Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBELLA VIRA - FDP - 36-05A/B - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 3 -If you have any questions regarding the responses to the comments please feel free to contact Jon Sweet or me at 484-1921. Sincerely, Jim Sell Design, Inc. Matthew J. Blakely, ASLA Project Manager cc: John Minatta File Page 13 [2/9/07] [12/30/05] Limits of Development, LUC 3.4.1 (N) - Limits of development and details explaining installation of barrier fencing will need to be show on plans drawings related to the construction near the following natural habitats and features: • Wildlife movement corridor Existing cottonwood and peach -leaf willow trees Number: 42 Created: 12/30/2005 [6/26/07) Will be addressed when development agreement is prepared. Response: Acknowledged. [2/9/07] [12/30/05] Prairie Dogs - Standard language will be added to the development agreement for this project to ensure that construction activities including grading will not be allowed to occur on the development site if prairie dogs relocate to or inhabitant the site either prior to or during construction. At any time construction activities occur with prairies on site construction activities will be stopped until the situation is corrected. If relocation of prairie dogs on to the construction site becomes an issue the Natural Resources Department may require the developer to install a temporary barrier fencing to try to limit the animals ability to move on to the site. 3.4.1(F), 3.4.1(N)(6) Department: PFA Issue Contact: Carie Dann Topic: fire Number: 194 Created: 6/19/2007 [6/19/07] PFA has no additional comments or concerns. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Traffic Operations Issue Contact: Eric Bracke Topic: Traffic Number: 195 Created: 6/19/2007 [6/19/07] Sheets 32/33 - The plans show a combination left/thru for WB traffic. Change to a Left and a combination thru/right. I don't need to see the plans again, please change on the mylars. The interim striping and final striping plans are fine. Response: Requested change incorporated Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington Topic: Water/Wastewater Number: 168 Created: 2/16/2007 [6/27/071 Casings required where access to water/sewer lines is obstructed by 24-inch and larger pipes or multiple parallel pipes. [2/16/07] Add steel casings on the water mains and sanitary sewers that cross below the dual storm culverts. Calculate length of casing by using a 1:1 slope from the outside of the storm culverts down to the elevation of the water/sewer mains. Specify the length, diameter and thickness of each casing. Response: Steel casings have been added please see utility plans, sanitary/ storm profiles and detail sheets Number: 234 Created: 6/27/2007 [6/27/071 Add a cross section of the 16-inch water main with insulation which shows location of insulation with respect to water main and trench. Response: Cross section has been added to 16-inch waterline detail sheet. Page 12 Number: 209 Created: 6/27/2007 [6/27/07] The key maps aren't correct. The area blocked out is not what is actually shown on the sheet. Please correct all key maps, each sheet. Response: Key maps were somewhat generalized. They have been modified to show the exact area. Topic: Utility Plan - Signing and Striping Number: 156 Created: 2/15/2007 [6/27/07] Repeat. Response: Traffic Engineering received full set of plans at preliminary and first and second round of final. [2/15/07] Please route Traffic Engineering with the next round so that they can review this sheet. Topic: Utility Plan - Utility Phasing Plan Number: 215 Created: 6/27/2007 [6/27/07] Please note to construct the waterline stub 10' back (or?) into Phase H. That way you won't have to tear any of your Phase I work up later to tie in. Response: The waterline stub is now extended 10' past curb returns, into phase 2 improvements. Topic: Utility Plan - Utility Plan East Number: 217 Created: 6/27/2007 [6/27/07] The existing ADS pipe under Elizabeth must be removed entirely from the row. Right now the plans are showing it only removed from curb to curb. Response: Requested change incorporated Topic: Utility Plan - Utility Plan West Number: 216 Created: 6/27/2007 [6/27/07] Please show all driveway locations on all lots with less than 50' of frontage on all utility plan sheets where applicable. Remove the word "conceptual" from the driveway location note and correct note 7 to read: Driveways on individual lots may not be placed over water services. The driveway locations need to be shown on the site plan and the landscape plan along with the same note. Response: Note has been revised. Driveway locations have been shown for all lots with less than 50' offrontage. The word "conceptual" has been removed. Department: Natural Resources Issue Contact: Doug Moore Topic: General Number: 40 Created: 12/30/2005 [6/26/07] LOD is shown on the plans. Details on barrier fencing as part of the construction process to protect wildlife movement corridors and the existing trees needs top be added to the Site Plan and the Utility Plans set of drawings. Response: Barrier fencing protection details have been added to the Site Plan and the Utility Plans. Page 11 Number: 226 Created: 6/27/2007 [6/27/07] The wrong intersection detail sheet is being referred to on each plan and profile sheet. Response: sheet number has been updated Number: 227 Created: 6/27/2007 [6/27/071 Please provide more overlap between matchlines. There are missing gaps in some cases. Response: I believe the missing gaps you are referring to are tied to the straight matchlines. The matchline has been staggered to more accurately depict the matching point on the Towlines/ centerline and have been checked against the profiles. Number: 229 Created: 6/27/2007 [6/27/07] Overland Trail - Note 2 says that all curb returns are 20' unless otherwise noted. Please note both curb return radii on Overland because they are not 20'. Response: this has been clarified Number: 230 Created: 6/27/2007 [6/27/07] Overland Trail - Missing information. Response: Overland Trail information added Number: 248 Created: 6/29/2007 [6/29/07] Overland Trail - All patching from roughly 10+50 to 8+00 must go to the CL. Our patching requirements do not allow an irregular patch like the one proposed. This same comment is under the Cross Section section as well. Response: Patching design revised as requested Number: 304 Created: 6/29/2007 [6/29/071 Overland Trail - Max grade break has been exceeded but could be easily solved with another grade break thrown in between the two. The CL profile is missing the existing grade - is it because it's the same as the proposed? Perhaps labeling it that way would make it more clear. Response: grade break is now less than 0.4%. Existing and proposed are nearly the same on the CL profile sheet. Both existing and proposed labels have been added. Number: 305 Created: 6/29/2007 [6/29/07] Station 4+00 is showing a taper in the pavement to meet existing dirt or pavement? But sheet 27 is not showing any taper at all. Which is correct? If the plan view on 27 is correct, then correct the cross section. If the cross section is correct, correct the plan view on 27 and how will the drainage be handled? What's currently shown won't work. Response: Sheet 27 is correct — there is not a taper, only a barricade. Number: 308 Created: 6/29/2007 [6/29/07] Please relabel Sheet 27 as "Ultimate (Phase 2) Overland Trail Plan and Profile" Response: Requested change incorporated Topic: Utility Plan - Rough Grading Number: 135 Created: 2/13/2007 [6/29/07] Still missing some lot corners. [2/13/07) Please provide spot elevations for all lot corners and at the PC's of comer lots as well. Response: Missing lot corner elevations are added Page 10 Topic: Utility Plan - Intersection Details Number: 231 Created: 6/27/2007 [6/27/07] See 7-27 and 7-28 for all required spot elevations that need to be called out. Need to show the transition length on all intersections. If the minimum transition length is not provided with the next submittal, then that will generate another comment so please be sure to meet the minimum. If the minimum has not been met with THIS submittal but I can't tell because it's not dimensioned, then correcting the situation will change the spot elevations and flowlines as well. More comments could follow based on the new information. This statement or disclaimer applies everywhere. If the information changes, then it's basically a new review and new comments can be generated. Response: See sheets 29-30 for transition lengths and additional spots. Topic: Utility Plan - Plan & Profiles Number: 151 Created: 2/15/2007 [6/27/07] Just carrying this item through until the variance is approved. Response: Variance has been approved [2/15/07] Minimum cover requirements are not being met. Please refer to 12.2.2 Number: 152 Created: 2/15/2007 [6/29/07] All transitions must occur at the PC of an intersection. Response: Transition relocated to comer [2/15/07] Please provide a transition detail for the VC to rollover curb. Number: 221 Created: 6/27/2007 [6/27/07] Please call out the cover depth to any pipe or structure that does not meet section 12.2.2. on all plan and profile sheets (street and utility). Will need to update the variance letter to list out all locations where this requirement is not being met as well. Response: Variance revised as requested and depths called out on street, sanitary and storm profile sheets. Number: 222 Created: 6/27/2007 [6/27/07] The city requires all CL stationing and where FL and CL stationing is used separately, you'll need to provide spots at all PCs and VCs on the plan view and label with the cross slope so that I can verify that the min/max cross slope requirement is being met. Response: Spots have been provided at PCs and VC's. Number: 223 Created: 6/27/2007 [6/27/07] Grade breaks can not exceed those stated in 7.4.1.B.3. Response: All grade breaks are 0.4% or less. Number: 224 Created: 6/27/2007 [6/27/07] Label the station and elevation of the end of both FL's for the cul-de-sac so that I can make sure they match up. I redlined the first cul-de-sac to ask if two particular points were the same. Make sure the max grade break isn't being exceeded as well. Response: the word MATCH POINT has been added so that it is easier to see where one flowline leaves off and the other picks up. Number: 225 Created: 6/27/2007 [6/27/07] Cross slopes of the cul-de-sac or any street can't exceed 2%min or 3% max. Response: Acknowledged. Page 9 Number: 301 Created: 6/29/2007 [6/29/07] Please dimension all sidewalks and trails. Label trail connections with type of material being used. Response: Sidewalks and trails have been dimensioned and material type is called out. Topic: Utility Plan - General Number: 207 Created: 6/27/2007 [6/27/07] There is a new landscape wall shown on the south side of Elizabeth that wasn't previously shown before. It appears that you are meeting the 2' minimum setback but wondered how you will be landscaping between the sidewalk and wall. If I might suggest widening out the sidewalk T to meet the wall, you won't have a maintenance issue. Figure 16-1 really restricts what you can put in there and just from a practical point of view, it's really hard to get anything to grow in there anyway. You could taper the sidewalk to meet the widened section with a 45 degree angle or curve it in a way that makes sense. Whatever you think is best and will be safe later. Response: We are concerned that connecting the sidewalk to a 2+ foot drop without a railing will create an unsafe condition for bikes and others using the sidewalk. We acknowledge the comment and have replaced turf grass with low water use ornamental grasses in this area —specifically Blue Avena Grass. Number: 210 Created: 6/27/2007 [6/27/07] Remove revisions from the title block, each sheet. The plans haven't been approved yet, therefore there are no revisions. Response: During design revisions blocks are used for in-house purposes. They have been removed. Number: 212 Created: 6/27/2007 [6/27/07] See redlines for other comments. Response: Redlines have been addressed. Number: 228 Created: 6/27/2007 [6/27/07] This is a repeat question from the previous redlines ... but why is the curb and sidewalk jogging at the west end of Elizabeth? This needs to be corrected. Response: The vertical curb has been extended to the corner. *Update - per the last discussion, the applicant is proposing a change from VC to Rollover curb midblock. The city only allows a change in curb type at the intersections because of the additional cost and difficulty in maintaining the transition area, plus it causes the sidewalk to job like what's proposed. No variance can be granted because what you are proposing is not as good or better than the standard and it does cost the city additional time and money in maintaining this area. See 1.9.4 if you wish to pursue the variance. Topic: Utility Plan - General Notes Number: 203 Created: 6/27/2007 [6/27/07] See redlines. Response: Redlines have been addressed Number: 299 Created: 6/29/2007 [6/29/07] Line 48 of the General Notes requires a little more information. Need to site the section of the code that was varied as well as what the standard is and what the variance granted. Response: Variance section has been expanded with brief description of variance and standard. Page 8 [6/27/07] Remove Note 4 from all sheets. Our standard Note 5 prevails. Response: Note 4 removed Number: 205 [6/27/07] Correct (all sheets) Note 5 to read: Created: 6/27/2007 Limits of street cut are approximate. Final limits are to be determined in the field by the City Engineering Inspector. All repairs to be in accordance with City street repair standards. Response: Requested change incorporated Number: 206 Created: 6/27/2007 [6/27/07] Sheet 7 - Demo Note 4 states that you are to protect in place and to move or remove by utility. How can you do both at the same time? Either it is staying or you are moving or removing. Response: Text has been modified Topic: Utility Plan - Final Grading Number: 136 Created: 2/13/2007 [6/27/07] Call out the detail and sheet # for all sidewalk chases, etc. [2/13/07] Call out the detail and sheet # for the modified curb cut and sidewalk chase. Response: City detail and sheet # called out. Number: 138 Created: 2/13/2007 [6/27/07] The landscape plan is showing this as a 6' tall stucco and brick wall. No portion of the footing my lie within the utility easement. Please provide a cut section of the wall showing the footing and the UE so that it is very clear to the subcontractors where the wall may be placed. Response: Profile offooting added to Landscape Plan. The wall location is adjusted so as not to encroach into the easement [2/13/07] What is the dark line shown on the SW corner of Overland and West Elizabeth - a retaining wall or fence? Wasn't included in the legend... Response: This was part of the fence — it has been moved outside the easement and added to the Legend as a "Prop. Screen Wall" Number: 211 Created: 6/27/2007 [6/27/07] Refer to detail and sheet number where necessary. Provide a cross section of the trail, construction notes if any, materials, and refer to detail and sheet number if not placed on this sheet. Response: A note has been added to the grading sheet calling out the sheet number where the trail cross-section is located. Number: 213 Created: 6/27/2007 [6/27/07] Sheet 13 - Missing portions of the design along Overland Trail and the bridge area. Unable to review the areas not shown. Response: Overland Trail grading and a blow-up of the grading around the box culvert extension is shown on Rough Grading sheet 10. Number: 300 Created: 6/29/2007 [6/29/07] Missing lot comer spot elevations. Response: Missing lot corner elevations are added. Page 7 Topic: Utility Plan - Cross Sections Number: 154 Created: 2/15/2007 [6/29/07] Please dimension parkways and sidewalks. Please label existing sidewalks as "existing'. Please call out the dimension from the top of pipe or structure to the subgrade where ever the minimum cover requirement is being met. Response: Sidewalk/parkway dimensions have been added along with the word existing where applicable. The "dimensions from top of pipe "portion of this comment was discussed with Susan and it has been clarified that this is only for proposed roads. [2/15/071 Missing information - please refer to LCUASS. Number: 232 Created: 6/27/2007 [6/27/07) Please extend the grid to include the strictures and pipes located beneath the street section. Response: Grid have been extended for clarity. Number: 233 Created: 6/27/2007 [6/27/07] Please dimension all sidewalks, parkways, etc. Response: See #154 response. Number: 246 Created: 6/29/2007 [6/29/07] All patching from roughly 10+50 to 8+00 must go to the CL. Our patching requirements do not allow an irregular patch like the one proposed. This same comment is made under the Plan and Profile section as well. Response: Patching revised as requested Number: 306 Created: 6/29/2007 [6/29/07] All grading shown outside the row must be shown on the Grading sheets. Response: Please see rough grading plan sheet 10 for grading around box culvert extension. Number: 307 Created: 6/29/2007 [6/29/07] The cross section at station 9+00 is incorrect. Response: Cross section has been modified to show correct sidewalk width. Topic: Utility Plan -Details Number: 214 Created: 6/27/2007 [6/27/07] Missing sidewalk chase details. Response: Correct details have been added. Topic: Utility Plan - Drainage and Erosion Control Number: 218 Created: 6/27/2007 [6/27/07] Perhaps removing some of the layers will help with the scannability and legibility of the sheet. The way you submitted it last time was fine ... only information related to Drainage and Erosion Control is required on this sheet. Response: Drainage sheet has been modified. Number: 219 Created: 6/27/2007 [6/27/07] Sidewalk Chase size is incorrectly called out. Need to refer to city detail and sheet #. Response: Sidewalk chase note has been modified and detail/sheet number has been added. Topic: Utility Plan - Existing Conditions Number: 204 Created: 6/27/2007 Page 6 Number: 245 Created: 6/29/2007 [6/29/07] Remove all revisions from the title block. Response: Revisions removed from title blocks Number: 303 Created: 6/29/2007 [6/29/07] Please see comment 216. Response: See response to comment 216. Topic: Utility Plan - l6"Waterline Number: 162 Created: 2/15/2007 [6/27/07] Just carrying this item through until the variance has been approved. Response: Variance revised as requested and has been approved [2/15/07] Minimum cover requirements are not being met. I will talk to Rick Richter in Pavement Management next week when he's back from vacation for some ideas. Topic: Utility Plan - Bridge Design Response: Hartmann Engineering Inc. addresses all Box Extension comments separately on their response form and within the 4 pages of the box drawing set. Topic: Utility Plan - Cover Number: 145 Created: 2/15/2007 [6/27/07] More corrections required since the index has changed since the last submittal. Response: Index has been updated. [2/15/07] Correct the index (see redlines) and add the box culvert design to this set and number as part of the set. Number: 200 Created: 6/27/2007 [6/27/07] Reference the soils report here (see redlines) or as line 49 in the General Notes, sheet 5. Response: the word "Soils" has been added to the geotech information for clarity. Line 49 on the general notes refers reader to the cover. Number: 201 Created: 6/27/2007 [6/27/07] The legend is incomplete and need to label the "easement line" as "existing" or "proposed". Missing quite a few line weights either here or on individual sheets. Can either update the cover legend or add the various line weights to each individual sheet as they apply. Response: Legend on cover sheet has been updated. On the individual sheets the legends typically identifies only the lines of highest importance to that sheet, with all other being identified on the cover. Number: 243 Created: 6/29/2007 [6/29/071 Need to type the name out of the president of the ditch company OR add a line for him to print out his own name in addition to the signature line. Response: The Ditch Companies presidents name Robert Underhill, is printed out in the signature block. Page 5 Number: 238 Created: 6/29/2007 [6/29/07] Please label each landscape wall with either tow, bow or height. Response: Landscape walls have been labeled. Number: 241 Created: 6/29/2007 [6/29/07] Missing a layer? See redlines. Response: Layer has been added per the redlines. Number: 244 Created: 6/29/2007 [6/29/07] Remove all revisions from the title block. Response: Revisions removed from title blocks Number: 302 Created: 6/29/2007 [6/29/07] Please see comment 216 Response: Please see response to comment 216 Topic: Plat Number: 196 Created: 6/26/2007 [6/26/07] From Technical Services: 1. Boundary and legal close. 2. Many missing bearings, distances, see redlines. Several dimension problems. 3. Show WAPA easement. 4. Delineate block boundaries with heavier line weights. Illustrate blocks or remove blocks all together. Number: 202 Created: 6/27/2007 [6/27/07] Remove all revisions from the title block. Response: Revisions removed from title blocks Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Dan DeLaughter Topic: Plat Number: 90 Created: 4/19/2006 [6/27/07] Tract C is now labeled as being owned and maintained by the city. If so, then the city will need to sign the plat as an owner as well. Response: Plat is revised [2/13/07] Please place a signature line on the plat for any entity or persons having an easement dedicated to them. [4/19/06] The Ditch Company should sign all applicable plan sheets, as well as the plat. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy Topic: Site Plan Number: 239 Created: 6/29/2007 [6/29/07] Please label each landscape wall with either tow, bow or height. Response: Landscape walls have been labeled. Number: 242 Created: 6/29/2007 [6/29/071 Missing a layer? See redlines. Response: Layer has been added per the redlines. Page 4 Number: 236 Created: 6/28/2007 [6/28/07] The project has gone from a single phase to a two phase development since the last submittal. The Overland Trail and bridge improvements are now being completed in the last phase. As previously discussed, the city will require an estimate for those improvements for our review and approval. Once the final cost has been approved by the City, it shall be included in the Development Agreement and a portion collected over each phase with each building permit to assure that these improvements are made in the future. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 237 Created: 6/29/2007 [6/29/07] The project ID sign (including any footer) can not be located with in the utility easement. Response: Entry sign is removed from easement Number: 240 Created: 6/29/2007 [6/29/07] The site, landscape, utility and plat plans need to go through each comment under the different sections so that all comments and plan sets can be properly coordinated. Some comments made under the Utility Plan section, for instance, will affect the site and landscape plans as well. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 297 Created: 6/29/2007 [6/29/07] Section 3.8.11 of The Land Use Code requires fences to be articulated. Response: The fence is designed in sections. The sections are delineated by vertical articulation, stone columns and varying capstone features. None of the sections are greater than 100' in length. Upon reviewing the architects rendering of the entire fence with Steve Olt on June 17`h, it was Steve's opinion that the fence meets the conditions of 3.8.11 (A) and is visually interesting and is not subject to a "tunnel effect". Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Dan DeLaughter Topic: General Number: 30 Created: 12/29/2005 [6/27/07] Repeat comment. The scanning issues will need to be resolved before the mylars can be signed. I highlighted a couple of the utility plan sheets to give you an idea of some of the problems. All line over text labeling needs to be corrected on all sheets. Please come in and see me or JR in Tech Services if you have any questions about E6. Response: Acknowledged. [2/13/07] The plan sets are still not meeting the requirements set forth in Appendix E6. In some cases, the font is too small to even read let alone review. Please bring the plans up to standard. More comments to follow once the labeling becomes legible. [4/6/06] [12/29/05) Scanability is an issue on many of the sheets. Some line types are too light, some overlapping text problems. Please refer to redlines, Appendix E-6, and talk with J.R. in our technical services department regarding how to clean up the drawings. Department: Engineering Topic: Landscape Plan Number: 208 Issue Contact: Susan Joy Created: 6/27/2007 [6/27/07] See comment 207 under Utility Plan - Rough Grading. Response: See response to comment 207. Page 3 Number: 316 Created: 7/2/2007 [7/2/07] No further comments have been provided by Transportation Planning. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 317 Created: 7/2/2007 [7/2/07] The Pleasant Valley & Lake Canal concerns were apparently satisfied with the PDP review and they were not routed Final Plans. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 318 Created: 7/2/2007 [7/2/07] Planning has no further comments or red -lined plans. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Dana Leavitt Topic: General Number: 115 Created: 2/9/2007 [6/26/07] Minor revisions to Architectural Standards on Ll, see redline drawing. [2/9/07] Doug Moore's comments have been carried forward for Architectural Standards, adding the LOD around the buffer, inclusion of prairie dog protection measures during construction in the development agreement and wildlife letter for potential home owners. Response: The Architectural Standards have been revised per the redline comments. Number: 197 Created: 6/26/2007 [6/26/07] Trail Easement Agreement, page 2, section 4.3 - add "using native grass species" to the first sentence after OFP shall reseed the vegetation. Response: The current agreement was recorded in March, 2007 and any amendment would have to be created by The Ponds attorney and would have to be cycled back through an additional HOA review and sign -off process. The statement "... restore... to its condition prior to the Trail construction "provides reasonable assurance that the a propriate materials are used. Number: 198 Created: 6/26/2007 [6/26/07] Add open space to uses for Tract E. On Plat, note that Tract E is permanent open space. Response: Open space has been added to the uses for Tract E. Topic: Utility Plan Set Number: 199 Created: 6/26/2007 [6/26/07] Change natural resources to Environmental Planner on the signature blocks. Response: Requested change incorporated Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy Topic: General Number: 235 Created: 6/28/2007 [6/28/07] Need to show, dimension and label the WAPA easement on all plan sets (site, landscape, utility and plat). WAPA will need to sign off on the plan sets if any improvements are proposed within their easement. Response: WAPA easement added to all plan sets. WAPA signature block added to plat and construction/utility set. Page 2 August 9, 2007 Steve Olt City of Fort Collins — Current Planning 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: Bella Vira — Final Plans 3rd Submittal Project No.: 2427 Dear Steve: We offer the following responses to Staff's comments for Bella Vira - Final Plans (our responses are in italics): ISSUES: Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt Topic: General Number: 309 Created: 7/2/2007 [7/2/07] A REVISION COMMENT SHEET from Dana Leavitt, the Environmental Planner, is attached to this comment letter. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 310 Created: 7/2/2007 [7/2/07] A copy of the letter received from Terry Farrill of the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District is attached to this comment letter. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 311 Created: 7/2/2007 [7/2/07] Carie Dann of the Poudre Fire Authority indicated that she has no problems with the Bella Vira re -submittal documentation. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 312 Created: 7/2/2007 [7/2/07] Don Kapperman of Comcast indicated that he has no problems with the Bella Vira re - submittal documentation. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 313 Created: 7/2/2007 [7/2/07] Excel Energy was routed Site Plan and Plat documents with the last re -submittal and they have not responded. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 314 Created: 7/2/2007 [7/2/07] Light & Power has no further comments or red -lined plans. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 315 Created: 7/2/2007 [7/2/07] No further comments have been provided by the Traffic Engineer. Response: Acknowledged. Page 1