The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT PHASE TWO - FDP130054 - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTSComment Numbe.. 9 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/0912014: Will the water/sewer services for the multifamily buildings be installed with the Phase 2 utility work? Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: Valves on fire lines and water services larger than 2" are to be located at the point of connection to the City water main. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/1012014 01/10/2014: On Sht C809, the thrust and gravity blocks on Detail 4-C should be below the water main, not on top. Where is this detail being used? Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/10/2014 01/10/2014: The manhole shown on the sewer service to Lot 17 could be a clean -out. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/10/2014 01/10/2014: Label all clean -outs on the project as "traffic -rated". Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/10/2014 01/10/2014: Lowerings on the existing 10" water main......... 8" or 10"??????? Page 21 of 21 Comment Number. / Comment Originated: 01/08/2014 01/08/2014: As a heads up, Fort Collins Utilities (water conservation) approves the installlation and submittal documents before issuance of certificate of occupancy. Six- Week Inspection: Within six weeks of the installation of new landscaping, reset the Smart Controller(s) to the normal seasonal watering schedule. FC Utilities will inspect that the controller has been programmed for a normal schedule, the input chart has been posted and the rain sensor properly installed and operating. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/08/2014 01/08/2014: For irrigation systems that are on a combined -use tap, with a water meter installed upstream to measure total water use, the installation of an irrigation -only submeter should be considered. This submeter would enable the owner and landscape maintenance contractor to monitor water use for irrigation, and would not be used for billing purposes. The cost of installation and maintenance of the submeter shall be borne by the owner of the property, and not by the City. All such submeters shall be installed in accordance with the specifications established by the City. Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970.221.6854, rbuffington0fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/08/2014 01/08/2014: (Carryover comment as a reminder) - 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: 2 Comment Originated: 01/08/2014 01/0812014: (Carryover comment as a reminder) - Water services from the City main to the meter must 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: 3 Comment Originated: 01/08/2014 01/08/2014: (Carryover comment as a reminder) - Connect the fire line and domestic water service to Lot 19 to the existing main in Mathews rather that the fire hydrant lead. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: (Carryover comment as a reminder) - A note on Sht C900 directs a F Hyd to be relocated; however, this water main and F Hyd are being abandoned as shown on Sht C305. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: Thrust blocks are required at all fittings. Add symbol and note at each fitting. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: All valves on F Hyd leads are connected to the swivel tees. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: On Sht C604, there is a note covering another note in the upper left part of the page. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: On Sht C609, move the 4" valve and the 4" x 3" reducer on the water service to Lot 7 to the point of connection at the 8" water main. Page 20 of 21 Irrigation controllE,_ shall be "smart" controllers, using climate -based or -.ii moisture -based technology, selected from the Irrigation Association's current Smart Water Application Technologies (SWAT) tested products list or other similady tested product list. Controllers shall be installed and programmed according to manufacturer's specifications. A rain sensor shall be installed on each irrigation controller and installed according to the manufacturer's specifications. Drip, micro -sprays, sprayheads and rotors shall not be combined on the same zone. Sprinklers shall be spaced no closer than seventy-five (75) percent of the maximum radius of throw for the given sprinkler and nozzle. Maximum spacing shall be head -to -head coverage. Sprinklers, bubblers or emitters on a zone shall be of the same manufacturer. Sprayheads in turf areas shall have a minimum three and one-half (3'/2) inch pop-up riser height. Properties with single or combined point of connection flows of 200 gpm or greater, shall have a control system capable of providing real-time flow monitoring and the ability to shut down the system in the event of a high flow condition. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/08/2014 01/08/2014: Additional irrigation plan submittal requirements and details can be provided by contacting Eric Olson, Water Conservation Specialist, at 970-221-6704 or eolson@fcgov.com Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/08/2014 01/08/2014: Please ensure the pressure calculation worksheet (available by contacting Eric Olson) is completed (for the most pressire=demanding lateral) and submit it with the irrigation plan. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/08/2014 01/08/2014: Installation Site Inspection Contact Fort Collins Utilities (FCU) at 970-221-6704 when irrigation construction begins. FCU will perform periodic site inspections to ensure installation follows the approved plan. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/08/2014 01/08/2014: Performance Audit Contact an auditor from the City's Approved Auditor List. Systems with subsurface irrigation are exempt from the audit. The auditor should be independent of the irrigation system designer and installation professional. If this is not the case, indicate what the auditor6s role was during design and installation. Auditor performs audit according to the City4s Sprinkler Performance Audit Guidelines and using the Performance Audit and Catch Can Data forms, including the following data: a) operating pressure for one sprinkler on each zone, b) distribution uniformity. Minimum acceptable distribution uniformities are: 60% for sprayhead zones and 70% for rotor zones. The auditor may elect to perform tests on one-third to one-half of the zones to get an average value that could be applied to all zones that are identical (have the same sprinkler head, nozzle, spacing and operating pressure). Page 19 of 21 Comment Number. t Comment Originated: 01/08/2014 01/08/2014: Please make sure the following standard irrigation plan notes are included on the irrigation plan set: Contractor installing the system must provide Fort Collins Utilities and the owner with "as -built" drawings after installation is complete, incuding updated charts with existing field conditions. Read thoroughly and become familiar with the specifications and installation details for this and related work prior to construction. Coordinate utility locates ("Call Before You Dig") of underground utilities prior to construction. Do not proceed with the installation of the irrigation system when it is obvious in the field that obstructions or grade differences exist that might not have been considered in the engineering. If discrepancies in construction details, legend, notes or specifications are discovered, bring all such obstructions or discrepancies to the attention of the owner4s representative. Although irrigation components may be shown outside planting areas for clarity, install irrigation pipe and wiring in landscaped areas whenever possible. Tree and shrub locations as shown on landscape plans take precedence over irrigation equipment locations. Avoid conflicts between the irrigation system, planting materials and architectural features. Use only standard tees and elbow fittings. Use of cross type fittings is not allowed. Provide to the owner prior to the completion of the project: two (2) operating keys for each type of manually operated valves and two (2) of each servicing wrench or tool needed for complete access, adjustment and repair of sprinklers. Select nozzles for sprayheads and rotors with arcs which provide complete and adequate coverage Wth minimum overspray for the site conditions. Carefully adjust the radius of throw and arc of coverage of each rotary sprinkler to provide the best performance. Install all electrical power to the irrigation control system in accordance with the national electric code and all applicable local electric utility codes. If a section of unsized pipe is located between the identically sized sections, the unsized pipe is the same nominal size as the two sized sections. The unsized pipe should not be confused with the default pipe size noted in the legend. Install a minimum of two (2) appropriately sized control wires and one (1) common wire from controller location to each dead-end of mainline for use as spares in case of control wire failure. Cap end of wires with water -proof Wre connector. Wire terminations must be located in a valve box. In addition, coil three (3) feet of wire in valve box. A master shut-off valve shall be installed downstream of the backftow device to shut off water to the system when not operating. Page 18 of 21 Comment Numbc.. 8 Comment Originated: 01/0712014 01107/2014: No revised TIS received. Comment continued. Upon revising the note the TIS should be compiled into the final stamped TIS with addendum(s) and appedices and submitted for final acceptance. 12104/2013: 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. Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Emma McArdle, , Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/23/2013 12/23/2013: My comments regarding the bus stop on Stanford appear to be addressed. Thank you. Department: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970.221.6704, eolson(a fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/08/2014 01/08/2014: Irrigation Plans are required no later than at the of building permit. The irrigation plans must comply with the povisions outlined in Section 3.2.1(J) of the Land Use Code. Page 17 of 21 Comment Number. i Comment Originated: 01/07/2014 01/07/2014: Comment not addressed. Comment continued. Sheet C802 has stop sign details and sign post details which are not the City's details. Please differentiate onsite, private signing details from the City's signing details. The only Stop sign detail or labels found on the plans refers to 24"x24" signs with a back backside. City uses 36"x36" stop signs on public streets without black backsides and will require their use where internal mall roadways intersect public roadways. 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: 2 Comment Originated: 01/07/2014 01/07/2014: 01/07/2014: Comment not addressed. Comment continued. 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: 3 Comment Originated: 01/07/2014 01/07/2014: 01/07/2014: Comment not addressed. Comment continued. Please revise curvature as requested. 12/04/2013: No new plans received as of this date. Comment continued. 11/27/2013: Please add 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: 4 Comment Originated: 01/07/2014 01/07/2014: Sheet C213: Please add to the note regarding "Contractor to lower or relocate existing Traffic control vault", on the northeast island, to contact the City Traffic Operations Department to schedule an on site meet before any work is conducted on Traffic Operations facilities. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/07/2014 01/07/2014: Please add an additional note to the General Notes stating to contact the City Traffic Operations Department to schedule onsite meetings before any work is conducted on Traffic Operations facilities. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/07/2014 01/07/2014: Sheet C211: Please move signs 13 & 15 southwards to the southeast point of the exit's parkway strip adjacent to Monroe so the Do Not Enter sign is more visible to Monroe traffic and the No Left Turn sign is more visible to the exiting traffic. Topic: General Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/07/2014 01/07/2014: Comment not addressed. Comment continued. 12105/2013: 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. Topic: Traffic Impact Study Page 16 of 21 Comment Numbt.. 24 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: Please match the hatch size & orientation in the legend to what is shown on the Plat on all sheets. See redlines. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: Please label the College Avenue right of way to be dedicated at the top of sheet 6. See redlines. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: Please combine the marked lines on sheets 6 & 7. See redlines. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 01109/2014 01/09/2014: Please make the College Avenue right of way square footage on sheet 6 consistent with sheet 2. See redlines. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 01109/2014 01/09/2014: There are differences found in the bearings & distances marked on sheet 6. Please check these. See redlines. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: In the last submittal the utility easement along the north side of Monroe Drive was an access, drainage & utility easement. We are just checking that it is your intent to have changed it. See redlines. Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: Please check the line data on the 9' utility easement along Stanford Road. It can't be a 9' easement if the lines are not parallel to the outer boundary. See redlines. Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: It appears that the tie line at the southeast corner of the boundary does not begin at the lot comer. Please revise. See redlines. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: Please change all bearings to the nearest second in the line tables on sheets 8 & 9. Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/0912014: In the areas where you have widths labeled, please be certain the sidelines are parallel to one another on sheet 10. The widths are necessary to define the easements. Several, but not all examples are marked. See redlines. Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: There is cut off text on sheet 10. See redlines. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 35 01/09/2014: No comments. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970.221.6820, wstanfordna.fccov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 Page 15 of 21 Comment Number: d 01/09/2014: No plans were provided. Topic: Plat Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: Please correct the sheet numbering in the top right corner of sheets 1-3. See redlines. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01109/2014: Please change "Sheet 8" to "Sheet 10" in the Grant Of Emergency Access note. See redlines. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: Please move the "1." in the Owners Certificates up as marked. See redlines. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: Please change the "2013" in all signature blocks to "2014". See redlines. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: We would prefer you add a lienholders signature block and remove it if/when it becomes clear there are no lienholders. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: There is missing linework on sheet 3. See redlines. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: Reception numbers for all easements to be vacated by separate document must be added to the Plat prior to recording. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: Please add tie distances and widths as marked. See redlines. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/0912014 01/09/2014: Is the area at the southeast corner of Foothills Parkway & College Avenue included in Tract J. Please make the south line of the right of way solid and remove the hatching, and check that the square footage for Tract J does not include the right of way there. See redlines. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01109/2014: Please add and remove distances as marked. See redlines. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: What is the line marked just below L339 on sheet 4? See redlines. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: Please explain the "Tract B" in the note for Tract D, or remove it. See redlines. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: Please move the Lot 10 label to that lot. See redlines. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: Please label.the significance of the hatching on sheet 5. See redlines. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: Please show the delineation between the drainage easement and the utility easements on sheet 5. See redlines. Page 14 of 21 Comment Numb,... 3 Comment Originated: 01/08/2014 01/08/2014: The current main feed into the Mall is from a manhole on Foothills Parkway and it appears the run southeast into the mall telco rooms easement is also being vacated. This is fine with CenturyLink, but the developer's agent requested we keep all that in place until the new feed (from Stanford Road) can be established. That run will also be out of easement when the plat is approved. The out lot buildings all have copper cables feeding them and the intent is to cut off and abandon them in place so demo can commence. We have yet to workout firm plans to feed the proposed new building. There was only tentative talk about a new main feed into the mall from Stanford Rd. If you have any questions, please contact Bob Rulli, Field Engineer CenturyLink, 970490-7503 or robert.rulli@centurylink.com. Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/08/2014 01/08/2014: The duct run (44) was constructed in 1972 so it's almost as old as the main duct run on College Ave. There are two fiber cables (a 24 and a 144) and large 1200 pair copper with the associated airpressure system. This is that paper insulated copper from 1974 that needs air pressure on it keep dry. One of the plats we received previously shows an apartment building being built right over this duct bank here and is again creating a big conflict with this run. Sheet 5, Lot 4 is where it would be located. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, icounty@fcaov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: Please rotate the marked text 180 degrees on sheet A244. See redlines. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: There are line over text issues on several sheets. See redlines. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/0912014: There are text over text issues on several sheets. See redlines. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: There are cut off text issues on several sheets. See redlines. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: Please rotate the marked text 180 degrees on sheet C612. See redlines. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: Please remove "E. Monroe Dr." from sheet WO-001 where marked. See redlines. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 7 01/09/2014: No comments. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 Page 13 of 21 Department: Internal Services Contact: Todd Reidenbach, , Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/31/2013 12/31/2013: Building addresses will be assigned by the GIS Department after the plans have met final approval through Development Review and are recorded with the City. Buildings with three or more tenant units require the Unit Level Addressing form to be completed and submitted to the GIS Department once plans have met final approval through Development Review and are recorded with the City. This can occur anytime during construction, but before any utilities or address signs are installed. All addressing will be determined by the GIS Department and submitted to Poudre Fire Authority, USPS, Building Services, and Fort Collins Utilities. Failure to contact GIS and determining addresses through other means may result in address changes. The Unit Level Addressing form can be obtained by contacting the GIS office at gis@fcgov.com or (970) 416-2483. When ready, please fill it out and e-mail back to gis@fcgov.com. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/31/2013 12131/2013: Several corrections to street name text on the subdivision plat and any related documents that may also have it are noted in the PDF sent to Bruce McLennan on December 31st. Department: Outside Agencies Contact: Bob Rulli, , Topic: Easements Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/08/2014 01/08/2014: The final plat submitted shows many utility easements being vacated (sheet 3 of 10) near Stanford Road. CenturyLink has a Manhole and duct run (smaller than on college, but still sizable) that branches from College Avenue and heads east to Stanford Rd. where it feeds all the residences, apartments east all the way to Lemay Ave. and beyond. It is located roughly as shown on my markup (sheet 3 of the plat). If that easement is vacated by this plat when approved then CenturyLink's facilities will be out of easement. There was previous discussion that some sort of utility easement would stay in place to address this issue? but I cannot find this information. Please confirm. PDF redlines illustrating this issue were forward to Clif Poyner on 1/8/13. Page 12 of 21 Comment Numb.. 34 Comment Originated: O1/09/2014 01/09/2014: For the final landscape plan revisions please review for consistency plant material lists on LA 128 and LA128A. Check that the actual plants being used are the ones recorded in the lists and that each list is consistent. For example there appears to be plants recorded in the General Plant List that are not currently being used on the project. If they are not being used they typically should not be listed. The minimum size for shrubs needs to be 5 gallon. That is correctly recorded for shrubs on LA128 but not on LA128A. On LA128A please consider using the same plant material categories as shown on LA128 (Deciduous Shrubs, Evergreen Shrubs, Ornamental Grasses, Prairie Grass Mix, Perennials, Ground Cover, Turf Grass) with the sizes shown on LA128 used as the sizes on LA128A. Comment Number: 35 01/09/2014: Please add this Landscape General Note: Comment Originated: 01109/2014 Minor Changes in species and plant locations may be made during construction as required by site conditions or availability of material. Overall quality and design concept shall be consistent with approved landscape plans. Any proposed changes will be provided to the Landscape Architect and City of Fort Collins for review and approval. Comment Number: 36 01/09/2014: Continued Comment number 26 (12-1-13) Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 Thank you for acknowledging this comment. It is continued to keep it on the radar as final landscape plan revisions are being considered. Consider if it is feasible to provide a greater mix of tree types by using more ornamental and evergreen trees at some priority locations. Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: Check the sequence of numbers in the Landscape General Notes in the left column on sheet LA129. It appears that some statements not numbered need to be numbered. Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 01/0912014 01/09/2014: Thank you for the response in previous comment 16 about the possible retention of tree number 42 which is a mature pine tree along College Avenue. Unfortunately it is reported that this tree cannot be saved. For documentation could some additional information please be provided why that is the case? Comment Number: 39 01/09/2014: Comment Originated: 01109/2014 Spruce trees are spaced at 20 feet along the north boundary of the project on sheets LA 105 and LA109 for the primary purpose of screening. The cultivar Baby Blue Eyes Spruce is specified. This cultivar is a strongly pyramidal, semi -dwarf selection of Colorado Spruce with a height 20-25 feet and width 8-12 feet. To better achieve the screening objective in LUC 3.2.1.C, and at an earlier date, it is recommended that Fat Albert Blue Spruce be considered for this area. It has a mature height of 50-60 feet and width of 20-30 feet. Evaluate spacing trees closer to achieve an earlier and more solid Screen. Page 11 of 21 Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: Consider adding a sentence to the current note that appears on LA 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, and 126. The current note states:" Residential Landscape Design and tree mitigation not part of the planting area 2 submittal package". Consider adding this sentence to the current note: Existing trees in PA3 to be kept in place as part of PA2 plans until time of development of PA3 areas. It is possible that some of the Phase 2 construction or use may impact Phase 3 trees, but this is unknown at this time. By establishing that the trees are to be kept in place as part of the Phase 2 plans then any trees in the Phase 3 area that end up being impacted by Phase 2 construction or use could be evaluated through a minor amendment process to PA2, because they are defined as being kept in place as part of PA2 plans until PA 3 development occurs. The alternative would be to not allow any removal in Phase 3 until it is approved. This process is being suggested to define a review and evaluation process that could consider any unforeseen impacts to trees in PA3 areas. This process has been determined to be workable by the City Zoning Administrator. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: Continued Comments number 13 (10-22-13) and number 23 (12-1-13) Thank you for the response that only 11 trees will be transplanted. Please confirm with the City Project Planner for documentation if any additional tree transplanting needs to be considered to meet the general intent of previously submitted plans to transplant several trees. Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: Please add this note or equivalent to the tree protection specifications on sheet LA129: The project will utilize a qualified private certified arborist to inspect, supervise and evaluate tree protection specifications and the construction impact to existing trees to be retained. The project arborist shall mark all trees to be retained in the development prior to construction and oversee the placement of tree protection fencing. The project arborist shall determine if the tree protection specifications are being followed and recommend tree protection methods to the developer to ensure retained trees are protected during construction. Regular inspections will be provided as needed to ensure existing trees are being protected during construction. The project arborist shall promptly report to the developer any cases where the tree protection specifications have not been followed. If the project certified arborist determines any existing tree should not be retained due to unforeseen construction impact or for tree health reasons then a written report will be provided to the City and developer documenting the tree evaluation and reasons for removal. Removal of any tree shown to be retained on the plans shall require the prior approval of the City with mitigation based on the exiting tree inventory. Page 10 of 21 Comment Numbt.. 29 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01109/2014: Thank you for providing an updated tree inventory and mitigation plan on December 5th in response to previous comment number 1 (10-22-13) and number 14 (12-1-13). Please now update changes that have occurred since then or will occur from final comments to the Tree Inventory and Mitigation Plan submitted on December 5th. Information sent with the December 5th transmittal is the last inventory information I have received. This includes information provided in these two documents: FHM Tree Mitigation. Plan PA2 updated 1205 December Completed Spread Sheet. There appears to have been some small changes to the tree inventory information as plans have been updated. On sheet LA 128 of the current landscape plan these totals are recorded, which are a little different than those recorded on the December 4 Completed Spread Sheet: Sheet LA128 (December 20) Total Current Mitigation: 1020 Total mitigation PA1: 50.5 Total mitigation PA2: 621.5 Total Mitigation PA3: 282 Total Mitigation Canal: 65.5 December 4 Completed Spread Sheet: Total Current Mitigation 1013 Total Mitigation PA1: 50.5 Total Mitigation PA2: 615 Total Mitigation PA3: 348 Please update changes on the Spread Sheet and Mitigation Plan to be consistent with the current numbers on LA128. Also identify which trees are part of the Canal Mitigation, as Canal trees were not previously identified on the spreadsheet. It would also help qualify the Total Mitigation in PA3 by adding a foot note that says in effect that the final mitigation for PA3 to be determined when final plans for that area are approved. Comment Number: 30 01/09/2014: Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 Thank you for providing the tree mitigation summary totals on Sheet LA128. This is very useful information. In addition please also add these summary totals on Sheet LA128 to give the summary overview of existing trees located on PA2. Total existing trees on PA2 Total trees that will be retained on PA2 Total trees to be transplanted on PA2 Total trees to be removed on PA2 Page 9 of 21 Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01109/2014: Continued comment number 15 (12-1-13) for only the part of the comment to explore retaining existing trees. Previous comment number 15 (12-1-13) asked that existing trees in Southmore village 5th filing area be inventoried and that retaining some of these trees should be explored. This comment continues the part of that comment on retaining some of these trees. Thank you for providing the inventory information for this area. The response indicated that with the most current plan, we were not able to retain any existing trees in this area, and a row of proposed evergreen trees are provided to screen the adjacent residential. It appears the landscape area along this north boundary by Tract H Southmore Village 5th is around 25 feet wide which could allow enough space to retain the better coniferous trees in this area in a similar fashion to those retained just to the west. Please evaluate these trees (893, 896, 904, 905 and 921) for suitability and feasibility of retention in the landscape area on the north boundary on sheets LA 5 and LA 9. By selective retaining some of these mature conifer trees it appears that the row of new spruce could still be planted between and behind these existing trees to provide the screen between the project and residential. Page 8 of 21 Comment Numbe.. 8 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: Carried over for further inquiry and verification. Note that sheets C304 and C306 are showing the demoing of existing sidewalks along driveways that tie out to Stanford Road. If these sidewalk connections are not built until Phase 3, then the amount of connectivity that would occur with Phase 2 would actually be less than what is existing today in these instances. 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. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: Please revise the transit easement note to the following: "Transit Easement - Easement for public transportation, equipment, infrastructure and/or use, including public access." Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: The multiple signatures on the plat would need to be replicated on the development agreement for PA2. With the last iteration of the development agreement for PA1 having a different signature block for Walton Foothills Holdings VI, LLC there may be questions from the City Attorney's Office on whether the PA1 and PA2 signature block for Walton Foothills Holdings Vl, LLC needs to be consistent, I'll certainly defer to the attorneys on this. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970.224.6143, lex(7fcaov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/07/2014 01/07/2014: Just let me know which Development Agreement you would like the mitigation to be covered under (Phase One or Phase Two). Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221.6361, tuchanan &fc4ov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 27 01/09/2014: Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 All previous comments are resolved except number 13 (10-22-13), number 15 (12-1-13) just for tree retention, number 23 (12-1-13) and number 26 (12-1-13). Comment number 13 and 23 are carried over into new comment number 32. Comment 15 is carried over into new comment number 28 Comment 26 is carried over into new comment number 36 New Comments are offered 28-39 Page 7 of 21 Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: I'm understanding that the comment may be applicable again as Corner Bakery Cafe may remain. If that's the case, we'll need to ensure that the plans are revised to show the restaurant remaining and review the overall design. The changes of the sidewalk along College, including the underpass connection, and the potential transit stop changes will need to be reviewed in detail. Comment considered no longer applicable with Corner Bakery no longer shown to remain. Should the status change, this comment may be updated again. 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 Cafe 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 Comer 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. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: Again I'm understanding that the comment may be applicable again as Corner Bakery Cafe may remain. If that's the case, we'll need to ensure that the plans are revised to show the restaurant remaining and review the overall design. Comment considered no longer applicable with Comer Bakery no longer shown to remain. Should the status change, this comment may be updated again. 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 Comer 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. Page 6 of 21 Comment Numbe.. 5 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: For the Horsetooth/Stanford turn lane, with the intent now to have the right turn lane to full design with Phase 2, the original comment is no longer applicable. The following are a copy of the email comments for reference that was sent out on 12120: 1) The cross -sections should be shoving the right-of-way limits for verification on whether the grading can be done fully in right-of-way or is any offsite easements are needed. The "slope intercept" indication on the plans would appear to show that there is an amount of grading that does fall outside of right-of-way just east of the vault. If an offsite easement is ultimately needed, the fully signed easement will need to be provided prior to approval. 2) Typical requirements would have the grading at a 4:1, we'll allow the 3:1 specific to this design. 3) A flowline profile indicating grade lines and vertical curves where appropriate will need to be reflected on the plan and profile sheet for review, demonstrating how it ties into existing grade to the east and existing flowline at Stanford. 4) Because of minimal cover over the triple storm pipes, we'll need to have a concrete pavement section specified for the width of the turn lane from 5 feet east of easternmost storm pipe to the limits of construction to the west. The curb and gutter along this section would be integral with the pavement. 5) Ward has indicated his acceptance on turn lane geometrics. Similarly, the turning movement information you provided was also found to be acceptable. 6) With the resubmittal of PA2 and routing to other departments and agencies, additional comments from those other departments and agencies may occur. 7) With the goal of having the turn lane fully approved and designed with PA2, my comment from the last PA2 review is no longer applicable along with the cost estimate you provided earlier. The turn lane will still require collateral as part of our Development Construction Permit process for PA2, along with the rest of the public infrastructure for PA2. For reference, I've attached the cost quantities spreadsheet that we use to determine public infrastructure that's required to be secured. This would need to be filled out during the DCP application process. It may be of benefit with the application (also provided for reference) to provide separate spreadsheets (and separate security) for the turn lane vs. the on -site portion of the mall to address the different points in which the improvements need to be in and the warranty periods they would have as a result. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01109/2014: Can the link to download the pedestrian underpass be resent? I did not get around to downloading it over the holidays. Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: Due to limitations in the database software, previous unresolved comments are not carried over into this final plan review. An empty line in the comment reflects a previous round(s) comment being carried over. Apologies in advance for issues of clarity. Page 5 of 21 Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: The plans still show the separate patching on the northeast portion of the site with the three northern patches to Stanford Road needing to be consolidated to a single patch. 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.") 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: 3 01/09/2014: Carried over as unresolved. Comment not resolved. Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 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: 4 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: Carried over as unresolved. Comment appears to not be addressed (now shown on C813) 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. Page 4 of 21 Comment Numb.. 1 Comment Originated: 01/06/2014 01/06/2014: Please note that you will need three (3) signed and notarized copies of the plat. All property owners within the project boundaries must have signature blocks describing who they are and each property owner signature must be notarized. Please note the Larimer Canal No. 2 should sign the plat. Tree removal and Construction within the PA2 boundaries (that was not part of the previous minor amendment) cannot occur until the Foothills Redevelopment Plat is recorded, the PA2 plans signed and the PA2 Development Agreement (different from the redevelopment agreement that went to City Council) is executed. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/0912014: The signature blocks on the plat say 2013 in about 6 places, please fix. Also please put a line so the person signing can print their name and title. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: There is an attorney certification block on the plat now, is there a change from the previous direction of title insurance? Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/24/2013 12/24/2013: Sheet A103 - The call out on the plan for Block 1A is 208,098, which is different from the table. Please correct. If the table is the incorrect number, please remember to update the totals at the bottom. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/24/2013 12124/2013: Please delete or correct the call out on the left side of sheet A103 regarding PA1 as the Final Plans for PA1 have not been signed and it went to hearing on 11/21/1 not 05/07/13 as stated. It may be easier to simply call out "Planning Area 1 or Phase One." Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/24/2013 12/24/2013: Note number 8 on sheet A103 is a bit confusing and I am not sure of its intent. Please reword the note for clarity, identifying buildings on Blocks as opposed to adjacency to tracks as delineated on the plat. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/24/2013 12/24/2013: There is a spelling error in note number 11 on sheet A103. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: On Sheet A102 in the project parking table, under bike parking it says 288 spaces (160 sp on site;140 adjacent to & in structure). However, 160 + 140 = 300, not 288. Please rectify. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970.221.6567, mvirata .fcaov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Page 3 of 21 Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: Repeat comment from 11/22/13: On sheet LA-109 Bike parking in shown obstructing the sidewalk. Please relocate Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: The shrubs, grasses, groundcover, perennial key was removed from the LA sheets in this submittal. Please include on the sheets. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: Sheet LA 102 - Please call out grass pavers by cell tower per utility Sheet C203, as the key does not identify. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: Sheet LA-103 -1) Please add one shade tree on the south side of the water quality area to fram the drive entry. 2) The outermost plant material is not identified in the legend. The lanscaping in the water quality area does not seem to relate to the retaining wall (see utility set sheet WQ-004). Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: Repeat Comment from 11/22 not addressed: The previously approved PDP showed 12 trees in the area north/northwest of Block 14A. With the ramp removed, please add 4 additional trees on Sheet LA-103 Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: Repeat comment from 11/22 not addressed: On sheet LA-104, additional evergreen to screen transformer from Foothills Parkway (4' off gas line). Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: On Sheet LA -108 the previous comment on 11/22/13 was intended to add a ree, not re -arrange. Please add additional tree on southwest comer. Additionally, tree needs to be added on triangle landscape island and trees respaced. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: On sheet LA-109, the Code requires landscape islands to be a minimum of 8' in width with a minimum of 80 sq. ft. of area with a canopy shade tree (LUC 3.2.1(E)(5)(c)). Please increase the size of the landscape island west of the trash enclosure. This may involve losing a parking space. If so, please make sure sheet Al02 is updated to reflect this change. See redlines. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: Repeat Comment: Sheet LA-109 - Please relocate the bike parking on the west side of the Block 19 building to the front where it is more visible and fully landscape that area. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: Repeat comment from 11/22/13 and 10/16/13: Sheet LA 114 - Previous PDP (12/28/12) had 6 trees in landscape area south of the theater, just right of the sidewalk. Please respace and add two more trees. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: Repeat comment from 11/22/13: Sheet LA 116 -Previous PDP (12/28/12) had 7 trees in landscape area east of the parking structure. Please respace and add two more trees 4' off gas line. It is not necessary to be 40' off the lights along the internal drive as that requirement is only for public streets. Topic: Plat Page 2 of 21 y of Fo "t'C - I ins January 10, 2014 Bryan Mcfarland Alberta Development Partners 5750 DTC Parkway, Suite 210 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 RE: Foothills Mall Redevelopment Phase Two,Final Plan, FDP130054, Round Number 1 Community Development and Neighborhood services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6760 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov. com/developmentreview 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. Comment Summary: Department: Current Planning Contact: Courtney Levingston, 970.416-2283, clevingston(a)fcuov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 0110912014: Please provide the footprint size on each sheet in the elevations and reconcile those numbers with the table on sheet A103. Additionally, please check the accuracy of the dimension call outs as to scale, some sheets seem to be off. Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: On Sheets C203 and LA103 the pedestrian lighting location needs to be coordinated between landscape and utility set. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: Sheets LA104/ A238 -Transformer needs to be relocated infront of meter (as previously shown). Currently the transformer is in front of the buildings windows. Additional screening should be considered. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: Sheet LA1101A216/C718 Please move the transformer northeast so it does not block the proposed windows and screen the transformer. Sheet C718 electric line would need to be updated to accommodate this. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01109/2014: Repeat comment from 11/22/13 submittal: Bike racks shown on sheet LA102 (A244) should be more centrally located to the north. additional bike rack should be shown for this large building. Page 1 of 21