Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE GROVE AT FORT COLLINS - PDP - 16-10B - CORRESPONDENCE - (70)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 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 �D 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: [12/27/10] Planting trees over (or near) a slotted underdrain will likely lead to root intrusion and clogging of the underdrain. Be sure and return all of your redlined plans when you re -submit. 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, l i 0k 0 ® -j ar.OJvw(. Steve Olt City Planner Page 14 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. Continueing 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. 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 [1/3/11] 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 ✓ �(/Jp_Y, , Topic: Site Plan Page 13 Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County Topic: General Number: 34 Created: 12/27/2010 [12/27/10] All easements on the Subdivision Plat must be locatable. Number: 35 Created: 12/27/2010 [12/27/10] Does the Temporary Turnaround Easement at the end of Rolland Moore Drive go away? If so, do you need to accomodate for the Trail Easement? Number: 36 Created: 12/27/2010 [12/27/10] What is the name of the 'Public Local Street"? Number: 37 ,' Created: 12127/2010 [12/27/10] Is the sheet index correct on sheet 1 of the Site Plans? There is only one Landscape Plan. Number: 38 Created: 12/27/2010 [12/27/10] Existing Rolland Moore Drive is shown on the Site, Landscape & Utility Plans as "Botanic Place". The Subdivision Plat shows it as Rolland Moore Drive. Where did this name come from? Number: 40 Created: 12/27/2010 [12/27/10] There are line over text issues on sheets 2,4,5 & 7 of the Site Plans. Number: 41 Created: 12/27/2010 [12/27/10] There are dimensions with "extra characters" on the Elevation Plans. Number: 43 Created: 12/27/2010 [12/27/10] There are line over text & text over text issues on the Elevation Plans. Number: 44 Created: 12/27/2010 [12/27/10] There are text over text issues on sheets R1, R2 & R3 of the Utility Plans. Number: 45 Created: 12/27/2010 [12/27/10] There is cut off stationing on sheet R5 of the Utility Plans. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford Topic: General 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. Page 12 Department: PFA Topic: General �m1i1074will Contact: Carie Dann NO FDC No FDC is shown for the clubhouse. Please insert it. Created: 12/22/2010 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 lremo&6 Topic: General Number: 89 Created: 12/30/2010 [12/30/10] Reminder comment. [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 responsibilites of Outlot A need to be agreed on and formalized. This can be done during fial compliance. The Outlot may need to be adjusted or broken into two outlots to distinguish various ownerships and maintenance responsibilities. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County Topic: General Number: 31 £ Created: 12/27/2010 [12/27/10] The Subdivision Plat boundary & legal description close. Number: 32 Created: 12/27/2010 [12/27/10] Please add ROW widths to all streets. Number: 33 Created: 12/27/2010 [12127/10] Does the ROW of Rolland Moore Drive vary? Page 11 Department: Historical Preservation Contact: Courtney Rippy Topic: Site Plan Number: 54 Created: 12/28/2010 [12/28/10] Please provide detail regarding the height and materials for the retaining wall proposed to the south of the development. More specifically, the heigh of the retaining wall between buildings 3 and 4. Looking at the contours, it appears this wall is approximatly 10, - 12' high. Department: Light And Power Topic: General Number: 7 04/13/2011: No comments. Department: PFA Topic: General Contact: Doug Martine Contact: Carle Dann Created: 04/13/2011 Number: 23 Created: 12/22/2010 EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS Any potential issues regarding emergency apparatus access need to be resolved prior to approval. Number: 24 Created: 12/22/2010 04/06/2011: Number: 25 Created: 12/22/2010 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. 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 byPFA and LETA prior to being put in service. 2006 International Fire Code 505.2 Page 10 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 Hackberry) - 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 clarify. [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 applicants 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 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. Department: Historical Preservation Contact: Courtney Rippy Topic: General Number: 53 Created: 12/28/2010 [12/28/10] Where do the residents gather their mail? Topic: Site Plan Page 9 Department: Environmental Planning Topic: General �►1>�i'ii:�'iE:l Contact: Lindsay Ex Created: 12/16/2010 04/1912011: 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 site4s drainage plan will allow for adequate groundwater and surface water to feed the sites 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 applicant4s 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. 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. 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. [12116/10] 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. Page 8 Department: Engineering Development Review Topic: Plat Number: 65 Contact: Marc Virata Created: 12/29/2010 [12/29/10] The private street needs to be designated as a separate tract of land on the plat (which can then have the various easements indicated). The tract should encompass the area currently defined as the combined public access, drainage, and utility easement with the 9' utility easement on either side remaining separate from that tract. 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 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 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 1006 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. Page 7 Department: Engineering Development Review Topic: General Number: 76 Contact: Marc Virata Created: 12/29/2010 [12/29110] 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: 77 Created: 12/29/2010 [12/29/10] The construction plans should correlate with the site plan on indicating whether retaining walls or fences are being proposed. The same lineweight/linetype is being shown on the construction plans without discerning whether a (retaining) wall or fence is being proposed. Number: 78 Created: 12/29/2010 [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 backfiow 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: 86 Created: 12/29/2010 [12/29/10] The title of the project on all of the drawings need to be consistent. Some drawings list the project as'The Grove @ Fort Collins" while others list the project as "The Grove". I'm understanding that "The Grove" isn't acceptable to Planning in order to keep the review of this submittal separate from the previous proposal. Please note however that the title of a project should not have symbols (in order to be more "find -able" for web queries), so the project should probably be titled "The Grove at Fort Collins". Number: 91 Created: 12/29/2010 [12/29/10] Is the applicant intending to stripe parking lanes for either the public or private streets? The City will not allow striping parking lanes on public streets. If the applicant wishes to pursue this on the private street, please be aware that if the City were to ever end up maintaining the private street (through it becoming a public street) the City will not assume any responsibility to continue the striping. This would then need to also be specified in a development agreement. Number: 92 Created: 12/30/2010 [12/30/10] I'm somewhat concerned about the proposal of creating the neckdown that is shown on the south side of Rolland Moore Drive at the western boundary of the site. The overall length of this neckdown seems at 50 feet, fairly short, such that I question whether it might get hit from vehicles with it not being as noticeable. With review from Traffic Engineering not being out of the office, I can't confirm their view at this time. Should Traffic Engineering not be concerned with this, I would withdraw this comment and consider it not an issue. Number: 93 Created: 12/30/2010 [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). Page 6 Department: Engineering Development Review Topic: General Number: 69 Contact: Marc Virata Created: 12/29/2010 [12/29/10] Similar to the previous comment, the intersection of new Rolland Moore Drive with Centre Avenue should indicate the construction of access ramps that cross Rolland Moore Drive on the west side of Centre Avenue and an access ramp that crosses Centre Avenue (with a receiving access ramp on the driveway across the street) on at least one location. The preferred access ramp crossing would be on the north leg of the intersection as opposed to the south. Number: 70 Created: 12/29/2010 (12/29/10] The underdrain design along the street system where bumpout/neckdowns occur illustrate deflection of the PVC in a manner that appears PVC pipe cannot deflect to that great of a degree. I'm interested to know if the intention is to provide consecutive 45's/cleanouts in order to match the amount of deflection shown, or is the intent to bring a more gradual deflection than what is depicted? If the later is the case, the City would require that the pipe deviate from the flowline and deflect into the parkway instead of deviating from the flowline and deflecting into the street. On plan view the cleanouts themselves should be depicted at this time similar to the storm and sanitary manholes. Number: 71 Created: 12/29/2010 [12/29/10] It appears that an abandoned sanitary sewer line shown on the utility plans will need to be vacated after the abandonment in order for Building 2 to be able to pull a building permit. Please be aware that the City can only process a sanitary sewer easement vacation upon such time that the new line is in and accepted and the old line has been abandoned. Number: 72 Created: 12/29/2010 [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 flows from existing Rolland Moore are perpetuated to the new public local street. Number: 73 Created: 12/29/2010 [12/29/10] Specific to the construction, site and landscape plans: there is a formal process to have existing streets renamed. Rather than specify Botanic Place as the new street name for existing Rolland Moor Drive, please have this removed at this time and indicate this as Rolland Moore Drive (existing to be renamed), similar to the plat note. In the meantime, Botanic Place can look to be verified if acceptable in terms of suitability for naming street requirements. Number: 74 Created: 12/29/2010 [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: 75 Created: 12/29/2010 [12/29/10] Sheet G6 of the grading plan does not provide information on existing grading at Care Housing to demonstrate that proposed grading can be accomplished fully within the property boundary. Information on existing offsite contours is needed. Page 5 Department: Current Planning Topic: Site Plan Number: 97 Contact: Steve Olt Created: 01 /03/2011 04/19/2011: Please explain how the following is being met: "Walkways shall link street sidewalks with building entries through parking lots. Such walkways shall be raised or enhanced with a paved surface not less than six (6) feet in width." [1/3/11] The Site Plans do not clearly show if the PDP fully satisfies the pedestrian connectivity requirements set forth in Section 3.2.2(C)(5) Walkways of the LUC. Please provide further detail in the next round of review. Number: 129 Created: 04/20/2011 04/2012011: The PDP proposes 18 4-bedroom units. Per Section 3.8.16(E) they maybe 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. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General Number: 66 Created: 12/29/2010 [12/29/101 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 property, avoiding the need to tear out existing sidewalk/landscaping. Number: 67 Created: 12/29/2010 [12/29/10] There are aspects of the design of Rolland Moore Drive (collector w/ parking) and the public local street (commercial local) that do not meet LCUASS standards. A variance request(s) would be required for submittal and evaluation before the City can make a determination whether the designs could be acceptable. 1►M1"11T4W_- Created: 12/29/2010 [12/29/10] In accordance with LCUASS Figure 16-2, all T-intersections (of public/private streets) are required to have access ramps in a minimum of three locations. The intersection of the new local street with Rolland Moore Drive should provide at least one access ramp crossing configuration across Rolland Moore Drive. Page 4 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. [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? [12128110] 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. Topic: Plat Number: 128 Created: 04/18/2011 04/18/2011: Megan Harrity 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: 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. Number: 96 Created: 01/03/2011 04/19/2011: Staff acknowledges the addition of 147 bike parking spaces. [1/3111] The PDP satisfies Section 3.2.2(0(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. Page 3 i Department: Current Planning Topic: General Number: 56 Contact: Steve Olt 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 04119/2011: 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, 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: ' 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: 55 Created: 12/28/2010 [12/28/10] Please provide a graphic showing how the Landscape Plan complies with Section 3.2.1(E)(5) Parking Lot Interior Landscaping of the LUC. Number: 87 Created: 12/29/2010 04/19/2011: Still open for discussion. [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. Page 2 City of ort Collins /*�� April 20, 2011 Linda Ripley Ripley Design, Inc. 401 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 STAFF PROJECT REVIEW D City staff and outside reviewing agencies have reviewed your submittal for The Grove at Fort Collins, and we offer the following comments: 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 instance? Topic: General Number: 51 Created: 12/27/2010 04/18/2011: Carried over as a reminder. [12/27/10] The Grove at Fort Collins POP may continue to be reviewed by City staff; however, because the POP 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 [12/27/101 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?