Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT, PHASE TWO - MAJOR AMENDMENT - MJA130006 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 -98 Spruce Street, Suite 201 | Denver Colorado 80230 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 303 220 8900 | 303 220 0708 Fax =ïïïKppppbbbbjjjj~~~~êêêêÅÅÅÅÜÜÜÜááááííííÉÉÉÉÅÅÅÅííííëëëëKKKKÅÅÅÅççççãããã ïïïK October 16, 2013 Ms Courtney Levingston City of Ft Collins, Current Planning 281 North College Avenue Ft Collins, CO 80524 Re: Foothills Mall Redevelopment, FDP130019 Responses to Final Plans Staff comments as PA2 Major Amendment Thank you for your efforts on the Foothills application. We have addressed the Final Plans comments from your 6/12/13 letter in the order they were received. This response addresses the items that are salient to the PDP Major Amendment referenced in the body of the comments on the component of the project designated as Planning Area 2. Planning Area 1 was submitted as Final Plans on 10/9/13 and Planning Area 3 will be submitted as market forces dictate. Department: Current Planning Contact: Courtney Levingston, 970-416-2283, clevingston@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/29/2013 05/29/2013: The Code states that, "the Director is hereby authorized to, and shall, review, consider and approve, approve with conditions or deny the development application for a final plan based on its consistency with a valid project development plan for the subject property and its compliance with all of the standards established in Step 8 of this Section" and that, "a final plan shall comply with the General Development Standards applicable to the development proposal (Article 3) and the applicable District Standards (Article 4); and a final plan shall be consistent with the project development plan." (LUC Section 2.5.2(G),(H)) The Final Plan submitted was determined not to be consistent with the approved Project Development Plan. Therefore, the Project Development Plan will need to be amended, or a Final Plan that is consistent with the approved Project Development Plan will need to be submitted. The loss of a 10,125 square foot commercial building on Block 10A and increased parking impacts the character of the development. Is it possible to maintain the character of the west green area through an alternative urban design that incorporates a landscaped green space, with a continuous, tree-lined walkway, instead of parking? The Project Development Plan approved by Planning Board February 7, 2013 is being amended in this submittal. This package represents the Major Amendment specific to Planning Area 2 created in the ODP submitted 10/9/13. Drainage calculations and stormwater reports have been submitted to Glen Schulter to assist in his review. Related, PA2 signage and FFA will be submitted in Final Plans upon approval of the PDP MJA for PA2. Planning Area 3 Final Plans will be submitted as the final program is established within the previous PDP approval and as market forces dictate. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/29/2013 Foothills Mall Redevelopment- PA2 PDP Major Amendment 10/16/13 Page | 2 05/29/2013: Corner Bakery Café and associated parking lot areas are identified as remaining on the Final Plans. This inclusion results in a loss of commercial square footage and a change of character of the College Avenue frontage. In retaining the existing Corner Bakery Café, the character of the College Avenue streetscape is impacted and the project is not in compliance with the current Land Use Code in terms of the parking along College Avenue. The Corner Bakery Cafe was previously approved under the minor amendment process to the Foothills Fashion Mall P.U.D. Minor Amendments (LUC Section 2.2.10), allow for development to the extent of the projects original compliance (approval). The Corner Bakery Café minor amendment changed only the building footprint and elevations. It didn't change the parking lot and parking lot landscaping. Those were approved as part of the original PUD that authorized Perkins, and the regulations at that time were different than they are now. The minor amendment wasn't for a change of use of the property, and additionally, the Code allows minor amendments to authorize changes to old P.U.D.'s as long as the changes don't result in any greater deviation from the current code standards than what the original P.U.D. allowed. In contrast, the Foothills Mall Redevelopment is a Project Development Plan and is required to meet current Land Use Code standards. The Project Development Plan will need a Major Amendment approved by the Planning and Zoning Board. A modification of standard will need to be requested to the Orientation to Build-to Lines for Streetfront Buildings standard contained in Section 3.5.3(B)(2). Once the Major Amendment is submitted, staff will need at least 2 weeks to review and another 2 -3 weeks to coordinate and notify for a Planning and Zoning Board hearing. The Corner Bakery and Christy Sports are currently subject to a pending land transaction. Inclusion of these components is restricted until the business terms of their collective transactions are completed. The design team has planned these areas in compliance with the provisions of the LUC and that planning is available as a reference document in these discussions. Upon execution of the pending transaction, the PDP will be modified to incorporate Buildings 14A, 14B, and 15. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/29/2013 05/29/2013: The Final (landscape) Plans reflect the Larimer Canal No. 2 aligned on the east side of College Avenue. As stated during the PDP stage, with only three feet of fill over the box culvert in some areas as well as existing utility spacing conflicts, meeting the Land Use Code in terms of street trees with the ditch aligned on the east side of College Avenue is challenging. Staff understands the timing issues associated with ditch relocation and recommends that a minor amendment to the PDP be submitted to show the ditch on the west side and and the new landscaping and configuration of the College Avenue frontage without the ditch. This minor amendment can be held and we can move forward with approving the east side ditch alignment. Once the issues are resoled with the timing of the west side ditch alignment, we can approve the minor amendment if the Final Plan as already been approved. If it has not been approved, then we can easily coordinate incorporating that design into the Final Plan set to be approved. Foothills Mall Redevelopment- PA2 PDP Major Amendment 10/16/13 Page | 3 The realignment of the Larimer Canal No. 2 ditch to the west side of College Avenue is being pursued by the City under a separate documents package. This Submittal revises the College Avenue frontage within the context of that discussion. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/29/2013 05/29/2013: The parking table on Sheet A102 should be updated as well as the plans to reflect the correct parking maximums per the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. The parking tables have been revised. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/29/2013 05/29/2013: The building located on Block 14 B should be realigned as to allow a direct pedestrian connection from the underpass to the mall. We have considered pedestrian connectivity to the Mall in this Submittal, but current grading, utilities, and merchandising restrictions do not allow such a direct connection. The implementation of the pedestrian link is tied to the land acquisition for the underpass and the execution of the business terms of the leases referenced in Comment 2 above. Upon acquisition, the proposed pedestrian connection routes between future Buildings 14A and 14B then along a direct pedestrian link to the Mall. That planning is present in current improvements. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/04/2013 06/04/2013: The street trees along College Avenue should be re-configured to meet City standards. The Code requires that canopy shade trees be planted at 30 -40 foot spacing in the center of parkway at evenly spaced intervals (Section 3.2.1(D)(2)(a)). The street trees along College Avenue have been re-configured per City Standards. Updated landscape plans are included in this Submittal. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/04/2013 06/04/2013: In addition to street trees needing to be centered and evenly spaced in the parkway between College Avenue and the sidewalk, the street tree rows should be in groups of three, five or more of a single species. The intent is to prove a degree of species diversity within a deliberate, repeating design pattern. This is outlined in the City of Fort Collins Streetscape Standards which can be found online at: http://www.fcgov.com/advanceplanning/pdf/streetscape-doc.pdf Acknowledged and we have made this revision. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/29/2013 Foothills Mall Redevelopment- PA2 PDP Major Amendment 10/16/13 Page | 4 05/29/2013: By definition, the Code considers the Youth Activity Center/Foothills Activity Center a "community facility" not an indoor unlimited recreation use. That being said, it cannot count towards the commercial/retail totals as it is an institutional use. Please update the tables on Sheet No. A102 and A103 accordingly. Tables on Sheets A102 and A103 are revised in this Submittal. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/29/2013 05/29/2013: The numbers included on the site calculations table on sheet A103 are not consistant with numbers called out on the drawing on sheet A104. For examble the Corner Bakery Cafe is noted on the table as 5,125 sq. ft. and on Sheet A104 it is noted 4,098. Please correct. We have corrected the inconsistencies that we were able to identify in this Submittal. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/29/2013 05/29/2013: Staff has calculated a total commercial square footage of 619,976 on the submitted final plan. Please update the total in the Site Calculations table on sheet A103. We have updated the square footage totals in the new data tables. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/29/2013 05/29/2013: On sheetA103, the building on Block 10A is called out on the drawing and table as 7,627 square feet in size. On sheet A104, it is called out as 7,427 sq. ft. Please correct. Corrected in the context of the new plan. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/29/2013 05/29/2013: The signature blocks should be updated on sheet A102. The standard signature block was sent today via e-mail to Brad Nelson to incorporate into the 2nd round resubmittal of the Final Plans. We have updated the signature blocks. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 06/12/2013 06/12/2013: On the site plan, please include a note with reference to the approved modifications. We have included a note referencing the approved PDP. Is that the desired correlation? Foothills Mall Redevelopment- PA2 PDP Major Amendment 10/16/13 Page | 5 Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 06/05/2013 06/05/2013: The offsite College Avenue pedestrian improvement shown for the northwest corner of College Avenue and Monroe Drive (Sheet C213) is reflecting a design that preserves existing appurtenances. With the ditch realignment to the west side of College Avenue, the entire area would be demoed and there would no longer be constraints to impact the design. The east-west connection should then be more direct rather than require the angle turn for pedestrians. Also, please provide an access ramp facing south that would tie in to the ramp on the south side of Monroe Drive (somewhat similar to Foothills Parkway). The pedestrian ramps for the northwest corner of College Avenue and Monroe Drive have been reconfigured as requested, and include a ramp pointing south, along with new paint marking for a painted crosswalk to the south. The northeast ramps at this intersection were also reconfigured to include directional ramps. This design is to be built from the plan set: “Construction Plans for Larimer County No. 2 Ditch Relocation”, and that plan set has detailed design information. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 06/05/2013 06/05/2013: We'd want to explore modifying the design of the pedestrian access ramp being altered on the northeast corner of Monroe Drive and College Avenue by adding a more directional ramp design facing west to wrap around the curb return. It may be possible to do this without impacting the electric vault. The cost of relocating the traffic related appurtenances are being looked at by Traffic Operations to provide more room to achieve enhancement of this area. Further update from Traffic Operations is that the cost to relocate the signal cabinet and pull boxes would be a maximum of $2,000. I can look to coordinate further discussion with Traffic Operations and Justin Fields with Light & Power. The design of directional pedestrian ramps at this quadrant of the intersection is complicated by the location of the existing utilities, as well as the width of the sidewalk to the north. No city detail is directly applicable. The plans now show this intersection reconfigured with directional detectable warning plates set within a large lowered sidewalk area (so no ramps – the whole pad is less than 2% slope to comply with ADA for any direction of travel). The traffic controller, electrical vault, and possibly the telephone equipment will need to be relocated to allow this new design. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 06/05/2013 06/05/2013: Is the detail for enhanced concrete crosswalk (Sheet C801) for private property only? Areas in public right-of-way should be built to LCUASS detail 1612 with this detail provided in the plan set. Foothills Mall Redevelopment- PA2 PDP Major Amendment 10/16/13 Page | 6 The detail on Sheet C801 is only for private property. Notes were added to the plans to make it clearer that the enhanced concrete walks that are in public right-of-way are to be built conforming to LCUASS detail 1612. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 06/05/2013 06/05/2013: The cross-slopes for where the turn lane begins on the southerly turn lane appears to be relatively flat or sloped in the opposite direction. Isn't there an opportunity to move the low point about 100 feet south, maintaining the .67% grade to this point, which would then allow for a greater cross slope grade along this area? The low point was moved 50-feet south to increase cross slopes, yet still maintain longitudinal grades. The proposed cross slope for the narrow (5-foot) lane addition in the taper at station 2+00 is less than the desired 2%, but the cross slope for College Avenue is 3%, so the resulting overall slope from median to proposed flangeline is 2.7%, above your 2% requirement (I know there is a concern for future pavement overlay) Moving the low point (and catchbasin) further south would put the proposed catchbasin in direct conflict with the existing electric and telephone lines. I believe this revised design should meet all the requirements we discussed. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 06/05/2013 06/05/2013: The cross-slopes on Sheet C903 at STA 4+50, 4+00, and 3+84.09 appear confusing as the grade behind the back of vertical curb doesn't appear to tie into the curb. The proposed grade tie-in has been corrected. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 06/05/2013 06/05/2013: STA 16+00 on Sheet C905 depicts a curb and gutter though this cross section even though this station occurs at a driveway opening where no curb and gutter is present. This driveway has been eliminated from the design. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 06/05/2013 06/05/2013: The turn lane plans indicate field verify adequate cover over utilities. Wasn't this information verified and the plans can at least provide indication on the minimum cover that would be expected? Further internal discussion will be had on whether the turn lanes on College Avenue should be concrete or asphalt. The pothole information appears on the plans (and indicates cover) to allow the contractor to understand the depth of the existing utilities at the pothole locations. The ‘verification’ note is to alert the contractor to verify depths at locations that were not potholed. Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/05/2013 06/05/2013: In checking with Rick Richter, the City would look to have the ditch Foothills Mall Redevelopment- PA2 PDP Major Amendment 10/16/13 Page | 7 relocation/pedestrian underpass plans integrated into the overall construction plan set. A site and landscaping plan for this should also be created. The underpass plans are on a different approval track and due to tenant issues we are in need of getting phase 1 of the underpass under construction well before the overall site package will be approved early next year. Therefore these plans need to be separated from the overall set. However the east side of College is shown in the overall site plan set as the pedestrian underpass being fully built out to show how they work together. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/05/2013 06/05/2013: The site phasing shown on the Construction Plan, Sheets 910 through 914 give information on proposed phasing geographically, but it does not depict the intention regarding utility construction and whether utilities are to be installed per phase, or will all the utilities throughout the site will be completed with the first phase. Should utilities be built on a per phase basis, the utility plan sheets would need to document how a utility line crossing phases would be terminated. Site phasing is not part of the PDP plan set. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/05/2013 06/05/2013: The site phasing plan should also provide indication tying the offsite improvements (pedestrian improvements on the west side of College Avenue, the underpass/ditch realignment to the west side of College Avenue), and the turn lane at Horsetooth and Stanford to Phase 1. After further consultation with City Transportation Staff as a hole, Phase 1 should have certain on-site improvements in place, such as turn lanes along College Avenue (except for the turn lane for the new driveway out to College Avenue north of Foothills Parkway) and sidewalk along College Avenue and Monroe Drive. Site phasing is not part of the PDP plan set. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/05/2013 06/05/2013: The design of the construction of the right turn lane at Horsetooth and Stanford would need to be completed with the plans, and construction of the turn lane would need to be in place prior to a certificate of occupancy in the redevelopment. Understood, we have made the developer aware of this requirement. However, the plan in the set is still conceptual in nature and has not changed since the last submittal. Based on information provided by the developer we anticipate release on design of this turn lane soon. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/05/2013 06/05/2013: The timing of the Foothills Parkway right-of-way vacation may want to be discussed. The City Surveyor and consultant's surveyor have been working also towards providing a legal description for a clean-up item pertaining to areas that weren't properly Foothills Mall Redevelopment- PA2 PDP Major Amendment 10/16/13 Page | 8 vacated previously and the intent was to take that clean-up vacation in conjunction with the Foothills Parkway vacation. This timing along with the status of Sears and Christie Sports as present abutting owners of Foothills Parkway add to the equation of timing. Current activities include negotiations with the Ditch Company. If the Canal Easement has not been vacated by the time the plat is submitted for recording it will be shown on the plat as existing. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/05/2013 06/05/2013: I'm understanding that the black hatched circles shown on multiple drawings that don't seem to be identified are for private lighting. There are instances where the private lighting is shown in right-of-way and would need to be placed outside of right-of-way. For where the private lighting is shown within a utility easement, we'll need to have language added in the development agreement obligating the developer certain responsibilities (such as registering the private line as part of the utility notification system to ensure the line can be located with any utility work occurring in the easement). Private lighting fixtures located in the right of way have been relocated so as to be taken out of the right of way. The Developer has been informed that language will have to be added to the Development Agreement obligating the Developer to their responsibilities regarding the utility work supplying the very limited number of lighting fixtures that occur within an easement. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 06/07/2013 06/07/2013: In consultation with the City's Traffic Engineer, with the plans now showing Corner Bakery Cafe remaining, the existing drive aisle in front of Corner Bakery Cafe intersecting with the main drive aisle out to College Avenue isn't necessarily viewed as ideal from a traffic operational standpoint. That said, the Traffic Engineer will not object to the drive aisle connection remaining with the existing Corner Bakery Cafe use. We would look to have language in the development agreement however, indicating that with any future development or redevelopment with the site no longer being Corner Bakery Cafe, the City reserves the right to evaluate and require the closure of the drive aisle due to close proximity of its intersection with College Avenue. In the event however that the ditch is not relocated to the west side of College Avenue and the drive aisle area is being re-done with the ditch located along this area, the access drive onto the main drive aisle should be removed. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 06/07/2013 06/07/2013: The amount of parkway between public sidewalk and curb along College Avenue is required to be 10 feet in accordance with the City's major arterial standards. With the Corner Bakery Cafe remaining, the plans show that less than 10 feet of parkway would exist. The plans should look to accommodate the 10 foot minimum parkway width wherever possible and if unable to achieve, a variance request would be needed for evaluation and approval. Foothills Mall Redevelopment- PA2 PDP Major Amendment 10/16/13 Page | 9 Acknowledged. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 06/05/2013 06/05/2013: Under the premise that the ditch is realigned to the west side of College Avenue, would the landscape plan be modified as a result? Should an alternate landscape plan be provided as a result? Landscape plans for the west side of College Ave will be submitted in a separate package of documents. Landscape plans for the east side of College Ave are included in this Submittal. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 06/05/2013 06/05/2013: On Sheet 3 the indication of "Canal Easement for Larimer County No.2 Canal...to be vacated by separate document Rec. No. _____" implies that this vacation will occur prior to recordation of this plat. Is the ditch company amenable to vacating this easement with the ditch still in this location? I would presume that the ditch company would not want to vacate their easement until such time as the ditch has been realigned. Has the ditch company indicated their acceptance? Ditch Company negotiations are being conducted by the City on a separate timetable. If the Canal Easement has not been vacated by the time the plat is submitted for recording it will be shown on the plat as existing. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/31/2013 05/31/2013: Based on a discussion with the City's Attorney Office, the mitigation for the 0.15 acres of wetlands lost through the ditch relocation will be addressed via the Development Agreement. As the DA is developed, I will work with the applicants to draft this language. Do we have a confirmation that the acreage impacted is in fact 0.15 acres? The impact on the east side of College is 6425 sf and the west side of College is 2148 sf for a total of 8573 sf or 0.196 ac . Department: Forestry Contact: Courtney Levingston, 970-416-2283, clevingston@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/31/2013 Comment Originated: 06/12/2013 Foothills Mall Redevelopment- PA2 PDP Major Amendment 10/16/13 Page | 10 06/05/2013: What happened to the trees in the landscaped areas adjacent to the enclosed mall? The Code requires "full tree stocking" in all landscape areas within 50 feet of any building. Full tree stocking to occur along all high use or high visibility sides of any building or structure (LUC 3.2.1(D)(1)(c)). There are existing water mainlines and gas lines running underneath the planting beds along the northwest façade of the mall. Per City standards, we need to keep 10’ between trees and water or sewer mains, and 6’ between trees and gas lines, which means we don’t have space for tree planting for that area. Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/05/2013 06/05/2013: Ornamental trees need to be identified as to species on the landscape plan with direct labeling or a symbol for each species or variety used. Will comply. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/05/2013 06/05/2013: The ornamental tree list should probably receive some refinement. These four ornamental trees should be considered as they are used on most projects in Fort Collins. Princess Kay Plum on the list does not survive well in Fort Collins so is not recommended by Forestry. Radiant Crabapple Spring Snow Crabapple Hotwings Tatarian Maple Chanticleer Pear Will comply. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/05/2013 06/05/2013: The two Cultivars of Colorado blue spruce (Fat Albert and Baby Blue Eyes) would provide a much more uniform shape and color than just the straight species that is specified. It is recommended that one or both of these cultivars be considered and specified in the plant list for Colorado blue spruce. Specifying non-cultivar Colorado spruce would result in a lot of variety in shape and form. Will comply. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/05/2013 06/05/2013: Sidewalk cut outs for trees with grates should be considered for a 5¿ by 5¿ dimension if possible. Sizing at 4' by 4' is generally considered a minimum but larger is preferred. Foothills Mall Redevelopment- PA2 PDP Major Amendment 10/16/13 Page | 11 Will comply. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/05/2013 06/05/2013: Please specify the Bur Oak as bullet gall resistant trees only. Placing bullet gall resistant after the name in the plant list would be a good way to do this. This will provide for a higher quality tree for the project and is typically specified for bur oak in the city. Will comply. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/05/2013 06/05/2013: The columnar spruce shown on the plant list should be specified as the cultivar Blue Spruce "Iseli Fastigate" Will comply. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 06/05/2013 06/05/2013: The required number of mitigation trees needs to be upsized on the plant list and those trees upsized need to be labeled so it is clear on the plans which ones are being upsized. As the number of trees to retain has been reduced there will be an increase in the number of mitigation trees as discussed in the response to previous comments. Will comply. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 06/05/2013 06/05/2013: With the ditch relocation to the west side of College Avenue additional significant trees may need to be removed. Any that are impacted need to be transplanted or mitigated. Redesign of the median if the ditch is placed on the west side of College will be critically important. Design of the median must incorporate the new City Streetscape and Median standards. To coordinate this design with several City staff and to follow the new standards we recommend that the median design be accomplished by the firm on the City purchasing list approved to perform median and streetscape design work. Landscape plans for the west side of College Ave will be submitted in a separate package of documents. Redesign of the east side of College Ave is included in this Submittal. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 06/05/2013 06/05/2013: With the potential loss of additional trees on the west side of College because of the possible ditch relocation, the need to more fully explore retaining some existing trees along College Avenue by the Mall on the east side of College has become even more important. Thank you for providing answers about the construction impact to some of the better trees along College. Forestry is asking that additional review along College occur to explore retaining some of the existing trees in the frontage area along College. Forestry staff is available to meet on site with the appropriate project representative to review and discuss. We Foothills Mall Redevelopment- PA2 PDP Major Amendment 10/16/13 Page | 12 would like to obtain a better understanding about retaining trees to the extent reasonably feasible in this area. Although smaller in size the 9 Honeylocust along College close to the curb north of Foothills Parkway should be considered (Trees 785-793). Retaining a few of the large mature trees in sections of the College frontage could add a lot of very important landscape maturity to this section of College Avenue helping reduce the impact from the loss of large trees on both sides of the street. LUC 3.2.1 We have considered options for retaining some of the trees along College Ave in this Submittal. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 06/05/2013 06/05/2013: Thank you for providing information about the construction impact to some of the trees along Stanford. Four or Five have indications that retention is possible. Forestry supports the design team's efforts to retain these additional trees and thinks this is important for the design of the Stanford frontage. Are there any others along Stanford that were not reviewed that have potential for retention? We believe we have considered the retention options. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 06/05/2013 06/05/2013: On the current submittal information is provided about transplanting 11 Honeylocust on the project. These larger trees will make a nice addition to the areas they will be moved to. Please explore additional tree transplanting. The landscape statement indicates that healthy evergreen trees will be transplanted to the landscape area on the north perimeter of the project. Is this still being considered? Consider transplanting some specimen trees to the large landscape area on sheet LA 102 to the north and east of the Corner Bakery parking lot. Also consider if it is feasible to transplant large trees to some of the larger parking lot islands or perimeter area shown on sheets LA102, LA109, LA105 and LA 122. These islands and the perimeter area are fairly large and could potentially accommodate transplanted trees. We have considered these possibilities in this Submittal. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 06/05/2013 06/05/2013: Please label trees that are retained with the tree number from the tree survey as was done for the transplanted trees. Will comply. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 06/05/2013 06/05/2013: Consider specifying the coffeetrees as the cultivar "Espresso" which has a better branch form and is a male tree that will not produce pods. Forestry recommends it be considered and specified as Kentucky coffeetree "Espresso". Foothills Mall Redevelopment- PA2 PDP Major Amendment 10/16/13 Page | 13 Will comply. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 06/05/2013 06/05/2013: Consider trying to balance the numbers used between Chinkapin oak and bur oak. Availability is generally better in Bur Oak. Using about equal numbers of each should be considered. Will comply. Department: Internal Services Contact: Todd Reidenbach, , Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/30/2013 05/30/2013: Building addresses will be assigned by the GIS Department after the plans have met final approval through Development Review and are recorded with the City. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/30/2013 05/30/2013: Projects with three or more tenant units require the Unit Level Addressing form to be completed and submitted to the GIS Department once plans have met final approval through Development Review and are recorded with the City. This can occur anytime during construction, but before any utilities are set within the structure to ensure the meter banks match the official addressing for the structure. The Unit Level Addressing form can be obtained by contacting the GIS office at gis@fcgov.com or (970) 416-2483. Addressing will be determined by the GIS Department. Addressing form will be executed when appropriate. Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartine@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/30/2013 05/30/2013: There is an existing underground electric substation tie circuit, including a fiber optic line that is along the eastern side of College Ave. This power line may be an obstacle to the installation of the planned pedestrian underpass. Relocation of this line may be impractical. The developer will need to have this line located, then excavate to determine the depth of the upper and lower extents of the concrete. Note that the concrete electric system is capable of self-support for a distance of no more than 4 feet. There are plans to field locate this line under the bridge once the irrigation ditch dries out. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/30/2013 Foothills Mall Redevelopment- PA2 PDP Major Amendment 10/16/13 Page | 14 05/30/2013: A preliminary overall electric plan has been established, to be completed in multiple phases. The developer will need to continue to coordinate each phase with Light & Power Engineering. Aknowledged. Department: Outside Agencies Contact: Megan Harrity, , Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/29/2013 05/29/2013: Megan Harrity in the Larimer County Assessors Office commented that she could not find Tract I and is confused as why that is omitted. Tract I has been omitted to avoid confusion with the number 1 or Roman numeral I. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 06/04/2013 06/04/2013: Erosion control plans need to be included in the utility plan set. Our understanding is erosion plans are not required for PDP plan submittal. Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/04/2013 06/04/2013: The City requires all storm sewers to include profiles on the utility plans. This is to ensure no conflicts with other utilities and cover requirements. Our understanding is profiles are not required for a PDP plan submittal, but will be included in the FDP submittal. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/04/2013 06/04/2013: Please include the specifications for the soil media in the rain gardens and sand filters on the utility plans. This information is provided in the project specifications book, to avoid putting all the text on the construction plans. If you would like a copy of the project specifications please email paul.mcilheran@rasmithnational.com and we can forward a copy. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/04/2013 06/04/2013: The bars for the trash racks need to be spaced every 5 inches not 6 inches. This detail has been revised. Foothills Mall Redevelopment- PA2 PDP Major Amendment 10/16/13 Page | 15 Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/04/2013 06/04/2013: All drainage details should be included in the utility plan set, not just referenced. This includes the water quality mechanical devices. This will be included with the Final Plans submittal. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/04/2013 06/04/2013: If HDPE storm sewer is proposed, two feet of cover is required. RCP would be required for stretches where cover over the pipe is less than 2 feet. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/04/2013 06/04/2013: All drainage infrastructure needs to be in a drainage easement. This includes all sand filters, rain gardens, mechanical devices, and storm sewer that is needed to either drain or assist in draining the 100-year flows from the site. It looks like some of the drainage improvements are in a drainage easement, but not all. Easements have been modified to include drainage improvements. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 06/04/2013 06/04/2013: Some of the detail references are mislabeled. Please revise. We have been unable to locate these references. Please let us know what details you refer to. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 06/04/2013 06/04/2013: The erosion protection pads need a detail included in the utility plan set. If riprap is proposed, it needs to be buried with 6-inches of topsoil. However, riprap is not recommended. This level of detail will be provided with the Final Plans set. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 06/04/2013 06/04/2013: Coordination is needed to determine the landscaping for the rain gardens which serves in the best interest of all parties. Maintenance and aesthetics are the primary issues. Rain gardens are planted with Native Prairie Grass Mix, displaying native landscape characteristics. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 06/10/2013 06/10/2013: The City encourages infiltration and would prefer the geofabric liners be removed from the rain gardens. Foothills Mall Redevelopment- PA2 PDP Major Amendment 10/16/13 Page | 16 The geotechnical report indicates that stormwater infiltration must be avoided due to the nature of the on-site soils. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 06/10/2013 06/10/2013: The 4 foot manhole risers proposed for the rain gardens are oversized for what is needed. The City would like to see inlet boxes that are more appropriately sized for the function of these rain gardens. We are not proposing 4-foot manhole risers for the raingardens, we are proposing to use the standard UDFCD detail shown on sheet WQ-002. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013 06/06/2013: Please mask or move text on sheets A244 & A246. See redlines. These sheets have been modified. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013 06/06/2013: Sheets A300-A318 are missing the A in front of the sheet number. See redlines. These sheets have been modified. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013 06/06/2013: There are line over text issues on several sheets. See redlines. We have addressed ‘line over text’ issues as much as possible. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013 06/06/2013: Please move "E. Monroe Drive" over to the street on sheet C213. See redlines. This detail is no longer part of the plan set. Comment Number: 12 06/06/2013: There are text over text issues on several sheets. See redlines. We have addressed ‘text over text’ issues as much as possible. Comment Number: 13 Foothills Mall Redevelopment- PA2 PDP Major Amendment 10/16/13 Page | 17 06/06/2013: There is a mispelled word (water) on sheet C601. See redlines. Note no longer on plans. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013 06/06/2013: There are some notes with missing text on sheet C608. See redlines. The referenced notes are no longer part of the plan set. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013 06/06/2013: Please mask the text in hatched areas on sheets C801, C802 & C803. See redlines. Text within hatches has been addressed. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013 06/06/2013: Please remove the background linework from the viewport on sheet C803. See redlines. The referenced detail is no longer being used. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013 06/06/2013: There is cut off text issues on sheets C902. See redlines. This has been addressed. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013 06/06/2013: Please move "Water Quality Details" down to the subject box in the title block on sheet WQ-003. See redlines. The text has been moved. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013 06/06/2013: There are line over text issues on several sheets. See redlines. We have addressed ‘line over text’ issues as much as possible. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013 06/06/2013: Please mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. Text within hatches has been addressed. Foothills Mall Redevelopment- PA2 PDP Major Amendment 10/16/13 Page | 18 Topic: Plat Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013 06/06/2013: Please make the suggested changes to the legal description. See redlines. Corrected. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013 06/06/2013: There are distances in the legal description that do not match the recorded subdivision plats. Please review the legal description to ascertain there are no more cases like this. See redlines. Corrected. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013 06/06/2013: Lienholders: We acknowledge your response. This will be carried over for reference pending definitive knowledge of lienholder status. No action Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013 06/06/2013: Please label the Point Of Beginning on sheet 2. See redlines. Corrected. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013 06/06/2013: Please move line L13 to the other side of the boundary on sheet 2. See redlines. Corrected. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013 06/06/2013: Please make the line showing the right of way to be dedicated as a solid line. See redlines. Corrected. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013 06/06/2013: There are many issues with the dimensioning on sheet 2. See redlines. Corrected. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013 06/06/2013: Please provide a detail for the intersection of College Avenue & Foothills Parkway, and the area dedicating right of way along Tract M & Lot 16. See redlines. Foothills Mall Redevelopment- PA2 PDP Major Amendment 10/16/13 Page | 19 Corrected. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013 06/06/2013: Please make sure that the square footages of Tracts A, J, L & M do not include dedicated street right of way. They do not. Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013 06/06/2013: Tract J is incorrectly labeled as Tract C at the southeast corner of the property. See redlines. Corrected. Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013 06/06/2013: Sheet 3 shows the Cross Easement Agreement (Rec. No. 88042989) shown at the bottom of sheet 2 as being vacated by separate document. If this easement is the document that provides access for the property, it will need to remain at least for areas outside of the subdivision boundary, or a new access easement must be dedicated. Corrected. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013 06/06/2013: If there are updated title commitments, those shown will need to be revised. Corrected. Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013 06/06/2013: Please change note #9 on sheet 2 to read "Tracts C through H, and Tracts J through M". See redlines. Corrected. Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013 06/06/2013: The canal easement response is acknowledged. This will be addressed at a later date. Aknowledged. Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013 06/06/2013: Please make the Tract/Lot lines heavier on sheet 3. Foothills Mall Redevelopment- PA2 PDP Major Amendment 10/16/13 Page | 20 Corrected. Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013 06/06/2013: Please correct the direction of the bearings in Detail A on sheet 3, so that they are all the same direction. See redlines. Change will be made and shown on sheet 2 as the detail on sheet 3 is being removed due to simplification of the lot. Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013 06/06/2013: Please make sure all easements are labeled and locatable. See redlines. transit & drainage easements. See redlines. Corrected. Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013 06/06/2013: Please correct the College Avenue text on sheet 4. It is South, not East. See redlines. Corrected. Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013 06/06/2013: Do not extend the easement along Lot 14 into the dedicated right of way. See redlines. Corrected. Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013 06/06/2013: Please add ties along the easements as shown on sheet 4. See redlines. Corrected. Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013 06/06/2013: Please consider hatching the utility easements on sheet 4 in a fashion similar to what you employed on sheet 8 for the emergency access easement. The hatching has very effectively provided clarity to the easement limits. We will use tables where convenient. Easement linework is based on design elements and may or may not be adjusted to conform to lot layout. Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013 06/06/2013: Observations: 1. It would be much cleaner if you were to use curve and line tables. 2. The plat would be considerably easier to label and interpret if easement lines were Foothills Mall Redevelopment- PA2 PDP Major Amendment 10/16/13 Page | 21 parallel to lot lines or coincident with lot lines at consistent distances. See example. These are just suggestions, you are not required to change these. Corrected. Comment Number: 44 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013 06/06/2013: Please label the Cross Easement Agreement on sheets 6 & 7. See redlines. Corrected. Comment Number: 45 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013 06/06/2013: Please show hashes/circles at the points of tangency on the outer boundary. Corrected. Comment Number: 46 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013 06/06/2013: All of Tract D is an Emergency Access Easement. Shorten the Emergency Access & Access Easement to the boundary of Tract C on sheet 8. See redlines. Corrected. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 47 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013 06/06/2013: Please sharpen all of the text in the sheet list on sheets A101 & A102. See redlines. We have attempted to sharpen this text. Comment Number: 48 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013 06/06/2013: The legal description on sheet A102 matches the Subdivision Plat, but the square footage does not. Please change to match the Plat. We have revised the legal description and the corresponding square footage in this Submittal. Comment Number: 49 Comment Originated: 06/06/2013 06/06/2013: There are line over text issues on sheets A103, A104 & A105. See redlines. We have attempted to resolve this line over text issues that are within accepted drafting standards. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Foothills Mall Redevelopment- PA2 PDP Major Amendment 10/16/13 Page | 22 Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/04/2013 06/04/2013: The taper, decel and storage lengths shown on the right turn lane design on sheet C906 do not correlate with the City's design parameters provided in LCUASS, Figure 8-5, for a Functional Basis. Please provide the design basis for the right turn lane shown on C906. Understood, Based on information provided by the developer we anticipate release on design / redesign of this turn lane shortly. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/04/2013 06/04/2013: Please provide supporting documentation that the right turn lane length is adequate to not be blocked by queued west bound traffic. Understood, Based on information provided by the developer we anticipate release on design / redesign of this turn lane shortly Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/04/2013 06/04/2013: Please delete the reversible turn lane arrows on Matthews Street, south of Swallow, north of Mall property. The striping plan was modified as requested. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/04/2013 06/04/2013: Please remove the bike stencils at the College and Fthills Parkway intersection. The striping plan was modified as requested. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/04/2013 06/04/2013: On Monroe Street, please change the solid white stripe between the travel and bike lanes to be a 6" wide stripe. Use a 6" wide stripe at all other public street locations as well. The striping plan was modified as requested. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 06/04/2013 06/04/2013: Please dimension the lane widths on all public roadways, Lane width dimensions were added to public roadways that are proposed to be modified by this project. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 06/04/2013 06/04/2013: Please add an OM1-2 below the Yield sign placed at the westbound porkchop at College and Fthills Parkway. Foothills Mall Redevelopment- PA2 PDP Major Amendment 10/16/13 Page | 23 The sign has been added. Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/04/2013 06/0 pub4/2013: Several of the access roadways have striping that extend across into public space. Agreements will need to be worked out as to roadway striping/maintenance responsibilities. Acknowledged. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 06/04/2013: Minimum sewer main size is 8" (Sht C507). All sewers now a minimum of 8-inches. Comment Number: 2 06/04/2013: On Sht C508, show MH P-9 in plan view Now shown. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/04/2013 06/04/2013: When new connections are made to existing MH's, core drill the new opening. Notes added to clarify this. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/04/2013 06/04/2013: Add sewer stationing on all sewer services. Sewer services are not stationed because they are not profiled. Stationing would clutter the plans without much added benefit. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/04/2013 06/04/2013: On all 3" water services, make the connection as a 4" followed by a 4" gate valve and a 4" x 3" reducer. Plans revised to show this. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/04/2013 06/04/2013: Add gate valves to all fire lies at the point of connection to the City water mains. Foothills Mall Redevelopment- PA2 PDP Major Amendment 10/16/13 Page | 24 The plans already show this; is there a specific area you refer to? Comment Number: 7 06/04/2013: All new water main shall be D.I.P. with polywrap. Project specifications require this material. Project specifications are available on request; if you would like one please email paul.mcilheran@rasmithnational.com . Comment Number: 8 06/04/2013: Show and label curb stops on all services that are 2" or smaller. Curb stops are now shown between the public main and the meters. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 06/04/2013 06/04/2013: Show and label all water main fittings, valves, thrust blocks,etc., etc. Applicable to Final Plans. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 06/04/2013 06/04/2013: Label all tees for fire hydrants as "swivel tees". Label modified. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 06/04/2013 06/04/2013: At the location where the water main crosses Foothills Parkway, the water main cannot be under the retaining wall. Retaining wall relocated. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 06/04/2013 06/04/2013: On Sht C603, a re-route of the water main is suggested. Let's discuss. Watermain rerouted based on new site plan configuration. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 06/04/2013 06/04/2013: In the water main profiles, there are grade breaks noted but no fittings shown. Is the intent to use joint deflection? Yes, joint deflection intended. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 06/04/2013 06/04/2013: Avoid bends in fire hydrant laterals whenever practical. Foothills Mall Redevelopment- PA2 PDP Major Amendment 10/16/13 Page | 25 Bends in fire hydrant laterals were eliminated where possible. Note that to meet this request laterals now run under more landscape islands, which may restrict the locations where trees can be planted. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 06/04/2013 06/04/2013: Please explain the interim condition noted for a portion of the water main on Sht C607. The interim watermain will be used to supply water to new mall bathrooms before the start of the majority of the construction, but will need to be modified in subsequent phases of the project. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 06/04/2013 06/04/2013: Install water and sanitary sewer mains in steel casings where crossing below storm drains 24" or larger. Indicate diameter and thickness of casing. We will show these on the Final Plans submittal. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 06/04/2013 06/04/2013: Schedule meeting to review the deep water main lowerings to see if there may be options in some areas. We will contact you to schedule this. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 06/04/2013 06/04/2013: We have concerns about disinfection and testing of all of the various sections of water mains. A meeting is needed to discuss this and to understand how this will be approached during construction. Phasing of the watermain installation will be complicated, but our intention is to fully comply with all disinfection and testing requirements. At this time the exact timing of the various phases is not completely known, but we look forward to discussing these issues at the preconstruction conference. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 06/04/2013 06/04/2013: See redlined utility plans for other comments. Reviewed and plans revised where appropriate. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 06/07/2013 06/07/2013: On Sht C604, the call-out for the casting noted for the two meter pits in the drives needs to be changed. I will email a cut-sheet with the information. Foothills Mall Redevelopment- PA2 PDP Major Amendment 10/16/13 Page | 26 New detail incorporated. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 06/07/2013 06/07/2013: The water main in front of the main entrance of the mall cannot pass under the canopy at the entrance. This main cannot be relocated, due to the location of the existing sanitary sewer and existing storm sewer located west of the canopy - there is not enough clearance. We suggest that the watermain located under the canopy be reconstructed in place within casing pipe. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 06/07/2013 06/07/2013: With the difficulties of getting trees and landscaping along the east side of College, it is strongly suggested that water service to the shops along College remain as currently shown with service coming from the main to the east of these buildings. This allows the existing main on the east side of College to be abandoned which frees up some of the space between the buildings and College for trees and landscaping. The plans show the main relocated. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 06/07/2013 06/07/2013: Please return the redlined plans with the next submittal. Redline plans will be returned. Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 06/03/2013 06/03/2013: Shopping center is allowed 5 off-street parking spaces for every 1000 sq ft. The square footage's from the site plans and data tables are inconsistent please correct. Based on the site calculations table on Sheet A103 total allowable off-street parking spaces are 3,229. The tables have been revised to reflect the Amended configuration. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 06/03/2013 06/03/2013: On Sheet LA-103 the sidewalk on the south side of E FootHills PKWy is not the 10ft width with trees in grates along the front side of the sidewalk. This needs to be corrected. The sidewalk was widened as requested. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/03/2013 06/03/2013: On Sheet LA-104 There needs to be trees in the landscape islands. There is at least one islands missing trees. Foothills Mall Redevelopment- PA2 PDP Major Amendment 10/16/13 Page | 27 The site plan has been updated since the last submittal. On the updated sheet LA-104, there are existing water main lines and a water hydrant located in/under the planting area. Per the City code, we need to keep 10’ between trees and water mains, which means we can’t plant trees at these areas. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 06/03/2013 06/03/2013: On sheet LA-105 Why are waterlines in the parking islands on the east side of the buildings? They should run under the parking stalls so trees originally proposed in these islands can remain. The proposed water lines are located in the parking islands because water meters are required by the City to be in landscape areas and not in pavement. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 06/03/2013 06/03/2013: On sheet LA-107 There is a parking island that is being proposed to replace landscaping with asphalt and stripping. This needs to remain landscaping and retain the previously approved tree location. The parking island was striped previously to allow for truck turning movements required for the adjacent loading dock. Due to the revised building configuration, the striping in this location was able to be eliminated. Note, however, that some other islands do need to be striped to allow for truck turning movements. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 06/03/2013 06/03/2013: On sheet LA-108 Trees on the south side of E Foothills PKWY that were moved to behind the sidewalk in this submittal need to be moved back to the front of the sidewalk in the previously approved location. The trees were moved to provide the required 10-foot clearance from the existing water main located under the curb. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 06/03/2013 06/03/2013: On sheet LA-110 Trees on the south side of E Foothills PKWY that were moved to behind the sidewalk in this submittal need to be moved back to the front of the sidewalk in the previously approved location. Also on this sheet if the trees along the enclosed Mall building can not be placed in their previously approved location it seems they can be moved to grates in the sidewalk. This is a better alternative them eliminating the trees. The trees on the south side of E. Foothills Parkway were moved to provide the required 10-foot clearance from the existing water main located under the curb. There is also an existing watermain under the proposed curbline adjacent to the enclosed mall; proposed trees need to be placed a minimum of 10-feet from this existing watermain. The Code also requires 20’ Foothills Mall Redevelopment- PA2 PDP Major Amendment 10/16/13 Page | 28 between trees and traffic control signs. There are two traffic control signs located in the referenced planting islands which restricts trees in those areas. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 06/03/2013 06/03/2013: On sheet LA-113 there is two landscape islands on the south that are suppose to have two trees and are currently showing one. This needs to be corrected. This has been corrected. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 06/03/2013 06/03/2013: On sheet LA-114 there are at least 3 landscape islands on the that are suppose to have two trees and are currently showing one. This needs to be corrected. This has been corrected. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 06/03/2013 06/03/2013: On sheet LA-119 Trees on the south side of E Foothills PKWY that were moved to behind the sidewalk in this submittal need to be moved back to the front of the sidewalk in the previously approved location. It is unclear why the water-line needs to be locate in landscape strip and not in the drive land, so as to avoid conflict with trees. Also on this sheet along the north side of E Foothill PKWY, why is the sidewalk attached with the now trees. This sidewalk should be detached with a landscape strip that include street trees or a 10ft sidewalk with trees in grates on the front side of the sidewalk. Also on this sheet there are trees missing from this submittal at the end of the parking bays that were a part of the previously approved plans. The trees on the south side of E. Foothills Parkway were moved to provide the required 10-foot clearance from the existing water main located under the curb. The watermain shown in the landscape strip is existing, not proposed. On the north side of E. Foothills Parkway the sidewalk that is shown attached to the curb is an existing sidewalk that will remain in place; the intent is to save the existing trees behind the sidewalk. Several parking bay islands shown on this sheet are striped and not landscaped to allow truck movements for the adjacent loading dock. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 06/03/2013 06/03/2013: On Sheet LA-120 Why are there no trees in the landscape strip along the north side of the drive access? The Code requires 10’ between trees and utility lines, so we don’t have enough space to plant trees along the north side of the drive. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 06/03/2013 06/03/2013: On Sheet LA-122 It appears the trees were removed from the landscape island to avoid conflict with the Sewer line. Why can't the sewer line be moved to the north or south in Foothills Mall Redevelopment- PA2 PDP Major Amendment 10/16/13 Page | 29 the drive to avoid this conflict so the trees can remain? The sewer line is an existing main that is to be kept in service. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 06/04/2013 06/04/2013: On sheets A213 A217 the elevations for the trash and recycling enclosure is showing a 4.5 ft wall. It is unclear if this height is sufficient to screen dumpsters. Will need more information. Wall height has been modified with intent to screen dumpsters. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 06/04/2013 06/04/2013: LUC 3.5.1(I) Mechanical/Utility Equipment (conduit, vents, meters, flues, HVAC units, boxes...) shall be screened. Plans (site, landscape and elevations) shall include locations of such equipment and notes on how it is screened and painted. This screening is required not only from Public ROW but also property lines. There are several property lines internal to the site. The details on Sheet A254 are not sufficient to show that such equipment will be adequately screened. Please include how the other buildings', that are not along College, mechanical/utility equipment are screened. Also the residential buildings do not show or explain any screening of mechanical/utility equipment. These details need to be added. Transformers and Utility Equipment are being screened with grading and landscape plantings. The Landscape drawings have details addressing screening conditions. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 06/04/2013 06/04/2013: On Sheet A103 in the Site Plan Notes Table note # 8, is this note necessary still? If so "PDP" should be changed to Final Plan and does the applicant want to expand it to all buildings? The note has been revised to reflect the adjacent development options on Tracts D, E, and K which apply to this proposal. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 06/04/2013 06/04/2013: Where are the Parking Garage Siteplan, Elevations and special height review? The Parking Garage has been revised to three supported levels over grade and is therefore within the required height limits of LUC 3.5.1 and 3.10.5. There will not be the need for a Special Height Review for this structure in its current configuration.