HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE GROVE AT FORT COLLINS - FDP - FDP110015 - CORRESPONDENCE - (40)Fort Collins
Project: The Grove at Fort Collins
Date: December 12, 2011
Initial Date: 12/06/2011 Issue ID: 18 Topic: Construction Drawings Round: 2 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: This has been corrected.
Issue: 12/06/2011: On Bldg 12 (clubhouse), connect the sewer service at the northeast end of the building to
the sanitary sewer not the water main.
Initial Date: 12/06/2011 Issue ID: 19 Topic: Construction Drawings Round: 2 Status: Active
Response: 12/1512011: The lowerings are identified by the Storm Line # in which they cross under. Storm 1, 3, and
4 utilize City Detail 4-A, whereas Storm 2 simply utilizes joint deflection. Need Andy to check lowering
and add joint deflection info. to plan view.
Issue: 12/06/2011: Identify each water main lowering on Utility Plan sheets by the number included in the
water main lowering table on Sht D2. The table lists 3 lowerings but 4 shown on the Utility Plan sheets.
Initial Date: 12/0612011 Issue ID: 20 Topic: Construction Drawings Round: 2 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: Additional clarification has been added to Sheet D4, as well as Note #8 on the "UD" sheets.
Issue: 12/06/2011: On the utility plans, provide clarification and direction to the contractor to make it very clear
that wherever the underdrain is installed in accordance with Trench Section 100/D1, 304/D4, 305/134 or
306/D4 the underdrain shall be a minimum of 10 feet from any sanitary sewer or water main.
Initial Date: 12108/2011 Issue ID: 21 Topic: Construction Drawings
Response: 12/15/2011: See returned redlines.
Issue: 12/08/2011: See redlined utility plans for additional comments.
Zoning's Unresolved Issues:
Made By: Peter Barnes
Response: 12/15/2011 Acknowledged.
Round: 2 Status: Active
Page 1 of 19
City of
F6rt Collins
Project: The Grove at Fort Collins
Date: December 12, 2011
Initial Date: 12/08/2011 Issue ID: 2 Topic: Construction Drawings Round: 2 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: This has been revised and coordinated with Ward Stanford.
Issue: 12108/2011: The double yellow stripe roughly between sta 27+00 and 26+00 needs curvature as it
ties -in at station 26+28.34. As shown it does not smoothly integrate with the striping west of sta
26+28.34. Please correct to more smoothly tie-in to the striping west of Sta 26+28.34.
Initial Date: 12/08/2011 Issue ID: 3 Topic: Landscape Plans Round: 2 Status: Active
Response: 12/19/2011: Digital pdf files were sent and the following note was added to the landscape notes as
requested: "All City required street trees in the right-of-way are to have their bottom canopy maintained a minimum of 8
feet from the surrounding grade
Issue: 12/08/2011: No Landscape plan received. Please include with next submittal.
Initial Date: 12/08/2011 Issue ID: 4 Topic: General Round: 2 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: Acknowledged.
Issue: 12/08/2011: No need to resubmit a full set of Utility plans to Traffic. Feel free to just include the signing
and striping plans in the next submittal, if you prefer.
Water -Wastewater Engineering's Unresolved Issues:
Made By: Roger Buffington
Initial Date: 10/26/2011 Issue ID: 8 Topic: Construction Drawings Round: 1 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: 5/16" thickness has been added to the detail sheets. Plans specify 16" diameter pipe.
Issue: 12/06/2011: Label diameter and thickness of ALL casings included in the project.
10/26/2011: Whenever storm drains 24" or larger cross over water mains or sanitary sewers, place the
water mains and sanitary sewers in steel casings which extend 10 each side of the storm drain. Label
the diameter and thickness of the casings.
Initial Date: 10/26/2011 Issue ID: 9 Topic: Construction Drawings Round: 1 Status: Active
Response: 12/1512011: This has been corrected.
Issue: 12/06/2011: On Sht SS3, show the existing sewer that is to be abandoned. Add Note 11 that is
included on the redlined utility plans.
10/26/2011: How will the existing sewer that is to be re-routed be abandoned? If MH bases are poured
around the existing pipe, there is concern that there will not be a good invert channel through the
manhole.
Initial Date: 12/06/2011 Issue ID: 16 Topic: Construction Drawings Round: 2 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: Acknowledged.
Issue: 12/06/2011: The comments dated 12/6/11 are based upon the utility plans received via email on
12/6111.
Initial Date: 12/06/2011 Issue ID: 17 Topic: Construction Drawings Round: 2 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: The additional gate valves are now included.
Issue: 12/06/2011: Add 8" gate valves at the three locations shown on the reclined utility plans.
Page 1 of 19
FCollins
ort
/11��
Project: The Grove at Fort Collins
Date: December 12, 2011
Issue: 12/06/2011: These plans were not routed to us this round.
10/26/2011: These plans were not routed to us this round.
4/20/2011: Please add street names for the "Local' & "Commercial' streets on sheet 9.
Initial Date: 10/26/2011 Issue ID: 49 Topic: Building Elevations Round: 1 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: Acknowledged.
Issue: 12/06/2011: No comments.
10/26/2011: No comments.
Initial Date: 10126/2011 Issue ID: 34 Topic: Plat Round: 1 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011:
A third sheet has been added to the plat for clarity.
Issue: 12/06/2011:
All easements on the plat (existing & proposed) must be locatable. We suggest that a 3rd
sheet might be added to reduce some of the clutter of all of the easements. We have spoke with Nick
Haws at Northern Engineering about this.
10/26/2011:
All easements (existing & proposed) must be locatable.
04/20/2011:
We have spoken with the Surveyor, and this comment is just a reminder.
[12/27110]
All easements on the Subdivision Plat must be locatable.
Initial Date: 12/0612011
Issue ID: 59 Topic: Landscape Plans Round: 2 Status: Active
Response: 12/19/2011
This has been corrected
Issue: 12/06/2011:
There is some missing text on sheet 17.
Initial Date: 10/26/2011
Issue ID: 31 Topic: Plat Round: 1 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011:
Acknowledged.
Issue: 12/06/2011:
The boundary & legal close.
10126/2011:
The boundary & legal close.
04/20/2011:
The boundary & legal close.
[12/27/10]
The Subdivision Plat boundary & legal description close.
Initial Date: 12/06/2011
Issue ID: 60 Topic: Construction Drawings Round: 2 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011:
Need Andy to correct C3D labels...
Issue: 12/06/2011:
There are text over text issues on sheet ST2.
Initial Date: 12/06/2011
Issue ID: 61 Topic: Construction Drawings Round: 2 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011 This has been corrected.
Issue: 12/06/2011: There are line over text issues on sheet UD3.
Initial Date: 12/06/2011 Issue ID: 62 Topic: Construction Drawings Round: 2 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011. This has been corrected.
Issue: 12/06/2011: The north arrow on sheet R8 is pointing the wrong direction.
Traffic Operation's Unresolved Issues:
Made By: Ward Stanford
Page 1 of 19
Fort Collins
Project: The Grove at Fort Collins
Date: December 12, 2011
due to the street being removed. Please add to the utility plans details on how the existing inlets will be
modified.
Initial Date: 12/09/2011 Issue ID: 18 Topic: General Round: 2 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: Four CDOT Type 4 monuments have been added. See details on Sheets G3 and G5.
Issue: 12/09/2011: Please show on the grading plan where the monuments for the benchmarking on the major
swale will be located and provide a detail.
Initial Date: 12/09/2011 Issue ID: 19 Topic: General Round: 2 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: This information is shown on Sheets G2 and G4, as well as the Landscape Plans.
Issue: 12/09/2011: A plan view is needed for the rain gardens to show where the forebays and PLDs are
located.
Initial Date: 12/09/2011 Issue ID: 20 Topic: General Round: 2 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: Six weep holes (2 rows of 3, spaced 1' E.W.) are now specified.
Issue: 12/0912011: The City suggests additional weep holes (5 to 10) for the forebay locations. One weep
hole will most likely get clogged resulting in standing water.
Initial Date: 12/09/2011 Issue ID: 21 Topic: General Round: 2 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: Detail 601A on Sheet D10 has been revised accordingly.
Issue: 12/09/2011: Please revise the retrofit rain garden profile to fill in the forebay so their is a positive grade
swale like what is shown to the left of the walk.
Initial Date: 12109/2011 Issue ID: 22 Topic: General Round: 2 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: These are to be planted riprap "forebays." Installation shall be per the details on Sheet EC2,
as well as the fine grading spot elevations depicted on Sheets G3 and G5.
Issue: 12109/2011: The riprap pads in the large swale are labeled as riprap forebays but the detail does not
show the forebay. Please add a forebay or remove the forebay labeling.
Technical Services's Unresolved Issues:
Made By: Jeff County
Initial Date: 10/26/2011 Issue ID: 53 Topic: Plat Round: 1 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: This has been corrected.
Issue: 12/06/2011, This symbol still needs to be added. We have spoke with Nick Haws about this comment.
10/26/2011: Please add a found or set symbol on the northerly boundary. See redlines.
Initial Date: 10126/2011 Issue ID: 54 Topic: Site Plan Round: 1 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: Acknowledged.
Issue: 12/06/2011: No comments.
10126/2011: No comments.
Initial Date: 10/2612011 Issue ID: 46 Topic: Lighting Plan Round: 1 Status: Active
Response: 12/19/2011: PDF files were sent 12/19/11
Page 1 of 19
Fort Collins
Project: The Grove at Fort Collins
Date: December 12, 2011
across private property.
10/25/2011: Please label all storm sewers private or public on the plan and profile sheets.
Initial Date: 10/25/2011 Issue ID: 10 Topic: General Round: 1 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: The detail now specifies 11 holes.
Issue: 12/06/2011: The detail shows 10 rows of holes, I calculated 11.
10/25/2011: The water quality structure detail show 2 columns of 5/8 inch diameter holes. The City
suggests having one column of larger holes to reduce the chance of clogging.
Initial Date: 12/06/2011 Issue ID: 13 Topic: General Round: 2 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: The notes on Sheet 1 of the plat have been revised accordingly. Waiting on attorneys.
Issue: 12106/2011: More clarification is needed on the Plat for the maintenance responsibility for Outlot A.
Please clarify that the maintenance within the existing drainage easement (with reception number)
dedicated by the Windtrail HOA is to be performed by those HOAs listed with Note 9 on the Plat and
that the rest of the Outlot is to be maintained by the Property Owner/Developer.
Initial Date: 12/06/2011 Issue ID: 14 Topic: Erosion Control Round: 2 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: Still need to revise Sheet EC1 and report text ...
Issue: 12/06/2011: Is there any off site Inlet protection? To be realistic, sediment does leave site at times
accidentally, especially from tracking pads, does the plans call out for any other inlet protection, as a
precautionary secondary containment for the site?
Are there any Stockpiles on site? If not where is all the dirt going to go? If so what type of BMPs will be
implemented to stabilize the stockpile?
Are there any dumpsters, PortaJohns, or other pollutant sources? Define where they are to be located,
and are there any secondary containment BMPs that will be used. Please remember PortaJohns are to
be staked down and located no closer than 50ft from the nearest inlet, as should any other potential
pollutant source.
Initial Date: 12/06/2011 Issue ID: 15 Topic: Floodplain Round: 2 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: This has been corrected.
Issue: 12/0612011: The floodway line shown in the legend doesn't match the floodway line shown on the plat.
Initial Date: 12/06/2011 Issue ID: 16 Topic: Floodplain Round: 2 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: Acknowledged.
Issue: 12/06/2011: A reminder that an approved flood plain use permit is required for each structure and each
site construction element (detention ponds, bike paths, parking lots, utilities, etc.) located in the
floodplain, prior to mobilization, and that a FEMA Elevation Certificate must be completed and approved
before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for any structure in the floodplain. Also, a No -Rise
Certificate will be required for all site work, including landscaping, within the floodway and that
re -certification of no —rise is required for as -built conditions.
Initial Date: 12/09/2011 Issue ID: 17 Topic: General Round: 2 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: This information has been added to Sheet EX1.
Issue: 12/09/2011: The existing inlets at the end of existing Rolland Moore Drive need to be removed/modified
Page 1 of 19
Fort Collins
Project: The Grove at Fort Collins
Date: December 12, 2011
does not indicate emergency access on north side Bldg 7.
Initial Date: 12/07/2011 Issue ID: 8 Topic: General Round: 1 Status: Active
Response: 12/1912011: The fire pit will have gas operation, not wood.
Issue: 12/07/2011: For the fire pit located on the project; wood and wood products can not be used as the fuel
source, only gas (natural or propane). Wood is problematic for reasons of storage, supervision, embers,
and smoke production.
Initial Date: 12/07/2011
Response: 12/19/2011: Canopy trees adjacent to fire lanes have been corrected to allow clearance for emergency
vehicles. A note outlining maintenance of trees adjacent to fire lanes and public right-of-way was added to the
landscape notes (see sheet 10 of 23, landscape note #16).
Issue: 12/07/2011:
Made By: Sarah Carter
Initial Date: 12/07/2011
Response: 12/15/2011 Acknowledged.
Issue: 12/07/2011:
Stormwater Engineering's Unresolved Issues:
Made By: Wes Lamarque
Initial Date: 10/25/2011 Issue ID: 4 Topic: General Round: 1 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: Still waiting to hear back from Wes...
Issue: 12/06/2011: The requirement for a building permit is 4 feet from the bottom of the footing to the top of
wall. Please revise.
10/25/2011: A structural design and a building permit is required for the retaining walls taller than 36
inches. This can be done now, or submitted with the building permit. If this design is done now, the
details need to be on the utility plans and the landscape plans. If this is to be done with the building
permit, notes stating the requirement for a structural design and a building permit need to be on the
utility grading plan and the landscape plan.
Initial Date: 10/2512011 Issue ID: 5 Topic: General Round: 1 Status: Active
Response: 12115/2011: All plan callouts specify planted riprap, as does the detail information on Sheet EC2.
Issue: 12106/2011: Please specify "planted" riprap to be used per detail.
10/25/2011: Please include riprap details and reference the details on the grading plans.
Initial Date: 10/25/2011 Issue ID: 7 Topic: General Round: 1 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011 The plat has been revised accordingly.
Issue: 12/06/2011: Drainage easements are needed for the public storm sewers that carry flows downstream
Page 1 of 19
Fort Collins
Project: The Grove at Fort Collins
Date: December 12, 2011
Perennial Lane.
Initial Date: 12/07/2011 Issue ID: 3 Topic: Landscape Plans Round: 2 Status: Active
Response: 12/19/2011 Species diversity was corrected
Issue: 12/07/2011:
The Tannenbaum Mugo Pines used on the project comprise 18% of the trees The code standard for
species diversity for projects with large numbers of trees is to keep it a 15% of less.
Initial Date: 12/07/2011 Issue ID: 4 Topic: Landscape Plans Round: 2 Status: Active
Response: 12/19/2011. Current code language for soil improvement criteria was updated on the landscape notes
(see note #14).
Issue: 12107/2011:
Landscape note number13 should be changed by adding the current code language for soil improvement
in landscape areas.
Additional Comments from Forestry
- To reduce the overall percentage of pinion pine on -site, rocky mountain juniper were added to replace some of the
pinion pine in the native buffer areas.
- Street trees within the sight vision triangle were upsized to 3 inch caliper (noted on plans and plant list).
- Tannenbaum mugo pine: "Current largest size available. If larger size trees have become available at time of
construction they will be required. Provide City Forester documentation of larger size availability at time of
construction. Documentation shall include all nurseries contacted".
- Rain garden planter mix was modified at rain garden street tree locations.
Light And Power's Unresolved Issues:
Made By: Doug Martine
Response: 12/15/2011: Acknowledged,
Park Planning's Unresolved Issues:
Made By: Craig Foreman
Initial Date: 09/30/2011 Issue ID: 1 Topic: General Round: 1 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: Acknowledged
Issue: 09/30/2011: 1 believe we were still going to receive the repay for Rolland Moore Drive from this project.
PFA's Unresolved Issues:
Made By: Ron Gonzales
Initial Date: 10127/2011 Issue ID: 1 Topic: General Round: 1 Status: Active
Response: 12J19/2011. An emergency access easement is provided nor-, i building 7 (see sheet 4 of 23)
Issue: 10/27/2011: Item #23, Emergency Vehicle Access, of memo dated 9-28-11 states any potential issues
regarding emergency access need to be resolved prior to approval. Page 6 of 21 of the FDP Site Plan
Page 1 of 19
Fort Collins
Project: The Grove at Fort Collins
Date: December 12, 2011
species within the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone? As you know, native plants are more difficult to establish
and staff would like to work with the applicant to develop a long-term (minimum of three years)
monitoring and weed management plan for the site's landscaping.
Response: 12/ 1912011:
The Long -Term Monitoring and Weed Management Plan prepared by Stephen Long was revised per Lindsay's
comments and returned to her December 81". She responded the same day indicating her acceptance.
Additional Comments from Environmental Planning:
- Native and Wetland BMPs were added to the landscape notes (note #17, sheet 10 of 23)
- A note was added to the wall detail "A", sheet 10 of 23: "wall color to be approved by building department prior to
construction"
Initial Date: 12/06/2011 Issue ID: 10 Topic: Reports - Soils, Subdrain Round: 2 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: This has been added to the Limits of Development Notes on Sheets EC1 and G1.
Issue: 12/06/2011: Please add this note (or something similar) to the Utility Plan, sheet G1 with the Limits of
Development notes:
"Where seasonal constraints (e.g., during summer and winter months) inhibit permanent seeding
operations, disturbed areas will be treated with mulch and mulch tackifier to prevent erosion, or other
materials approved by Erosion Control staff."
Initial Date: 12106/2011 Issue ID: 11 Topic: Construction Drawings Round: 2 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: Acknowledged.
Issue: 12/06/2011: Retaining walls - I will want to sign off on the building permit to ensure the retaining wall
aesthetics are consistent with 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code.
Forestry's Unresolved Issues:
Made By: Tim Buchanan
Initial Date: 12/07/2011 Issue ID: 1 Topic: Landscape Plans Round: 2 Status: Active
Response: 12/19/2011: A detail was added to sheet 16 of 23 (detail "B"), indicating modifications to where and how
street trees should be planted within the rain gardens.
Issue: 12/07/2011: It would be helpful to have a typical cross section of the rain garden in the parkway with tree
location shown away from the low point on the slope.
Initial Date: 12/07/2011 Issue ID: 2 Topic: Landscape Plans Round: 2 Status: Active
Response: 12/19/2011: Species labels were corrected
Issue: 12/07/2011:
Three street trees in front of building 6 on the south side of Rolland Moore Drive appear not to be labeled
as to what species they are.
Two street trees by building 10 on the south side of Native Plant Way appear not to be labeled as to
what species they are. These two trees are the 9th and 10th trees on Native Plant Way west of
Page 1 of 19
Fort Collins
Project: The Grove at Fort Collins
Date: December 12, 2011
Issue: 12/12/2011: To ensure no potential confusion, on Sheet D11, please add after the 701 Sidewalk Detail
"On Private Property, Outside of Right -of -Way".
Environmental Planning's Unresolved Issues:
Made By: Lindsay Ex
Initial Date: 10/25/2011 Issue ID: 2 Topic: General Round: 1 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: Acknowledged.
Issue: 10/25/2011: The following note will be added to your Development Agreement, should your project be
approved, "The trees along the Larimer Canal No. 2 shall be surveyed prior to any construction to
confirm the presence or absence of raptor nesting activity. If an active nest is documented, the buffer
zone setbacks in 3.4.1 shall apply, and as per the applicant's Ecological Characterization Study,
"should be maintained during the breeding, nesting, and nestling rearing period." (This comment relates
to comment #12 in previous documents).
Initial Date: 10/25/2011 Issue ID: 4 Topic: Landscape Plans Round: 1 Status: Active
Response: 12/19/2011: The fencing detail was updated as requested (see sheet 2 of 23, Detail "A").
Issue: 12/0712011: Based on today's staff review, we believe the fence design is resolved. However, a couple
of notes were that a fence in between 4 and 4.5' height is acceptable, with a 6" gap at the bottom of the
fence. A heavier gauge wire, or one similar to that at the Gardens on Spring Creek, is requested.
12/06/2011: From discussions with the applicants and several neighbors, many felt that a wood -based
fence would not be compatible with the project's modern architecture. However, the revised design in
staffs opinion, is less desirable than the originally approved metal picket fence. Based on a brief
discussion with the applicant yesterday, staff is now trying to work with Campus Crest and their
consultants to modify the originally proposed, metal picket fence from 6' in height down to 4' in height.
This would provide a fence that is compatible with the site's architecture, still provides a significant
discouragement to residents and passers-by to enter into the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone, while
increasing the ability of wildlife to jump over the fence as needed.
10125/2011: In light of the pet restriction being placed on the project, City Staff would like to discuss
changing the character of the fence on the site. Originally, the intention was to deter both human and
pet encroachment into the wetlands. However, with the pet restriction in place, staff would like to
explore the removal of the metal rail fence and instead suggest the installation of a split -rail or similar
type fence that would still deter humans but facilitate wildlife movement throughout the site to a higher
degree than the metal rail fence would. To discourage social trails through the wetlands, signs installed
along the fence could remind those passing by that the area has been protected for its natural features
to encourage folks to stay out of the wetlands.
Initial Date: 10/25/2011 Issue ID: 5 Topic: Landscape Plans Round: 1 Status: Active
Issue: 12/06/2011: 1 am providing my comments on the monitoring plan directly on the document - please see
my edits and let me know how you would like to proceed.
10/25/2011: What is the applicant's long-term plan for establishment and management of the native
Page 1 of 19
Fort Collins
Project: The Grove at Fort Collins
Date: December 12, 2011
Issue: 12/07/2011: Please clarify the information for the Typical Cleanout Detail 302/D4, is this intended to be
used for cleanouts under pavement in street right-of-way when the sewer and subdrain are not in the
same trench? If so, we would rather have these cleanouts built to the same spec as 713.2F(301/D4)
where the cleanout is not brought up to finished grade.
Initial Date: 12/07/2011 Issue ID: 23 Topic: Construction Drawings Round: 2 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: See PVC riser details on Sheet D7, and Note 9 on the 'UD" Sheets.
Issue: 12/07/2011: We need construction detail information on the subdrain "risers" which are presumably
different than a cleanout, as this doesn't appear to be on the plan set. Is it intended that these risers are
to be accessible from finished grade, or can these be below the finished grade similar to the subdrain
cleanouts? Where is riser 4 intended to be located in relation to the crosspan if it is brought to finish
grade?
Initial Date: 12/07/2011 Issue ID: 24 Topic: Construction Drawings Round: 2 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: See Sheet R10 and CDOT jointing detail on Sheet D9.
Issue: 12/07/2011: The revised sheets do provide a detail for the enhanced crosswalks proposed on both sides
of the Rolland Moore Drive/Native Plant Way indicating that these are both proposed to be concrete.
With this in mind I believe it's very appropriate that the City require the entire intersection to be done in
concrete from crosswalk to crosswalk such that asphalt/concrete/asphalt/concrete/asphalt switching of
interface is eliminated in such a relatively short area. Provide jointing pattern detail with this concrete
intersection.
Initial Date: 12/12/2011 Issue ID: 25 Topic: Construction Drawings Round: 2 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: Still waiting to hear back from Marc and Tracy...
Issue: 12/12/2011: We're concerned about the use of deflection for the subdrain pipe without the providing of a
cleanout from a locatability standpoint (such as the three bends from STA12+11.59 to STA14+35.90).
We would either want for each of these bends be provided with a cleanout, or perhaps look into providing
tracer wire in lieu of cleanouts. Perhaps we just need to have additional discussion as to how the
subdrain system can be located in the future for developer access and maintenance.
Initial Date: 1211212011 Issue ID: 26 Topic: Construction Drawings Round: 2 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: This has been corrected.
Issue: 12/12/2011: Sheet XS1 has some unreadable cross slope percentage information with overlapping text.
Initial Date: 12/12/2011 Issue ID: 27 Topic: Construction Drawings Round: 2 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: This has been corrected.
Issue: 12/12/2011: Sheet R6 has overlapping text issues on the profile view.
Initial Date: 12/12/2011 Issue ID: 28 Topic: Construction Drawings Round: 2 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011 It is called out on Sheet UD1.
Issue: 12/12/2011: Where is detail 303 on Sheet D4 used? I'm not seeing this being called out on the plan
set.
Initial Date: 12/12/2011 Issue ID: 29 Topic: Construction Drawings Round: 2 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: The sidewalk detail on Sheet D11 has been revised.
Page 1 of 19
Fort Collins
Project: The Grove at Fort Collins
Date: December 12. 2011
the rain garden system itself could be impacted from foot traffic, etc. We can cite a structural slope
stability report from a geotech engineer on a previous project where slopes of a lesser steepness was
proposed, we believe this type of analysis is needed and should take into account much of the detail in
the following additional comments.
See geotechnical memorandum by EEC.
2) With the previous comment in mind, and with the proposal that cobble is intended to provide stability
adjacent to sidewalk and curb and gutter grades, the cross sections should really show the cobble
information with its intention of providing structural stability. In addition the cobble information should be
described in the bioretention sand media narrative detail.
Both the Utility Plans and Landscape Plans' details show the cobble. The Landscape Plans specify the
cobble requirements. See geotechnical memorandum by EEC for the cobble's influence on stability.
3) Indicate a minimum distance in which a level run of compacted subgrade up against the curb and
gutter/sidewalk is intended to be.
An average width of approximately 24" is specified. This is shown on both the Utility Plans and
Landscape Plans' details, and is addressed in the geotechnical memorandum by EEC.
4) Cross-section typical information should be provided where the underdrain is not under a rain garden
but between two rain gardens (under driveways/streets). Is the pipe in this case changed from perforated
to solid? How does (or just does) the bedding transition from a rain garden to a non -rain garden section?
Trench section 306/D4 will be utilized where the underdrain crosses sidewalks, driveways, and streets.
See Note #4 on Detail 600/D10.
5) We'd like to see a rain garden typical profile that goes through the sidewalk/access ramps to
ascertain how the structural integrity of the sidewalk/ramp itself is maintained and verify whether a
tripping concern might exist with a drop off the sidewalk. Perhaps a curb up against the sidewalk/ramp
should be considered if there's the potential of a drop off the sidewalk is of potential.
The wrap -around barrier curb along the side of the pedestrian ramps has been extended per Detail
606010. Note #3 has been added to this detail as well.
6) We're wanting to ensure that the sidewalk chase in the rain garden area is built with the additional 6
inches of length on either side with transitioned widened walk in general accordance with D-10B
(provided in the original set but removed in the revisions).
See revised Detail 606/D10.
7) Continuing on the culvert design from #6 above, the opening being less than 2 feet would not be
objected by Engineering is satisfactory with Stormwater. At the November meeting it was indicated that
the use of a decorative metal plate could potentially be used. In looking at the information now provided,
we'd like to verify if this plate is in use somewhere and/or if a sample of this can be provided. Of
question is whether it can be viewed that the texture of this plate provides an equal amount of traction
as compared to the diamond plate. Are the decorative leaves in the detail indicative of "holes" in the
plate?
The decorative leaves are ADA compliant openings, and traction exceeds steel diamond plate.
8)Please provide cross-section detail of both the overflow control weir and curb opening for the rain
gardens. We're wanting to ascertain what occurs "behind" the curb section with the flow of water taking
place. For the curb opening, it should specify that the gutter maintain the 6" thickness at the opening.
See revised Details 602 and 604 on Sheet D10.
Initial Date: 12107/2011 Issue ID: 22 Topic: Construction Drawings Round: 2 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: The cleanout detail has been revised, and Note 9 has been added to the "UD" Sheets for
clarification.
Page 1 of 19
Fort Collins
Project: The Grove at Fort Collins
Date: December 12, 2011
sheet R3 and R6.
10/26/2011: The northeast corner of Perennial Lane and Rolland Moore Drive shows a 7.1 % grade along
the flowline of the curb return on the plan and profile sheets. Another steep grade along the flowline of
curb return is at the southwest comer of Centre Avenue and Rolland Moore Drive at about 6.1 % These
steeper grades around the curb returns along the flowline need to be looked at and reduced in some
manner. There are concerns of how steep the access ramp cross slopes presumably are for pedestrians
entering the intersections. Additionally, does this introduce the possibility that flows from the street
won't actually want to remain in the flowline of the street but will want to enter the access ramp/sidewalk
system itself? Spot elevations and longitudinal grade information along the sidewalks/access ramps at
these steeper intersections should be provided to demonstrate that flows along the gutter are
maintained. Perhaps roadway crowns should be flattened to make the amount of grade change along
the flowlines less prominent in these instances.
Initial Date: 10/26/2011 Issue ID: 11 Topic: Construction Drawings Round: 1 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011. This glitch has been corrected, and the elevations now match
Issue: 12/07/2011: There still apparently is a difference in called out elevations between the intersection
details and plan and profile sheets. The elevations called out that tie into existing Rolland Moore Drive at
Centre Avenue for instance.
10/26/2011: Note that the flowline profile grades don't necessarily match the grades shown along the
same flowlines on the intersection details sheets such as the Perennial Lane/Rolland Moore Drive
intersection. There are also instances where the spot elevations shown on the intersection detail sheets
don't necessarily match the elevations called out on the flowlines of the plan and profile sheets.
Initial Date: 10/26/2011 Issue ID: 16 Topic: Construction Drawings Round: 1 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: An offset crown has been added to Sheet R10 to improve the cross slope.
Issue: 12/07/2011: 1 certainly understand what's driving the minimal cross slope in the applicant's response,
that said though, the amount of cross slope here I still view as a concern in terms of ensuring that
drainage flows off the pavement and doesn't puddle here. I think options should be explored such as
offsetting the crown to the south and east in order to steepen up this area, as there could be some
"room to play" with the cross slopes on the outside curve. Please provide some cross slope percent
information on the inside turn.
10/2612011: The cross slope for the inner portion of the Perennial Lane/existing Rolland Moore Drive
street turn appear to have minimal cross slope. Can this area be looked at in terms of bringing about a
larger cross slope?
Initial Date: 10/28/2011 Issue ID: 20 Topic: General Round: 1 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: The typo in the sight distance easement legal description has been corrected.
Issue: 10/28/2011: The legal description for the sight distance easement was fine with the one typo of
changing "Center Avenue" to "Centre Avenue" at the end of line 3 in the third paragraph.
Initial Date: 12/07/2011 Issue ID: 21 Topic: Construction Drawings Round: 2 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: See 1) through 8), below.
Issue: 12/07/2011: With the rain garden design information now provided, we have the following
thoughts/concerns:
1) The structural stability of the system is still in question in our view, with whether the proposal
demonstrates that it would not compromise the surrounding roadway and sidewalk system and whether
Page 1 of 19
City of
Fort Collins
Project: The Grove at Fort Collins
Date: December 12, 2011
- Indicate locations on the Rolland Moore Drive plan and profile views where the openings for the rain
gardens are intended.
- Provide a detail on how the curb and gutter section transitions to and from the opening for the rain
gardens.
- The flowline grade around the neckdowns past where the opening for the rain gardens occurs must
remain on -grade. There are several instances where the grade goes negative past the openings which is
of concern. The City requires that positive grade be maintained around the neckdowns to minimize the
amount of retrofit needed should the rain garden use be eliminated and drainage is perpetuated around
the neckdowns along the flowline.
- Provide cross -sectional information of the rain gardens, including soil media information and depth,
indication of underdrain (typical depth?), bedding material/wrap around the underdrain, etc.
Response: 12/19/2011 cross section details indicating materials and configuration were added to the landscape and
engineering plans.
- Some structural analysis is needed to indicate how the structural integrity of the roadway and curb and
gutter section is maintained where Rolland Moore Drive abuts the rain garden. There is the potential
concern that the soil needed to effectively allow the necessary percolation for the success of the rain
garden does not provide sufficient integrity to the abutting curb and gutter and roadway section. There
may need to be the exploration of either the use of more native soil to provide sufficient stabilization
abutting the public infrastructure that then slopes off to the different media specific to the rain gardens,
and/or the use of a concrete wall extending below the curb and gutter of the neckdown to provide that
support.
- Indicate how the rain garden design is intended to be perpetuated for drainage where the rain garden is
interrupted by driveways. There is a concern on the premise of flows leaving a rain garden, draining
across a driveway and then reentering a rain garden on the other side of the driveway. If flows leave the
street section into a rain garden, the flows shouldn't then re-enter the street system and then move to a
successive rain garden.
- It would be beneficial to provide some documentation that the plant species specified in the
landscaping plan for the rain garden areas were viewed as appropriate for the rain garden design,
function and use.
Response: 12/19/2011: Plant selections for the rain gardens are based on the Denver Water Urban Drainage &
Flood Control District Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Vol. 3 (UDFCD): "UDFCD recommends that the filter
area be vegetated with drought tolerant species that thrive in sandy soils'. Plant species selections follow
recommendations from the UDFCD manual and from a publication provided by Lindsay Ex that outlines salt tolerant
species in rain gardens (University of Utah). Additionally, all landscape will have supplementary drip irrigation
provided to ensure establishment and ongoing health in case of drought.
- Additional review and comment may be needed upon providing the additional information. It would be of
benefit if a rain garden design/report was provided addressing the items noted above with the report
being signed and stamped by the engineer.
Initial Date: 10/26/2011 Issue ID: 10 Topic: Construction Drawings Round: 1 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: The flowline profiles now fully extend around the referenced curb returns.
Issue: 12/07/2011: The placement of the sidewalk crossing across the street appears to resolve the issue.
With that though, what does the 2.84% flowline profile across the north side of this intersection
represent (on sheet R3)? It appears to imply that a cross plan occurs here, but that doesn't seem to be
the case. Please ensure that flowline representations along the curb returns are represented between
Page 1 of 19
w
Fort Collins
Project: The Grove at Fort Collins
Date: December 12, 2011
of the parking lot due to sight vision clearance constraints adjacent to the parking lot.
Initial Date: 12/0912011 Issue ID: 16 Topic: General Round: 2 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: Acknowledged.
Issue: 12/0912011: Based on comments made at staff review on Wednesday morning, December 7th, there
will not be another "formal" round of review of the Final Plans. The applicants may continue working
with the various City department respresentatives independently to address the outstanding issues as
preparation is made for submittal of the required mylars of the development plans for recording/filing.
Engineering Development Review's Unresolved Issues:
Made By: Marc Virata
Initial Date: 10/26/2011 Issue ID: 1 Topic: Landscape Plans Round: 1 Status: Active
Response: 12/19/2011. Notes were added to the site plan indicating: (1) the landscape east of the entry drive to be
finished and maintained by the Gardens at Spring Creek. and (2) the landscape west of the entry drive to be installed
and maintained by the Grove. An exhibit indicating the above descriptions was sent and approved by Michelle
Provaznik.
Issue: 12/07/2011: I'm understanding that the native grass proposal on the east side of the maintenance
driveway for the Gardens at Spring Creek isn't desired by Michelle Provaznik, the Director of the
Gardens at Spring Creek -- a continuation of flower beds is desired instead. Please coordinate with
Michelle to ensure that the information shown on the landscaping plan is acceptable with Michelle. It
would seem that additional area could be shown on 15 of the landscape plan to reflect the limits of
where new landscaping (east of the driveway) is intending to end.
10/26/2011: The landscape plan needs to indicate the landscaping that will be done by the development
resulting from the removal of the existing Rolland Moore Drive street and temporary turnaround. The site
and landscape plan documents don't show this area being impacted by the development.
Initial Date: 10/26/2011 Issue ID: 4 Topic: General Round: 1 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: The typo in the sight distance easement legal description has been corrected.
Issue: 12/07/2011: A redline from Technical Services was generated but may have not been communicated
back from the previous round of review. The concern being that "Center" at the end of the third line of the
third paragraph should be "Centre".
10/26/2011: The sight distance easement legal description is being reviewed by Technical Services,
note the need to change "site" to "sight".
Initial Date: 10/26/2011 Issue ID: 9 Topic: Construction Drawings Round: 1 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: See response to Comment 21, below.
Issue: 12/07/2011: see Comment 21 (tried to provide here but a maximum size was reached).
10/26/2011: The rain garden concept needs to have additional design information provided in the
construction plan set for final plan review. City staff with representatives of both Engineering and
Stormwater had the opportunity to meet and review the final plan submittal and identified key
considerations and issues. Among the information needed and concerns with the information provided
thus far:
Page 1 of 19
Fort Collins
Project: The Grove at Fort Collins
Date: December 12, 2011
Current Planning's Unresolved Issues:
Made By: Steve Olt
Initial Date: 10125/2011 Issue ID: 3 Topic: General Round: 1 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: Acknowledged.
Issue: 12/09/2011: This comment is being carried over just as a reminder about City staffs obligation to
ensure that the "no pet" requirement is being met.
10/25/2011: Prior to the first certificate of occupancy for The Grove at Fort Collins City staff must review
the project's standard lease agreement to ensure that the condition of approval prohibiting pets is being
satisfied.
Initial Date: 10/25/2011 Issue ID: 4 Topic: General Round: 1 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: Acknowledged.
Issue: 12/09/2011: Craig Foreman of Parks Planning has indicated that his concerns have been given to and
routed through Marc Virata of the Engineering Department,
10125/2011: Craig Foreman of the Parks Planning Department offered 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.
Initial Date: 12/06/2011 Issue ID: 13 Topic: Site Plan Round: 2 Status: Active
Response: 12/19/2011: The change in landscape area accounts for a change in building wall thickness (from 4" to
6") and slight modification to the wall configuration in the recess area a the center of each building
Issue: 12106/2011: The Total Structures Footprint has increased 3,354 square feet (280 square feet/building)
and the Open Space and Landscape Area Coverage has decreased by 3,354 square feet. What is the
reason for this?
Initial Date: 12/09/2011 Issue ID: 14 Topic: Traffic Impact Study Round: 2 Status: Active
Response: 12/15/2011: Ward Stanford of Traffic Operations has been contacted by developer's engineer.
Issue: 12/0912011: Ward Stanford of Traffic Operations would like to talk with the developers engineer
regarding questions related to the utility plans. Ward can be reached at 970-221-6820.
Initial Date: 12/09/2011 Issue ID: 15 Topic: Landscape Plans Round: 2 Status: Active
Issue: 12/0912011: A concern has been expressed by neighbors to the project about the possibility of car
lights from parking spaces in the lot on the south side of Rolland Moore Drive between Buildings 2 & 3
shining directly into homes in Sundering Townhomes to the north.
Response: 12/19/2011 Additional landscape was added to the north side of Rolland Moore Drive running the length
Page 1 of 19