HomeMy WebLinkAboutFOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT, PHASE TWO - MAJOR AMENDMENT - MJA130006 - CORRESPONDENCE -Community Development and
Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov.com/developmentreview
November 13, 2013
Bryan Mcfarland
Alberta Development Partners
5750 DTC Parkway, Suite 210
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
Comment Summary:
Department: Current Planning
Contact: Courtney Levingston, 970-416-2283, clevingston@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
10/17/2013: Staff is concerned with the proposed architecture as it relates to meeting the Code
standards. The Code requires a minimum of 60% glazing on pedestrian oriented facades (as well as
facades facing streets). If the building is functionally unable to meet this requirement, than ample,
enhanced architectual features (such as trellises, arcades, pergolas, ect.) are required for mitigation.
(Section 3.10.5(G)).
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/17/2013
10/17/2013: The Code requires four-sided architecture, with the same high quality materials and design
on all sides of the building. This includes a base and "top treatment (even for service areas) that is
more substantial than just a colored band. Could a stone base treatment be added to the elevations of
buildings? All buildings are required to have some sort of substantial cornice "top" treatment. (LUC
Section 3.5.3(E)(2)(a)(3), 3.5.3(E)(3).) Please see redlines for details.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/17/2013
10/22/2013: The minimum building height is 20' (Section 3.10.5(F)). It was understood that all areas
(including service areas) of the main mall building would increase in height above the 20' minimum
code requirement (as shown with the previously approved plan) There are many sections (sheet A209)
that are below this 20 feet minimum.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of
the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual
commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Courtney Levingston, at 970-416-2283 or
clevingston@fcgov.com.
RE: Foothills Mall Redevelopment Phase Two Major Amendment, MJA130006, Round Number 1
Page 1 of 20
10/24/2013: All buildings are required to have some sort of vertical articulation. One story, flat-roofed
buildings can not have a single continuous horizontal rooflines. Many of the proposed buildings are
quite long and only one story. Please insure that vertical articulation of the building mass is provided
on all buildings.(Section 3.10.5 (B)) Please see redlines.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
10/24/2013: All buildings are required to have a clearly defined entrance framed with a sheltering
element such as an awning, arcade or portico. It appears that some buildings are not providing this.
See redlines. (3.5.3(E)(5)).
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
Topic: General
10/22/2013: Could the retaining wall be removed from Block 9A? Please have the Civil coordinate with
the architecture to prevent large retaining walls.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: The plan shows 600 bike spaces, however the redevelopment agreement calls out 1,400
bike parking spaces.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
Topic: Landscape Plans
10/22/2013: Please call out where the electric vehicle charging stations will be located.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/24/2013: Sheet LA-111 - Can sewer lines connecting into the resturants be moved to accommodate
two trees that were shown in the approved PDP
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
10/24/2013: Sheet LA-119, PDP was approved with four trees in parking lot landscape islands (near
loading dock). Looking at the existing Macy's parking lot, it appears a lot of improvements will be
made in terms of additional trees and landscaped islands with curbs. All landscape islands should
have curbs and trees. Please see redlines.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
10/24/2013: LA-105, The Code requires 5' wide foundation planings and full tree stocking along the
Block 12 (east side).
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
10/24/2013: LA-109, please add additional stormwater landscaping. Please refer to stormwater
comments.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
10/24/2013: LA-105 The site plans show parking, however the landscape plans show a water quality
area. If there is to be a 15 space parking lot, then 6% interior landscaping (islands with trees) (Section
3.2.2 (M))
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
10/24/2013: LA-105 - If there is a 15 space parking lot, it is required to be fully screened from College
Avenue. Screening from College Ave can be a wall, fence, planter, earthen berm, plant material, ect.,
each of which shall have a minimum 30" height. The Code requires a detail showing a graphic of the
parking lot screening as seen from College Avenue. (LUC 3.2.1(E)(4)).
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
Page 2 of 20
10/24/2013: LA 106 - We need a detail of the evergreen shrub to be used as screening from Monroe
Ave. The code requires minimum 30" height as well as a The Code requires a detail showing a
graphic of the parking lot screening as seen from Monroe. LUC 3.2.1(E)(4)).
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
10/24/2013: LA 110 - In light of the sightline easement being required by Macy's, staff acknowledges
the need to remove the previously approved freestanding building at the southeast corner of Foothills
and the primary north entry drive. In lieu of this building, the applicant will need to provide hardscape,
landscape, knee walls or other urban design elements that will sufficiently screen the parking area ,
create a sense of entry to the Mall and provide visual balance to the building elements on the
southwest corner of the intersection.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
10/24/2013: LA 107 - As the sidewalk bisecting the parking lot is the primary pedestrian spine of the
project from the underpass to the mall, Staff encourages and suggests widening this sidewalk and
having trees lining this sidewalk on both sides creating and defining the project space (as required by
code).
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
10/24/2013: Sheet C205 of the civil plan indicate that the relocation of the electric vault, traffic control
box, and other appurtenances in order to rework the access ramp at the northeast corner of Monroe
Drive and College Avenue is to be done "by others". The responsibility of this work should be that of
the developer, coordinating with appropriate utility providers in having the existing appurtenances
relocated.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
10/24/2013: Sheet C300 indicates as part of the demo plan, removing the Christy Sports building. This
seems to be in conflict with information elsewhere such as sheet C203 and C303 which appears to
show the building to remain.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
10/24/2013: Will need to look on the number and spacing of patches on Stanford shown on sheet
C507. The multiple patches may need to be consolidated to a single larger patch.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
10/24/2013: On sheet C813 the detail for concrete sidewalk on the lower left corner specifies 4"
sidewalk thickness with 6" thickness at driveways. This detail needs to be replaced with LCUASS
detail 1601 which specifies 6" sidewalk thickness with 8" at driveways.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
10/24/2013: On sheet C816, there are City standard details that show slope information crossed-out
was this intended? Not sure why slope information was crossed out.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
10/24/2013: The turn lanes along College Avenue look good. One concern, on sheet C901, with the
reworked right turn lane onto Foothills Parkway, the grade around the curb return needs to have a 2%
section for the sidewalk/access ramp crossing for ADA compliance.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
Page 3 of 20
10/24/2013: Comment carried over for reference as the information on sheet C904 needs additional
roadway design and grading information, with the overall design needed with Phase 2 approval.
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 Road 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: 15 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
Topic: General
10/24/2013: The lot lines and tracts reflected on the plat should also be shown on the corresponding
site, landscape, and civil construction plans to ascertain how the legal designations created with the
plat fit in relation to the other documents. Lot lines and tracts were shown on sheet C200 of the civil set,
however the information on lot lines isn't consistent with the information shown on the plat.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
10/24/2013: A specific potential issue with the plat in relation to the improvements shown on the site,
landscape and civil sets is the establishment of new lots on top of Christy Sports and Corner Bakery
Cafe when these properties aren't shown to be changed with the development. Is this intended? Note
that the Christy Sports building would appear to be bisected between a new Lot 14 and Tract J. Is this
intended?
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
10/24/2013: The typical approach for the first phase of a multi-phase project is to reflect how that first
phase of a project ties into existing conditions prior to any construction of a second phase. The first
phase would "stand on its own" and illustrate how utilities and transportation improvements (such as
sidewalk along College Avenue) are brought in to serve the first phase only. The information on how
Phase 1 is to be constructed assumes work on Phase 2 is built. The typical method with this approach
is to then have the entitlement for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 be completed at the same time.
Understanding how the timing works for Phase 1 and Phase 2 in conjunction with the project schedule
would appear to be beneficial.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
10/24/2013: The legal description apparently associated with Phase 1 is based upon a subdivision
plat being recorded, establishing Lot 16. This would imply that a subdivision plat is to be recorded with
the approval of Phase 1. Is this the case? Establishing the various lots and tracts of "Foothills Mall
Redevelopment Subdivision" with only entitling Phase 1 first, would be awkward, in the event the
review and approval of Phase 2 demonstrates a need to modify lots and tracts shown and previously
approved with Phase 1. An option to consider would be to plat only the Phase 1 specific area and
then subsequently plat the remaining Phase 2 area. Another option might be to have the legal
description for Phase 1 be based on the existing Southmoor Village plat of record, which could then
change with a replat of the entire area in conjunction with Phase 2 entitlement.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
Page 4 of 20
10/24/2013: My last conversation with Rick Richter was that the underpass plans needed to be
included, reviewed, and approved with the plans (not necessarily tied into Phase 1, but with the
remaining majority portion of the project). This may need further discussion.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/05/2013
06/05/2013: In checking with Rick Richter, the City would look to have the ditch 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: 12 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
10/24/2013: 14. This relates back to comment ID#4, potentially needing further clarification/discussion.
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: 13 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
10/24/2013: In checking with Traffic Operations, Phase 1 (Sears) would not need to have the new right
turn lane built. The College Avenue turn lanes along with the College Avenue pedestrian
improvements, Monroe Drive sidewalk and striping improvements, along with the right turn lane on
Horsetooth and Stanford would need to be tied with Phase 2. Phase 1 would (per Code) need to have
the sidewalk fronting College Avenue along the lot as part of its Phase 1 infrastructure obligation.
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 whole, 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: 14 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
Page 5 of 20
10/24/2013: Specific to the existing canal easement, I'm wondering how a Phase 1 Sears building can
be approved (and building permits issued) if the Canal Easement is still present. It would seem that
the Ditch Company would have to be part of the signature approvals specific to Phase 1 since they
have the ditch traversing through the lot. Additionally, would the new building encroach onto the ditch
easement such that the building department would perhaps be unable to issue a building permit
because of an existing easement. How Phase 1 potentially shows an approval with a canal easement
legally and physically in place may be of concern.
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 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: 16 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
10/24/2013: Carried over for reference to be included in the development agreement.
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 Café 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: 10/24/2013
10/24/2013: Carried over for reference. There did not appear to be a variance request for this. Sheet
C200 shows that parking stalls abut the sidewalk. Will there be an issue of vehicles overhanging onto
the sidewalk?
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.
Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
Page 6 of 20
10/24/2013: Carried over for reference. Again this may be a question of timing and whether the ditch
company would need to be signatories to the approvals as well as whether there are building permit
issuance concerns if the ditch and ditch easement are still in place.
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.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
10/24/2013:
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com
Topic: General
10/22/2013: As per the submittal, the area of wetlands impacted by the relocation of the Larimer Canal
No. 2 is 0.196 acres. However, as I understand it, the wetlands will not all be mitigated at the same
time, e.g., a portion will be impacted through the excavation permit and a portion will be impacted at
the time of the Major Amendment. Can an updated ECS be provided that stipulates when the impacts
will occur how these impacts will be mitigated for? Is there an Army Corps of Engineers permit already,
and if so, can that also be provided?
I have spoken with the Natural Areas Department and they are available to still conduct the off-site
mitigation, if that is still your request. Please let me know.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Page 7 of 20
10/22/2013:
Provide an updated Foothills Mall Tree Survey List that reflects any changes in tree removal, retention
or transplanting being proposed in the major amendment. This should include changes for any
additional trees to be removed, retained or transplanted in the major amendment compared to the
previous plans. Be sure to identify in the tree survey list which trees will be transplanted.
If any existing trees in the residential areas will be retained until development of those residential
areas then that should be clearly stated and noted on the plans and on the Tree Survey List. Trees
retained for now in the residential areas, but removed when residential areas are developed, will need
to be mitigated in the residential areas, unless the applicant wishes to provide for the mitigation now
on the mall development. Mitigation numbers for trees removed on phase one should be totaled on
the phase one landscape plan and not totaled as part of the major amendment. Mark phase one trees
to be removed so that they are clearly identified on the Foothills Mall Tree survey list.
Provide the revised number for mitigation trees and the Foothills Mall Tree Survey List for the Major
Amendment to the City Forester for review and approval. The landscape plan for the major
amendment should provide for the required number of upsized mitigation trees. Mitigation trees
should be upsized as follows:
Shade trees 3.0 inch caliper
Ornamental trees 2.5 inch caliper
Evergreen trees 8 feet height
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013:
Will existing trees located in the residential areas labeled, “Note: Residential landscape design is not
part of the planting area 2 submittal package”, be retained until those areas are developed? If so edit
the note to say in effect, Residential landscape design and tree mitigation not part of the planting area
2 submittal package.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013:
Provide a statement explaining why existing additional significant trees cannot be retained or
transplanted (those shown to be removed). The statement should address the LUC requirement to
retain existing trees to the extent reasonably feasible.
“Extent reasonably feasible shall mean that, under the circumstances, reasonable efforts have been
undertaken to comply with the regulation, that the cost of compliance clearly outweigh the potential
benefits to the public or would unreasonably burden the proposed project, and reasonable steps have
been undertaken to minimize any potential harm or adverse impacts resulting from noncompliance
with the regulation”.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
Page 8 of 20
10/22/2013:
Evaluate adding two street trees in the College Avenue Frontage form Monroe north to the boundary
with Phase One. The distance is 215 feet and three street trees are shown in this area. Street trees
should be provided at 30 to forty foot spacing. LUC 3.2.1 D 2 a
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013:
Provide street trees at 25 foot spacing on sheet LA 102 to provide for the Parking Lot Perimeter
landscaping standard for trees along a public street, which is a tree every 25 feet by a parking lots
(LUC 3.2.1 E 4 a). A planting arrangement other than street trees could be used to meet this standard
but options other than achieving this standard with street trees appears limited.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013:
Evaluate the need to add additional plant material in landscape areas between the parking lot and
street on Sheet LA 102 to meet the Parking Lot Perimeter screening standard. LUC 3.2.1 E 4 b
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013:
Add a canopy shade tree to the north parking lot peninsula on the west side of the parking lot on sheet
LA 102.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013:
Add evergreen trees to the landscape area northeast of the parking lot on sheet LA 102 to provide for
spatial definition and enhanced appearance from the evergreen texture. This area would also be very
suitable for transplanting large conifer trees on the site.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013:
Add two canopy shade trees to the two landscape areas north east of the building on sheet LA 102.
Ten feet of utility/tree separation appears to be provided in these two landscape areas.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013:
Provide trees between the sidewalk and buildings along College north of Foothills parkway and
between the sidewalk and building along Monroe at the corner of Monroe and College to provide for
the full tree stocking standard. (LUC 3.2.1 D c) A defined density of trees within 50 feet of the high use
or visibility sides of buildings is identified in this standard. Evaluate adding trees between the sidewalk
and buildings north of Foothills Parkway along College as shown on the previous approved plans to
provide for the general standard for enhanced appearance and spatial definition. (3.2.1 C)
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
Page 9 of 20
10/22/2013:
Check to be sure that trees are shown to be planted in all required parking lot interior areas (3.2.1 E 5)
unless tree planting would be limited by underground utility’s, traffic signs, lights or sight distance.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013:
Evaluate the feasibility of retaining the following priority trees with the project arborist and Landscape
architect. These priority trees are currently shown for removal. To retain some of these trees some
changes to grading, parking and sidewalk locations or widths should be considered. The City
Forester is available to meet on site to discuss feasibility of retaining these additional trees with the
projects representatives.
Tree Numbers:
46 - Priority for retention to provide some mature trees along College.
42 - Priority for retention to provide some mature trees along College.
808 - Very nice pine tree on the west side of Christi Sports that does not appear to be impacted by
construction.
804 - Nice mature honeylocust tree located at a highly visible entry. Can the grade be retained around
this priority tree and parking spaces moved to protect root system?
794 - Explore if some grading changes could occur to retain this oak tree along College Avenue and if
the separation from the curb is adequate.
785-793 - This row of honeylocust trees are quite close to the street edge which may be an issue.
They are generally a little smaller being around 5 inch diamter trees.
750 - Very nice pine. Can it be incorporated into a parking lot island?
79 and 80 - Mature Green Ash trees. Can these trees be retained by bending the sidewalk as it
passes by these trees forming a wider parkway by the trees to protect the root systems?
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013:
Tree transplanting:
The tree transplanting specification on LA129 state that there are numerous trees that will be relocated
on the Foothills Fashion Mall site as a component of the redevelopment.
Only 11 trees are currently shown to be transplanted on the Major Amendment landscape plan. Will
additional trees be transplanted which would be more consistent with the specification on LA129 and
the general direction in the LUC?
A priority area to consider for location of transplanted trees could be the landscape area to the north
and east of the parking lot on LA102. Also larger parking lot islands could receive transplanted trees.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Page 10 of 20
10/25/2013: EAE
There appears to be an inconsistency in the labeled width of the EAE at various points on the plat. I
would like to see this corrected or cleaned up if possible. Please contact me with any questions or
concerns.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/27/2013
10/25/2013: The hydrant plan reflected in the revised MJA appears to be satisfactory, however, it
appears that one hydrant (on the SE corner of Macy's) was not shown in the last round of plans
submissions.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/27/2013
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Basil Hamdan, 970-224-6035, bhamdan@fcgov.com
Topic: General
10/23/2013: Please make sure that any drainage flows from the top level of the parking structure are
routed through a vault system such that these can be vaccumed in case of surface washing before
entering the drainage system.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/23/2013
Contact: Glen Schlueter, 970-224-6065, gschlueter@fcgov.com
Topic: General
10/23/2013: Please maintain separation distances between storm lines and trees, in cases where
space is limited, the separation distance can be reduced to 5 feet as long as ornamental trees are
used. In areas where the storm lines are within 10 feet of the building please use storm lines with
water tight joints.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 10/23/2013
Landscaping and site plans do not always agree with utility plans. Please show latest plans, at this
time, make sure all plans are consistent between plan sets. The plans approved for PDP should show
the development plan as they stand now and that are currently under the control of the developer.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 10/23/2013
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com
Topic: General
10/22/2013: The water quality PLDs and Sand Filters have not been reviewed yet for sizing. No sizing
calcs were submitted for the revised and new water quality ponds.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: The City and Developer need to coordinate the landscaping of all water quality ponds.
The City requires additional landscaping for these water quality mitigation ponds. Tall ornamental
grasses should be planted through plugs. Please upgrade the aesthetic quality of the landscaping for
the highly visible water quality ponds. Additionnally please make sure that all exposed retaining walls
in these ponds are done using appropriate material and architectural elements. It is recommended
that at least one educational sign be incorporated into the most visible rain garden.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: The plans do not all match between the site, landscape, and utility. Please coordinate
and match all plans. Water quality ponds are shown on some and not on others.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
Page 11 of 20
10/22/2013: The NW water quality pond looks to be a sand filter at 3 feet deep. This is allowed. Rain
gardens have a maximum depth of 1 foot. Please label all ponds on the grading and drainage plans.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: The City requires curb chases to be concrete for drainage being removed from the street
and into a pond or swale. The metal chases bring water onto the street. Please add the additional
City standard details needed to bring drainage into the ponds as shown on the plans.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: Storm sewer profiles are required.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: The media specs should be on one of the drainage details sheets.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: Please provide all drainage details including the mechanical devices on the utility plans.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: Erosion contol riprap and fabric needs to be designed and detailed.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
10/22/2013: There are line over text issues on sheets A203, A204 & A250. See redlines.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: There is cut off text issues on sheets A208 & A219. See redlines.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: The titles of sheets A218-A225, A231, A233, A255 & A256 do not match the index on
sheet A101. See redlines.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: Please rotate the marked text 180 degrees on sheet A238. See redlines.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: Some of the dimensions are confusing on sheet A242. See redlines.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: Please sharpen up all text & linework on sheets A255 & A256. See redlines.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
Topic: Construction Drawings
10/22/2013: There are line over text issues on several sheets. In the case of sheets C902 & C903, we
suggest that the text be pulled away from the line. See redlines.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: There is cut off text issues on several sheets. See redlines.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: There are several sheets that need text to be rotated 180 degrees. See redlines.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
Page 12 of 20
10/22/2013: There is text on sheets C300 & WQ-002 that is hard to read. Please clean it up. See
redlines.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: There are text over text issues on several sheets. See redlines.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: There is missing text on sheet C500. See redlines.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
Topic: Landscape Plans
10/22/2013: Please rotate the marked text 180 degrees on sheets LA-102, LA-106, LA-117 & LA-118.
See redlines.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: There are line over text issues on sheet LA-118. See redlines.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
Topic: Lighting Plan
10/22/2013: Please sharpen up all text on sheets LD-CS1 - LDCS11. See redlines.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
Topic: Plat
10/22/2013: Were the marked bearings supposed to be spelled out like the rest of the legal
description. See redlines.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: Please make corrections to the Statement Of Ownership And Subdivision as marked.
See redlines.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: All dimensioning must match between the legal description and plat. See redlines.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: Please add "H" to the sub-title on all sheets. See redlines.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: Please conduct a careful review to all sheets of all lot and easement lines to assure there
is enough dimensioning data to establish every lot's & easement's location.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: Lienholder: Previous response acknowledged. Carried over for reference pending
definitive knowledge of lienholder/non-lienholder status.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: There are line over text issues on several sheets. Please mask all text within hatching.
See redlines.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: Please show the square footage of all Lots & Tracts. See redlines.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: Is there updated titlework?
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
Page 13 of 20
10/22/2013: Please correct notes 6 & 7 on sheet 2. See redlines.
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: All of the area shown as Access Easement on sheets 2 & 5 is dedicated as Access
Easement on sheet 8. Is this needed?
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: Please explain the "Air Space Above El. 5016.75' Only" note. See redlines.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: Canal Easement: Previous response acknowledged. To be addressed appropriately at a
later date.
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: Please make sure that Detail A on sheet 3 is correct. See redlines.
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: Please make sure that all Lots & Tracts are labeled. See redlines.
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: Are you vacating the Permenant Right Of Way Easement at the southeast corner of
College Avenue & Foothills Parkway? See redlines.
Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: Please show the boundary between the easements at the northwest corner of the
property shown on sheet 4. See redlines.
Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: Where are the limits of the Access, Transit, Drainage and Utility Easement along College
Avenue? See redlines.
Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: Please show Lot 20 on sheet 7. See redlines.
Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: There is no curve data listed on sheet 7. See redlines.
Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: Please add the boundaries of the Tracts on sheet 8. See redlines.
Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: Should the Access & Emergency Access Easements touch/abut each of the Lots? It
appears Lots 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 & 19 do not have access.
Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: There is some linework in the southeasterly corner of Lot 1 on sheet 8. Please remove it,
if it is not necessary. See redlines.
Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
Topic: Site Plan
10/22/2013: The titles in the index on sheet A101 does not match the titles of sheets A218-A225, A231,
A233, A255 & A256. See redlines.
Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: Please change the legal description on sheet A102 to match the Subdivision Plat.
Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
Page 14 of 20
10/22/2013: There are line over text issues on sheets A103 - A105. Please mask all text within
hatching. See redlines.
Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: Please move "E. Monroe Drive" to the west, on sheet A104. This street stops at the
intersection of J.F.K. Parkway. See redlines.
Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
10/23/2013: If the Notes For Temporaray Traffic and Phasing are exclusive to the Mall internal private
roadways please indicate the Notes as such. If they are relevant to area public roadways a note
should be added stating no work, signs or markings, temporary or permanent can take place on
public streets without first attaining appropriate City approval a minimum of 48 hours in advance of the
desire activity.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/23/2013
10/23/2013: C209: There appears to be a stray "Note A" about ped crosswalk striping and stop bars
south of Foothills Parkway and just east of College. Please review and amend if appropriate.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/23/2013
10/23/2013: C210, C212: Please make sure all lane striping and stencils on the Mall's private streets
do not encroach into the public right-of-way (lane stencils on access drives at Stanford Rd).
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/23/2013
10/23/2013: C211: Please remove the two-way arrows in the two way left turn lane.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/23/2013
10/23/2013: C904: Please provide turning templates using a WB50 making the Westbound right turn.
The vehicle can use the adjacent thru lane for swing room but needs to complete the turn within the
northbound receiving lane.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/23/2013
10/23/2013: Please provide traffic analysis data supporting the design length of the turn lane (is the
length is adequate to not be blocked by adjacent thru traffic; is the storage length is adequate for the
stopped condition, etc).
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/23/2013
10/23/2013: Drawings state the traffic signal at Foothills Parkway and Foothills Mall is to remain. It was
previously to be removed. This needs to be discussed. Please contact Traffic Operations and lets
discuss the signal.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
Topic: General
10/23/2013: Just as a note for the record, City traffic staff will maintain the pavement striping on the east
approach of Foothills Parkway related to the College intersection and any possible future changes to
that striping. This is in essence the Roadway striping west of the western most median on Foothills
Parkway.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/23/2013
Page 15 of 20
10/23/2013: The NE corner of College and Monroe is getting sidewalk and related improvements. It
will most likely require relocation of the existing traffic signal cabinet and underground conduits to
make the space appropriate for pedestrian use.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/23/2013
10/24/2013: This is more of a comment due to not knowing the current conversations. Is the ditch
relocation that will possibly pass under the Coillege and Monroe intersection a part of the ODP/PDP or
being done separately. Questions have been asked about signal issues that may be caused by the
realignment of the ditch. If that impact is true the City desires to get the signal pole structures out of the
medians and back into the corners for safety and maintenance reasons. This isn't set in stone but is
the desire for any future changes to the intersection and signals.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
10/24/2013: It is expected that sidewalk improvements will be required along the east side of College
Avenue which will drive improvements to the ped facilities at the NE College and Monroe intersection.
Those improvements will most likely require moving of some of the Traffic equipment and re-routing of
underground cables and conduits.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
Topic: Traffic Impact Study
10/24/2013: The October 2013 TIS did not recognise the phases proposed in the ODP. Since a TIS
was waived for Phase 1 and the submitted revised TIS lacks any phasing discussion or timing of
improvements based upon the proposed phasing, the City has no choice than to expect all traffic
related roadway improvements to be constructed with whichever of phase 2 or 3 that begins
construction first.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
10/24/2013: The Shopping Center square footage used in the October 2013 TIS trip generation table
does not match the square footage stated in the ODP application. Please revise the TIS to match.
Since both values are less than previously analyzed in earlier TIS reviews it is not expected to cause
additional traffic related improvements.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
10/24/2013: In several locations in the TIS a reference is made to the College and FtHills Parkway
intersection being unsignalized (pg 15, 23), even though it is signalized. Please review and correct or
clarify.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
10/24/2013: Page 26; each short term operational discussion uses the word "would" in a manner that
seems to imply a result if something else happened, but nothing else is provided. Please review and
revise or clarify.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
10/24/2013: Page 28; Same comment for the Long Term operational discussion as stated in Comment
#4.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
Page 16 of 20
10/24/2013: Page 30; the Recommended Laneage discussion regarding the Stanford and Horsetooth
west bound right turn lane states it meets the volume threshold for a right turn lane. Review of the Site
Generated westbound right turning volumes compared with the Existing westbound through Approach
volumes (not including existing WbL or WbR approach volumes) warrants the westbound right turn
lane. As such the City feels the Mall's traffic impact alone warrants the right turn lane and therefore the
Mall Redevelopment project with the responsibility to construct the turn lane.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
Department: Transportation Planning
Contact: Amy Lewin, 970-416-2040, alewin@fcgov.com
Topic: General
10/23/2013: What is the planned timing of the underpass? Can design plans for the underpass be
included with the rest of the plan documents?
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
10/23/2013: Make sure the sight distance and design of the intersection of the underpass and the
sidewalk on College meet Design Guidelines for Grade-Separated Pedestrian, Cyclist and Equestrian
Structures (available at
http://www.fcgov.com/transportationplanning/pdf/ped-bike-horse-design-doc.pdf and the latest ADA
guidelines.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
10/23/2013: Please add missing sidewalks to the south side of Foothills and north side of Monroe to
ensure pedestrian connectivity.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
10/23/2013: ADVISORY: Recommended to consider bike lanes (min. 6¿) instead of shared lane
markings for the ring road. Bicyclists and motorists would both benefit from separate dedicated space.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
10/23/2013: ADVISORY: The City is considering implementing a bike share system, which would
include multiple stations of bikes that people could check out for short-term rentals. Foothills might
benefit from hosting several stations, and we are happy to discuss this with you.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
Topic: Site Plan
10/23/2013: Please ensure there is a strong connection for pedestrians and cyclists between the
underpass of College and the main building of the mall. The route should be as direct as possible and
well signed (Civil Sheet 203). Could the Block 14 building be shifted to accomodate this?
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
10/22/2013: Provide the sanitary sewer profiles on Shts C502 through C510.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: Sht C503 - The sanitary line extending west from the existing MH in Monroe is a service
line and must be replaced with an 8" sewer.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
Page 17 of 20
10/22/2013: Sht C507 - The sanitary line extending northwest from the existing MH in Stanford is a
service line and could be used as a service line for the proposed building if adequately sized. If this
is the intent, replace the manhole shown near the building with a clean-out. This would also eliminate
the need to add an easement for an 8" public sewer extending onto the site.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: Provide water main profiles on Shts C601 through C612.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: Label lengths of water main between valves, fittings, etc.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: Curb stops and meter pits must be in landscaped areas and within utility easements.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: Revise labeling of water services to differentiate between domestic services and fire
lines.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: Replace the existing 10" water main across the front of the mall from the proposed
45-degree bend on the west to the existing 45-degree bend on the east with the main in a casing
across the canopy area at the mall entrance.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: Place valves at both ends of each section of new 8" water main to provide a means of
isolating for pressure testing and disinfection.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: Sht C603, on the southwest side of Lot 9, move the meter pits southeast to the area
adjacent to the sidewalk near the south corner of Lot 9.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: Label the size of all water services.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/24/2013: All 3" domestic water service connections shall be made with an 8" (or 10") x 4" tee (or
tapping saddle if existing water main) with thrust block, 4" gate valve and a 4" x 3" reducer.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
10/24/2013: Curb stops and meter pits must be in easements. Some of the meter pits which are
shown near buildings at considerable distance from the water mains need to be moves to islands
close to the water mains.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
10/24/2013: Identify the areas where the dual water service trench detail is to be utilized.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
Department: Zoning
Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com
Topic: General
10/22/2013: Land Use Code (LUC) section 3.5.3 On proposed Lot 15 the site plan is showing vehicle
Use area in between the building face and the ROW, this is not in compliance with the code.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
Page 18 of 20
10/22/2013: LUC 3.2.1(D)(1)(c) This section requires full tree stocking in planting areas with 50ft of
building.
There should be trees between the drive aisle and sidewalk that runs along the north side of the
building on proposed Lot 16.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: Sheet LA-102 On proposed Lot 15 why does the sidewalk have to bend south to attach to
the drive aisle. This sidewalk should remain straight and the places in between the sidewalk and drive
aisle.
Is the Corner Bakery site apart of the application?
There are some landscape areas that need trees, these may be ornamental depending on location to
utilities.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: Sheet LA-105 On proposed Lot 12 along the East side of the building there should be
some type of foundation plantings, trees in grates in the sidewalk. The elevation drawings on Sheet
A235 even show trees along the sides of the building.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: LUC 3.5.3(D)(2) Requires minimum wall articulation every 30ft and recognizable base and
top treatments.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: Sheets A218, A219 and Sheets A220, A221 are labeled the same building in the Key
Map on each sheet.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: SHeet LA-116 Will there be trees planted under the FAC building overpass?
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/24/2013: LA-101 Along the North side of the Sears building need trees in the planting area in
between sidewalk and drive aisle.
Also there needs to be more trees in between building and sidewalk along College Ave.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/23/2013
10/23/2013: Sheet LA-103 possible new tree or preservation of an existing tree east of the Christy
Sports building.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/23/2013
10/23/2013: Sheet LA-104 need trees in the landscape area immediate to the south of the building on
proposed Lot 13.
Increase the number of trees in the landscape area between the buildings and sidewalk along College
Ave.
Need foundation plantings and trees on the East side of the North building on proposed Lot 13 similar
to that on the South building on the same Lot.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/23/2013
Page 19 of 20
10/23/2013: Sheet LA-113 need trees in planting areas.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/23/2013
10/23/2013: Sheet LA-115 need a tree in landscape area can be ornamental if needed do utility
location.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 10/23/2013
10/23/2013: Sheet LA-117 need a tree in landscape area can be ornamental if needed do utility
location.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 10/23/2013
10/23/2013: Sheet LA-120 need trees in landscape are can be ornamental if needed do to utility
location
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 10/23/2013
Contact: Peter Barnes, 970-416-2355, pbarnes@fcgov.com
Topic: General
10/24/2013: 10/22/2013: A number of sign code modifications were approved with the PDP. The
major amendment submittal makes no mention of those modifications and includes no sheets
reflecting the approved modifications. The only mention of signage is found in Site Plan Note #6 on
Sheet A-103. That note simply states that all signage will comply with the City of Fort Collins sign
code. Absent any other information which is part of the plan, I take that to mean that the developer is
electing to void the modifications and do only signage that complies with the code. If that's not the
intention, and the developer still intends on using the modifications, then the note needs to be
changed and sign drawings showing the approved modifications need to be included as part of the
application. The language in the note should be something like "All signage will comply with the sign
code, except for signs for which modifications were approved on February 7, 2013, and are illustrated
on Sheets ??? to ???". We received a sign package submittal showing compliance with the approved
modifications as part of the earlier final plan submittal. Those sheets were dated May 22, 2013 - and
shown as sheet 303 thru 318. Something similar should be submitted as part of the Major Amendment
package
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
Page 20 of 20