HomeMy WebLinkAboutLPA-23-016_Referral Comments BA responses_SupplementalLPA-23-016
108 Midland Avenue
Applicant response to comments provided in blue.
Parks Comments
1. Protection fencing along the property line to protect Snyder Park from encroachment.
Response: This will be noted on the building permit.
Establish a 6' lined fence one foot inside property line to keep activity out Snyder Park area.
Response: This will be noted on the building permit.
2. Tree removal plan will be required at Building permit stage.
Response: A tree removal plan is included in the application and will be further refined as part of
the building permit application.
3. Tree protection fencing will be required for all trees that are to be retained.
Response: This will be noted on the building permit.
4. No storage of material, equipment, or any activity is allowed in the TPZ (tree protection zone)
Response: This will be noted on the building permit.
5. Submit a new survey that includes trees along property line that borders Snyder Park so that a
determination can be made regarding impacts to those trees.
Response: Revised survey is attached – Exhibit 1.
6. Proposed driveway alignment will impact trees that the City Forester has not given removal
approval on yet.
Response: A site visit with the City Forester was conducted on April 11, 2023. Preliminary approval
was granted by the City Forester on site after understanding that City Engineering will not allow a
curb cut on Midland Avenue to access the property, and there is no other feasible location for a
driveway that meets Engineering and Fire access requirements.
7. Many trees being requested for removal are on the 104 Midland property as well as the Open
Space easement – Has the City Forester approved these removals?
Response: This was discussed and preliminarily approved by the City Forester on April 11, 2023.
8. Can the driveway be moved to save trees and created a safer entrance into these properties while
still allowing for access for FIRE?
Response: see response to number 6 above.
9. The architectural sheets do not match the Landscape sheets.
Response: Updated architectural sheet included (Exhibit 2). The landscape sheets are correct.
Engineering Comments
The Engineering Department supports development within the 30% slope area. Retaining walls to 30" in
height outside of the building envelope. Retaining wall sections that are over 30" will need to be clearly
shown within the building envelope and not encroaching into the setback to the west. Those sections
will also need a retaining wall detail that is stamped by a structural engineer.
Response: Retaining walls are less than 30” in the west setback facing Midland Avenue. Updated site plan
is attached. There was a discrepancy between the architectural site plan and the landscape/civil plan
which has been rectified in the revised architectural site plan (Exhibit 2).
Zoning Comments
Could you please provide the following:
• Have the surveyor add setbacks to the survey
Response: Updated survey attached- Exhibit 1.
• Ensure that the retaining wall over 30” is out of the setback – it’s shown as partially in the
setback on sheet A 0.02
Response: Retaining walls are less than 30” in the west setback facing Midland Avenue. Updated site plan
is attached. There was a discrepancy between the architectural site plan and the landscape/civil plan
which has been rectified in the revised architectural site plan.
• Details regarding the mechanical vault in the setback
Response: The proposed mechanical area is not a vault, but rather is a mechanical enclosure. A stone
fence that is 6’ in height shields the mechanical equipment from view. The area is open to the sky and the
mechanical equipment will meet setback requirements for height. Sections of this area are attached.
• Existing site plan with setbacks
Response: Please see Exhibit 2.
Attachments:
1 Updated survey with setbacks and trees between the 108 Midland property boundary
and Snyder Park.
2 Updated architectural site plan and mechanical area details.