HomeMy WebLinkAboutFOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT - PDP - PDP120036 - CORRESPONDENCE - CORRESPONDENCE-CONCEPTUAL REVIEW (3)18', with a maximum size of 90 s.f. per side. Page 32 of 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.
The separate sign permit application can be found online at
http://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/pdf/sign-app.nl.pdf
Comment Number: 9
Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: 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 screened/painted.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: LUC 3.2.2(J) Vehicle use areas are to be setback 10ft from anon arterial street
ROW. The parking stalls along the west half of Monroe St do not appear to be meeting this
setback.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: LUC 3.2.1(D)(2) Attached sidewalks in the Public Right shall beat least 10ft wide to
include tree gates at least 16 sq ft that are placed in the sidewalk closer to the street.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: All though the fixtures on the lighting poles are down directional there is concern
for placing such type of lighting on the top tier of the parking garage. To reduce glare and
unnecessary diffusion on neighboring properties lighting on this top tier should at least be
reduced in height. Please provided any information that will illustrate mitigation of such
concern.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: On top of the residential buildings there is a note that states "Internally Illuminated".
We will need more information on what this means, what are the foot-candles coming form this?
11/19/2012: The detention basin on the corner of Stanford and Monroe still does not appear to
provide active recreation with steep grades and retaining walls. One suggestion is create a
dog park in combination with the detention basin.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: Land Use Code (LUC)3.10 Requires that primary commercial and residential
building entrance shall face streets... The residential buildings along Stanford need a primary
entrance that faces the street.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: The Key Plan on the South Elevations (sheets A210, A211) are incorrect
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: Sheet A221 This buildings primary entrance needs to be clearly defined.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: Sheet A223 Restaurant 1 Elevations have sections of wall that are not meeting the
minimal articulation and recognizable base and top.
Sheet A225 Restaurant 2 Elevations have sections of wall that are not meeting the minimal
articulation and recognizable base and top.
Sheet A229 Restaurant 4 Elevations have sections of wall that are not meeting the minimal
articulation and recognizable base and top.
Sheet A240 Block 2 Elevations have sections of wall that are not meeting the minimal
articulation.
Sheet A246 doesn't label the direction (North, South, East and West) of the elevations.
Sheet A248 the building entrance needs to be defined better.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: Wireless equipment, 6 antennas will need a note that they will be painted to match
the building wall.
Comment Number: 8
11 /20/2012:
Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
08/23/2012: The 'Vision Book' contains a number of pages that illustrate a possible signage
program. Signs are not part of the PDP or Final Plan review and approval processes, so these
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 on page 36 is
proposed to be 22' tall. The code limits the height of monument signs to 12' and pole signs to
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/15/2012
11/15/2012: Please schedule a meeting to go through the plans and discuss comments and
changes.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/15/2012
11/15/2012: As more detail is added to the plans, there is need to consider how the various
sections of water main can be constructed while keeping the mall in service and how the
testing and disinfection of the mains can be accomplished.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 11/15/2012
11/15/2012: 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.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/15/2012
11/15/2012: 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: 5 Comment Originated: 11/15/2012
11/15/2012: Extend the water main on the north side of the multi -family buildings on the north
around the west end of the west building rather the turning south between buildings
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/15/2012
11/15/2012: We are reviewing sizing on the proposed main east of College and will provide
further direction when complete.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/15/2012
11/15/2012: Abandon the existing north/south main west of Sears and connect the east/west
mains to the new north/south main.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/15/2012
11/15/2012: The size of the water services from the water main through the meter pit must be
the same size as the meter.
Comment Number: 9
Comment Originated: 11/15/2012
11/15/2012: As the project moves through preliminary and onto final compliance, we will work
with you on the additional detail needed on the plans (i.e. labeling all fittings and lengths of
pipe, adding valves, showing labeling curb stops and meter pits, etc.).
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/15/2012
11/15/2012: See redlined plans for other comments.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/15/2012
11/15/2012: These are preliminary comments which will be expanded upon prior to our
meeting.
Department: Zoning
Contact: Noah Beals, 970.416.2313, nbeals(a)fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: On Sheet LA 106, there should be a 6 foot detached sidewalk in order to comply
with LUC 3.2.2(C)(5). As proposed, this does not meet the standard.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: An 8 foot detached sidewalk is required to be constructed along the. north side of
Monroe per LUC 3.5.4(C)(4), pedestrian circulation. This Section states, " Sidewalks at least 8
feet in width shall be provided along all sides of the lot that abut a public street." Please note
that per Section 1.4.9 the word "shall" makes the is mandatory. Where Monroe turns private, the
sidewalk should continue per Sections 3.2.2(F), 3.2.2(C)(5). See sheets LA 113 and LA 114.
Department: Transportation Planning
Contact: Emma McArdle, 970.224.6197, emcardlepfcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: According to LUC section 3.6.5, "new development [shall] adequately
accommodate existing and planned transit service by integrating facilities designed and
located appropriately for transit into the development plan."
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: Based on discussions since the 1st Preliminary Design Review, 3 bus stops will
be provided on this site: 1 on College Avenue south of Foothills Parkway; 1 on Foothills
Parkway northeast of the mall entrance; and 1 on Stanford Road north of Monroe Drive. Bus
stop pads shall be provided by the applicant of at least 12' wide by 18' deep, one at the
College and Stanford stops and 2 pads at the Foothills Parkway stop. The bus pullout
provided on Foothills Parkway is of adequate size for 2 buses. All stops shall have ADA
accessible connections to adjacent sidewalks and connections to the mall destinations. All
stops and private property that will be used by buses shall be in a Transit Easement, please
see Engineering's comments for more information on this.
I would like to see a larger scale version at formal submittal to verify radii and dimensions
though.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: The stop shown on College Avenue just south of Swallow Road is not an active
stop and should be removed from the plan set (Sheet Al04).
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: Bus stops need to match what is in the TIS, current they do not match.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: Bus routes are not accurate on the pedestrian connectivity exhibit. It is unecessary
to include them on this plan, just show the bus stops. The bus stop at College and Swallow
shall be removed and moved south of Foothills Parkway.
Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Roger Buffington, 970.221-6854, rbuffington &fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: In order to assist with complying with LUC 3.2.2(E)(1), the South College Avenue
access north of Monroe Drive, simplify the alignment to make a direct connection to the drive
aisle between the theater complex and the East lawn. Include continuous 6 foot minimum
sidewalks along this connection. The proposed pedestrian route, as shown, has multiple drive
isle crossings. This is conflicting with the requirement in LUC 3.2.2(E)(5) stating, "the lot layout
shall specifically address the interrelation of pedestrian, vehicular and bicycle circulation in
order to provide continuous, direct pedestrian access with a minimum of driveway and drive
aisle crossings."
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: Include a 12 foot multi -use sidewalk/path (instead of 10 feet) along the South
College Avenue frontage, that is straight unless the meander is to avoid existing trees that are
being saved. Set back as far as possible from College to improve the pedestrian experience
(LUC 3.2.2(C)(1)(b)).
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: As proposed, the internal circulation is not improved from what is existing today.
To assist in achieving compliance with Section 3.2.2(E)(1), circulation routes, a suggestion
would be to simplify drive aisle alignments and intersections to avoid unexpected turning
conflicts. Basic four way or t-intersections are easier to navigate.
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: To improve bicycle connectivity, Monroe should be restripped from 4 lanes to 2
lanes and include on -street bicycle lanes. Please coordinate with Traffic Operations
Department on the appropriate striping configuration.
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: Outside fixed bicycle racks should be located near building entrances, not around
the side of buildings. Remote bike racks tend to be under utilized.
A covered bike rack should be placed next to the bus stop on Stanford. This policy is
identified on page 51 of the Transportation Master Plan.
Comment Number: 9
Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: Include bike lanes or bike sharrow pavement markings on all major internal
circulating drive aisles as well as Mathews and Remington. LUC 3.2.2(D) states that "parking
lots shall provide well-defined circulation routes for vehicles, bicycles and pedestians." The
plan is not meeting this standard as it relates to internal bicycle circulation.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: The TIS is required to include bike LOS analysis.
Contact: Courtney Levingston, 970.416-2283, clevingston cMcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: There should be a 6 foot (minimum) detached sidewalk along both sides of
Foothills Parkway from South College Avenue to the main entrance intersection per LUC
3.2.2(C)(5). The proposed plan does not meet this standard.
of the Flashing Yellow Arrow signals. Traffic Operations would also choose to keep the dual
west bound left turn lanes due to their benefit to the overall intersection operation. The review in
the TIS (original intersection data provided by the City) does not need to be revised as
Split -phasing is a more conservative and inefficient signal operation than traditional signal
phasing. Since the study shows the intersection working acceptably with Split -phasing it will
show better operational characteristics with out the Split -phasing. Utilizing the short term Total
counts provided in the TIS in the City model also verifies the signal is expected to work
acceptably.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
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: 6
Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
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: Transportation Planning
Contact: Aaron Iverson, 970-416-2643, aiverson aofcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/16/2012
11/16/2012: The project should construct a bicycle/pedestrian underpass, under College
Avenue adjacent to the existing ditch crossing to provide access across College to the west.
The entrance/exit for the underpass on the mall site should connect directly to a pedestrian
walkway that connects to the main mall site. The Land Use Code States in Section 3.2.2.(C)(6),
"the on -site pedestrian and bicycle circulation system must be designed to provide, or allow
for, direct connections to major pedestrian and bicycle destinations. The on -site pedestrian
and bicycle circulation system must also provide, or allow for, on -site connections to existing
or planned off -site pedestrian and bicycle facilities at points necessary to provide direct
pedestrian and bicycle travel from the development to major pedestrian destinations located
within the neighborhood. In order to provide direct pedestrian connections to these
destinations, additional sidewalks or walkways not associated with a street may be required."
This underpass is also identified on the City's CIP. This underpass should be identified on the
site and landscape plans. The underpass should "line up" or correspond to the 8 foot
enhanced pedestrian walkway through the parking lot to the entrance of the junior anchor.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: Provide offsite pedestrian crossing improvements at the College Avenue
intersections with Swallow, Foothills Parkway and Monroe to help facilitate safe pedestrian
movements across College Avenue. Section 3.2.2(C)(7) states, "off -site pedestrian or bicycle
facility improvements may be required in order to comply with the requirements of Section
3.2.2(E)(1) (Parking Lot Layout) and Section 3.6.4 (Transportation Level of Service
Requirements)."
Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/2012012: Please change the bus stop name to MAX BRT Transit Hub or Mason Corridor Bus
Rapid Transit Hub.
Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please move the north arrow and scale bar out of the aerial photo on sheet A104.
Comment Number: 75 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: OPTION A SET: Please move the legal description down under the big title, and
remove the smaller title from sheet AR-A-000.
Comment Number: 76 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: OPTION A SET: There are line over text issues on several sheets.
Comment Number: 78 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: OPTION A SET: There is cutoff text on some of the sheets.
Comment Number: 86 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: OPTION B SET: Please move the legal description down under the big title, and
remove the smaller title from sheet AR-B-000.
Comment Number: 94 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: OPTION B SET SPECIAL HEIGHT REVIEW: Sheet AR-B-609 is missing north
arrows.
Comment Number: 95 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: OPTION B SET SPECIAL HEIGHT REVIEW: There is text that needs to be masked
on sheets AR-B-702 & AR-B-704.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: City staff met with CDOT staff regarding the College Avenue accesses, both new
and existing and find the accesses acceptable as designed and reviewed in the TIS.
Comment Number:. 3 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
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: 4 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: There were some discussions or comments about possibly reconfiguring Monroe.
Just for the record Traffic Operations does not desire changes to the College and Monroe
intersection or the near portion of the east approach that could directly impact the intersection.
Topic: Traffic Impact Study
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: It has been suggested to revise the College & Foothills Mall intersection by
eliminating one of the west bound left turn lanes which might also allow the signal to no longer
be Split -Phased. In actuality the Split -Phasing has already been eliminated with the assistance
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please label all tracts on all sheets.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated:
11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please add a legend to all sheets.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated:
11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please make sure that all curves and bearings & distances are labeled.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated:
11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please change the outer boundary at Mathews Street as shown on the redlines.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated:
11/20/2012
11/20/2012: The text on sheet 3 is too small. Please increase the size.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please make sure that all reception numbers are correct.
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: There are line over text issues on sheet 3
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please make sure all subdivision names are correct.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please remove the linework for the 30' utility easement south of the boundary, or
add a note stating that it is not to be vacated with the plat.
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please make sure there is a line & curve table on all applicable sheets.
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated:
11/20/2012
11/20/2012: All easements must be locatable.
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated:
11/20/2012
11/20/2012: There is cut off text at the northwest corner of the property on sheet 4.
Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated:
11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please make sure that all the scales are correct on all sheets.
Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated:
11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please use differing line work or add a detail on sheet 5.
Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated:
11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please add additional note to box culvert easement on sheet 6.
Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please add the City's Director Of Planning signature block to sheet A101.
Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please remove East Monroe Drive east of John F. Kennedy Parkway on all
applicable sheets.
Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: There are line over text issues on sheet A102 & A104.
Canal.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please change the Basis Of Bearings statement so that sheet 1 & 2 match.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: If the west line of the southwest quarter of section 25 is the Basis Of Bearings,
current monument records need to be provided.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please correct note #6 on sheet 1 to match our redlines.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please change "assessors" to "successors" in note #9 on sheet 1.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/2012012: Please correct the Vaction Of Easements statement on sheet 1. Also, vacating the
public easements which contain active utility lines creates a problem. One possible solution for
this is to dedicate a blanket easement across all of the property in addition to those easements
shown on sheets 4-7. This blanket easement then would be vacated in pieces as development
occurs and after the utility lines are relocated.
Potential Blanket Easement language:
A blanket easement for public utilities is dedicated with this plat over the entire property. It is
intended that vacations of portions of this blanket easement will take place by seperate
document prior to the issuance of building permits.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Are there any lienholders for this property? If so, please add the Lienholders
signature block.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Show the properties on the west side of College Avenue, platted & unplatted.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please show all monumentation as found or set.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please provide at least one bearing & distance tie for each lot.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please call John Von Nieda @ 970-221-6565, to discuss the vacation of College
Avenue at include record bearings & distances.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: All right of ways must show width and how they were dedicated.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please explain why the calls at the southeast corner of Foothills Parkway &
College Avenue do not match the legal description.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Foothills Parkway must be vacated by seperate document.
Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please make sure matchlines are labeled on all sheets.
Comment Number: 44 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: There are text over text issues on some sheets.
Comment Number: 45 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please remove the duplicate text on sheet LA-130.
Comment Number: 46 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please increase the size of the smaller text on sheet LA-130.
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 47 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: The sheet titles on sheets LD-RA2 & LD-RA3 do not match the sheet index on
sheet LD-01.
Comment Number: 48 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: There are line over text issues on many sheets.
Comment Number: 49 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: There is cutoff text on sheet LD-S7 & LD-S9.
Comment Number: 50 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: There are several sheets with decimals in the sheet title, that are hard to read.
Please make these easier to read.
Comment Number: 51 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: There are several sheets that are missing north arrows.
Comment Number: 52 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: There are several sheets that have linework & text that is too close to the edge of
the page.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty fcgov.com
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please correct the sub -title to match our redlines.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please include an overall metes & bounds description of the property.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: No closures were done at this time. We will check closures when the legal
description has been revised.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please correct the legal description to match our redlines.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please add an Easement Dedication signature block for the Larimer County No. 2
11/21/2012: OPTION A SET: Please remove East Monroe Drive east of John F. Kennedy
Parkway on all applicable sheets.
Comment Number: 82 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: OPTION A SET: There is some missing text on sheet AR-A-401.
Comment Number: 84 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: OPTION A SET SPECIAL HEIGHT REVIEW: Sheet AR-A-605 is missing north
arrows.
Comment Number: 85 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: OPTION A SET SPECIAL HEIGHT REVIEW: There is text that needs to be masked
on sheets AR-A-702.
Comment Number: 87 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: OPTION B SET: There are line over text issues on several sheets.
Comment Number: 88 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: OPTION B SET: Please remove East Monroe Drive east of John F. Kennedy
Parkway on all applicable sheets.
Comment Number: 89 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: OPTION B SET: There is cutoff text on some of the sheets.
Comment Number: 90 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: OPTION B SET: There is text that needs to be mirrored on several sheets. All text
should read from the bottom & right side of the sheet. Please see sheet AR-B-302 for an
example.
Comment Number: 91 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: OPTION A SET SPECIAL HEIGHT REVIEW: There is text that needs to be flipped
180 degrees on several sheets. All text should read from the bottom & right side of the sheet.
Please see sheet AR-A-602 for an example.
Comment Number: 92 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: OPTION B SET: There is duplicate text on some sheets.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221.6588, jcounty(a)fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please remove East Monroe Drive east of John F. Kennedy Parkway on all
applicable sheets.
Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please label or remove the bold lines shown on sheet LA-101 and other
landscape sheets.
Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please make sure that street names are shown on all sheets showing streets.
Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: There are line over text issues on many sheets.
180 degrees on several sheets. All text should read from the bottom & right side of the sheet.
Please see sheet AR-A-602 for an example.
Comment Number: 93 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: OPTION B SET SPECIAL HEIGHT REVIEW: Please correct the sheet number on
sheet AR-A-602.
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 53 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please add Redevelopment to the title on sheet C001.
Comment Number: 54 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please correct the sub -title as shown on sheet C001.
Comment Number: 55 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please contact John Von Nieda with the City Surveying Department @
970-221-6565 about note #1 on sheet C002.
Comment Number: 56 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please correct the Vertical Datum on sheet C002.
Comment Number: 57 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please provide at least 2 benchmarks in the City's vertical Control Network to
sheet C002.
Comment Number: 58 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please remove East Monroe Drive east of John F. Kennedy Parkway on all
applicable sheets.
Comment Number: 59 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: There are line over text issues on many sheets.
Comment Number: 60 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: There are text over text issues on many sheets.
Comment Number: 61 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please remove Foothills Parkway east of Mathews Street on all applicable sheets.
Comment Number: 62 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: All the text on sheet WQ-002 is very fuzzy. Please sharpen this up.
Comment Number: 71 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: SIGNAGE & WAYFINDING SET: There is text that needs to be masked on sheets
A315, A316 & A317.
Comment Number: 72 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: FFA SET: Please correct the leader for College Avenue on sheet A401.
Comment Number: 73 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: FFA SET: There is text that needs to be masked on sheets A401 & A405.
Comment Number: 74 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: FFA SET: Sheet A405 is missing a north arrow.
Comment Number: 77 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: A reminder comment that the areas that can not be treated for water quality by
either the sand filters or the rain gardens will be required to have an alternative treatment like a
mechanical devise.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/2012012: The assumed runoff coefficient for pervious ground is .20 not .40 for Fort Collins.
Please revise calculations.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcountyaMcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 63 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: There are line over text issues on several sheets.
Comment Number: 64 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: There is missing information on sheet A208.
Comment Number: 65 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: There is cutoff text on some of the sheets.
Comment Number: 66 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: There is text in the shaded areas, that is hard to read. Please move it out of the
color.
Comment Number: 67 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: There are several sheets missing north arrows.
Comment Number: 68 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: There are text over text issues on several sheets.
Comment Number: 69 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: There is text that needs to be flipped 180 degrees on several sheets. All text
should read from the bottom & right side of the sheet. Please see sheets A241 & A251 for an
example.
Comment Number: 70 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: Please reduce or remove the large text on sheet A247 & A249.
Comment Number: 79 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: OPTION A SET: There are line over text issues on several sheets.
Comment Number: 80 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: OPTION A SET: There is text that needs to be flipped 180 degrees on several
sheets. All text should read from the bottom & right side of the sheet. Please see sheet
AR-A-301 for an example.
Comment Number: 81 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: OPTION A SET: There are several sheets missing north arrows.
Comment Number: 83 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: OPTION A SET SPECIAL HEIGHT REVIEW: There is text that needs to be flipped
Comment Number: 22
Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11121/2012: DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION PHASING
The fire department has concerns pertaining to the demolition and construction of the mall
during all phases that the mall is open and occupied. Changes to the existing facility as it
pertains to project phasing need to be reviewed by the fire department prior to onset. We will
continue to work with Code Consultants, Inc. to coordinate these important steps.
The PFA requests a written plan for demolition and construction of the existing mall that
includes:
• PFA to be notified beforehand when any system affecting life safety is taken off line or
rendered inoperable. Unless prior approval and arrangements have been made and a Fire
Watch provided, these systems are to be down only at night and to be fully functional during all
hours the mall is open for business.
• Any changes to the fire suppression systems must be pre -approved.
• Fire department will be notified of exterior demolition phasing and approve exiting
requirements.
• Fire department will be notified of interior demolition phasing and inspect and approve the
temp structures build within the mall corridor
• The project will comply with IFC 2012 Chapter 33 (Fire Safety During Construction And
Demolition).
• Fire department to approve the construction of all interior, temporary mall alterations to the
concourse which are planned to maintain access to open businesses within the mall.
• Interior, temporary mall walkways to have no flammable finishes.
• No hot works above interior, temporary tunnel system during business hours.
• PFA to be notified of night construction schedule.
• Unleased tenant spaces will have a sprinkler system engineered to meet "ordinary hazard"
requirements per meeting with CC[ on 11/6/2012.
• PFA to be made aware of any updates to the plan that impact exiting, fore protection, access,
or occupant safety.
• Provide for Fire Watch as required.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970.416-2418, wlamargue(cDfcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Comments are for the preliminary design and overall drainage philosophy and do
not include any design that would be reviewed during final plan review. Review and comments
do not include any of the following: detailed grading, specific water quality details or WQ
design specifics, storm sewers, 100-year capacity calculations, etc.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please include the output for the SWMM model with the next submittal. This can
be emailed to me to expedite the review for the model. There were no comments for the
assumptions of the input for the SWMM model. Once the output is submitted, the City can
confirm if the drainage design meets the intent of the Stormwater criteria.
Comment Number: 16
11/2112012: BALCONIES AND DECKS
Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
Sprinkler protection shall be provided for exterior balconies, decks, and ground floor patios of
dwelling units where the building is of Type V construction. No gas BBQ grills allowed on
non-sprinklered balconies. 2006 International Fire Code 903.3.1.2.1
Comment Number:.17 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: FIRE PITS AND FIREPLACES
All commercial and residential fire pits and fireplaces to be natural gas burning. No smoke
production allowed.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: PREMISE IDENTIFICATION
New and existing buildings shall be plainly identified. Address numbers shall be visible from
the street fronting the property, plainly visible, and posted with a minimum of six-inch numerals
on a contrasting background. 2006 International Fire Code 505.1
• Please submit a comprehensive addressing plan for review and approval.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: PROPERTY ACCESS
Poudre Fire Authority requires at least one key box ("Knox Box") to be mounted in approved
location(s) on every new building equipped with a required fire sprinkler or fire alarm system.
The top shall not be higher than 6 feet above finished floor. The location(s) shall be approved
by the fire department. 2006 International Fire Code 506.1 and Poudre Fire Authority Bureau
Policy 88-20.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: PUBLIC -SAFETY RADIO AMPLIFICATION SYSTEM
New buildings or building additions that cause the building to be greater than 50,000 square
feet will require a fire department, emergency communication system evaluation after the
core/shell but prior to final build out. Where adequate radio coverage cannot be established
within a building, public -safety radio amplification systems shall be designed and installed in
accordance with criteria established by the Poudre Fire Authority. For the purposes of this
section, fire walls shall not be used to define separate buildings. Poudre Fire Authority Bureau
Policy 07-01.
Comment Number: 21
11/21/2012: FIRE WATCH
Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
When required by the fire code official for building demolition, or building construction during
working hours that is hazardous in nature, qualified personnel shall be provided to serve as an
on -site fire watch. Fire watch personnel shall be provided with at least one approved means for
notification of the fire department and their sole duty shall be to perform constant patrols and
watch for the occurrence of fire.
2012 International Fire Code 3304.5
Comment Number: 10
Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER, FIRE ALARM, AND OTHER FIRE PROTECTION
SYSTEMS
All automatic fire sprinkler, hood and duct, special extinguishing systems, and alarm system
plans shall be submitted and reviewed under separate permits.
Comment Number: 11
Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS
The fire code official shall have the authority to require construction documents and calculations
for all fire protection systems and to require permits be issued for the installation, rehabilitation
or modification of any fire protection system. Construction documents for fire protection
systems shall be submitted for review and approval prior to system installation. 2006
International Fire Code 901.2
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: FIRE PROTECTION FLOW REQUIREMENTS
Fire protection requirements for the mall remain under review. The PFA will be working with
Code Consultants, Inc. to identify and resolve the issues as they relate to the mall buildings.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: FIRE STANDPIPE SYSTEM
Standpipe systems shall be installed throughout buildings where the floor level of the highest
story is located more than 30 feet above the lowest level of fire department vehicle 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. The standpipe systems shall be capable of supplying a
minimum of 100 psi to the top habitable floor. An approved fire pump may be required to
achieve this minimum pressure. 2006 International Fire Code 905 and 913
• R-2 and any enclosed S-2 occupancies shall also comply with this rule.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: PARKING GARAGES (32)
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. 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. 2006 International Fire Code 903.2.9; 903.2.9.1; 905.3.1
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: FDC
Fire Department Connections shall be installed in accordance with NFPA standards. The
location of the FDC shall be approved by the fire department. 2006 International Fire Code
912.2
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 with 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. 2006 International Fire
Code Appendix D.
• These requirements are not consistently supported in either residential plan.
Comment Number: 07 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: FIRE LANE SPECIFICATIONS
In addition to the design criteria already contained in relevant standards and policies, any new
fire lane must be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface capable of supporting 40
tons.
• Box culverts providing underground canal enclosure shall be rated for 40 tons under dive
isles.
Comment Number: 08 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: ROOF ACCESS
New buildings four or more stories in height shall be provided with a stairway to the roof.
Stairway access to the roof shall be in accordance with IFC 1009.12. Such stairways shall be
marked at street and floor levels with a sign indicating that the stairway continues to the roof.
2006 International Fire Code 504.3
Comment Number: 09 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: WATER SUPPLY
Fire hydrants must be the type approved by the water district having jurisdiction and the Fire
Department. Hydrant spacing and flow must meet minimum requirements based on type of
occupancy.
Commercial requirements: Hydrants to provide 1,500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced
not further than 300 feet to the building, on 600-foot centers thereafter. 2006 International Fire
Code 508.1 and Appendix B.
To maintain 600-foot centers, an additional hydrant would be required on the east end of
Monroe Drive at the south side of residential Lot 6 (See page C605).
• Confirm hydrant fronting College Ave. & north of Monroe Dr. This hydrant is shown in the PFA
Run Book but isn't detailed on either Demo or Construction plan sets (See pages C305; C604).
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 01
11/21/2012: FIRE ACCESS
0ynxwiler aapoudre-fire.org
Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
General Comment: Fire access and drive isle widths are satisfactory as it pertains to the
proposed redevelopment plan for the Foothills Mall as well as the commercial property
redevelopment on the north, west, and south sides of the mall. Several fire access problems
currently exist however, in both Plan Options A & B of the residential development proposal.
The PFA looks forward to working with the project developers to resolve these issues and
create a successful residential fire access plan.
Comment Number: 02
11/21/2012: FIRE LANES
Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
All fire lanes shall be designated on the plat as an Emergency Access Easement.
Comment Number: 03 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: FIRE LANE PROXIMITY
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
• Residential Fire Access Plans shall be estimated based on this 150' rule (See page
AR-13-106 through AR-13-110).
• Residential Plan Option A puts west side portions of buildings out of access (See pages
AR-A-104; AR-A-105).
Comment Number: 04
Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: FIRE ACCESS -TURNING RADII
The required turning radii of a fire apparatus access road shall be a minimum of 25 feet inside
and 50 feet outside. International Fire Code 503.2.4 and Local Amendments.
• Please confirm that the turning radii requirements have been achieved on the West Lawn
"round -about" at mall main entrance (See page C203).
Comment Number: 05 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: FIRE ACCESS -DEAD ENDS
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.
• Proposed resident parking in Lot 3 currently contains fire lanes in excess of 150' with no
turnaround (See pages AR-A-102; AR-B-107).
Comment Number: 06 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: FIRE LANE SPECIFICATIONS
• Ten feet between trees and water or sewer mains.
• Six feet between trees and water or sewer service lines.
Four feet between trees and gas lines.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Depending on the final sidewalk design along College a different street tree
planting arrangement may need to occur.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartine(a)fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: As previously discussed, the Light & Power utility work will need to take place as
at least 9 separate projects. Specifics of each of these projects will need to be coordinated
with Light & Power Engineering prior to construction. Light & Power will need a Commercial
Service Information (C-1) form completed for each new or modified electric service.
Modifications to the electric utility facilities (excluding the services from the transformer to the
meters) will be completed by Light & Power crews, at the developer's expense. Charges for
increased electric capacity will also apply. A preliminary overall estimate of the Light & Power
charges is $1.25 million.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: For the buildings along College Ave., the electric transformers will need to be
located on the eastern side of the buildings, not only due to street visibility, but also to provide
the required access. Electric transformers need to be located a maximum of 10 feet from an
all-weather surface that is accessible to a utility line truck, and need 8 feet minimum of
unobstructed clearance in the front, and 3 feet on the other 3 sides.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 11/14/2012
11/14/2012: When final, an AutoCad drawing (v. 2008) of the overall utility plan will need to be
sent to Terry Cox at TCOX@FCGOV.COM. Any questions can be directed to Doug Martine in
Light & Power Engineering (970)224-6152, or DMARTINE@FCGOV.COM.
Department: Outside Agencies
Contact: Rosanna Harris, Larimer County Canal No. 2,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: Larimer County Canal No. 2 Irrigating company is still reviewing the submittal.
Second, the comment sheet was mailed on November 7, 2012. Unfortunately the engineer for
Larimer No. 2 was out of town until last Wednesday. He had been sent an additional copy of
the plans electronically, but could not do a proper evaluation with that format, and ordered a
printed copy from Reprographics. Bottom line, it was not possible to meet the deadline
imposed by the City of Fort Collins. As soon as our engineer reviews the plans the comment
sheet will be provided.
result in a hold on certificate of occupancy for future phases of the development.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012:Please add the Tree Protection Specifications found in the LUC 3.2.1 G. Equivalent
specifications may be used and additional specifications are encouraged.
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please add a note on the plans that addresses code requirements for tree pruning
and removal. "All tree pruning and removal shall be performed by a City of Fort Collins
licensed arborist as required by code".
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: The following is from the Green Industries of Colorado Tree Planting
Recommendation for removing burlap and wire baskets. For reference other recommendations
for tree planting can be found in that document.
"Cut and remove the top 1/3 to 1/2 of the wire basket and burlap, and all the twine from before
finishing backfilling."
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please add a detail and specifications for transplanting existing trees on the site.
This could include time of year, method of transplanting, rootball size, guying, after care and
irrigation schedule etc. It is recommended that specification state that an International Society of
Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist will oversee tree transplanting and shall inspect all
transplanted trees at a regular interval over the first two years. Recommendation on care shall
be provided to the owner.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Tree Survey and Mitigation Plan:
Please submit a tree survey and mitigation plan.
Please include the following. Numbered existing trees shown on the plans to correspond with
trees described in the tree survey or in a schedule on the plans. Please include species; size;
condition; intent to preserve, remove or transplant; and mitigation. Show on the plans the
location of trees that will be transplanted referenced by number. Show on the plans the
locations where transplanted trees will be planted referenced by number. Mitigation trees
should be upsized based on the following schedule.
Canopy Shade Trees 3.0 inch caliper
Evergreen trees 8 feet height
Ornamental Trees 2.5 inch caliper
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please provide the following tree utility separations in 3.2.1 K and provide a note
that identifies these separation distances.
• Forty feet between shade trees and City streetlights. Fifteen feet between ornamental trees
and street lights.
Twenty feet between trees and traffic control signs and devices.
Additional Conifer Tree species to consider:
Rocky Mountain Juniper (many cultivars)
Colorado Blue Spruce (many cultivars, Fat Albert and Baby Blue Eyes are often planted)
Austrian Pine
Southwest White Pine
Vanderwolfs Pyramid Limber Pine
Additional Ornamental Trees to consider:
Bigtooth Maple (most local material is multi -stemmed)
Hotwings Tatarian Maple
Autumn Brilliance Service Berry
Thornless Cockspur Hawthorn
Crabapples (Adams, Radiant, Spring Snow, Thunderchild)
Crimson Spire Oak (very narrow pyramidal form; being used on many sites in Fort Collins)
Ivory Silk Tree Lilac
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please explore the feasibility of retaining suitable existing trees along College.
City Forestry staff is available to meet on site to help determine if that would be feasible with
sidewalk placement and placement of the ditch culvert. Existing significant trees should be
retained to the extent reasonably feasible.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Shallow soil on top of the ditch culvert limits tree planting over this facility. Other
constraints may limit tree planting in this zone as well. Will shrub planting be possible is this
zone?
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
11/20/2012: Please add these landscape notes:
• The soil in all landscape areas, including parkways and medians, shall be thoroughly
loosened to a depth of not less than eight (8) inches and soil amendment shall be thoroughly
incorporated into the soil of all landscape areas to a depth of at least six (6) inches by tilling,
discing or other suitable method, at a rate of at least three (3) cubic yards of soil amendment
per one thousand (1,000) square feet of landscape area.
• 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.
• The developer shall 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. Failure to obtain approval by the City Forester for street trees in a phase shall
Eastern River Birch
White Oak
Norway Spruce
Shumard Oak quantities:
This species has the comment in the Front Range Tree Recommendation List about obtaining
from a northern source. This is important but can be hard to track. Availability of this species of
oak for some local jobs has been limited. There are many local examples of successful
planting of this species in Fort Collins over the last decade. It is on the City street tree list and
is conditionally recommended on the Front Range List. This species was not regularly planted
in the area before the late 90's. With it being relatively new in our area and its conditional
recommendation we generally advise use of smaller quantities.
The applicant should consider use of smaller quantities of Shumard oak. The following might be
some possible locations to consider for changes, while keeping the use of Shumard oak along
Foothills Parkway.
• Use of Bur Oak, and some Catalpa and Kentucky Coffeetree along College in place of
Shumard Oak.
• Use a Linden or another suitable species along Stanford in place of Shumard Oak
• Use of Linden or another suitable species on sheet L126 L127 and L118 in place of
Shumard Oak.
Please use the common name Shumard Oak instead of red oak so as not to confuse this
species with Northern Red Oak.
Additional trees to consider:
Please review information in the Front Range Tree Recommendation List in making decisions for use,
quantities and appropriate locations on the project for planting. Trees presented for
consideration may or may not meet specific design objectives or perform equally well on all
sites that are part of this project. The City Forester is available to discuss tree selection on the
project.
Additional canopy shade tree species to consider:
Kentucky Coffee Tree
Northern Catalpa (typically smaller quantities)
Skyline Honeylocust
Shademaster Honeylocust
Skymaster English Oak (availability has sometimes been a problem)
Greenspire Linden (not preferred for smaller parking lot islands)
American Sentry Linden (not preferred for smaller parking lot islands)
Western Hackberry (some aesthetic considerations)
Comment Number: 27
Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: 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.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970.224.6143, lexa()fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
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: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: 1 did not see a species description for the Native Prairie Grass mix -please
provide this by final plan submittal.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970.221-6361, tuchanan()fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1
11/2012012: Tree Selection:
Suggested Species to change:
Comment Originated: 11/20/2012
The City Forester suggests using a different tree species for the following trees. The soils
found in Fort Collins limit the successful growth of Autumn Blaze Maple, Eastern River Birch and
White Oak. Concolor Fir and Norway Spruce have been grown successfully is some isolated
locations in Fort Collins, although Colorado Blue Spruce and Austrian Pine are much more
reliable conifer trees that are planted extensively.
Autumn Blaze Maple
Concolor Fir
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata(cDfcgov.com
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: Item 9 under the Notes section and item 2 under the Dedication of Easements
section appear to both be assigning restrictions/easements to Tracts within the development. It
seems that there's duplication of intent between the two items.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/1912012: 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: 4 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: 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: 5 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: The concept of vacating existing easements by the plat is problematic due to the
result public utilities that would still be physically in place until the utilities are either removed or
realigned. The vacation of these City easements cannot occur until the utility lines have been
abandoned. An option can be explored where the easements are vacated with a blanket
easement then dedicated for utility and drainage, which the blanket easement could then be
vacated (perhaps on a phase basis) when utility work for each phase was completed.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: 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: 18
Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: 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.
Topic: Traffic Impact Study
Comment Number: 26
Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: In consultation with CDOT and the City's Traffic Engineer, the narrative and
information in the traffic study provides sufficient justification for CDOT to allow the additional
access point north of Foothills Parkway as shown on the drawings and is acceptable to the City
and CDOT.
11/19/2012: There should be at least one access ramp at the intersection of Mathews Street
and Foothills Parkway to have pedestrians cross north/south across Foothills Parkway at that
intersection with a receiving access ramp on the south side of Foothills Parkway.
Comment Number: 24
Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: A general utility coordination meeting to discuss the intricacies of abandoning
existing services and providing new services, while still ensuring service is maintained to the
existing customers may be of benefit to have. I can help schedule such a meeting if desired.
Comment Number: 29
Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: 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 comer 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?
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: For future submittals, I won't need to seethe LD drawings (Lighting) and with the
Foothills Materials & Elevations set, I only need A303 to A313, in case these submittals are
similarly bundled.
Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: In terms of the minor amendment for deconstruction of the existing mall, utility work
pertaining to installing new utilities is considered a development related activity and is not
allowed (per the Land Use Code) without a recorded Foothills Mall Redevelopment final plan
and Development Construction Permit.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 20
Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: 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: 25
Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: 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 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.
(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: 13 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: 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: 14 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: 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: 15 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: 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: 16
Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: 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: 21
Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: 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: 22 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: 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: 23 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
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: 3 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: 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. Further offline discussion should occur to discuss timing.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: 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 documents. The Utility Plan Approval block will only be needed on
the civil set sheets (all the sheets minus the reference plat).
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: The construction of sidewalk along College Avenue being built from south of the
ditch (where no sidewalk presently exists) for a distance of about 800 feet is eligible for
reimbursement through City Street Oversizing. Specifically of the 10' in width of sidewalk, 2.5' of
width will be eligible for reimbursement. The construction of sidewalk along Monroe Drive will
be eligible for reimbursement through City Street Oversizing. Specifically .5' of width will be
eligible for reimbursement, exempting approximately 60 linear feet of sidewalk along Monroe
Drive for the existing portion of sidewalk that would be removed.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: 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: 10 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/1912012: The drive aisle into the mall heading north off of JFK Parkway past Monroe Drive
appears to be shorter than the existing drive aisle today. In addition, the east/west drive aisles
intersecting this north -south drive aisle each have angled intersecting approaches. How is this
intersection envisioned to be stop controlled? Will the northbound movement not be stop
controlled and the east -west drive aisles be stopped controlled? Will all movements be stop
controlled? I'm wondering if there may be concerns of the northbound movements possibly
stacking back into the Monroe Drive/JFK intersection?
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: 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
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: Sheet LA 104, please add three shade trees to the center island to the north that
does not have trees shown.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: Sheet LA 103, 104, 108, 109 -- parking needs to be screened and trees added
along the water quality / detention areas in similar fashion to other exterior parking areas shown.
These areas and similar areas could be appropriate places to introduce evergreen tree
material and medium to large shrubs in informal clusters as part of the parking screening.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: Please look for opportunites to plant more evergreen tree material such as at
building corners and in larger landscape areas adjacent to the parking garage, theater and
residences. Not all of the selections need to be large evergreens and the plant list could be
expanded as plans are refined to include medium and small evergreen tree material.
Comment Number: 7 1 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
As the plans progress we would like to see refinements and additions made to the plant list
selections.
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: Parking lot screening along streets will need to include low masonry walls in
addition to plant material, and as a feature they should be incorporated as appropriate to the
overall scale of the development.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221.6567, mvirata(o)fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 11
Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: 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.
Comment Number: 17
Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: With the reworking of the middle two driveways that intersect with Stanford Road,
the use of metal sidewalk culverts to divert flows from the driveways away from the sidewalk
crossing the driveway and underneath the sidewalk out to Stanford Road should be explored
using detail 10-B on sheet C805.
Comment Number: 19
Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: 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: 28 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: 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
directional signage shall contain no references to advertising, logo, trademark, symbol or other
commercial message and shall not exceed four (4) square feet.
7. Electrical transformers shall not be located along South College Avenue frontage unless
totally screened from view from the public right-of-way by a solid enclosure that matches the
predominant building material. For all other locations, electrical transformers shall be screened
from view from public or private streets by a solid enclosure, landscaped materials building
facades or any combination thereof.
8. The future buildings on lot 7, lot 11 and lots 12 -15 as shown on the site plan and plat, may
not be architecturally in their final form. Any application for a building permit, therefore must be
accompanied by a Minor or Major Amendment that sufficiently demonstrates final architectural
design. Such design must adhere to and comply with the following standards:
a. Project Compatibility. There shall be architectural unity among all buildings within the entire
Foothills Redevelopment site. Compatibility shall be achieved through techniques such as the
repetition of roof lines, the use of similar proportions in building mass and outdoor spaces,
similar relationships to the street, similar window and door patterns, and/or the use of building
materials that have similar color shades and textures.
b. Building design shall contribute to the uniqueness of Foothills Mall Redevelopment project
with predominant materials, elements, features, color range and activity areas tailored
specifically to the site and its context. Each individual building shall include predominant
characteristics shared by all buildings in the development so that the development forms a
cohesive place within the site. A standardized prototype design shall be modified and
customized to express a level of quality that enhances the distinctive character of Midtown and
the City as a whole. Forms and finish materials of buildings shall be compatible with the
established architectural character of the project.
Comment Number: 20
Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: As a heads up, in terms of the minor amendment for deconstruction of the existing
mall, utility work pertaining to installing new utilities is considered a development related activity
and is not allowed (per the Land Use Code) without a recorded Foothills Mall Redevelopment
final plan and Development Construction Permit.
Contact: CourtneyLevingston/Jason Holland, 970.224.6126, iholland(a)fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: In some areas of the plan including parking medians and access drives, long
expanses of Chanticleer Pear are used. These areas will need to be predominately canopy
shade trees as opposed to the pear, which is considered and ornamental tree. Please also
replace the River Birch locations with canopy shade trees.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: A minor item, Bur Oak is misspelled in the plant legend.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/19/2012
11/19/2012: A general note --a number of areas have no trees along interior parking medians,
at the end of parking bays, and in parking islands. Please add shade trees to these areas.
Sheet LA103, a new island / shade tree needs to be added to the parking isle that includes the
HC parking, due to the 17 spaces exceeding the maximum 15 permitted.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: On sheet AR-A-101: The "total required parking" table needs to be modified. The
word required should be removed in all instances because the City of Fort Collins does not
"require" parking in the TOD. In this table, please include a column showing the typical parking
metric (1.5, 1.75 2). Additionally, please include bedroom totals as well as a table calling out
each building max height and length.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: On sheet AR-A-102, Please show setback from property line to the north to the
closest portion of the building. This will illustrate compliance with LUC Section 3.8.30(F)(1), 25
foot minimum setback from existing residential.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: All four sides (north, south, east and west elevations) will need to be shown for all
residential buildings. Additionally, building #3 on lot 5 was not included.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: The shadow analysis should be re -submitted showing an additional sheet with an
increased scale for lot 3 and fully showing the properties to the north (with where the buildings
are placed on them) for review. It is difficult for staff to evaluate the project against the
applicable Land Use Code standards as currently depicted.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: On sheet AR-A-205, please be more specific as to what type of siding. Please
also show utility meters on elevations.
On sheet AR-A-601, please modify the summary as Stanford is classified as a 2 lane collector
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: Please add sheet A102 and 103 should be modified in the following ways:
Al02 should be a site plan cover sheet with small vicinity map, legal description, land use
table, site notes, and signature blocks. A103 should have the site plan on it. Please see Front
Range Village cover sheet attachment for an example.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: Site plan notes for A102 should be as follows:
1. Refer to utility plans for location of utilities and drainage
2. Developer shall ensure that the Landscape Plan is coordinated with the plans done by
other consultants so that the proposed grading, storm drainage or other construction does not
conflict nor preclude installation and maintenance of landscape elements.
3. Sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed in compliance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Handicap accessible routes shall slope no more than 1:20 in direction of travel
and no more than 1:48 cross slope.
4. Rooftop and ground -mounted mechanical equipment shall be totally screened from public
view from sidewalks, adjacent properties and streets (public and street -like private drives). In
cases where parapets do not accomplish sufficient screening, then free standing screen walls,
matching the predominant color of the building, shall be constructed.
5. Trash dumpsters, trash compactors, pallet racks, and miscellaneous objects shall be totally
screened from public view.
6. All signage shall comply with City of Fort Collins Sign Code (LUC Section 3.8.7). On -site
arrow in order to indicate what elevation the entrance is on and modify sheets accordingly,
please do this for all of the plan view sheets for the commercial buildings along College
Avenue.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/2112012: Sheet LA-108. Block 11 does not comply with required standards in section 3.5.3.
The building is 20 feet from Foothills Parkway. Per LUC 3.5.3(2)(b), the building needs to be 15
feet from Foothills Parkway. It is understood that Foothills is being vacated, however that does
not preclude compliance with the standard. Since Foothills Parkway is being vacated, it should
function as a "street -like private drive" (refer to LUC 3.6.2(L)(1)(c)) in this manner. This requires a
6 foot detached sidewalk. Once rectified, compliance with Section 3.5.3(13)(1), orientation to a
connecting walkway, could be easily achieved.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: On sheet A102, the movie theater shown is labeled as retail. Please update.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: When revising sheet LA 127, make sure to include the design features located in
Section 3.10.4(D)(3). These design features include large planters for safety and to delineate
the pedestrian space, sidewalk pavement, pedestrian crossing, ect.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: For your formal Project Development Plan submittal, please select only one of the
multi -family options for the Planning and Zoning Board to approve. Two separate plans cannot
control over the site. (see LUC Section 2.2.11(D)(7), 'Planning over Old Plans"). With either
option (800 or 400 units), after Planning and Zoning Board approval, if you want to switch, either
change (800 to 400 or vice versa) is required to go back to Planning and Zoning Board for an
additional hearing.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: For your formal Project Development Plan submittal, please select only one of the
multi -family options for the Planning and Zoning Board to approve. Two separate plans cannot
control over the site. (see LUC Section 2.2.11(D)(7), 'Planning over Old Plans"). With either
option (800 or 400 units), after Planning and Zoning Board approval, if you want to switch, either
change (800 to 400 or vice versa) is required to go back to Planning and Zoning Board for an
additional hearing.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: The recesses and projections of the multi -family buildings should be enhanced in
order to comply with 3.5.1(C), As shown, the typical 2 foot articulation is struggling to meet the
standard. Moreover, the colored renderings suggest generous projections and also projected.
balconies in many places (sheet AR-B-605 for example). When looking at plan view, the
projections are only 2 - 3 feet on average.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: The recesses and projections of the multi -family buildings should be enhanced in
order to comply with 3.5.1(C), As shown, the typical 2 foot articulation is struggling to meet the
standard given the typical context of a 500 foot long building. Moreover, the colored renderings
suggest generous projections and also projected balconies in many places (sheet AR-B-605
for example). When looking at plan view, the projections are only 2 - 3 feet on average.
Code requirements.
Topic: General
Department: Current Planning
Contact: Courtney Levingston, 970-416-2283, clevingston@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: The pedestrian connectivity exhibit (Sheet A104) calls out the sidewalk through the
west parking lot as a primary pedestrian route. This should be a raised, 8 foot sidewalk with .
trees in grates shown on sheet LA107.
This requirement is via LUC 3.2.2(C)(1)(a) stating that, "hazards shall be minimized by use of
techniques such as special paving, raised surfaces..ect to clearly delineate pedestrian areas
for both day and night use. LUC 3.5.4(C)(4)(b) requires "Continuous internal pedestrian
walkways, no less than eight (8) feet in width, shall be provided from the public sidewalk or
right-of-way to the principal customer entrance of all large retail establishments on the site. At a
minimum, walkways shall connect focal points of pedestrian activity such as, but not limited to,
transit stops, street crossings, building and store entry points, and shall feature adjoining
landscaped areas that include trees, shrubs, benches, flower beds, ground covers or other
such materials for no less than fifty (50) percent of the length of the walkway."
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
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 is still applicable.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: Sheets Al04, 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: 4
Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: A102 Per LUC 3.2.2(K)(6), Please call out loading zones and service areas on
plan. Additionally, please call out on all landscape plan detail sheets. Please note LUC Section
3.5.1(1) as it relates to loading docks. Internal pedestrian circulation routes need to take loading
docks and trash recepticals into account and they may need to be modified accordingly.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11121/2012: Sheet A220 and A221- Block 11 building on the key appears to be 5 sided, almost
in a "home plate (baseball)" shape. The elevations do not seem to correspond with the shape
of building in the key. Please rectify this detail accordingly. On sheet A220, please put a north
Fort Csalt nst J
Community Development and
Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgo v. com/de velopmentre vie w
November 21, 2012
RE: Foothills Mall Redevelopment Second Preliminary Design Review
Please see the following summary of comments relating to the Foothills Mall Redevelopment project plans.The
comments below will assist you in preparing the detailed components of the formal Project Development Plan
application. Modifications and additions to these comments may be made at any time, including at the time of
formal review of the project. If you have questions regarding these comments, you may contact the individual
commenter or direct your questions via 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@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: Please include utility meters on each building elevation. Utility meters should be
on the north or south elevations of the building fronting College Avenue on Lots 12 -15. For the
residential buildings, they should not be east elevations for buildings on lots 4, 5 and 6 nor on
the elevations visible from the access drives. LUC 3.5.1(I)(2) states, " utility meters, HVAC and
other mechanical equipment, trash collection, trash compaction and other service functions
shall be incorporated into the overall design theme of the building and the landscape so that
the architectural design is continuous and uninterrupted by ladders, towers, fences and
equipment, and no attention is attracted to the functions by use of screening materials that are
different from or inferior to the principal materials of the building and landscape. These areas
shall be located and screened so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are
fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and streets."
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 11/21/2012
11/21/2012: As proposed, the elevations for the Macy's do not meet our large retail
establishment standards located in Section 3.5.4. as there are large blank walls ranging in 150
feet to 187 feet in length. The length needs to be mitigated in some capacity. The Macy's at
Mall at Millennia in Orlando, Florida is an great, well -detailed example in that the exterior was
remodeled to include broad horizontal bands and niches, with additional glass cutouts that
enhance the existing geometrical shape. These types of treatment could easily be deployed at
the Foothills location, meeting Macy's brand identity and simultaneously meeting our Land Use