HomeMy WebLinkAboutFOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT - PDP - PDP120036 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - CORRESPONDENCE-CONCEPTUAL REVIEW98 Spruce Street, Suite 201 | Denver Colorado 80230
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
303 220 8900 | 303 220 0708 Fax
=ïïïKppppbbbbjjjj~~~~êêêêÅÅÅÅÜÜÜÜááááííííÉÉÉÉÅÅÅÅííííëëëëKKKKÅÅÅÅççççãããã ïïïK
December 28, 2012
Ms Courtney Levingston
City of Ft Collins, Current Planning
281 North College Avenue
Ft Collins, CO 80524
Re: Foothills
Responses to PDR (3) Staff comments 12/19/12
Thank you for your efforts on the Foothills application. This PDP submittal addresses the
following general items identified in PDR comments:
• Residential shadow study and site plan revisions.
• Pedestrian connectivity from the public streets to the various components of the project.
Sheet A104 has been revised to reflect these elements.
• Stacked entertainment and theater use at Lot 7
• Development of the 800 unit multi-family scheme.
• Plat revisions consistent with previous redlines.
In response to Staff’s PDR comments dated 12/18/12:
Comment Summary:
Department: Current Planning
Contact: Courtney Levingston, 970 416 2283, clevingston@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.
We have provided 2 cross sections of building 1B in Lot 3 and the existing single
family dwellings in this submittal.
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.
Foothills PDR 3 Responses
12/28/12
Page | 2
This will be elevated in a future submittal.
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.
The wall is being designed based on final grading and its effects on the tree mitigation
plan. Colors and textures may vary, but the wall is proposed to be constructed of
integral colored MSE. We will provide sections to address the grade differences in a
future submittal, and they will show a variety of layers of space buffered by grading,
plant materials, and the required guardrail.
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.
The solar analysis exhibits are updated in this submittal.
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.
This is under study and will be incorporated in a future submittal.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/13/2012
Foothills PDR 3 Responses
12/28/12
Page | 3
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.
We will consider these concerns per discussion with Planning Staff on 12/19/12 and
will incorporate our proposal in a future submittal.
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 1B was not shown.
This will be incorporated in a future submittal.
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.
We will remove the sheet AR-A-206 in the Final Plans.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012
12/18/2012: Buildings 1A and 1B 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.
We will study these elevations and consider the planning comments for a future
submittal.
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 LA 104). Staff is concerned
about the longevity and maintenance of the proposed 3 foot evergreen shrub screening.
The north side of Foothills Parkway has been revised to provide a 10’ sidewalk and
maintain existing trees.
The screening hedge will be a double staggered row of 36” evergreen shrubs.
Foothills PDR 3 Responses
12/28/12
Page | 4
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/13/2012
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.
The plan will be revised to include detached sidewalks along the drive that connects
College Avenue with Foothills Parkway prior to the public 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.
To meet the intent of LUC 3.2.1(E)(5)(e), the end island at the accessible spaces has
been increased to contain more landscape and the striping has been adjusted so the row
contains only 15 parking spaces.
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 borders 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).
These details are under development and will be included in a future submittal.
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.
The existing sidewalk along Stanford Road will remain. Staff’s proposal of detaching
the sidewalk precludes saving the existing trees along Stanford, and the Mitigation Plan
in progress contemplates saving those trees.
Foothills PDR 3 Responses
12/28/12
Page | 5
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 throughout the site.
The site plan has been revised to depict a crosswalk connecting the walks at the south
intersection at Block 1G (Restaurant 3 and Block 7 (Entertainment/Theatre).
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.)
Crosswalk details will be added in the Final Plans submittal.
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.
This meeting was held on 12/18/12 during PDR 3 review.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/17/2012
12/17/2012: On sheet LA 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.
These trees and lights indicated are existing. The lights are located outside of the
Application’s property line.
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
The site plan will be revised prior to the public hearing to include a detached sidewalk
on the north side of the entry drive from Stanford opposite E. Monroe Drive. Retaining
wall heights will be identified once they are established.
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, etc.
Foothills PDR 3 Responses
12/28/12
Page | 6
This will be addressed in Final Plans when the site plan has been established in these
areas. Generally, planters will be added at entry points for safety.
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.
This will be revised in a future submittal.
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.
This will be revised in a future submittal.
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).
The bus stops are shown in this submittal.
11/21/2012: 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.
The Proposed Bus Stop has been depicted on the Pedestrian Connectivity Plan and will
be added to LA 123 prior to the public hearing. Sidewalks connect all proposed bus
stops to buildings around the site.
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.
Foothills PDR 3 Responses
12/28/12
Page | 7
This will be revised in a future submittal.
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.
The Mitigation Plan in progress contemplates saving these existing trees.
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.
At this time, City Staff will not support a modification avoiding the planting of street
trees on College Avenue.
Trees have been placed where these clearances allow.
Topic: Site Plan
Contact: Ted Shepard, 970 221 6343, tshepard@fcgov.com
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.
Evergreen hedges are proposed for screening these areas. The plant material will be
36” tall 5 gallon evergreen shrubs planted in double rows at 36” O.C.
Foothills PDR 3 Responses
12/28/12
Page | 8
Topic: Construction Drawings
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Virata, 970 221 6567, mvirata@fcgov.com
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."
This note will be added to C500 Overall Utility Plan and C002 General Notes.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: Please ensure that general notes and construction notes in Appendix E 1
and E 2 of LCUASS are included in the civil set.
These notes have been added to sheet C003.
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.
Profile information has been added to the respective sheets, cross sections will be added
to the Final Plans.
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.
Our previous response was incorrect. Additional ROW is required. The proposed
ROW is shown on sheets C900-C902. The ROW is shown 1’ off proposed back of
Foothills PDR 3 Responses
12/28/12
Page | 9
curb. The proposed ROW parcels will be conveyed to the City via the Plat, but CDOT
ROW plans are not required.
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 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).
Will Comply.
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.
The detail is shown on sheet C800. There are 2 drives on the project where this detail is
used, the Southern and Northern RI/RO’s onto College Aveune. The remaining
approaches are being reused. The detail is referenced on each of their respective detail
sheets (C900 and C902).
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
Foothills PDR 3 Responses
12/28/12
Page | 10
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.
This comment was received too late to incorporate into this submittal however here is
our proposed approach to addressing it: The strip across FHP will be removed and
there will be no concrete demarcation there. At Remington and Matthews, there is a
concrete strip proposed (see C201). At all locations there will be signs.
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.
Please refer to above response.
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.
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.
Foothills PDR 3 Responses
12/28/12
Page | 11
Refer to response to comment #10 above.
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.
Will Comply – The lanes have been widened to 12’ – refer to C900-C902.
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.
Will Comply – The required street patching limits are shown on the utility plans.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
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 encroachment/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.
Understood, with the refinement of the grading in this area, the need to provide ramping
has been reduced. The ramps & rails have been removed from the ROW this is
reflected in this plan set. However, the grading is still steeper in the ROW than it needs
to be. This will be corrected in the next submittal. We believe we can get the grades
down to 4% in the ROW.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
Foothills PDR 3 Responses
12/28/12
Page | 12
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.
See comment response for #7 above.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: Please ensure that I'm provided with any updated traffic study for review.
The updated traffic study is included in the PDP Application package.
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 "%"
for reference.
Acknowledged.
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.
Further offline discussion should occur to discuss timing.
Our plan remains to Vacate FHP. The Farnsworth Group will be coordinating the
submittals for this process.
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.
Foothills PDR 3 Responses
12/28/12
Page | 13
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.
Based on our meeting with City staff on 12/19/12, we have prepared sheet C214 which
conceptually lays out the proposed crossing improvements to College Avenue and other
intersections. Please grant conceptual approval so that the design team can obtain the
required survey and design these crossings.
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.
The requested signs have been added to sheet C207 and C209. Please note that the
striping plans are very preliminary and are currently under refinement. They are
included herein for the sole purpose of detailing these signs and how we are planning to
conceptually stop control the entrances. Please do not review other aspects at this time,
as there are many issues we have yet to work out and will be refining as we move to
final plans.
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.
Foothills PDR 3 Responses
12/28/12
Page | 14
% 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.
The requested railing has been added and the walk widened – see sheet C803 and C801
for a railing detail.
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.
Additional railing has been added – refer to sheets C203 and C803
.
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.
That is correct – the sidewalk alignment is based on the location of the culvert (with a
4’ overhang towards the road) on these plans. This is done to maximize the planting
area.
The area that remains to be planted however is within 10’ of an existing 15” sanitary
sewer which is a zone that should not be planted with trees per utility standards. During
our meetings on 12/19/12 it is our understanding that the City staff will be providing the
design team direction on if we can plant over the 15” sanitary.
% 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? Are there potential viability concerns
with the landscaping that would be placed directly over the ditch?
Foothills PDR 3 Responses
12/28/12
Page | 15
The cover over the pipe is minimal at 2 to 3 feet to top of pipe. We are installing the
walk over top to also provide maintenance access for workers (no vehicles).
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.
Traffic Staff has commented that they would not like to see any changes to Monroe, and
per our meeting with traffic in late November and a subsequent email last week, Ward
Stanford will be providing us direction on what needs to be done with the Monroe Ave
striping. We request that direction be provided soon as we would like to incorporate
any changes in the next submittal.
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.
There are significant issues with creating a RT lane at this location, most notably is the
large triple 42” elliptical pipe and underground turning structure that will need to be
relocated to install the turn lane. This issue, along with obtaining the needed ROW to
construct makes this turn lane a high cost/minimal benefit item. We firmly believe that
the money spent on this turn lane would be better spent on other items on the site.
This issue has been discussed with staff and it has been turned over to the Developer to
undertake further discussions with the City. The design team awaits direction on this
issue.
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.
Foothills PDR 3 Responses
12/28/12
Page | 16
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?
1. All final signage locations will be fully outside of the public right of way. Property
lines will be added to plan diagrams as necessary to clarify signage locations
accordingly.
2. Drawings will be revised to update the plan diagram to match the site plan
documents. Final signage locations and final sidewalk locations will be coordinated
to avoid any conflict.
3. Signs will be studied and will conform with standard sight triangle visibility and
sightline requirements.
4. Final configurations will be presented in a future submittal.
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 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.
The newly created Metropolitan District will accept maintenance responsibilities along
this corridor.
Foothills PDR 3 Responses
12/28/12
Page | 17
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)"
Plat will be modified as suggested.
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."
Plat will be modified as suggested.
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.
Sand filter easement will be denoted as a Drainage Easement and will be dedicated to
the City.
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.
Plat boundary will be modified to hold the straight alignment of Mathews and not
follow the curve to the west.
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,
Foothills PDR 3 Responses
12/28/12
Page | 18
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.
Plat will show that access, utility, drainage, transit and emergency access easements
will be retained in Tract B/Vacated Foothills Parkway.
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 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, lex@fcgov.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.
Foothills PDR 3 Responses
12/28/12
Page | 19
Getting a signed MOU executed may prove difficult as there are alternative ditch
alignments being considered by the City as a component of creating an underground
College Avenue pedestrian crossing. Therefore, the total amount of mitigation is
unknown at this time. We request that a condition be attached to our approval that this
agreement must be created and signed. An email has been sent to Lindsay Ex
(12/21/12) which spells out our position in more detail.
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.
See response to Comment #1 above.
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: I did not see a species description for the Native Prairie Grass mix
please provide this by final plan submittal.
This will be provided in a subsequent submittal.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Doug Martine, 970 224 6152, dmartine@fcgov.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).
Foothills PDR 3 Responses
12/28/12
Page | 20
The lights have been located as a component of our survey work and those locations are
currently shown on the landscape plans. Currently, the trees in the vicinity of these
light poles are existing and the drawings reflect those existing conditions.
Department: Outside Agencies
Contact: Bob Rulli, Centurylink ,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012
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.
Understood – Larry Monger of Mallcom Networks is handling the communication
needs and reconfigurations for the new mall. He can be reached at 720-641-1825.
Once a final site plan is accepted, we will be reaching out to you for a design of your
facilities. The developer is aware of the costs implications of a redesign.
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
Foothills PDR 3 Responses
12/28/12
Page | 21
Understood.
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970 416 2869, jlynxwiler@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.
Will comply.
Comment Number: 02 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012
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, asmeasured by an approved route around the exterior of the
building or facility. 2006 International Fire Code 503.1.1
• Lot 3 (bldgs. A1 & A2): The proposed 150 foot Emergency Access Easement on the
north side of residential bldg. A1 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).
We have revised sheet AR-A-107 per the PFA meeting on 12/19/12 with Jim
Lynxwiler.
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. A1 & A2): Proposed parking in resident Lot 3 (bldgs. A1 & 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.
We have revised the fire access plan and the fire sprinkler system on Buildings 1A and
1B in this submittal.
Foothills PDR 3 Responses
12/28/12
Page | 22
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).
We met with Jim Lynxwiler on 12/19/12 and he has given his conceptual approval of
these fire lanes with respect to buildings or portions of buildings exceeding 30 foot in
height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access.
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
• This shall apply to the underground parking garages of Lots 3, 4, & 5 (residential
bldgs. A1, 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."
We will comply with these findings based on our meeting with Jim Lynxwiler on
12/19/12.
Comment Number: 07 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: YARD HYDRANTS
Foothills PDR 3 Responses
12/28/12
Page | 23
The proposed hose valve/fire hydrants at residential buildings A1, 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).
We have removed the proposed hose valve/ fire hydrants at these locations.
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
We will coordinate with the civil engineer and will locate these hydrants on a future
submittal.
Comment Number: 09 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: 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.
We will consider this suggestion.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970 416 2418, wlamarque@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.
Will comply, these calculations will be included in the next submittal.
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.
Foothills PDR 3 Responses
12/28/12
Page | 24
Will comply, we have been working in conjunction with the landscape architect on the
design of these facilities. Current proposals incorporate a prairie grass mix that will
grow to 24” at maturity and will tolerate the water anticipated. Conceptually, the intent
is for these areas to appear as a natural meadow.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: All the storm drains within the Right of Way need to be RCP.
Will Comply – The only piece of public storm sewer is the portion of 12” under the
northern RI/RO on College Ave. A callout will be added to storm plan to designate this
storm sewer as public.
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.
Will comply – We will review the cross sections on sheet WQ-003 and revise as
necessary.
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.
Understood.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
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.
The project landscape architect will be reviewing the walls and adding
screening/textures to enhance their appearance.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/19/2012
12/19/2012: Please label the WQ1 sheet "Drainage Plan".
Item corrected.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/21/2012
Foothills PDR 3 Responses
12/28/12
Page | 25
12/21/2012: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.
This is being incorporated in current designs.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12/21/2012
12/21/2012: Please label public or private storm sewers on the storm plan and profiles.
Will Comply – see comment response #3 above.
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.
We will revise our labels from “utility easements” to “drainage and utility easements”
on both the easement dedication sheets and the dedication language on the cover sheet.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970 221 6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/21/2012
12/21/2012:
Topic: General
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 12/21/2012
12/21/2012:
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 12/21/2012
12/21/2012:
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 12/21/2012
12/21/2012:
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 12/21/2012
12/21/2012:
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 12/21/2012
12/21/2012:
Foothills PDR 3 Responses
12/28/12
Page | 26
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 12/21/2012
12/21/2012:
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 12/21/2012
12/21/2012:
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 12/21/2012
12/21/2012:
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 12/21/2012
12/21/2012:
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/21/2012
12/21/2012: There are several sheets that need the retaining wall labeled.
The retaining walls will be identified on a future submittal.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/21/2012
12/21/2012: Please label the street names on all applicable sheets.
This is being done.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/21/2012
12/21/2012: Please add matchline numbers to the sheets marked up. See redlines.
This will be incorporated upon receipt of the redlines.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/21/2012
12/21/2012: There are line over text issues on several sheets.
This is being corrected.
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?
This is being corrected.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/21/2012
12/21/2012: Please remove duplicate text on sheet LA 131.
This is being corrected.
Foothills PDR 3 Responses
12/28/12
Page | 27
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.
This is being corrected.
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.
This is being corrected.
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.
This has been corrected.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/21/2012
12/21/2012: There are several line over text issues on sheets A103.
This has been corrected.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Ward Stanford, 970 221 6820, wstanford@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.
Please refer to our comment response to Marc Virata’s comments #21. Please note the
striping and signage shown are still very conceptual and under refinement.
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.
Foothills PDR 3 Responses
12/28/12
Page | 28
The City’s general notes have been added to sheet C003. We do not have a copy of the
City’s marking notes, but have a reserved spot for them on sheet C002 – please email a
copy of those marking notes to clif.poynter@rasmithnational.com.
Topic: General
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.
The proposed limits of vacation are shown on the plat and throughout the Civil Set.
Please review the limits and let us know if there are issues.
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.
A revised TIS is included in this application.
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.
The TIS has been updated to include the current land use scenario for the
redevelopment, including 800 MF units. All traffic projections and LOS calculations
have been updated accordingly.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012
12/18/2012: Traffic Op's to give guidance on the restriping of the western half of
Monroe to provide bike lanes.
So noted. The LOS calculations are not identifying any critical traffic operational
issues along Monroe, so this is not anticipated to be a traffic concern, rather a design
consideration.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012
Foothills PDR 3 Responses
12/28/12
Page | 29
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.
Will Comply – the crosswalks have been removed on this submittal.
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.
This item is under review.
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.
This item is under review.
Department: Water Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Roger Buffington, 970 221 6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawing
s
Comment Number: 1 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.
Understood – The surveyor used a private locating service and picked up that line
running along the north side of those buildings. That being said, they also picked up a
stub running from the existing manhole to the north near that western building. We are
unsure which one is correct as there even could be 2 services to that west building as it
is very long. The existence of a clean out on the back of the building lends us to believe
that both are in service.
Foothills PDR 3 Responses
12/28/12
Page | 30
In either case, we have called for the full removal of both services and the new lines
will be 8” in size to service those new buildings. This is reflected in the current
submittal. A note will also be added to sheet C302 that if additional services are found
they are to be cut/capped at the main.
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.
Will comply – this change is reflected on the current submittal.
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.
Will comply – this change is reflected on the current submittal.
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.
Will comply – this change is reflected on the current submittal.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012
12/18/2012: Sht C503 Provide 10 feet of separation between UGE and sanitary.
Will comply – this change will be reflected on the next submittal
.
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.
Will comply – this change will be reflected on the next submittal.
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.
Will comply – this change is reflected on the current submittal.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012
12/18/2012: Shts C600 & 601 Add gate valves as shown on redlined plans.
Foothills PDR 3 Responses
12/28/12
Page | 31
Will Comply – Based on the latest markup we have, a valve at the connection on
Monroe (near College Ave) is all that was requested. Please verify.
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.
Will Comply – Per our meeting with Utilities and PFA on 12/19/12, PFA will review
the current locations with Utilities and will notify us if any can be eliminated. We await
your findings.
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.
The area has been further refined on the current submittal. It is the Applicant’s desire to
not involve the property owner to the South in this matter.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 12/18/2012
12/18/2012: Please return redlined utility plans with next submittal.
The previous submittal was returned to Courtney Levingston. The current redlines were
transferred to us during the meeting and were returned to Engineering at the end of it.
Department: Zoning
Contact: Noah Beals, 970 416 2313, nbeals@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
We will include this revision in a future submittal.
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?
These elevations will be included in a future submittal.
Foothills PDR 3 Responses
12/28/12
Page | 32
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.
We have included canopies at all public entrances of Stanford Road but there is no sheet
A221. Please clarify?
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.
The detention basin is an area that will vary from dry to wet conditions based on
weather. It may not be appropriate for active recreation or pedestrian activities. We
have submitted alternate ideas for this area and await comment.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/11/2012
12/11/2012: LUC 3.5.1(I) 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.
We will submit details demonstrating compliance in a future submittal.
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.
The site plan has been revised to include a 10’setback along the west half of Monroe
Drive.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/11/2012
12/11/2012: LUC 3.2.1(D)(2) Attached sidewalks shall be at 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).
Attached sidewalks along buildings are 10’ or greater and include tree grates or planters
for street trees.
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.
Foothills PDR 3 Responses
12/28/12
Page | 33
The antennae have been noted as such.
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.
Conceptual elevations are submitted in this application and are under development at
this time.
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 reemphasizes 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.
The separate sign permit application can be found online at
http://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/pdf/sign app.nl.pdf
The signage program is being evaluated in the context of this and other factors.