Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPROVINCETOWNE P.U.D., FILING NO. 2, FIRST REPLAT - PDP - 73-82W - CORRESPONDENCE - (13).. . 3 The wetland delineation and wetland buffer as approved on the original subdivision plat must be shown on this replat. Please see Sheets 4 & 5 of the recorded subdivision plat, enclosed. Response: The wetland delineation and buffer was added to the plat. 4 All of Condo Block 1, as approved on the recorded subdivision plat, is not shown on this replat. Response: All of Condo Block 1 is now shown on the plat. 5 This should be the First Replat, not Amendment. Response: The title was revised. 6 City of Fort Collins Technical Services (Mapping & Surveying) indicated that if this is a subdivision plat then the outer boundary (boundaries) must be monumented. A lot of changes must be made to this document. Response: The existing boundary and monuments are shown on the plat. Please do not hesitate to contact us at (303) 708-0500 if you should have any questions. Sincerely, MANHARD CONSULTING, LTD. , 71V,Iel �* David R. Miller, P.L.S. Survey Project Manager PAKbcfcc\Documents\Review CommentsTort Collins 10-10-02.doc -5- 2 No problems with easement vacations/additions as long as existing electric facilities are not impacted. Response: Electric facilities should not be impacted. Light and Power should contact us if they suspect future problems. Department: Natural Resources Issue Contact: Doug Moore Topic: General 12 Show and label wetland delineation on replat. Response: The wetland delineation was added to the plat. Department: Zoning Topic: General Issue Contact: Peter Barnes 1 Suggest they use the word "replay' rather than "amendment' in title of subdivision. Response: The title was revised. Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt 1 The Planning Certification on the cover sheet should refer to the Director of Planning, not the Planning and Zoning Board & Secretary of the Board. Please see the copy of the replat red - lined by Current Planning. Response:The planning certification was revised. 2 The streets, sidewalks, and parking lot improvements cannot be shown on this replat, being a subdivision plat. Response: The improvements were deleted from the plat. PAKbcfcc\Documents\Review Comments\Fort Collins 10-10-02.doc -4- Response: The wetland buffer was added to the plat. 9 The replat is missing the limits of wetlands line. Response: The wetland line was added to the plat. 10 The 9 foot utility easement adjacent to Building Envelope 30 cannot be vacated. Response: The vacation was revised to not encroach into the utility easement. 11 See additional comments on the plans. Response: All of the comments on the plans were addressed. 13 Need to identify and label the new building envelope sizes and make it clear that the areas being vacated are to be a part of the appropriate building envelope. Response: The legend was revised to indicate that the easement vacations would be part of the future building envelopes. 14 Do not include the streets and other improvements on the replat. Response: The streets and other improvements were deleted from the plat. 15 Need to make it clear what is being vacated and that those areas now become a part of that adjacent building envelope. Response: The legend was revised to indicate that the easement vacations would be part of the future building envelopes. Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Janet McTague Topic: General PAKbcfcc\Documents\Review Comments\Fort Collins 10-10-02.doc -3- Response: The developer understands this. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Sheri Wamhoff Topic: General 3 Need to provide dimensions for all the easements shown and for the property boundary. Response: The boundary and easements were dimensioned. 4 It needs to be clear as to what the property boundary of this plat is. The streets can not be included in the replat. The applicant has not included all of Condo Block 1 on this replat. Response: The boundary was revised to make it clear. The streets were deleted from the plat. All of Condo Block 1 is now shown. 5 Label all existing easements. Response: The easements are labeled. 6 The building envelopes cannot extend into the easements. Building Envelope #20_ has a corner that is shown extending into the easement. Response: The building envelope is not encroaching into the easement per our digital drawings. 7 Building Envelope 19 is showing a portion of the sight distance being vacated. This cannot be vacated. The building envelope needs to be revised so that it does not extend into the sight distance easement. Response: The building envelope was revised so that it does not encroach into the sight distance easement. 8 The replat is missing the 50 foot wetland buffer and building setback line. PAKbcfcc\Documents\Review Comments\Fort Collins 10-10-02.doc -2- October 24, 2002 Mr. Steve Olt City of Fort Collins 281 N. College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: Response to Comments Dated October 10, 2002 Provincetowne PUD, 2nd Filing, Replat Dear Mr. Olt: We have received the staff comments of October 10, 2002 for the Provincetowne PUD 2"d Filing, Replat Submittal, and provide the following written responses (in bold, italicized text) and related plan revisions for your review. Please distribute this written response and revised plans to all referral agencies and City staff that provided written comments and/or redline plans to our last submittal. Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt Topic: General Len Hilderbrand of Xcel Energy (Public Service Company) offered the following comments: a. Public Service Company (PSCO) has conflicts in several areas where easement vacations are being requested. PSCO has existing gas mains in two locations, Buildings 4 & 30. Response: 1 spoke with Len Hilderbrand with XCEL Energy by telephone 10- 22-02. 1 explained to him that only the eaves and stoop were being vacated for existing building 4. He said that would be fine as long as the gas mains were 3 feet off the main building. I assured him that we would check this and that I would put a note on the plat to that affect. Building 30, which has not been built, is similar to building 4. Only a small portion of the eaves and stoop are being vacated. I also suggested that he contact me if he thought there were problems in any of the other areas. b. The customer will need to provide PSCO with a drawing showing exact locations of gas mains and buildings in easements asking for vacations of those easements. Response: See response a. C. Any relocation of gas mains will be at the developer's expense. PAKbcfcc\Documents\Review CommentsTort Collins 10-10-02.doc -1-