Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSCOTTPLAZA - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2016-08-17land planning ■ landscape architecture ■ urban design ■ entitlement November 6, 2013 Seth Lorson City of Fort Collins Planning Department 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: Scott Plaza, PDP130032, Round Number 1 Responses Ir _ - Please seethe following summary of response to comments and the revised drilullhgs of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter: Stephanie Sigler, Ripley Design Inc. responses in red 970-224-5828 Nick Haws / Andy Reese, Northern Engineering responses in blue 970-221-4158 Chad Arthur, VFLA responses in green 970-224-1191 Comment Summary: Department: Current Planning Contact: Seth Lorson, 970.224.6189, slorson D-kgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 10/02/2013: Please provide elevations of the trash and recycling enclosure. Response: Elevations of the trash and recycling enclosure can be found on A3. It is 8' tall and the exterior finishes will match the adjacent building walls' materials. Please see the updated elevations. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 10/02/2013: The base element of the buiding needs to be more pronounced with higher quality masonry material as required in 3.5.3(E)(6). Response: We replaced the base element with masonry. It is predominantly brick with a precast elements used as accents. We also raised the main belt line of the base element and varied the height on different elevations. Please see the updated elevations. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 Scott Plaza PDP Round 1—Comment Responses Page 12 of 14 10/02/2013: Please explain the difference between the record & measured distances along the west boundary. See redlines. Response: The recorded distance shows the distance is the distance from the southwest comer to the previous right of way, prior to the Dechairo Subdivision. The measured distance is the length after dedications from the Dechairo Subdivision and vacations from this project have been accounted for. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 10/02/2013: If the easement shown on the existing side of sheet 2 is to be vacated, please label it. If it is not to be vacated, please remove it. See redlines. Response: The plat has been updated. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 10/02/2013: There are line over text issues on sheet 2. See redlines. Response: The plat has been updated. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 10/02/2013: We expect that the vacated Scott Avenue will remain as a utility easement. If this is the case, it will need to be shown. See redlines. Response: The plat has been updated. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 10/02/2013: Please show the bearing & distance from the right of way line to the northwest corner of the property. See redlines. Response: The plat has been updated. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 10/02/2013: Please show the 6.5' of right of way dedicated by Dechairo Subdivision. See redlines. Response: The plat has been updated. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 10/02/2013: Please show an overall distance for the north line of Lot 1. See redlines. Response: The plat has been updated. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 10102/2013: Please make the north line of Lot 1 solid. See redlines. Response: The plat has been updated. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 10/02/2013: Please check the marked distances at the northeast comer of the property. They add up to 121.16', not 121.10'. See redlines. Response: The plat has been updated. Scott Plaza PDP Round 1-Comment Responses Page 13 of 14 Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 10/02/2013: Please label adjacent subdivisions on all sides (including on the north side of Plum Street) of the subdivision. If unplatted, state as so. Response: The plat has been updated. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 10/02/2013: Please provide current acceptable monument records for the aliqout comers shown. Response: The plat has been updated. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 10/02/201.3 10/02/2013: Please label the stamping on each of the aliqout corners. Response: The plat has been updated. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 10/02/2013: Please change the numbering for the Elevation Plans on sheet 1 to match the numbering shown on those sheets. See redlines. Response: Plans have been revised Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 10/02/2013: There are line over text issues on sheet 2. See redlines. Response: Plans have been revised Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970.221.6820, wstanford(cb-fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/04/2013 10/04/2013: The separation between Scott St and Blue Bell doesn't meet current City standards. Please discuss with Engineering (Tyler) to determine if a variance request is required. Might need to verifdy the western access meets the criteria also.(LCUASS high - volume driveway and intersection criteria) Response: A variance request will be provided as needed. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/04/2013 10/04/2013: Please provide a plan providing the existing and revised striping on Plum St. Response: At this time, no modifications to the roadway striping are proposed from what was approved with The District at Campus West utility plans. That striping can be added to the plans at final design if desired. Topic: Traffic Impact Study Scott Plaza PDP Round 1—Comment Responses Page 14 of 14 Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/04/2013 10/04/2013: The TIS did not analyze the commercial/retail component of the site plan. Plerase revise the TIS to include this use. The Project Narrative states it is geared towards walk-in/bike-in customers. In order to exclude the use from motor vehicular TIS evaluation the project needs to provide a means of limiting the use to non -vehicular modes of travel. Response: The retail component is specifically for walk-in/bike-in customers. Due to its location we anticipate the use will be one that caters specifically to the student population within a few blocks. This project is emphasizing the vacated Scott Avenue as a pedestrian spine to West Elizabeth Street and this retail component is on the comer of that spine. Vehicular access is not permitted to West Elizabeth. Any traffic that comes to this location will most likely be pass -by traffic. It is completely surrounded by residential and therefore not a commercial destination that non local residents would drive to. It is located on a direct route from student housing to the CSU campus, adjacent to improved bike lanes and across the street from a bus stop. The retail area is only 441 sq. ft. and therefore is more conducive to a bike repair shop or small coffee shop designed specifically for the residents of this building. Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221.6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/01/2013 10/01/2013: Will existing water service to 1205 be abandoned? Response: Yes, all existing services are intended to be abandoned. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/01/2013 10/01/2013: Separate water and sewer services are required for the commercial and residential portions of the building. Response: Separate services are now provided. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/01/2013 10/01/2013: Are any separate irrigation taps planned? Response: No separate irrigation taps are proposed at this time. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/01/2013 10/01/2013: Revise the labels on the fire line and domestic water service connections as noted on the redlined utility plans. Response: The labels have been updated. PDP130032 Scotts Plaza October 2, 2013 915am Tyler Siegmund Seth. General: 1. A utility coordination meeting on this site is suggested. If you are interested in having a utility coordination meeting, please contact me for scheduling. Plat: 1. The utility/access easement (old Scott ave) needs to extend to the rear property line. The access easement is needed for future pedestrian connection to the south as part of the vacation of Scott Ave. See redlines 2. To meet current standards a 9ft utility easement along W Plum St will need to be dedicated as part of this project. Utility owners will need to review the proposed utility easement vacation along Plum St. 3. Xcel will need to agree and sign off on the exclusive public service company easement vacation along Scott ave. The City of Fort Collins utilities will need to review and sign off on the proposed City of Fort Collins utility easement vacation. 4. Portions of the proposed utility easement are under a building... 5. Add the following note to the cover sheet" 6. The public sidewalk along Plum St needs to be in right-of-way. Vacation of Scott ave will need to be revised so the final sidewalk location is in public right-of-way. Utility Plans: 1. The public sidewalk crossing old Scott ave needs to be redesigned to bring pedestrians straight across rather than crossing at an angle through the main access point into the project. A site meeting may be necessary to evaluate the existing site constraints. West Plum St is currently classified as a collector street which requires a minimum 8ft wide parkway along the Plum St frontage. The current submittal for this project is proposing a 6ft wide parkway. However, a recent development project adjacent to this site has been granted a variance for a modified parkway section to 6.5 ft wide. To stay consistent along the Plum St corridor please provide a parkway width at least 6.5 ft wide with this project. A formal variance request will need to be submitted to approve a parkway width less than the standard 8ft. 2. Are the existing water services to be abandoned? 3. Please provide the radii for the curb returns on both proposed drive approaches into the site. 4. The proposed seat wall and any other vertical improvements proposed behind the sidewalk will need to be set back a minimum of 2ft behind the public sidewalk. 5. Additional detail of the sidewalk finishes along Plum St is needed. RI PDP130032 Scotts Plaza 11-20-2013 1120am Tyler Siegmund Seth Plat: 1. Please update the plat to show the new property line set back at Scott Ave, behind the sidewalk. See redlines 2. Do the proposed easements that loops under the building need to be a utility easement and/or a drainage easement? It is not typical to have any easements under a building. Discussion about how the easement is identified with a building overhead will be needed. Language will likely need to be added to the plat that identifies a lid or top of easement. 3. Please see additional redlines on the plat. Contact me for clarification if needed. Utility Plans: 1. The new 5ft sidewalk will need to extend to the west property line. Currently shown tapering down to 3ft before the west property line. 2. Please label the new 30" curb and gutter along Plum St on the Utility Plan (sheet C300) 3. Please revise two notes on sheet C200 (Paving Plan)- Proposed concrete pan to Proposed Concrete drive approach. See redlines 4. Please update General note #34 to read "approval by the City of Fort Collins" 5. Profile of the proposed storm main down Plum Street will be needed at final plan submittal. Please note that the minimum cover over utilities in the road is 3ft. Scott Plaza PDP Round 1 Comment Responses Page 2 of 14 10/02/2013: The garage entrance on the north side of the building could use some architectural detailing and is not shown on the northeast perspective view. Response: We have upgraded the design of the garage. It has a more pronounced entrance done in masonry and capped with a steel awning, and we are now showing garage doors. In the evening, the entrance will be well lit. It will have very obvious directional signage as well. Please see the updated elevations. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 10/02/2013: The north side of the building needs to be articulated at material and color breaks to provide variation in massing per 3.5.3(D). The entire massing of the north side is quite flat and massive and not at all "human scale" as noted in the narrative. The water tower should be blended into the building design as opposed to the monolith that is proposed. The northeast corner element will be very prominent when walking west on the sidewalk, please add more architectural embelishment. Response: We have upgraded the materials in these areas and introduced masonry to the base element. The proportions of the material reduce the overall scale of the building by breaking it up into different masses through thickness and changes in the vertical and horizontal planes. We have pushed and pulled on the vertical faces as well to give the different materials and masses more independence. Please see the updated elevations. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 10/02/2013: The ground floor shows 30' of retail facing the street but the elevation shows 67' of windows. Are these windows to the parking garage? Response: These windows are to the parking garage, but they will be treated as spandrel glass and will be coated to prevent vision through the glass. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/08/2013 10/0812013: How will the shed roofs mitigate snow and water falling on pedestrians? Response: The shed roofs are finished with standing seam metal roofing. We will provided snow guards to hold the snows, gutters to capture the water that melts, and we will either provide exterior downspouts or pipe the runoff internally. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/08/2013 10/08/2013: The cornices should have corners so they do not appear to be thin parapets but more substantial structure. Response: The plan was to return the taller walls back onto the roof give the masses more grounding. We have now added that level of detail to our conceptual model and it can be seen in the resubmitted elevations and perspectives. Please see the updated elevations. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/08/2013 10/08/2013: Please pay special attention to the pedestrian experience in how it relates to the building architecture and design. Specifically massing and materials. Response: We have introduced masonry to our design for the base element. This material has an overall greater thickness, which provides a stronger foundation for the upper materials to build upon. We have also changed the vertical plane between the materials to give each mass more independence and definition. The proportions of each material work together to reduce the overall scale of the building. Please see the updated Scott Plaza PAP Round 1-Comment Responses Page 5 of 14 10/02/2013: According to the photometric plan light in excess of 0.1 foot candles is spilling more than 20' into the Plum Street ROW. Response: The light pole has been replaced with a wall mounted fixture. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 10/02/2013: The access easement needs to go all the way to the south end of the property to ensure a connection can happen with future redevelopment of sites to the south. Response: An access easement is now provided along the entire southern property line. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 10/02/2013: Please only show the amount of parking spaces provided. 1 zip car does not equal 15 parking spaces. Response: The site plan has been updated. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 10/02/2013: Please provide a written request for alternative compliance for bicycle parking per 3.2.2(C)(4)(c) because less than the required amount of fixed parking is being proposed. Response: Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 10/02/2013: With 96 parking spaces, 4 accessible parking spaces are required. Response: One accessible parking space has been added. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970.221.6573, saangenberger D_fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/17/2013 09/17/2013: no information was provided on the site plans regarding the retail and office square footage. This information is needed to calculate the TDRF - until that information is provided on the site plan I can not verify the fees. Response: The office is 248 sq. ft. and the retail is 441 sq. ft. Contact: Tyler Siegmund, 970.221-6501, tsiggmund(a7fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 10/02/2013: A utility coordination meeting on this site is suggested. If you are interested in having a utility coordination meeting, please contact me for scheduling. Response: A utility coordination meeting was held on 10-16,13 Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 10/02/2013: The utility/access easement (old Scott ave) needs to extend to the rear property line. The access easement is needed for future pedestrian connection to the south as part of the vacation of Scott Ave. See redlines Response: The access, utility, and drainage easements all extend to the southern lot line. Scott Plaza PDP Round 1-Comment Responses LVL .'_lam MW Page a of 1,* v Uati wr4 I��jV'til - Patc�.l +wM►N�► dt� rt0,m U - � n�tiScc�ts S p��i q• aI plow, 'Itv" • v ajcovjc,q 14"'i ` Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 Comment Number: 4 , s• U� a W Qn�e{� ( 9 10/02/2013: To meet current standards a 9ft utility easement along W Plum St will need to be dedicated as part of this project. Utility owners will need to review the proposed utility easement vacation along Plum St. Response: Discussions with .city staff have concluded that no utility easement will be required along our frontage. A variance request can be provided at final if needed. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 10/02/2013: Xcel Energy will need to agree and sign off on the exclusive public service company easement vacation along Scott ave. The City of Fort Collins utilities will need to review and sign off on the proposed City of Fort Collins utility easement vacation. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 10/02/2013: The public sidewalk along Plum St needs to be in right-of-way. Vacation of Scott ave will need to be revised so the final sidewalk location is in public right-of-way. Response: The sidewalk is now contained in the ROW. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 10/02/2013: The public sidewalk crossing old Scott ave needs to be redesigned to bring pedestrians straight across rather than crossing at an angle through the main access point for the project. A site meeting may be necessary to evaluate the existing site constraints. Response: The sidewalk has been adjusted. Response: The crossing has been modified, and now runs parallel to Plum Street. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 10/02/2013: Are the existing water services to be abandoned? Response: Yes, all existing services are intended to be abandoned. The plans have been updated help clarify this intention. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 10/02/2013: Please provide the radii for the curb returns on both proposed drive approaches into the site. Response: The 15' radii are now labeled as requested. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 J10/02/2013: The proposed seat wall and any other vertical improvements proposed behind the sidewalk will need to be set back a minimum of 2ft behind the public sidewalk. Response: The seat walls have been adjusted. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 10/02/2013: Additional detail of the sidewalk finishes along Plum St are needed. Scott Plaza POP Round 1-Comment Responses Page 7 of 14 Response: Notes have been added to the site plan. The sidewalk finishes along Plum Street shall be a textured or colored concrete. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 10/08/2013 10/08/2013: West Plum St is currently classified as a collector street which requires a minimum 8ft wide parkway along the Plum St frontage. The current submittal for this project is proposing a 6ft wide parkway. However, a recent development project adjacent to this site has been granted a variance for a modified parkway section to 6.5 ft wide. To stay consistent along the Plum St corridor please provide a parkway width at least 6.5 ft wide with this project. A formal variance request will need to be submitted to approve a parkway width less than the standard 8ft. Response: A 6.5' parkway is now proposed, and a variance request will be provided with the final plans. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224.6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 10101/2013: No comments. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970.221.6361, Topic: Landscape Plans tbuchanan@,fcgov.com Comment Originated: 10/01/2013 Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/08/2013 10/08/2013: The cut outs with tree grates are shown as 4X4 feet. Is it feasible to increase these to 5X5 feet to improve tree establishment and growth? Larger tree cut outs also provide better feasibility for tree replacements. Please provide a planting detail for tree in grates. Response: Tree grates have been enlarged and a detail provided. Comment Number: 2 10/08/2013: Change the west -most street tree to Glenleven Linden. Response: The landscape plan has been updated. Comment Originated: 10/08/2013 Response: There was an oftline discussion about possibly changing the species of trees along the eastern property line. This won't be possible due to the location of the fire lane and keeping the tree canopy as tight as possible so not to interfere with the fire apparatuses. Scott Plaza PDP Round 1_Comment Responses Page 8 of 14 Department: Internal Services Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-224.6189, slorson .fcuov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/26/2013 09/26/2013: GIS: Please include the following comments from GIS: 1. Building addresses will be assigned by the GIS Department after the plans have met final approval through Development Review and are recorded with the City. 2. Projects with three or more tenant units require the Unit Level Addressing form to be completed and submitted to the GIS Department once plans have met final approval through Development Review and are recorded with the City. This can occur anytime during construction, but before any utilities or address signs are installed. All addressing will be determined by the GIS Department and submitted to Poudre Fire Authority, USPS, Building Services, and Fort Collins Utilities. Failure to contact GIS and determining addresses through other means may result in address changes. The Unit Level Addressing form can be obtained by contacting the GIS office at gis@fcgov.com or (970) 416-2483. Response: Acknowledged, Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970.224-6152, dmartine �fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/19/2013 09119/2013: The electric vault shown on the utility plan near the S.E. corner of the site does not exist. The nearest electric cabinet is near the S.W. comer of the site. The developer will need to coordinate the electric utility locations, and electric development charges with Light & Power Engineering at (970)221=6700. It is encouraged that this coordination occur before the plans are final Response: The existing vault is no longer shown at the SE comer. Utility locations will be coordinated with final plans. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/19/2013 09/19/2013: After plans are final and approved, please send an AutoCad drawing (version 2008) to Terry Cox at TCOXO.FCGOV.COM. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Outside Agencies Contact: Seth Lorson, 970-224.6189, slorsonD-fcgov.com Topic: General Scott Plaza PDP Round 1-Comment Responses Page 8 of 14 Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: Xcel Energy: 14" we gas pressure here. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/10/2013 10/10/2013: Comcast Comcast Facility needs to be in a 6' utility easement. Any relocate will be at the developers expense. Any questions call my cell at 970-567-0745. Need to walkout project with the developer. Response: Acknowledged. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416.2869, jlynxwile 0poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/01/2013 10/01/2013: STRUCTURES EXCEEDING 30' (OR THREE OR MORE STORIES) IN HEIGHT Buildings exceeding 30' in height require ladder truck access in order to facilitate rescue operations from upper stories as well as allow firefighters access to the roof for fire suppression. This fire access lane shall be located on the longest side of the building and be position no closer than 15' to the building. It is recognized that the site constraints do not allow the placement of a 30' wide EAE spaced 15' from the building and adjacent to the longest side of the building. The current plan therefore creates a condition with firefighter access obstacles similar to those of high rise buildings. The intent of the fire code shall be preserved and as such, offsetting measures must be added so as to mitigate the current'out of access' condition. Further review and discussion with the fire code official is needed. Response: We are working directly with PFA on this project, and others, to establish guidelines and procedures for working through this challenge. We are currently in dialogue with PFA and will continue to move the conversation forward as we work through planning. We intend to publish a written agreement between PFA and us once we reach alignment on appropriate mitigation solutions. Some of the solutions we are investigating are: - Providing smoke detectors throughout, including public spaces and hallways. These would be on a general alarm so that all building occupants would be notified. The goal is to provide the earliest notification of an emergency as possible. - Areas of refuge in the stairways (2-hr rated shafts) - Widening stairwells to increase egress load and allow firefighters better access as they climb the stairs. - Compartmentalize the floors to separate spaces - Fire service access system in the elevator Comment Number: 2 10/01/2013: FIRE PITS Comment Originated: . 10/01/2013 Fire pits fueled by natural gas are allowed. Wood burning or smoke producing fire pits are prohibited. Response: Acknowledged. Scott Plaza PDP Round 1—Comment Responses Page 10 of 14 Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 10/02/2013: ACCESS & WATER SUPPLY With "The District" project occurring on the north side of Plum, coordination between projects will be needed in order to maintain adequate fire access and water supply throughout all phases of demolition and construction for the Peck Plaza Apts. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Stonmwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970.218-2932, jschlam fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/24/2013 09/17/2013: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft and in a sensitive area, 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 Q jschlam(Mfcgov.com Response: Acknowledged. Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970.416.2418, wlamargu!k6fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/01/2013 10/01/2013: Please document in the drainage report the quantity detention, water quality mitigation and the LID requirements. This should include the various methods and the quantity of mitigation each method will achieve. Response: The additional information has been provided in the report. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221.65889 Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 10/02/2013: No comments. Response: Acknowledged. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 2 jcount&fceov.com Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 10/02/2013: The benchmarks on sheet C000 do not match the benchmarks on sheet C001. See redlines. Response: The plans have been updated. Scott Plaza PDP Round 1-Comment Responses Page 11 of 14 Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 10/02/2013: Why is the Basis Of Bearings statement referencing a different line from the Subdivision Plat? See redlines. Response: The plans have been updated and the basis of bearing now matches the plat. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 10/02/2013: There are line over text issues on sheet C300. See redlines. Response: The plans have been updated. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 10/02/2013: Please mask text within hatched areas on sheet C300. See redlines. Response: The plans have been updated and the text is no longer in the hatched area. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 10/02/2013:. There are line over text issues on sheets 3 & 4. See redlines. Response: Plans have been revised. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 7 10/02/2013: No comments. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 10/02/2013: Please correct the typo for the tie bearing marked in the Statement Of Ownership And Subdivision and/or on sheet 2. It shows West in the Statement Of Ownership And Subdivision, and East on sheet 2. See redlines. Response: The plat has been updated. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 10/02/2013: Are there any Lienholders? If so, please add a signature block. If not, please add a note stating that there are no Lienholders for this property. Response: The plat has been updated. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 10/02/2013: Please show the title commitment information in note #2 when it is available. See redlines. Response: The plat will be updated when the information is available. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013 10/02/2013: Please remove the surrounding owner information shown on sheet 2. See redlines. Response: The plat has been updated. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 10/02/2013