HomeMy WebLinkAboutRIGDEN FARM THIRD PARKSIDE WEST - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2005-06-20ra
REVISION
COMMENT SHEET
DATE: June 13, 2001 TO: Technical Services
PROJECT: #56-98G Rigden Farm, 3rd Filing, Parkside West
- PDP/Final Compliance (LUC)
All comments must be received by Troy Jones in Current Planning
no later than the staff review meeting:
June 27, 2001
❑ No Comment
❑ Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
**PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE
REFERENCE**
t/ l
t_.) I o, V C �l L4 ?
o � t')
�p�11nfS "c��
TYuc� L�7 7
CHEC RF IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
Dat�T°t _ Site Drainage Report SignatuAer
Iffility RedGncUtlHy fan scap
I N r—1, d e d 1
lim
COLLINS AND SHOULD BE CLOSELY EXAMINED BY ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN
PURCHASING ANY PORTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT SITE."
3. ✓Addi io>�ahfight-of-way may nee�to be dedicated on Rockford Drive (Lois Lane) to accommodate
sidewalk. (Sidewalk isn't bb�g shown on the site'.plan.) There shouldn't be alog in the right -of --way
dedication at the intersection of Rockford Drive and Limon Drive.
4. -More comments may be made with resubmittal.
Utility Comments:
1. Is the sidewalk along the north edge of the property running parallel to Drake Road part of the
sidewalk for Drake Road or will another sidewalk be provided? 11-ds sidewalk is not in right-of-way. '
2. Additional contours and spot elevations should be provided to further clarify the grading plan. There
are solid lines on the plan set that aren't indicated; provide a detail of what these objects are. If these
objects are culverts, the additional grading information will help clarify how these are used which is
apparent to me on the plan set.
rI� 3.✓ Concrete pans are shown going over a sidewalk on the onsite utility plan, which is not allowed. In
addition, they are directing flows out to the street, which is not allowed to go over a sidewalk.
Culverts or other mitigation measures should be provided to not direct flows across the sidewalks.
4 f [For the onsite utility plan] The General Notes has been modified by the City. Enclosed is the current
version and should be incorporated into this and future submittals. This is available in electronic
format if desired.
5.-O� It appears that many of the details shown on the onsite utility plan set have been duplicated and a few
sheets can be saved through consolidation.
6. i Show the asphalt patches where streets cuts will take place. Add a note in reference to these patches
as follows: "Limits of street repair are approximate. Final limits to be determined in the field by the
City Engineering Inspector. All repairs to be in accordance with City Street repair standards."
7. Driveways are required to be concrete in the right-of-way to the property line. Please indicate this on
the site and utility plans. Also, please provide the "New Driveway Approach" detail for the
construction of the driveways.
8. /Who is providing the sidewalk adjacent to Limon Drive, or is it now existing?
9. - As previously noted., based on the soils report, groundwater in the overall Rigden area is as high as 8
feet below the surface. Are basements planned with this development? A site specific soils report
might be appropriate if basements are proposed to ascertain whether mitigation of groundwater is
needed. Because of lack of on -site information, I don't know whether a subdram system is proposed.
Additional comments may be made if a subdrain system is proposed/necessary.
IO `Additional continents may be made with the further clarification of onsite grading and drainage.
(see plans for any additional comments)
Development Review Comments — Page 2
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins.
Current Planning;
DATE: December 20, 2000 DEPT: ENGINEERING
PROJECT: #56-78G Rigden Farm, Parkside West — Type H LUC
PLANNER: Troy Jones
ENGINEER: Marc Virata
All comments must be received by: January 17, 2001
❑ No Problems
0 Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
General Continents:
l . As previously noted, two plats are not acceptable with this submittal, as two hearings would be
necessary with two applications. Please submit one plat for the review process, otherwise two
applications with separate hearings are required and the recordation process could be of issue.
2. As previously noted, orrly one utility plan set with all improvements should be submitted together,
complete with Title Page/Index, onsite utilities, grading, details, etc. Two different engineering fines
can be within the nine plan set. As an onsite utility and grading plan was also not received, only the
drainage and erosion control plan as part ofthe drainage report, comments are limited and additional
comments may be made upon resubmittal.
3. The timing of the construction along Drake Road with the (temporary and ultimate improvements]
and the construction of Rockford Drive in conjunction with this project should be discussed. With
the submittal of Ri;lden Farm 60' Filing, would it perhaps be more straightforward if Rockford Drive
was included as pat of that project?
4. As previously noted, overhead lines along the east property line need to be undergrounded with this
development. Provides notes on the utility/site plan indicating this.
Plat Comments:
1. The two plats don't seem to match each other with regards to the property dimensions. This seems to
be reflective in the on -site utility plan set which seems to show that the property line boundary does
not line up with the sidewalk. Please clarify.
2. [For the Plat submitted by Frederick Land Surveying] The existing conditions sheet attached to the
plat sheet will not be filed with the plat. Notice of Other Documents language has been revised.
Please modify this specific sentence to read as follows: "THE SAID DOCUMENTS MAY ALSO
BEAMENDED FROM TIME TO T7MEAND MAY INCLUDE, WITHOUT LIMITATION,
THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, SITE AND LANDSCAPE COVENANTS, FINAL SITE
PLAN, FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN, AND ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS, WHICH
DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF FORT
Date: January 18. 20011 Signature: -.-I-�
PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISI NS
(✓7 Plat Q Site 0 Utility 2Landscape ❑Drainage Report El NO COMMENTS -SUBMIT MYLARS
COLLINS AND SHOULD BE CLOSELY EXAMINED BY ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN
PURCHASING ANY PORTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT SITE."
3. Additional right-of-way may need to be dedicated on Rockford Drive (Lois Lane) to accommodate
sidewalk. (Sidewalk isn't being shown on the site plan.) There shouldn't be a jog in the right-of-way
dedication at the intersection of Rockford Drive and Limon Drive.
4. More comments may be made with resubmittal.
Utility Comments:
l . Is the sidewalk along the north edge of the property running parallel to Drake Road part of the
sidewalk for Drake Road or will another sidewalk be provided? This sidewalk is not in right-of-way.
2. Additional contours and spot elevations should be provided to further clarify the grading plan. There
are solid lines on the plan set that aren't indicated; provide a detail of what these objects are. If these
objects are culverts.. the additional grading information will help clarify how these are used which is
apparent to me on the plan set.
3. Concrete pans are shown going over a sidewalk on the onsite utility plan, which is not allowed. In
addition, they are directing flows out to the street, which is not allowed to go over a sidewalk.
Culverts or other mitigation measures should be provided to not direct flows across the sidewalks.
4. [For the onsite utility plan] The General Notes has been modified by the City. Enclosed is the current
version and should be incorporated into this and future submittals. This is available in electronic
format if desired.
5. It appears that many of the details shown on the onsite utility plan set have been duplicated and a few
sheets can be saved through consolidation.
6. Show the asphalt patches where streets cuts will take place. Add a note in reference to these patches
as follows: "Limits of street repair are approximate. Final limits to be determined in the field by the
City Engineering Inspector. All repairs to be in accordance with City Street repair standards."
7. Driveways are required to be concrete in the right-of-way to the property line. Please indicate this on
the site and utility plans. Also, please provide the "New Driveway Approach" detail for the
construction of the driveways.
8. Who is providing the sidewalk adjacent to Limon Drive, or is it now existing?
9. As previously noted, based on the soils report, groundwater in the overall Rigden area is as high as 8
feet below the surface. Are basements planned with this development? A site specific soils report
might be appropriate if basements are proposed to ascertain whether mitigation of groundwater is
needed. Because of lack of on -site information. I don't know whether a subdrain system is proposed_
Additional comments may be made if a subdrain system is proposed/necessary.
10. Additional conuuents may be made with the further clarification of onsite grading and drainage.
(see plans for any additional comments)
Development Review Comments — Page 2
REVISIO
COMMENT S
T
DATE: December 20, 2000 TO: Technical Services
PROJECT: #56-78G RIGDEN FARM, PARKSIDE WEST
PDP — TYPE 11 (LUC)
All comments must be received by Troy Jones in Current
Planning no later than the staff review meeting:
January; 2001
to
ElNo Comment
1-1 Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
**PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE
( REFERENCE**
I. BoT/-/ P/4�QCCGS G�oSE, J2 �N6//UEc'2/nJG�,e/Gr7E,v fjl,�jrl Fv�G 3� PEAT SNe� 5
/1 5r2AlGN? L IN t D a THE /,J, 1, /A) E fr ;EGT/ON , oa4 Qg-eOeJ5 5r40w A^)
EAk TNr A) 4 Cugmt,g. i�GtASE {�Ee/ }�,-�2E�2iC K �Pi92 rC S/Z)EWEST�
Yr_Ri LIASTr YocLou4NGD/FFE2rNLES BET��EJ LE�AG PGAT.
ALL Tp A, J` Ec-ri onl #THE #0k0JCe r / s /nl) 3 5/5 OFBa✓AQ//cYS,
`TThe.e- q rt +4ao fia�5 '�r +-k sovoe q re -a• — ll7�
W I l( e d ktit 0 &v W y1 i' e'1 o S Go V r-e' C.
be4)t--7e C-4«Re,e4
Date:
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
Plat _ Site _ Drainage Report Other
Utility Redline Utility landscape
Cn
Comments on Rigden Farms Parkside West
Identify and show crosswalk with ramp on the southside of the driveway, just north of the
median on Rigden Parkway.
2. Rename Rutherford Dr. to Rockford Dr.
Date: 01-10-01 Signature:
-� 'mac PROJECT
i••� COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins,
Current Plannine
DATE: August 31, 2000 TO: Technical Services
PROJECT: #56-98G Rigden Farm, Parkside West — Type II
(LUC)
All comments must be received by Troy Jones no later than the staff
review meeting: µ,K J
September 27, 2000
PWZiG>r�J,MBP
Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference
LEc,AL_ L LoSE. '�'c CF'940KS DE G✓EST� l �DEn) )
TH6 �9 m
.�� lAjNt Ct4 ��cAT /)o
!P
-Ci )e-J
Signature
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
_/Plat _Site Drainage Report _Other
_Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape
City of Fort Collins
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning
DATE: August 31, 2000 TO: Engineering Pavement
PROJECT: #56-98G Rigden Farm, Parkside West — Type II
(LUC)
All comments must be received by Troy Jones no later than the staff
review meeting:
September 27, 2000
Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference
%y6 CptMN'LP"J'-
Signature
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
—Plat Site _Drainage Report _Other
Utility _Redlin.e Utility __Landscape
M AMP
Citv of Fort Collins
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning
DATE: August 31, 2000 DEPT: ENGINEERING
PROJECT: #56-98G Rigden Farm, Parkside West — Type H LUC
PLANNER: Troy Jones
ENGINEER: Marc Virata
All comments must be received by September 27, 2000
❑ No Problems
0 Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
General Comments:
1. Lois Lane will most likely have to be renamed as the project to the south appears to be near
completion with the street then being platted as Rockford Drive.
2. Two plats are not acceptable with this submittal, as two hearings would be necessary with two
applications. Please submit one plat for the review process, otherwise two applications with separate
hearings are required.
3. Need one utility plan set with all improvements together, complete with Title Page/Index, onsite
utilities, fading, details, etc. Two different engineering firms can be within the same plan set. As an
onsite utility and grading plan was also not received, only the drainage and erosion control plan as
part of the drainage report, comments are limited and additional comments may be made upon
resubmittal.
4. General Notes on utility plans as well as plat language for the plat have not been checked because of
the multiple submittals.
5. Unless the project manager has been in contact with the various utility companies with specific
regards to this project, a utility coordination meeting is suggested to coordinate onsite utility
placement with the; onsite design. I can schedule this meeting.
6. A traffic study (or appropriate update) was not received for this project,
7. The Transportation Department has determined that prior to any building permits or certificates of
occupancy for this project (as well as the neighboring Parkside East), Drake Road needs to be
improved.
8. Overhead lines along the east property line need to be undergrounded with this development.
Provides notes on the utility/site plan indicating this.
Plat Comments:
1. Notice of Other Documents language has been revised. Please modify this specific sentence to read
as follows: "THE SAID DOCUMENTS .WAYALSO BEAMEADED FROM TIME TO TIME
AND MAY INCLUDE, WITHOUT LIMITATION. THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, SITE
Date: October 3, 2000 Signatures,
PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVIS NS i
2 Plat 10 Site 0 Utility 0 Landscape ❑ Drainage�2eport ❑ OCOMMENTS-SUBMIT MYLARS
AND LANDSCAPE COVENANTS, FINAL SITE PLAN, FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN, AND
ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS, WHICH DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND SHOULD BE CLOSELY
EXAMINED BY ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN PURCHASING ANY PORTION OF THE
DEVELOPMENT SITE."
2. It appears that additional utility, drainage, and access easements may need to be dedicated on site.
3. Additional right-of-way may need to be dedicated on Rockford Drive (Lois Lane) to accommodate
sidewalk. (Sidewalk isn't being shown on the site plan.) There shouldn't be a jog in the right-of-way
dedication at the intersection of Rockford Drive and Limon Drive.
4. More comments may be made with resubmittal.
Utility Comments:
1. Need a design of Drake Road with the project as the construction of onsite development needs Drake
Road improved.
2. As was required with the LaGrange multi -family project south of this project, radius style driveways
are not allowed where a private drive intersects a public street based on section 3.6.2(L)(2)(e) of the
Land Use Code. The private drives (intersecting with "Lois Lane" and "Rigden Parkway") are
required to use the "New Driveway Approach". (A modification is required for this change. Note
that City Staff will be proposing making this change in the Land Use Code and a modification could
be supported in this case, assuming the driveways meet the definition of "high volume" in the new
Street Standards".)
3. The crest and sag curves are too short for the Rockford Drive (Lois Lane) design. A minimum K
value of 30 for the crest condition and K value of 40 for the sag condition is required.
4. The radius style driveway connecting with Rigden Parkway appears to be in conflict with the access
ramp shown as part of the Rigden Filing One.
5. Limon Drive and Rockford Drive (Lois Lane) needs sidewalk adjacent to the roadway.
6. 9' of utility easement is needed along Limon Drive, not 6'.
7. Based on the soils report, groundwater in the overall Rigden area is as high as 8 feet below the
surface. Are basements planned with this development? A site specific soils report might be
appropriate if basements are proposed to ascertain whether mitigation of groundwater is needed.
Because of lack of on -site information, I don't know whether a subdrain system is proposed.
Additional comments may be made if a subdrain system is proposed/necessary.
8. Additional comments maybe made at the time of submittal of a complete utility plan set.
Development Review Comments — Page 2
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning
DATE: March 20, 2001
DEPT: ENGINEERING
PROJECT: #56-98G Rigden Farm, Parkside West — Type II LUC
PLANNER: Troy Jones
ENGINEER: Marc Virata
All comments must be received by April 11, 2001
❑ No Problems
0 Problems or Concems (see below or attached)
General Comments:
1. As previously noted, both utility plans need to be combined into one utility plan set with all
improvements together, complete with Title Page/Index, onsite utilities, grading, details, etc. Two
different engineering firms can be within the same plan set. This is required because in the City's
view, this is only one project with plat. Rockford Drive is a roadway adjacent to the platted property
and ergo is considered part of the project not separate.
2. Remove all references regarding who will perform obligations of improvements on the plan sets.
(Remove instances of "by Rigden Farm Developer" or "by others".) The City sees this entire
submittal strictly as ONE PLAN SET, ONE PROJECT (and will thus obligate improvements in the
Development Agreement upon ONE DEVELOPER.) Any agreements between the Parkside
Developer and overall Rigden Farm Developer are strictly outside of the City and will not be
expressed within the PDP submittal.
3. The sidewalk shown along Drake is measured out to only 4.5'. The sidewalk also appears to be 7
feet detached further than the sidewalk proposed on Drake east of Rigden and west of Rockford. The
sidewalk along this site may perhaps be further detached than the sidewalk along Drake connecting
this, but that is predicated on having good pedestrian connectivity and should not involve having
pedestrians to have to turn 90 degrees and head south in order to connect to the further detached
sidewalk. Please retook into this design. The current design also results in a sidewalk that is in a
utility easement, not right-of-way or even an access easement. Provide a typical street cross section
along Drake in order to ascertain the location of the sidewalk from the street, any drop off in grade,
and as a comparison between the cross sections shown as part of the Drake Road plan set. A meeting
with the two design engineers, Engineering, Stormwater, and Transportation Planning might be
beneficial in this regard.
4. Show spot elevations where redlined to help show drainage patterns. I would like to verify that in all
cases, no drainage from internal to the site is being directed over a sidewalk.
5. Better coordinate the two engineering designs; provide the driveway cut along Rockford Drive in
order to prevent having to sawcut the road after its construction.
Date: April 17, 2001 Signature
PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS'
R] Plat 2 Site 2 Utility Q Landscape ❑ Drainage Report ❑ NO COMMENTS -SUBMIT MYLARS
Plat Comments:
Plat language has since been revised. Please revise the plat language as attached (this is also
available in electronic format if desired.)
Site Plan Comments:
Indicate on the site plan that Rockford Drive is to be constructed with this project and that sidewalk
along Limon Drive is to be constructed with this project.
Development Review Comments — Page 2
REVISION
COMMENT SHEET
DATE: June l 3, 2001 TO: Engineering
PROJECT: #56-98G Rigden Farm, 3r`' Filing, Parkside West
- PDP/Final Compliance (LUC)
All comments must be received by Troy Jones in Current Planning
no later than the staff review meeting:
June 27, 2001
❑ No Comment
1-1 Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
"PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE
REFERENCE**
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
n,Aj� t Site Dreinage Report SignatuM�eC ---
Utility Redline Utility Landsu —
Citv of Fort Collins
REVISION
COMMENT SHEET
DATE: June 13, 2001 DEPT: ENGINEERING
PROJECT: #56-98G Rigden Farm, 3rd Filing, Parkside West
PLANNER: Troy Jones
ENGINEER: Marc Virata
All comments must be received by: June 27, 2001
❑ No Problems
2 Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
Plat Comments:
1. The private drive note states maintenance to be done by the Natural Resources Department, I don't
believe this is correct. The correct language is as attached:
Utility Plan Continents:
1. No design of Rockford Drive was included in the utility plan, thus issues regarding Rockford Drive
and not having two separate plan sets are riot know to be addressed or not.
2. As previous indicated...The sidewalk shown along Drake is measured out to only 4.5'. The sidewalk
also appears to be 7 feet detached further than the sidewalk proposed on Drake east of Rigdcn and
west of Rockford. The sidewalk along this site may perhaps be further detached than the sidewalk
along Drake connecting this, but that is predicated on having good pedestrian connectivity and should
not involve having pedestrians to have to turn 90 degrees and head south in order to connect to the
further detached sidewalk. Please relook into this design. The current design also results in a
sidewalk that is in a utility easement, not right-of-way or even an access easement. Provide a typical
street cross section along Drake in order to ascertain the location of the sidewalk from the street, any
drop off in grade, and as it comparison between the cross sections shown as partt of the Drake Road
plan set. A meeting with the two design engineers, Engineering, Stormwater, and Transportation
Planning might be beneficial in this regard.
Site Plan Comments:
1. The sidewalk along Rockford Drive appears to stop short of Limon. As previously noted, indicate on
the site plan that Rockford Drive is to be constructed with this project and that the sidewalk along
Limon Drive is to be constructed with this project.
Additional comments may be made with the submittal of additional infonnation.
Date: .June 25, 2001 Signature:
�y
PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISvcNS
M Plat ❑ Site 2 Utifity Q Landscape ❑ Drainage Report ❑ NO COMMENTS -SUBMIT MYLARS
Project Comments Sheet
Selected Departments
City of l'ort Collins
Current Planning
DATE: July 3, 2001
PROJECT: RJGDEN FARM, PARKSIDE WEST, PDP/FC, #56-98G
All comments must be received by TROY JONES in Current Planning no later than the staff
review meeting:
April 11, 2001
iVote - Please identify your redlines for future reference
Dept: Engineering
2 Issue Contact Marc Virata
Does Natural Resources desire to maintain the private drives?
Revise the plat note as shown on the attachment.
3 Issue Contact: Marc Virata
Comments from last round were not addressed regarding Drake Road and
Rockford Drive.
-Again, one utility plan set needs to be submitted for the development, not
separate plan for onsites and Rockford Drive.
-Again, the sidewalk along Drake Road is not to standard and appears to be too
far detached from Drake compared to the rest of the sidewalk along Drake.
-Again, a typical cross-section of Drake Road should be provided to see how
sidewalk improvements and grading is done and how they tie into the property.
-See previous comments from the last submittal for more explanation on these
comments.
4 Issue Contact: Marc Virata
A meeting with the two design engineers, Engineering, Stormwater, and
Transportation Planning might be beneficial to discuss the status of the plans
and the concerns with the design proposals along Rockford Drive and Drake
Road.
rnIM
5
Issue Contact Marc Virata
The sidewalk along Rockford Drive appears to stop short of Limon. As
previously noted, indicate on the site plan that Rockford Drive is to be
constructed with this project and that the sidewalk along Limon Drive is to be
constructed with this project.
Signtare Date
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
xPlat Site Drainage Report Other ___
�'J Utility Redline Utility Landscape
2 of 2
PROJECT
ElAft COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning
DATE: March 20, 2001 TO: Tech Svs
PROJECT: #56-98G RIGDEN FARMS, PARKSIDE WEST
* FINAL COMPLIANCE (L UC)
COMBINE WITH PDP FILE*
All comments must be received by Troy Jones in Current Planning no
later than the staff review meeting:
V �
April 11, 2001
Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference
G, PtK _',1h�'/<: � F �;:/ - ;r; r ��,;.,-i �f_'•�„� ir)c/�T E�� �f/b�,�nJ F'�,r' �;�,c �-{
T ! 4 �3 c cr TH 6 l �� i«fL' D 14/26 4 U
�
C F TH�� I
�I-
?���C
kY L` I tl �'.� ECt
Name (please print)
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
Pat Site _Drainage Report _Other
Utility Redline Utility _Landscape
6a
City of Fort Collins
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning,
DATE: December 20, 2000 DEPT: ENGINEERING
PROJECT: 456-78G Rigden Farm, Parkside West — Type B LUC
PLANNER: Troy Jones
ENGINEER: Marc Virata
All comments must be received by: January 17, 2001
❑ No Problems
0 Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
General Comments:
L As previously noted, two plats are not acceptable with this submittal, as two hearings would be
necessary with two applications. Please submit one plat for the review process, otherwise two
applications with separate hearings are required and the recordation process could be of issue.
y 2. As previously noted, only one utility plan set with all improvements should be submitted together,
i' complete with Title Page/Index, onsrte utilities, grading, details, etc. Two different engineering finns
can be within the same plan set. As an onsite utility and grading plan was also not received, only the
h Oifr drainage and erosion control plan as part of the drainage report, comments are limited and additional
comments may be made upon resubmittal.
3. The timing of the construction along Drake Road with the (temporary and ultimate improvements)
and the construction of Rockford Drive in conjunction with this project should be discussed. With
the submittal of Rigden Farm 6°1 Filing, would it perhaps be more straightforward if Rockford Drive
was included as put of that project?
4.V As previously noted, overhead lines along the east property line need to be undergrounded with this
development. Provides notes on the utility/site plan indicating this.
Plat Comments:
L/'Fhe two plats don't seem to match each other with regards to the property dimensions. This seems to
be reflective in the on -site utility plan set which seems to show that the property line boundary does
not lineup with the sidewalk. Please clarify.
2.,/ [For the Plat submitted by Frederick Land Surveying] The existing conditions sheet attached to the
plat sheet will not be filed with the plat. Notice of Other Documents language has been revised.
Please modify this specific sentence to read as follows: "THE SAID DOCUMENTS MAYALSO
BEAMENDED PROM TIME TO I'LIIEAND MAY INCLUDE, WITHOUT LIMITATION,
THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, SITE AND LANDSCAPE COVENANTS, FINAL SITE
PLAN, FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN. AND ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS, WHICH
DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN TI IF OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF FORT
Date: January 18, 2001 Signature:
PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISI NS
❑ Plat Z Site ❑ Utility 21 Landscape ❑ Drainage Report ❑ NO COMMENTS -SUBMIT MYLARS