HomeMy WebLinkAboutASPEN HEIGHTS STUDENT HOUSING - PDP - PDP110018 - CORRESPONDENCE - (3)04/09/2012: See i ,. ,fined utility for additional comments.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 04/09/2012
04/09/2012: Show water/sewer mains and services on the landscape plans and adjust
plantings to comply with the required separations.
Department: Zoning
Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals(cDfcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012
01/03/2012: 3.2.5 There shall be enough areas provided for the Trash/Recycling needs of the
project and residents. There are only eight trash/recycling enclosures identified on the plans
this is not enough to meet the needs of the project neither is the location convenient for all the
tenants. The project needs more trash/recycling enclosures and more locations to be
conveniently accessible for all tenants.
04/05/2012 With the addition of the trash enclosure locations the Land Use Code requires them
to be setback at least 20 ft from a public sidewalk. Some locations seem to be closer than 20 It
to sidewalks along Lupine Drive and Blue Spruce Drive.
Also please provide a detail of the trash enclosure with elevations.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/05/2012
04105/2012: Where are the site plan details and elevations for the clubhouse? Are there any
structures in the recreation area?
01/10/2012: RoL_ . 8 and 81 serve this area of the city along L.._.- Spruce Drive and Conifer
Street. An improved north bound stop is located on the north side of Conifer, just west of
Redwood Street, but a south bound stop needs to be integrated into this site. Applicant shall
locate a 12' x 18' pad approximately 50'-80' west from the intersection of Redwood and Conifer
Streets. Exact location should be coordinated with site plan to provide direct access into the
site.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 01/10/2012
04/09/2012: Keep in mind if you do off site improvements.
01/10/2012: The existing stop located at the food banks in rough condition, if off site
improvements are proposed in this area, Transfort requests providing an accessible pad for a
bus shelter.
Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffinuton(Mcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 01/10/2012
04/09/2012: Revise as noted on the redlined utility plans.
01/10/2012: Water main valving will be evaluated with next submittal. It appears that some
valves can be eliminated.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 01/10/2012
04/09/2012: Include at final.
01/10/2012: Plan and profile sheets(s) will be required for the 12-inch water main.
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 04/09/2012
04/09/2012: The connections to the existing water mains in Conifer and Redwood will be made
with a tapping saddle. Revise notes accordingly.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 04/09/2012
04/09/2012: Label the tees for all fire hydrant connections as swivel tees.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/09/2012
04/09/2012: At final, pothole the ELCO water main in Conifer to determine if a lowering of the 8"
line is required. If yes, provide a complete design, a detail and include a steel casing.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 04/09/2012
04/09/2012: On Sht 2 under Waterline Notes, add "Water mains shall be DIP with polywrap or
PVC with tracer wire".
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 04/09/2012
04/09/2012: Add the Std Details for tracer and locator stations.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 04/09/2012
04/09/2012: Add steel casing at the location where sanitary crosses below.the three culverts
on Lupine. Will water main be above or below these culverts? If below, add casing.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 04/09/2012
04/09/2012: Label all water main lowerings on the project and provide a detail of each with
pipe elevations noted. Include casings on all water/sewer lines crossing below storm lines 24"
or larger.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 04/09/2012
i
Comment Number:—imment Originated: 01/18/201-2
04/10/2012: This has not been corrected. The proper spelling is ''Principal" in Land Surveying.
01/19/2012: Please correct the spelling of "Principal" in the legal description on sheet 1.
Comment Number: 14
Comment Originated: 01/19/2012
04/10/2012: This has been addressed.
01/19/2012: There are line over text issues on sheets 6, 7, 9 & 11.
Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012
04/10/2012: There are text over text issues on sheet 5.
Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012
04/10/2012: There are line over text issues on sheet-8.
Comment Number: 34
Comment Originated: 04/10/2012
04/10/2012: The corner cuts on the right of way of Blue Spruce Drive'shown on sheets 5 & 7
will need to change, so that the sidewalk is completely inside of the right of way.
Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012
04/10/2012: The right of way lines at the north end of Blue Spruce Drive on sheet 5 & at the
east end of Lupine Drive on sheets 6 & 8 don't match the Subdivision Plat.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Ward Stanford, 970.221.6820, wstanford@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/12/2012
03/12/2012: Please include signing and striping plans with subsequent submittals.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 03/12/2012
03/12/2012: Looks like a small sight distance easement may be necessary at the SW corner of
Redwood and Conifer. Please verify.
Topic: Traffic Impact Study
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 02/08/2012
02/08/2012: The TIS analyzed the College and Conifer intersection with a north bound right turn
lane. Unfortunately one does not currently exist at that location. It is being built with the current
improvements so analyzing it in the short and long term is appropriate. Please revise the TIS
appropriately.
Department: Transportation Planning
Contact: Emma McArdle, 970.221.6197, emcardle fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 01/10/2012
04/09/2012: The bus stop is shown on the landscape plan but not the other documents.
Please show and label the bus stop on the site plan as well. Please re check dimensions, the
stop does not appear to be 12' x 18'.
i
Comment Number: _.mment Originated: 04/11/2012
04/11/2012: There are profile values that are not known on sheet.19.
Comment Number: 45 . Comment Originated: 04/11/2012
04/11/2012: Is sheet 21 the correct sheet for Vine Drive, or is sheet 22?
Comment Number: 46
04/11/2012: The keymaps on sheets 21 & 22 are incorrect.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 36
04/10/2012: Please label Vine Drive on sheet LS-2. —
Comment Originated: 04/11/2012
Comment Originated: 04/10/2012
Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012
04/10/2012: There are line over text issues on sheets LS-3 & LS-4. .
Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012
04/10/2012: Sheet LS-5 has an incorrect "10" in the sheet number.
Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012
04/10/2012:
There are matchline issues on sheets LS-5, LS-6, LS-7, LS-8 & LS-9.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated:
01/18/2012
04/10/2012:
The boundary & legal description close.
01/18/2012:
The boundary & legal description close.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated:
01/18/2012
04/10/2012:
This has not been corrected.
01/18/2012:
The record bearing for the south line of Section 1 is incorrect.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated:
01/18/2012
04/10/2012:
There is still missing information on sheet 3.
01/18/2012:
There are easements that need to be labeled. See redlines.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated:
01/18/2012
04/10/2012:
Please add the ")" to the note.
01/18/2012:
Please add "See Sheet 1" to Detail "A" on sheet 2,
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated:
04/10/2012
04/10/2012:
There is a text over text issue on sheet 3.
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012
04/10/2012: There is cut off text on sheet 2.
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012
04/10/2012: The corner cuts on the right of way of Blue Spruce Drive create a problem with the
sidewalk design shown on the Site Plans.
Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012
04/10/2012: We would prefer that the 3' of right of way to be dedicated along Redwood Street
be extended all the way to Lupine Drive. This will create a consistent right of way width, rather
than 2 different widths.
Topic: Site Plan
i
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 04/12/2012
04/12/2012: For -all off -site easements that are required for this. development, letter of intents
are needed before a public hearing.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 04/12/2012
04/12/2012: Please investigate if the temporary outfall can be connected into the inlet at the
northwest corner of Vine Drive and Redwood Street. This will reduce another crossing under
Redwood Street and eliminate the manhole that is very close to the transmission line pole.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 04/12/2012.
04/12/2012: Please see the attached Erosion Control requirements for a guideline on the first
submittal of the Final Plan Review process.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, icountyAfcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 22
Comment Originated: 01/19/2012
04/10/2012: There is still one line over text issue on sheet A-2.
01/19/2012: There are many line over text & text over text issues.
Topic: Construction Drawings
i
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012
04/11/2012: There are still line over text issues on sheets 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 &
22.
01/19/2012: There are line over text issues on sheets 5, 6, 8, 9, 21, 22, 23 & 25.
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012
04/11/2012: There are still mislabeled matchline issues on sheets 10, 14, 18, & 22.
01/19/2012: There is a mislabeled matchline sheet number on sheet 9.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012
04/11/2012: Please remove the duplicate "Vine Drive" on sheet 11.
01/19/2012: Please remove all the duplicate street names on sheets 13 & 20-24.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012
01/19/2012: Please move all street names into the right of way on all sheets.
Comment Number: 40
Comment Originated: 04/11/2012
04/11/2012: The sheet numbering jumps back & forth between 27 and 26 sheets.
Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 04/11/2012
04/11/2012: The Blue Spruce Drive centerline plan & profile sheet and the Street Details sheet
are listed on the title sheet, but are not in the plan set.
Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 04/11/2012
04/11/2012: The City does not use the Black Bolt Survey anymore. Please call Technical
Services @ 970-221-6588 to get a current copy of the City of Fort Collins Vertical Control.
Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 04/11/2012
04/11/2012: There are text over text issues on sheets 6, 7, 8,,9 & 20.
i
Department: Stormwater Ea„ ,eering
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970.416.2418, wiamargue()fcgov.com
Topic: Floodplain
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012
01/10/2012: Floodplain comments
1. A portion of the project is in the FEMA-designated Dry Creek floodplain and floodway.
2. Please include the floodplain and floodway boundarie'on the all the plan sheets for which
the floodplain is mapped.
3. The plat shows the Redwood St. and New Vine Drive roads are shown to be constructed in
the Dry Creek floodway. Because these roads will change the floodway boundary, a CLOMR
and a LOMR will be required. In addition, this CLOMR/LOMR will need to reflect changes in the
hydrology due to the construction of the pond. Please contact Marsha'Hilmes-Robinson at
mhilmesrobinson@fcgov.com or 970-224-6036 to arrange a meeting to discuss the
CLOMR/LOMR process and the timing of improvements.
4. The floodway is not correctly identified on the plat. Please identify and distinguish between
the Dry Creek floodway and floodplain.
5. Please.include further discussion in the drainage report regarding the existing location of the
floodway and floodplain and the proposed floodplain mapping changes.
6. Any vegetation placed in the floodway must be documented to be of a type and quantity
such that Ripon maturity it will not increase the base flood elevations.
7. A floodplain use permit is required for any work in the floodplain or floodway. The permit fee
is•$325 which includes review of the hydraulic modeling for the CLOMR/LOMR.
8. Please see the 50% and 100% floodplain development review checklists for additional items
needed on the plans and in the drainage report. All floodplain regulations can be found in
Chapter 10 of City Code.
9. The floodplain use permit, and development review checklists are available on our website
at: hUp://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/flooding/forms-documents
Topic: General
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012
01/10/2012: The construction of Vine Drive will alter existing drainage patterns from areas within
Dry Creek basin northwest of the site. These flows need to be shown how they pass the site
and Vine Drive. This will require a revision to the City's master plan model hydrology, which is
the responsibility of the Developer.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/17/2012
01/17/2012: The hydraulic (including inlets, storm sewers, street capacity, etc.) and erosion i
control design for this Development will be reviewed during final compliance after a public
hearing.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 04/12/2012
04/12/2012: Please show all the capital improvements to be built with this development on the
plans that was agreed upon in the letter dated March 20, 2012 by Owen Consulting.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 04/12/2012
04/12/2012: All off -site drainage flowing onto the site needs to be direct through the site safely
and per City's criteria. The western edge of the site looks like it needs more detail to
determine if this will occur and if off -site easements are required.
An emergency aL s easement is an easement through:or up, private property, properly
platted and dedicated to the City of Fort Collins for the sole purpose of providing emergency
access. It is intended to provide an area designed for the safe and effective deployment of
emergency response services. Emergency services shall be allowed to drive, park and/or
stage any emergency vehicle or equipment upon this easement at any time.
The easement may be upon public streets (except arterial streets), parking lots, private streets
and private drives; this easement shall not be upon any,defined pedestrian walkway.
It shall be the responsibility of the owner to maintain -the easement unobstructed, including
parked vehicles, and to maintain its visibility at all times for emergency access and firefighter
safety.
DESIGN: The easement is required to meet the design specification s'outlined in the locally
adopted fire code, as amended by the City of Fort Collins, and in the Land Use Code. It shall
be designed to withstand the imposed weights of fire apparatus, 40-ton. It is required to have a
minimum width of 20 feet, with a 25 foot inside turning radius and a 50 foot outside turning
radius; and it shall have 14 foot of clear air space. No canopy trees under 14 feet shall
overhang into the fire lane. If the fire lane(s) cannot be provided, all buildings beyond 150 feet
from the public right of way are deemed out of access and required to be fire sprinklered. This
distance its measured as the hose would lay, and not as the crow flies. Please verify this
distance on the site plan or the overall utility plan.
Fire access roads (fire lanes) shall be provided
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 01/05/2012
01/05/2012: WATER SUPPLY: The water supply for this project shall provide a hydrant no
further than 400 feet to every structure, and on 800 foot centers thereafter. The required volume
is 1500 gpm @ 20 psi.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/05/2012
01/05/2012: PREMISES IDENTIFICATION: Address numerals are required to be visible from the
street fronting the property, and posted on a contrasting background. The numerals shall be
posted on the front of the building. As is currently designed, only the perimeter buildings which
front on a public street can meet this requirement, All other interior buildings appear to front on
a walkway spine, which cannot be named. Therefore, the private drives, fire lanes, must be
properly named and addressed for emergency services to locate.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/05/2012
01/0512012: All proposed street names shall be submitted for review and approval by LETA
prior to being put in service.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/05/2012
01/05/2012: Any hazardous materials shall be declared utilizing the HMIA, as described in LUC
3.4.5. This would include the use of pesticides, and pool chemistry. .
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/05/2012
01/05/2012: All multi -family units shall be fire sprinklered in accordance with the IRC.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 04/.13/2012
04/13/2012: Confirm that none of the cottonwood trees shown to be removed are located in a
natural area buffer.
Comment Number: 20
Comment Originated: 04/13/2012 '
04/13/2012: Contact Pete Wray in Advance planning to review and receive comments on the
landscape design of the median to standard.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 04/13/2012
04/13/2012: Provide a mix of tree types located in a manner that meet the requirements 3.2.1.
C. D and other relevant sections of that Division. It appears that there are landscape areas that
need to be addressed with tree planting that are currently not.
Comment Number: 22
Comment Originated: 04/13/2012
04/13/2012: Please replace the part of the notes referring trees to be limbed to 6 feet with this
statement. Street landscaping including street trees shall be maintained in accordance with City
codes and Policies.
Comment Number: 23
Comment Originated: 04/13/2012
04/13/2Q12: Please set up an on site meeting with the City Forester and representative from
the Engineering Department to review the Redwood Street and Vine Street Alignment impact
on the cottonwood trees located by these proposed roadways. Forestry would like to confirm
the actual location of the proposed road improvements by these trees.
Comment Number: 24
Comment Originated: 04/13/2012
04/13/2012: Final landscape plan shall provide for direct labeling of the displayed symbols for
trees. The plant list should include final quantities. Quantities should provide for species
diversity, with not over 15 percent is for projects with more that 60 trees.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224.6152, dmartine()fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/03/2012
04/03/2012: A landscape plan showing proposed street lights was sent to The Fredrickson
Group on 4-3-12. The lights need to be shown on the landscape plan and tree locations
adjusted to provide 40 ft. clearance between light standards and trees (15 ft. for ornamental
trees).
i
Department: PFA
Contact: Ron Gonzales, 970.221.6635, rgonzales@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/05/2012
01/05/2012: REQUIRED ACCESS: Emergency Fire Access Easements (Fire Lanes)
DEFINITION:
Street trees in situ _.stance areas should have the first branch 4_ , feet.
Comment Number: 9
Comment Originated: 01/18/2012
01/18/2012: Please provide a statement as part of the tree mitigation information on why the
existing trees on the site need to be removed.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012
01/18/2012: Utility separations for trees: Six feet between water and sewer service lines. Ten
feet between trees and water and sewer main lines.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012
01/1812012: Planting beds along high use and visibility Walls should be 5 feet wide.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012
01/18/2012: Street trees should beat a 30-40 spacing. They appear to beat this spacing but
there is a note that mentions 50 feet.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 04/13/2012
04/13/2012: The Following note should replace note number 6 on LS-2.
The soil in all landscape areas, including parkways and medians, shall be thoroughly
loosened to a depth of not less than eight (8) inches and soil amendment shall be thoroughly
incorporated into the soil of all landscape areas to a depth of at least six (6) inches by tilling,
discing or other suitable method, at a rate of at least three (3) cubic yards of soil amendment
per one thousand (1,000) square feet of landscape area.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 04/13/2012
04/13/2012: The two requested notes about obtaining a planting permit for street trees and
obtaining inspections on these trees doesn't appear to have been added to Sheet LS-1.
Please check and add these two notes to the general notes. The Requested note about Tree
Removal shall be by a Fort Collins Licensed arborist where required by Code also appears to
still need to be added to LS-1.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 04/13/2012
04/1312012: Scotch pine is susceptible to Mountain Pine Beetle and other insect problems.
The City Forester recommends using another evergreen tree such as South West White Pine.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 04/13/2012
04/13/2012: Street Tree Selection needs to be from the City Street Tree List.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 04/13/2012
04/13/2012: Incorporate 124 upsized mitigation trees on the landscape plan. These need to i
be sized as follows and identified direct labeling and it the plant list.
Shade Trees 3.0 inch caliper
Ornamental Trees 2.5 inch caliper
Evergreen Trees 8 Feet height
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 04/13/2012
04/13/2012: Use 3 inch caliper shade trees in Sight Distance Triangle Easements to provide for
high canopies.
objectives?
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan(ofcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012
01/18/2012: Note 6 on sheet 1 should be changed to the code requirement for soil
improvement.
The soil in all landscape areas, including parkways and medians, shall be thoroughly
loosened to a depth of not less than eight (8) inches and soil amendment shall be thoroughly
incorporated into the soil of all landscape areas to a depth of at least six (6) inches by tilling,
discing or other suitable method, at a rate of at least three (3) cubic yards of soil amendment
per one thousand (1,000) square feet of landscape area.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012
Add these notes to address the tree permit requirement:
• A permit must be obtained from the City Forester before any trees or shrubs as noted on
this plan are planted, pruned or removed on the public right-of-way. This includes zones
between the sidewalk and curb, medians and other city property. This permit shall approve the
location a6d species to be planted. Failure to obtain this permit may result in replacing or
relocating trees and a hold on certificate of occupancy.
• The developer shall contact the City Forester to inspect all street tree plantings at the
completion of each phase of the development. All trees need to have been installed as shown
on the landscape plan. Approval of street tree planting is required before final approval of
each phase. Failure to obtain approval by the City Forester for street trees in a phase shall
result in a hold on certificate of occupancy for future phases of the development.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012
01/18/2012: Explore the addition of ornamental trees in the front lawn or bed space of units
along public streets. These lawn areas between the building and sidewalk to be reviewed for
full tree stocking.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 01/18/2012
01/18/2012: Add this note: Tree removal shall be by a Fort Collins Licensed arborist where
required by code.
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 01/18/2012
01/18/2012: "Landscape tree lawns.outside of the project perimeter shall be installed by the
developer of Aspen Height and maintained by the City of Fort Collins". Contact Rodney Albers
(224 6024) in Storm Water and Steve Lukowski (416 2063) in parks to discuss their
requirements, and what additional statements they may require on the plan.
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 01/18/2012
01/1812012: "Street Trees on Local Roadways, internal to the development site can be a
minimum of 1.5' caliper at the time of planting". Please explain why a smaller than the required
2.0 inch caliper tree would be specified here.
Comment. Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012
01/18/2012:
01/10/2012: As ti.._ project proposed to remove a raptor forage.,, area and a prairie dog
colony over 50 acres, at least a three -pronged approach should be taken to mitigate the loss of
these resources.
1. The applicant should verify that relocation of the prairie dogs is not an option. If it is not an
option, then efforts to trap and donate the prairie dogs to the ferret or raptor center should be
discussed.
2. The regional detention pond on the site should be designed to maximize the urban habitat
opportunities, e.g., every effort should be made to design and construct the regional detention
basin as a native habitat, including native grass and forb species in the design. The proposed
seed mix in the landscape plan is an excellent start toward achieving this but do we think the
base of the detention pond will be dry or wet? If the pond will be wet, then a wetland seed mix
should be considered for the site (including the wetland mitigation area). In addition, shrubs and
trees surrounding the pond should be installed to enhance the vegetation diversity (both
structurally and species -specific).
3. In addition, because there will be a loss of raptor habitat, staff is exploring mechanisms to
create additional or enhance existing prairie habitat (that could serve raptors upon restoration)
in other areas across the City (mitigating for the loss of this habitat), e.g., at McKee Farm in
southeast Fort Collins.
Let's plan a separate meeting to discuss these comments in more detail.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012
04/10/2012: This note also needs to be added to the site plan and utility plans.
01/10/2012: A note on all of the plans saying the following, "See Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use
Code for allowable uses within the Natural Habitats Buffer Zone" may need to be added in future
reviews, depending on how the mitigation areas are designed.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/11/2012
01/11/2012: Staff concurs with the ECS that a burrowing owl survey will need to be conducted,
prior to construction, to determine if the owls are present on the site. Prior to releasing the
Development Construction Permit, staff will need a letter of clearance from the USFWS
confirming there are no known nesting sites on the property.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Jthveral
ed.
04/10/2012
04/1012012: On sheet LS-3 that is titled "Tree Mitigation Plan," you ca o species
are cotton -bearing cottonwood species. Note that if these species are in the quffer zones,
e.g., those areas in bubbles labeled G and H, then they do require mitigation as per Section
3.2.1(F)(2)(c). This standard also applies to female boxelder trees. Let's discuss how to
proceed on this item.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/10/2012
04/1312012: After the staff review, I talked with Eric Berg and he confirmed this area was not
examined in the wetland delineation process. He indicated he will go into the field next week
(the week of the 16th) and will check this area to see if it needs to be including in the
delineation.
04/10/2012: From reviewing the wetland mitigation plan sheet, it appears this area coincides
with some of the treed areas listed in the above comment. In addition, some of this area is
depressional in nature but was not included within the original wetland delineation for this site.
Please confirm that none of the proposed mitigation area is currently a wetland. Note that it also
appears some of the trees discussed in the above comment are within the proposed wetland
mitigation area - is there any way to preserve these trees and still achieve the mitigation
01/10/2012: It sounds like the mitigation and monitoring plan will be received upon the next
submittal. The monitoring plan should include the n-s spine in the center of the project, which is
being designed as a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone. Also note that the City and ACOE have
generally similar requirements, but the mitigation plan may need to address specific City
concerns, especially if the wetlands are deemed to be non -jurisdictional. One of the critical
components for City staff will be whether the proposed mitigation location has sufficient
hydrology to support a wetland. Also, as per Section 3.4.1(0) of the Land Use Code, a copy of
the ACOE mitigation permit will be required to be submitted to the City for proof of compliance.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012
04110/2012: A weed plan will need to be developed after the first growing season. As noted
above, this can be incorporated into the mitigation and monitoring plan. The current note on the
plan in insufficient, but this can be resolved during final plan review and in the development
agreement.
01/10/2012: Noxious weeds - the Development Agreement and Mitigation Plan should include a
discussion on how the site will address noxious weeds, e.g., the field bindweed and Canada
thistle found on the site.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012
04/13/2012: Based on the discussion at staff review today, it sounds like an agreement
between the City and the applicant can be reached regarding off -site mitigation through the
creation of prairie habitat elsewhere through the City via the City's Natural Areas Program. I will
be meeting with Natural Areas staff on April 19th to determine if this strategy is acceptable to
them as well (as they will be the ones conducting the restoration). If this strategy is agreed
upon by all parties, I can begin drafting a Memorandum of Understanding that, at the time of
Development Construction Permit, the applicant will provide the City with the appropriate funds
to create at least a 1:1 mitigation for the prairie dog habitat lost through this development. Staff
strongly recommends considering a 1.5:1 mitigation ratio to account for the off -site nature of this
mitigation effort.
04/10/2012: As a relocation option for the prairie dogs has not been identified, the proposal to
remove the prairie dogs and use them as a food source for the Rocky Mountain Raptor
Program is the next best option.
Regarding the detention pond, it is unclear to me where grading will be temporary vs.
permanent. In the areas that will be more permanent, is it possible to plant more shrubs and
trees throughout the detention pond instead of just a native seed mix?
Regarding #3, staff does not see how the current management plan for the prairie dogs
achieves Section 3.4.1(C) where the general standard refers to "restoring or replacing the
resource value lost to the community (either on -site or off -site) when a development proposal
will result in the disturbance of natural habitats or features." How is this project replacing or
restoring the lost value? As it stands, staff can only find that the standards for prairie dog control
have been met, as outlined in the Municipal Code, and not how the resource value lost at the
site has been mitigated. If mitigation for this resource lost cannot occur that is at least equal in
ecological value to the loss suffered by the community because of the disturbance (see
Section 3.4.1(E)(2)(b)), then a modification may need to be required.
Department: Environmentgl Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex(7fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012
04/13/2012: In addition to my comments below, from my discussions with the applicant, it
appears that the trickle pan can be removed and that the pond can be graded in such a way to
direct flow toward the mitigation area. This would mimic the current wetland's hydrology, which
is also fed by stormwater flow. However, I've asked the applicant to also look at installing
monitoring wells at the site, in several different locations, to assess whether or not the
mitigation area could have a hydrology regime supported b groundwater. Whether
proposed 9 Y 9Y 9 PP Y
or not the applicant can install these monitoring wells should be determined prior to hearing.
04/10/2012: Please label the n-s spine in the center of the project as well as the mitigation area
as a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone on the site, landscape, and utility plans. Please also add the
following note to the site, landscape, and utility plans: "Please see Section 3.4.1(E) of the Land
Use Code for allowable uses within the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone."
To be clear, while the wetland mitigation plan. sheet shows graphically how the 0.30 acres will
be mitigated for, a document detailing the mitigation and monitoring strategies will need to be
developed and ultimately will be attached to the project's development agreement. Staff can
provide you with examples of these plans. Note that at least three years of monitoring will be
required, depending on how quickly mitigation success can be achieved.
Who is responsible for the mitigation's success? There are several disclaimers on this sheet
saying who is not responsible, but responsibility is not clearly assigned either.
Also, I cannot find anything within the wetland mitigation plan sheet that jndicates this site will
have wetland hydrology. Please submit documentation that confirms site hydrology is present
at this elevation. It appears the trickle pan may cut off the water flowing from the north, and it
would be good to know how this affects the potential success of the mitigation effort.
Other wetland mitigation plan comments are as follows:
A. The area that is outlined as the wetland mitigation area has two different seed mixes - both
wetland and upland. Why are there upland seed mixes within the wetland mitigation area? Is the
area between the 54 and 55 contours really expected to be a wetland? This coincides with my
comment about wetland hydrology above.
B. Drill seeding will increase the likelihood of success on this mitigation effort and is highly
recommended by staff.
C. Staff is assuming the contours and shape of the wetland mitigation area are conceptual at this
time and will be fleshed out during final plan review. A couple of my comments during that
discussion will be to have a more naturalistic/blurred edge for the wetlands (increase the
undulation of the topography). We'd need to be pretty clear on where the interim (this proposal)
and final (regional detention pond) grades are during this discussion, so we can determine
where a diversity of shrubs and trees can be planted around the mitigation area.
Comment Number: 4. �,,mment Originated: 01/20/2012
04/10/12 The response indicated this was done and it looks that way on the plans, although I
did not see the width dimensioned on the plans. With final plans the driveway location will
need to be located (stations) and the width will be clarified that way. 01/20/2012: The driveway
widths for the private drives have been shown so far only on the site plans. In accordance with
Section 9.3.2(a) of the LUCASS the driveways that serve parking areas for more than 3 units
need to have an entry width of 28 feet.
Comment Number: 48 Comment Originated: 04/15/2012
04/15/2012: Add the street cut note to the utility plan sheets. Note: 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.
Comment Number: 49 Comment Originated: 04/15/2012
04/15/2012: The corner cuts for the dedication of row at the corners can be used, but the cut
needs to be back far enough that the entire sidewalk is within the row. For most of the corners
the row line will need to be moved back a bit to accommodate this.
Comment Number: 50 Comment Originated: 04/15/2012
04/15/2012: See redlines for additional comments.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012
04/10/12 The language you added is close to what the easement language is, but not quite
consistent. I taped a copy of the easement language on the plan set so you will have the
language. 01/20/2012: Need to add sight distance easements and the language that defines
them. (needs to be addressed before hearing)
Topic: Offsite Work
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012
04/10/12 Based on the plans right now It looks as if off -site easements are needed from the
property to the west (grading and drainage), property to the east of Redwood (grading and
drainage). 01/20/2012: At this time I do not have enough information to know if any off -site
easements will be necessary for the site or road construction. As the review progresses and
additional grading and design information is provided this can be determined. Letters of intent
from any property owners from which easements are needed are to be provided prior to being
able to schedule this project for hearing. A letter of intent is a letter from the property owner
identifying its intent to grant the easement(s) necessary to accomplish the proposed design.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 37
Comment Originated: 01/20/2012
01/20/2012: We have plat language that was updated last May. I can email it to you if you
would like me to. Just let me know what your email is. Mine: slangenberger@fcgov.com
Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012
01/20/2012: Need to clearly identify who is to own and maintain all of the lots.
Comment Number: 40
Comment Originated: 01/20/2012
01/20/2012: As I understand it PFA is going to require that the private drives be named, as it is
necessary for the units to be addressed. Once named the private drive names need to be
placed on the plat and clearly identified that they are private drives.
for it will be deter,. �d and the credit applied to those fees.
01/20/2012: Based on the site plan and plat that was submitted for this site the Transportation
Development Review Fee (TDRF) was overpaid by $15.62. A refund can be provided or a
credit of this amount can be applied to the future FDP application or the additional fees if a
clubhouse is added to the plans. The submitted plans do not include a clubhouse, but the
documents indicate that one is to be constructed with the project. At such time as a clubhouse
is added to the project for approval additional TDRF will be assessed.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012
04/10/12 As indicated in response letter this New Vine name can remain on the plans for the
time being and will just need to be updated prior to final approval with what ever name has bee
determined before that time. 01120/2012: The naming of New Vine will need to be addressed
with this project as we can not have two streets with the name of Vine. Per preliminary
discussions with the transportation staff it was felt that a different name should be assigned to
the New Vine alignment. Pinon is a possibility since this is the name of the street this one will
align with across College Ave.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012
04/10/12 Need to show the full connection of this. Right now the plans show where it is to start,
but do not yet show how it will tie into the existing walk along Jax. 01/20/2012: A pedestrian
connection (sidewalk) from this site along Conifer will need to be constructed to provide a link
from this site to the College Avenue corridor. This off -site sidewalk can be a temporary asphalt
pedestrian connection or a concrete sidewalk in the ultimate location along this roadway. The
City Capital project for North College Ave is underway and upon completion of that College Ave
will have bike lanes and sidewalk along both sides of it from Conifer south. This site needs to
provide a connection to that system. (needs to be addressed before hearing)
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012
01/20/2012: As we continue with rounds of review I will look into placement of manholes and
make sure they are designed so they are not within the wheel path of the travel lance or within a
bike lane. 12.2.3.E LCUASS
Comment Number: 9
Comment Originated: 01/20/2012
01/20/2012: The utility plan check sheet that was submitted was returned - please note
comments on this and items that are incomplete. I tried to repeat most of these in my
comments, but this maybe helpful.
Comment Number: 11
Comment Originated: 01/20/2012
04/10/12 It looks like the parking setbacks to meet that for the smaller parking lots (40 feet) was
applied to all the parking lots. A variance is needed and will need to be considered if this is
the distance you also wish to use for the large parking lots as well. 01/20/2012: Parking
setbacks to standards are not being met. In accordance with the standards Figure 19-6 the
distance from the flowline to the edge of the first parking stall for the large lots is to be 50 feet
and 40 feet for the small parking lots. We can certainly look at a variance request for this. I
have not discussed this with any other the other staff that would also review this variance, so I
don't know if a variance to the extent the plans are currently designed to would be accepted.
(best to be addressed before hearing as it could impact the parking numbers)
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012
01/20/2012: 1 have noted on the plans some additional details that will eventually need to be
provided.
sheet is needed to -..ow the contours all the way to where Redvv- ,d will tie into
existing.01/20/2012: Grading Plans: No proposed grade lines are shown within Vine and
Redwood. This is needed to show how the grading work for these streets will work and to
determine what if any off -site easements will be needed for the work. (needs to be addressed
before hearing)
Comment Number: 19
Comment Originated: 01/20/2012
04/10/12 You have identified but not shown on the grading plan that Vine will be built short of
the property line to accommodate the grading needed to tie back to existing grade. The
project will need to provide funds for the frontage portion that can not be built prior to issuance
of the first building permit (local obligation only). Lupine has not been shown this way, as well
as all the drainage from the street and the pans are being directed onto the adjacent property.
Where is the drainage going and what grading is needed here to accommodate the street and
keeping this from being a low point that just holds water. As shown grading and drainage
easements on the property to the west will be needed. A letter of intent to grant these
easements will be needed from the property owner prior to being able to schedule this project
for hearing.01/20/2012: Grading Plans: Need to show how you plan to end the west end of
Vine and Lupine. And how the grades will tie into existing grades. Also need to show Type III
barricades being installed in these two locations. (needs to be addressed before hearing)
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012
04/10/12 Part of this is shown, but extends beyond the limits of the grading plans that have
been provided so far. 01/20/2012: Grading Plans: What grading is needed, if any, in Blondel
to achieve the minimum cover over the waterline you are showing to be installed?
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012
04/10/12 The plans are looking closer to achieving this. There is still some work (pan
changes, high point adjustments, and spot elevation information added to make sure drainage
goes to the sidewalk culvert) that is needed to achieve this standard, but looks like it is
possible and the standard can be met by final plans. 01/20/2012: Driveways and Grading: Per
LCUASS no storm flows are to flow over the sidewalk and out the driveway. Understanding that
no flow is not always achievable, the policy is that a maximum of 750 square feet of area is
allowed to flow out a driveway. You have driveways/ parking areas that exceed that amount.
For those areas you can take the drainage into a pan and out through a sidewalk culvert into the
street.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012
04/10/12 This has been done - we would just ask that the row along Redwood be tapered into
the existing row or extended to Lupine rather than end bluntly.01120/2012: Conifer and
Redwood: As identified in the conceptual comments and shown by these plans additional row
is needed along Conifer and Redwood to accommodate the standard parkway and sidewalk
section, This additional row and the standard 9 foot utility easements behind the row need to
be dedicated on the plat and shown on the plans. (needs to be addressed before hearing)
Comment Number: 32
Comment Originated: 01/20/2012
01/20/2012: Plan and Profile Sheets: There are several vertical curves in which the minimum
curve length is not being provided. See Figures 7-17 and 7-18
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012
04/15/12 As requested, when the clubhouse is shown as part of these drawings the PDP fees
Comment Number: _,nment Originated: 04/14/2012
04/14/2012: On sheet 7 of 8, in the area of the 35-foot wide spine, the five foot walk terminates
on the east into a parking stall. Again, this represents a discontinuous network. Please
remove this stall and add a ramp so that the walks does not simply dead-end.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 04/14/2012
04/14/2012: Also on sheet 7 of 8, the same comment applies as to the termination of the
north -south walkway within the 35-foot wide spine. At the southern terminus, this walk simply
dead -ends into a parking stall. Please remove this stall and add a ramp so that the bicyclist or
pedestrian has somewhere to go.
Comment Number: 25
Comment Originated: 04/16/2012
04/16/2012: There does not appear to be any fencing along the west property line. Staff
recommends a three -rail open fence that is typically found along the City's bike trails. Further,
this fence could equipped with a wire mesh which would be effective for pet control and catch
litter and debris from the prevailing west / northwest wind. It does appear that such a fence
would interfere with stormwater drainage capability.
Comment Number: 26
Comment Originated: 04/16/2012
04/16/2012: Thank you for showing the bus stop and the 12' x 18' concrete pad along Conifer
and the connecting walkway. Section 3.6.5 requires not only the transit stop but other
associated facilities as well. In the case of a multi -family development at the scale of Aspen
Heights, a bus shelter is required as well. While Transfort has a menu of standardized bus
shelters from which to choose, I recommend that the developer consider customizing a shelter
that would match the architectural style of the clubhouse and residential character of the overall
project. That way, the bus shelter will gain identity as the Aspen Heights stop and provide a
higher level of visibility for the project.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger(a.fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012
04/10/12 When you are ready to work on this let me know and we can meet to look at the
proposed turnlane lengths, pedestrian refuges, turning templates, striping and aspects as we
move forward. 01/20/2012: New Vine: A full design for Vine Drive will be needed. As you
work on this please remember that the median needs to be designed to include a subdrain,
water tap, and the landscaping for the median needs to be planned out and designed. The
median will also need to be design to meet horizontal and vertical design standards.
Comment Number: 17
Comment Originated: 01/20/2012
04/10/12 1 am still not sure that everything ties into the existing contours. I just can't clearly see
that proposed contours tie into existing contours within the property Iimits.01/20/2012: Grading
Plans: I can not tell if the grade lines tie into existing grades within the property lines and
right-of-way lines at this time. Additional clarification is needed to show how all the grading
work is proposed to tie into existing. (needs to be addressed before hearing)
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012
04/10/12 Grade lines have been provided for Vine and part of Redwood. Another grading
Telluride are show...i be two-family units with more than three i,_.(ooms and thus would
become Extra Occupancy Rental Houses. But the parking table indicates that only single
family detached are to become Extra Occupancy Rental Houses. Please rectify.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 04/14/2012
04/14/2012: The parking data table could be improved by deleting the word "attached." By
definition, the units are attached and the term "attached," in our Code, refers to single family
attached dwellings which are townhomes on individual fee simple lots which is not the case
here. Also, it is not accurate to indicate that there is only one unit in th multi -family. The plans
indicate that the number ranges from 3 through 6. Also, in describing the multi -family, the terms
"interior" and "exterior" are extraneous and have relationship to our Code.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 04/14/2012
04/14/2012: Please add the Dwelling Unit Labels table to the Overall Site Plan, sheet 4 of 8.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 04/14/2012
04/14/2012: On the Site Plan, sheet 5 of 8, and then continued on sheet 7 of 8, note that the
parking lots on the west side of Blue Spruce, do not provide for a back up maneuver for the
westerly -most stalls. This will require a driver to make an excessive number of maneuvers in
order to back out of the stall and head east. The lots should be extended to the west to
accommodate this backing maneuver.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 04/14/2012
04/14/2012: Overall, the pedestrian connectivity is much improved. But, the network still has
some gaps. Internal mobility by pedestrians and bicyclists would be enhanced, and thus
discourage internal trips by vehicles, with additional ramps and crosswalks on Lupine. On
sheet 5 of 8, note that the two north -south walks that flank the drainage channel terminate at the
public walks on Lupine. These walks should be extended to the flowline, with ramps, and with
provision of a crosswalk. Otherwise the internal network is incomplete. The same comment
applies to the north -south walkway located approximately 185 east of the channel. Mid -block
crossings of street at the classification level of Lupine is appropriate. Cautionary signage,
combined with red curbing that restricts on -street parking, will add a measure of safety.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 04/14/2012
04/14/2012: On sheet 6 of 8, please refer to the aforementioned comment. The north -south
walkway, on the west side of the clubhouse, needs to be extended to the flowline, with a ramp,
with a crosswalk, to tie into the walkway on the south side of Lupine, to be similarly upgraded
with an extension and ramp. At this time, these walks are off -set. This offset can be remedied
with proper curvature in the walks so that the crosswalk is perpendicular to Lupine. These three
additional crosswalks on Lupine will provide a measure of traffic calming and promote overall
walkability within the project.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 04/14/2012
04/14/2012: This comments ties in with open comment number four regarding the treatment of
the north side of the clubhouse tract. Essentially, the clubhouse is on a double -frontage lot.
The north side is currently treated with a ramp that connects out to Conifer and the bus stop.
This treatment is insufficient for this destination and the relationship to Conifer Street. At the
least, the two parking stalls that flank the ramp should be removed and replaced with
landscape islands. At the time of review for the clubhouse area, the north -facing area will need
to feature a well -designed approach so it does not become a back door.
City of
Fort Collins
Community Development and
Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221s750
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov. com/developmentre view
April 16, 2012
Deanne Frederickson
The Frederickson Group, LLC
7711 Windsong Rd
Windsor, CO 80550
RE: Aspen Heights Student Housing, PDP110018, Round Number 2
Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your
submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the
individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Ted Shepard, at 970-221-6343 or
tshepard@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Current Planning
Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard(a.fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012
01/18/2012: A walkway is needed along the private drive along the north side of the clubhouse
area. This walkway must be a minimum of six feet in width since the parking stalls are only 17
feet in length. Be sure to add ramps where this walkway intersects with the parking lot drive.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/22/2012
01/22/2012: For the Extra Occupancy Rental Houses (including the Two Family Dwellings
where there are more than three bedrooms i.e. Aspen, Keystone, Frisco and Telluride) be sure
to use 3.2.2(K)(1)0) in calculating the minimum parking required.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 04/14/2012
04/14/2012: Comment number four remains open. The east -west portion of this walkway (along
the north side of the future clubhouse), does not connect to anything and is, therefore, isolated.
Both ends need to be extended to the drives and intersect with the drives with ramps.
Comment Number: 16
Comment Originated: 04/14/2012
04/14/2012: Comment number seven remains open. Be sure that the architectural elevations
match the site plan cover sheet and parking data table. The Aspen, Keystone, Frisco and