HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE GROVE AT FORT COLLINS - FDP - FDP110015 - CORRESPONDENCE - (43)Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 12/06/2011
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/D4 or 306/D4 the underdrain shall be a minimum of 10 feet from any sanitary sewer
or water main.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 12/08/2011
12/08/2011: See redlined utility plans for additional comments.
This completes staff comments at this time. Another "formal' round of review is not necessary (see Current Planning
comment #16, bottom of page 1).
Sincerely,
Steve Oft
Steve Olt
Project Planner
Department: Traffic Operatiui,
Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221.6820, wstanford()fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/08/2011
12/08/2011: 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.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/08/2011
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.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/08/2011
12/08/2011: No Landscape plan received. Please include with next submittal.
Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Roger Buffington, 970.221.6854, rbuffington anfcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/26/2011
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.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/26/2011
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.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 12/06/2011
12/06/2011: The comments dated 12/6/11 are based upon the utility plans received via email
on 12/6/11.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 12/06/2011
12/06/2011: Add 8" gate valves at the three locations shown on the redlined utility plans.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 12/06/2011
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.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 12/06/2011
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.
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 60
12/06/2011: There are text over text issues on sheet ST2.
Comment Number: 61
12/06/2011: There are line over text issues on sheet UD3.
Comment Originated: 12/06/2011
Comment Originated: 12/06/2011
Comment Number: 62 Comment Originated: 12/06/2011
12/06/2011: The north arrow on sheet R8 is pointing the wrong direction.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 59 Comment Originated: 12/06/2011
12/06/2011: There is some missing text on sheet 17.
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 46 Comment Originated: 10/26/2011
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.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 53 Comment Originated: 10/26/2011
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.
Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 10/26/2011
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.
[12/27/10] All easements on the Subdivision Plat must be locatable.
Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 10/26/2011
12/06/2011: The boundary & legal close.
10/26/2011: The boundary & legal close.
04/20/2011: The boundary & legal close.
[12/27/10] The Subdivision Plat boundary & legal description close.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 54 Comment Originated: 10/26/2011
12/06/2011: No comments.
10/26/2011: No comments.
Comment Number: i comment Originated: 10/25/2011
12/06/2011: Drainage easements are needed for the public storm sewers that carry flows
downstream across private property.
10/25/2011: Please label all storm sewers private or public on the plan and profile sheets.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/25/2011
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 518 inch diameter holes. The
City suggests having one column of larger holes to reduce the chance of clogging.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 12/06/2011
12/06/2011: 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.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 12/09/2011
12/09/2011: The existing inlets at the end of existing Rolland Moore Drive need to be
removed/modified due to the street being removed. Please add to the utility plans details on
how the existing inlets will be modified.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 12/09/2011
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.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 12/09/2011
12/09/2011: A plan view is needed for the rain gardens to show where the forebays and PLDs
are located.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 12/09/2011
12/09/2011: 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.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 12/09/2011
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.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 12/09/2011
12/09/2011: 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.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970.221.6588, icounty .fcaov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 49 Comment Originated: 10/26/2011
12/06/2011: No comments.
10/26/2011: No comments.
issues regarding ei,iergency access need to be resolved prior to approval. Page 6 of 21 of
the FDP Site Plan does not indicate emergency access on north side Bldg 7.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/07/2011
12/07/2011: For the fire pit located on the project; wood and wood products cannot be used as
the fuel source, only gas (natural or propane). Wood is problematic for reasons of storage,
supervision, embers, and smoke production.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970.416-2418, wlamar4ue(a)fc4ov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 12/06/2011
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.
Topic: Floodplain
Comment Number:.15 I Comment Originated: 12/06/2011
12/06/2011: The floodway line shown in the legend doesn't match the floodway line shown on
the plat.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 12/06/2011
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.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/25/2011
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.
Comment Number: 5. Comment Originated: 10/25/2011
12/06/2011: Please specify "planted" riprap to be used per detail.
10/25/2011: Please include riprap details and reference the details on the grading plans.
(minimum of thret years) monitoring and weed management piclo for the site's landscaping.
Topic: Reports -Soils, Subdrain
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/06/2011
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."
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221.6361, tuchanan cDfcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/07/2011
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.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/07/2011
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 Perennial Lane.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/07/2011
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.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/07/2011
12/07/2011:
Landscape note numberl3 should be changed by adding the current code language for soil
improvement in landscape areas.
Department: Park Planning
Contact: Craig Foreman, 970-221.6618, cforeman cDfcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/30/2011
09/30/2011: 1 believe we were still going to receive the repay for Rolland Moore Drive from this
project.
Department: PFA
Contact: Ron Gonzales, 970.221-6635, ronzales cDpoudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/27/2011
10/27/2011: Item #23, Emergency Vehicle Access, of memo dated 9-28-11 states any potential
impacted by the development.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970.224.6143, lex(a)fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/06/2011
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.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/25/2011
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).
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/25/2011
12/07/2011: 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.
10/25/2011: 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.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/25/2011
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 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
thickness at the opaning.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 12/07/2011
12/07/2011: With the number of sheets that have been revised and being aware of it Tuesday
at noon, I was unable to print these out at 2406. Printing them at 8 x 10 has proven to be
awkward to review with any detail and reviewing electronically in conjunction and in contrast with
the paper set has been awkward as well. Please provide paper full size copies for review,
which I would look to incorporate into the existing set and then complete the review. I don't
necessarily anticipate any concerns per se regarding the plan and profile changes, but given
that we're in the "details" of the project, I would want to ensure that I'm able to provide a detail
review. Similarly, I've been holding off on providing Engineering inspection an opportunity to
review the plans until a complete latest set is incorporated.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 12/07/2011
12/07/2011: One apparent concern though with the revised sheets is that information modified
wasn't strictly utility locations horizontally and vertically, many of the details in the detail sheets
have been modified, and weren't thoroughly reviewed.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/26/2011
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'.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 10/28/2011
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.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 12/07/2011
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.
Topic: Landscape Plans.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/26/2011
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.
Pleas 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
Drive street turn appear to have minimal cross slope. Can this area be looked at in terms of
bringing about a larger cross slope?
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 10/28/2011
12/07/2011: Still need to review.
10/28/2011: Can an exhibit be provided (separately, not necessarily in the plan set) overlaying
the striping plan for streets with the sanitary manholes? I'd like to see how striping and manhole
locations are situated.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 10/28/2011
12/07/2011: Still need to review.
10/28/2011: SSMH A8 along Native Plant Way is partially in the crosspan and partially in the
street pavement section. Please have this relocated fully out of the crosspan. (Note that this
comment may not be a concern if the streets are built in concrete instead of asphalt.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 12/07/2011
12/07/2011: With the rain garden design information now provided, we have the following
thoughts/concems:
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 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.
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.
3) Indicate a minimum distance in which a level run of compacted subgrade up against the curb
and gutter/sidewalk is intended to be.
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?
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.
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).
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?
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"
the success of the gain garden does not provide sufficient integlay 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.
- 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.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/26/2011
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 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.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 10/26/2011
12/07/2011: Still need to verify.
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.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 10/26/2011
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.
10/26/2011: The cross slope for the inner portion of the Perennial Lane/existing Rolland Moore
there will not be ai,uther "formal" round of review of the Final F-1dns. The applicants may
continue working with the various City department representatives independently to address
the outstanding issues as preparation is made for submittal of the required mylars of the
development plans for recording/filing.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 12/09/2011
12/09/2011: 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.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 12/06/2011
12/06/2011: 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?
Topic: Traffic Impact Study
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 12/09/2011
12/09/2011: Ward Stanford of Traffic Operations would like to talk with the developer's engineer
regarding questions related to the utility plans. Ward can be reached at 970-221-6820.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata a()fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/26/2011
12/07/2011: see Comment 21 (tried to paste 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:
- 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.
- 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
City &
Fort Collins
Community Development and
Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov. com/developmentre view
December 09, 2011
RE: The Grove at Fort Collins, FDP110015, Round Number 2
Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your
submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the
individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Steve Olt, at 970-221-6341 or
solt@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Current Planning
Contact: Steve Olt, 970.221-6341, solta()fcaov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/25/2011
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.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/25/2011
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.
10/25/2011: 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.
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.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 12/09/2011
12/09/2011: Based on comments made at staff review on Wednesday morning, December 7th,