, please notify crystal park folks that we rdceived the approved texdot permit back for the driveway. pat Williams signed it but expressed to Steve that he didnt want to make this common practice that we let people extend their radius into others property extension (but within rovv). steve explained to pat that the driveway. was existing, has safety problems and we wouldnt do this<for a new driveway. soooo, the moral of this story is we wont do this again unless we have no other options.....:(which ithink was the case here) thanks. From: Sabina Kuenzel To: jsmth Date: 9/25:/95 10:41am Subject: crystalpark plaza -v and i looked at the plan this morning and the dumpster appears to be in the floodplain. only the front .portion of the site is out of the floodplain, which is no good for streetscape. other than the floodplain issue i Like the 'proposed location (with your redesign),. perhaps they will-be able to get the dumpster high enough to bring it out of the floodplain elevation (like we did with the Charleston apartments off of balcones). CC: vmorgan, jkee ro ydy~ `~ ~, w ° c W. co ~ r. ~ .. ~ n~ w ~+ r 0 ~r b roNc~4 ~ ~~rt~ ~~ r , ~ ~, rnx~ K m ~~rt '~ f, •. ~ x " ~ -' a a ~ ~ N k'S ~ ~ r a ~ ~ a rt m n ~ ° o . ~o ~ `° rn z 0 b n 0 tr r m 3 ~~~ i i From: Jim Smith To: City HaII.SKUENZEL Date: 9/21 /95 3:51 pm Subject: PRC -Wednesday, September 27, 1.995 Oil Well Permit - TAMIJ Will No. 2: No problems Parking Lot Plan -Crystal Park Center (95-419): Problem with container; ,This appears to be a 400 gallon location notated on the site plan. I have redesigned for FEL and will .send. a drawing o you through Inter-Departmental mail. Contact me if you have any questions. Thanks. Ij r ~=255,13 \ ~ INSTALL M,J, ALL 1z' 8' ..TEE \ ~,. ~ ~ BEGIN 8' WATER LINE. ~ ~~ ~ ';: INSTALL $` GATE VALVE & BOX ~~~ ~~ a \ HANDICA ACCESS`\. \ ,, i~^\ \ \. f ~S~~~V ei ~'~.,\ ~ - ~ \ '~ EXISTING "SIDEWAL ~`;\~ \ r \ ~~ ~ EXTEND I2' `~ \ ~ ~ '"' WATER. LINE \~>` ~ ~ \\ " j - \ ~\~\ \ ~` \ e. ~,,, ~ ~,., ~, ~ ~- ., \ .\~ ,. i p ~~~ r' '~ - `~~ z I~ ,(~~ ~~ ~ _ \ ab _ ~~ /~ ab \ ~ / 4 84• ~~ PRtIPaSED BUILDING ~~ ~ 28859 SQ. FT. 7 ~, ~ ` , '~ --~\ 15 \ ]SED 2' SERVICE LINE ~ ; ~ `~ \ ~ `~ ~ - ~ ~fA ~ `\\ ~o ~ DAYLIGHT PIPE \ c ~ 9 i 2 ~\ ~~ ~ s-o ~ ~ ~ WM ~' ~ ~ l ~ MAI-3 SERVICE ,; 90 :TE ~ 1 r ~ q~, ~ ~ ~ ' o \ R .~ - ~ o ~ . o ~ / ~ . '' ~ 2 / ~~ ~ ~ 2t1' R , 'i / '4 aaT nan DUMPSTER LOCATIDN`\ $ . - - _ _ - Y -_._-._- ---=~- -- --- `' -_ sew - - _. - - -. - - - ~.,c SN1 - -c - -- -- - - --- -~ ~ - - i _ ~ w -..~ -- - - _ _ - - ~ _ _ v __ ---- ----~ L SERVICE TAP From: Steve Homeyer To: ENGINEERING, PLt1NNING Date: 3/21/96 11:47am Subject: Karbrooke Driveway This morning, Pat Williams with TxDOT called regarding the driveway radii at the above location. He was concerned with the radius point extending ~ beyond the projection of the property line. I stated to him that this. was an existing driveway to Crystal Park Plaza and that they were trying to squeeze a !. smaller radius in thatwould stay within their property lines, butthat we felt it would create a safety problem. I also stated that we have an ordinance that would preclude a driveway. being constructed within a predefined distance if in the future a development were to occur on the adjacent property. He said he would approve the pernut under those conditions, but asked if we would only do this under extenuating circumstances. I told him that we do require compliance under nornlal conditions, but this was one of those extenuating circumstances. ~;~ 18. Designate number ofparking spaces required by ordinance and provided by proposal. 19. Show dimensions t~ size :and locate all structures, parking spaces, drives,. curb cuts, parking islands, and setbacks. ^ 20. Are there impact fees associated with this. development? 21. Provide a water and. sanitary sewer legend to include water demands (minimum,. maximum and average demands in gallons per minute) and sewer loadings (maxinunn demands in gallons per day). 22. Show all meter locations and note their sizes. The following are typical standards for Plan Development established by Ordinance or Policy: ^ 1. Building separation is a mini~rnun of 15 feet: ^ 2. Building setbacks are outlined in Ordinance 1638, Zoning Ordinance, Table A (Sec. 7, P. 30). 3. Minimum parking space is 9' X 20', or on a perimeter row, 9' x 18' with a 2' overhang. Minimum drive width is 23' with head-in parki-~g or 20' without parking. l~ 5. Raised landscaped islands, (6" raised curb) of a minimum. of 180 sq. ft. are located at both ends of every parking row. Additionally, 180 sq. ft. of landscaping for every 15 interior parking spaces must be provided. l~ 6. Streetscape compliance is required which involves special plantings along streets specified in the City's ,/' Streetscape Plan.. ~ 7. A 6" raised curb is required around al{ edges of all parts of all paved areas without exception. (To include islands,. planting areas, .access ways, dumpster- locations, utility pads,, etc.) Curb detail to be ~nroved by City.. Engineer. No exceptions.. will be made. for .areas. designated as "reserved for future parking" ^ 8. Wheelstops may be required on interior rows longer han 10 spaces or in special situations. ^ 9. Sidewalks are required at time of development if property has frontage on a street shown on the sidewalk Master Plan or if the Project Review Committee determines the necessity.. (Refer to Section /`10.2 of the Zoninb Ordinance). l~' 10. Locations. of dumpsters shall be such. that dumpsters are not visible from streets. Gates are discouraged and. visual screening is required, C~' l 1. Healthy, native trees over 6" in caliper should be retained whenever possible: 12. Fire lanes. of a minimum of 20 feet in width with a minimum height clearance of 14 feet. must be established if any structure of any type is more xhan 150 feet from a public street or highway. l~' 13. Any structure in any zoning district other than R-1, R-lA, or R-2 .must be within 300 feet of a fire hydrant as measured along a public street or highway: ~'I 14. Fire hydrants must be located on the same side of a major street as a project, and shall be in a location approved by the .City Engineer. ^ 15. Fire hydrants must be operable and accepted by the City and drives -must have an all weather surface ~ before a building permit can be issued. C>~ 16. A twenty four foot setback from R:O.W. to curb of parking lot is required. Parking may be allowed in this area up to a maximum of 7 contiguous spaces. , l~ 17. All plans must include irrigation systems for. landscahing. Irrigation meters are. separate from the regular .water s}~sterl~s for buildings and must. be-sizedaccordingly and include backflow prevention protection.