HomeMy WebLinkAboutFOOTHILLS MALL MULTI-FAMILY - MAJOR AMENDMENT - MJA150002 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS (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
June 02, 2015
Dean Barber
McWhinney Real Estate Services Inc. c/o JPL Development 2725 Rocky Mountain Avenue Loveland, CO 80538
RE: Foothills Mall Redevelopment Multi-Family, MJA150002, Round Number 1
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, Ted Shepard, at 970-221-6343 or tshepard@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1. Comment Originated: 05/20/2015
05/20/2015: In general, for Lot Three, overall design mitigation needs to focus on softening the regimentation of the
alignment of the eight buildings and their relationship to the Mall Access Drive. Otherwise, the pattern becomes
repetitious.
RESPONSE: Building Types have been defined and represented in elevations to alleviate repetition.
Comment Number: 2. Comment Originated: 05/20/2015
05/20/2015: The applicant is reminded that in order to comply with Section 3.8.30(F)(2), there needs to be at least
three distinctly different building models throughout the entire project. Compliance with this standard will require a
demonstrable difference between the various building models and that such variety is substantive and not merely
consist of marginally different accent features. For Lot 3, however, the applicant must go further and is encouraged
to further differentiate the eight buildings by providing a unique, street-facing building entrance on a per building basis.
There must be eight individual entry canopies, materials, colors and accents that define each building in a distinctive
manner that enlivens the streetscape. Each entry can be depicted with a detail. Otherwise, Lot Three is
characterized by excessive repetitiveness.
RESPONSE: Three distinct building types have identified between lot 3,4,5,&6.
Comment Number: 3. Comment Originated: 05/20/2015
05/20/2015: All buildings on Lot Three are labeled two and three stories. Please indicate how these two heights are to
be distributed. Is there any variety to the distribution? In other words, is there a chance that there can be varying
heights along the Mall Access Drive?
RESPONSE: Buildings are segmented by breezeways into 3-3-2 floor relationship as shown in elevations.
Building form is derived in order to meet fire department requirements for fire access. Two story part of
building always face parking area.
Comment Number: 4. Comment Originated: 05/20/2015
05/20/2015: For Lot Three, please provide a detailed narrative and schematic that fully describes all the aspects of the
Mall Access Drive and how it complies with the requirements for a Street-Like Private Drive per Section 3.6.2(N)(1-6).
If addresses are taken off this private drive, then it should be named Foothills Parkway.
RESPONSE :Lot Three will comply with the street like private drive requirements with use of pedestrian
entries off of the interior ring road. Entries have been defined separately to display how individual entries
will differ from building to building. Spaces between buildings provide a rhythm of mews, courtyard, mews.
The mews are will not have direct pedestrian access as it is created for automobile entry. Courtyard space
will have distinct walls / fence features with pedestrian access.
Comment Number: 5. Comment Originated: 05/20/2015
05/20/2015: Please provide a unit count per building. Note that on Sheet 2 of 11, there are two unit counts indicated.
Also, it would be helpful to label the street-facing building entries as the graphic depiction is miniscule.
RESPONSE: Unit count labels have been added to each building. In addition, labels have been added to
indicate building entrances.
Comment Number: 6. Comment Originated: 05/20/2015
05/20/2015: For Building D-2 at the corner of Stanford Road and the Mall Access Drive, the building is only nine feet
set back from property line. This building is called out to be a combination of two and three stories. Is the building
two stories at this nine foot setback condition? If not, and there are three stories at the nine foot setback line, then
the applicant is encouraged to create a 45-degree angle at the building corner and accent this angle with projecting bay
windows on the upper floors. In addition, landscaping in this area should be enhanced. Please provide a sight
distance triangle for this intersection and then upgrade the landscaping outside this triangle.
RESPONSE: The balcony is located at the corner and provides the transparency needed for softening the
corner.
Comment Number: 7. Comment Originated: 05/20/2015
05/20/2015: Please add connecting walkways that link the sidewalk along the Mall Access Drive to the two
courtyards.
RESPONSE: Walks have been added to the courtyards.
Comment Number: 8. Comment Originated: 05/20/2015
05/20/2015: Along the north property line, please call out that the existing fence is to remain and add a note as to
transferring the property north of the fence to the adjoining property owners.
RESPONSE: Note added.
Comment Number: 9. Comment Originated: 05/20/2015
05/20/2015: If under the original approval, Modifications of Standard were granted that are carried forward on this
Major Amendment, please state on the plans in the form a General Note.
RESPONSE: We could not find any Modifications on the previously-approved plan on the City’s Edocs web
site.
Comment Number: 10. Comment Originated: 05/20/2015
05/20/2015: For Lot 4, the same comment applies about establishing unique features at each street-facing building
entrance. Otherwise, there will excessive repetitiveness along Stanford Road.
RESPONSE: Lot 4 has been addresses and includes two building types and differing entry ways for pedestrian
access.
Comment Number: 11. Comment Originated: 05/20/2015
05/20/2015: All internal walkways at the head of the 17-foot long parking stalls need to be six feet in width.
RESPONSE: Walks are now 6’ wide.
Comment Number: 12. Comment Originated: 05/20/2015
05/20/2015: On Lot 4, at the southerly Mall Access Drive, the public sidewalk along Stanford must be continued.
Since this would be a new walk, it must be detached so that street trees can be planted in the parkway.
RESPONSE: This sidewalk is being constructed by Alberta as a part of the mall plans. It is attached with
tree grates. It has been noted “not a part” on the site plan.
Comment Number: 13. Comment Originated: 05/20/2015
05/20/2015: In the parking lot, at the north and south ends, there are missing segments of internal sidewalks. At the
south end, this walk must be six feet in width to account for the 17-foot long stall length and must extend south to join
with new sidewalk (preceding comment) along the Mall Access Drive. At the north end, there are no spaces so the
walk can be reduced to five feet in width.
RESPONSE: Sidewalks have been revised.
Comment Number: 14. Comment Originated: 05/20/2015
05/20/2015: For Lot 5, the same comment applies as to customizing street-facing building entrances to address the
issue of repetitiveness.
RESPONSE: Lot 5 has two different building types and individual pedestrian entries.
Comment Number: 15. Comment Originated: 05/20/2015
05/20/2015: A sidewalk must be added along the southerly Mall Access Drive. This sidewalk must be detached with
a parkway for street trees.
RESPONSE: This sidewalk is being constructed by Alberta as a part of the mall plans. It is attached with
tree grates. It has been noted “not a part” on the site plan.
Comment Number: 16. Comment Originated: 05/20/2015
05/20/2015: Please add a connecting walkway between buildings A and B that connects the driveway/garage access
to the bus stop.
RESPONSE: Sidewalk connection added.
Comment Number: 17. Comment Originated: 05/20/2015
05/20/2015: At the southwest corner of building D-1, add short segment of connecting walkway that links to the
sidewalk along the north-south Mall Access Drive.
RESPONSE: Sidewalk added.
Comment Number: 18. Comment Originated: 05/20/2015
05/20/2015: For all buildings, as mentioned previously, we will need to see how the project complies with Section
3.8.30(F) (2) so that there is substantial variation among repeated buildings.
RESPONSE: We believe that the project meets this code requirement.
Comment Number: 19. Comment Originated: 05/20/2015
05/20/2015: On the architectural elevations, there needs to be additional three-dimensionality and articulation,
otherwise, the façades appear to be flat. Presently, the unadorned windows contribute to this lack of articulation and
need additional detail. Please add sills, lintels, additional framing or other features that allow the windows to create
shadow lines and overall visual interest.
RESPONSE: Building Elevations have been articulated. Perspectives have been added to further detail the
layering of the facades.
Comment Number: 20. Comment Originated: 05/20/2015
05/20/2015: The ends of the buildings are divided into three modules. Please provide more detail features for the two
end modules. For the left module, the base material should be raised up the top of the first floor. Presently, the
ceramic panel cladding is too low to act as a base material. Also, the materials do not appear to add any depth to the
façade and the module appears flat and uninteresting. As mentioned, window embellishment will help, but overall, the
massing is not broken down. Staff is concerned since the ends of the buildings will be highly visible. Please explore
solutions that address how the left module can be further articulated.
RESPONSE: Buildings have differing styles within each lot to differentiate and create interest along the
pedestrian access.
Comment Number: 21. Comment Originated: 05/20/2015
05/20/2015: For the right module, there is no distinct base. The three story height and mass needs to be softened
with a distinct base material and color that is differentiated from the upper portions of the wall.
RESPONSE: Building Elevation elements are intended to have vertical expression, not base middle top.
The materials have been revised to create expression and articulation.
Comment Number: 22. Comment Originated: 05/20/2015
05/20/2015: For the middle module, the fiber cement cladding appears to feature seams that will for some depth and
shadow lines. Please provide a detail or sample that clearly indicates the width and depth of the seams.
RESPONSE: A material legend has been added for each neighborhood zone to provide a precedent
example of material.
Comment Number: 23. Comment Originated: 05/20/2015
05/20/2015: For all three modules (end-facing elevations), there is no distinguishing top element leading to a flat and
sparse look. Please consider options that address this component. Perhaps a parapet, projection or cornice would
add a level of detail that solves this problem.
RESPONSE: Elevations have been revised.
Comment Number: 24. Comment Originated: 05/20/2015
05/20/2015: On the long-side elevations, as mentioned above, the facades would benefit for adding more details to the
windows. And, the same comment applies to creating a distinct top element to mitigate height and mass. And, the
same comment applies to raising up the base material – ceramic panel cladding.
RESPONSE: Elevations have been revised.
Comment Number: 25. Comment Originated: 05/20/2015
05/20/2015: Overall, staff is concerned about the reliance on the gray color tones. The over-use of gray on recent
multi-family buildings on a community wide-basis is becoming quite noticeable. On a project of this scale, there
should be no reliance on any one color tone. In fact, our visual preference surveys indicate higher ratings for buildings
that feature warmer color tones versus cooler tones. Staff recommends that in order to comply with Section
3.8.30(F)(2), the design team use a broad palette of colors so that one color tone does not dominate.
RESPONSE: Color and material scheme has been revised.
Comment Number: 26. Comment Originated: 05/20/2015
05/20/2015: In general, staff is looking for the project to be more varied, further articulated with a richer mix of details,
with warmer color tones.
RESPONSE: Color and material scheme has been revised.
Comment Number: 27. Comment Originated: 05/20/2015
05/20/2015: Please indicate the material and color of the stairwell screen walls.
RESPONSE: Screens have been noted as wood.
Comment Number: 28. Comment Originated: 05/20/2015
05/20/2015: On the architectural sheet, there is a depiction of a low screen wall and pedestrian entry portal leading to
the courtyard beyond. Please indicate on the site plan where these elements occur. Again, to emphasize variety,
each entry portal should be unique and not repeated.
RESPONSE: Pedestrian entries have been noed.
Comment Number: 29. Comment Originated: 05/20/2015
05/20/2015: Prior to hearing, we need to review the materials and color with sample boards.
RESPONSE: Sample boards will be provided after this submittal.
Comment Number: 30. Comment Originated: 06/02/2015
06/02/2015: Be sure to provide the appropriate number and properly sized containers for recyclable materials. In
addition, there are new techniques for accommodating compostable materials. For further information, please contact
Caroline Mitchell, environmental Planner, 221-6288, cmitchell@fcgov.com.
RESPONSE: We have coordinated with Caroline regarding recycling requirements.
Comment Number: 31. Comment Originated: 06/02/2015
06/02/2015: As the locations for the electrical transformers become finalized, please provide landscaping or solid
screening so that they are not visible from Stanford Road.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 32. Comment Originated: 06/02/2015
06/02/2015: Where it is not possible to add internal private sidewalks due to ownership by Alberta, please label as "not
a part."
RESPONSE: See revised site plan – we have added the note “not a part” on all of the items that are being
constructed by Alberta.
Comment Number: 33. Comment Originated: 06/02/2015
06/02/2015: Since our meeting on May 27, 2015, and based conversations with the consulting team, Staff is in
agreement that the layout and arrangement of buildings, and their relationship to the Mall Access Drive, are
acceptable. Staff has indicated that the team should focus on creating individual identity at the pedestrian level by
customizing the each building’s entrance but re-orienting the buildings is not necessary.
RESPONSE: Individual entries and identity has been created with the use of differing material pallets
across project. Project now divides lots into three neighborhoods. Each neighborhood has distinct material
style and color pallet. Front entries have been differentiated into six differing types for ends of buildings. A
key plan has been added to indicate which types applies where.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: I'm understanding with preliminary conversations with Bob Walter with Alberta that they intend to have the
interior ring road construction completed fairly soon and would be concerned about utility tie-ins from this project into
the ring road occurring after their completion of the ring road pavement. The interior roadway being private, does not
have City Engineering implications, however it may of interest to the developers in the area to have the utility
connections within the ring road shown on the civil plans for this project, be instead indicated as revisions to the
original Planning Area 3 set and installed "at-risk" in advance of the planned paving of the ring road. City Engineering
permitting and inspection fees for the public infrastructure would be required in conjunction with the approval of the
revisions to the PA3 plans.
RESPONSE: The comment is noted. Timing will not allow utility tie-ins before the paving.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: The civil drawings should be providing labelling information to indicate and discern 1) what improvements
would be installed with this project that were originally shown to be installed with the PA3 plans, 2) what
improvements are to be installed by Alberta per either the PA2 or PA3 plans, such as presumably the 64.7 feet of 6
inch sanitary sewer main in Stanford Road.
RESPONSE: Sheets showing the existing conditions has been added to the utility plans.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: Project Note 1.b. indicates that utility stubs to the lots are to be installed by Alberta per the PA3 plans. Is
it the intention that the additional work shown on the PA3 plans that are not utility stubs to the lots (such as the
sanitary tie-in to Stanford Road between lots 3 & 4) will also be done?
RESPONSE: The McWhinney and Alberta buy/sale agreement outlines what Alberta will provide to
McWhinney. For example, the sanitary sewer rerouting, although part of PA3 plans, was completed by
Alberta.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: The drawings (especially the civil set) would benefit from showing existing easements dedicated with the
plat for Foothills Mall Redevelopment Subdivision. It seems that existing easements may need to be vacated in areas
and new easements dedicated in others. Lot 4 in particular appears to require vacation of a large easement for the
northern portion of the lot. Please provide information on the anticipated easement dedications and vacations for
review. Per our Transportation Development Review Fee schedule, each deed of dedication is $250 and each
vacation is $400, along with Larimer County recordation costs. A 2 week routing for review and approval by the utility
providers is needed for each utility easement vacation request.
RESPONSE: Once the utility and building locations are finalized, easement dedications and/or vacations
will be provided for review and approval.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: Pavement Engineering has provided comment that they would want as part of any development
agreement for the project, acknowledgement from the Developer/Owner that sidewalk maintenance (including snow
shoveling) is the responsibility of the abutting property owner.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Kelly Kimple, kkimple@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/14/2015
05/14/2015: Environmental Planning has no comments on the Major Amendment. We will review seed mixes at the
time of final.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/20/2015
05/20/2015:
Please edit the street tree notes to include all of the following. Include these notes under a separate heading Street
Tree Notes.
1. A permit must be obtained from the City Forester before any trees or shrubs as noted on this plan are planted,
pruned or removed on the public right-of-way. This includes zones between the sidewalk and curb, medians and other
City property. This permit shall approve the location and species to be planted. Failure to obtain this permit may result
in replacing or relocating trees and a hold on certificate of occupancy.
RESPONSE: This note has been added.
2. Contact the City Forester to inspect all street tree plantings at the completion of each phase of the development.
All trees need to have been installed as shown on the landscape plan. Approval of street tree planting is required
before final approval of each phase.
RESPONSE: This note has been added.
3. Street tree shall be supplied and planted by the developer using a qualified landscape contractor.
4. RESPONSE: This note has been added.
5. The developer shall replace all dead and dying street trees after planting until final maintenance inspection and
acceptance by the City of Fort Collins Forestry Division. All street trees in the project must be established of an
approved species and of acceptable le condition prior to acceptance.
RESPONSE: This note has been added.
6. Street tree locations and numbers may be adjusted to accommodate driveway locations, utility standards,
separation between trees, street signs and street lights. Street trees shall be
RESPONSE: This note has been added.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/20/2015
05/20/2015:
Provide upsized mitigation trees for significant trees removed or to account for mitigation trees allocated to the areas
on these plans as recorded on previously approved phase three mall plans. Upsized mitigation trees should be sized
as follows and can be trees proposed on the Foothills Mall Multi-Family Major Amendment. Clearly identify mitigation
trees in the plant list and on the direct labels by placing an M or other symbol to identify the mitigation trees. Shade
Trees 3.0 inch caliper Ornamental Trees 2.5 inch caliper Evergreen trees 8 feet height
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. A tree inventory plan/mitigation has been provided with this submittal.
Mitigation trees have been identified.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/20/2015
05/20/2015:
Contact the City Forester for an on-site meeting to review any existing significant trees for retention. Significant trees
need to be retained to the extent reasonably feasible. Significant trees on the site should be identified on the plans by
species, size, condition, mitigation and intent to retain, transplant or remove. Inventory information is available from
Foothills Mall Tree Inventory.
RESPONSE: This meeting has not yet occurred but forestry has been contacted to arrange an on-site
meeting to review existing trees. Plans will be updated for our next submittal based on this meeting.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/20/2015
05/20/2015:
Add the following note in larger print with a bold border to the landscape plan.
A free permit must be obtained from the City Forester before any street trees are planted in parkways between the
sidewalk and Curb or on the City Right of Way behind the sidewalk. Street tree locations and numbers may change to
meet actual utility/tree separation standards. Landscape contractor must obtain approval of street tree location after
utility locates. Street trees must be inspected and approved before planting. Failure to obtain this permit is a violation
of the Code of the City of Fort Collins.
RESPONSE: This note has been added to the plans.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/20/2015
05/20/2015:
Please add this note if it is not already on the plans. Landscaping including street trees in each phase shall be or
secured with a letter of credit, escrow, or performance bond for 125% of the value of the landscaping and installation
prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy for any building. All City street trees must be installed established, of
an approved species and of acceptable condition prior to final release of financial security.
RESPONSE: This note has been added to the plans (Landscape Note #20).
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/20/2015
05/20/2015:
Provide a final landscape plan that provides identification of plant species, size at planting and method of transplant.
Provide for the Minimum Tree Species Diversity in LUC 3.2.1 D 2 3 and record the percentage of each tree species
used in the plant list.
RESPONSE: A complete plant list has been provided with this submittal, meeting the requirements of the
City of Fort Collins LUC.
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: FIRE ACCESS
PFA has been working with the project team to resolve some remaining fire access details per our meeting of
5/15/2015. In particular, Lot 5: Widen fire lane on west side of buildings 15 & 16, from 24' to 26'.
RESPONSE: The drive has been revised.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: WATER SUPPLY
Lot 3: Relocate hydrant at the drive entrance, north to the landscape area at the northern property boundary per
5/15/2015 meeting.
RESPONSE: The hydrant has been relocated.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Dan Mogen, , dmogen@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: The application for variance has been denied at this time; therefore, LID requirements apply including 25%
permeable pavement.
RESPONSE: Please see revised LID letter showing permeable pavement calculations.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: Please provide a LID Table showing that LID requirements are met. Sample table available upon request;
please email Dan Mogen at dmogen@fcgov.com
RESPONSE: The LID calculations have been provided. See drainage map.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: Please provide a drainage plan that shows drainage basins and flow routing along with calculations to
support sizing of inlets, pipes, rain gardens, etc.
RESPONSE: Once the layout and utility plans are finalized, detailed hydraulic calculations will be provided.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: Please verify the proposed drainage plan for this site is consistent with the approved plan for the overall
Mall development. If not, please show that adequate conveyance exists downstream to the outfall swale from the
mall.
RESPONSE: The proposed drainage is consistent ant with the approved plans. Please see drainage letter
provided with the submittal.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: A maintenance agreement is needed between the Mall & Multi-family regarding the maintenance of sand
filters and rain gardens. Please include the agreement in the drainage report for reference.
RESPONSE: Once the agreement is created, it will be provided.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: Please provide construction details as appropriate. Details can be downloaded at either http://
citydocs.fcgov.com/?dt=DETAIL+DRAWINGS&dn=UTILITIES&vid=189&cmd=showdt (.dwg format) or http://
www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-forms-guidelines-regulations (.pdf format).
RESPONSE: The comment is noted. Standard details will be provided at FDP.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: Please see redlines.
RESPONSE: The redlines have been addressed. See highlighted redlines.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: Additional comments may apply as more details on the design and plans are provided. RESPONSE:
The comment is noted.
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft, therefore Erosion and Sediment Control Materials need to be
submitted for FDP. The erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the Amendments of
Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. Current Erosion Control Materials Submitted does not meet requirements. Please
submit; Erosion Control Plan, Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. If you need clarification
concerning this section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @
jschlam@fcgov.com
RESPONSE: The comment is noted. The erosion control plan, erosion control report, and an
escrow/security calculation will be provided at FDP.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: Plan sheets that are in color are not acceptable.
RESPONSE: We would like to provide color for reference for the reviewers. When we print final mylars,
they will be black and white.
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: Please update the Benchmark Statement to the following format.
PROJECT DATUM: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED (OLD CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) BENCHMARK # w/
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION:
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION:
NOTE: IF NAVD 88 DATUM IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE FOLLOWING EQUATION SHOULD
BE USED: NAVD88 = NGVD29 UNADJUSTED + X.XX’.
RESPONSE: The benchmark statement has been updated.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: Please revise the Basis Of Bearings. The Plat referenced has been replatted by the Foothills Mall
Redevelopment Subdivision.
RESPONSE: The basis of bearing has been revised.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See redlines.
RESPONSE: The redlines have been addressed. See highlighted redlines
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: The lighter background text & linework marked is not acceptable. It will not scan or reproduce. Please
darken it up. See redlines.
RESPONSE: The backgrounding has been revised.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: Please remove the hatching from sheet LS 6 on the diagram on sheet 5. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Hatching removed.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: Please be consistent with the sheet numbering. The sheet diagram shows LS numbers, and each sheet
number does not include LS. See redlines.
RESPONSE: Sheet numbering has been revised.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/20/2015
05/20/2015: The title of sheet 10 is labeled as a Site Plan. Please correct.
RESPONSE: Title corrected.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/20/2015
05/20/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
RESPONSE: The Sheet Key maps have been fixed.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/20/2015
05/20/2015: Please revise the legal description as shown, and list only the Lots affected by this Major Amendment.
See redlines.
RESPONSE: Legal revised.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/20/2015
05/20/2015: no comments
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Department: Water Conservation
Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/18/2015
05/18/2015: A landscape plan shall contain accurate and identifiable hydrozones, including a water budget chart that
shows the total annual water use, which shall not exceed fifteen (15) gallons per square foot over the site. If you have
questions contact Eric Olson at eolson@fcgov.com or 970-221-6704.
RESPONSE: Water usage tables have been added to the Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/18/2015
05/18/2015: Irrigation plans are required no later than at the time of building permit. The irrigation plans must comply
with the provisions outlined in Section 3.2.1(J) of the Land Use Code. Direct questions concerning irrigation
requirements to Eric Olson, at 221-6704 or eolson@fcgov.com
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Dan Mogen, mogen@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: Were lines stubbed for previous building arrangement? If so, please reuse these stubs or abandon them
at the main.
RESPONSE: Utilities per the PA2 plans have been installed. See existing conditions within the utility plans.
Stubs were reused if possible.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: Please loop water mains to eliminate dead ends. Dead ends are to be avoided wherever possible, and a
hydrant must be placed at the dead end if the main cannot be looped.
RESPONSE: The comment is noted.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: Are hydrants existing? Please provide more detail if not and clarify existing vs proposed.
RESPONSE: Sheets showing the existing conditions has been added to the utility plans. As the design
develops, more detail will be added for proposed fire hydrants.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: Please show curb stop on domestic services. Are the "circles" curb stops? Please call out. What are the
circles on fire lines? Curb stops are not needed on fire lines greater than 2".
RESPONSE: More detail has been added.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: Please provide calculations to support water service sizing.
RESPONSE:
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: Please show that hydrants and curb stops are placed within ROW or easement.
RESPONSE: The comment is noted. Once the utility locations are finalized, easements will be provided for
review and approval.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: Please detail fire service connections.
RESPONSE: Please clarify comment. Are you asking about tap to main or building riser?
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: Please show slopes on sanitary service lines and verify that minimum slopes are met.
RESPONSE: The comment is noted. Detailed information including plan and profiles will be provided at
FDP
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: Please detail connections throughout.
RESPONSE: The comment is noted. Detailed information about utility connections will be provided at FDP.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: Please provide construction details as appropriate. Details can be Downloaded at either
http://citydocs.fcgov.com/?dt=DETAIL+DRAWINGS&dn=UTILITIES&vid=189&cmd=showdt (.dwg format) orhttp://
www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-forms-guidelines-regulations (.pdf format).
RESPONSE: The comment is noted. Standard details will be provided at FDP.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: Water and sewer mains must be within ROW or utility easement. Minimum easement width are generally
20' for water mains and 30' for sewers (adequate for sewer trenches up to ~17' deep). Deeper sewers may necessitate
wider easements and shallow sewers may allow a narrower width.
RESPONSE: The comment is noted. Once the utility locations are finalized, easements will be provided for
review and approval.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: Please see redlines.
RESPONSE: The redlines have been addressed. See highlighted redlines.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: Additional comments may apply as more details on the design and plans are provided.
RESPONSE: The comment is noted.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/28/2015: Please include profiles for water mains 12" or larger and all sanitary sewer mains.
RESPONSE: The comment is noted.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/29/2015
05/29/2015: For Lot 3..
Please move the water service for Building 4 to the looped main. Please provide mechanical memo to show that the
dead end main serving Building 1, 2 and 3 can support the number of units (I'm showing 41) as well as fire flows.
RESPONSE: The service has been revised. Hydraulic analysis is being competed and will be provided.
Department: Zoning
Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: Architectural Elevations for all the building types are needed.
RESPONSE: Elevations have been added for all buildings defined as different types.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: Please change the Planning Signature Block. This should be the Community Development and
Neighborhood Services Director.
RESPONSE: Signature block has been changed.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: When the existing zoning is identified please also include it is in the TOD Overlay.
RESPONSE: TOD reference added to the sheets.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: The Cover sheet Yield Study totals do not match the individual site plan totals.
RESPONSE: The totals should all be correct now.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: Where is the alternative compliance request or modification request for the building setbacks on Lot 4.
RESPONSE: A Modification request is included with this submittal.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: With 324 off-street parking spaces, the project is required 8 handicap spaces. I am only seeing 5.
RESPONSE: Handicap spaces
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: Will need to see a trash enclosure design. This will need to include a walk-in access separate from the
main-service gate.
RESPONSE: Elevations have been added.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/19/2015
05/19/2015: Where will the ac units be located? They should be shown on the site and landscape.
RESPONSE: Air Conditioning units will be located on rooftops of all buildings.