Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutK 2 INDUSTRIAL PARK LOT 1 JB EXCAVATION PDP - 51 91C - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS (2)Response to staff project review comments dated 8-22-01 ELCO Comment 14: East Larimer County (ELCO) Water District currently provides water service to Lot 1, K-2 Industrial Park from a 2.5" water line located in the easement running north to south along the eastern edge of the site. No trees can be planted within the existing water line easement. The existing 2 5" water line serving the property is not capable of supplying a fire hydrant. Response:. Acknowledged Engineering Comment 22: Is the TIS memo acceptable to Eric Bracke? If so, need documentation. Response: Documentation was E-mailed to engineering. Comment 23: Complete and submit the Checklist in Appendix E-4. Response: Checklist has been submitted. Comment 25: Cover Sheet: Add preamble title of "Utility Plans for..." Response: Preamble title has been submitted. Comment 26: Cover Sheet: Ado the legal description below the project name. Response: Comment 27: Legal description has been added. Cover Sheet: Minimum size for the Vicinity Map is 10"xl0" and to a scale of 1"=1000-1500'. Zoom in on the project— seethe current LCUASS, chapter 3. Response: Vicinity Map has been up sized. Comment 29: Cover Sheet: Update the current date (month and year) under the legal description. Response: Comment 30: Date has been updated. Cover Sheet: Update the General Construction Notes, see attached. Response: General Construction notes have been updated. Comment 31: Cover Sheet: Provide 2 project bench marks referencing the city's datum - this information will be placed inside the General Construction Notes where asked for. Response: Benchmarks have been provided. Comment 32: Cover Sheet: Reference the updated or current soils investigation report. ----Response:- Soils investigation was waved per meeting with.Engineering on 9-13-01. Comment 33: Cover Sheet: Need the following statement annotated on the cover sheet: "I hereby affirm..." Response: Comment 34: Statement has been added. Cover Sheet: Provide the names, addresses, phone numbers for the Developer(s) and/or Owner(s). Response: The above items have been added. Comment 35: Cover Sheet: Provide an area of 4"x6" on each sheet for the Local Entity to place a stamp of approval. Response: Stamp spaces were discussed and waved at 9-13-01 meeting with engineering. Comment 36: Cover Sheet: Add the Indemnification Statement "These plans have been reviewed...". See Appendix E-4. Response: Indemnification Statement has been added. Comment 37: Grading Sheet: Add a Signature Block. Response: Signature Block has been added. Comment 38: Grading Slieet: Note #5 on the Plat prohibits more than one access point to Lot 1. Flowever, Gloria Flice-Adler with CDOT (970-350-2148) does not feel it nccessnry In clOsc the access roinl Of Ihis lithe, She staled 'lint CDOT will re-evaluate the access and frontage improvements at such time the area develops in the future. Response: Acknowledged Comment 39: Grading Sheet: Incomplete finish grade elevations shown. Please provide for streets, lot corners, and FF/rop of Foundation of buildings. Response: Above items have been added. Comment 40: Grading Shect: Add the statement: "The top of foundation elevations shown..." See the Checklist in Appendix E-4. Response: Statement has been added Comment 41: Grading Sheet: Show temporary and long-term erosion control devices and label. Where is the silt fencing going? Response: Erosion control devices have been added. Comment 42: Add "Print Date"- all sheets. Response: Print dates have been added. Comment 43: Fill in "done by" information in all title blocks, all sheets. Response: Comment 43 was discussed and waived at 9l-0lLind witheasementsengineering. ine ring. Comment 44: Provide all existing and proposed ROW, property lines ith dimensions. Label on all sheets. Response: The above items have been added. Comment 46: The frontage road right-of-way lines are not clear. Is the one shown actually the centerline? If not, where is the center line located? Response: Frontage ROW lines have been clarified. Comment 47: Are there any easements on the west and south edge of the property? If not, will need to dedicate additional ROW for future improvements. Response: Acknowledged Comment 48: The 30' public access right -of way shown is actually road right-of-way. This road must be brought up to current standards or money can be escrowed for future construction. This can be addressed in the Development Agreement. Response: Acknowledged Comment 49: Redesign the parking lot to meet current LCUASS. Parking lot setbacks are based on ADT's of the Traffic Impact Study. OR build it as shown agreeing to standards at such time the road on the south side of the lot is brought up to — code. If you choose this option, we would need a Development Agreement stating the above conditions. Response: This will be addressed in the Development Agreement. Comments 51-57 were all waived at the 9-13-01 meeting with engineering. g Comment 60: Landscape Plan: Please show all existing and proposed ROW, property lines and easements with dimensions. Response: The above items have been added to the Landscape Plan. Natural Resources Comment 62: Show buffer around offsite windbreak —If the offsite windbreak is shown on plans the 25' buffer that is required by the Land Use Code needs to be shown as well. Response: Acknowledged Police Comment 2: Plans do not indicate lighting. Some type of down lighting desirable for north and south entrances. Security lighting for area between buildings. Response: All lighting described above already exists and has been added to the plans being re -submitted. Comment 61: Lack of lighting and type of landscape between office and garage will increase potential security problems. Response: Lighting between office and garage already exists and has been added to the plans. Storm Water Comment 20: Erosion control comments: There is silt fencing mentioned in the report but not shown on the plans. Please provide erosion control efficiency calculations as well as escrow calcs. Response: Silt fence was installed along the west property line and is still in place. Above calculations have been provided. Flood Plain Comment 21: Please address whether the building improvements will exceed 50% of the value of the current building. If they do, then the Substantial Improvement policy would be applicable. The building would then need to be Floodproofed. Please confirm in the report that no additional fill will be placed in the floodplain. As previously requested please provide the Ayres report documenting the "no rise" condition with the nest submittal. Response: There are no building improvements planned. No additional fill will be placed in the floodplain. The Ayres report has been submitted.