HomeMy WebLinkAboutFOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT - PDP - PDP120036 - CORRESPONDENCE - CORRESPONDENCE-CONCEPTUAL REVIEWThe separate sign permit application can be found online at
http://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/pdf/sign-app.nl.pdf
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/07/2012
12/07/2012: Sheet A221 building entrance was enlarged, however the code directs that the
entrance to be articulated with some type canopy also.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 12/11/2012
12/07/2012:LUC 4.21(E)(2)(a) The detention basin on the corner of the Stanford and Monroe
should be a pedestrian -oriented outdoor space. The proposal has little variety in the
landscaping to be visually interactive to a pedestrian.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/11/2012
12/11/2012: LUC 3.5.1(1) Mechanical/Utility Equipment (conduit, meters, vents, flues, HVAC
units) shall be screened. Plans (site, landscape and elevations) shall include locations of such
equipment and notes on how it is screen/painted.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/11/2012
12/11/2012: LUC 3.2.2(J) Vehicle Use areas are to be setback 10ft from a non -arterial street
ROW. The parking stalls along the west of half of Monroe are not in compliance with this code.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/11/2012
12/11/2012: LUC 3.2.1(D)(2) Attached sidewalks shall beat least 10ft wide to include tree
grates (16 sq ft), that are placed in the sidewalk closer to the street (in reference to sheet
LA-110).
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/11/2012
12/11/2012: Wireless equipment, 6 antennas will need a note that they will be painted to match
the building wall.
Comment Number: 10
Comment Originated: 12/11/2012
12/11/2012: No comments are offered for the theater building, as stated by the applicant this is
to change. These changes should be submitted for sufficient review time prior to hearing.
Department: Zoning
Contact: Peter Barnes, 970-416-2355, pbarnes fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 12/11/2012
12/11/2012: The original 'Vision Book' contained a number of pages that illustrate a possible
signage program. We haven't seen an official resubmittal of the signage program, so staff
doesn't know if the applicant's intent is to still submit the signage as part of the PDP. Staff
re-emphasizes that signs should not be part of the PDP or Final Plan review and approval
processes. The intent of the code is that signs are submitted separately and reviewed for
compliance through the sign permit process. The following comments are informational. All
signs must comply with Sec. 3.8.7 of the LUC and will be reviewed for compliance as part of
the sign permit process. It will be very difficult to obtain variances to the regulations. i.e., the
primary project monument ID sign is proposed to be 22' tall. The code limits the height of
monument signs to 12' and pole signs to 18', with a maximum size of 90 s.f. per side. The
vision book contains a sign location plan. The code limits the number of freestanding signs to
one per lot per street frontage. So when platting the property, the applicant may want to
consider the sign locations to determine how many lots should be provided and where the lot
lines should be placed.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012
12/18/2012: Repeat comment: The 8" water main on the east side of College which is being
abandoned needs to be abandoned at the connection to the main in Monroe, and the
proposed main needs to connect in Monroe as noted on the redlined plans.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012
12/18/2012: Repeat comment: Abandon the existing north/south main west of Sears and
connect the east/west mains to the new north/south main.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012
12/18/2012: Repeat comment: Abandon the existing north/south main west of Sears and
connect the east/west mains to the new north/south main.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012
12/18/2012: Sht C503 - Provide 10 feet of separation between UGE and sanitary.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012
12/18/2012: Modeling of the distribution system within the area has been completed. At the
locations where 10" pipe is being abandoned/re-routed, replace the 10" pipe with 8" rather than
12" as originally indicated.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012
12/18/2012: Sht C600 - Revise connection of 8" WM to the existing WM in Remington as shown
on redlined plans.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012
12118/2012: Shts C600-& 601 - Add gate valves as shown on redlined plans.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012
12/18/2012: Schedule a meeting with Water Utilities and Poudre Fire Authority to review fire
hydrant locations. There are areas where there is only 200+/- feet between hydrants. It seems
that a few could be eliminated.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012
12/18/2012: Sht C605 - Water/sewer/storm in the area north of 3538 JFK Pkwy is very
congested and awkward. We need to meet to find a better option or options to improve the
situation.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012
12/18/2012: Please return redlined utility plans with next submittal.
Department: Zoning
Contact: Noah Beals, 970.416.2313, nbeals(a)fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/07/2012
12/07/2012: Residential building 1A on sheet AR-A-304 the 1st floor plan does not include the
entry feature that faces the street like private drive that is illustrated in the elevations on sheet
AR-A-302
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/07/2012
12/07/2012: On the north side of building 1A, there appears to be a building labeled fitness
club, where are the elevations for it?
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 12/18/2012
12/18/2012: City wants to maintain control of the dual left turn lane striping on the east approach
of Ft Hills Mall Parkway and proposes the R-O-W line be placed at the western PCR of the first
access drive on the south side of Foothills. From that point extend north to a perpendicular
point on the north curb line.
11/20/2012: Traffic Operations is agreeable with vacating the r-o-w for Foothills Parkway. More
discussion will be needed to determine the distance from College Avenue to begin the
vacation, if that option is pursued.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012
12/18/2012: Revised TIS not submitted with this submittal. Noted to be received in a future
submittal.
11/20/2012: The development proposal has options regarding the residential development,
with a possible total unit count upwards of 800 multi -family units. The TIS is modeled based
upon 440 units. Discussion is needed to determine if the TIS needs to be revised or how to
handle the possible 800 units, if chosen.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012
12/18/2012: Traffic Op's to give quidance on the restriping of the western half of Monroe to
provide bike lanes.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 12/18/2012
12/18/2012: Continue in order to verify in future submittals.
11/26/2012: (C200 plans) The City will not maintain striped crosswalks at the unsignalized
public/private street intersections. Please remove from drawings.
Topic: Traffic Impact Study
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 12/18/2012
12/18/2012: City decided a right turn lane would not be necessary at JFK and Horsetooth to
preserve the ability to have bike lanes on that stretch of Horsetooth between Stanford and
College. City also decided a Wb right turn lane is necessary at Stanford and Horsetooth. It is
noted that the applicant is reviewing traffic aspects regarding the Wb right turn lane at Stanford.
11/20/2012: Turning counts shown for west bound Horsetooth at JFK and at Stanford warrant
exclusive west bound right turn lanes. JFK may not be feasible due to area constraints but will
need to be reviewed and possibly a variance submitted. Stanford doesn't have physical
constraints therefore a west bound right turn lane should be considered as part of this projects
responsibility.
Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Roger Buffington, 970.221.6854,
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 1
rbuffington fcgov.com
Comment Originated: 12/18/2012
12/18/2012: Repeat comment: City utility maps show the existing buildings on the north side in
the northeast section being served from the south and from Stanford rather than the line on the
north of the building. We just need to confirm which is correct. The sewer line extending from
Stanford is a service line and must be replaced with an 8" sewer main or service.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/21/2012
12/21/2012: There are several sheets that need the retaining wall labeled.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/21/2012
12/21/2012: Please label the street names on all applicable sheets.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated:
12/21/2012
12/21/2012: Please add matchline numbers to the sheets marked up. See redlines.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated:
12/21/2012
12/21/2012: There are line over text issues on several sheets.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated:
12/21/2012
12/21/2012: There are dots and other symbols on several sheets as marked. What are
these?
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated:
12/21/2012
12/21/2012: Please remove duplicate text on sheet LA-131.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated:
12/21/2012
12/21/2012: Please move the East Monroe Drive label to the west on sheet LA-131.
East
Monroe Drive does not go east of J.F.K. Parkway.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated:
12/21/2012
12/21/2012: Please correct the sheet numbering on sheet LA-131, and the matchline
numbering on sheets LA-132 - LA135.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/21/2012
12/21/2012: Please make sure that the legal description on sheet A102 matches the
Subdivision Plat.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/21/2012
12/21/2012: There are several line over text issues on sheets A103.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford(a)fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012
12/18/2012: Noted that developer stated they would be addressed in future submittals.
11/26/2012: (C200 - C300 Plans) Please label all new and existing traffic related signage at all
access intersections with public roadways.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012
12/18/2012: Noted to be submittal in a future submittal.
11/26/2012: (C002) The Cover Sheet is missing the City's typical General Notes as well as
department specific notes such as the Signing and Marking Notes. Please include all Traffic
related and Signing and Marking notes on subsequent submittals.
Topic: General
Comment Number:. 7 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: Please label the WQ1 sheet "Drainage Plan".
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/21/2012
12/2112012:Reminder comment - The City requires roughly 10 feet of separation between storm
sewers and shade trees. Six to seven feet is required for ornamental trees.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/21/2012
12/21/2012: Please label public or private storm sewers on the storm plan and profiles.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/21/2012
12/21/2012: Please provide drainage easements dedicated to the City for all public
infrastructure as well as private infrastructure that is needed to carry toe 100-year storm. The
water quality mitigation infrastructure is also required to have a public drainage easement,
although these will be privately maintained.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588,
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 11
12/21/2012:
Topic: General
Comment Number:
12
12/21/2012:
Comment Number:
13
12/21/2012:
Comment Number:
14
12/21/2012:
Comment Number:
15
12/21/2012:
Comment Number:
16
12/21/2012:
Comment Number:
17
12/21/2012:
Comment Number:
18
12/21/2012:
Comment Number:
19
12/21/2012:
Comment Number:
20
12/21/2012:
Topic: Landscape Plans
0county()fcgov.com
Comment Originated: 12/21/2012
Comment Originated: 12/21/2012
Comment Originated: 12/21/2012
Comment Originated: 12/21/2012
Comment Originated: 12/21/2012
Comment Originated: 12/21/2012
Comment Originated: 12/21/2012
Comment Originated: 12/21/2012
Comment Originated: 12/21/2012
Comment Originated: 12/21/2012
A2, 2, & 3). It shall also apply to the above ground parking structure in Lot 6 (residential bldg. 4)
if the parking structure meets the definition of an "enclosed parking garage."
Comment Number: 07 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/1912012: YARD HYDRANTS
The proposed hose valve/fire hydrants at residential buildings All, 2, & 3 do not offset the need
for proper fire access and may be removed from the plans (See pages AR-A-107 through
AR-A109).
Comment Number: 08 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: WATER SUPPLY
Hydrant spacing and flow shall meet minimum requirements for commercial occupancy.
Hydrants to be'spaced not further than 300 feet to the building, on 600-foot centers thereafter.
2006 International Fire Code 508.1 and Appendix B
Comment Number: 09
Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/1912012: As per my conversation with Mr. Serafin Maranan of Architects Orange on
12/19/12, the PFA is requesting that pullout areas, designated for temporary parking of fire
apparatus, be designed and built-in along the east side, private drive, at or near the main
entrance to residential buildings 2, 3, & 4 (Lots 4, 5, & 6). These pullouts would serve to ensure
the safety of fire fighters entering and exiting fire apparatus along a busy road while also
preventing fire apparatus from blocking normal traffic into the mall during routine response to
fire alarms, medical calls, service calls, etc.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970.416-2418, wlamargue()fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: The underground parking poses a risk for drainage to enter the garage. Please
provide calculations that show the 100-year flows in that area will stay within the curb and gutter
and not turn and run down the ramps into the underground parking.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: The rain gardens need to be landscaped as well. A discussion needs to take
place with all parties to determine the most appropriate landscape design for these areas.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: All the storm drains within the Right -of -Way need to be RCP.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: The PLD and Sand Filter design and details need to be per City of Fort Collins.
The details the City adopted are per The Urban Drainage Manual. This is important to
incorporate now so the invert elevations of the underdrains can be determined.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: Standard Operating Procedures for all drainage infrastructure is required. These
will be incorporated into the Development Agreement.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/1912012
12/19/2012: The extensive retaining walls for the two sand filters near the southeast part of the
site should be discussed regarding the aesthetics and if any mitigation should be included.
12/18/2012: FIRE LANE PROXIMITY
(Active Comment #03 from PDR120008) Fire access roads shall be provided for every facility,
building or portion of a building when any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall
of the first story of the building is located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access, as
measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. 2006 International
Fire Code 503.1.1
• Lot 3 (bldgs. Al & A2): The proposed 150 foot Emergency Access Easement on the north
side of residential bldg. Al and the proposed 150 foot Emergency Access Easement on the
north side of residential bldg. A2 do not meet required fire lane criteria. The proposed yard
hydrant/hose valve does not offset this requirement (See pages AR-A-107).
Comment Number: 03 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012
12/18/2012: FIRE ACCESS - DEAD ENDS
(Active Comment #05 from PDR120008) Dead-end fire access roads in excess of 150 feet in
length shall be provided with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus. International
Fire Code 503.2.5 and Appendix D.
• Lot 3 (bldgs. Al & A2): Proposed parking in resident Lot 3 (bldgs. Al & A2) currently
contains fire lanes in excess of 150 feet with no turnaround (See pages AR-A-107). The
requirement for fire apparatus turn around may be offset by a NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system
(rather than 13-R) in these two buildings.
Comment Number: 05 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012
12/18/2012: FIRE LANE SPECIFICATIONS
(Active Comment #06 from PDR120008) Buildings or portions of buildings exceeding 30 foot in
height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with
approved fire apparatus access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial
apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus
access roadway. Fire lanes shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 30 feet on at least one
long side of the building and located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet
from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building (the longest
and most contiguous side). 2006 International Fire Code Appendix D.
• This requirement has not been adequately addressed in Lots 4, 5, & 6 (residential buildings
2, 3, & 4). (See pages AR-A-108 through AR-A-110)
Comment Number: 06 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012
12/18/2012: PARKING GARAGES (S2)
(Active Comment #14 from PDR120008) An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided
throughout buildings classified as enclosed parking garages (Group S-2 occupancy) in
accordance with, IBC 406.4 OR where located beneath other groups (eg. R-2 occupancy). Floor
openings and interior vertical shafts including but not limited to stairways and elevator hoistways
shall be enclosed and protected as per IFC Table 704.1. A standpipe system shall be
installed if the floor level of the parking garage is more than 30 feet above the level of access,
or where the floor level of the lowest story is located more than 30 feet below the highest level
of fire department vehicle access. 2006 International Fire Code 903.2.9; 903.2.9.1; 905.3.1
8 This shall apply to the underground parking garages of Lots 3, 4, & 5 (residential bldgs. Al,
12/18/2012:
Centurylink (formely Qwest / USwest) has many facilities in and around this property serving
not only the original mall buildings, but also the out buildings which virtually surround the
property.
Several of the buildings along S college are served from facilities in the State ROW along
College Ave the developer should be aware that relocation costs will be levied to abandon,
remove or relocate these facilities so these properties can be demo'd and rebuilt.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012
12/18/2012:
What concerns us mostly though is the call for vacate of easement along foothills parkway.
We have not only a large copper duct bank but also fiber in the easements which feed
properties east of Stanford via Foothills Parkway. To relocate those facilities to the city
ROW's along Swallow and other streets will be at the developer's expense.
There is however, no way to continue services to the existing Mall clients under this proposal.
There are three major points of entry to the mall feeding three points of presence within the
existing mall Main Building. The Out buildings have facility entrances via street side (including
the cell site on S College) All of which will be abandoned or relocated at developer
expense under this proposal.
Any new facilities to serve (whether copper or fiber) will require design of backbone and
entrance conduit structures (our, specs, developer to provide ) from the edges of the property
where facilities can be tapped into and extended. Again, as they are calling for vacate of
basically all the easements within the bounds, there is no way to keep services to the existing
tenants under the proposal and will require new entrance conduits to the property corners
(meet points to be negotiated) In essence, with the cost to developer to relocate the
existing facilities, we are viewing this as a Greenfield for the redesign. Please contact
Centurylink via Bob Rulli, Field Engineer at (970) 490.7503 Cell: (970) 988.2120 or
robert.rulli@centurylink.com
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970.416.2869, iynxwiler .poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 01 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012
12/18/2012: Existing standpipe systems within the Mall shall be extended as necessary to
provide adequate coverage and comply with the 2012 IFC.
Comment Number: 02 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012
that are outside of right-of-way.
%The sidewalk added on the north side of Monroe Street west of JFK Parkway appears to not
necessarily align with the right-of-way along Monroe Street. Additional access easement or
dedication of additional right-of-way should be provided behind the right-of-way for those
portions of sidewalk outside of right-of-way.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lexcDfcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/17/2012
12/17/2012: The agreement for the wetland mitigation will need to be conceptually finalized,
e.g., a memorandum of understanding or a letter signed by both parties, prior to hearing. Tree
removal timing can be coordinated at final, should the project be approved.
11/19/2012: Staff has received the project's Ecological Characterization Study and has the
following comments:
1. Wetland mitigation for the 0.15 acres delineated can be done through an agreement with the
City's Natural Areas Department. I can set up a meeting with your consultant (Mike Phelan), the
Natural Areas representative, and myself to craft this agreement and a plan for achieving
compliance with the standards outlined in Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code. You will need to
contact the Army Corps of Engineers and obtain the appropriate permits from their agency as
well; copies shall be provided to the City.
2. Tree removal timing - based on our conversation last Friday, tree removal timing may need
to be amended from what the ECS recommends as staff have indicated that a great horned owl
has used the trees along the canal for nesting in the winter months. A pre -construction survey
will be required to assess if raptors are nesting in the trees, if tree removal is to take place
outside of the April 1-July 31 window related to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/17/2012
12/17/2012: Comment kept as a reminder to review this issue at final.
11/19/2012: ]did not see a species description for the Native Prairie Grass mix -please
provide this by final plan submittal.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartine(ZDfc4ov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/11/2012
12/11/2012: The streetlighting system currently exists along the dedicated City streets. These
lights need to be field located and shown on the landscape plan. The landscape architect then
needs to adjust tree locations to provide a minimum of 40 feet clearance between trees and
light standards (15 feet if the tree is an ornamental type).
Department: Outside Agencies
Contact: Bob Rulli, Centurylink ,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012
in taking on the maintenance responsibilities for the trees in public right-of-way, given the
difficulty of in the field, determining which trees are maintained by the developer vs. the City. It
might simplify responsibilities to have one party maintain this corridor.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: The indication of Tract B as "Formerly Foothills Parkway" would suggest that the
intention is to have this (vacated) roadway no longer be called Foothills Parkway. I believe it
would still be intended to retain the name and "Formerly" should be removed.The indication
used for a named private drive in another recent shopping center was to add "(private drive)"
after the street name. "Foothills Parkway (Private Drive)"
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: The transit easement note should be slightly revised after further consultation with
the City Attorney to read as follows: "The Transit Easements dedicated on this Plat are intended
for use by the City of Fort Collins for construction, operation, maintenance, repair and
replacement of improvements,. structures, and vehicles, and for other uses associated with
transportation or transit corridors."
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: The.plat shows the establishment of a "sand filter easement" in locations
throughout the project. Is this intended to be an easement that's dedicated to the City? Some
explanation may be needed on the intent of the establishment of this easement.
Comment Number: 6
Comment. Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: The plat does not appear to coincide the with design drawings in terms of how the
west side of Mathews Street is delineated as it terminates. If the western alignment does curve
to the west, it's alignment does not follow the roadway and would also potentially be placing
private storm improvements in right-of-way such that the vacation of Foothills Parkway should
include the sliver of Mathews Street.
Comment Number: 12
Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: Acknowledged applicant's response. Please note however that Tract B was only
shown as being retained as an access and utility easement. Access, utility, drainage, transit
and emergency access easements should be retained for Tract B/Foothills Parkway.
%In general Tracts A and C should be conveyed to the City as access, utility, and drainage
easements. Tract C should also add transit and emergency access easements. Tract B with the
proposal to vacate Foothills Parkway shown should reserve access, utility, drainage, transit and
emergency access easements. Ingress, egress, vehicular access, sidewalk and landscape
maintenance aren't typically conveyed as easements to the City.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: Acknowledged applicant's response. Carried over in order to track for future
submittals.
%The ditch easement shown on the plat should have additional information provided on the plat
regarding it's conveyance (as this easement would presumably be an easement not conveyed
to the City) and the signature block of the ditch company that would be signing on the plat
providing approval and consent of the conveyance.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: The response and the plans indicate the designation of a transit, drainage, and
utility easement. An access easement is still needed to address the portions of the sidewalk
%With the piping of the ditch along the property, how much cover over the pipe is anticipated?
Has the ditch company officially indicated that with the landscaping (including trees) over the
ditch is acceptable? Is there potential viability concerns with the landscaping that would be
placed directly over the ditch?
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: Carried over for further discussion. A meeting with Transportation Planning for
further discussion of this is scheduled for 8am on the 19th.
%In general, there are aspects of the abutting public streets that do not meet current standards.
Examples include College Avenue not having pedestrian refuge islands at intersections and
Monroe Drive (a collector) not having bikelanes and a pedestrian refuge island. As the design
is further explored and bike/pedestrian level of service analysis is made in conjunction with
Transportation Planning and Traffic Engineering review, additional review and comment may be
made in terms of upgrading existing infrastructure on the public street system to meet level of
service/street standards.
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: Acknowledged applicant's response with this comment. Carried over in order to
track for future submittals.
%In consultation with the City's Traffic Engineer, the information in the traffic study along with City
Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards requires that the Horsetooth/Stanford intersection
be mitigated by the developer to construct a right turn lane for westbound Horsetooth to
northbound Stanford.
Comment Number: 32
Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: Acknowledged applicant's response to be provided in a future submittal with this
comment. Carried over in order to track for future submittals.
%Sheet A305 of the Foothills Materials & Elevations set shows sign locations on the sheet but
does not indicate the property line on the sheet to determine that the proposed signs are
located outside of public right-of-way. Please add this information to the sheet. In addition, the
sidewalk identified along College Avenue does not coincide with the sidewalk shown on the
site plan documents; the sign on the southwest corner of the site appears to be situated on top
of Monroe Drive sidewalk that ties into College Avenue. In addition to these concerns, Sheet
A305 will need to be looked at further in terms of whether the proposed signs create a sight
visibility concern. For instance with the same sign on the southwest corner of the site, is the
proximity of the sidewalk to the sign such that vehicles along Monroe Drive approaching
College Avenue will not be able to react to pedestrian and/or bicyclist looking to cross Monroe
Drive?
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 29
Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: Acknowledged applicant's response with this comment. Carried over in order to
track for future submittals.
%With the property line not necessarily coinciding with the sidewalk or the placement of trees
along College Avenue, it is difficult to ascertain out in the field which trees are located in public
right-of-way and which trees are located on private property. In checking with Tim Buchanan, the
City Forester, trees that are in public right-of-way are typically maintained by the City (pruning,
replacement, etc., but not irrigation). Tim is inquiring whether the developer might be interested
Further offline discussion should occur to discuss timing.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: Acknowledged applicant's response to be addressed in a future submittal with this
comment. Carried over in order to track for future submittals. Please note that an ADA compliant
crossing that directs pedestrians to the west across College Avenue is anticipated, as the
existing access ramp only addresses movements to the south.
%The new attached sidewalk along Monroe Drive at the College Avenue intersection will need
to be ADA compliant for the pedestrian crossing going southbound across Monroe Drive and
westbound across College Avenue. ADA compliant directional ramps for both movements in
accordance with LCUASS criteria will need to be constructed. Existing utilities/traffic
appurtenances may need to be relocated with this requirement.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: Acknowledged applicant's response and carried over in order to track for future
submittals. A detail was emailed to applicant, and a response acknowledging the detail was
sent.
%Signs (rectangular in shape with black lettering on white background) will need to be added
indicating "Foothills Parkway Privately Owned and Maintained". These signs will be needed on
eastbound Foothills Parkway off College Avenue, westbound Foothills Parkway off of Stanford
Road, and southbound Mathews Street intersecting Foothills Parkway. An example of the sign
design is at Council Tree Avenue, a similar private drive intersecting both Corbett Drive and
Ziegler Road. Please ensure these are indicated on both the site plan and civil construction
set.
Comment Number: 22
Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: Acknowledged applicant's response to be addressed in a future submittal with this
comment. Carried over in order to track for future submittals.
%The guardrail along the College Avenue walk for separation from the ditch has a couple of
concerns. The multi -modal aspect of this sidewalk also having bicyclists (combined with no
biking allowed within the College Avenue roadway) requires that the height of the guardrail be
increased from 42" to 54" in accordance with 11.3.4.A of the Larimer County Urban Area Street
Standards. A design spec of the railing is provided. The sidewalk along the handrail should be
widened an additional 6 inches minimum to provide some shy distance from the handrail.
Comment Number: 23
Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: Acknowledged applicant's response to be addressed in a future submittal with this
comment. Carried over in order to track for future submittals.
%In addition to the handrail, protection (fencing) to block access to the ditch should occur
surrounding the right-of-way (for both Monroe Drive and College Avenue) unless the portion
within right-of-way was extended as a covered section.
Comment Number: 26
Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: The response letter indicated that there are no viability concerns with the trees as a
minimum of three feet of cover over the top of the box is maintained. Carrying over this
comment as I believe it was represented at a meeting on the 18th that the sidewalk along
College Avenue will be located on top of the box such that the trees will not be on top of the
box as there will be minimal cover over the box.
%The widening of College Avenue for the construction/modification of right turn lanes into the
site should be providing additional vertical design detail in future submittals to show the how
the flowline and cross slope of these areas meet standards, along with how well they tie into
the existing portions of College Avenue.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: Acknowledged applicant's response to be addressed in a future submittal with this
comment. Carried over in order to track for future submittals.
%The decel/right turn lanes along College Avenue are required to be 12' in width exclusive of
the gutter pan per CDOT requirements.
Comment Number: 31
Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: The patching shown shows an angular patch along the eastern termination along
Stanford. We'll need to see the patch shown being perpendicular to the line of travel.
%There appears to be a tie in for a water main that occurs within Stanford Road roadway. Street
patching should be shown on the utility plan sheets for this work, with the patch being physically
shown to either span the full width of the parking or the full width of the bikelane along Stanford
Road.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/19/201.2
12/19/2012: The residential building on the northeast corner of the project appears to be
placing permanent structures in Stanford Road right-of-way (stairs and retaining wall(s)). These
appurtenances are not allowed in public right-of-way and would need to be relocated, absent of
the approval of these items in an encroach ment/easement, which would likely need separate
review, consideration, and approval by City Council. It is strongly encouraged that the design of
this area is reconfigured to not encroach onto right-of-way.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: Related to the previous comment, the steep grades in right-of-way appear to be of
concern with the City requiring no more than 4:1 slopes in right-of-way tying into a public street
system. Stability of the area in right-of-way may be in question as well. A cross-section of this
area from the building out to Stanford Road should be provided to provide greater detail on the
streetscape and grades along this area.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: Please ensure that I'm provided with any updated traffic study for review.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: Comments below are carried over from the previous round for future reference
while further refinement takes place. The original comment starts with "V for reference.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: Acknowledged applicant's response. Carried over in order to track for future
submittals.
%There was general transportation staff support with the City Engineer and City Traffic Engineer
for the vacation of the remaining Foothills Parkway (subject to approval by City Council). The
process to undertake the proposed vacation of the right-of-way can commence at this time with
the preparing of legal descriptions and routing to the utility providers for notice of vacation.
set.
%With the submittal of a Project Development Plan (PDP), the civil sheets should be separated
into its own plan set with a copy of the plat in the set as a reference document. The plat will still
be an individual document. The Utility Plan Approval block will only be needed on the civil set
sheets (all the sheets minus the reference plat).
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: Acknowledged applicant's response to be addressed in a future submittal with this
comment. Carried over in order to track for future submittals.
%The new and reconfigured driveways out to public streets (College Avenue and Stanford
Road) should have the drive approaches constructed in concrete within the right-of-way.
LCUASS drawing 707 is the detail in which the drive approaches should be built to and shown
on sheet C800. Please ensure that detail is indicated as LCUASS drawing 707.
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 19
Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: Acknowledged applicant's response to be addressed in a future submittal with this
comment specific to the concrete on Mathews. For Foothills Parkway at College Avenue, we
received feedback from our street maintenance folks that the creation of a concrete strip across
Foothills Parkway has its own concerns and from that perspective, they would rather see no
demarcation of the right-of-way line, so no need to modify the drawings specific to Foothills
Parkway. Carried over in order to track for future submittals.
%With the proposal to vacate the remaining portion of Foothills Parkway, there needs to be
physical demarcation of the pavement to discern the limits of City maintenance and ease of
performing the maintenance against the private portion(s). For Mathews Street intersecting with
the vacated Foothills Parkway the trapezoidal approach (about 1,000 sq. ft.) of Mathews that's
not in right-of-way should be done in concrete to give the defined edge where the limits of City
maintenance of Mathews Street ends. For the vacated Foothills Parkway intersecting with
College Avenue, a similar trapezoidal approach should be created in concrete (which in this
case would be the portion of Foothills Parkway that would remain as right-of-way). This concrete
approach of Foothills Parkway to remain as right-of-way will need to have the median splitter
islands, north -south sidewalk movement along College Avenue, traffic signals and traffic related
appurtenances within this right-of-way. This concrete approach of Foothills Parkway to remain as
right-of-way will need to be clear of signage and structures other than City required. Please also
be aware that any portion of right-of-way that's dedicated to CDOT abutting Foothills Parkway
cannot be vacated per CDOT requirements.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: Acknowledged applicant's response to install a concrete pad on Remington Street
and to be addressed in a future submittal with this comment. Carried over in order to track for
future submittals.
%Similar to the previous comment, the reconfiguration of Remington Street as it terminates into
the site should have the area in right-of-way constructed in concrete in order to create a
physical demarcation of the pavement to discern the limits of City maintenance and ease of
performing the maintenance.
Comment Number: 25
Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: Acknowledged applicant's response to be addressed in a future submittal with this
comment. Carried over in order to track for future submittals.
At this time, City Staff will not support a modification avoiding the planting of street trees on
College Avenue.
Contact: Ted Shepard, 970.221.6343, tshepard()fcgov.com
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/20/2012
12/19/2012: Repeat Comment - There are long exposures of perimeter parking along Foothills
Parkway and Monroe Drive. These parking lot edges need mitigation. As with other large
parking lots, mitigation can take the form of additional landscaping, berming, low screen walls
and other features. Plant material used should be at least 5 feet in depth to provide adequate
screening. One recent solution. in our community includes a south -facing shade structure
topped with solar panels. The judicious use of other screening devices and trellises,
sculptures, monuments and the like that would distinguish this project from others are
encouraged.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata(a)fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: Please add the following note to the plan set referencing the street cuts in public
right-of-way: "Limits of street cut are approximate. Final limits are to be determined in the field
by the City Engineering Inspector. All repairs to be in accordance with City street repair
standards."
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12119/2012: Please ensure that general notes and construction notes in Appendix E-1 and E-2
of LCUASS are included in the civil set.
Comment Number: 10
Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: Sheets C900-C902 do not show profile information. This will need to be added with
the PDP submittal. At time of final, cross -sections along College Avenue will need to be
provided for further detail of how the cross -slopes existing along College tie into the proposed
widening.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: The response indicated that additional right-of-way does not appear to be needed.
The design drawings show that with the new access point north of Foothills Parkway and its
associated right turn lane, along with the access point between Foothills Parkway and Monroe
(and its associated right turn lane) that portions of these turn lanes are outside of existing
right-of-way. CDOT is requiring that right-of-way for the turn lanes is provided up to the back of
curb. (Sheets C900 and C902 illustrate the pavement outside of the right-of-way.
%There appear to be portions of roadway along College Avenue (right turn/decel) that lie
outside of public right-of-way. Per CDOT requirements, additional right-of-way along College
Avenue will need to be provided for these areas, ensuring that right-of-way is in place to at
least the back of curb.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: The civil set will need the utility plan approval block on all the sheets of the plan
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/17/2012
12/17/2012: When revising sheet LA-127, please include (and call out) the design features
location in Section 3.10.4(D)(3). These design features include large planers for safety and to
delineate the pedestrian space, sidewalk pavement (scoring), pedestrian crossing, ect.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 12/17/2012
12/17/2012: On AR-A-101, please revise the "parking table" as the studio units should be 59,
not zero; the total bedrooms should be 1173. The parking summary is confusing as it is does
not match up with the typical parking metric overall. Please revise these tables for clarity.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 12/17/2012
12/17/2012: On AR-A-101 the number of spaces listed for the lot 6 above ground structure
(472) does not match with the building/unit mix total parking count (385). Please reconcile these
details or make the tables more easily understood. Something to the effect of, typically the City
of Fort Collins requires 1293 spaces for a multi -family project not located in the TOD; this
project provides 1335 spaces.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012
12/13/2012: Repeat comment. Please show all TransFort bus stops on site and landscape
plans with appropriate connections. On Stanford Road, please show bus stop locations (Sheet
LA-100, LA-122/LA-123).
Asl l/21/2012: Sheets A-104, LA -123: The location of the bus stop should be added on the
plans. A direct sidewalk connection should be added from the bust stop to commercial
component. Section 3.2.2(C)(5) states, "walkways within the site shall be located and aligned to
directly and continuously connect areas or points of pedestrian origin and destination, and shall
not be located and aligned solely based on the outline of a parking lot configuration that does
not provide such direct pedestrian access.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012
12/18/2012: Sheet AR-A-701 shows the outdoor kitchen with covered BBQ area 18' from the
single family residential property line to the north. Sheet LA-127 shows there to be spruce trees
in this location. Please ensure that all plans match up.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/17/2012
12/17/2012: On sheet LA-121, street trees should be added on the north side of East Monroe
Drive.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/20/2012: It was noted that there is an existing 8" sanitary sewer line running parallel to
college avenue, creating a conflict between the proposed street tree locations and the utility.
The code requires a 10' separation distance between trees and sewer mains.
LUC 3.2.1(K) states that, "landscape, utility and traffic plans shall be coordinated... Tree/utility
and traffic control device separations shall not be used as a means of avoiding the planting of
required street trees."
Solutions to this site planning challenge, such as reconfiguring the site plan to accommodate
street trees and the utility separation needs to be explored.
12/13/2012: Staff is requiring detached sidewalks along both sides of the southwest oriented
drive shown on sheets LA-104 and LA-108 per.LUC 3.2.2(C)(5)(a). Staff is requesting to see
resolution of this comment on formal PDP submittal and prior to hearing.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 12/17/2012
12/13/2012: Repeat comment as the comment was not addressed on plans.
11/21/2012: On page LA-107. The parking bay with the 3 handicapped spaces has 17 spaces
without an intervening landscape island. LUC Section 3.2.1(E)(5)(e) states that, "parking bays
shall extend no more than 15 parking spaces without an intervening tree, landscape island or
landscape peninsula." While it is understood that handicapped spaces are larger, this code
provision still applies.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/17/2012
12/13/2012: As shown, the multi -family component is not meeting the block structure
requirement as outlined in Section 3.8.30(D)(1) (this section not available online yet, as it was
recently approved in September 2012, e-mails with PDF's this ordnance were previously
provided to consultants).
To meet this standard, detached sidewalks with tree lined boarders are required (Section
3.6.2(L)(1)(c). Please update landscape plans with the next submittal to include these important
details (sheets LA-126, LA-124, LA-122, LA-121).
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/17/2012
12/17/2012: Staff recognizes the existing attached sidewalk condition on the west side of
Stanford Road. Since the sidewalk will be removed during construction, the City requires it to
be replaced with a detached sidewalk. This detail will need to be shown on sheets LA-121 - LA
126 with the formal PDP submittal.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/17/2012
12/17/2012: On sheet LA-113, add sidewalk with crossing markings. The sidewalk works in
conjunction with street tress and end of sidewalk condition so pedestrian is prioritized through
out the site.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/17/2012
12/17/2012: At time of final plan submittal, Planning staff will be looking for cross walk details,
with Plaza like corners with smoother direct and generous transitions at corners internal to the
site (Sheet LA-110 would be an example of where to add this.)
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/17/2012
12/17/2012: Staff suggest a separate break out meeting where we tackle, page by page, the
sidewalk issues and explain code requirements.
Comment Number: 9
Comment Originated: 12/17/2012
12/17/2012: On sheet 121 - are these street lights existing or proposed? The number of street
lights on East Monroe should be examined for necessity vis a vis street trees.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 12/17/2012
12/17/2012: LA-122, the north side of the drive should have detached sidewalk with street trees
mirroring the south streetscape.
Wherever there is a retaining wall called out, please list the height as well.
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/12/2012
12/12/2012: The Shadow Study for lot 3 (Sheet AR-A-610) should be revised to clean up the
graphics and should be scaled. Currently, the parking lot does not match up to what is shown
on the landscape plans and the shadowing appears to have two different line weights.
Please an additional exhibit showing the shadowing impact of a 25 foot wall placed at the
property line. This drawing should be scaled as well.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/13/2012
12/13/2012: Staff recognizes the progress made with the generous 25' recessions shown as
they assist in mitigate the overall length of the buildings on lots 4 and 5. That being said, on
multi -family buildings 2 and 3 and 4, Staff is still concerned with the articulation of the buildings .
For example, on sheet AR-A-202, the 1'-2' sub -module projections are insufficient in further
breaking up the mass of a 175' long, four story module. Staff recommends 4'-6' articulation to
assist in complying with the Code's massing and articulation requirements in Section 3.5.1 ,
3.8.30(F)(6) and 3.10.5
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/13/2012
12/13/2012: In addition, The TOD Overlay requires upper portions of the building to be
stepped back from the base (Section 3.10.5(F)(3)) and this provision applies to the multi -family
buildings proposed. As a way to meet the intent of the standard, staff suggests considering
projecting the base of buildings 2, 3, 4 an additional 4 to 6 feet.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/17/2012
12/17/2012: At time of PDP submittal, please make sure to show elevations for all four sides of
all residential buildings. In this last PDR submittal, building 1 B was not shown.
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 12/17/2012
12/17/2012: Sheets AR-A-206. Elevations are recorded with the City after Final review. That
being said, the graphics for the materials do not translate well to mylar and will need to be
removed for finals.
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 12/18/2012
12/18/2012: Buildings 1A and 1 B do not comply with the material requirements set forth in
Section 3.10.5(C)(2). A clearly defined base portion defining human scale should be included.
It is understood that the consultants are striving to differentiate the buildings; however materials
and human scale should not be sacrificed.
On sheet AR-A-201 scheme 3 is called out yet on sheet AR-A-208, the materials do not match
up.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/13/2012
12/13/2012: On the north side of Foothills Parkway, Staff is requesting the existing trees saved,
parking screened, and sidewalks put in (sheet L4-104). Staff is concerned about the longevity
and maintenance of the proposed 3 foot evergreen shub screening.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/13/2012
City of
Fort tins
Community Development and
Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - fax
tcgov. com/de velopmentreview
December 21, 2012
RE: Foothills Mall Redevelopment Third Preliminary Design Review, PDR120009, Round Number
Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your
submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the
individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Courtney Levingston, at
970-416-2283 or clevingston@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Current Planning
Contact: Courtney Levingston, 970.416-2283, clevingston(a�fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 12/12/2012
12/12/2012: Staff is requesting cross sections of the multi -family buildings as to see the grade,
retaining wall and how it relates in context to the adjacent single family home. 4 multi -family
residential cross sections should be provided at time PDP submittal as indicated at the
meeting held on Wednesday, December 19th, as they are needed to evaluate the multi -family
component as it relates to compatibility and street scape standards.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 12/12/2012
12/12/2012: Elevations are required for all four sides of the fitness club called out on AR-A-107.
These elevations should call out materials, colors and height. How far set back is the fitness
club from the property line to the north? It appears to be less that 28 feet.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 12/12/2012
12/12/2012: Please provide detail for the retaining wall proposed on LA-128. How tall will this
wall be? What materials are proposed? 3.11.4(C) states that "retaining walls shall be
constructed of materials that match or complement the architecture of the building".
On LA-121, the retaining wall proposed is 240' long and appears to be 6' tall. This wall is of
concern and we are requesting sections depicting the elevations from the ROW and how the
pedestrian will experience the large building from the street with a substantial wall in front of it.