HomeMy WebLinkAboutFOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT, PHASE TWO - MAJOR AMENDMENT - MJA130006 - CORRESPONDENCE - (3)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
December 16, 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: General
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.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
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.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
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
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
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 2
Page 1 of 19
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.
Comment Number: 6 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.")
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
11/26/2013: Comment not resolved.
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
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.
Comment Number: 10 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.
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
Page 2 of 19
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.
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
11/26/2013: A plat was not apparently included in the submittal for verification of lot lines.
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
11/26/2013: I'm understanding that the timing of the underpass construction with the project is being
coordinated with Cameron Gloss.
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
Page 3 of 19
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.
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
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.
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
Page 4 of 19
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?
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
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.
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: 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.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
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.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Page 5 of 19
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?
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
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 that a great horned owl has
used the trees along the canal for nesting in the winter months. A pre construction survey will be
required to assess if raptors are nesting in the trees, if tree removal is to take place outside of the
April 1 July 31 window related to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
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
Page 6 of 19
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
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
Page 7 of 19
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
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.
Comment Number: 14 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.
Comment Number: 15 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.
Comment Number: 16 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.
Comment Number: 17 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.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 12/01/2013
Page 8 of 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.
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.
Comment Number: 19 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.
Comment Number: 20 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.
Comment Number: 21 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.
Comment Number: 22 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?
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 12/01/2013
Page 9 of 19
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.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 12/01/2013
12/01/2013:
Planting Details comments on Sheet LA 130:
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.
Conifer Tree Detail:
Change the statement that says- Container Grown trees to say - B&B balled and burlap or equivalent.
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.
Comment Number: 25 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.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 12/01/2013
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
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
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
Page 10 of 19
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
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
Page 11 of 19
11/26/2013: This has not been corrected, and there are now issues on sheets A240 & A244. See
redlines.
10/22/2013: Please rotate the marked text 180 degrees on sheet A238. See redlines.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
Topic: Construction Drawings
11/27/2013: There are still issues on sheets C602, C603, C604 & C612. See redlines.
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
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.
Comment Number: 9 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.
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
11/27/2013: There is still an issue on sheet C601. See redlines.
10/22/2013: There are text over text issues on several sheets. See redlines.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
Topic: Landscape Plans
11/26/2013: There is still an issue on sheets LA-102 & LA-127. See redlines.
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
11/26/2013: There is a text over text issue on sheet A219. See redlines.
Comment Number: 44 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
Topic: Lighting Plan
11/27/2013: There are line over text issues on sheets LD-M3, LD-M4, LD-M6, LD-M7, LD-M8. See
redlines.
Comment Number: 45 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
Topic: Plat
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
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.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
Page 12 of 19
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.
Comment Number: 22 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?
Comment Number: 26 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.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
11/15/2013: This has not be addressed.
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
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.
Comment Number: 33 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.
Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
11/15/2013: Please check the possible typo in Owner Signature Block #4. See redlines.
Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 11/15/2013
Topic: Site Plan
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.
Comment Number: 40 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.
Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Page 13 of 19
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.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/23/2013
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.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
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.
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'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.
Comment Number: 19 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.
Comment Number: 20 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.
Comment Number: 21 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.
Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
Page 14 of 19
Topic: General
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.
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 12/05/2013
Topic: Site Plan
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.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
Topic: Traffic Impact Study
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.
Comment Number: 25 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.
Comment Number: 26 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.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
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: 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
Page 15 of 19
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
Contact: Emma McArdle, 970-224-6197, emcardle@fcgov.com
Topic: General
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.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
11/26/2013:
10/22/2013: Provide the sanitary sewer profiles on Shts C502 through C510.
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
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.
Comment Number: 2 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.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
11/26/2013:
10/22/2013: Provide water main profiles on Shts C601 through C612.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
11/26/2013:
10/22/2013: Label lengths of water main between valves, fittings, etc.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
11/26/2013:
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
Page 16 of 19
11/26/2013:
10/22/2013: Revise labeling of water services to differentiate between domestic services and fire
lines.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
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.
Comment Number: 8 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.
Comment Number: 9 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.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 10/22/2013
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
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.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 10/24/2013
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.
Comment Number: 15 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.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/27/2013: A note Sht C900 directs a F Hyd to be relocated; however, this water main and F Hyd are
to be abandoned as shown on Sht C305.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
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
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
Page 17 of 19
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
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
Page 18 of 19
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 19 of 19