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