Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT, MULTI-FAMILY - FDP - FDP150048 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - REVISIONS1 Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview October 26, 2015 Dean Barber McWhinney Real Estate Services Inc. c/o JPL Development 2725 Rocky Mountain Avenue Loveland, CO 80538 RE: Foothills Mall Redevelopment Multi-Family, MJA150002, Round Number 2 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Ted Shepard, at 970-221-6343 or tshepard@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 6. Comment Originated: 05/20/2015 05/20/2015: For Building D-2 at the corner of Stanford Road and the Mall Access Drive, the building is only nine feet set back from property line. This building is called out to be a combination of two and three stories. Is the building two stories at this nine foot setback condition? If not, and there are three stories at the nine foot setback line, then the applicant is encouraged to create a 45-degree angle at the building corner and accent this angle with projecting bay windows on the upper floors. In addition, landscaping in this area should be enhanced. Please provide a sight distance triangle for this intersection and then upgrade the landscaping outside this triangle. RESPONSE: The building design will not be changed to decrease the reduction of the building into the setback. The landscape design is enhanced in this area in order to provide a equal to / better than requirement. Carried Over: 10/21/2015: The response is that the building remains three stories at the intersection, with a nine- foot setback, and the mitigation is that there are balconies. Staff remains concerned that this treatment of the relationship between the building and the public street is not equal to or better than a building at the 15-foot setback. The mere reliance on balconies does not mitigate that height and mass at the reduced setback. The design of this building must be customized to fit the requested setback. The prototype rectangular building does not fit this location. Per our staff review meeting of October 21st, there needs to be a coordination meeting with regard to saving the trees on Stanford, accommodating grades and water quality and maintaining proper access for Poudre Fire Authority. 2 RESPONSE:Meeting was held. Buildings along lot 4 have been moved out of the set back so that the trees along Stanford. Landscape has been enhanced at Lot 5 to create an equal to / better than requirement. Meeting was held with Poudre Fire Authority. Comment Number: 18. Comment Originated: 05/20/2015 05/20/2015: For all buildings, as mentioned previously, we will need to see how the project complies with Section 3.8.30(F)(2) so that there is substantial variation among repeated buildings. RESPONSE: Buildings have variation through building types, materials and colors throughout each Lot as part of the tThree neighborhood design intent. Entries Along the private road and Stanford road create unique entries across the Lots. Comment Number: 34. Comment Originated: 10/21/2015 10/21/2015: The mews between D-1 and C-1 facing Stanford needs a denser screen of landscaping. For year- round screening, please select from among the various species of Evergreen Trees. RESPONSE: Landscape design has been increased within the spacing. Comment Number: 35. Comment Originated: 10/21/2015 10/21/2015: The saving of the existing trees on Stanford is not clear on the Landscape Plans. As mentioned, all existing trees on Stanford must be preserved due to their health and maturity unless specifically designated for removal by the City Forester. Per our staff review meeting of October 21st, there needs to be close coordination so that existing trees along Stanford are preserved while, at the same time, accommodating grades, water quality and fire access. This coordination may result in the sidewalk either being attached or detached. RESPONSE: As discussed, the trees on Lot 4 will be saved and the buildings have been shifted to the west. Comment Number: 37. Comment Originated: 10/21/2015 10/21/2015: Staff is concerned about the abrupt grade differential between the buildings and the public sidewalk. If these grades hold, then decorative stoops will be required. (Question, why is the grade transition so radical at the public right-of-way and not along the west property line between two private property owners?) If stoops are to be installed due to grade, then a design detail needs to be submitted indicating that there decorative railings, capstones, and use of stone and not simply poured concrete. Per our staff review meeting of October 21st, there needs to be close coordination along Stanford so that trees are preserved while, at the same time, accommodating grades, water quality and fire access. This coordination may result in the sidewalk either being attached or detached. RESPONSE: The comment is noted. Changes to the layout have been made to minimize the abrupt grade differential and to protect the trees. Detailed grading of the areas around these areas has been completed. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015 10/21/2015: Does project note 1 need to be updated to reflect the addition of Lot 6? RESPONSE: The notes have been updated. 05/19/2015: Project Note 1.b. indicates that utility stubs to the lots are to be installed by Alberta per the PA3 plans. Is it the intention that the additional work shown on the PA3 plans that are not utility stubs to the lots (such as the sanitary tie-in to Stanford Road between lots 3 & 4) will also be done? RESPONSE: The notes have been updated. Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015 3 10/21/2015: Documentation and fees were received for vacating various easements. This information was provided to the utility providers and PFA seeking comment. Both Century Link and Comcast responded reporting no objection to the proposed vacations. Additional responses are forthcoming. The civil plans still do not provide the existing easement information and should be reflected, not just in the exhibit for vacation of easements. I suspect that additional easement dedications may be needed, such as emergency access easements for fire lanes and drainage easements for LID. Depending on the total number of easement dedications and vacations, it may be worth exploring a replat. 05/19/2015: The drawings (especially the civil set) would benefit from showing existing easements dedicated with the plat for Foothills Mall Redevelopment Subdivision. It seems that existing easements may need to be vacated in areas and new easements dedicated in others. Lot 4 in particular appears to require vacation of a large easement for the northern portion of the lot. Please provide information on the anticipated easement dedications and vacations for review. Per our Transportation Development Review Fee schedule, each deed of dedication is $250 and each vacation is $400, along with Larimer County recordation costs. A 2 week routing for review and approval by the utility providers is needed for each utility easement vacation request. RESPONSE: Existing and proposed easements have been added to the utility plans. An easement exhibit has also been created to clarify and is included with the submittal. A separate submittal was made on October 14, 2015 for the vacation of existing easements. Once the final plans are approved. Easement exhibits will be created for vacations and dedications. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015 10/21/2015: Carried over for reference. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. 05/19/2015: Pavement Engineering has provided comment that they would want as part of any development agreement for the project, acknowledgement from the Developer/Owner that sidewalk maintenance (including snow shoveling) is the responsibility of the abutting property owner. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 100 Comment Originated: 10/07/2015 10/07/2015: The landscape plans are confusing to follow in that only Lot 6 shows existing trees along Stanford Road. Why aren't the existing trees shown on the other lots and whether they are proposed to be retained, or removed? RESPONSE: This has been resolved and the existing trees are now shown on the plans. Comment Number: 110 Comment Originated: 10/07/2015 10/07/2015: The grading plan shows reshaping of the grades behind Stanford Road in right-of-way. The contours exceed 4:1, which is the minimum requirement in right-of-way and would need to be revised. In addition, the grading plan shows the use of steps (up to 9 steps in one location) which isn't allowed in right-of-way unless approved via a major encroachment permit. Shouldn't the proposed steps be reflected on the site and landscape plans? RESPONSE: The comment is noted. The layout has been modified to minimize the impacts to Stanford Right-of-way. Plans have been coordinated. Comment Number: 120 Comment Originated: 10/21/2015 10/21/2015: The reshaping of the grading behind Stanford Road wasn't realized previously and would appear to remove all the existing trees and and landscaping itself. Given the proposed re-working of the area in right-of-way, it would seem that removal of the existing attached sidewalk and providing a detached sidewalk along Stanford Road should be considered. RESPONSE: The comment is noted. Changes to the layout have been made to protect the trees. Detailed 4 grading of the areas around the trees has been completed. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Kelly Kimple, kkimple@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/14/2015 05/14/2015: Environmental Planning has no comments on the Major Amendment. We will review seed mixes at the time of final. RESPONSE: Thank you. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/20/2015 05/20/2015: Please edit the street tree notes to include all of the following. Include these notes under a separate heading Street Tree Notes. 1. A permit must be obtained from the City Forester before any trees or shrubs as noted on this plan are planted, pruned or removed on the public right-of-way. This includes zones between the sidewalk and curb, medians and other City property. This permit shall approve the location and species to be planted. Failure to obtain this permit may result in replacing or relocating trees and a hold on certificate of occupancy. RESPONSE: These Street Tree Notes are included. 2. Contact the City Forester to inspect all street tree plantings at the completion of each phase of the development. All trees need to have been installed as shown on the landscape plan. Approval of street tree planting is required before final approval of each phase. RESPONSE: These Street Tree Notes are included. 3. Street tree shall be supplied and planted by the developer using a qualified landscape contractor. RESPONSE: These Street Tree Notes are included. 4. The developer shall replace all dead and dying street trees after planting until final maintenance inspection and acceptance by the City of Fort Collins Forestry Division. All street trees in the project must be established of an approved species and of acceptable le condition prior to acceptance. RESPONSE: These Street Tree Notes are included. 5. Street tree locations and numbers may be adjusted to accommodate driveway locations, utility standards, separation between trees, street signs and street lights. Street trees shall be RESPONSE: These Street Tree Notes are included. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/20/2015 05/20/2015: Provide upsized mitigation trees for significant trees removed or to account for mitigation trees allocated to the areas on these plans as recorded on previously approved phase three mall plans. Upsized mitigation trees should be sized as follows and can be trees proposed on the Foothills Mall Multi-Family Major Amendment. Clearly identify mitigation trees in the plant list and on the direct labels by placing an M or other symbol to identify the mitigation trees. RESPONSE: Mitigation trees are shown on the plans (sheet Landscape Mitigation Plan). Shade Trees 3.0 inch caliper Ornamental Trees 2.5 inch caliper Evergreen trees 8 feet height RESPONSE: Acknowledged. 5 Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/20/2015 05/20/2015: Contact the City Forester for an on-site meeting to review any existing significant trees for retention. Significant trees need to be retained to the extent reasonably feasible. Significant trees on the site should be identified on the plans by species, size, condition, mitigation and intent to retain, transplant or remove. Inventory information is available from Foothills Mall Tree Inventory. RESPONSE: A meeting was held with Ralph Zentz on-site to discuss existing trees and any required mitigation. Plans have been revised based on that meeting. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/20/2015 05/20/2015: Add the following note in larger print with a bold border to the landscape plan. RESPONSE: A free permit must be obtained from the City Forester before any street trees are planted in parkways between the sidewalk and Curb or on the City Right of Way behind the sidewalk. Street tree locations and numbers may change to meet actual utility/tree separation standards. Landscape contractor must obtain approval of street tree location after utility locates. Street trees must be inspected and approved before planting. Failure to obtain this permit is a violation of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. RESPONSE: This note is included on the plans. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/20/2015 05/20/2015: Please add this note if it is not already on the plans. Landscaping including street trees in each phase shall be or secured with a letter of credit, escrow, or performance bond for 125% of the value of the landscaping and installation prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy for any building. All City street trees must be installed established, of an approved species and of acceptable condition prior to final release of financial security. RESPONSE: This note has been added to the Landscape Notes #21, Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/20/2015 05/20/2015: Provide a final landscape plan that provides identification of plant species, size at planting and method of transplant. Provide for the Minimum Tree Species Diversity in LUC 3.2.1 D 2 3 and record the percentage of each tree species used in the plant list. RESPONSE: A complete plant list has been provided with this submittal. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015 10/20/2015: FIRE ACCESS TO STRUCTURES EXCEEDING 30' IN HEIGHT The project team is asked to review Appendix D of the 2012 IFC and submit an exhibit detailing how the updated plan meets the intent of the fire code requirement related to aerial fire truck access. Code language provided below to assist in this process. RESPONSE: Increased access between each building has been provided along with roof access hatches within breezeway stairs. The access on Stanford cannot meet the requirement due to preservation of existing street trees. AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS - WHERE REQUIRED > D105.1: Where the vertical distance between the grade plane and the highest roof surface exceeds 30 feet, approved aerial fire apparatus access roads shall be provided. For purposes of this section, the highest roof surface shall be determined by measurement to the eave of a pitched roof, the intersection of the roof to the 6 exterior wall, or the top of parapet walls, whichever is greater. RESPONSE: Fire access has been provided between buildings were parapet height exceeds 30’. AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS - WIDTH > IFC D105.2; FCLUC 3.6.2(B) 2006; and Local Amendments: Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 30 feet, exclusive of shoulders, in the immediate vicinity of the building or portion thereof. RESPONSE: Spacing has been added between the buildings to allow for fire access. The layout has been modified to meet the intent of the code. Access easements have been provided for review and approval. AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS - PROXIMITY TO BUILDING > IFC D105.3: At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. The side of the building on which the aerial fire apparatus access road is positioned shall be approved by the fire code official. RESPONSE: The layout has been modified to meet the intent of the code. Access easements have been provided for review and approval. See easement exhibit. The fire truck turning exhibit for all the lots has been updated and provided. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015 10/20/2015: ROOF ACCESS Unless the architectural plan can demonstrate a safe and effective roof top connection between the 3-story units, the structures will be considered as separate buildings, each subject to the same fire access concerns expressed in the last comment on buildings exceeding 30' in height. RESPONSE: Rooftop layout and updated Fire access plans have been provided. The layout has been modified to meet the intent of the code. Access easements have been provided for review and approval. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015 10/20/2015: FIRE LANES Include proposed limits of the updated Emergency Access Easement on future plan sets. RESPONSE: Emergency access easements have been created and added to the utility plans. See the easement exhibit included with the submittal for specific detail. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015 10/20/2015: MARKING Once the limits of the revised fire lane have been determined, a signage plan to denote the limits of the fire lane needs to be submitted for review. Code language provided below. > IFC503.3: Where required by the fire code official, approved signs or other approved notices that include the words NO PARKING - FIRE LANE shall be provided for fire apparatus access roads to identify such roads or prohibit the obstruction thereof. The means by which fire lanes are designated shall be maintained in a clean and legible condition at all times ad be replaced or repaired when necessary to provide adequate visibility. RESPONSE: The comment is noted. Upon approval of the fire access limits, signage and striping will be added to the plans. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015 10/20/2015: WATER SUPPLY Utility plan set does not show all existing hydrants along Stanford Road. Please update for future submittal. 7 A hydrant at the east of the dead-end of Lot 3 has been deleted from the previously approved plan set. That hydrant needs to be re-added to the utility plan. RESPONSE: All existing fire hydrants have been added. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/20/2015 10/20/2015: CAR CARE MAINTENANCE BUILDING The function of the Car Care and Maintenance Building needs to be detailed. In particular, if there are to be hazardous materials used or stored on site (oil change, etc.), keeping in mind that the installation of above ground or under ground storage tanks are approved under a separate permit. RESPONSE:The maintenance building will not store hazardous materials. Th Care car area provides a sheltered area for a resident to clean out, vacuum, and use their own cleaners to detail the interior of their car. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Dan Mogen, dmogen@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015 10/20/2015: The LID analysis was reviewed and the 25% permeable pavement requirement still applies. Please update to show that this will be met. 05/19/2015: The application for variance has been denied at this time; therefore, LID requirements apply including 25% permeable pavement. RESPONSE: Additional permeable pavement has been added in order to meet the 25% requirement. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015 05/19/2015: Please provide a LID Table showing that LID requirements are met. Sample table available upon request; please email Dan Mogen at dmogen@fcgov.com RESPONSE: The required LID table provided by the City has been added to the LID letter. Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015 05/19/2015: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft, therefore Erosion and Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted for FDP. The erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. Current Erosion Control Materials Submitted does not meet requirements. Please submit; Erosion Control Plan, Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. If you need clarification concerning this section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970- 218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com RESPONSE: The comment is noted. The erosion control plan and draft of the erosion control report has been provided. Once approved, a calculation for escrow/security will be provided. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 10/16/2015 10/16/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. 8 RESPONSE: The line over text issues have been corrected. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/20/2015 10/16/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. 05/20/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 10/16/2015 10/16/2015: There are cut off text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 10/16/2015 10/16/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. RESPONSE: The text has been corrected. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/20/2015 05/20/2015: no comments Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Emma Belmont, 970-224-6197, ebelmont@fcgov.com Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/05/2015 10/05/2015: On Pg 4 lot 5 of the plans, the bus stop shows a sidewalk connection into the adjacent parking lot. I provided a standard detail which shows where the shelter and other amenities are on said bus stop pad, this would make that sidewalk run right into the back of the shelter. Please move the sidewalk connection on one side or the other of the bus stop but maintain the bus stop pad sizing as shown currently. See sketch provided in Red-lines for more information. RESPONSE: The layout has been revised. Department: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/18/2015 05/18/2015: A landscape plan shall contain accurate and identifiable hydrozones, including a water budget chart that shows the total annual water use, which shall not exceed fifteen (15) gallons per square foot over the site. If you have questions contact Eric Olson at eolson@fcgov.com or 970-221-6704. RESPONSE: A hydrozone table is shown on the landscape plan. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/18/2015 05/18/2015: Irrigation plans are required no later than at the time of building permit. The irrigation plans must comply with the provisions outlined in Section 3.2.1(J) of the Land Use Code. Direct questions concerning irrigation 9 requirements to Eric Olson, at 221-6704 or eolson@fcgov.com RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Comment Number: Comment Originated: 05/18/2015 Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Dan Mogen, dmogen@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015 10/20/2015: Stubs are currently shown to be existing on Lot 4 (4" and 1.5"), Lot 5 (4"), and Lot 6 (4"). These stubs will need to be used or abandoned at the main. 05/19/2015: Were lines stubbed for previous building arrangement? If so, please reuse these stubs or abandon them at the main. RESPONSE: The utility plan has been revised to show more detail about what stubs are being used and what stubs will be abandoned. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015 10/20/2015: Comment still applies. 05/19/2015: Please provide calculations to support water service sizing. RESPONSE: The calculations have been completed. See hydraulic calculations included with the submittal. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015 10/20/2015: This comment applies to the connection to the main (not the building riser) and this detail can be provided at final. 05/19/2015: Please detail fire service connections. RESPONSE: The details have been added. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/29/2015 10/20/2015: I note the service for Building 4 is moved to the loop. When the hydraulic analysis is provided, please also include analysis for buildings on Lot 6 (which is now included in the review) as these buildings are also on a dead end main (28 units). 05/29/2015: For Lot 3. Please move the water service for Building 4 to the looped main. Please provide mechanical memo to show that the dead end main serving Building 1, 2 and 3 can support the number of units (I'm showing 41) as well as fire flows. RESPONSE: Hydraulic calculations have been completed. See hydraulic calculations included with the submittal. The service for building 4 has been moved to the loop. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 10/22/2015 10/21/2015: For final, please show proposed utilities on the landscape plan and verify that separations are met per General Landscape Note #8. RESPONSE: Utilities are shown on the landscape plan and separations are maintained. Department: Zoning 10 Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015 10/15/2015: Where are the elevations for building D2, E2, C2, B, A, 19? RESPONSE: The elevations are now included. 05/19/2015: Architectural Elevations for all the building types are needed. RESPONSE: The elevations are now included. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015 10/15/205: Now the other lot has been included and the parking spaces are at 492 there needs to be at least 9 HC spaces. The project is only showing 7. RESPONSE: We now show 9 accessible spaces. 05/19/2015: With 324 off-street parking spaces, the project is required 8 handicap spaces. I am only seeing 5. RESPONSE: 9 accessible spaces have been provided. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015 05/19/2015: Where will the ac units be located? They should be shown on the site and landscape. RESPONSE: AC units are located on the roof of each building. Screening has been provided. A detail of the screening is provided on sheet A23. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/15/2015 10/15/2015: Please place the required and provided bicycle spaces fixed/enclosed by the vehicle parking table on the cover sheet. RESPONSE: The table has been added. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/15/2015 10/15/2015: The bicycle locations and the number of spaces need to be labeled on the site/landscape plan. RESPONSE: The numbers and locations have been labeled. Please provide a detail (floor plan) showing where the enclosed bicycle spaces are located. RESPONSE: Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 10/15/2015 10/15/2015: On the site plan please label the garage spaces in each building. RESPONSE: Garage spaces have been labeled. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 10/15/2015 10/15/2015: ON sheet 5 of the site plan the required off street parking numbers are not adding up correctly as shown. RESPONSE: Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 10/15/2015 10/15/2015: On the elevation sheets the height of the buildings need to be labeled. Are any over 40ft in height? RESPONSE: Buildings on Lot 6 are the only buildings that are over 40’. A shadow study has been provided. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 10/15/2015 10/15/2015: On sheet 4 of the site plan set. The sidewalk on the north side of building 4 that leads to the parking area, please extend this sidewalk also the public right of way sidewalk. RESPONSE: The layout has been revised. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 10/15/2015 10/15/2015: The sidewalk heading west on Landscape plan sheet 9 appears to dead ends into a patch of grass. This should not be the case this sidewalk should continue across the driveway. 11 RESPONSE: The turf hatch has been removed. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 10/15/2015 10/15/2015: The landscape plant list should include the symbols that are used on the plan sheets. RESPONSE: The symbols are now shown. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 10/15/2015 10/15/2015: On sheet 12 of the landscape plan, there is a landscape island a few spaces north of the HC parking space. This landscape island needs to include a tree. RESPONSE: A tree has been added to the landscape island.