HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE GROVE AT FORT COLLINS - PDP - 16-10B - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 -Page 1
STAFF PROJECT REVIEW
Linda Ripley Date: 1/4/2011
Ripley Design, Inc. RESPONSE DATE: 4/6/2011
401 West Mountain Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Staff has reviewed your submittal for THE GROVE AT FORT COLLINS, PDP - TYPE 2, and
we offer the following comments:
ISSUES:
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt
Topic: Elevation Plans
Number: 84 Created: 12/29/2010
[12/29/10] On the Small and Large Building Elevations, what is the material for the vertical
panels in the gables on these buildings?
RESPONSE: The elevations have changed as a result of feedback we received at a
community workshop. The building materials include brick, vinyl siding, glass and spandrel
glass with metal canopies.
Number: 85 Created: 12/29/2010
[12/29/10] Would the developer consider an alternative to the proposed insulated vinyl lap
siding on the buildings? Does it give a flat or glossy (reflective) appearance and how well
does it hold up over time? Good, long term appearance is an important component of
development. How does the visual appearance of the vinyl material compare to lapboard
siding (already used on buildings in the area), for instance?
RESPONSE: The buildings will feature a combination of brick and vinyl siding. The
applicant is working on an alternative look to the “lap” style. As an installed product it holds
up well. The “premium” version proposed is difficult to differentiate from cedar painted
siding. There is no “oil canning” effect because the insulation component behind it keeps
the product in a more stable dimension. The appearance is flat.
Topic: General
Number: 50 Created: 12/27/2010
[12/27/10] The Grove at Fort Collins PDP as submitted on December 8, 2010 is subject to
the standard development review process as set forth in Division 2.2 of the LUC. It is subject
to staff evaluation of compliance with applicable General Development Standards in Article
3; and, applicable Land Use Standards and Development Standards in Divisions 4.6 - MMN
District and 4.27 - E District of Article 4.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Number: 51 Created: 12/27/2010
[12/27/10] The Grove at Fort Collins PDP may continue to be reviewed by City staff;
however, because the PDP currently is not in conformance with the CSURF Centre for
Advanced Technology Overall Development Plan of record (February 20, 2003) the PDP
cannot progress to a public hearing in front of the Planning & Zoning Board until an
Amended ODP is submitted to the City and reviewed by staff against the ODP criteria set
forth in the Land Use Code.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Page 2
Number: 56 Created: 12/28/2010
[12/28/10] Cross-sections between the multi-family buildings in The Grove development
and the residential buildings in the neighborhoods to the west and north would be helpful to
show horizontal distances between and vertical relationships of the developments.
RESPONSE: We have modeled the site in order to provide visual graphics that accurately
depict how the buildings are oriented on the site and how they will appear when viewed from
the neighborhood. A sample of this modeling exercise is attached for your review. The
building locations and grading are accurately represented but the architectural facades have
changed. They will be updated prior to the Open House scheduled for April 27th.
Number: 57 Created: 12/28/2010
[12/28/10] Staff would like to see a graphic plan showing a detached sidewalk and parkway
on the south side of Rolland Moore Drive in front of Buildings 3 - 6 as a comparison to the
proposed attached 11' wide sidewalk with tree wells.
RESPONSE: Alternative sidewalk locations were submitted to City staff for review January
17, 2011. Since then we were directed by City staff to provide a detached sidewalk rather
than a more urban streetscape pattern that eliminated the parkway strip.
Number: 79 Created: 12/29/2010
[12/29/10] Craig Foreman of the Park Planning Department offers the following comments:
a. This development is responsible for a repay for the construction of Rolland Moore
Drive along the south side of the Gardens on spring Creek, a City-owned facility.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
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.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Number: 81 Created: 12/29/2010
[12/29/10] Jim Colburn of the City's Neighborhood Services Department indicated that they
have no problems with or concerns about this new proposed development.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Number: 101 Created: 1/3/2011
[1/3/11] The PDP satisfies the standard set forth in Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) Attached
Dwellings set forth in the LUC. The required parking breakdown for the proposed 2, 3 and 4
bedroom dwelling units is:
* 60 2-bedroom units x 1.75 spaces = 105 spaces
* 140 3-bedroom units x 2.00 spaces = 280 spaces
* 18 4-bedroom units x 2.50 spaces = 45 spaces
430 spaces
There are a total of 509 parking spaces, 412 off-street spaces in defined lots + 97 parallel
parking spaces on the proposed Private Local Street (considered to be an internal street),
that satisfy the minimum parking requirement for The Grove PDP. Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(b)
Page 3
Multi-family allows parking on an internal street fronting on a lot or tract containing multi-
family dwellings to be counted to meet the parking requirements for the development.
RESPONSE: There are now a total of 499 parking spaces, including 247 standard spaces,
141 compact spaces, 15 van-accessible handicap spaces and 96 on-street parallel spaces.
The 96 parallel parking spaces are along the proposed Public Local Street (considered to be
an internal street).
Number: 104 Created: 1/3/2011
[1/3/11] The PDP satisfies Section 3.2.2(L) Parking Stall Dimensions in the LUC.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Number: 109 Created: 1/3/2011
[1/3/11] With possibly an exception relating to one building material (proposed vinyl lap
siding) the PDP satisfies the standards set forth in Section 3.5.1 Building and Project
Compatibility of the LUC.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Number: 113 Created: 1/3/2011
[1/3/11] The PDP satisfies the standards in Section 3.5.2 Residential Building Standards of
the LUC.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Courtney Rippy
Topic: General
Number: 53 Created: 12/28/2010
[12/28/10] Where do the residents gather their mail?
RESPONSE: There are two mail box plazas on the front side of the Clubhouse building.
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt
Topic: Landscape Plans
Number: 55 Created: 12/28/2010
[12/28/10] Please provide a graphic showing how the Landscape Plan complies with
Section 3.2.1(E)(5) Parking Lot Interior Landscaping of the LUC.
RESPONSE: See graphic provided.
Number: 58 Created: 12/28/2010
[12/28/10] To ensure that Section 3.2.1(D)(2) Street Trees of the LUC is satisfied, additional
street trees may be needed in front of Buildings 1 - 5. This comment is based on Sheet 10 of
15 of the Landscape Plan, as submitted.
RESPONSE: Canopy street trees are planted 40 feet on center where required. Canopy
street trees are placed forty feet from street lights as required. Where there are no utility
conflicts, ornamental trees are added closer to the street lights.
Number: 59 Created: 12/28/2010
[12/28/10] Please note that the Final Landscape Plan must satisfy Section 3.2.1(D)(3)
Minimum Species Diversity of the LUC.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Number: 60 Created: 12/28/2010
Page 4
[12/28/10] Further discussion of the Landscape Plan's compliance with Section
3.2.1(D)(1)(c) "full tree stocking" of the LUC is needed. Additional types and numbers of
trees may be needed.
RESPONSE: The landscape plan meets the “full tree stocking” requirement in the LUC.
Number: 61 Created: 12/28/2010
[12/28/10] Depending on the results of additional information needed on the proposed
retaining wall behind Buildings 3 - 5, some landscaping may be needed in front of the wall,
between the wall and the buildings.
RESPONSE: A tree and shrub bed has been added toward the western one third of the
wall to accommodate a steep slope and to provide visual interest. In addition pockets of
Boston Ivy have been added along the north side of the wall to create visual interest and
provide fall color.
Number: 82 Created: 12/29/2010
[12/29/10] Eric Olson, the City's Water Conservation Coordinator, indicated that the
proposed Perovskia Atriplicifolia - Russian Sage is a plant that is no longer on Fort Collins'
Plant List (see the Water Conservation Standards for Landscapes COMMENT SHEET being
forward to the applicant).
RESPONSE: Russian Sage has been removed from the landscape plan.
Number: 83 Created: 12/29/2010
[12/29/10] The Sheet Index on Sheet 1 of the Site Plans indicates Landscape Plans to be
Sheets 10 – 15. I have received only Sheet 10, the Overall Landscape Plan. The other 5
sheets are important for Lindsday Ex, Tim Buchanan, Eric Olson (water conservation) and
myself to review, even at the 50% PDP level now.
RESPONSE: Landscape Plans Sheets 10-15 have been provided as requested.
Number: 87 Created: 12/29/2010
[12/29/10] Further discussion of the Landscape Plan's compliance with Section
3.2.1(E)(4)(a) Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping of the LUC is needed. Additional numbers
of trees may be needed.
RESPONSE: The landscape plan is in conformance with 3.2.1(E)(4)(a) Parking Lot
Perimeter Landscaping.
Number: 94 Created: 1/3/2011
[1/3/11] The Site & Landscape Plans must ensure that Section 3.2.1(E) Screening of the
LUC relating to areas of low visual interest or visually intrusive site elements from off-site
view is being met.
RESPONSE: Plant material is used to screen areas of low visual interest such as trash
collection areas and parking. Above ground utilities are also screened to the degree
possible.
Topic: Lighting Plans
Number: 64 Created: 12/28/2010
[12/28/10] A cut sheet/detail for the proposed S7 light fixture (70 watt High Pressure
Sodium) and 12' high pole must be provided for review.
RESPONSE: The proposed light fixture and standard are illustrated on Sheet 9 of 21. In
addition a cut sheet containing additional information about the proposed light fixture is
included in the Submittal for your review.
Page 5
Number: 106 Created: 1/3/2011
[1/3/11] The PDP satisfies the standards set forth in Section 3.2.4 Site Lighting in the LUC
as they relate to lighting levels and design standards.
RESPONSE: Now that the internal local street is a “public street” the City’s Light and Power
department will furnish and maintain standard City street light fixtures along all the proposed
streets.
Topic: Site Plans
Number: 52 Created: 12/27/2010
[12/27/10] The Trash & Recycling Enclosure at the east end of the parking lot just east of
Building 6 would probably be better served if located closer to the building. Also, the
residents in Buildings 2 and 5 would have to walk distances of 300' - 400' or cross Rolland
Moore Drive, a collector street, to be within 250' feet of a trash & recycle enclosure. Does
this fully satisfy Section 3.2.5(A) Purpose of the LUC?
RESPONSE: The trash and recycling enclosure at the east end of the parking lot just east
of Building 6 has been moved to the west end of the parking lot to make it more convenient
for users. We believe the number and location of trash and recycling enclosures meets the
intent of Section 3.2.5(A) Purpose in the LUC. We are encouraging students to walk and or
ride their bikes to the CSU campus .5-1 mile away on a daily basis. Walking 300 feet to
dump trash or recycle occasionally doesn’t seem unreasonable for this population.
Number: 62 Created: 12/28/2010
[12/28/10] There are a number of Dog Waste Stations included on the Site Plan; however, a
few more evenly spaced would be beneficial. There is a big gap from Building 3 to the
basketball court on the south side of Rolland Moore Drive and another big gap along the
private street on the north side of the development, between building 8 and Building 10.
RESPONSE: We have added three dog waste stations to fill the gaps.
Number: 63 Created: 12/28/2010
[12/28/10] Buildings 4 - 6, 9 and 12 (clubhouse) do not appear to have handicapped parking
spaces conveniently located for the residents/users of these buildings.
RESPONSE: Handicap parking spaces have been added at the east end of Building 6, at
the northeast side of the Clubhouse and the spaces that were closet to Building 10 have
been shifted to more adequately serve both Building 9 and 10. It is not the intent or required
to have handicap units in all buildings. Handicapped students would be encouraged to live
in buildings where closer, more convenient handicap parking is available.
Number: 95 Created: 1/3/2011
[1/3/11] Based on the Site Plan information, pedestrians are being separated, to the
maximum extent feasible, from vehicles and bicycles by a street and internal sidewalk
system throughout the development, thereby satisfying Section 3.2.2(C)(1) of the LUC.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Number: 96 Created: 1/3/2011
[1/3/11] The PDP satisfies Section 3.2.2(C)(4) Bicycle Facilities of the LUC in that it
provides 147 bicycle parking spaces, or 29% of the total number of automobile parking
spaces for the development, thereby exceeding the minimum 5% required. Also, based on
the Planning Objectives, space for doubling the amount of bicycle parking is available if
needed in the future. There are 21 bicycle racks shown, apparently providing parking for 7
bicycles each. The racks are located near building entrances and would be visible from the
Page 6
buildings in the PDP. No racks are remotely located in the automobile parking areas. A
detail of the proposed racks must be provided for review.
RESPONSE: The PDP now provides 294 bicycle parking spaces. In addition, students are
allowed to bring their bicycles into their living units. A detail of the proposed rack is
illustrated on Sheet 2 of 21. Only 25 spaces are required.
Number: 97 Created: 1/3/2011
[1/3/11] The Site Plans do not clearly show if the PDP fully satisfies the pedestrian
connectivity requirements set forth in Section 3.2.2(C)(5) Walkways of the LUC. Please
provide further detail in the next round of review.
RESPONSE: All the buildings are located along public streets with detached sidewalks
creating convenient and safe access in, around and through the site. An 8-foot-wide
pedestrian bike path is located along the outside perimeter of the local internal street to
provide a centrally located off-street bike path to enhance student safety. Interior sidewalks
are located throughout the plan providing convenient and direct access from parking lots to
buildings and to recreational amenities on site.
Number: 99 Created: 1/3/2011
[1/3/11] The PDP satisfies the standards set forth in Section 3.2.2(D) Access and Parking
Lot Requirements of the LUC for items such as: pedestrian/vehicle separation, access,
location, guest parking, pavement and lighting.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Number: 127 Created: 1/4/2011
[1/4/11] Sheet 2, Overall Site Plan of Site Plans set still shows a total of 13 buildings when,
in fact, there are now only 12 buildings. Please make that correction on the plan.
RESPONSE: This has been corrected.
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Courtney Rippy
Topic: Site Plans
Number: 54 Created: 12/28/2010
[12/28/10] Please provide detail regarding the height and materials for the retaining wall
proposed to the south of the development. More specifically, the height of the retaining wall
between buildings 3 and 4. Looking at the contours, it appears this wall is approximately 10'
- 12' high.
RESPONSE: The height of the retaining wall (as measured from finished grade) varies from
roughly 3’ towards the west end of Building 3 to approximately 10’ behind Building 4 and
transitions back down to nearly 3’ towards the east end of Building 5. The wall is expected
to be comprised of modular concrete blocks having a color and surface finish
complementary to the final building architecture. This wall will require structural design and
building permit submittal after PDP approval, and therefore, is subject to slight modifications
as a result.
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt
Topic: Subdivision Plat
Number: 122 Created: 1/4/2011
[1/4/11] Outlot A must be defined as a Drainage Easement on the Subdivision Plat.
RESPONSE: Outlot A is now defined as a Permanent Drainage Easement on the Plat.
Topic: Utility Plans
Number: 80 Created: 12/29/2010
Page 7
[12/29/10] Don Kapperman of Comcast Cable TV indicated that they have no problems with
or concerns about this proposed new development.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Topic: Zoning
Number: 114 Created: 1/3/2011
[1/3/11] The PDP contains land uses (multi-family dwellings, mixed-use dwellings) that are
permitted in the MMN, Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Number: 115 Created: 1/3/2011
[1/3/11] The PDP contains land uses (multi-family dwellings, mixed-use dwelling units) that
are permitted in the E, Employment District.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Number: 117 Created: 1/3/2011
[1/3/11] The PDP satisfies the applicable standards in Section 4.6(D) Land Use Standards
in the MMN District in the LUC, including: Section 4.6(D)(2) Mix of Housing Types in that
the development plan, being larger than 16 acres in size, contains multi-family dwellings and
a mixed-use dwelling; and, Section 4.6(D)(3) Access to a park, central feature or gathering
place in that The Grove at Fort Collins PDP contains a clubhouse, swimming pool and
central green that will function as a central feature and/or gathering place for the
development.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Number: 118 Created: 1/3/2011
[1/3/11] The PDP satisfies the applicable standards in Section 4.6(E) Development
Standards in the MMN District in the LUC, including: Section 4.6(E)(1) Block Requirements
in that a defined block in a portion of Lot 1 is smaller than 7 acres in size, is bounded on all
sides by a public or private street, satisfies the minimum building frontage requirement and
contains buildings that are 3 stories in height.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Number: 123 Created: 1/4/2011
[1/4/11] The PDP satisfies the applicable standards in Section 4.27(D) Land Use Standards
in the E District in the LUC, including: Section 4.27(D)(6) Mix of Housing Types in that the
development plan, being larger than 16 acres in size, contains multi-family dwellings and a
mixed-use dwelling; and, Section 4.27(D)(7) Access to a park, central feature or gathering
place in that The Grove at Fort Collins PDP contains a clubhouse, swimming pool and
central green that will function as a central feature and/or gathering place for the
development.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Number: 124 Created: 1/4/2011
[1/4/11] The PDP satisfies the standard in Section 4.27(D)(4)(a) of the LUC in that the
residential buildings and the mixed-use dwelling building are 3 stories in height.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Number: 125 Created: 1/4/2011
Page 8
[1/4/11] The PDP satisfies the standard in Section 4.27(D)(5) of the LUC in that the average
density of the residential development on The Grove at Fort Collins PDP is 12.62 dwelling
units per net acre, exceeding a minimum of 7 dwelling units per net acre.
RESPONSE: The net density is now 14.31 dwelling units per acre.
Number: 126 Created: 1/4/2011
[1/4/11] The PDP satisfies the standard in Section 4.6(D)(1) of the LUC in that the average
density of the residential development on The Grove at Fort Collins PDP is 12.62 dwelling
units per net acre, exceeding a minimum of 7 dwelling units per net acre.
RESPONSE: The net density is now 14.31 dwelling units per acre.
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata
Topic: General
Number: 66 Created: 12/29/2010
[12/29/10] The sidewalk and parkway landscaping on the east side of the public local street
abutting the Tract A CSURF property wouldn't necessarily be required to be installed in
conjunction with this development. This can be deferred until the CSURF Tract A property
develops as it would be the obligation of the development specific to Tract A. If the applicant
wishes to continue with the installation of landscaping and sidewalk, it may be of benefit to
coordinate with the utility providers such that utility installation is sequenced properly,
avoiding the need to tear out existing sidewalk/landscaping.
RESPONSE: The sidewalk and parkway landscaping on the east side of Public Commercial
Street (along Tract A) will be deferred until such a date when the adjacent CSURF E-Zone
District parcel develops, and will not be constructed with the Grove PDP.
Number: 67 Created: 12/29/2010
[12/29/10] There are aspects of the design of Rolland Moore Drive (collector w/ parking)
and the public local street (commercial local) that do not meet LCUASS standards. A
variance request(s) would be required for submittal and evaluation before the City can make
a determination whether the designs could be acceptable.
RESPONSE: Please see the Applicant’s letter dated January 6, 2011 requesting three (3)
variances from LCUASS, as well as the City’s response letter dated January 28, 2011. All
applicable conditions of approval and requests for additional information have been provided
with the April 2011 PDP re-submittal.
Number: 68 Created: 12/29/2010
[12/29/10] In accordance with LCUASS Figure 16-2, all T-intersections (of public/private
streets) are required to have access ramps in a minimum of three locations. The intersection
of the new local street with Rolland Moore Drive should provide at least one access ramp
crossing configuration across Rolland Moore Drive.
RESPONSE: An access ramp has been added to the southeast corner of this intersection.
Number: 69 Created: 12/29/2010
[12/29/10] Similar to the previous comment, the intersection of new Rolland Moore Drive
with Centre Avenue should indicate the construction of access ramps that cross Rolland
Moore Drive on the west side of Centre Avenue and an access ramp that crosses Centre
Avenue (with a receiving access ramp on the driveway across the street) on at least one
location. The preferred access ramp crossing would be on the north leg of the intersection
as opposed to the south.
RESPONSE: Three additional access ramps have been added at this intersection, as
requested.
Page 9
Number: 71 Created: 12/29/2010
[12/29/10] It appears that an abandoned sanitary sewer line shown on the utility plans will
need to be vacated after the abandonment in order for Building 2 to be able to pull a building
permit. Please be aware that the City can only process a sanitary sewer easement vacation
upon such time that the new line is in and accepted and the old line has been abandoned.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Additional notes have been added to the plans accordingly.
Number: 73 Created: 12/29/2010
[12/29/10] Specific to the construction, site and landscape plans: there is a formal process
to have existing streets renamed. Rather than specify Botanic Place as the new street name
for existing Rolland Moor Drive, please have this removed at this time and indicate this as
Rolland Moore Drive (existing to be renamed), similar to the plat note. In the meantime,
Botanic Place can look to be verified if acceptable in terms of suitability for naming street
requirements.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. The plans have been revised accordingly.
Number: 74 Created: 12/29/2010
[12/29/10] The private local street and public local streets proposed with the project should
probably establish specific street names on the plat.
RESPONSE: Specific street names will be provided during the Final Plan phase.
Number: 76 Created: 12/29/2010
[12/29/10] Buildings 10 and 11 have 2:1 grades out to the private street sidewalk. This isn't
a concern per se, but should the grades be viewed as a maintenance/installation concern for
the landscaping behind the sidewalk, please be aware that there may be some expressed
concerns from the City should the grades result in bringing forth a revised proposal to either
reduce the sidewalk or parkway strip between the sidewalk and street.
RESPONSE: The referenced areas will actually have some exposed building foundation
such that the finished grade between the buildings and sidewalk is less than 4:1. Additional
detail will be provided during the Final Plan phase.
Number: 78 Created: 12/29/2010
[12/29/10] Please provide documentation as to what the 100 year elevation is at the outfall
of the subdrain and indicate whether the underdrains that dewater outside of the street
system are above this elevation. Assuming the 100 year elevation is situated below the
dewatering that is intended outside of the street system, please remove the usage of a
backflow preventer or other devices that are intended to attempt preventing surcharging.
Please then provide a note on the plat indicating that no basements are allowed within the
development plan.
RESPONSE: The 100-year subdrain backwater condition is primarily a concern for
basements, and not so much for the roadways. Since basements are not proposed, and a
note has been added to the plans specifically prohibiting basement construction,
surcharging of the subdrain system is not an issue. Therefore, no backflow preventers or
similar mechanical devices will be installed on the subdrain system outfall. Regarding
dewatering of the roadway subgrades, even in the worst-case 100-year flood scenario, only
the northern-most end of subdrain in Public Commercial Street would be below the 100-year
water surface elevation.
Number: 86 Created: 12/29/2010
Page 10
[12/29/10] The title of the project on all of the drawings needs to be consistent. Some
drawings list the project as "The Grove @ Fort Collins" while others list the project as "The
Grove". I'm understanding that "The Grove" isn't acceptable to Planning in order to keep the
review of this submittal separate from the previous proposal. Please note however that the
title of a project should not have symbols (in order to be more "find-able" for web queries),
so the project should probably be titled "The Grove at Fort Collins".
RESPONSE: All plan sheets are now titled “The Grove at Fort Collins.”
Number: 91 Created: 12/29/2010
[12/29/10] Is the applicant intending to stripe parking lanes for either the public or private
streets? The City will not allow striping parking lanes on public streets. If the applicant
wishes to pursue this on the private street, please be aware that if the City were to ever end
up maintaining the private street (through it becoming a public street) the City will not
assume any responsibility to continue the striping. This would then need to also be specified
in a development agreement.
RESPONSE: Parking lanes will not be striped. There are no longer any private streets.
Number: 92 Created: 12/30/2010
[12/30/10] I'm somewhat concerned about the proposal of creating the neckdown that is
shown on the south side of Rolland Moore Drive at the western boundary of the site. The
overall length of this neckdown seems at 50 feet, fairly short, such that I question whether it
might get hit from vehicles with it not being as noticeable. With review from Traffic
Engineering not being out of the office, I can't confirm their view at this time. Should Traffic
Engineering not be concerned with this, I would withdraw this comment and consider it not
an issue.
RESPONSE: The referenced neckdown has been removed.
Topic: Subdivision Plat
Number: 65 Created: 12/29/2010
[12/29/10] The private street needs to be designated as a separate tract of land on the plat
(which can then have the various easements indicated). The tract should encompass the
area currently defined as the combined public access, drainage, and utility easement with
the 9' utility easement on either side remaining separate from that tract.
RESPONSE: This is now a Public Local Street, with appropriate right-of-way and utility
easement dedication.
Topic: Utility Plans
Number: 70 Created: 12/29/2010
[12/29/10] The underdrain design along the street system where bumpout/neckdowns occur
illustrate deflection of the PVC in a manner that appears PVC pipe cannot deflect to that
great of a degree. I'm interested to know if the intention is to provide consecutive
45's/cleanouts in order to match the amount of deflection shown, or is the intent to bring a
more gradual deflection than what is depicted? If the later is the case, the City would require
that the pipe deviate from the flowline and deflect into the parkway instead of deviating from
the flowline and deflecting into the street. On plan view the cleanouts themselves should be
depicted at this time similar to the storm and sanitary manholes.
RESPONSE: The underdrain design along the public street system is intended to generally
be installed under the curb and gutter; except in the bumpout/neckdown areas, where it will
continue more-or-less along the projected full-width flowline alignment. This was further
discussed at the both the 10/26/10 rain garden design workshop and at the 01/20/11 Utility
Coordination Meeting. The April 2011 PDP submittal set is reflective of the discussions that
Page 11
occurred at the two aforementioned meetings. Additional details on the underdrain system
will be provided during the Final Plan phase.
Number: 72 Created: 12/29/2010
[12/29/10] At time of final plan, please ensure additional flowline information is provided
specific to existing Rolland Moore Drive (abutting the Gardens at Spring Creek) in order to
understand how flows from existing Rolland Moore are perpetuated to the new public local
street.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Number: 75 Created: 12/29/2010
[12/29/10] Sheet G6 of the grading plan does not provide information on existing grading at
Care Housing to demonstrate that proposed grading can be accomplished fully within the
property boundary. Information on existing offsite contours is needed.
RESPONSE: Additional information has been provided to confirm that all grading can be
fully accomplished within the property boundary. (Please note, the applicable Grading Plan
sheet covering this area is now Sheet G2)
Number: 77 Created: 12/29/2010
[12/29/10] The construction plans should correlate with the site plan on indicating whether
retaining walls or fences are being proposed. The same lineweight/line type is being shown
on the construction plans without discerning whether a (retaining) wall or fence is being
proposed.
RESPONSE: Fences and retaining walls are now better depicted on the plans in both the
legend and by callouts.
Number: 93 Created: 12/30/2010
[12/30/10] There are several sanitary manholes that appear to be in the projected wheel
path of a vehicle or bicycle (A, A4, A5, A6, A7, & B2).
RESPONSE: All manhole lids located in the roadway now fall either in the center, or edge,
of vehicular travel lanes.
Number: 116 Created: 1/3/2011
[1/3/11] A construction plan set has been given to Engineering Inspection for their review.
Comments from them may be forthcoming.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Number: 120 Created: 1/3/2011
[1/3/11] Erika Keeton provided the following comment for Engineering Pavement: "Fly ash
treatment may be required under pavement sections with unstable subgrade".
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Department: Forestry Issue Contact: Tim Buchanan
Topic: Landscape Plans
Number: 88 Created: 12/29/2010
[12/29/10] Street tree species need to be selected from the City Street Tree List.
Species diversity should follow 3.2.1 D. 3
Add these plant notes.
Page 12
• A permit must be obtained from the City forester before any trees or shrubs as noted
on this plan are planted, pruned or removed on the public right-of-way. This includes zones
between the sidewalk and curb, medians and other city property. This permit shall approve
the location and species to be planted. Failure to obtain this permit may result in replacing or
relocating trees and a hold on certificate of occupancy.
• Contact the City Forester to inspect all street tree plantings at the completion of each
phase of the development. All trees need to have been installed as shown on the landscape
plan. Approval of street tree planting is required before final approval of each phase.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Doug Martine
Topic: Electric Utility
Number: 5 Created: 12/15/2010
[12/15/10] With a few minor adjustments, the electric facilities shown on the utility plan are
acceptable providing that no form of electric space heating is used.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Number: 6 Created: 12/15/2010
[12/15/10] Where the sub drain lines are in nearly the same horizontal location as the
electric facilities, the sub drains will need to be installed after and above the electric lines.
RESPONSE: The subdrain lines are not intended to be as close to the electric lines as
depicted. The subdrains will generally be installed directly behind the curb and gutter;
however, this is difficult to illustrate in the plan view, so they are schematically drawn further
behind the curb so that they are easier to see. This was further discussed at the 01/20/11
Utility Coordination Meeting, as well subsequent e-mail correspondence. Nonetheless, the
need for careful construction sequencing and coordination is duly noted.
Department: Natural Resources Issue Contact: Lindsay Ex
Topic: Natural Resources
Number: 7 Created: 12/16/2010
[12/16/10] The code allows for varying buffer widths within a project, with the goal of
meeting the average of the required buffer widths on the site. For this project, it was
determined (as per applicant's plan documents) that 4.88 acres would be required for a
straight 100’ buffer and 2.03 acres for the canal buffer. The applicant has provided a 5.23
acre buffer for the wetland area and a 2.30 acre buffer area for the canal for a total of 7.53
acres, an addition 0.62 acres above what is required. Please add dimensions for the buffer
widths around the buffer area to the east of the parking lot north of building 7 and to the
northeast of building 1 so staff can evaluate these smaller buffer widths.
RESPONSE: The applicant has provided a 5.13 acre buffer for the wetland area and a 2.28
acre buffer area for the canal for a total of 7.41 acres, an additional 0.50 acres above what
is required.
Number: 8 Created: 12/16/2010
[12/16/10] As I will be out of the office from December 20th until January 10th, I would
request that Stormwater comment on whether the existing drainage plan will allow for the
wetlands to receive a hydrological regime that is similar to the regime this area has
historically received (as is suggested in the Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control
Report). There has been some concern expressed as to whether the site’s drainage plan will
allow for adequate groundwater and surface water to feed the site’s wetlands. The report
notes that the wetlands on-site have traditionally been fed by surface water from the
Page 13
Windtrail P.U.D. to the north (see page 10), but staff noted during a site visit on November
30, 2010 that some of the wetland hydrology could be fed via seepage from the Larimer
Canal No. 2. Please note that we acknowledge the applicant’s commitment to wetland
monitoring, as detailed in page 10 of the report, and know that the City will work with the
applicant to develop a suitable monitoring plan that is acceptable to both parties.
RESPONSE: The information referenced in the Drainage Report is correct; that is, the
wetland in question was created by human manipulation, and is supported by surface runoff
and irrigation from existing neighborhoods to the north and west of the wetland. Localized
groundwater, not necessarily seepage from the Larimer No. 2, may also contribute to the
wetland hydrology. An updated wetland monitoring plan has been submitted, and in fact,
pre-development monitoring has already begun. Furthermore, additional monitoring wells
have been installed along the irrigation ditch to more precisely assess seepage and to
ensure that the proposed cuts and building construction south of Rolland Moore Drive are
safe, stable, and sustainable. A narrative summarizing the additional testing along the
Larimer Canal No. 2 can be found in Section 5.0 of the Drainage Report.
Number: 9 Created: 12/16/2010
[12/16/10] The placement and details associated with the fencing on-site meet the needs of
the environmental issues discussed in previous reviews. Specifically, the placement of the
metal-picket fence will deter dogs and human trampling of the wetlands, minimize any trash
issues, yet still allow for viewing into the natural area by future residents which should be
seen as a win-win for both parties. The placement of the solid fencing around the parking
areas will address the issue of headlights going into the surrounding neighborhood areas
and the natural habitat area.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Number: 10 Created: 12/16/2010
[12/16/10] As per Erica Saunders' comments this past fall, the client's proposed filling of the
fox dens is still awaiting comment from the Division of Wildlife. The City sent an official
request to Shane Craig with the Division of Wildlife regarding this issue on December 7,
2010. In the meantime, and as per Steve Olt's email dated 11/30/2010, no filling of the dens
can be conducted until without an approved development plan.
RESPONSE: Depending on timing of project approval by the City Planning Department
Review Process the following mitigation measures will be implemented based on Colorado
Division of Wildlife recommendations.
• Existing fox burrows within The Grove development footprint would be permanently
closed and plugged with non-excavatable material outside of the breeding season
(January through April) to discourage their use of the project area prior to
development. A field survey would be completed to ensure non-occupation of den
burrows prior to back-filling.
• If field surveys indicate recent fox use of a burrow between April and January, fox
deterrents (coyote urine, mothballs, etc.) will be placed in the active burrow to
discourage fox use, and once the burrow is vacated, it will be backfilled.
• If initial site clearing and excavation activities would occur between January and
April, a field survey will be conducted to identify any active dens fox burrows with the
development footprint. If an active den is identified, a 50-foot non-development
buffer will be maintained around the den until the completion of the kit-rearing
season (end of April) to preclude the potential loss of fox kits. After April, when the
Page 14
kits are able to leave the den, fox deterrents (coyote urine, mothballs, etc.) will be
placed in the active burrow to discourage fox use, and once the burrow is vacated, it
will be backfilled.
Number: 11 Created: 12/16/2010
[12/16/10] Is there a reason why the fox dens were not depicted on the existing conditions
sheet?
RESPONSE: The potential fox burrows noted in Cedar Creek’s ECS are now labeled on
Sheet EX1 as well.
Number: 12 Created: 12/16/2010
[12/16/10] As per the provided Ecological Characterization Study, the trees along the
Larimer No. 2 Canal shall be surveyed prior to any construction to “confirm the presence or
absence of raptor nesting activity.” Note that if an active nest is discovered, the buffer zone
setbacks in Section 3.4.1 apply, and, as per your ECS, “should be maintained during the
breeding, nesting, and nestling rearing period.”
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Number: 13 Created: 12/16/2010
[12/16/10] Note #14 on the Landscape Plan (Drawing 10 of 21) is inadequate information
for staff to evaluate the proposed plantings in the natural habitat buffers zone. Please detail
on the existing landscape plan or provide a separate sheet detailing where additional
shrubs, trees, etc. will be provided that will meet the applicant’s proposed intention to
provide structural diversity and enhance wildlife habitat in the area. Note that on page 12 of
the ECS, it was indicated that details of native species to be planted as well as the locations,
configurations, and density of native shrub and tree plantings are shown on the landscape
site plan sheet (L-1) provided in the PDP submittal package. As the City is working with the
applicant to evaluate whether the proposed buffers and additional plantings will negate the
need for mitigation of the non-jurisdictional wetland, this information will be required to
complete that evaluation.
RESPONSE: The landscape plan now provides plant material species, sizes and locations
in the habitat buffer zones.
Number: 14 Created: 12/16/2010
[12/16/10] With respect to lighting, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, in Article
3.2.4(D)(6) requires that natural areas and natural features shall be protected from light
spillage from off-site sources. Thus, lighting from the parking areas or other site amenities
shall not spill over to the buffer areas. Please add the Natural Habitats Buffer Zone areas to
the lighting plan so staff can evaluate this issue.
RESPONSE: The light proposed by the developer has been revised to eliminate lighting of
the buffer zones. The City’s Light and Power Department will be providing street lights for
all the public streets. We have forwarded your comment to Doug Martine.
Number: 15 Created: 12/16/2010
[12/16/10] Please add at least one pet waste station to the north of building 9, 10, and 11,
as this area was the concern area for pet waste impacting wetlands and the natural habitat
buffer zone.
RESPONSE: Pet waste stations have been added to the north of Buildings 4, 9 and 10.
Number: 16 Created: 12/16/2010
Page 15
[12/16/10] Please note that any trash and/or recycling enclosures shall be compatible with
the style of architecture of the building, per Section 3.2.5 of the LUC.
RESPONSE: Trash and recycling enclosures are proposed to be brick to match the brick
used on the buildings. A trash enclosure detail is provided on Sheet 21 of 21.
Number: 17 Created: 12/16/2010
[12/16/10] With respect to landscaping and project design, the City of Fort Collins Land Use
Code, in Article 3.2.1(E)(2)(3), requires that you use native plants and grasses in your
landscaping or re-landscaping and reduce bluegrass lawns as much as possible.
RESPONSE: The majority of plants on the landscape plan are native plants or native plant
cultivars. Blue grass is kept to a minimum and used where it can be irrigated efficiently and
where heavy foot traffic makes it an appropriate ground cover choice.
Number: 18 Created: 12/16/2010
[12/16/10] Are there reasons why the trail easements on the northeast corner of the property
and the Hillpond Bicycle Trail are not aligned? See Plat of the Grove, sheet 2.
RESPONSE: The two referenced trail easements were dedicated separately with previous
plat(s) and legal instrument(s). It is unknown why previous applicants did not align the
easements exactly; however, the constructed trail itself is continuous and does meander
within existing dedicated easements.
Number: 19 Created: 12/16/2010
[12/16/10] In the Plat of Grove, page 2, the Natural Habitats Buffer Zone follows the lot of
the wetland in the northern portion of the property, whereas in the site plans, the buffer
zones extend south and cover more acreage. Please adjust this line to reflect the full
acreage of the Natural Habitats Buffer Zone area.
RESPONSE: The Natural Habitats Buffer Zone labeling has been improved for clarity.
Number: 20 Created: 12/16/2010
[12/16/10] On the floodplain exhibit and grading plan sheets, a legend symbol is provided
for the wetland mitigation area though this symbol was not found on within the plan. The
only area within the site where wetlands will be encroached upon is within the non-
jurisdictional wetland adjacent to building 11. Note that the City is working with the applicant
to evaluate whether the proposed buffers (which are greater than the required buffers) and
additional plantings will negate the need for mitigation.
RESPONSE: The legend has been corrected to no longer show wetland mitigation since
the jurisdictional wetlands are being 100% preserved.
Number: 21 Created: 12/16/2010
[12/16/10] The City's green building program has many programs that may benefit your
project. Resources are available at the Green Building web page:
http://www.fcgov.com/greenbuilding/. Of particular interest may be the Integrated Design
Assistance Program, which offers financial incentives and free technical support to those
interested in delivering high-performance buildings that exceed building code requirements
for energy performance. Gary Schroeder (970-221-6395) is the contact person for this
program. This is the direct link to the web page for this program:
http://www.fcgov.com/conservation/biz-idap.php.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Number: 22 Created: 12/16/2010
Page 16
[12/16/10] In your submittal’s Statement of Planning Objectives, please address Principle
WC-1 (in addition to those already addressed).
RESPONSE: The following has been added to the Planning Objectives as requested:
The Grove PDP is located adjacent to a Water Corridor as defined in the City Plan Principles
and Policies. As suggested in the Principles and Policies documents Water Corridors can
be both natural and man-made drainageways that contain wildlife habitat, act as wildlife
movement corridors and provide trails for recreational use where appropriate. The existing
wetland/drainage area located to the north of the proposed project and identified as Outlot A
on the site plan is an important drainage that receives storm water flows from a variety of
sources.
Stormwater/drainage Issues
Historically the drainage has had water conveyance and maintenance issues due to unclear
ownership and maintenance responsibilities and further complicated by the area being
within the FEMA Floodway. A Physical Map Revision (PMR) is currently in process with
FEMA to revise the floodplain/floodway in this location. Additionally, the City and CSURF
are working together to allow the City to clean and maintain the Windtrail Outfall Swale. Both
the City and CSURF have every intention of getting the proper easements and agreements
in place to transfer maintenance responsibilities of the Windtrail Outfall Swale from the HOA
to the City eventually. Physical channel maintenance will occur after the PMR becomes
effective.
The Grove at Fort Collins proposes to redirect stormwater runoff away from the Windtrail
Outfall Swale. In addition, monitoring wells have been installed along the irrigation ditch to
more precisely assess seepage and to ensure that the proposed construction north of the
canal is safe, stable, and sustainable. Also, CSURF and the Larimer Canal No. 2 Irrigating
Company have agreed in concept to relocate the ditch further south on CSURF property.
The newly cut and compacted ditch section located further south is expected to lessen
seepage, protect numerous large trees, provide a larger and enhanced buffer, and ensure
that the Ditch Company can continue to safely and effectively transport water.
Wildlife Habitat Issues
The Grove project is designed to eliminate to the degree possible all adverse impacts to the
wetland drainage identified as Outlot A. Except for a small .01 acre spot, no existing
wetlands are filled or physically disrupted. A larger than required buffer zone is established
along the southern edge of Outlot A and the proposed development. In addition the buffer
zone is planted with native grasses, shrubs and trees that will provide structural diversity
and enhance the existing wildlife habitat as well as screen the development from view. A
fence will be installed along the interface between the development and Outlot A to keep
students and pets away from the buffer zone and the wetland drainage area.
Department: PFA Issue Contact: Carie Dann
Topic: Fire
Number: 23 Created: 12/22/2010
EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS
Any potential issues regarding emergency apparatus access need to be resolved prior to
approval.
Page 17
RESPONSE: All known issues regarding emergency apparatus access have been resolved
with PFA and Engineering Staff.
Number: 25 Created: 12/22/2010
EAE ON SITE PLAN
Show the EAE on the private drive/parking lot drive aisle that's east of Building 6. It's shown
on the plat but not labeled on the site plan.
RESPONSE: The EAE on the private drive/parking lot drive aisle that's east of Building 6
has been indicated on the site plan Sheet 5 of 21.
.
Number: 26 Created: 12/22/2010
EAE SIGNS
EAE locations are good on the plat. Need to resolve travel width issues and where Fire Lane
- No Parking signs will be required.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Number: 27 Created: 12/22/2010
FDC LOCATIONS
Fire line/FDC locations as shown are acceptable. FYI, FDCs must be on the "front" side of
the structures.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Number: 28 Created: 12/22/2010
VEGETATION
No vegetation (other than ground cover) is permitted to be closer than 36 inches to fire
hydrants or FDCs, when the vegetation is at full maturity.
RESPONSE: The landscape plan complies with this requirement.
Number: 29 Created: 12/22/2010
STREET NAMES
Street names shall be reviewed and verified by PFA and LETA prior to being put in service.
2006 International Fire Code 505.2
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Number: 30 Created: 12/22/2010
NO FDC
No FDC is shown for the clubhouse. Please insert it.
RESPONSE: The FDC for the clubhouse is now shown on the Utility Plans.
Department: Traffic Operations Issue Contact: Ward Stanford
Topic: General
Number: 111 Created: 1/3/2011
[1/3/11] Did not receive a Landscape Plan with this submittal. Please provide a copy with
subsequent submittals.
RESPONSE: Landscape plans have been provided as requested.
Number: 112 Created: 1/3/2011
[1/3/11] Please correlate the various plan comments thru all the plans (UP, Site,
Landscape).
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Page 18
Topic: Site Plans
Number: 98 Created: 1/3/2011
[1/3/11] The bump-out on the south side of Rolland Moore drive, at the west end of this
property does not seem to have a purpose. Please provide discussion for the need of the
bump-out or if only to match the bump-out on the north side, please remove it and keep the
south flowline straight in that area.
RESPONSE: The referenced bump-out has been removed.
Number: 100 Created: 1/3/2011
[1/3/11] Please reduce the driveway width of the Tract A property on Rolland Moore. Would
prefer to encourage exiting traffic to use the internal public local street as much as possible
to reduce friction near the Rolland Moore and Centre intersection. Reduce its width to match
the parking lot access on the south side.
RESPONSE: The referenced driveway has been reduced in width to 24’.
Topic: Subdivision Plat
Number: 103 Created: 1/3/2011
[1/3/11] Plat states that Rolland Moore ROW varies in width. A few quick scale checks did
not indicate any change in width. Please revise the notation or label the width changes.
RESPONSE: The plat now correctly labels the ROW as a consistent 74’ width.
Topic: TIS
Number: 102 Created: 1/3/2011
[1/3/11] A full revised traffic study will not be required for this project since this revised
submittal has fewer units/residents and the previous study was acceptable with the higher
number of units/residents. The submitted memo discussing the reductions and the
operations at Centre and Prospect pre and post revisions is accepted. No further traffic
analysis is required for this submittal.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Topic: Utility Plans
Number: 105 Created: 1/3/2011
[1/3/11] Sheet R6: please minimize the plan lines that are not relative to the roadway
details and the striping/signing. Also make the striping/signing and roadway detail lines more
bold. Need the signing and striping details to stand out from all the extraneous lines/text on
the plan.
RESPONSE: The requested plan modifications have been made to Sheet R6.
Number: 107 Created: 1/3/2011
[1/3/11] Sheet R6: please remove the diamond symbol plus diamond symbol language. The
diamond symbol is no longer used with bike lanes.
RESPONSE: The diamond symbol and accompanying language have been removed.
Number: 108 Created: 1/3/2011
[1/3/11] Sheet R6: the striping for the east bound Rolland Moor at Centre needs to be
revised to have an 8" solid white line between the left turn lane and thru/right lane. It should
only extend west as far as the full 12' left turn lane and 16' thru/right lane allow. Continuing
from the west end of the 8" solid white line provide a dashed line (not broken line) that
angles to the double yellow stripe at about point 27+00.
RESPONSE: The referenced striping has been revised, as requested.
Page 19
Number: 110 Created: 1/3/2011
[1/3/11] Sheet R6: please indicate R1-1 signage at the intersections of the minor streets
with the major streets. Also indicate R2-1 (speed limit) signage along Rolland Moore and No
Parking signage along the public streets as appropriate.
RESPONSE: The requested signage has been added.
Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Matt Wempe
Topic: Site Plans
Number: 119 Created: 1/3/2011
[1/3/11] Please continue to work with Traffic Operations to identify the appropriate street
striping at Rolland Moore Drive and Centre Avenue. The new MUTCD has several ways to
bring the bike lane all the way to the intersection while allowing for right turns.
RESPONSE: Sheet R6 has been revised accordingly.
Number: 121 Created: 1/3/2011
[1/3/11] Public Local Street will need to have sidewalks, bike lanes, and on-street parking.
Engineering has been more involved in these discussions to date, and I will provide
comment on the latest plans at the staff review meeting as necessary.
RESPONSE: This comment was originally written when the street classification of the
roadway along the west side of Tract A was still in question. It has since been determined
to be a Public Commercial Street, which includes the components listed above.
Department: Technical Services Issue Contact: Jeff County
Topic: Elevation Plans
Number: 41 Created: 12/27/2010
[12/27/10] There are dimensions with "extra characters" on the Elevation Plans.
RESPONSE: Corrected.
Number: 43 Created: 12/27/2010
[12/27/10] There are line over text & text over text issues on the Elevation Plans.
RESPONSE: Corrected.
Topic: General
Number: 36 Created: 12/27/2010
[12/27/10] What is the name of the "Public Local Street"?
RESPONSE: Street names for both the Public Local Street and the Public Commercial
Street will be provided during the Final Plan phase, and are subject to the process and
criteria for street naming.
Number: 38 Created: 12/27/2010
[12/27/10] Existing Rolland Moore Drive is shown on the Site, Landscape & Utility Plans as
"Botanic Place". The Subdivision Plat shows it as Rolland Moore Drive. Where did this name
come from?
RESPONSE: The street name, “Botanic Place,” came via the recommendation of Michelle
Provaznik, Director of The Gardens on Spring Creek. The name was cleared with LETA,
PFA, and the Fort Collins GIS Department, and is currently being reserved for future use in
this location. However, for the time being the referenced street stub remains Rolland Moore
Drive until the proper process and procedures (during Final Plan and construction) occur to
officially rename it.
Topic: Site Plans
Number: 37 Created: 12/27/2010
Page 20
[12/27/10] Is the sheet index correct on sheet 1 of the Site Plans? There is only one
Landscape Plan.
RESPONSE: Landscape Plans have been provided as indicated on the index sheet.
Number: 40 Created: 12/27/2010
[12/27/10] There are line over text issues on sheets 2,4,5 & 7 of the Site Plans.
RESPONSE: Corrected.
Topic: Subdivision Plat
Number: 31 Created: 12/27/2010
[12/27/10] The Subdivision Plat boundary & legal description close.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Number: 32 Created: 12/27/2010
[12/27/10] Please add ROW widths to all streets.
RESPONSE: ROW widths have been added to all streets.
Number: 33 Created: 12/27/2010
[12/27/10] Does the ROW of Rolland Moore Drive vary?
RESPONSE: The ROW of new Rolland Moore Drive is a consistent 74’ width.
Number: 34 Created: 12/27/2010
[12/27/10] All easements on the Subdivision Plat must be locatable.
RESPONSE: Per discussions with Jeff County and Wally Muscott on this issue, all
easements will be explicitly locatable on the Final Plat, to be submitted during the Final Plan
phase.
Number: 35 Created: 12/27/2010
[12/27/10] Does the Temporary Turnaround Easement at the end of Rolland Moore Drive
go away? If so, do you need to accommodate for the Trail Easement?
RESPONSE: Yes, the Temporary Turnaround Easement at the end of Rolland Moore Drive
will be vacated. However, the portions of existing public right-of-way and trail easement to
remain sufficiently accommodate the sidewalk and trail system.
Topic: Utility Plans
Number: 44 Created: 12/27/2010
[12/27/10] There are text over text issues on sheets R1, R2 & R3 of the Utility Plans.
RESPONSE: The text over text issues on Sheets R1, R2, and R3 have been corrected.
Number: 45 Created: 12/27/2010
[12/27/10] There is cut off stationing on sheet R5 of the Utility Plans.
RESPONSE: The referenced vertical curve data on sheet R5 has been corrected.
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington
Topic: General
Number: 49 Created: 12/27/2010
[12/27/10] Planting trees over (or near) a slotted underdrain will likely lead to root intrusion
and clogging of the underdrain.
RESPONSE: There will be a bit more separation from the street trees and the underdrain
system than previously illustrated (see response to Number 6, above). The underdrains will
generally be directly along the curb and gutter, whereas the street trees will be centered
Page 21
approximately 3’ behind the curb and gutter. The minimum underdrain depth is 3.5’ below
the parkway grade, which is slightly lower than the standard street tree root depth of 2’ (per
City Forrester). However, tree roots can extend deeper where water and air are available.
Therefore, the underdrain system will be wrapped in filter fabric to further discourage root
intrusion. Finally, the Development Agreement will specifically address the operation and
maintenance of the underdrains (Developer’s responsibility) to ensure their ongoing function
is sustained.
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
Topic: Stormwater
Number: 89 Created: 12/30/2010
[12/30/10] Reminder comment.
[9/23/10] The Stormwater Utility is OK with this issue being a condition of approval by the P
& Z board. At final compliance, the slopes will need to be designed to a stable condition and
the Ditch Company will also need to approve the modifications made within their easement.
[8/6/10] The side slopes off the Larimer #2 canal are 2:1 in some places. Coordination
needs to take place with the ditch company and the City to ensure all party's concerns are
mitigated. Concerns include slope stability, erosion, maintenance issues, general safety.
Preliminary approval, or "OK" from the ditch company is needed before a public hearing.
RESPONSE: Additional information regarding slope stability analysis and continual
monitoring along the ditch embankment has been provided in Sections 4.2 and 5.0 of the
Drainage Report. Furthermore, CSURF and the Larimer Canal No. 2 Irrigating Company
have agreed in concept to relocate the ditch further south on CSURF property. The final
details and terms of the agreement are currently being resolved with the Ditch Company.
The proposed ditch realignment is shown for reference on the Grove PDP submittal. Please
see Section 5.0 of the Drainage Report for additional discussion on how the newly cut and
compacted ditch section located further south is expected to serve multiple benefits.
Number: 90 Created: 12/30/2010
[12/30/10] The ownership and maintenance responsibilities of Outlot A need to be agreed
on and formalized. This can be done during final compliance. The Outlot may need to be
adjusted or broken into two outlots to distinguish various ownerships and maintenance
responsibilities.
RESPONSE: Outlot A (wetland drainageway) will continue to be owned by CSURF.
Portions of this outlot (as well as the adjacent outlot between the wetlands and the public
right-of-way) will be jointly maintained by the Owner and Developer, per the terms of the
lease agreement and Development Agreement. However, it should be duly noted that the
Windtrail Outfall Swale located within Outlot A (itself a permanent drainage easement in its
entirety) will receive a dedicated drainage easement on the Final Plat, thereby transferring
maintenance responsibility of said drainage channel from the Windtrail HOA to the City of
Fort Collins (Stormwater Utility).
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington
Topic: Water/Wastewater
Number: 39 Created: 12/27/2010
[12/27/10] Water services must be same size as meter from the water main to a point 5 feet
downstream from meter pit; therefore, services (and meters) for large buildings must be 2-
inch or 3-inch (no 2.5). At the point 5 feet beyond meter pit, service size may be increased.
RESPONSE: Water services (and respective meters/meter pits) for the large buildings are
assumed to be 2-inches at this time. There will be no changes in service size within 5 feet
of the meter pit.
Page 22
Number: 42 Created: 12/27/2010
[12/27/10] Check with PFA on the need for a F Hyd near intersection of Botanic Place and
Public Local Street.
RESPONSE: The fire hydrant(s) southwest of The Gardens on Spring Creek have been
coordinated with PFA to their satisfaction.
Number: 46 Created: 12/27/2010
[12/27/10] Connect F Hyd at SW corner of Bldg 8 to the 8-inch main in Private Local Street
rather than Rolland Moore Drive to shorten hydrant run.
RESPONSE: The fire hydrant connection has been revised, as requested.
Number: 47 Created: 12/27/2010
[12/27/10] At final: 1) Label all valves, fittings, F Hyd's, etc., 2) Differentiate between
residential and commercial water taps to the clubhouse building, 3) Provide more detail
regarding the abandonment of the sanitary sewer that is being re-routed.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Number: 48 Created: 12/27/2010
[12/27/10] What is the general depth of the underdrains? Will this result in conflicts with
utility services?
RESPONSE: The general depth of the underdrain system along the public streets is
approximately 3’ below the pavement. This should allow a minimum vertical separation of at
least 18” at all water and sewer service crossings.
Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes
Topic: zoning
Number: 1 Created: 12/14/2010
[12/14/10] Show the building envelope dimensions on the site plans, and the distances from
the envelope to lot lines where feasible.
RESPONSE: Building envelope dimensions are shown with distances to lot lines.
Number: 2 Created: 12/14/2010
[12/14/10] The land use tables on sheet 2 indicate that there are 140 compact parking
spaces. These spaces need to be labeled on the site plan sheets, and a note added stating
that the compact spaces will be identified by raised "compact parking only" signs.
RESPONSE: There are now 141 Compact Parking Spaces noted with a “C” on the site plan
drawing. In addition, a note has been added stating that the compact spaces will be
identified by raised "compact parking only" signs.
Number: 3 Created: 12/14/2010
[12/14/10] A few of the buildings aren't conveniently located to trash enclosures. i.e. Bldg.
2, 4, 5, and 6. Moving the enclosure in the parking lot on the east side of Building 6 to the
west end of that lot would help for Bldg. 6.
RESPONSE: The trash and recycling enclosure at the east end of the parking lot just east
of Building 6 has been moved to the west end of the parking lot to make it more convenient
for users. We believe the number and location of trash and recycling enclosures meets the
intent of Section 3.2.5(A) Purpose in the LUC. We are encouraging students to walk and or
ride their bikes to the CSU campus .5-1 mile away on a daily basis. Walking 300 feet to
dump trash or recycle occasionally doesn’t seem unreasonable for this population.
Page 23
Number: 4 Created: 12/14/2010
[12/14/10] Handicap parking stall widths need to be 13' wide, including the width of a
parallel pedestrian walk. I don't believe the HC stalls in the lot next to Building 2 comply with
this. Also, it would be a good idea to provide a HC stall in the parking lot next to Bld. 6.
RESPONSE: Parking stall widths are now 13 feet wide and a HC stall has been added next
to Building 6.
Another round of development review will be necessary. Be sure and return all red-lined
plans when you re-submit.
RESPONSE: All red-lined plan sets have been returned with the April 2011 PDP re-
submittal.
If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project,
please feel free to call me at (970)221-6341.
RESPONSE: Likewise, the project team welcomes and encourages any inquiries or
comments that may arise during the review of the April 2011 PDP submittal package.
Yours Truly,
Steve Olt
City Planner
RESPONSES provided by:
Linda Ripley, Ripley Design Inc.
Nick Haws, Northern Engineering