Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE GROVE AT FORT COLLINS - FDP - FDP110015 - CORRESPONDENCE - (53)Attachments: • Email from Lucia Liley regarding the use of natural gas for heating. • Long -Tenn Monitoring and Weed Management Plan, prepared by Stephen Long, Cedar Creek Associates • Email correspondence with Tim Vanone regarding street names The existing 12" sewer in Tract A will remain (notes have been deleted). Crowns match. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/26/2011 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. Steel casing details and callouts have been added to the plans. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/26/2011 10126/2011: 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. This will require further discussion with the Contractor at the DCP pre -construction meeting. A note has been added to the plans as well. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/26/2011 10126/2011: Add steel casings to the water and sanitary sewer where these cross under the twin 18-inch storm drains between storm inlets 1-2 and 1-3. Label the diameter and thickness of the casings on the plans. Done. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 10/26/2011 10/26/2011: At the point where the 18" storm drain crosses the water main NW of STMH 2-1, the joints on the stone must be encased 10 each side of the water main. A product call EZ-Wrap or similar may be used. Call out the product on the plans. EZ-Wrap joint wrap is specified on Sheet ST1. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 10/26/2011 10/26/2011: Is the 3/4" and 1" meter pit detail needed? No... it has been deleted. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 10/26/2011 10/26/2011: Provide a detail for each water main lowering. See table added to Detail 4-A. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 10/26/2011 10/26/2011: See redlined plans for other comments. See hand-written responses on returned redlined plans. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 10/26/2011 10/26/2011: Adjust trees or water/sewer lines to provide 6 feet separation from water/sewer services and fire lines and 10 feet separation from fire hydrants. Done - see landscape plans. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/26/2011 10/2612011: Label the section of existing sanitary sewer easement which is north of the new Rolland Moore Drive. This portion of the easement (north of RMD) must NOT be vacated. Clarification has been added to the plat. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/25/2011 10/25/2011: Please label outfall and inflow curb and gutter as on -site on sheet D2. Done. (Note: these details are now located on Sheet D11) Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/25/2011 10/25/2011: The water quality outlet structure detail on sheet D8 can be removed. Done. (Note: the water quality outlet structure detail is now located on Sheet D7) Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/25/2011 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. The design has been revised to use a single column of larger diameter holes. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 10/25/2011 10/25/2011: Please add a WQ summary table to the Drainage Exhibit. Done. Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffinQton@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/25/2011 10/2512011: On the utility, sanitary sewer and storm drain sheets, revise the note regarding the separation of water and sewer lines to remove the phrase "to the extent possible". Done. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/25/2011 10/2512011: Label all tees for fire hydrants as swivel tees. Done. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/25/2011 10/25/2011: Add a fire hydrant at the intersection of Perennial Drive and the existing Rolland Moore Drive near the horticulture Center. After further discussion, it was determined that an additional hydrant was not necessary. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/25/2011 10/25/2011: Schedule a meeting to review and discuss the placement of the sanitary sewers with respect to the street centerlines. Include Engineering and Water Utilities. See responses to Engineering Comments 17 and 18, above. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/25/2011 10/25/2011: Provide profiles of the underdrains. When the underdrains are lower than the sanitary sewers (1 foot clear vertical separation), the underdrains may be the same trench as the sewer. For those situations, follow the standard details in LCUASS. Include these details in the utility plans. When not in the same trench as the sewers, the underdrains must be a minimum of 10 feet from water and sewer lines. See Sheets UD1-UD6, as well as D4. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/26/2011 10/2612011: Existing sewer that extends into the remaining undeveloped tract is a 12" sewer. Match crowns where the proposed 8" connects. Is CSURF okay with abandoning a portion of this 12"? Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/25/2011 10/25/2011: The swale along the north side of Native Plant Way has a longitudinal slope of 1%. Normally slopes less than 2% require a pan. Slopes between 1 % and 2% can have a soft bottom if the invert of the swale is treated per Stormwater Criteria, which includes a sandy bottom. The invert of the swale should include a sandy loam bottom 2 feet wide and 1 foot deep. The construction plans now specify a 2' wide, 1' deep sand bottom. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/25/2011 10/25/2011: The swale along the north side of Native Plant Way also has 3:1 side slopes in several locations. This would require a variance to our standard criteria if 4:1 slopes are not achievable. Good justification is required to grant a variance. See Section 12 of the Drainage Report for documentation/justification for the limited areas of 3:1 slopes. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/25/2011 10/2512011: There are some areas along Roland Moore Drive that have 3 to 1 slopes. Please revise to 4 to 1. See response to Number: 2, above. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/25/2011 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. The following note has been added to the Landscape Plan: 17 RETAINING WALLS OVER 4' IN HEIGHT MEASURED FROM THE LOW SIDE GRADE TO THE TOP OF THE WALL WILL REQUIRE A SEPARATE PERMIT A SEPARATE PERMIT IS NOT REQUIRED FOR RETAINING WALLS THAT ARE NOT OVER 4 FEET IN HEIGHT MEASURED FROM THE LOW SIDE GRADE TO THE TOP OF THE WALL PROVIDED THE HORIZONTAL DISTANCE TO THE NEXT UPHILL RETAINING WALL IS AT LEAST EQUAL TO THE TOTAL HEIGHT OF THE LOWER RETAINING WALL, UNLESS SUPPORTING A SURCHARGE OR IMPOUNDING CLASS I, II OR IIIA LIQUIDS. REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN DETAIL A, SHEET 10 FOR WALLS BELOW 4'. WALLS GREATER THAN 4' TO BE DESIGNED BY OTHERS. REFER TO CIVIL PLANS FOR FINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONS AT RETAINING WALLS. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10125/2011 10125/2011: Please include riprap details and reference the details on the grading plans. A reference to the riprap detail located on Sheet EC2 has been added. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/25/2011 10/25/2011: Details and cross -sections are required for the PLDs in Rolland Moore Drive. There also needs to be mention in the text of the report on how to retrofit these PLDs if they fail and are to be abandoned. See Sheet D10 of the Utility Plans, and Section 12.2 of the Drainage Report Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/25/2011 10/25/2011: Please label all storm sewers private or public on the plan and profile sheets. Done. 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 (minimum of three years) for the site's landscaping. See long-term monitoring and weed management plan prepared by Steve Long with Cedar Creek Associates and attached to this letter. Topic: Reports -Soils, Subdrain Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/25/2011 10/25/2011: Staff has reviewed the 2011 (First) Annual Groundwater and Vegetation Monitoring Report prepared by Cedar Creek Associates for the applicant. Staff appreciates the willingness by the applicant to collect baseline and post -construction data that ensures the wetlands continue to function at a similar level to what is presently observed. Staff appreciates the effort by the consultant to not only collect scientific data on the vegetation and groundwater levels at the site, but also the effort to collect experiential knowledge (via the farmer who has been haying the site for quite some time). Staff recognizes that this experiential knowledge suggests the hydrology at these wetlands has been dynamic over the past few years especially. As the monitoring results are reviewed in the future, both the scientific and the experiential data will be assessed to evaluate site changes. Acknowledged Department: Park Planning Contact: Craig Foreman, 970-221.6618, cforemannafcgov.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. See response to comment Number 4 on page one. Department: PFA Contact: Ron Gonzales, 970.221.6635, rcionzales(ftoudre-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 issues regarding emergency 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. Access Easement labels have been added to clarify where access easements will exist. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416.2418, wlamaroueAfcgov.com Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 10/25/2011 10/2512011: See the redlined comments on plat, site plan, landscape plan, utility plans, floodplain exhibit, and drainage report. Redlined comments have been addressed, see returned redlines. Topic: General Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/25/2011 10/25/2011: Please add the Environmental Planner signature block to Sheet CS2. Done. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/25/2011 10/25/2011: In a case where there are both general notes and floodplain notes, e.g., Sheet G1, is it possible to distinguish the two types of notes? For example, when you indicate to someone that they should see note 2, and there are two note 2s, how does one distinguish? How does one know that both note 2s should be observed, as is the case when the Natural Habitat Buffer Zones and the floodway coincide? The Floodplain Notes now use alpha characters to avoid confusion. Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/25/2011 10/2512011: Comments numbered 7, 8, 13, and 16 from the September 28th letter are resolved. These comments refer to native plantings (#7), monitoring plan (#8), labeling on the landscape plans (#13), and trash/recycling enclosures (#16). Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/25/2011 10125/2011: 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). Acknowledged Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/25/2011 10/25/2011: Comment #15 is resolved, especially in light of the project's pet restrictions. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/25/2011 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. An alternative fence has been proposed that is approximately 4.5 feet high and would allow for small animals to move underneath. We are hopeful that this fence is a good compromise between what the City's Natural Resource Department would like and a higher barrier preferred by some neighborhood residents. See Sheet 2 of 23 in the FDP set. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/25/2011 10/25/2011: What is the applicant's long-term plan for establishment and management of the wall/bottom of wall/finished grade general information). The following note has been added: 17. RETAINING WALLS OVER 4' IN HEIGHT MEASURED FROM THE LOW SIDE GRADE TO THE TOP OF THE WALL WILL REQUIRE A SEPARATE PERMIT. A SEPARATE PERMIT IS NOT REQUIRED FOR RETAINING WALLS THAT ARE NOT OVER 4 FEET IN HEIGHT MEASURED FROM THE LOW SIDE GRADE TO THE TOP OF THE WALL PROVIDED THE HORIZONTAL DISTANCE TO THE NEXT UPHILL RETAINING WALL IS AT LEAST EQUAL TO THE TOTAL HEIGHT OF THE LOWER RETAINING WALL, UNLESS SUPPORTING A SURCHARGE OR IMPOUNDING CLASS I, II OR IIIA LIQUIDS. REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN DETAIL A, SHEET 10 FOR WALLS BELOW 4'. WALLS GREATER THAN 4' TO BE DESIGNED BY OTHERS REFER TO CIVIL PLANS FOR FINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONS AT RETAINING WALLS Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 10/26/2011 10/26/2011: As a reminder of prior discussions, the City will be incorporating items into the development agreement pertaining to the existing Rolland Moore Drive's reconfiguration into Perennial Lane and the extension of the new Rolland Moore Drive. Among these items are 1) CSURF's responsibility for reimbursing the City of Fort Collins for one-half of the actual design and construction costs of the existing Rolland Moore Drive that stubs off of Centre Ave. 2) The City will not extend reimbursement right for a portion of the proposed new Rolland Moore Drive equal to the length of the existing Rolland Moore Drive roadway that was previously built. 3) The applicant is responsible for all the costs pertaining towards the removal of the unused portions of existing Rolland Moore Drive with it now connecting to Perennial Lane, including landscaping of the Gardens at Spring Creek and application for the vacation of right-of-way of the eventual unused portions of roadway. See response to comment Number 4 on page one. 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. This typo has been corrected Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/26/2011 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. The landscape plan indicates that this area will be seeded with native grasses after the removal of the existing turn -around. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224.6143, lex(afcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/25/2011 10/25/2011: Regarding comment #10, please also add the "Limit of Development" line to the erosion control and grading sheets in the utility plan set. Otherwise, this comment can also be resolved. Limits of Development are now shown on Sheet EC1, as well as Sheets G1-G6. 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. Exhibits were provided via e-mail on 05/2712011 and 11/02/2011. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 10/28/2011 10/2812011: 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. A meeting between the Design Engineer and the Water Utility is scheduled for 11/17/2011. The final location of SSMH A8 is expected to be determined at that time. Regardless of said meeting, the manhole lid will be located either entirely within asphalt or concrete, not in between. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 10/28/2011 10/28/2011: Please provide subdrain details indicating bedding, installation and cleanout information. See Sheet D4. Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/26/2011 10/26/2011: The northeast corner of the Native Plant Way and Perennial Lane intersection should have an access ramp provided at this time to receive pedestrians crossing from the northwest corner. Access ramp has been added. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/26/2011 10/26/2011: There should be contiguity in the sidewalk network that runs along the south side of existing Rolland Moore Drive, crossing Perennial Lane; additional 40 feet of sidewalk and access ramp should be shown as being built with the project from the existing termination of sidewalk on the south side of Rolland Moore Drive including the access ramp. Additional sidewalk and ramp has been added as requested. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/26/2011 10/26/2011: The sight distance easement legal description is being reviewed by Technical Services, note the need to change "site" to "sight". This typo has been corrected Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/26/2011 10126/2011: Email correspondence at the end of September had City staff inquire on the acceptance of the placement of notes on the plat and/or development agreement affirming the developers commitment made at public hearing to use natural gas in the development. The last known correspondence in this regard was from Josie Plaut indicating that Robbie Robinson at Campus Crest would need to respond. Has there been further input in this regard? See comment response above No. 8 Current Planning. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 10/26/2011 10/26/2011: The site plan references the construction plan set for information regarding the retaining walls throughout the site, however construction detail information for the various walls aren't included. The grading plan should also be providing general elevation information (top of periodic wet conditions. We have avoided placing plants in the bottom of the drainage channel where it will be the wettest. - 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. A meeting with multiple City departments was held on 11103/2011, during which additional comments and details were discussed. Section 12.2 of the Drainage Report contains additional description as well. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/26/2011 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 concems 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. The design has been revised and additional information has been added to address these concerns. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 10/26/2011 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. The Intersection Details and the roadway profiles now match Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 10/26/2011 10126/2011: Station 26+50 on the cross section sheet for Rolland Moore Drive shows no curb and gutter delineating the roadway at this location. Correct. Station 26+50 is located where driveways intersect the road, and vertical curb gives way for standard cross -pans. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 10/26/2011 10/26/2011, The storm drain sheets have a note that reference seeing "UY sheets for the underdrain, though these appear to be indicated on "DP" titled sheets. The underdrain profiles can be found on Sheets UD1-UD6. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 10/26/2011 10/26/2011: 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? The cross -slope in that location is dictated by the tie-in to the existing asphalt of RMD. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 10/28/2011 devices on the system and would want the backflow preventer removed. Applegate's narrative has been revised to no longer reference a backflow preventer. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/26/2011 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. The curb opening and overflow locations have been added to Sheets R1-R2. - Provide a detail on how the curb and gutter section transitions to and from the opening for the rain gardens. See Sheet D10. - 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. Per the 11/0312011 rain garden design meeting, it was determined that flows can continue through the rain gardens, even in the retrofit scenario. The main differences are that the cobble infiltration swale will get lined in concrete and the overlow weirs will get cut flush so that the landscaped curb extensions become 'pass through' with respect to gutter flows, - 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. See Sheet D10. - 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. See Sheet D10. 2' wide compacted subgrade sections lined with cobble will support the adjacent curbs and sidewalks. - 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. The overflow weir sections create 'mini ponds' in the rain gardens encouraging full infiltration of the minor storm events. Only major storm events will leave the rain gardens and continue to flow across downstream cross -pans. - 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. Plant material has been selected from native plants that are drought tolerant but can handle Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 10127/2011 10/27/2011: Rob Irish of City Light & Power has indicated that they have no issues with The Grove at Fort Collins, Final Plans. Acknowledged Topic: Planning Objectives Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/25/2011 10/25/2011: Current Planning did not receive a copy of the Planning Objectives that apparently were submitted with the Final Plan package. Planning Objectives are not required for the Final Compliance Submittal and were not requested on the routing sheet received from City staff. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/24/2011 10/24/2011: On the Site Plan cover sheet (1 of 21) please add the language for the 2 conditions of City Council approval of the PDP. They are: a. That at least one building that is constructed as part of the project described in the PDP must be LEED certified and that all other buildings in the project will be built to the same or comparable specifications and at the same or higher standards as the LEED certified building. b. That, to the extent permitted by law, pets will be prohibited in all buildings that are constructed as part of the project described in the PDP. Done - see site plan cover sheet. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/25/2011 10/25/2011: The trash & recycling enclosures closest to Buildings 3 & 8 have been moved back from the Rolland Moore Drive right-of-way distances of 20' and 22' to satisfy the requirement in the Land Use Code. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970.221.6567, mvirata(o),fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/26/2011 10/26/2011: The underdrain design shown on the DP sheets need to be shown in profile view in addition to the plan view. See Sheets UD1-UD6. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/26/2011 10/26/2011: Please clarify if the indication of a Node on the underdrain design is indicative of a cleanout. Node references have been removed, and cleanout locations have been clarified. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/26/2011 10/26/2011: The underdrain design called out in the subsurface report indicated the use of a backfiow preventer prior to the outfall of the system. The City would not the placement of any 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, The landscape plan indicates that this area will be seeded with native grasses after the removal of the existing tum-around. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/25/2011 10/25/2011: Don Kapperman of Comcast Cable TV indicated that he has no problems or concerns with the development plans. Acknowledged Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/25/2011 10/25/2011: Regarding the heat source to be used in this development, there is still some uncertainty as to whether it will be electric or gas or a combination. Please clarify at this time. See attached email from Lucia Liley Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/25/2011 10125/2011: Technical Services did not receive their red -lined plans from the last round of Project Development Plan review, which occurred prior to public hearing. We believe all redlines were returned, however they may have ended up in the wrong City Department. All redlines received with the final comments are being returned with this submittal Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/25/2011 10/25/2011: The street names of Perennial Lane (public commercial street) and Native Plant Way (public local street) must be cleared by the appropriate City departments and emergency service agencies before they can be used. See attached e-mail from Tim Varrone dated 07/18/2011. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 10/27/2011 10/27/2011: On June 16, 2011 the Planning & Zoning Board approved The Grove at Fort Collins, PDP with the condition that: No final Certificate of Occupancy (CO) will be issued until the ditch (Larimer No. 2 Canal) is realigned. This condition of approval should be put as a General Note on the Site Plan; and, probably should be included in the Development Agreement. Acknowledged - See note on site plan cover sheet. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/25/2011 10/25/2011: Eric Olson of the City Water Conservation division indicated that he has no problems or concerns with the Landscape Plan. Acknowledged Topic: Lighting Plan 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 fcgovcom/de velopmentreview November 16, 2011 Steve Olt Project Planner City of Fort Collins Responses to City staff and outside reviewing agencies comments regarding the The Grove at Fort Collins, FDP110015, Round Number 1 follow: Questions regarding responses in blue can be directed to Linda Ripley at 970-224-5828 Questions regarding responses in red can be directed to Nick Haws at 970-221-4158 Comment Summary: Department: Current Planning Contact: Steve Olt, 970.221-6341, solt fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/25/2011 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. Acknowledged Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/25/201, 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. In connection with discussion and finalization of the development agreement for this project, CSURF and Campus Crest need to review the City documentation for the Rolland Moore Drive repay obligation (which has not yet been received), and discuss with the City Attorney's Office when this requirement may legally be imposed. In addition, CSURF and Campus Crest need to discuss with the City Attorney's Office legal issues in connection with requirements 2 and 3 above.