HomeMy WebLinkAboutFOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT, PHASE TWO - FDP - FDP130054 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS8055 East Tufts Ave., Suite 850 | Denver Colorado 80237
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________
303 220 8900 | 303 220 0708 Fax
www.semarchitects.com | www.f-w.com
December 20, 2013
Ms Courtney Levingston
City of Ft Collins, Current Planning
281 North College Avenue
Ft Collins, CO 80524
RE: Foothills Mall Redevelopment PA 2 Final Plans
Thank you for your efforts on the Foothills application. We have addressed the PA2 PDP MJA
comments in the order they were received.
Comment Summary:
Department: Current Planning
Contact: Courtney Levingston, 970-416-2283, clevingston@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
12/16/2013: PA2 now shows 300 bike parking spaces and we understand 449 multi-
family units. However the redevelopment agreement shows a requirement of 1,400 bike
parking spaces. Please address.
10/22/2013: The plan shows 600 bike spaces, however the redevelopment agreement
calls out 1,400 bike parking spaces.
The overall bike parking breaks out in the following phases:
Planning Area 1: 12 spaces
Planning Area 2: 288 spaces
Planning Area 3: 1,176 spaces (per approved PDP)
Total bike spaces: 1,476 spaces
Planning Area 3 is the residential development that will include the bulk of the bike
parking.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: On sheet A102 in the project parking table, the total number of spaces is
incorrect. The total number provided (2130 + 978 = 3,108) not 3,082.
The total parking number has been revised as part of the submittal.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: Please call out where the electric vehicle charging stations will be located.
The vehicle charging stations have been included in the General Notes on A102 as
discussed with Staff. The stations will be placed at the West end of the Commons at
PA2 Final Plans- Comment responses
12/20/13
Page | 2
Foothills until the permanent location planned for the second level of the parking
structure is available.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
11/26/2013: The indication changed from "by others" to "by City of Fort Collins",
which then needs "at the developer's expense" added to the end of the sentence.
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.
This will need to be worked out in the development agreement. This request appears to
be contrary to previous agreements between the developer and the City. Our
understanding is that the developer provide $4,000 towards this work and the City is to
perform the work.
The developer is aware of this latest change and requests that some type of formal
agreement is reached in the development agreement prior to agreeing to this on the
plans.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
11/26/2013: The information, (now shown on C506) does need to indicate the
consolidation of patching, per 25.2.D of LCUASS ("Where three or more pavement cuts
are proposed within a 75-foot-long roadway section, the pavement between the patches
shall be milled and inlaid with new pavement over the entire work area.")
Please provide direction on if the patches will be required to be consolidated or not.
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.
Please provide direction on if the patches will be required to be consolidated or not.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
11/26/2013: Comment not resolved.
PA2 Final Plans- Comment responses
12/20/13
Page | 3
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.
This detail is for the private walks onsite. We see no need for 6” thick walks on the
private site (outside of the public right of way). Please let us know if this will not be
acceptable. We will clarify which detail goes with which walk type.
To meet Planning’s request that we submit as soon as possible after PDP approval, we
uploaded our FDP plans last week, therefore this comment is not captured in these
plans. We will ensure that this revision happens with the next round of revisions.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
11/26/2013: Comment appears to not be addressed (now shown on C813)
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.
The detail is also being used in areas where the area that is shown at at 1:12 needs to be
less than 2% to be ADA compliant. We are using the detail for the purposed of
showing how the truncated domes are installed and where they are to go. The crossed
out slope conflict with some ramps we have designed on the project. We feel it
necessary to remove the conflicting information, but the detail still works for its
intended purpose.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
11/26/2013: The plans have added some spot elevations and a slope intercept line that
would appear to indicate that most of the work can be constructed within existing right-
of-way, except for a sliver of land approaching the intersection. which appear to then
require a grading easement. In discussion with Rick Richter, along with the design
information on the plans, a cost estimate is needed that estimates: 1) the cost to fully
complete the design, 2) the cost to construct the turn lane, and 3) the cost to acquire
easements for construction that occurs outside of right-of-way. The cost estimate will be
reviewed and when finalized, security at 150% of the total cost in the form of
cash/check will need to be provided in lieu of the completion of the design and securing
of the public infrastructure cost.
The requested Cost estimate was emailed to your attention on 12/18/2013. Please
review and us know if it is acceptable and the developer will secure the bond.
PA2 Final Plans- Comment responses
12/20/13
Page | 4
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.
Additional grading information has been added along with cross sections for review.
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.
The turn lane plans have been taken to an FDP level and include cross sections.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
11/26/2013: The civil plans and plans in general appear to be consistent with the
redevelopment of Christy Sports and Corner Bakery. The Christy Sports property I
understand is not under present ownership by the developer/owner, but with the
developer/owner signing off on the development review application form, it serves as
indication of the developer/owner acting on behalf of both Christie Sports and Sears.
Acknowledged
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.
Understood. To meet Planning’s request that we submit as soon as possible after PDP
approval, we uploaded our FDP plans last week, therefore this comment is not captured
in these plans. We will ensure that this revision happens with the next round of
revisions. The property lines will be added to the site plan.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
11/26/2013: A plat was not apparently included in the submittal for verification of lot
lines.
PA2 Final Plans- Comment responses
12/20/13
Page | 5
The Plat is submitted in this package.
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?
The intent shown on the attached FDP submittal is that this entire area is to be
redeveloped including the two parcels in question.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
11/26/2013: I'm understanding that the timing of the underpass construction with the
project is being coordinated with Cameron Gloss.
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.
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.
Acknowledged.
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: 16 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
PA2 Final Plans- Comment responses
12/20/13
Page | 6
11/26/2013: Note that ordinances for vacating Foothills Parkway/Mathews along with
College Avenue have been placed on the 12/3 City Council meeting for first reading.
I've had some inquiry from both legal counsel for Sears and Bob Everitt representing
the Christie Sports property. No formal objection was received by either party.
Acknowledged. Following the 12/3 council meeting, Marc Virata has suggested that
the language of the ordinance state that the ordinance will be recorded concurrently
with the plat. The plat will reflect this approach and we will coordinate with Marc to
present this option at the second reading.
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.
Our understanding of the purpose of the PA1 submittal was that it was needed to get a
head start on building the PA1 building due to Tenant timing issues. The hardscape and
other improvements were included in the PA1 submittal were solely there to enable it
to go thru the City entitlement process to get a building permit. The PA1 site
improvements will be constructed at the same time as the PA2 improvements.
The PA1 building at its closest point is roughly 6’ outside from the canal easement.
Therefore we anticipate being able to start construction of the PA1 building without
impacts to the canal or easement.
The ditch company will need to sign the plat however prior to the start of construction
of the PA2 site improvements.
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
PA2 Final Plans- Comment responses
12/20/13
Page | 7
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.
The plat process is moving forward as described above. We are anticipating recording
the plat in late January with the ROW vacation being recorded concurrently with the
plat.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
11/26/2013: Comment considered no longer applicable with Corner Bakery no longer
shown to remain. Should the status change, this comment may be updated again.
10/24/2013: Carried over for reference to be included in the development agreement.
Acknowledged.
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: 18 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
11/26/2013: Comment considered no longer applicable with Corner Bakery no longer
shown to remain. Should the status change, this comment may be updated again.
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?
Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 06/07/2013
PA2 Final Plans- Comment responses
12/20/13
Page | 8
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: 19 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
11/26/2013: With no plat received, comment carried over for reference..
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.
See response to comment #16 above.
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: 20 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
10/24/2013: There is a sanitary sewer connection that shows construction taking place
outside of the Monroe Drive main drive aisle connection. The limits of this construction
shows to be outside of the existing cross access agreement. Absent of any
documentation of an existing easement, it appears an easement for the offsite
construction is needed and per Larimer County's records would be needed from three
different property owners, Northstar Investments LTD, Arena Office Park Owners
Association, and Sitzman Investments LP. The City submittal requirements would
require that letters of intent are obtained from these property owners prior to a hearing
for the major amendment. With this being a utility related item, I'll defer to Roger
Buffington on ultimately if this item is an issue.
PA2 Final Plans- Comment responses
12/20/13
Page | 9
The project Surveyor has located an existing 30’ Utility Easement (Rec. 466327) that
covers this area. We will add this to the plans on the next go round.
Also the developer is working to obtain the requested letters of intent.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: With the indication of residential areas not being part of the submittal,
does this mean that sidewalk connections along the drive aisles fronting these
residential areas won't be built at this time? Verification may be needed from
Transportation Planning and/or Planning on whether they find an importance of having
these drive aisles have sidewalk connections with the commercial part of the mall,
ahead of the residential component.
As it is currently planned, those walks are to be built at the same time as the residential
parcels. Any walks constructed at this time will be required to be removed or be
destroyed due to the proximity of the resi buildings and walls.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
11/26/2013: The wetlands for this phase will be mitigated by the Natural Areas
Department and will be stipulated in the Development Agreement. Environmental
Planning is ready for a hearing.
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?
We 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 us know.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Tree removal timing - based on our conversation last year, tree removal
timing may need to be amended from what the ECS recommends as staff have indicated
PA2 Final Plans- Comment responses
12/20/13
Page | 10
that a great horned owl has used the trees along the canal for nesting in the winter
months. A pre construction survey will be required to assess if raptors are nesting in the
trees, if tree removal is to take place outside of the April 1 July 31 window related to
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
The developer and contractor are aware of the need for this survey.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 10/22/2013:
Comment Originated: 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
Updated Foothills Mall Tree Survey List has been provided.
Comment Number: 3 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
PA2 Final Plans- Comment responses
12/20/13
Page | 11
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".
Each tree has been reviewed individually in relation to size, condition, location and
effects of proposed construction impacts to determine condition and suitability for
relocation or retention on site. Due to the age and layout of the current development, a
major re-design of the site is required in order to most adequately adapt the site to
current market demands. The design and layout of the new site considered aesthetic,
economic, and logistic factors and all trees were evaluated for protection, relocation or
retention to “the extent reasonably feasible”. It is clear that the retention of many of the
trees would prohibit the use of the site in a reasonable manner, and for that reason,
many of the trees will require removal. Significant efforts have been made during the
design process to retain as many trees as possible without negatively impacting the
financial viability of the project.
Comment Number: 12 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?
PA2 Final Plans- Comment responses
12/20/13
Page | 12
Please refer to the response above. We are saving trees 785-793, 135, 134, 133, 139,
804, and 46.
Comment Number: 13 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.
There will not be any additional trees transplanted on site. Specification on LA129 will
be revised.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 12/01/2013
12/01/2013: Comment number 1 (10-22-13) is continued. The applicant will need to
provide the updated tree inventory and mitigation plan and include the required number
of mitigation trees on the final phase 2 landscape plans. Upsized trees are not currently
shown on the landscape plan for phase 2.
The tree mitigation plan for PA2 is provided with the updated PA2 PDP submittal. All
the trees that are not labeled are upsized trees. You can find the note on sheet LA-128,
and the note has been adjusted to make sure it reads clear to everyone.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 12/01/2013
12/01/2013: Tree inventory information for existing trees in Tract H Southmore village
5th filing has not previously been included. Please provide this information as a
supplement to the tree inventory and mitigation plan. Explore options to retain
desirable significant trees in this area along the north perimeter of the project for
mature screening of adjacent residential.
The survey information for that lot just became available recently, and it is included in
the PA2 tree inventory and mitigation plan. Based on the most current site plan, we
were not able to remain any existing trees in this area, and a row of proposed evergreen
trees are provided to screen the adjacent residential lots.
PA2 Final Plans- Comment responses
12/20/13
Page | 13
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 12/01/2013
12/01/2013: Comment number 12 (10-22-13) is continued just for tree number 42 and
for trees at Stanford and Monroe by the detention area along Stanford.
Previous discussions indicated that tree number 42 which is a mature pine could be
retained on Sheet LA 101. Is this feasible and still being considered?
Existing trees to retain by the detention area at the corner of Monroe and Stanford are
shown along Monroe. Please also show those existing trees to retain along Stanford by
the detention area which appear to include trees 286-301.
We discussed that we would look into the possibility of saving tree 42, and but after all
the internal discussion we came to a conclusion that tree 42 cannot be saved.
Those trees have been included on the plan.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 12/01/2013
12/01/2013: As a final check please confirm and provide a statement that all the
existing trees currently shown to retain appear to have enough of the area of the
existing root systems undisturbed to provide likely hood of survival.
The statement is provided on sheet 129.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 12/01/2013
12/01/2013: Review landscape detail B on sheet LA-130A to confirm the density of
trees and plants along Monroe.
That’s a typical planting section along Monroe. It mainly shows the condition at the
corner of Monroe and College. The section was requested before by the city staff, which
is why we are showing it this way. The section will be adjusted a little bit in order to
show it’s a typical section along Monroe.
Comment Number: 19
12/01/2013: Plant Lists Comments:
General Plant List on sheet LA 128:
Provide quantities and sizes of all landscape plants on final landscape plan. List all
trees as B&B Balled and Burlap in the plant list. By Redbud in the plant lists add
(Northern seed source).
Amur Maple (Acer ginnala) is listed as a shrub but is an ornamental tree. Hillspire
Juniper is listed an evergreen shrub but is an evergreen tree.
Quantities and sizes of all landscape plants are provided in this FDP submittal.
Revisions have been made per request.
PA2 Final Plans- Comment responses
12/20/13
Page | 14
Amur Maple has been removed from the shrub list. In the “City of Fort Collins Plant
List April 2011”, Amur Maple is listed under Deciduous Shrubs, which is why it was
listed that way.
Hillspire Juniper has been removed from the evergreen shrub list. Again, in the “City of
Fort Collins Plant List April 2011”, Hillspire Juniper is listed under Evergreen Shrubs,
which is why it was listed that way.
Comment Originated: 12/01/2013
Rocky Mountain Juniper is a tree with the exception of the shrub cultivar Blue Creeper.
As a recommendation consider specifying cultivar(s) of Mugo Pine on the plant list on
LA 128. For consideration at appropriate locations consider Tannenbaum mugo pine
that is a small tree- form having a mature size of 12-15 feet height and 5-6 feet spread.
Some smaller dwarf shrub forms to consider are Mops, Slowmound, Valley Cushion and
White bud.
Provide the required number of mitigation trees and list their minimum sizes as follows
on the plant list on sheet LA 128.
Canopy Shade trees 3.0 inch caliper
Ornamental trees 2.5 inch caliper
Evergreen trees 8 feet height
Plant list on LA 130:
Western Arborvitae in is listed but does not appear on the tree list on LA 128. It also is
not a species grown in our area.
On sheet LA-130, the shrub is listed that way. The note has been added on sheet LA-
128. More detailed plant material selections will catch up in the revised Final Plans
submittal.
Thank you for the recommendation, we have chosen Tannenbaum mugo pine in place
of Western Arborvitae.
The number has been provided on sheet LA-128. Min sizes have been changed per
request.
Western Arborvitae is listed in the “City of Fort Collins Plant List April 2011” under
coniferous shrubs, which is why we picked that plant. According to your comment, the
plant has been eliminated from the plant list.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 12/01/2013
12/01/2013: Some of the tree symbols have a plant size as part of the direct label on
some of the Landscape sheets. Review these labels that have sizes to be sure the
required number of mitigation trees is consistently listed. Some ornamental trees have
1.5 inch on their symbol.
PA2 Final Plans- Comment responses
12/20/13
Page | 15
A large quantity of proposed trees will be upsized to meet the mitigation value. In order
to keep the plans look clear and easy to read, all of the proposed trees that are not
labeled will be upsized. You can find the note on sheet LA-128.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 12/01/2013
12/01/2013:
Along the entry drive on sheet LA 104 and LA 108 just north of Foothills Parkway
consider if the more upright ornamental tree Chanticleer Pear might would function
better than the 6 Redbuds shown between the sidewalk and curb at this location.
Changes have been made per the comment.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 12/01/2013
12/01/2013: Crimson King Maple is not as drought tolerant as most of the other trees
specified. In the potentially dryer locations shown with native prairie grass on sheets
LA102, LA110, LA 114 and LA 119 where Crimson King Maple is shown a more
drought tolerant species such as Shademaster Honeylocust would have better
adaptation. Also on LA 108 the planting areas in front of the building is fairly smaller
so again a more drought tolerant species such as Shademaster honeylocust would have
better adaptation.
Changes have been made per the comment, but there is no Crimson King Maple shown
on sheet LA 114.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 12/01/2013
12/01/2013: Previous comment number 13 (10-22-13) is continued. At the design
meeting in October the general discussion was to look at transplanting around 22 trees.
Current plans show 11 trees to transplant. Will the final landscape plan include
additional transplanted trees?
We have responded to the same comment in previous submittals. We are transplanting
Eleven (11) trees, and there will not be any additional transplanted trees.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 12/01/2013
12/01/2013: Please add tree protection specification (7) found in LUC 3.2.1 G. (7) to
the Tree Protection Specifications found on sheet LA 129.
Spec (7) has been added.
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 12/01/2013
12/01/2013: Planting Details comments on Sheet LA 130:
PA2 Final Plans- Comment responses
12/20/13
Page | 16
Ornamental Tree Detail:
Since the statement- No tree shall be planted close than 5 feet from the edge of parking
lot or sidewalk does not appear to apply in all situation please consider removing this
statement.
The statement has been removed.
Conifer Tree Detail:
Change the statement that says- Container Grown trees to say - B&B balled and burlap
or equivalent.
Change has been made.
Canopy Tree Detail:
Please review the statement for deletion that says Remove burlap material from top of
Root ball and bend back wire basket. This statement is in conflict with another
statement on this detail that describes these tasks.
That statement has been deleted.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 12/01/2013
12/01/2013: Consider if it is feasible to provide a great mix of tree types by using more
ornamental and evergreen trees at some priority locations.
Acknowledged.
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 10/25/2013: EAE
Comment Originated: 10/27/2013
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.
We have revised to EAE to be a more consistent width throughout the site and
particularly encompassing the mall building itself. There are still variances where
avoidance of design features and coincidence with lot lines would be preferred to the
standard width. The EAE was discussed with Jim during the October meeting with the
city and these revisions reflect his general comments.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
PA2 Final Plans- Comment responses
12/20/13
Page | 17
Contact: Basil Hamdan, 970-224-6035, bhamdan@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/23/2013
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.
The Owner and design team has discussed this issue at length and corresponded with
the Operations director at Alberta's nearby property The Streets at Southglenn in
Centennial Colorado to verify our findings. We have confirmed that no detergents are
used when cleaning the floors on the parking deck that could damage the plants. The
floors are periodically swept and vacuumed and when occasional power washing does
happen to spots an Organic degreaser is used.
Any tank that was installed would need to be above ground (or suspended in the
building) due to the need to discharge the outlets into the basins above grade. Therefore
the owner prefers to use training instead of tanks.
The Owner is aware that they will need to replace any dead plants in the basins and they
are fully prepared to train operations personnel in the proper procedures to use to clean
the deck.
In consideration of the above please confirm if a tank will be required.
Contact: Glen Schlueter, 970-224-6065, gschlueter@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 10/23/2013
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.
Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 12 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.
PA2 Final Plans- Comment responses
12/20/13
Page | 18
Apologies if there are conflicting items. While nothing can be fully 100% seamless, we
have done our best and now believe that the plans sets should now be in full agreement.
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
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.
The calcs in question are an attachment to the storm water management plan. Full
copies of this were transmitted to your attention by us on 12/3/2013. Please let me
know if you need anything else.
Comment Number: 2 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.
The landscape plan has been updated to accommodate a more formal landscape look.
Several different type of ornamental grass have been planted in the water ponds. Tall
ornamental grasses are planted through plugs.
Comment Number: 3 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.
Apologies if there are conflicting items. While nothing can be fully 100% seamless, we
have done our best and now believe that the plans sets should now be in full agreement.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
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.
PA2 Final Plans- Comment responses
12/20/13
Page | 19
The proper SF or RG callouts have been added to the grading plans.
Comment Number: 5 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.
This detail has been added to the plans.
Comment Number: 6
10/22/2013: Storm sewer profiles are required.
The profiles have been added to the attached FDP set.
Comment Number: 7
10/22/2013: The media specs should be on one of the drainage details sheets.
The media specifications are in section 33 44 19.22 of the project specification manual
(please let me know if you need a copy). The specification is 12 pages long and
therefore we would prefer not to put it on the plans. A shorten spec is risky as it may
not fully convey what is needed. If certain pieces of info are required please let me
know what you want to see and we’ll get it on the plans.
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: Please provide all drainage details including the mechanical devices on
the utility plans.
The requested details of the Mech devices are on sheet WQ 005 – relevant device
specific data is on the storm sewer plans.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: Erosion contol riprap and fabric needs to be designed and detailed.
A “greener” solution was selected over the previously proposed concrete mats.
Scourstop mats are now proposed. Mat sizing is called out on sheet C812.
Mats were sized using manufacturer’s recommendations found at http://www.hanes-
products.com/scourstop/default.asp
PA2 Final Plans- Comment responses
12/20/13
Page | 20
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
11/26/2013: This has not been corrected, and there are now issues on sheets A240 &
A244. See redlines.
Revised.
10/22/2013: Please rotate the marked text 180 degrees on sheet A238. See redlines.
Revised.
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
11/27/2013: There are still issues on sheets C602, C603, C604 & C612. See redlines.
Apologies, these comments were received after we submitted the attached FDP set. We
will incorporate along with any new comments on the next round.
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.
Apologies, these comments were received after we submitted the attached FDP set. We
will incorporate along with any new comments on the next round.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
11/27/2013: There is still an issue on sheet C612. See redlines.
10/22/2013: There are several sheets that need text to be rotated 180 degrees. See
redlines.
Apologies, these comments were received after we submitted the attached FDP set. We
will incorporate along with any new comments on the next round.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
11/27/2013: This has not been changed. We will not hold the project up because of this,
but the consultant needs to understand that a note will be attached to each sheet stating
that "Poor Quality Originals Were Provided" if the scanning quality is not to our
standards.
Acknowledged.
PA2 Final Plans- Comment responses
12/20/13
Page | 21
10/22/2013: There is text on sheets C300 & WQ-002 that is hard to read. Please clean
it up. See redlines.
Apologies, these comments were received after we submitted the attached FDP set. We
will incorporate along with any new comments on the next round.
Comment Number: 11
11/27/2013: There is still an issue on sheet C601. See redlines.
Apologies, these comments were received after we submitted the attached FDP set. We
will incorporate along with any new comments on the next round.
10/22/2013: There are text over text issues on several sheets. See redlines.
Apologies, these comments were received after we submitted the attached FDP set. We
will incorporate along with any new comments on the next round.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 13
11/26/2013: There is still an issue on sheets LA-102 & LA-127. See redlines.
Revisions have been made.
Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: Please rotate the marked text 180 degrees on sheets LA-102, LA-106, LA-
117 & LA-118. See redlines.
Revisions have been made.
Comment Number: 44 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: There is a text over text issue on sheet A219. See redlines.
Revisions have been made.
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 45 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013: There are line over text issues on sheets LD-M3, LD-M4, LD-M6, LD-M7,
LD-M8. See redlines.
Line over text issues will be rectified.
PA2 Final Plans- Comment responses
12/20/13
Page | 22
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 20 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.
Item has been addressed in the latest version of the plat.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
11/15/2013: Lienholder: Previous response acknowledged. Carried over for reference
pending definitive knowledge of lienholder/non-lienholder status.
10/22/2013: Lienholder: Previous response acknowledged. Carried over for reference
pending definitive knowledge of lienholder/non-lienholder status.
We are coordinating with the Owner’s attorneys to provide documentation of any
lienholders and their status leading up to plat recordation.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
11/15/2013: There are still issues on several sheets. See redlines.
10/22/2013: There are line over text issues on several sheets. Please mask all text
within hatching. See redlines.
Item has been addressed in the latest version of the plat.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
11/15/2013: Please add a dashed line to the easement on sheet 5. See redlines.
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?
Item has been addressed in the latest version of the plat.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
11/15/2013: Please add a note (#11) on sheet 2 regarding monumentation of airspace
lots, and add "(See note #11, This Sheet)" on each of those airspace lots.
10/22/2013: Please explain the "Air Space Above El. 5016.75' Only" note. See redlines.
Item has been addressed in the latest version of the plat.
Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
11/15/2013: This has not be addressed.
PA2 Final Plans- Comment responses
12/20/13
Page | 23
10/22/2013: Please show the boundary between the easements at the northwest corner
of the property shown on sheet 4. See redlines.
Item has been addressed in the latest version of the plat.
Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
11/15/2013: This has not been addressed.
10/22/2013: Where are the limits of the Access, Transit, Drainage and Utility Easement
along College Avenue? See redlines.
Item has been addressed in the latest version of the plat.
Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
11/15/2013: This has not been addressed.
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.
This item was discussed with City and John Lynxwiler and reconciled with the intent of
Alberta. Easements will only be within drive lanes and are intended to allow emergency
vehicles access to the drive areas.
Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 11/15/2013
11/15/2013: Please check the possible typo in Owner Signature Block #4. See redlines.
Item has been addressed in the latest version of the plat.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
11/27/2013: This has been changed, but there is a typo near the end of the legal
description. See redlines.
10/22/2013: Please change the legal description on sheet A102 to match the
Subdivision Plat.
Legal description was pulled directly from the Plat drawing and should match the plat’s
legal.
Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
11/27/2013: There are still line over text issues on sheet A103. See redlines.
10/22/2013: There are line over text issues on sheets A103 - A105. Please mask all text
within hatching. See redlines.
PA2 Final Plans- Comment responses
12/20/13
Page | 24
The block numbers on Sht. A104 will be repositioned so that they do not overlap
building lines.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/23/2013
12/04/2013: Comment not addressed yet. Comment remains active.
11/27/2013: Comment not addressed. Comment remains Active.
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.
The template turn exhibit was submitted electronically to you by email on 12/17/13.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
12/04/2013: Foothills Parkway and Foothills Mall signal still shown on Plans and
stated as included in the most recent TIS (Dec 2013). Dec 2013 TIS again reviewed the
warrant for the signal and it again does not meet warrants for a signal at this location.
Staff maintains its position that the City is not in agreement with a traffic signal being
operated by a private entity within City boundaries.
1/27/2013: Signal is still shown on the plans. As of this review I've not heard of any
further City staff acceptance allowing the signal to remain. The signal should be
considered removed until the City provides formal agreement for it to remain.
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.
The unwarranted signal is now proposed to be removed.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
12/04/2013: No new plans received as of this date. Comment continued.
11/27/2013: Sht C002, C003: The Traffic Signing notes #1 - #3 on Sht. C002 are
duplicated on Sht. C003, #31 - #33. No Need for duplication of the Notes.
Apologies, these comments were received after we submitted the attached FDP set. We
will incorporate along with any new comments on the next round.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
12/04/2013: No new plans received as of this date. Comment continued.
PA2 Final Plans- Comment responses
12/20/13
Page | 25
11/27/2013: Sht's C207 - C212: Just a comment and suggestion: The amount of
pavement striping/stencils displayed on the plans is a significant amount of paint and
maintenance of that paint to keep the Mall area looking fresh and bright. City Traffic
would suggest a much more minimalist approach and remove all the Two Way Left
Turn lane stencils, using only one maybe two sets of arrows in turn lanes, all the
directional arrows in the drive lanes, all the STOP pavement stencils, "ONLY" stencils,
shared lane markings, through lane markings and diagonal striping inside gore/median
striping. A minimalist approach is easier to maintain at a level that is an asset to the
new mall grounds. Too much striping gets ignored and the significant quantity shown
on the plans could compete with other beautification treatments. Start with good lane
striping and necessary stencils. If trouble spots arise over time then consider additional
pavement markings.
Acknowledged. We will review the amount of proposed striping and revise on the next
submittal.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
12/04/2013: No new plans received as of this date. Comment continued.
11/27/2013: Any new R1-1, STOP signs used at/approaching public street intersections
should be 36" x 36" with a street name sign above, if applicable.
Acknowledged. We will revise on the next submittal.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
12/04/2013: No new plans received as of this date. Comment continued.
11/27/2013: Sht C904: please relocate the turn arrow stencils to 8' after the beginning
of the full width turn lane and 8' before the Stop bar.
Acknowledged. We will revise on the next submittal.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
12/04/2013: No new plans received as of this date. Comment continued.
11/27/2013: Please add a little more curvature or angle to the Ri/Ro access on Monroe
just west of JFK to discourage wrong way entry. Also add a "Do Not Enter" sign to its
SW corner area angled to face the east bound traffic on Monroe.
Acknowledged. We will revise on the next submittal.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 12/05/2013
PA2 Final Plans- Comment responses
12/20/13
Page | 26
12/05/2013: There are discrepancies between Site Plan Sht A103 and Site Plan Sht
C200. A few I've found are discrepancies between what is ahown as Lot 14 and Tract L,
and one plan shows a Lot 20 (sht A103) but the other does not. There may be others.
Please review and coordinate the correct information across the plans.
Apologies if there are conflicting items. While nothing can be fully 100% seamless, we
have done our best and now believe that the plans sets should now be in full agreement.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
12/04/2013: No new plans received as of this date. Comment continued.
11/27/2013: Site Plan Notes #10: Traffic Operations is not in agreement with the
language of the note. Please delete any traffic related language in the note.
Acknowledged. We will revise on the next submittal.
Topic: Traffic Impact Study
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: TIS has intersections with Short Term Total LOS's at F on some
movements. All Approach and overall LOS's meet City LOS requirements per
Table 4-3, LCUASS. Staff has evaluated those failing locations within it's
modeling programs and determoned that the volumes in the TIS locations do not
cause failures in our model or that the failing movements can easily be
mitigated with minor timing adjustments. Staff requests the TIS be revised again
to mitigate those failing LOS's. Staff will provide input on the locations of
concern. Since they can be mitigated there is no expectation of delay to the
forward progress of the project.
Response is in progress.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: The Short Term Background analysis documents are missing in the revised
TIS. Please include those Short Term Background analysis documents in the final TIS.
Response is in progress.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Please revise the language on page 30, E. Recommended Laneage, bullet
#2, to provide that the City is not requiring the WbR turn lane at JFK in favor of
keeping the available space for a west bound bike lane.
PA2 Final Plans- Comment responses
12/20/13
Page | 27
Response is in progress.
Department: Transportation Planning
Contact: Amy Lewin, 970-416-2040, alewin@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
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?
Based on an 11/15/13 conversation with Rich Richter, the pedestrian plans can be on a
separate plan set and separate approval process. The developer’s agreement is to
specify approval due dates. The timing of the underpass plans will lag the other plans,
so they cannot be combined.
Comment Number: 3 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.
The referenced city document refers to AASHTO requirements. There is a proposed
stop sign for the eastbound bicyclists, and the north-south movement will not have stop
signs. With this configuration, using the AASHTO Guide for the Development of
Bicycle Facilities, the current design allows for over a 15 MPH design speed on the
north-south movement.
Comment Number: 5 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.
Shared lane markings will remain as the additional lanes (existing configuration)
combined with a 4 way stop provide a higher overall LOS.
Comment Number: 6 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.
Thank you for that offer.
PA2 Final Plans- Comment responses
12/20/13
Page | 28
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
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?
Current deals for the two buildings preclude the opportunity to reconfigure the Block 14
buildings. Pedestrian and bicycle access to the mall is enhanced with a dedicated path
and enhanced landscaping to demarcate this travel path.
Contact: Emma McArdle, 970-224-6197, emcardle@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013: I am unable to tell where the bus stop on Stanford is on your site plan. The
bus stop pad needs to be 18' wide by 12' deep and have a clear back between the curb
and sidewalk of at least 5' wide. You have this at the other 2 stops but I don't see it here.
Please clarify on your site plan where this will be.
Sheet C206 best shows the bus stop in question. The addition of the pad for the
structure and bike parking to the existing walk creates a pad 12’ deep by roughly 32’
wide.
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 1
11/26/2013:
10/22/2013: Provide the sanitary sewer profiles on Shts C502 through C510.
The requested profiles have been added with the attached FDP submittal
Comment Number: 2
11/26/2013: Is the existing sewer service a 4" or a 6"?
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.
Our surveyor picked up an 8” line here. I have requested that a field verification of this
be done to confirm it.
PA2 Final Plans- Comment responses
12/20/13
Page | 29
The service in the proposed condition will serve only one building so we see no reason
to upsize this line taking into account the cost considerations. If it is a question of
condition can the line be camera’d to verify instead of the costly replacement?
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
11/26/2013: Now on C506 - The existing service is likely not an 8";therefore, it will not
work to connect an 8" from the building to it.
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.
At this time the line is shown unchanged. This service will not be installed until the
PA3 buildings are constructed and there actual layout is not 100% confirmed. When
PA3 is going to construction plans will be submitted to design this service or main
(whatever it ends up being).
Comment Number: 4 11/26/2013:
10/22/2013: Provide water main profiles on Shts C601 through C612.
The requested profiles have been added with the attached FDP submittal.
Comment Number: 5 11/26/2013:
10/22/2013: Label lengths of water main between valves, fittings, etc.
The requested dimensions have been added with the attached FDP submittal
Comment Number: 6 11/26/2013:
Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: Curb stops and meter pits must be in landscaped areas and within utility
easements.
We have done our best to accomplish this. There are a few exceptions where there we
no other options. The meters that serve the main mall are such occurrences.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
11/26/2013:
10/22/2013: Revise labeling of water services to differentiate between domestic services
and fire lines.
PA2 Final Plans- Comment responses
12/20/13
Page | 30
The requested labels have been added with the attached FDP submittal.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
11/26/2013:
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.
We discussed the full replacement of the line in this area with the owner and in our
meeting onsite a few weeks ago. The owner would prefer not to incur this cost as the
entire mall design was based on keeping this waterline in place. Has there been a
condition assessment performed that would indicate that this line must be
replaced? This would help this discussion with the owner.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
11/26/2013:
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.
Apologies, these comments were received after we submitted the attached FDP set. We
will incorporate along with any new comments on the next round.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
11/26/2013: Clarify sizes in accordance with Comment 15 below.
10/22/2013: Label the size of all water services.
The requested labels have been added with the attached FDP submittal.
Comment Number: 13 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.
Where possible, we did the best we could with this on the attached plans.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
11/26/2013: Are any of these locations upstream of the curb stops/meter pits?
10/24/2013: Identify the areas where the dual water service trench detail is to be
utilized.
PA2 Final Plans- Comment responses
12/20/13
Page | 31
All of the dual water service trench locations are upstream of the meters. The locations
have been noted on the plans (C602).
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Water services from the City main to the meter shall be the same size as the
meter. The service size may be increased from a point 5 feet downstream of the meter to
the building.
Where we did this it is noted on the attached plans.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Connect the fire line and domestic service to Lot 19 to the existing main in
Mathews rather than to the fire hydrant lead.
Apologies, these comments were received after we submitted the attached FDP set. We
will incorporate along with any new comments on the next round.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013: A note Sht C900 directs a F Hyd to be relocated; however, this water
mainand F Hyd are to be abandoned as shown on Sht C305.
Apologies, these comments were received after we submitted the attached FDP set. We
will incorporate along with any new comments on the next round.
Department: Zoning
Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
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.
The paved area between the building façade and ROW on Lot 15 is a sidewalk link
from the proposed hard surface multi-use path to the existing cell tower.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
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.
PA2 Final Plans- Comment responses
12/20/13
Page | 32
The building has been located to allow this row of trees on the north of the building.
Comment Number: 3 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.
The sidewalk shown linking the existing cell tower to the proposed hard surface multi-
use path must bend to the south to connect beyond the point at which the path must
slope to meet the pedestrian underpass.
Is the Corner Bakery site a part of the application?
Yes
There are some landscape areas that need trees, these may be ornamental depending on
location to utilities.
Per the most recent redlines, we believe we have added all the additional trees per
request, and we also are meeting the mitigation requirements
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.
Foundation plantings have been added. Architectural plans have been updated to match
landscape plans.
Comment Number: 4 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.
We have added stone base materials and overhangs on buildings. RE: Revised
buildings & materials package included in this submittal.
Comment Number: 5 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.
PA2 Final Plans- Comment responses
12/20/13
Page | 33
We have revised and coordinated the key plan. RE: Revised buildings & materials
package included in this submittal.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
10/22/2013: SHeet LA-116 Will there be trees planted under the FAC building
overpass?
Trees won’t be planted under the overpass.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/23/2013
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.
The building has been located to allow this row of trees on the north of the building.
Comment Number: 8 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.
On sheet LA 103, two existing trees are being saved.
Comment Number: 9 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.
Per the most recent redlines, we have added additional trees throughout the whole site,
and we are meeting the tree mitigation requirements.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/23/2013
10/23/2013: Sheet LA-113 need trees in planting areas.
Per the most recent redlines, we have added additional trees throughout the whole site,
and we are meeting the tree mitigation requirements.
Comment Number: 11 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.
PA2 Final Plans- Comment responses
12/20/13
Page | 34
Per the most recent redlines, we have added additional trees throughout the whole site,
and we are meeting the tree mitigation requirements.
Comment Number: 12 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.
Per the most recent redlines, we have added additional trees throughout the whole site,
and we are meeting the tree mitigation requirements.
Comment Number: 13 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
Per the most recent redlines, we have added additional trees throughout the whole site,
and we are meeting the tree mitigation requirements.
Contact: Peter Barnes, 970-416-2355, pbarnes@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
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
Approved sign code modifications are reflected in current sign package. RE: Sign
package included in this submittal.
PA2 Final Plans- Comment responses
12/20/13
Page | 35
Please review these responses in the context of this submittal and related exhibits. We
appreciate your efforts on the Foothills Redevelopment.
Sincerely,
SEM Farnsworth Group on behalf of the Foothills Redevelopment Team
Bruce McLennan AIA, NCARB
Principal
T:\12048.00 Foothills Redevelopment\03 Process\Final Plans\PA2 MA FDP\PA2 FDP responses to PDP MJA (1).docx