The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTHE GROVE AT FORT COLLINS - FDP - FDP110015 - CORRESPONDENCE - (44)Page 4 of 4 well). Let's keep this dialogue going so we make sure that the best needs of the site, the project, and the project's neighbors are met. Thanks, Lindsay Thank you. Sarah PS - See linked article http:([mpnev.m_.sn.com/business-news/article.aspx? feed=BW&Date=20111101&ID=14467720 - Campus Crest is not planning its Fort Collins development for the 2012-13 academic year, which should relieve some of the time pressure for the final review process. (Six developments are planned for 2012-13, but Fort Collins is not among them.) 11 /7/2011 Page 3 of 4 Also, this information was received from Lucia Liley's office on November 3rd: Apparently, questions continue to arise regarding how The Grove at Fort Collins will be heated, even though it was announced at the City Council appeal hearing and repeated by the local consultant team numerous times thereafter that plans for all -electric heat had been abandoned in favor of natural gas. Therefore, on behalf of the developer, Campus Crest at Fort Collins, LLC, please be advised that Campus Crest intend to install a gas sourced heat system at The Grove at Fort Collins and that the commitment to do so will be memorialized in the Development Agreement for the project. Obviously the commitment has been made by the developer to provide natural gas heat in the project iou have the ODP documents ready yet? Could you forward them when they are ready? City staff is currently not reviewing the Amended CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology, ODP. We will do that prior to the applicant submitting a mylar of the document for recording. !n I emailed you last week, I asked about the P&Z condition of approval regarding ditch relocation. How will this toted and ensured in the final review documents? The following comment was made by City staff and included in the comment letter dated October 28, 2011: Comment Number: 11 (Planning) Comment Originated: 10/27/2011 10/27/2011: On June 16, 2011 the Planning & Zoning Board approved The Grove at Fort Collins, PDP with the condition that: No final Certificate of Occupancy (CO) will be issued until the ditch (Larimer No. 2 Canal) is realigned. This condition of approval should be put as a General Note on the Site Plan; and, probably should be included in the Development Agreement. Also, for Lindsay's consideration as well: Most people that I have spoken with strongly prefer the metal fence (contrary to my own first impression when we spoke last week). Concerns I have heard about a rail fence relate to: (1) possible increased use of the buffer zone and development of social trails (2) the possibility of people cutting through yards to the north (particularly to Windtrail Townhomes and Sundering Townhomes), and (3) the increased maintenance required of a wooden fence, and how that would hold up over time. Rail fencing may be inviting for people to sit on (depending on its height), especially given that no street furniture or other gathering areas were provided along the entire length of Rolland Moore Drive. If people sit on rail fencing, it would increase maintenance needs. Personally, after more consideration regarding the compatibility with surroundings, I think the metal will be more in keeping with the more urban -looking design Campus Crest chose for the buildings, as well as with similar fencing around the Gardens on Spring Creek. Do you have a sense of which fence type will be recommended at this point? Hi Sarah. I am still recommending to Campus Crest and their consultants that a wood -based fencing is more appropriate for this development (and see my attached discussion/email correspondence with Stacy Poncelow for more details as it relates to your concerns). However, from my last conversation with Linda Ripley, she had indicated that Campus Crest has not responded one way or another to staffs recommendation. Thus, I don't have a clear answer for you yet, but I will let you know right after I do. I do appreciate your feedback (and Stacy's as 11 /7/2011 Page 2 of 4 along the flowline is technically not listed although it can be concluded that it should be 8% since 8% is the maximum grade (again per Table 7-3 of LCUASS ) along the centerline of the street (mid -distance between the two flowlines of a street). Thus these grades do meet code. That said, the 6% and 7% grades should still be looked at for reducing steepness as the opportunity exists to do so. It should be pointed out that "steepness" is somewhat relative in that grades exceeding 8% are when ADA guidelines are under consideration. as mentioned that there were slopes of 3:1 near the swale, in excess of the required 4:1 slope, and that a 3nce would be needed. Which codes apply in this case? What is the process for issuing such a variance? The 3:1 side slope variance is a commonly requested variance. 4:1 side slopes are required on all channels that the City maintains because it is difficult for our big mowers to mow on slopes steeper than 4:1. Privately maintained slopes are frequently steeper. The City also has a lot of 3:1 slopes that we do maintain as well; they just have to be mowed with smaller mowers or by `weed wackers". We have some channel side slopes as steep as 1:1 or even vertical along Fossil Creek. Maintenance isn't the only reason steep slopes are not preferred. The other main reason is for stability which involves the flow rate and velocity in addition to slope. Our criteria allows the steeper slopes if they are stabilized with geo-fabrics, rock gabions, riprap, retaining walls, and other methods. The 4:1 and 3:1 slopes can be stabilized with normal vegetation. When the slopes start approaching 2:1 is where stabilization becomes more of an issue. We sometimes require the applicants soils engineer to verify stability if they don't follow these general guidelines. There are no City codes that apply. It is just part of our criteria manual requirements as a goal. Even when plans show 4:1 they get built with varying side slopes, which adds diversity to the grading so they don't look so "engineered". We have them document it as part of the drainage report so that it is clear they knew they would be maintaining steeper slopes than we prefer. The slopes on the Grove that are shown as 3:1 are mainly on the east end where the channel gets pinched down in order to stay out of the floodway. The process is just documentation in the drainage report and they need to be clearly labeled on the construction plans. Id you please let me know when the next round of review is scheduled? Yes, we can let you know when the next staff review meeting is scheduled. It will occur on a Wednesday morning 3 weeks after the applicants submit their revised Final Plans for The Grove at Fort Collins. Campus Crest provided the written confirmation requested by the City regarding the question of gas vs. electric :e heating? The following comments were made by City staff and included in the comment letter dated October 28, 2011: Comment Number: 5 (Engineering) 10/26/2011 Originated: 10/25/2011 Comment Originated: 10/26/2011: Email correspondence at the end of September had City staff inquire on the acceptance of the placement of notes on the plat and/or development agreement affirming the developer's commitment made at public hearing to use natural gas in the development. The last known correspondence in this regard was from Josie Plaut indicating that Robbie Robinson at Campus Crest would need to respond. Has there been further input in this regard? Comment Number: 8 (Planning) Comment 10/25/2011: Regarding the heat source to be used in this development, there is still some uncertainty as to whether it will be electric or gas or a combination. Please clarify at this time. 11/7/2011 Page 1 of 4 Steve Olt From: Glen Schlueter Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 3:52 PM To: 'sarahmburnett@hotmail.com' Cc: Steve Olt; Lindsay Ex; Marc Virata Subject: FW: CSURF ODP / Grove PDP Attachments: TheGroveAtFortCollins, Final Plans.CommentLetter.doc.rtf; 10312011_Stacy Poncelow_regarding fence style_all.pdf Sarah, I just checked what I wrote and I made a couple of changes that clarify it a little better. Glen From: Steve Olt Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 11:31 AM To: Cc: Lindsay Ex; Marc Virata; Ted Shepard; Karen Cumbo; Glen Schlueter; Brian Varrella Subject: RE: CSURF ODP / Grove PDP Sarah, Please see staff responses to your questions, below. These responses are from Planning, Engineering, Stormwater and Environmental Planning. Steve From: Sarah Burnett [mailto:sarahmburnett@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 11:00 AM To: Steve Olt; Lindsay Ex; Marc Virata Subject: CSURF ODP / Grove PDP Hi Steve, I have some questions regarding The Grove Final Review process: ie review meeting on Oct 26, you indicated the Staff Review comments would be ready on Friday 10/28. Could forward them to me, as well as Campus Crest's next submissions when they come in? Attached is the City staff comment letter dated October 28, 2011 for The Grove at Fort Collins, Final Plans. We can provide you with the Final Plan revised documents when they are submitted. he grades of about 6% and 7% at the intersections of Centre and RMD, and one of the interior streets and RMD t code? Which codes apply in this case? The grades of 6% and 7% that were mentioned at the staff review for the Grove pertained to grades along the flowline of certain streets. The Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards in Table 7-3 specifies minimum flowline grades of 0.5% to help ensure that water does not pool in the gutter sections of streets. A maximum grade 11/7/2011