HomeMy WebLinkAboutLARIMER COUNTY COURTHOUSE - FDP - 37-98B - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS12/23/98
Larimer County Courthouse
Revised PDP Responses
Page 3 of 3
9. Details have been added.
10. Signature block has been added.
11. Sidewalk chase detail has been added.
12. The detail for additions to existing walks is on the detail sheet.
13. The enhanced walks will not be built with this project.
14. See comment on redlined plans for further notes.
STORMWATER
Comments will be addressed when report is submitted.
N:\FC0063\Admin\commentedaw.doc
r
12/23/98
Larimer County Courthouse
Revised PDP Responses
Page 2 of 3
3. See revised drawings.
4. Utility coordination meeting is schedule for December 22, 1998.
WATERIWASTEWATER
1. Size of existing service has been added to plans as well as location of existing meter.
2. Necessary notes have been added to plans.
3. Sheets have been coordinated.
4. The service exists.
5. Site and Landscape Plans have been submitted with this FDP submittal.
6. Please see comments on redlined plans.
ENGINEERING
1. Please refer to revised plat.
2. Centerline of Mountain Avenue has been added.
3. Street cuts indicated take into account existing lane striping.
4. Note has been added.
5. Existing ramp has been shown on the plans and is proposed to remain.
6. Slope, length and size of pipe has been clearly indicated. As discussed, top of pipe
elevations would be confusing.
7. See revised drawings.
8. See revised drawings and notes on redlines.
NAFC0063 Wdminkommentedaw.doc
12/23/98
Larimer County Courthouse
Revised PDP Responses
Page 1 of 3
SPECIFIC DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
ZONING DEPARTMENT
1. See revised drawings.
2. Trash enclosure is located within the proposed courthouse accessible by the service entry.
3. See revised drawings.
4. NA
5. There is no step up at the rear entry into the park the hardscape plaza is flush with the
walkway.
6. See revised drawings.
7. Turf areas are to be seeded. No turf areas are included within the limits of project.
8. The Landscape Plan was reviewed with Ted Shepard he did not feel it was necessary to
combine the two plans.
9. Connection is not included so as to discourage pedestrian crossing at the mid -block of
Mason St.
10. The Site Plan was reviewed with Ted Shepard he did not feel it was necessary to remove
the contours from the Site Plan.
11. See revised drawings.
12. See revised drawings.
13. Parking lot is jointly owned, see note on revised drawing.
LIGHT AND POWER
1. See revised drawings for transfonner location.
2. See revised drawings.
N AFC0063\Admin\commentedaw.doc