Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE GROVE AT FORT COLLINS - PDP - 16-10B - CORRESPONDENCE - (56)Fo t Collins STAFF PROJECT REVIEW striping at Rolland Moore Drive and Centre Avenue. The new MUTCD has several ways to bring the bike lane all the way to the intersection while allowing for right turns. Number: 121 Created: 01 /03/2011 04/19/2011: The site and utility plans, while noting this is a commercial local, do not show bicycle lane striping consistent with LCUASS standards. The application reponse indicated the design elements below are incorporated, but this is not reflected on the current plans. [1/3/11] Public Local Street will need to have sidewalks, bike lanes, and on -street parking. Engineering has been more involved in these discussions to date, and I will provide comment on the latest plans at the staff review meeting as necessary. Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington Topic: Construction Drawings Number: 50 Created: 04/19/2011 04/19/2011: At final, we need to look at placing the sanitary sewer in Roland Moore Drive on centerline of street. Topic: General Number: 49 Created: 12/27/2010 04/19/2011: [12/27/101 Planting trees over (or near) a slotted underdrain will likely lead to root intrusion - and clogging of the underdrain. - - - - - - - - - -- - Be sure and return all red -lined plans if/when you re -submit prior to public hearing for the PDP or, for certain, with Final Plan submittal. If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project, please feel free to contact me at 970-221-6341. Sincerely, 0 City Planner cc: Marc Virata Nick Haws, Northern Engineering Current Planning file #16-10B F t Collins STAFF PROJECT REVIEW Number: 110 Created: 01/03/2011 [1/3/11] ' Sheet R6: please indicate R1-1 signage at the intersections of the minor streets with the major streets. Also indicate R2-1 (speed limit) signage along Rolland Moore and No Parking signage along the public streets as appropriate. Number: 111 Created: 01/03/2011 [1/3/11] Did not receive a landscape plan with this submittal. Please provide a copy with subsequent submittals. Number: 112 Created: 01/03/2011 [1/3/11] Please correlate the various plan comments thru all the plans (UP, Site, Landscape). Topic: Site Plan Number: 98 Created: 01/03/2011 [1/3/11] The bump -out on the south side of Rolland Moore drive, at the west end of this property does not seem to have a purpose. Please provide discussion for the need of the bump -out or if only to match the bump -out on the north side, please remove it and keep the south flowline straight in that area. Number: 100 Created: 01/03/2011 [1/3/11]_ Please reduce the driveway_ width of the Tract A property on Rolland Moore_ Would prefer to encourage exiting traffic to use the internal public local street as much as possible to reduce friction near the Rolland Moore and Centre intersection. Reduce its width to match the parking lot access on the south side. Number: 103 Created: 01/03/2011 [1/3/111 Plat states that Rolland Moore ROW varies in width. A few quick scale checks did not indicate any change in width. Please revise the notation or label the width changes. Topic: Traffic Impact Study Number: 102 Created: 01/03/2011 [1/3/11] A full revised traffic study will not be required for this project since this revised submittal has fewer units/residents and the previous study was acceptable with the higher number of units/residents. The submitted memo discussing the reductions and the operations at Centre and Prospect pre and post revisions is accepted. No further traffic analysis is required for this submittal. Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Matt Wempe Topic: Site Plan Number: 119 Created: 01/03/2011 04/19/2011: Traffic Operations and Transportation Planning will be meeting shortly to discuss the preferred striping plan in this area. [1/3/11] Please continue to work with Traffic Operations to identify the appropriate street F rt Collins STAFF PROJECT REVIEW Number: 36 Created: 12/27/2010 04/20/2011: Please add street names for the "Public Local Street" & "Public Commercial Street". [12/27/10] What is the name of the "Public Local Street"? Number: 50 Created: 04/20/2011 04/20/2011: What separates Outlot A & Outlot B? This must be defined & locatable. Number: 51 Created: 04/20/2011 04/20/2011: The Subdivision name in the ownership statement does not match the title. Topic: Site Plan Number: 40 Created: 12/27/2010 04/20/2011: There are still minor line over text issues on sheet 5. [12/27/10] There are line over text issues on sheets 2,4,5 & 7 of the Site Plans. Number: 52 Created: 04/20/2011 04/20/2011: Please add street names for the "Local" & "Commercial" streets. Department: Traffic Operation Topic: General Contact: Ward Stanford Number: 105 Created: 01 /03/2011 [1/3/11] Sheet R6: please minimize the plan lines that are not relative to the roadway details and the striping/signing. Also make the striping/signing and roadway detail lines more bold. Need the signing and striping details to stand out from all the extraneous lines/text on the plan. Number: 107 Created: 01 /03/2011 [1/3/11] Sheet R6: please remove the diamond symbol plus diamond symbol language. The diamond symbol is no longer used with bike lanes. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford Topic: General Number: 108 Created: 01 /03/2011 [1/3/11] Sheet R6: the striping for the east bound Rolland Moor at Centre needs to be revised to have an 8" solid white line between the left turn lane and thru/right lane. It should only extend west as far as the full 12' left turn lane and 16' thru/right lane allow. Continuing from the west end of the 8" solid white line provide a dashed line (not broken line) that angles to the double yellow stripe at about point 27+00. Cfty Flirt Collins STAFF PROJECT REVIEW adjusted or broken into two outlots to distinguish various ownerships and maintenance responsibilities. Number: 3 04/22/2011: Stormwater is ready for a public hearing. Number: 4 04/22/2011: Hydraulics will be reviewed during final compliance. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County Topic: Building Elevations Number: 49 04/20/2011: No comments. Topic: Construction Drawings Created: 04/22/2011 Created: 04/22/2011 Created: 04/20/2011 Number: 44 Created: 12/27/2010 04/20/2011: There are still text over text issues on sheet R3. [12/27/10] There are text over text issues on sheets R1, R2 & R3 of the Utility Plans. Number: 48 Created: 04/20/2011 -04/20/20-11.:-Please-add street -names -for -the "Local"--& "Commercial" streets. - - -- - - - -- - -- - - - Topic: Landscape Plans Number: 47 Created: 04/20/2011 04/20/2011: Please add street names for the "Local' & "Commercial' streets. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County Topic: Lighting Plan Number: 46 Created: 04/20/2011 04/20/2011: Please add street names for the "Local' & "Commercial' streets on sheet 9. Topic: Plat Number: 31 Created: 12/27/2010 04/20/2011: The boundary & legal close. [12/27/10] The Subdivision Plat boundary & legal description close. Number: 34 Created: 12/27/2010 04/20/2011: We have spoken with the Surveyor, and this comment is just a reminder. [12/27/10] All easements on the Subdivision Plat must be locatable. Cft Fort Collins STAFF PROJECT REVIEW Number: 27 Created: 12/22/2010 FDC LOCATIONS Fire line/FDC locations as shown are acceptable. FYI, FDCs must be on the "front" side of the structures. Number: 28 Created: 12/22/2010 VEGATATION No vegetation (other than ground cover) is permitted to be closer than 36 inches to fire hydrants or FDCs, when the vegetation is at full maturity. Number: 29 Created: 12/22/2010 STREET NAMES Street names shall be reviewed and verified by PFA and LETA prior to being put in service. 2006 International Fire Code 505.2 Number: 30 Created: 12/22/2010 NO FDC No FDC is shown for the clubhouse. Please insert it. Number: 31 Created: 04/18/2011 04/18/2011: BUILDING ADDRESSES Recommendation from PFA and City GIS is that each building has its own, separate, unique address numerals (instead of a single address and building letters). The project lends itself to this because of its size. USPS also prefers separate numerics for buildings. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque Topic: General Number: 89 Created: 12/30/2010 [12/30/10] Reminder comment. There is a couple of slopes still that are too steep and may need small landscape walls. [9/23/10] The Stormwater Utility is OK with this issue being a condition of approval by the P & Z board. At final compliance, the slopes will need to be designed to a stable condition and the Ditch Company will also need to approve the modifications made within their easement. [8/6/10] The side slopes off the Larimer #2 canal are 2:1 in some places. Coordination needs to take place with the ditch company and the City to ensure all party's concerns are mitigated. Concerns include slope stability, erosion, maintenance issues, general safety. Preliminary approval, or "OK" from the ditch company is needed before a public hearing. Number: 90 Created: 12/30/2010 04/19/2011: This issue of ownership and easements is still being worked out with the City and CSURF. [12/30/10] The ownership and maintenance responsibilities of Outlot A need to be agreed on and formalized. This can be done during final compliance. The Outlot may need to be Cfty ,F t Collins STAFF PROJECT REVIEW locations, configurations, and density of native shrub and tree plantings are shown on the landscape site plan sheet (L-1) provided in the PDP submittal package. As the City is working with the applicant to evaluate whether the proposed buffers and additional plantings will negate the need for mitigation of the non -jurisdictional wetland, this information will be required to complete that evaluation. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan Topic: Landscape Plans Number: 88 Created: 12/29/2010 [12/29/10] Street tree species need to be selected from the City Street Tree List. Number: 89 Created: 04/20/2011 04/20/2011:Use Chanticleer Pear in place of Ussurian Pear as a street tree. Usurian Pear is used at the intersection of Rolland Moore Drive and Centre. Ussurian Pear can have large fruit and thorns. Check the Plant Palette for items labeled on the plan as CSW and PDS. They do not appear in the Plant Palette list. Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine Topic: General - - umber:-7 - - - - - - - - - - - Created: 04/13/2011 - - - - 04/13/2011: No comments. Department: PFA Topic: General Contact: Carie Dann Number: 23 Created: 12/22/2010 EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS Any potential issues regarding emergency apparatus access need to be resolved prior to approval. Number: 25 Created: 12122/2010 EAE ON SITE PLAN Show the EAE on the private drive/parking lot drive aisle that's east of Building 6. It's shown on the plat but not labeled on the site plan. Number: 26 Created: 12/22/2010 EAE SIGNS EAE locations are good on the plat. Need to resolve travel width issues and where Fire Lane - No Parking signs will be required. Cft Fort Collins STAFF PROJECT REVIEW Number: 12 Created: 12/16/2010 04/19/2011: These notes will be added to the Development Agreement, should your project be approved. [12/16/10] As per the provided Ecological Characterization Study, the trees along the Larimer No. 2 Canal shall be surveyed prior to any construction to "confirm the presence or absence of raptor nesting activity." Note that if an active nest is discovered, the buffer zone setbacks in Section 3.4.1 apply, and, as per your ECS, "should be maintained during the breeding, nesting, and nestling rearing period." Number: 15 Created: 12/16/2010 04/19/2011: The additions provided by the applicant are sufficient. (12/16/10] Please add at least one pet waste station to the north of building 9, 10, and 11, as this area was the concern area for pet waste impacting wetlands and the natural habitat buffer zone. Number: 16 Created: 12/16/2010 [12/16/10] Please note that any trash and/or recycling enclosures shall be compatible with the style of architecture of the building, per Section 3.2.5 of the LUC. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex Topic: Landscape Plans - - — - -- -Number: 13-- — — - -- --- - - - - - - - -- - — -- --- - — -- - -Created--12/16/2010 -- - -- 04/19/2011: After review of the landscape plan, I've found several items that need to be addressed: 1. The following species are labeled on the plan but are not within the planting list: ARG (see sheets 12, 14, and 15), CWS (sheet 12), and CAC (sheets 12); Please note I may not have captured everywhere these species were labeled on the plans. 2. There are unlabeled plants on sheet 15. 3. As far as my comment above goes (#7), there is a disparity between the different portions of the plan where native plants predominate and where they do not. Before I get into details on this, I do recognize the goal of the western portion of the property to buffer the surrounding properties, but the following species are not native: C a. Celtis occidentalis (Western Hackbeny) - it's native counterpart is not available commercially, but considering a more diverse mix of cottonwoods would be an options, as the proposal only contains Lanceleaf Cottonwood (Populus x. acuminata). b. Acer tartaricum (Tataricum Maple). c. Koelreuteria paniculata (Goldenrain tree) d. Pinus nigra (Austrian Pine) 4. 1 do not see a note on what the "native shrubs and grasses" will consist of - please cla rify. [12/16/10] Note #14 on the Landscape Plan (Drawing 10 of 21) is inadequate information for staff to evaluate the proposed plantings in the natural habitat buffers zone. Please detail on the existing landscape plan or provide a separate sheet detailing where additional shrubs, trees, etc. will be provided that will meet the applicant's proposed intention to provide structural diversity and enhance wildlife habitat in the area. Note that on page 12 of the ECS, it was indicated that details of native species to be planted as well as the Cft Fort Collins STAFF PROJECT REVIEW meeting the average of the required buffer widths on the site. For this project, it was determined (as per applicant's plan documents) that 4.88 acres would be required for a straight 100� buffer and 2.03 acres for the canal buffer. The applicant has provided a 5.23 acre buffer for the wetland area and a 2.30 acre buffer area for the canal for a total of 7.53 acres, an addition 0.62 acres above what is required. Please add dimensions for the buffer widths around the buffer area to the east of the parking lot north of building 7 and to the northeast of building 1 so staff can evaluate these smaller buffer widths. Finally, while the updated ECS reflects how the site will provide ecological functions with the increased wildlife corridor provided by the realignment of the Larimer Canal No. 2 ditch, it appears that little landscaping is proposed for this area. How does the applicant propose to combat the potential invasion by smooth brome of this area? Cheatgrass? etc. Number: 8 Created: 12/16/2010 04/19/2011: The monitoring plan that has been provided to and reviewed by staff, along with the escrow to ensure monitoring will occur, is beginning to address this issue. Staff will work with the applicant to adaptively manage this issue should any hydrological concerns, as they relate to wetlands. [12/16/10] As I will be out of the office from December 20th until January 10th, I would request that Stormwater comment on whether the existing drainage plan will allow for the wetlands to receive a hydrological regime that is similar to the regime this area has historically received (as is suggested in the Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report). There has been some concern expressed as to whether the site's drainage plan will allow for adequate groundwater and surface water to feed the site's wetlands. The report notes that the wetlands on -site have traditionally been fed by surface water from the -Windtrail.-P.U.D.-to-the-north-(see page 10), but -staff noted -during a-site--visit-on-November--- -- ---- 30, 2010 that some of the wetland hydrology could be fed via seepage from the Larimer Canal No. 2. Please note that we acknowledge the applicant's commitment to wetland monitoring, as detailed in page 10 of the report, and know that the City will work with the applicant to develop a suitable monitoring plan that is acceptable to both parties. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex Topic: General Number: 10 Created: 12/16/2010 04/19/2011: In viewing the applicant's response to this comment, it is unclear to me whether the natal den will be preserved during the mitigation process. I realize the natal den is within the canal area - we need to add Limits of Development lines to these drawings so staff can understand where activity ceases surrounding the property. Please clarify this for staff. [12/16/10] As per Erica Saunders' comments this past fall, the client's proposed filling of the fox dens is still awaiting comment from the Division of Wildlife. The City sent an official request to Shane Craig with the Division of Wildlife regarding this issue on December 7, 2010. In the meantime, and as per Steve Olt's email dated 11/30/2010, no filling of the dens can be conducted until without an approved development plan. Fort Collins STAFF PROJECT REVIEW surface elevation, which would not be an objection from Engineering. Documentation for the record should still be provided as to what the 100-year elevation is at the ouffall. [12/29/10] Please provide documentation as to what the 100 year elevation is at the outfall of the subdrain and indicate whether the underdrains that dewater outside of the street system are above this elevation. Assuming the 100 year elevation is situated below the dewatering that is intended outside of the street system, please remove the usage of a backflow preventer or other devices that are intended to attempt preventing surcharging. Please then provide a note on the plat indicating that no basements are allowed within the development plan. Number: 93 Created: 12/30/2010 04/20/2011: I'm not necessarily seeing that this has been addressed. Further review/discussion may be needed at time of a final plan submittal. [12/30/10] There are several sanitary manholes that appear to be in the projected wheel path of a vehicle or bicycle (A, A4, A5, A6, A7, & 132). Number: 121 Created: 04/20/2011 04/20/2011: Some of the shrubs (sumac) specified in the proposed rain garden reach a mature height of over 3'. We would want to ensure that the landscaping within the rain gardens meets the same criteria for areas within a sight distance easement, limiting shrubs to no more than 24" in height. Notes on the plat and landscape plans should be indicated with this height limitation. - - — — - -- Number.-122 -- — — — — — — _ — — — --Created: 04/22/2011- - — — 04/22/2011: It was brought up at staff review that striping of the commercial local street was not shown on the submittal. Please ensure this is incorporated into the site plan before hearing and on the submittal overall with final plan review. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex Topic: General Number: 7 Created: 12/16/2010 04/19/2011: Staff thanks the applicant for the clarification on overall acreage for the proposed Natural Habitat Buffer Zones, noting that an overall buffer area of 7.41 acres has been provided by the application of performance standards over the application of the buffer zone table metrics as outlined in Section 3.4.1(E). However, the justification for applying the performance standards over the metrics is outlined in Section 3.4.1(E)(1) and generally outlines that the project shall maintain, preserve or enhance the ecological integrity of the site. After viewing the landscape plans for the project, a disparity exists between the various Natural Habitat Buffer Zones on the site, e.g., the species proposed on the northeast area of the site are predominately native (see my additional comments below) but the species on the western boundary and along the southern boundary are not predominately native. These areas contrast with the planning objectives provided by the applicant which state, "the landscape plan is designed to buffer the project from surrounding land uses by placing a variety of native plant material along the northern edge of the project adjacent to the wetlands as well as along the south adjacent to the Larimer Canal No. 2 which is a designated wildlife corridor." [12/16/10]. The code allows for varying buffer widths within a project, with the goal of .Fo t Collie STAFF PROJECT REVIEW Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General Number: 66 Created: 12/29/2010 04/20/2011: The response letter indicates that the sidewalk and landscaping are being deferred until Tract A is developed. Note that sheet 13 and 15 of the landscape plan appears to show landscaping (and not sidewalk) being installed at this time. If the intention is to still not install the landscaping it should probably be removed on these sheets to avoid confusion. If the intention is to now landscape this, I don't have an objection to this, although it would seem to be awkward sequentially to try to install sidewalk after the landscaping is installed without impacting either the landscaping or supporting irrigation. [12/29/10] The sidewalk and parkway landscaping on the east side of the public local street abutting the Tract A CSURF property wouldn't necessarily be required to be installed in conjunction with this development. This can be deferred until the CSURF Tract A property develops as it would be the obligation of the development specific to Tract A. If the applicant wishes to continue with the installation of landscaping and sidewalk, it may be of benefit to coordinate with the utility providers such that utility installation is sequenced properly, avoiding the need to tear out existing sidewalk/landscaping. Number: 72 Created: 12/29/2010 04/20/2011: Carried over for reference and future review. [12/29/10] At time of final plan, please ensure additional flowline information is provided specific to existing Rolland Moore Drive (abutting the Gardens at Spring Creek) in order to understand how flow_ s from existing Rolland Moore are perpetuated to the new public local street. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General Number: 74 Created: 12/29/2010 04/20/2011: Carried over for reference and future review. [12/29/10] The private local street and public local streets proposed with the project should probably establish specific street names on the plat. Number: 76 Created: 12/29/2010 04/20/2011: Carried over for reference and future review. [12/29/10] Buildings 10 and 11 have 2:1 grades out to the private street sidewalk. This isn't a concern per se, but should the grades be viewed as a maintenance/installation concern for the landscaping behind the sidewalk, please be aware that there may be some expressed concerns from the City should the grades result in bringing forth a revised proposal to either reduce the sidewalk or parkway strip between the sidewalk and street. Number: 78 Created: 12/29/2010 04/20/2011: A note didn't appear to be provided on the plat indicating that no basement construction is allowed in the development. The response indicates that the northern -most end of the subdrain in the commercial local street would be below the 100-year F rt Cottins I STAFF PROJECT REVIEW Topic: Plat Number: 128 Created: 04/18/2011 04/18/2011: Megan Harnty of the Larimer County Assessor's Office indicated that the name of the plat, under Statement of Ownership and Subdivision where it says "to be known as", should be The Grove at Fort Collins. Topic: Site Plan Number: 62 Created: 12/28/2010 04/22/2011: Dog waste stations have been added in front of Buildings 4 & 9, which is good. However, one waste station that was at the west end of Building 1 is not shown on the revised Site Plan. Why is this? [12/28/10] There are a number of Dog Waste Stations included on the Site Plan; however, a few more evenly spaced would be beneficial. There is a big gap from Building 3 to the basketball court on the south side of Rolland Moore Drive and another big gap along the private street on the north side of the development, between building 8 and Building 10. Number: 63 Created: 12/28/2010 04/19/2011: New spaces and relocated spaces appear to be adequate. [12/28/10] Buildings 4 - 6, 9 and 12 (clubhouse) do not appear to have handicapped parking spaces conveniently located for the residents/users of these buildings. Department: Current Planning Contact: Steve Olt Topic: Site Plan Number: 96 Created: 01 /03/2011 04/19/2011: Staff acknowledges the addition of 147 bike parking spaces. [1/3/11] The PDP satisfies Section 3.2.2(C)(4) Bicycle Facilities of the LUC in that it provides 147 bicycle parking spaces, or 29% of the total number of automobile parking spaces for the development, thereby exceeding the minimum 5% required. Also, based on the Planning Objectives, space for doubling the amount of bicycle parking is available if needed in the future. There are 21 bicycle racks shown, apparently providing parking for 7 bicycles each. The racks are located near building entrances and would be visible from the buildings in the PDP. No racks are remotely located in the automobile parking areas. A detail of the proposed racks must be provided for review. Number: 129 Created: 04/20/2011 04/20/2011: The PDP proposes 18 4-bedroom units. Per Section 3.8.16(E) they may be allowed if the decision maker (in this case, the Planning & Zoning Board) determines that the applicant has provided additional open space, recreational areas, parking areas and public facilities as are necessary to adequately serve the occupants of the development and to protect the adjacent neighborhood. The 4-bedroom units would be in Buildings 8 - 10 that are contained within the public street network that defines a block. The overall development provides parking in excess of the minimum required, with large parking lots and on -street parking adjacent to these 3 buildings. F6ft Collins STAFF PROJECT REVIEW * 60 2-bedroom units x 1.75 spaces = 105 spaces * 140 3-bedroom units x 2.00 spaces = 280 spaces * 18 4-bedroom units x 2.50 spaces = 45 spaces 430 spaces There are a total of 509 parking spaces, 412 off-street spaces in defined lots + 97 parallel parking spaces on the proposed Private Local Street (considered to be an internal street), that satisfy the minimum parking requirement for The Grove PDP. Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(b) Multi -family allows parking on an internal street fronting on a lot or tract containing multi -family dwellings to be counted to meet the parking requirements for the development. Topic: Landscape Plans Number: 87 Created: 12/29/2010 p04/19/2011: Still open for discussion. Can be addressed and satisfied at time of Final Pfan review. [12/29/10] Further discussion of the Landscape Plan's compliance with Section 3.2.1(E) (4)(a) Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping of the LUC is needed. Additional numbers of trees may be needed. Department: Current Planning Contact: Steve Olt Topic: Landscape Plans Number: 94 Created: 01 /03/2011 04/19/2011: Several areas need to be further evaluated. At the east end of Building 1 and at -the street ends of -Buildings 7 8 and-11-th6fe is a -Red -Switch Grass in fronfof-the - — -- AC units. That grass gets to be T - 5' tall and spreads up to 4'. Will this grass provide adequate screening of the units year -around, especially in the winter or in the spring when the plants are cut back to allow for new growth? How high above grade next to the buildings will the HVAC units go? Also, are there to be other meters, etc. on the outside of the buildings that should be screened? [1/3/11] The Site & Landscape Plans must ensure that Section 3.2.1(E) Screening of the LUC relating to areas of low visual interest or visually intrusive site elements from off -site view is being met. Topic: Lighting Plan Number: 64 Created: 12/28/2010 04/19/2011: Per the detail on Sheet 9 of 21, how does the'cutoff fixture" work? [12/28/10] A cut sheet/detail for the proposed S7 light fixture (70 watt High Pressure Sodium) and 12' high pole must be provided for review. Number: 106 Created: 01 /03/2011 04/19/2011: Still satisfactory, even with new "public" streets. [1/3/11] The PDP satisfies the standards set forth in Section 3.2.4 Site Lighting in the LUC as they relate to; lighting levels and design standards. CRY af F6rt Collins STAFF PROJECT REVIEW Topic: General Number: 51 Created: 12/27/2010 04/18/2011: Carried over as a reminder. [12/27/10] The Grove at Fort Collins PDP may continue to be reviewed by City staff; however, because the PDP currently is not in conformance with the CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology Overall Development Plan of record (February 20, 2003) the PDP cannot progress to a public hearing in front of the Planning & Zoning Board until an Amended ODP is submitted to the City and reviewed by staff against the ODP criteria set forth in the Land Use Code. Number: 52 Created: 12/27/2010 04/22/2011: The revised plans adequately address the number and locations of trash enclosures. [12/27/10] The Trash & Recycling Enclosure at the east end of the parking lot just east of Building 6 would probably be better served if located closer to the building. Also, the residents in Buildings 2 and 5 would have to walk distances of 300' - 400' or cross Rolland Moore Drive, a collector street, to be within 250' feet of a trash & recycle enclosure. Does this fully satisfy Section 3.2.5(A) Purpose of the LUC? Department: Current Planning Contact: Steve Olt Topic: General Number: 56 Created: 12/28/2010 [12/28/10] Cross -sections between the multi -family buildings in The Grove development and the residential buildings in the neighborhoods to the west and north would be helpful to show horizontal distances between and vertical relationships of the developments. Number: 79 Created: 12/29/2010 04/19/2011: Carried over just as a reminder. [12/29/10] Craig Foreman of the Park Planning Department offers the following comments: a. This development is responsible for a repay for the construction of Rolland Moore Drive along the south side of the Gardens on spring Creek, a City -owned facility. b. A portion of the west end of the existing Rolland Moore Drive adjacent to the Gardens on Spring Creek will be demolished if this project is approved. Once any existing curb, gutter and pavement is removed the developer of The Grove would be responsible for reclaiming/restoring that area by putting it back into native/natural grasses and/or landscaping. Number: 101 Created: 01 /03/2011 04/19/2011: Minor changes to the numbers; however, still exceeds minimum parking requirements. [1/3/11] The PDP satisfies the standard set forth in Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) Attached Dwellings set forth in the LUC. The required parking breakdown for the proposed 2, 3 and 4 bedroom dwelling units is: fiof t` Collins STAFF PROJECT REVIEW April 22, 2011 Linda Ripley Ripley Design, Inc. 401 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 City staff and outside reviewing agencies have reviewed your submittal for The Grove at Fort Collins. PDP and we offer the following comments: Department: Advance Planning Contact: Clark Mapes Topic: General Number: 1 Created: 4/22/2011 04/25/2011: This development plan meets the basic overall intent of the Land Use Code, perhaps better than any other apartment complex submitted under the code. The simple pattern of residential buildings facing onto streets with tree -lined sidewalks, with street addresses, reflects the key standards in the Land Use Code for a familiar, pedestrian -oriented neighborhood pattern in residential development. The plan offers particularly generous infrastructure with the extent of single -loaded streets along the extensive open land preservation on the site, and the shortened pedestrian crossings of streets created by curb bulges that enclose and define the street parking. This project would be a good example to include in the Design Manual which provides examples and -explanations -of -the -intent behind Land -Use -Code standards pertaining -to -apartment complex developments. Department: Current Planning Contact: Steve Olt Topic: Building Elevations Number: 84 Created: 12/29/2010 04/19/2011: The building architecture and elevations have changed and this question has been adequately answered. . [12/29/10] On the Small and Large Building Elevations, what is the material for the vertical panels in the gables on these buildings? Number: 85 Created: 12/29/2010 04/19/2011: Thank you for the detailed response and answer. Has this material been discussed as part of The Grove and IBE coordination? [12/29/10] Would the developer consider an alternative to the proposed insulated vinyl lap siding on the buildings? Does it give a flat or glossy (reflective) appearance and how well does it hold up over time? Good, long term appearance is an important component of development. How does the visual appearance of the vinyl material compare to lapboard siding (already used on buildings in the area), for iristance? I