Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT, PHASE 3 - FDP - FDP140007 - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTSCommunity 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 March 14, 2014 WALTON FOOTHILLS HOLDINGS VI LLC 900 N MICHIGAN AVE STE 1900 Chicago, IL 60611 Comment Summary: Department: Current Planning Contact: Courtney Levingston, 970-416-2283, clevingston@fcgov.com Topic: General 03/11/2014: On sheet AR-A-101, there are conflicting numbers for the parking provided for lot lot 6 and total parking between the parking summary table and the building/unit mix table. The first table says the probject provided 1422 parking spaces total and the second table states that it provides 1,343 spaces. Additionally, one table says lot six provides 472 spaces and the bottom table says 385 parking spaces. Please correct. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 03/11/2014: . The bike lockers text is shown over where a proposed transformer is supposed to be located. please clearly point to the bike lockers. As currently illustrated, it looks like the transformer symbol are the bike lockers. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 03/11/2014: On sheet AR-A-102, it is not clear which building is 1A and 1B. Please label. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 03/11/2014: Please call out the transformer symbol on sheet C002. On sheet C706, a transformer call out was missed for lot 4. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 03/11/2014: Could the bus stop pad be clearly called out on sheets LA-103, C203 and sheets AR-A-104 please? Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 Topic: Landscape Plans 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 3 Final Plan, FDP140007, Round Number 1 Page 1 of 8 03/11/2014: On sheet LA-106 it does not appear that the transformer for lot 4 will be adequately screened from the street with the Rocky Mountain junipers behind it instead of between the transformer and the street. Please take a look at this. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 03/11/2014: On Sheets LA-107 and LA-108, all parking lot landscape islands must have at least one canopy shade tree. There are two landscape islands in this area that need trees. The water line will have to be relocated in order to meet this required standard. (LUC3.2.1(E)(5)(c). The Land Use Code specifically states that "utility separation distances shall not be used as a means of avoiding the planting of required trees." Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 03/11/2014: The Larimer County Urban Area Streetscape Standards requires the new trees along Sanford Road to be in groups of 3, 5 or more of the same species (canopy) and lined (evenly spaced if possible) up along the sidewalk, defining the pedestrian realm. Sheets LA103 - LA107 are not meeting this standard. The evergreen trees should be located behind the street trees. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 03/11/2014: On sheet LA-107, the trees are setback so far from the sidewalk, there is very little definition of pedestrian space along the sidewalk. This is also struggling to meet our streetscape requirements with the storm line conflict. Can the stormline be shifted to accommodate canopy trees in groups of 3 or 5 on 40' centers at minimum please? Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 03/11/2014: Could the landscape design on the swale just south of residential lot three better respond to the retaining wall similar to the swale that was previously discussed on the commercial portion? Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 03/13/2014: Please include the existing tree plan in both PA2 and PA3 landscape set and/or the civil set. These sheets are C401 - C406. It should illustrate (not using colors) which trees to remain in place ( solid circle) and which trees will be transplanted ( dashed circle). Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/13/2014 Topic: Site Plan 03/05/2014: Please add note #9 on sheet A103 that "Conduit, meters, vents and other equipment attached to the building or protruding from the roof shall be painted to match surrounding building surfaces." This is required by Code in Section 3.5.1(I)(3). Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/05/2014 03/05/2014: It is difficult to tell what area is in PA3 on sheet A103. Its suggested to adjust line weights for clarity, similar to sheet AR-A-101. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/05/2014 03/05/2014: The typical city parking metric on sheet AR-A-101 has changed for the Transit Oriented Development Overlay District. The new metrics are as follows: Studio and 1 bedroom - 1.1 spaces per unit. Two bedroom - 1.2 spaces per unit, Three bedroom- 1.4 spaces per unit and Four and above bedroom - 2.1 spaces per unit. Please see redlines for clairification on how this sheet should be updated. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/05/2014 Department: Engineering Development Review Page 2 of 8 Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings 03/11/2014: The civil plans seem to show that with PA3 there is a sanitary sewer tie-in to Stanford. Also on Sheet C500 I'm confused in seeing a dark lineweight for water and sewer lines, including what appears to be the extension of a water main connection to the buildings on the northeast corner specific to PA3, though Sheet C612 of PA2 appears to have this infrastructure installed with PA2. I'm wondering what infrastructure is being built with PA3 and if so, why these aren't just installed with PA2 to have all the public infrastructure completed and installed at one time? Might this potentially impact newly installed infrastructure as part of PA2? Another consideration is that the City's Land Use Code requires that a development plan install all their public infrastructure within 3 years from the final plan approval, otherwise the project loses its vested right to build the project.Need additional info and understanding on the intent of the infrastructure that is to be built specific to PA3. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 03/11/2014: Previous comments as part of PA2 indicated the need to consolidate the patching shown along the north side of Stanford Road due to a series of patches less than 75 feet apart. The last submittal for PA2 no longer showed that this was occurring and I had considered the comment resolved. It's now apparent that with PA3 adding the patches that were removed with the last round of PA2 that the combination of PA2 and PA3 results in a series of patches less than 75 feet. If ultimately all the public infrastructure is to be installed with PA2 as noted in the previous comment, then the patching will need to be shown as consolidated. If separated, the last patch in the sequence will need to consolidate the patching. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 03/11/2014: Sheets C501 C600, & C700 are lacking City approval blocks. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 03/11/2014: Civil construction details only need to be included for infrastructure proposed as part of PA3. It may be that certain details can be eliminated and overall reduce the number of sheets. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 Topic: General 03/11/2014: The site and landscape plans don't appear to clearly distinguish associated infrastructure between PA2 and PA3. There are sidewalk connections along the main drive aisles out to Stanford that I'm understanding are intended to be installed with PA2, but they aren't indicated as such on the plans. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans 03/12/2014: On the west side of the building on LA 103 if a more upright ornamental tree would work better then consider use of Chanticleer Pear or Red Barron Crabapple. Both of these have an upright and narrow habit. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/12/2014 Page 3 of 8 03/12/2014: Evaluate if it is feasible (wide enough area) to add a few narrow form Iseli Fastigiate Spruce or another appropriate conifer tree along Stanford on sheets LA 103 LA 104 and LA 105 that could provide for some mix of broadleaf and evergreen forms along this section of the Stanford perimeter area. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/12/2014 03/12/2014: Look at feasibility of adding an evergreen tree(s) at the SW corner of the building on sheet LA 107 if it doesn’t cause any security issue. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/12/2014 03/12/2014: Evaluate if it would be feasible to add some ornamental trees in landscape areas on the north side of the building on LA 108. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/12/2014 03/12/2014: Evaluate if it is feasible to add a couple of trees on either side on the entrances in landscape areas on the north side of the building on sheet LA 107. Evaluate for both entrances associated with the parking that is on the north side of the building. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/12/2014 03/12/2014: Provide a sheet that shows all existing trees in PA 3 identified to remove, retain or transplant with the assigned inventory number. Provide the updated spreadsheet that includes all the inventory information for each of the existing tree in PA 3. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/12/2014 03/12/2014: Is it feasible to retain any of the existing trees along Stanford? Please explain if this is not feasible. Existing significant trees should be retained to the extent reasonably feasible. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/12/2014 03/12/2014: Consider substituting a few/some of the Chinkapin oaks with Shumard oaks that could provide good red fall color for the residential area. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/12/2014 03/12/2014: The cultivar of spreading juniper should be specified in the plant list. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/12/2014 Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartine@fcgov.com Topic: General 03/11/2014: The developer will need to continue coordinating the electric utility system with Light & Power Engineering. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 Department: Outside Agencies Contact: Stephanie Rich, , Topic: Construction Drawings Page 4 of 8 03/03/2014: Please note that Xcel Energy does have gas main inside the Foothills Mall location. The gas main will need to be cut off prior to any excavation for the new plans. Please contact Stephanie Rich at 970-225-7828 or stephanie.rich@xcelenergy.com Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/03/2014 Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General 03/12/2014: No comments - All comments are included in Phase 2. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/12/2014 Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations 03/11/2014: There is text that need to be rotate 180 degrees on several sheets. See redlines. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 03/11/2014: There are line over text issues on several sheets. See redlines. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 03/11/2014: There is cut off text on a few sheets. See redlines. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 Topic: Construction Drawings 03/11/2014: The plan index on sheet C001 does not match the titles on sheets C201-C203. The titles between the 3 sheets are inconsistent. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 03/11/2014: Please change the Datum to "NGVD 1929 Unadjusted" for the benchmarks on sheet C003. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 03/11/2014: There are line over text issues on several sheets. See redlines. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 03/11/2014: There is text that need to be rotate 180 degrees on several sheets. See redlines. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 03/11/2014: There is text that needs to be masked within hatched areas. See redlines. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 03/11/2014: There are text over text issues on several sheets. See redlines. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 03/11/2014: There is cut off text on sheet C504. See redlines. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 Topic: General 03/11/2014: Sheets AR-A-207 & AR-A-208 will not scan or reproduce well with the black background. Please consider alternatives for this. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 Page 5 of 8 Topic: Landscape Plans 03/11/2014: There is text that needs to be masked within hatched areas on sheet LA-112. See redlines. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 Topic: Lighting Plan 03/11/2014: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 03/11/2014: There is text that needs to be masked within hatched areas on several sheets. See redlines. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 Topic: Plat 03/12/2014: There don't seem to be any revisions made since the last PA#2 submittal. Please revise according to the comments we provided with that review. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 03/12/2014 Topic: Site Plan 03/11/2014: The plan index on sheets A101 & AR-A-000 do not match the titles on actual sheets. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 03/11/2014: There are sheet titles & sheet numbers missing. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 03/11/2014: If Planning Area #3 is to be filed after the Foothills Mall Redevelopment Subdivision Plat, the legal description on sheet A102 needs to be changed to reflect that Plat. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 03/11/2014: The vicinity map on sheet A102 needs to reflect Planning Area #3. It shows the whole Mall redevelopment site. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 03/11/2014: There are several sheets that need text masked. See redlines. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 03/11/2014: The areas in the buildings with text & hatching will not scan or reproduce. Please mask all text and/or lighten the shading. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 03/11/2014: There are line over text issues on several sheets. See redlines. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 03/11/2014: There is text that need to be rotate 180 degrees on several sheets. See redlines. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com Topic: Traffic Impact Study Page 6 of 8 03/11/2014: The shopping center square footage has increased to 659,690 sf. Please revise the TIS to reflect the new scale of the development. Please highlight in the Site Trip Generation figures where the additional trips were distributed. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 03/11/2014: Please add paragraphs to appropriate sections in the TIS better discussing/explaining the nuances in the approach and preparation of the TIS. The uniqueness and complexity of this study requires some additional discussion that will assist in this study being understandable to future reviewers. Examples are intersections not shown in the Background Figures but are in the other Figures, Left turn volumes not adjusted at numerous intersections, etc. It's not about right/wrong or good/bad. Just providing information to help current and future reviewers understand the decisions behind the unique aspects of the TIS. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings 03/11/2014: The abandonments of water/sewer mains and service lines in Stanford must be made at the main which will remain in service. Add appropriate motes on abandonment including a requirement to coordinate with Water Utilities (970-416-2165) on all abandonments. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 03/11/2014: The existing sanitary sewer services that are shown to be used for proposed buildings may not be adequately sized for the the number of units in the buildings shown. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 03/11/2014: Clarify which water/sewer mains were included in Phase 2 and those to be installed in Phase 3. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 03/11/2014: Revise the two fire hydrants north of the buildings in Lot 3 to be installed with 8" x 6" swivel tees with TB's and 6"gate valves (N) and 8" plugs and TB's at the end of the tees. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 03/11/2014: Show irrigation service including curb stop, meter pit and size on the water main plans. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 Topic: Site Plan 03/11/2014: On Sht A103, the number of units per building shown on the site plan do not agree with the number of units per building in the Residential Table. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 03/11/2014: On Sht A103, add building numbers on the site plan to correspond with the building numbers in the Residential Table. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 03/11/2014: On Sht A103, the lot areas shown on the site plan do not agree with the lot areas included on the plat. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/11/2014 Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com Page 7 of 8 Topic: General 03/13/2014: Please review if the handicap parking can be placed closer to the building as discussed during the meeting on 03-12-13. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/13/2014 Page 8 of 8