Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT - FDP - FDP130019 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 -98 Spruce Street, Suite 201 | Denver Colorado 80230 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 303 220 8900 | 303 220 0708 Fax =ïïïKppppbbbbjjjj~~~~êêêêÅÅÅÅÜÜÜÜááááííííÉÉÉÉÅÅÅÅííííëëëëKKKKÅÅÅÅççççãããã ïïïK May 22, 2013 Ms Courtney Levingston City of Ft Collins, Current Planning 281 North College Avenue Ft Collins, CO 80524 Re: Foothills Responses to PDP Staff comments dated 1/16/13 Thank you for your efforts on the Foothills application. We offer the following responses to Staff’s PDP comments as a component of our Final Plans submittal: Department: Current Planning Contact: Courtney Levingston, 970-416-2283, clevingston@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/30/2013 01/30/2013: Sheet A250 states the elevation is for block 5A, yet the key plan is highlighting the retail building on Block 14C. Please ensure all details are cleaned up prior to final plan submittal. Key Plan revised to reflect the correct condition. Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/29/2013 01/29/2013: All internal pedestrian crosswalks/walkways should be distinguished from driving surfaces through the use of durable, low maintenance surface materials such as pavers, scored concrete or other treatments as to enhance pedestrian safety and comfort, as well as the attractiveness of the internal crosswalks/walkways. All internal pedestrian crosswalks/walkways are proposed to be colored and stamped concrete, as shown in the detail on sheet C-801. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/29/2013 01/29/2013: The notes on sheet A102 need to be cleaned up. Note # 8 should be reworded to say something to the effect of buildings on Lot 7, block 1F, 1G, 1J, 1H etc. may not architecturally in their final form and that any deviation from PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 2 the character elevations via building permit must be accompanied by a major or minor amendment to the approved PDP that sufficiently demonstrates compliance with the applicable Land Use Code Standards located in Article 3, General Development Standards. Note #8 reflects the revision to the wording as suggested. General Notes have been moved to sheet A103 to accommodate the revised legal description on sheet A102. Department: Current Planning Contact: Courtney Levingston, 970-416-2283, clevingston@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/29/2013 01/29/2013: The site plan signature block will need to be modified to our typical notarized signature block. Additionally, on Sheet A102 the utility signature block should be removed as this is not a utility plan set. The typical notarized signature block has been added and the utility signature block was removed. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/29/2013 01/29/2013: A note on the site plan stating "No delivery, loading, trash removal compaction, or other such operations shall be permitted between the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am unless evidence is submitted that sound barriers between all areas for such operations effectively reduce noise emissions to a level of 45 dBm as measured at the lot line of any adjoining property." This is per LUC 3.5.4(C)(6). This note has been added to the site plan note list as #10. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/30/2013 01/30/2013: Commercial buildings must be a minimum of 20 feet tall. Restaurant 3 on sheet A230 does not comply with our Code since there are portions that are only 12 feet in height. Elevations have been adjusted to conform to this provision. PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 3 Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/31/2012 01/13/2013: On the Landscape plans, please call out gas lines and water and sewer mains/service lines per 3.2.1(K). 4 feet between gas lines and trees, 10 feet between trees and sewer mains, 6 feet between trees and water service lines. Please also show sign locations, and light poles to ensure there are no conflicts. Water and sewer mains/service lines are indicated on the landscape plans, and we will make sure there is min 10 feet between trees and sewer mains and 6 feet between trees and the water service line. The gas company won’t start design until the Plat is recorded, and for the existing gas lines, we don’t know what would stay and what will go at this point. While moving forward to our next phase work, we will keep min 4 feet between gas lines and trees. Sign locations and light poles are shown on the landscape plans as well. We will make sure there are no conflicts between them. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/08/2013 01/08/2013: The comment response letter dated 12/28/12 indicated on the bottom of page three that a 10 foot sidewalk along the north side of Foothills Parkway would be provided. This change did not seem to get picked up in the submitted landscape plan set on 12/28/12. We have provided a10 foot wide sidewalk along the north side of Foothills Parkway and it is indicated on sheet LA-102. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/09/2013 01/09/2013: On Sheet LA-118, please add trees to landscape islands. Section 3.2.1(E)(5)states that " each landscape island shall include 1 canopy shade tree.." It looks like approximately 10 trees can be added to these landscape islands. Staff understands that this is Macy's parking lot, however these trees are required. Additionally, these trees are necessary with complying with the street-like private drive requirement of the drive isle starting at foothills parkway leading to Stanford Road. PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 4 Existing trees that are remaining in Macy’s parking lot and proposed street trees are shown on sheet LA-118. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: At time of final, please provide a plant schedule detailing all proposed plant materials and quantities. A detailed plant list is included on sheet LA-128. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: On sheet LA -107, the connecting walkway through the Sears parking, as required in subsection 3.2.2(B)(5)(a) (Walkways) is required to have 1 canopy shade tree per 40 feet. This can be done by trees in grates or on a parallel landscaped area. (LUC 3.2.2(E)(4)). Additional canopy trees in tree grates have been added along the walkway. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: On Sheet LA-117/118, the connecting pedestrian walkway through the Macy's parking lot should also have 1 tree per 40 feet in order to meet the requirements of Section 3.2.2(E)(4). Additional canopy trees have been added. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: The sidewalk on LA-106 should be detached, separating the pedestrian from the vehicle. This is required per 3.2.2(C)(1) and 3.2.2.(D)(1). The sidewalk on block 11 (LA-108) should also be detached adjacent to the building per this standard. The sidewalks on LA-106 have been detached from the curbs where attainable. The sidewalk on LA-108 has been detached as well. Grading dictates a part of the sidewalk on Block 11 (LA-108) near the road remain attached. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/25/2013 PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 5 01/25/2013: On Sheet 126/127, the surface parking lot landscape islands will need to be larger and include trees. In Section 3.2.1(E)(5)(c), the Code requires landscape islands to be a minimum of 8 feet wide, include at least 80 square feet of ground area a minimum of 1 canopy per landscape island. The surface parking lot landscape islands were widened to the required 8-foot width. The existing trees that are remaining in Macy’s parking lot and proposed street trees are shown on the sheets. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 02/19/2013 01/31/2013: City Staff would like to coordinate a meeting with the Landscaping firm/Applicant to specifically discuss the landscaping along South College Avenue and Foothills Parkway. As this is a highly visible corridor and part of the City's Midtown Urban Design Plan, special attention and details will need to be discussed. The design team is available for such a meeting when appropriate. Please indicate the best timing for such a meeting. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 02/19/2013 02/19/2013: Please include these landscape notes: "The soil in all landscape areas, including parkways and medians, shall be thoroughly loosened to a depth of not less than 8 inches and soil amendment shall be thoroughly incorporated into the soil of all landscape areas to a depth of at least 6 inches by tilling, discing or other suitable method, at a rate of at least 3 cubic yards of soil amendment per 1,000 square feet of landscape area. 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. The developer shall 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 PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 6 is required before final approval of each phase. Failure to obtain approval by the City Forester for street trees in a phase shall result in a hold on certificate of occupancy." Notes have been added. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 02/19/2013 02/19/2013: With respect to landscaping and design, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, in Article 3.2.1 (E)(2)(3), requires that you use native plants and grasses in your landscaping or re-landscaping and reduce bluegrass lawns as much as possible. Reveille Bluegrass is one option for having bluegrass lawns and using less water. VorTex is another. These options are incorporated in this submittal. Department: Current Planning Contact: Courtney Levingston, 970-416-2283, clevingston@fcgov.com Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/04/2013 01/04/2013: What is the height of the parking structure to the top of the tower element? 76'? Please call out on sheet A-255. How many spaces per level? Each plan set should be consistent. The height has been identified and the number of spaces have been added. The application incorporates 4 supported levels of parking over grade in its final form. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: Staff is concerned about the design of auto entrances to the residential parking garages as it relates to pedestrian separation. These auto entrances should be separated from the sidewalk by low planters or other treatment delineating the different spaces. Additionally, sidewalk pavement shall be continuous across the drive aisle. Any break in the paving surface or scoring must be in the drive surface and not in the pedestrian sidewalk (LUC 3.10.4(D)(3)). PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 7 The revised site plan shows the updated drive, sidewalk, and grading. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: Previous discussions indicated that phasing of the project into multiple DCPs was looking to be implemented. If still the case, a phasing plan needs to be included in the construction plan set for review showing how phasing of utilities, site access, flatwork, etc. will work. Phasing plans are included in the plan set. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: The general concept for the reworked access ramp at the northeast corner of Monroe Drive and College Avenue appears acceptable, provided that adequate width is maintained. I'm scaling 4 feet in width, is this intended? [December PDR] Acknowledged applicant's response to be addressed in a future submittal with this comment. Carried over in order to track for future submittals. Please note that an ADA compliant crossing that directs pedestrians to the west across College Avenue is anticipated, as the existing access ramp only addresses movements to the south. [November PDR] The new attached sidewalk along Monroe Drive at the College Avenue intersection will need to be ADA compliant for the pedestrian crossing going southbound across Monroe Drive and westbound across College Avenue. ADA compliant directional ramps for both movements in accordance with LCUASS criteria will need to be constructed. Existing utilities/traffic appurtenances may need to be relocated with this requirement. The access ramp is 4’ wide. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: The concrete shown for Matthews and Remington are acceptable. Please remove the 5' concrete band at Foothills Parkway and keep the entire section as asphalt. [December PDR] Acknowledged applicant's response to be addressed in a future submittal with this comment specific to the concrete on Mathews. For PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 8 Foothills Parkway at College Avenue, we received feedback from our street maintenance folks that the creation of a concrete strip across Foothills Parkway has its own concerns and from that perspective, they would rather see no demarcation of the right-of-way line, so no need to modify the drawings specific to Foothills Parkway. Carried over in order to track for future submittals. [November PDR] With the proposal to vacate the remaining portion of Foothills Parkway, there needs to be physical demarcation of the pavement to discern the limits of City maintenance and ease of performing the maintenance against the private portion(s). For Mathews Street intersecting with the vacated Foothills Parkway the trapezoidal approach (about 1,000 sq. ft.) of Mathews that's not in right-of-way should be done in concrete to give the defined edge where the limits of City maintenance of Mathews Street ends. For the vacated Foothills Parkway intersecting with College Avenue, a similar trapezoidal approach should be created in concrete (which in this case would be the portion of Foothills Parkway that would remain as right-of-way). This concrete approach of Foothills Parkway to remain as right-of-way will need to have the median splitter islands, north-south sidewalk movement along College Avenue, traffic signals and traffic related appurtenances within this right-of-way. This concrete approach of Foothills Parkway to remain as right-of-way will need to be clear of signage and structures other than City required. Please also be aware that any portion of right-of-way that's dedicated to CDOT abutting Foothills Parkway cannot be vacated per CDOT requirements. The 5-foot concrete band on Foothills Parkway has been removed. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: The addition of the signs addresses the comment, with the exception of sheet C208 needing to have added a Foothills Parkway Privately Owned and Maintained sign heading west onto the northernmost driveway off of Stanford Road. [December PDR] Acknowledged applicant's response and carried over in order to track for future submittals. A detail was emailed to applicant, and a response acknowledging the detail was sent. [November PDR] Signs (rectangular in shape with black lettering on white background) will need to be added indicating "Foothills Parkway Privately Owned and Maintained". These signs will be needed on eastbound Foothills Parkway off College Avenue, westbound Foothills Parkway off of Stanford Road, and southbound Mathews Street intersecting Foothills Parkway. An example of the sign design is at Council Tree Avenue, a similar private drive intersecting both PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 9 Corbett Drive and Ziegler Road. Please ensure these are indicated on both the site plan and civil construction set. The requested sign has been added to sheet C208. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: On Sheet C203 specify that the "bike guard rail required here" as "bike path guardrail required here" and reference Sheet C801. [December PDR] Acknowledged applicant's response to be addressed in a future submittal with this comment. Carried over in order to track for future submittals. [November PDR] The guardrail along the College Avenue walk for separation from the ditch has a couple of concerns. The multi-modal aspect of this sidewalk also having bicyclists (combined with no biking allowed within the College Avenue roadway) requires that the height of the guardrail be increased from 42" to 54" in accordance with 11.3.4.A of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. A design spec of the railing is provided. The sidewalk along the handrail should be widened an additional 6 inches minimum to provide some shy distance from the handrail. Note has been modified as requested. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: The use of fencing is also required behind the curb along College Avenue and Monroe Drive to close off access around the opening for the culvert. Please ensure that fencing is added at both locations. [December PDR] Acknowledged applicant's response to be addressed in a future submittal with this comment. Carried over in order to track for future submittals. [November PDR] In addition to the handrail, protection (fencing) to block access to the ditch should occur surrounding the right-of-way (for both Monroe Drive and College Avenue) unless the portion within right-of-way was extended as a covered section. Additional fencing is called out on the plans. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: The flowline profiles need to show existing flowline grades that are PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 10 being tied into to verify whether the flowline grades remain consistent or whether grade breaks occur (and whether or not the grade breaks are then within acceptable criteria). On sheet C900 the proposed flowline grades are below the minimum requirement of .5% and would need to be adjusted. On sheet C901 there are two crest grade breaks that exceed the .4% max differential and would need to be adjusted to be at or below .4% or vertical curves be provided. On sheet C901 there are flowline grades below the minimum requirement of .5% and would need to be adjusted. The use of an area inlet inline along the cross pan across the driveway seems a little unusual, wondering on the need and design for it -- though the availability of storm sewer could perhaps be utilized to create a low point in the area as an option to address the lack of minimum .5% flowline grade. Please ensure that cross sections along College Avenue are provided at time of final. As College Avenue is a CDOT roadway, they would ultimately rule on any concerns, though they've perhaps tended to defer to City requirements. [December PDR] Acknowledged applicant's response to be addressed in a future submittal with this comment. Carried over in order to track for future submittals. [November PDR] The widening of College Avenue for the construction/modification of right turn lanes into the site should be providing additional vertical design detail in future submittals to show the how the flowline and cross slope of these areas meet standards, along with how well they tie into the existing portions of College Avenue. The turn lane plans have been modified to meet the outlined standards to the maximum extent possible, based on the conference call with Marc Virata and Sherri Langenberger. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: The 12' width does appear to be in place. The one exception is the turn into Foothills Parkway in between the splitter island and the curb for the turn lane. The 12' width is a CDOT requirement, Engineering will be having a standard meeting with CDOT this week and can inquire on whether the 12' width needs to be maintained going around the splitter island. [December PDR] Acknowledged applicant's response to be addressed in a future submittal with this comment. Carried over in order to track for future submittals. PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 11 [November PDR] The decel/right turn lanes along College Avenue are required to be 12' in width exclusive of the gutter pan per CDOT requirements. The referenced turn lane has been widened to over 12-feet flange to flange. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: The general concepts for the pedestrian improvements along/across College Avenue appear to be acceptable. Design details are still needed to go along with the information on Sheet C214. There may be concerns with existing constraints in terms of being able to implement the concepts as shown on the drawings, such as the existing traffic signal and traffic control box in close proximity to the ramp improvements on the northwest corner of College Avenue and Foothills Parkway. The plans should show how proposed improvements are able to exist with existing infrastructure (or indicate relocation of the existing infrastructure). The stop bar for the southbound movement will need to be shifted with the crossing/crosswalk being added. [December PDR] Carried over for further discussion. A meeting with Transportation Planning for further discussion of this is scheduled for 8am on the 19th. [November PDR] In general, there are aspects of the abutting public streets that do not meet current standards. Examples include College Avenue not having pedestrian refuge islands at intersections and Monroe Drive (a collector) not having bikelanes and a pedestrian refuge island. As the design is further explored and bike/pedestrian level of service analysis is made in conjunction with Transportation Planning and Traffic Engineering review, additional review and comment may be made in terms of upgrading existing infrastructure on the public street system to meet level of service/street standards. Detailed plans for the College Avenue improvements are included in this plan set. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: The patching shown for the sanitary lateral on sheet C502 and the turn lane onto Foothills Parkway on sheet C901 still show angular patches in right-of-way and need to be revised as shown on redlines. Patching along the public portion of Monroe Drive will need to be shown at right angles to the direction of travel as well. PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 12 [December PDR] The patching shown shows an angular patch along the eastern termination along Stanford. We'll need to see the patch shown being perpendicular to the line of travel. [November PDR] There appears to be a tie in for a water main that occurs within Stanford Road roadway. Street patching should be shown on the utility plan sheets for this work, with the patch being physically shown to either span the full width of the parking or the full width of the bikelane along Stanford Road. Based on email correspondence with Marc Virata, we understand the plans show the patching correctly at this point. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: Carried over for reference as the response indicated the note will be added, but was not included in the current submittal. [December PDR] Please add the following note to the plan set referencing the street cuts in public right-of-way: "Limits of street cut are approximate. Final limits are to be determined in the field by the City Engineering Inspector. All repairs to be in accordance with City street repair standards." The last plan set had the note only on sheet C003 – Demo Notes. The note now appears on every sheet where a public street cut is shown. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: Acknowledged that the revised design does place structures outside of the right-of-way, resolving that concern. Comment is carried over for reference to follow-up on potential future revised grading to further reduce the slopes in right-of-way. [December PDR] The residential building on the northeast corner of the project appears to be placing permanent structures in Stanford Road right-of-way (stairs and retaining wall(s)). These appurtenances are not allowed in public right-of-way and would need to be relocated, absent of the approval of these items in an encroachment/easement, which would likely need separate review, consideration, and approval by City Council. It is strongly encouraged that the design of this area is reconfigured to not encroach onto right-of-way. Proposed grading within the right-of-way is 4:1 or less. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: The flowline profiles need to show existing flowline grades that are PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 13 being tied into to verify whether the flowline grades remain consistent or whether grade breaks occur (and whether or not the grade breaks are then within acceptable criteria). On sheet C900 the proposed flowline grades are below the minimum requirement of .5% and would need to be adjusted. On sheet C901 there are two crest grade breaks that exceed the .4% max differential and would need to be adjusted to be at or below .4% or vertical curves be provided. On sheet C901 there are flowline grades below the minimum requirement of .5% and would need to be adjusted. The use of an area inlet inline along the cross pan across the driveway seems a little unusual, wondering on the need and design for it -- though the availability of storm sewer could perhaps be utilized to create a low point in the area as an option to address the lack of minimum .5% flowline grade. Please ensure that cross sections along College Avenue are provided at time of final. [December PDR] Sheets C900-C902 do not show profile information. This will need to be added with the PDP submittal. At time of final, cross-sections along College Avenue will need to be provided for further detail of how the cross-slopes existing along College tie into the proposed widening. The turn lane plans were modified to meet the outlined standards to the maximum extent possible, based on the conference call with Marc Virata and Sherri Langenberger. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: The widening along College Avenue for the turn lanes shown on the construction drawings indicated field verifying adequate cover over utilities. Potholing of existing utilities should really be performed at this time in order to identify likely cover over the roadway and whether options such as relocation of utilities from under the pavement need to be considered. It may be that the dry utility providers themselves would want their facilities relocated from being under pavement. Light and Power indicated that their electric facility is likely 24" below grade and is encased in concrete. If correct, this amount of cover would not be sufficient over pavement and with the concrete encasement, short of relocating the line, options would need to be explored, such as building the turn lanes in concrete. As College Avenue is a CDOT roadway, they would ultimately rule on any concerns, though they've perhaps tended to defer to City requirements. Potholing was performed and the depths of the utilities are now shown PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 14 on the plans. It appears there will be adequate cover. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: Please specify the construction of the drive approach for the business located on the east side of Remington Street terminating into the development. The drive approach should be in concrete and built in conformance with LCUASS Drawing 706. We believe this is shown correctly. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: There's a portion of water quality shown on sheet C201 that's partially in Remington Street right-of-way. This is considered a private improvement and would need to be designed to be located outside of City right-of-way. The water quality basin was revised so it is out of the street right-of-way. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: The retaining walls shown throughout the site need to have design information on the construction plan set. Retaining walls will need to be coordinated with the Building Department as they need to be permitted at a certain height. Planning would also need the detail retaining wall information to evaluate the scale and aesthetics of their use. The indication on Notes 15 and 16 of Sheet C002 regarding retaining walls along with the design of the box culverts and other structures are conceptual may be of concern if scale and aesthetics are not able to be identified at this time. Retaining walls will be concrete construction incorporating formliner or similar product/methods to provide coursing joints and patterns to complement adjacent architecture and finished with a textured paint or stain. The top of wall will be stepped in coordination with adjacent grade to maintain a top of wall approx. 12” above grade with a painted metal guardrail as required to satisfy code requirements. Reference architectural elevations for retaining wall concept. PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 15 Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: The southernmost access hatch for access to the box is partially located within the sidewalk along College Avenue. Can this access hatch be moved further south to be located outside of the sidewalk? The placement of an access hatch within the sidewalk would not be ideal for the change in surface along the sidewalk. The hatch was moved out of the sidewalk. Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: Carried over for reference as the response indicated will address. Note that there's a 5 page stapled set of Foothills Mall Redevelopment that appears to master index the site. Since the civil set is filed separately by the City, it would typically be more understandable if the civil set was removed from the indexing. Note that sheet A102 includes a utility plan approval block which isn't needed as it's not part of the civil set. [December PDR] The civil set will need the utility plan approval block on all the sheets of the plan set. [November PDR] With the submittal of a Project Development Plan (PDP), the civil sheets should be separated into its own plan set with a copy of the plat in the set as a reference document. The plat will still be an individual document. The Utility Plan Approval block will only be needed on the civil set sheets (all the sheets minus the reference plat). The Civil documents have been removed from the index. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: In checking with the City Forester, with the understanding that the metro district will be maintaining all the trees within the development, including those in public right-of-way, notes need to be added to the Landscape Plan and the Plat indicating that maintenance of the trees within the development, including trees within public right-of-way abutting the development are the responsibility of the metro district. [December PDR] Acknowledged applicant's response with this comment. Carried over in order to track for future submittals. [November PDR] With the property line not necessarily coinciding with the PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 16 sidewalk or the placement of trees along College Avenue, it is difficult to ascertain out in the field which trees are located in public right-of-way and which trees are located on private property. In checking with Tim Buchanan, the City Forester, trees that are in public right-of-way are typically maintained by the City (pruning, replacement, etc., but not irrigation). Tim is inquiring whether the developer might be interested in taking on the maintenance responsibilities for the trees in public right-of-way, given the difficulty of in the field, determining which trees are maintained by the developer vs. the City. It might simplify responsibilities to have one party maintain this corridor. The required notes have been incorporated in this submittal. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: The status of this comment pertaining to a right turn lane at Horsetooth and Stanford is unresolved. With the applicant's response of not looking to improve this intersection as required in LCUASS, City staff has had further discussion and still maintains the position of the need for this improvement. The City will be drafting a condition of approval in the staff report for the public hearing for the project, indicating the approval of the project conditioned upon the applicant's construction of the turn lane as required by LCUASS. In addition, LCUASS criteria would also require construction of a right turn lane at JFK and Horsetooth. A variance request is needed for review and approval to not construct turn lanes required under LCUASS. City staff can see the support of a variance request to not build the turn lane at Horsetooth and JFK given that the existing development at that corner provides a constraint such that both a bikelane and a turn lane could not occur at this intersection and the addition of a bikelane in the future would be weighed of greater value than the turn lane given the constraint. City staff position is that a variance to not construct the turn lane at Horsetooth and Stanford would not be supported. [December PDR] Acknowledged applicant's response with this comment. Carried over in order to track for future submittals. [November PDR] In consultation with the City's Traffic Engineer, the information in the traffic study along with City Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards requires that the Horsetooth/Stanford intersection be mitigated by the developer to construct a right turn lane for westbound Horsetooth to northbound Stanford. A variance request has been filed requesting that the right turn lane on PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 17 Horsetooth at JFK not be required. Per an email by Marc Virata dated 2/5/13, the City has accepted that variance request and no further follow up is required. A preliminary design for the requested right turn lane on Horsetooth at Stanford is included in this plan set. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: Carried over for reference as the information is intended to be provided in the future. [December PDR] Acknowledged applicant's response to be provided in a future submittal with this comment. Carried over in order to track for future submittals. [November PDR] Sheet A305 of the Foothills Materials & Elevations set shows sign locations on the sheet but does not indicate the property line on the sheet to determine that the proposed signs are located outside of public right-of-way. Please add this information to the sheet. In addition, the sidewalk identified along College Avenue does not coincide with the sidewalk shown on the site plan documents; the sign on the southwest corner of the site appears to be situated on top of Monroe Drive sidewalk that ties into College Avenue. In addition to these concerns, Sheet A305 will need to be looked at further in terms of whether the proposed signs create a sight visibility concern. For instance with the same sign on the southwest corner of the site, is the proximity of the sidewalk to the sign such that vehicles along Monroe Drive approaching College Avenue will not be able to react to pedestrian and/or bicyclist looking to cross Monroe Drive? Sign location plan indicates updated property lines and addresses site line and right of way concerns. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: The addition of sheet C706 on the construction plans shows that 2-3 feet of cover over the box is being maintained, as noted in the response. The landscaping plan shows that several trees and tree varieties are being planted on top of the ditch. It's key that the ditch company agrees to the concept from the standpoint that if the plans are approved at public hearing with the trees over the ditch, but the ditch company after hearing requires that the trees be removed, the consequence to the approved at hearing landscape plan needing to remove trees (instead of adding them) could be of great concern. PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 18 [December PDR] The response letter indicated that there are no viability concerns with the trees as a minimum of three feet of cover over the top of the box is maintained. Carrying over this comment as I believe it was represented at a meeting on the 18th that the sidewalk along College Avenue will be located on top of the box such that the trees will not be on top of the box as there will be minimal cover over the box. [November PDR] With the piping of the ditch along the property, how much cover over the pipe is anticipated? Has the ditch company officially indicated that with the landscaping (including trees) over the ditch is acceptable? Is there potential viability concerns with the landscaping that would be placed directly over the ditch? The ditch company has reviewed and is comfortable with the current plans. The project Arborist’s responses can be found in our responses to comment number 17 from Forestry Department in this response. The developer will provide a warranty on the trees that will be planted on top of the culvert. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: Carried over for reference as the response indicated the plat will be modified, but was not modified in the current submittal. [December PDR] Acknowledged applicant's response. Please note however that Tract B was only shown as being retained as an access and utility easement. Access, utility, drainage, transit and emergency access easements should be retained for Tract B/Foothills Parkway. [November PDR] In general Tracts A and C should be conveyed to the City as access, utility, and drainage easements. Tract C should also add transit and emergency access easements. Tract B with the proposal to vacate Foothills Parkway shown should reserve access, utility, drainage, transit and emergency access easements. Ingress, egress, vehicular access, sidewalk and landscape maintenance aren't typically conveyed as easements to the City. Plat indicates that access, utility, drainage, transit and emergency access easements will be retained in Tract B/Vacated Foothills Parkway. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: Carried over for reference as the response indicated further offline discussion should occur to discuss timing. We'll place a condition on the PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 19 approval of the PDP at P&Z indicating that the approval of the PDP is conditioned upon the vacation of Foothills Parkway right-of-way. [December PDR] Acknowledged applicant's response. Carried over in order to track for future submittals. [November PDR] There was general transportation staff support with the City Engineer and City Traffic Engineer for the vacation of the remaining Foothills Parkway (subject to approval by City Council). The process to undertake the proposed vacation of the right-of-way can commence at this time with the preparing of legal descriptions and routing to the utility providers for notice of vacation. Further offline discussion should occur to discuss timing. The Applicant intends to Vacate FHP. Exhibits and descriptions have been submitted to Marc Virata to initiate this effort. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: The response indicates that additional right-of-way along College Avenue is shown on sheets C900-C902 of the construction plan set. The additional right-of-way shown needs to be reflected in the plat for the project as well. [December PDR] The response indicated that additional right-of-way does not appear to be needed. The design drawings show that with the new access point north of Foothills Parkway and its associated right turn lane, along with the access point between Foothills Parkway and Monroe (and its associated right turn lane) that portions of these turn lanes are outside of existing right-of-way. CDOT is requiring that right-of-way for the turn lanes is provided up to the back of curb. (Sheets C900 and C902 illustrate the pavement outside of the right-of-way. [November PDR] There appear to be portions of roadway along College Avenue (right turn/decel) that lie outside of public right-of-way. Per CDOT requirements, additional right-of-way along College Avenue will need to be provided for these areas, ensuring that right-of-way is in place to at least the back of curb. The Plat indicates the proposed R.O.W. It is understood at this time that the proposed ROW parcels will be conveyed to the City via the Plat and that CDOT ROW plans are not required. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: The plat still needs to add access easement to the 9' utility, transit, PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 20 and drainage easement for the area behind Monroe Drive right-of-way. [December PDR] The response and the plans indicate the designation of a transit, drainage, and utility easement. An access easement is still needed to address the portions of the sidewalk that are outside of right-of-way. [November PDR] The sidewalk added on the north side of Monroe Drive west of JFK Parkway appears to not necessarily align with the right-of-way along Monroe Drive. Additional access easement or dedication of additional right-of-way should be provided behind the right-of-way for those portions of sidewalk outside of right-of-way. An “Access Easement” is indicated on the Plat (instead of a Transit Easement) over that portion of the development property adjacent to Monroe Street where the sidewalk straddles the property line. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: Carried over for reference as the response indicated the plat will be modified, but was not modified in the current submittal. [December PDR] The indication of Tract B as "Formerly Foothills Parkway" would suggest that the intention is to have this (vacated) roadway no longer be called Foothills Parkway. I believe it would still be intended to retain the name and "Formerly" should be removed. The indication used for a named private drive in another recent shopping center was to add "(private drive)" after the street name. "Foothills Parkway (Private Drive)" Plat indicates that access, utility, drainage, transit and emergency access easements will be retained in Tract B/Vacated Foothills Parkway. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: Carried over for reference as the response indicated the plat will be modified, but was not modified in the current submittal. [December PDR] The transit easement note should be slightly revised after further consultation with the City Attorney to read as follows: "The Transit Easements dedicated on this Plat are intended for use by the City of Fort Collins for construction, operation, maintenance, repair and replacement of improvements, structures, and vehicles, and for other uses associated with transportation or transit corridors." Plat has been modified as suggested. PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 21 Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: Carried over for reference as the response indicated the plat will be modified, but was not modified in the current submittal. [December PDR] The plat does not appear to coincide the with design drawings in terms of how the west side of Mathews Street is delineated as it terminates. If the western alignment does curve to the west, it's alignment does not follow the roadway and would also potentially be placing private storm improvements in right-of-way such that the vacation of Foothills Parkway should include the sliver of Mathews Street. Plat boundary has been modified to hold the straight alignment of Mathews and does not follow the curve to the west. Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: The emergency access easement conveyance shown on Sheet 8 of the plat should ideally also add "access easement" in the conveyance in order to provide dedicated legal access to all the interior lots in the project, in keeping with the City's Land Use Code definition of a "lot". Plat has been modified as suggested. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: On Sheet 3 the indication of "Canal Easement for Larimer County No.2 Canal...to be vacated by separate document Rec. No. _____" implies that this vacation will occur prior to recordation of this plat. Is the ditch company amenable to vacating this easement with the ditch still in this location? I would presume that the ditch company would not want to vacate their easement until such time as the ditch has been realigned. Has the ditch company indicated their acceptance? The note on sheet 3 that includes "Rec. No. ____" is a place holder anticipating that the easement will be vacated before the Plat is recorded. However the timing of the ditch relocation versus the recording of the Plat is unknown. The ditch company easement will remain in place until a separate agreement is in place. If an agreement that vacates the easement as shown is agreed to and recorded before the plat is recorded then the recording information for the vacation will be included in the plat. If not the easement will be shown as existing on the plat and the reference will be changed to note that the intention is that the PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 22 easement will be "vacated by separate document" and the reference to recording information will be removed. Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: The plat identifies "pedestrian underpass easement" throughout the sidewalk corridor along College Avenue behind right-of-way. I don't believe "pedestrian underpass easement" needs to be identified for the entire sidewalk corridor for the potential underpass, just for the general area around the ditch crossing where a likely pedestrian underpass into the site would occur. The entire sidewalk corridor behind the right-of-way however needs to be identified as an "access easement" in addition to the transit, drainage, and utility easement. The Plat contains a specific defined easement in the area of potential pedestrian crossing identified on the plat as "pedestrian underpass easement". The sidewalk corridor is identified as an "Access, transit, drainage, and utility easement. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/04/2013 01/04/2013: As the state of the ditch relocation is in flux, the applicants have requested that the mitigation agreement be placed as a condition of approval on the PDP. I can work with Courtney and the applicants to craft such language. 12/17/2012: The agreement for the wetland mitigation will need to be conceptually finalized, e.g., a memorandum of understanding or a letter signed by both parties, prior to hearing. Tree removal timing can be coordinated at final, should the project be approved. 11/19/2012: Staff has received the project's Ecological Characterization Study and has the following comments: 1. Wetland mitigation for the 0.15 acres delineated can be done through an agreement with the City's Natural Areas Department. I can set up a meeting with your consultant (Mike Phelan), the Natural Areas representative, and myself to craft this agreement and a plan for achieving compliance with the standards outlined in Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code. You will need to contact the Army Corps of Engineers and obtain the appropriate permits from their agency PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 23 as well; copies shall be provided to the City. 2. Tree removal timing based on our conversation last Friday, tree removal timing may need to be amended from what the ECS recommends as staff have indicated that a great horned owl has used the trees along the canal for nesting in the winter months. A pre construction survey will be required to assess if raptors are nesting in the trees, if tree removal is to take place outside of the April 1 July 31 window related to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This approval is reliant upon ditch relocation options. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/04/2013 12/17/2012: Comment kept as a reminder to review this issue at final. 11/19/2012: I did not see a species description for the Native Prairie Grass mix. Please provide this by final plan submittal. A species description for the Native Prairie Grass mix is included in this submittal. Department: Forestry Contact: Courtney Levingston, 970-416-2283, clevingston@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 02/19/2013 02/19/2013: Please add these notes to the landscape plans: "Topsoil that is removed during construction activity shall be conserved for later use on areas requiring revegetation and landscaping. Organic soil amendments shall also be incorporated prior to installation of any plant materials, including but not limited to grass, seed, flowers, shrubs or trees. Top soil shall have an organic matter content of greater than five (5) percent and a pH between 6.0 and 8.0, and shall be free from noxious weeds and roots, salts, clay lumps, any nonsoil materials such as rock, concrete, brick chips, or building materials, foreign matter, and any chemical, biological or radiological contaminants. All plants shall be A-Grade or No. 1 Grade, free of any defects, of normal health, height, leaf density and spread appropriate to the species as defined by American Association of Nurserymen standards. PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 24 All landscaping shall be installed according to sound horticultural practices in a manner designed to encourage quick establishment and healthy growth. All landscaping in each phase shall either be installed or the installation shall be secured with a letter of credit, escrow or performance bond for one hundred twenty-five (125) percent of the value of the landscaping prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in such phase. Trees and vegetation, irrigation systems, fences, walls and other landscape elements shall be considered as elements of the project in the same manner as parking, building materials and other site details. The applicant, landowner or successors in interest shall be jointly and severally responsible for the regular maintenance of all landscaping elements in good condition. All landscaping shall be maintained free from disease, pests, weeds and litter, and all landscape structures such as fences and walls shall be repaired and replaced periodically to maintain a structurally sound condition. Any landscape element that dies, or is otherwise removed, shall be promptly replaced based on the requirements of the Land Use Code. Healthy, mature trees that are removed by the applicant or by anyone acting on behalf of or with the approval of the applicant shall be replaced with not less than one (1) or more than six (6) replacement trees sufficient to mitigate the loss of value of the removed tree. The applicant shall select either the City Forester or a qualified landscape appraiser to determine such loss based upon an appraisal of the removed tree, using the most recent published methods established by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers. Larger than minimum Land Use Code sizes shall be required for such replacement trees. The notes have been added to the set. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: Wavyleaf Oak is typically a small tree that is multi-stem and shrub like. Although it is a very good xeric plant it is not a canopy tree. Consider using Kentucky Coffeetree in its place as it appears the intent of the locations where wavyleaf Oak is used is for a Canopy Shade tree. Coffeetree is a very good shade tree for the Fort Collins area and should do well in the parking lot islands PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 25 and other landscape areas on the site. We will use Coffeetree in place of Wavyleaf Oak. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: Blue Spruce and its cultivars are considered superior to Norway spruce in adaptability and growth in Fort Collins. Please consider using Blue Spruce in place of Norway spruce. We will use Blue Spruce in place of Norway Spruce. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: Armstrong Maple is similar to Autumn Blaze Maple in not being adapted to Fort Collins Soils. The City Forester recommends using another species in its place. We have specified the Norway ‘Crimson King’ Maple in place of Armstrong Maple. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: Please specify Thornless Common Honeylocust as Skyline Honeylocust. This is a very good thornless and pod-less cultivar for our area. We have revised. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013:Please add Landscape Notes that address the following: a. The type of mulch to be used. b. Add the following note: "All landscape areas within the site shall be irrigated with an automatic underground irrigation system. The irrigation method shall be selected to correlate with the plant density. " Add the following note on the landscape plans: "All turf areas to be irrigated with an automatic pop-up irrigation system. All shrub beds and trees to be irrigated with an automatic drip irrigations system or acceptable alternative." PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 26 We have added these notes. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: The plant material lists are not provided with this submittal which appears to be on Sheet L 128. Sheet L 128 is not included. Provide species diversity in trees selected (LUC 3.2.1. D3) Different cultivars of Honeylocust can be counted separately. Provide minimum size of trees and shrubs except those for mitigation which will need to be upsized. (LUC 3.2.1 D4 and LUC 3.2.1 F1). A detailed plant list is provided in this submittal. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: 3. Along College Avenue the canopy shade trees should average a spacing of 30-40 feet in each section of the frontage. Sheet L 102 and L 105 have a few ornamental trees between the sidewalks and curb. Please change these to canopy shade trees. (LUC 3.2.1 D2a). We have made this revision. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: Not all of the trees shown on the tree mitigation plan/report are shown on the landscape plan. Please show all existing trees to be retained on the landscape plan. Existing trees to remain have been shown. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: Verify that all trees shown as existing trees to remain can actually be protected and retained. This should include a review and close evaluation of grading and cuts in the root zone area. Please provide a statement by the project consulting arborist that exiting trees to retain have been reviewed for grading and cuts and have a good likelihood of surviving proposed construction. One that was noticed is tree # 798 at Foothills Parkway and College that may be impacted by the turn lane off College. Below is the statement prepared by the project arborist – Jason Jones, PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 27 and tree # 798 is no longer being kept on site. “I have been asked by The City of Fort Collins Forestry Department to comment on certain trees relating to the Foothills Fashion Mall site redevelopment. A preliminary Tree Survey Report was provided to the City in December and the trees referenced in this document are referred to in that report. This project is in the final design and planning phase and evaluations and recommendations of trees to be retained or removed have been based on the information currently provided by the design and construction team. Eventually a tree protection plan will be created and implemented and as the plans move forward to become a reality, some changes will undoubtedly become necessary. In the event that trees previously designated as to be retained should ultimately require removal or vice-versa the mitigation plan will be updated once plans are finalized. I have evaluated each of these trees as far as the current plans allow. There have been some changes to certain areas and as the plans become finalized other changes may be made. I have summarized the details of the impacts below: • Trees #142-168-This is large group of trees planted densely in the northwest corner of the site. Construction impacts will consist of some resurfacing and curb replacement along the south side but all impacts will be beyond the tree driplines. • Trees 222 and 223-Two 6 inch diameter linden trees This tree will have minimal impacts and will tolerate replacement of the curb within 5 feet on the west side. Protection to dripline is possible in this instance. These trees are young and vigorous and will likely tolerate impacts of construction well. • Trees 281-284- Green Ash Trees ranging in size from 9”-15” DBH- These trees will all be impacted by excavation for utilities approximately 6 feet from the base to the south. This tree species generally tolerates root cutting well and due to the fact this is occurring only on one side, I feel the trees have a reasonable chance of survival. • Trees 286-292,294,295,298-301-Green Ash trees ranging in size from 8”-23” DBH- Impacts will consist of grading to within 8 feet on the west side in some instances. These trees will likely tolerate this impact with minimal consequence. • Trees 526-528,593-599,601,604,607- These trees range in size from 4”-13” DBH and differ in varieties. The impacts in this area will consist of asphalt milling and overlay within 5 feet of tree bases in some instances. These trees are generally young and vigorous and will most likely tolerate these impacts. Details of this process are not precise at this time but generally the process can be completed with minimal root damage. • Trees 608,609, 612-615- These trees are crabapples ranging in size from 6”-10”. The trees are in planter boxes in front of the Macy’s building that will not be disturbed. All are vigorous and no significant impacts will occur within critical root zone areas. • 616-655- This group of trees primarily consists of small diameter ornamentals and few small diameter ponderosa pine. These trees will also be impacted by asphalt milling and some new PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 28 curb work as close as within 5 feet in some instances. This will allow for tree protection to dripline in most cases and impacts should be tolerable. • 663-This tree is a 9 inch DBH green ash located in an parking island. Asphalt milling and paving will occur and impacts will be tolerable. • 664-665, These ponderosa pine are located in planter boxes and will not be impacted. • 666-668- Review of these trees has shown that façade changes to the Macy’s building will most likely require that they be removed. They were evaluated with a mitigation value of 7.5 inches that will be added to the final calculations if they are to be removed. • 669-671- 2 pines and 1 crabapple located in planter boxes that will not be disturbed. • 672, 673,703,704,- Young ash trees impacted by asphalt milling and overlay that are likely to tolerate impacts.” Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: The Tree Mitigation Plan and Report has been received by the City Forester at a meeting with the Consulting Arborist. The plan is well prepared and does a good job of identifying all project trees and provides the code required information including mitigation. All tree mitigation can be done on site. Adjustments to the number of mitigation trees may yet occur if trees are transplanted or there are any increases or decreases to trees shown for retention. The report provides 895 mitigation trees. Using a comparative method for large scale renovation projects that removes large numbers of trees City Forestry staff calculated 825 mitigation trees as an increased percentage over what is removed. There are 688 trees currently shown to be removed. By planting around 1172 trees currently proposed for the project, which includes the upsized mitigation trees, the value of the removed significant trees will be mitigated. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: Please provide the plan for tree transplanting. Plan to include which trees are included and the location where they will be transplanted. Has this been determined? Transplanting plan is included in this submittal. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: An effort to retain existing trees is acknowledged. Although there PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 29 appear to be a few prominent existing trees along College and Stanford that may not be impacted by required construction that are shown for removal. Please closely evaluate the opportunity to selective retain at least some additional trees in these areas. Good existing trees should be retained to the extent reasonably feasible (LUC definition). The tree mitigation report includes this statement. ”It is clear that the retention of many of the trees would prohibit the use of the site in a reasonable manner, and for that reason, many of the trees will require removal. Significant efforts have been made during the design process to retain as many trees as possible without negatively impacting the financial viability of the project”. Please provide information on each of the following trees about the construction impact (such as sidewalk location, turn lane, grading, utility work, building location impact, and ditch box culvert) or viability to the project to help understand the projects decision not to retain these trees. Trees along College : 137; 135; 134; 139; 124; 123; 122; 119; 796; 794; 1; 2; 3; 5; 7; 10; 5. Trees along Stanford: 432; 430; 475; 477; 478; 484; 483; 503; 506; 511; 515; 517; 519; 522; 524; 265; 266; 268 Below are the responses prepared by the project arborist – Jason Jones: “Comment number 14 requested information on specific trees and why they were not possible to retain through the construction process. Upon review of the plans and consultation with the engineering team I have addressed each of these below: • 137,135,134,139,484,483 - These trees are located in the middle of a currently proposed sidewalk:268 - This tree is located on top of a currently proposed retaining wall • 796-This tree is located right on a proposed curb line. • Tree 798- Significant grade changes in this area will not allow for retention of this tree. • 1 - Lowering grade 1.5' due to walk - edge of walk is within 5' and would impact roughly 45% of root zone by installing a wall. This large ponderosa pine would not likely tolerate this impact. • 2 - Lowering grade 1' due to walk - edge of bus stop is within 5' and would impact roughly 40% of root zone by installing a wall. This large ponderosa pine would not likely tolerate this impact. Additionally, pines will significantly obstruct visibility to signage and store fronts in this location • 3 - Lowering grade 0.5' due to walk - bus stop would impact roughly 45% of root zone by PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 30 installing a wall. This large ponderosa pine would not likely tolerate this impact. Additionally, pines will significantly obstruct visibility to signage and store fronts in this location • 5- Lowering grade 1.5' due to turn lane 10' away - This will impact roughly 30% of root zone and an additional wall would be required. Additionally, pines will significantly obstruct visibility to signage and storefronts in this location • 7 - Could potentially be graded around, but pines will significantly obstruct visibility to signage and storefronts in this location. • 10 - Lowering grade 1.5' due to turn lane 10' away - This impacts to roughly 40% of root zone by installing a wall. Additionally, pines will significantly obstruct visibility to signage and store fronts in this location • 119- Raising grade 1.5' due to walk 5' away – This will impact roughly 50% of root zone and tree will end up in a 'hole" by installing a wall. • 265- raising grade 2 due to walk 5' away - This impacts roughly 60% of root zone by installing a wall. This large ponderosa pine is not likely to tolerate this impact. Additionally, pines will significantly obstruct visibility to signage and store fronts in this location • 266- This tree could potentially be saved with a wall - impacts to 30% or root zone expected due to walk nearby. Additionally, pines will significantly obstruct visibility to signage and store fronts in this location • 430-Face of a 4-story building is 15' away. Not possible to keep. • 432- Face of a 4-story building is 17' away. Significant impacts to the roots, not feasible to keep. • 475- in middle of walk needed for ADA reasons. • 477- Face of 4 story building is 6' away. Not possible to keep • 478- Face of 4 story building is 6' away. Not possible to keep • 503 - Wall is 8' away - impacts to 30% of root zone. This tree may be possible to retain and additional consideration will be given. • 506- Raising grade 1.5' - over 50% of root zone. This large ponderosa pine will not likely tolerate this impact well. • 511- Raising grade 1.5' here - over 50% of root zone. This tree has also been previously been hit by mountain pine beetle and is not a good retention candidate. • 515- Face of 4-story building is 12' away. Not possible to keep • 517- Face of 4-story building is 7' away. Not possible to keep • 519- Face of 4-story building is 9' away. Not possible to keep • 522 and 524-These trees could possibly be retained if a wall was installed. This will be evaluated further. • 794- Raising grade about 1' over entire root zone, curb is within 4' and would require a wall and would impact 50% of root zone. This oak will be evaluated more closely for retention possibility by the design team. Due to design changes, the following additional trees will require removal: • Tree # 674, 673, 672, 620, 621, 622, 623, 624- The most recent plans require a handicap parking area, which is wider than the originally anticipated general parking spaces. PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 31 It should also be noted that some trees will be relocated on site. This plan is still being finalized and once trees to be removed, retained or relocated are finalized by the team an updated tree survey report and mitigation plan will be submitted.” Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: The current landscape plan is predominately canopy shade trees. Particularly along College there are only deciduous trees. Explore the opportunity to plant small or narrow conifers in planting beds along College or in other areas of the project. Two species to consider are Tannenbaum mugo pine and Columnar Colorado Spruce. There are other good small, compact or narrow conifers that could also be considered. Strategic placement would add a beneficial landscape textural contrast along College Avenue and other areas and should not impact critical views. Columnar Colorado Spruce have been added to some areas along College Avenue, while not blocking building signage. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: The planting beds on the final landscape plan needs to have detail of plant materials being used. A plant list is included in this submittal. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: The feasibility of growing trees in the shallow soil over the ditch culvert needs some more discussion. Forestry would like some addition information on this item. We have limited local experience in growing trees long term in a similar situation to compare to. Please provide an arboricultural analysis by a qualified arborist or landscape horticulturist that evaluates the feasibility of planting and growing the proposed trees in the shallow soil over the culvert. Providing other project examples that have done something similar would be very helpful. These are some issues to consider in preparing the arboricultural analysis of feasibility. Soil depth needed to provide for tree growth at this location Options to increase soil depth Anticipated tree growth in the proposed location Soil type to be specified PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 32 Not having drainage. Can holes be placed in the box culvert for drainage? Soil becoming too dry or too wet Use of shrub beds, ornamental trees or canopy shade trees over the culvert Special management considerations Forestry comments are not directed at any ditch management issues or possible structural impact problems to the box culvert. These items fall into the domain of other disciplines but are important to consider. Forestry recommends that the project review these items with the appropriate individuals/entities. These are responses from the project arborist – Jason Jones: “I have evaluated the details of the proposed planting of trees over the ditch culvert for the renovation of the Foothills Fashion Mall. I have attached the detail of this plan. Comments from the City Forestry Department have requested that the design team address issues relating to the ability to successfully grow trees in this location with limited soil depth. Generally, the minimum recommended depth for tree growth is 30”S48” depending on mature size. The actual soil depth will be 26.4 inches in this location and this is the maximum allowable. This is due to the fact that the layout dictates a 12' wide walk partially over the box culvert. In order to increase soil depth any further, the walk would have to be raised to increase the depth of soil there. This would push it up above the floors of the nearby buildings and this is an unacceptable design. I feel that the placement of ornamental trees in the areas over the ditch is very workable and that if some additional measures are taken they could perform well and exist for a long term in the proposed locations. Upon review of the plans, I feel the following factors and considerations would allow for adequate tree performance: • The 2.2 foot soil depth is generally adequate especially for smaller stature ornamentals. I recommend utilization of smaller growing tree species such as those listed below to replace those on the plan as they will be shallow rooted and tolerate some additional stress factors of the soil volume limitations well: o Wafer ash (Ptelea trifoliata) o Coralburst crabapple (Malus ‘Coralcole’) o David Crabapple (Malus ‘David’) o Snowdance Japanese tree lilac (Syringa reticulata ‘Snowdance’ o Princess Kay plum (Prunus nigra ‘Princess Kay’) o Sutherland peashrub (Caragana arborescens ‘Sutherland’) o Thinleaf alder (Alnus tenufolia) PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 33 o Autumn Brilliance Serviceberry (Amelanchier x grandiflora ‘Autumn Brilliance’ o Native Mountain Ash (Sorbus scopulina) o Yellowhorn (Xanthoceras sorbifolia) • The integration of a structural soil such as a 50% expanded shale could greatly reduce stresses associated with limited soil volumes. This product has an excellent water holding capacity, yet drains well, has good porosity and plant available oxygen. This product is used frequently with success in areas such as rooftop gardens and container tree plantings where soil volumes are limited. • The soil in these area is connected to surrounding native soils, this fact will allow for trees to root beyond the edges, additionally alleviating issues with soil volume reduction or drainage. • Once trees are placed in these locations, some additional irrigation frequency may be required. Careful monitoring of soil moisture should be carried out to establish a precise irrigation regime that allows soils to dry slightly in between cycles. The implementation of an expanded shale type structural fill will also aid in moisture retention. I feel that if the above recommendations are followed that the proposed trees and potentially larger specimens could perform very well and not be limited in growth or longevity in this location.” We have included an exhibit detailing these parameters in this letter. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 02/19/2013 01/19/2013: Please add the following notes to the tree mitigation plan set: "Within the drip line of any protected existing tree, there shall be no cut or fill over a four-inch depth unless a qualified arborist or forester has evaluated and approved the disturbance. All protected existing trees shall be pruned to the City of Fort Collins Forestry standards. Prior to and during construction, barriers shall be erected around all protected existing trees with such barriers to be of orange fencing a minimum of 4 feet in height, secured with metal T-posts, no closer than 6 feet from the trunk or one-half (½) of the drip line, whichever is greater. There shall be no storage or movement of equipment, material, debris or fill within the fenced tree protection zone. During the construction stage of development, the applicant shall prevent the cleaning of equipment or material or the storage and disposal of waste material PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 34 such as paints, oils, solvents, asphalt, concrete, motor oil or any other material harmful to the life of a tree within the drip line of any protected tree or group of trees. (5) No damaging attachment, wires, signs or permits may be fastened to any protected tree. (6) Large property areas containing protected trees and separated from construction or land clearing areas, road rights-of-way and utility easements may be "ribboned off," rather than erecting protective fencing around each tree as required in subsection (G)(3) above. This may be accomplished by placing metal t-post stakes a maximum of fifty (50) feet apart and tying ribbon or rope from stake-to-stake along the outside perimeters of such areas being cleared." Notes added. Topic: Modification of Standard Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: An irrigation plan detailing all requirements in Section 3.2.1 (J)(3) will be required prior to issuance of Final/Building permit. Acknowledged. Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartine@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: No Comments. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 01 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: Comment carried forward from PDR120009: As per my conversation with Mr. Serafin Maranan of Architects Orange on 12/19/12, the PFA is requesting that pullout areas, designated for temporary parking of fire apparatus, be designed and built-in along the east side, private drive, at or near the main entrance to residential buildings 2, 3, & 4 (Lots 4, 5, & 6). These PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 35 pullouts would serve to ensure the safety of fire fighters entering and exiting fire apparatus along a busy road while also preventing fire apparatus from blocking normal traffic into the mall during routine response to fire alarms, medical calls, service calls, etc. We have provided pullout areas on all requested lot areas. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: Please move the dimensions away from the dimension lines on sheets A233 & A246. See redlines. Corrected. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: Please add "project legend" to the sheet C001 index. See redlines. Corrected. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: Please spell out demolition, south & avenue in the sheet C001 index. See redlines. Corrected. Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: Please remove "for this Plat" from the Basis Of Bearings statement on sheet C003. “for this Plat” has been removed from the Basis of Bearings statement. Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: Please change the benchmarks to City of Fort Collins Vertical Control Network for your vertical control. Please call Jeff @ 970-221-6588, if you PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 36 need a copy of the Vertical Control Network. Corrected. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: Please move the street names on sheet C200 onto the streets. Corrected. Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: Please add "& Paving" to the title on sheets C201 through C206. Corrected. Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: There are line over text issues on sheets C300, C303 & C400. We have corrected those instances that can be corrected. There are instances that cannot be corrected within traditional graphic protocols. Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: There is a note on sheet C303 that may need to be masked. Corrected. Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: Please remove all reference of E. Foothills Parkway to the east of Mathews Street. Also remove all reference of E. Monroe Drive to the east of J.F.K. Parkway. Corrected. Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: There is a text over text issue on sheet C401. Corrected. Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: Please move all of the linework on sheets C506 & C705 down on the sheet. It is too close to the top of the sheet. Corrected. Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: Please move the title on sheets C800 through C810 down into the PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 37 subject section of the titleblock. These sheets are not consistent with the rest of the plan set. Corrected. Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: The details on sheet WQ-002 are a little blurry. Can they be sharpened up? As discussed on our phone call, the details are PDF images taken from the UDFCD manual. Reviewing the UDFCD manual, the images have the same ‘blurred’ look. We are unable to locate better quality images to download. We confirmed this with Glen and Basil in the stormwater department, as they were not able to provide better quality images either. Topic: General Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: (AR PLAN SET) A lot of the titles in the index on sheet AR-A-000 do not match the actual title on the plans. See redlines. These have been coordinated and revised. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: (AR PLAN SET) There are line over text issues on several sheets. See redlines. We have corrected those instances that can be corrected. There are instances that cannot be corrected within traditional graphic protocols. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: (AR PLAN SET) Some of the sheets have masks over the notes, or the text turned off. See redlines. We have corrected those instances that can be corrected. There are instances that cannot be corrected within traditional graphic protocols. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: (AR PLAN SET) There are sheets with cut off text. See redlines. PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 38 We have corrected those instances that can be corrected. There are instances that cannot be corrected within traditional graphic protocols. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: (AR PLAN SET)There are sheets with missing dimensions. See redlines. We have corrected those instances that can be corrected. There are instances that cannot be corrected within traditional graphic protocols. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/14/2013 01/14/2013: There are still some sheets with matchline number issues. See redlines. These have been revised. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/14/2013 01/14/2013: There are line over text issues on several sheets. We have corrected those instances that can be corrected. There are instances that cannot be corrected within traditional graphic protocols. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/14/2013 01/14/2013: There are still dots and other symbols on several sheets as marked. See redlines. These have been revised. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/14/2013 01/14/2013: Please remove duplicate text on all marked sheets. See redlines. These have been revised. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/14/2013 01/14/2013: Please move the East Monroe Drive label to the west on all sheets showing the street name. East Monroe Drive does not go east of J.F.K. Parkway. These have been revised. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/14/2013 01/14/2013: Please correct the sheet numbering on sheet LA-131, and the PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 39 matchline numbering on sheets LA-132 - LA135. These have been revised. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/14/2013: There is cut off text on several sheets. See redlines. These have been revised. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: Please remove the large text from sheets LA-103, LA-108, LA-113, LA-123 & LA-124. These have been revised. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: There are text over text issues on several sheets. See redlines. These have been revised. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: Please reduce the text size for the street names on sheets LA-109 & LA-110. These have been revised. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: Could the utilities shown on these plans be grayed and shown in the background? We understand the importance of see where existing utilities are for planting landscaping, but it shouldn't overshadow the subject of the plans These have been revised. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: The index on sheet LD-01 does not match the sheet numbering of LD-11A.1 & LD-11A.2. This has been revised. PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 40 Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: Please bring the text in front of the linework on sheet LD-S4. This has been revised. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: Please add "Plan" to the title on sheets LD-G2 through LD-G5. This has been revised. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: Please spell out restaurant on sheets LD-R2.1 through LD-R4.2. This has been revised. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: Should the Macy's sign shown on sheet LD-M5 be reversed? See redlines. This has been revised. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: The index on sheet LD-01 does not match the sheet LD-RA-4.2 title. This has been revised. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: (From 12/21/2012) The fifth paragraph of the Statement Of Ownership And Subdivision does not close. For the sake of yourself & the City we suggest that you make note of this error under a Legal Description Note" heading. A note regarding the source of Legal Descriptions and potential errors has been added to the Plat. Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: Please add "Sheet 8 of" to the Grant Of Emergency Access note. PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 41 Plat has been revised as suggested. Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: (From 12/24/2012) Does "Electric" need to be added to the Grant Of Easements To The City Of Fort Collins note? Electric is addressed in Grant of Easements to Utilities note. Comment Number: 44 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: Are there any lienholders? If so, please add a Lienholders signature block. It is intended that at the time of recording of the Plat that only the owners shown on the face of the Plat will be the sole owners of all property shown and that no other lienholders other than the owners will exist. Comment Number: 45 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: (From 12/24/2012) Per comment #4 in the written responses, these and other changes outlined in the first set of redlines will not be changed, because this legal is per recorded deeds. We will accept this legal, given there is an added metes & bounds, however please add notes in a "Legal Description Notes" which list errors in the recorded legal. (Parcel not closing, incorrect reception numbers, etc.) A metes and bounds description and a note regarding the source of Legal Descriptions and potential errors has been included on the Plat. Comment Number: 46 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: (From 12/24/2012) Please address the error in vacation on College Avenue, and the portion that was never vacated Discussions have been initiated with Marc Virata and John VonNieda to vacate this portion of the unvacated College Ave frontage road. Comment Number: 47 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: (From 12/24/2012) The warranty deeds referenced in written responses were not received. Please email them to John at jvonnieda@fcgov.com. You should expect to go through a vacation process at PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 42 the least, to rectify the issues. The warranty deeds were sent via email to John VonNieda and Jeff County on 11/28/2012 and again to Jeff County with request to forward to John VonNieda on 12/20/2012. Comment Number: 48 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: (From 12/24/2012) Are the easements at the southeast corner of College Avenue & Foothills Parkway on sheet 3 being vacated? The ROW easements at the southeast corner of College Ave. and Foothills Parkway are not being vacated. Comment Number: 49 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: (From 12/24/2012) Are the building envelopes on sheet 3 being vacated also? If so, please note. The building envelopes are being vacated. Comment Number: 50 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: (From 12/24/2012) Please be sure that all bearings for lots, tracts, easements, etc. are listed in such a manner that they run consistently clockwise or counter-clockwise around the boundaries on all sheets. Plat has been revised as suggested. Comment Number: 51 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: (Repeat Comment) The Site Plan shows the area south of Tract C as an access road. Please provide evidence(recording information) that designates this Tract 9 as an access easement. The plat of Foothills Fashion Mall Expansion dedicates this only as a Utility, Drainage & Emergency Access Easement. Plat has been revised as suggested. Comment Number: 52 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 43 01/16/2013: There is a monument near the southeast corner of Mathews Street that is not described on sheet 2. Plat has been revised as suggested. Comment Number: 53 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: Please correct the right of way notes for South College Avenue on all sheets. Plat has been revised as suggested. Comment Number: 54 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: Please label the portion of sewer easement at the southeast corner of College Avenue & Foothills Parkway. Plat has been revised as suggested. Comment Number: 55 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: The Larimer County No. 2 Canal easement will need to stay until the canal is rerouted. Comment is acknowledged. Comment Number: 56 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: Please correct the 10' Gas Easement to be vacated on sheet 3. See redlines. Plat has been revised as suggested. Comment Number: 57 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: (From 12/24/2012) All lot & tract lines and easements must be locatable on all sheets. Plat has been revised as suggested. Comment Number: 58 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: (From 12/24/2012) Please make sure all street rights of way have dedication references. PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 44 Plat has been revised as suggested. Comment Number: 59 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: Please add a "T" to the Tract C note on sheet 4. Plat has been revised as suggested. Comment Number: 60 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: The distances along the south line of the property on sheet 6 do not add up. See redlines. Plat has been revised as suggested. Comment Number: 61 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: The area circled on sheet 6 needs to either be labeled with line/curve tables, or detailed at a larger scale. Be sure that there is enough tie information to physically locate all of the easement lines in this area. Plat has been revised as suggested. Line and curve tables have been added. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/14/2013 01/14/2013: Does this legal description match any changes that may have been made to the legal description on the Subdivision Plat? The legal descriptions have been coordinated. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/14/2013 01/14/2013: There are still issues on sheet A103, and now on sheet A105 We have corrected those instances that can be corrected. There are instances that cannot be corrected within traditional graphic protocols. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/14/2013 PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 45 01/14/2013: Please move E. Monroe Drive west of J.F.K. Parkway on sheet A105. East Monroe Drive ends at J.F.K. Parkway. Corrected Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: Please include a plan sheet with the design of the west bound right turn lane on Horsetooth at Stanford. Included in plan set. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: Please label all installations of Stop signs at public/public and public/private street/drive intersections. At the public/private intersections please try to place the Stop sign in the public ROW. Labels have been added and sign locations adjusted. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: Just for understanding, it is the Mall development's responsibility for maintenance of the internal private roadway signing and striping. The City only maintains signing and striping on City owned roadways. A portion of the vacated FtHills Parkway will be an exception. Understood. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: Sheet C209: Please delineate/label the proposed ROW vacation line on FootHills Parkway. The requested label has been added. PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 46 Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: Sheet C209: There is a note on the FH Parkway roadway that states "restripe FootHills Parkway". It looks like the existing striping. Is the note intended to indicate refreshing of the existing striping or for the existing striping to be changed? If to be changed please provide the proposed restriping. The note has been modified to indicate that the existing striping is to be refreshed in areas where the pavement is to remain, and painted new in areas of new pavement. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: Sheet C211: Please show existing R1-1 signs at the JFK/Monroe intersection. No knowing where the public ROW is on the north approach, please provide a Stop Bar back near the PC. Again depending on the location of the ROW on the north approach, lane lines (solid and broken) would be desired by the City. The only lane stencils the City uses is turn lane arrows, no thru arrows. Again this is only requested based upon the location of public ROW vs. private Mall roadways. The existing R1-1 signs on the east, south, and west legs are shown. The current stop sign on the north approach is on a pole that is scheduled to be removed. The right of way line is the thick dashed line. We have indicated stop bars and positioned the stop sign just outside of the right-of-way. We moved the ‘straight ahead’ arrows further north on to private property, since the City does not use them, to match what currently exists. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: Sheet C209: Replace the W12-1 with an OM1-2 sign at College and Ft Hills ('circle 5' label). The proposed sign has been changed on the plans Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: A few S&S notes were on the NOTES pages C002 and C003 but most were missing. Please include all the S&S notes previously sent to the development team. PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 47 12/18/2012: Noted to be submittal in a future submittal. 11/26/2012: (C002) The Cover Sheet is missing the City's typical General Notes as well as department specific notes such as the Signing and Marking (S&S) Notes. Please include all Traffic related and Signing and Marking notes on subsequent submittals. We have included on the plans all S&S General Notes sent by Ward Stanford via email 01/04/2013 on sheet C002. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: Sheet C211: A sketch plan of the desired restriping was forwarded to the developers team on 1-7-2013. Probably too late for inclusion in this submittal. At this time the City will assume it's acceptable with the developer and will be included in subsequent submittals. 12/18/2012: Traffic Op's to give quidance on the restriping of the western half of Monroe to provide bike lanes. We have incorporated the striping suggested by the sketch sent by Ward Stanford via email 01/07/2013. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: Sheet C211: City will not maintain the crosswalk striping shown crossing Monroe on the east side of the JFK/Monroe intersection. Either remove from the plans or add a note that the crosswalk will be maintained by the Mall. 12/18/2012: Continue in order to verify in future submittals. 11/26/2012: (C200 plans) The City will not maintain striped crosswalks at the unsignalized public/private street intersections. Please remove from drawings. This is actually an existing colored concrete crosswalk, with no painted striping, and the striping was shown incorrectly on the survey. The drawing has been corrected. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: Sheet C212: Are some of the east ends of the medians on the access drives to Stanford being rebuilt to have tapers? If so why is gore striping being utilized to hatch-out the new taper? Please provide what is taking place to those medians and the striping. Also, as shown, the gore striping is encroaching into City ROW and the City will not maintain the striping and would prefer it not PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 48 be in City ROW. The gore striping has been removed to match the existing driveway configurations. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: Sheet C213 and any other sheets containing duplicate information: On all the College access drives and public street intersections please remove the "Sharrows", turn lane "Only", and the W12-1 signs (see comment 10). Also remove the cross-hatch striping in gore areas. We'll stripe the gore with outlines but no internal diagonal striping. Our policy for turn arrows is one arrow if the lane is 60' or less and two arrows if the length is over 60'. For less than 60' the arrow goes 8' beyond the beginning of the turn bay. Over 60' the arrows are 8' beyond beginning and 8' preceding the Stop Bar or Crosswalk or if lacking either use the PC. Bicycles are restricted on this area of College Avenue. Having "Sharrows" creates confusion since no cycvlists should be entering the access drives/streets from College. Sidewalk cyclists can get the Sharrow further from the intersection where both cyclist and motorist have better opportunity to see and respect the Sharrow lane. We prefer to not have Bike lane symbols, Sharrows, other non-turn lane striping closer than 65' to an intersection flowline. The plans have been modified as requested to remove noted ‘sharrow’ markings, ‘only’ words, and cross hatching within gore striping within public rights-of-way. The turn arrows were modified as requested. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: Sheet C214: Remove all new crosswalk striping shown across the frontage roads and remove all bike stenscils and thru arrows shown. The plans have been modified as requested. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: Sheet C801: NE Corner College_Monroe ADA Detail; The details show reconstruction of the curb/sidewalk/ramp area by the existing signal pole. Will the construction need to temporarily move the pole structure or going to not disturb the immediate area of the pole foundation? Please discuss the PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 49 construction expectations/process in the vicinity of the pole. The construction of the new ramp is not expected to disturb the pole, as the new concrete ramp will be in the same footprint as the existing concrete walk. Excavation necessary for the new curb ramp should only be perhaps six inches below existing sidewalk base gravel. The photo below shows the relationship between the existing walk and existing traffic control equipment better than the survey symbols. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: Sheet C802: Please remove the word "Only" from the Pavement Marking detail since we no longer use the word. Please revise the detail language to state "Not Required with Lane Lengths less than 60' " for the turn lane arrow stencils. Please revise the detail to state 3' segments and 9' gaps versus the 2' segment and 4' gap for dotted lines. Please revise to indicate the arrows at 8' from the start of the turn bay and 8' preceding the Stop Bar or Crosswalk. Plans modified as requested. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: Sheet C900: Please delete the Sharrows, diagonal gore striping, "Only" (2), "STOP" word and label the R1-1 (Stop sign). Plans modified as requested. PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 50 Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: Sheet C901: See same comments #19. Please delete the diagonal striping inside the gore areas on Foothills Parkway at College. Plans modified as requested. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: Sheet C902: Same comments as 19 and 20. Plans modified as requested. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: C207: If the double-dashed line shown crossing Matthews about 40' from the flowline of Foothills Prkwy delineates the public/private roadway then please remove the "Only" stencils and the Sharrow in the public ROW. If Matthews is public ROW to the flowline of Foothills Parkway then delete the "STOP" words and the Sharrow near the intersection. The double dash line does represent the new right-of-way line, so the plans were modified as requested. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: At each of the new Right-in/Right-out intersections on College please add an R3-2 (No Left Turn) sign on the east side of the College median across from the out bound lane. These signs are shown on sheet C207 and C211. Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: (Just for the record) An agreement to vacate the public ROW of FoothIlls Mall Parkway closer to College Ave. is being worked out. The current view to accomplish the agreement is to include it in the Ordinance document that will vacate the ROW with language that allows the City to maintain the east approach striping at the College intersection. PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 51 12/18/2012: City wants to maintain control of the dual left turn lane striping on the east approach of Ft Hills Mall Parkway and proposes the R-O-W line be placed at the western PCR of the first access drive on the south side of Foothills. From that point extend north to a perpendicular point on the north curb line. 11/20/2012: Traffic Operations is agreeable with vacating the r-o-w for Foothills Parkway. More discussion will be needed to determine the distance from College Avenue to begin the vacation, if that option is pursued. The vacation of right-of-way along Foothills Parkway does not impact the analysis contained in the Traffic Impact Study. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: A Variance may need to be submitted for not having a responsibility for the west bound right turn lane at JFK on Horsetooth. A variance request has been filed with the City requesting that the right turn lane on Horsetooth at JFK not be required. Per an email by Marc Virata dated 2/5/13, the City has accepted that variance request and no further follow up is required. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: Please delete/revise all the pavement markings on the various public roadways and intersections as provided in the Construction Plan comments so the plans match roadway information. We have matched the roadway information on the Landscape Plans. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: Please delete/revise all the pavement markings on the various public roadways and intersections as provided in the Construction Plan comments so the plans match roadway information. Proposed pavement markings have been removed from non-pavement marking sheets PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 52 Topic: Traffic Impact Study Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: City requires a west bound right turn lane on Horsetooth at Stanford. 12/18/2012: City decided a right turn lane would not be necessary at JFK and Horsetooth to preserve the ability to have bike lanes on that stretch of Horsetooth between Stanford and College. City also decided a Wb right turn lane is necessary at Stanford and Horsetooth. It is noted that the applicant is reviewing traffic aspects regarding the Wb right turn lane at Stanford. 11/20/2012: Turning counts shown for west bound Horsetooth at JFK and at Stanford warrant exclusive west bound right turn lanes. JFK may not be feasible due to area constraints but will need to be reviewed and possibly a variance submitted. Stanford doesn't have physical constraints therefore a west bound right turn lane should be considered as part of this projects responsibility. A westbound right-turn lane will be installed at the Stanford / Horsetooth intersection as part of the proposed project. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: Please include Attachment A (the project Scoping form) and the Internal Trips worksheets in the Appendix of the TIS. Addendum #2 to the TIS includes the project scoping form and the internal trip worksheet. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: Comment removed. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 01/16/2013 01/16/2013: TIS doesn't address issue of the College and Horsetooth intersection having movements failing LOS in the short term. Failing movements are required to be mitigated per City policy, not just overall LOS. Please provide an addendum to the TIS providing a short term total analysis showing the intersection meeting LOS criteria. The City is allowing the N/S dual left turn lanes to be used in the analysis since they are improvements the City has identified in its Capital Projects planning and funding. East/west will work with timing and offset adjustments and is typical of adjustments made at area intersections with PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 53 regular area growth or development. Addendum # 1 to the TIS dated January 23, 2013 includes the revised short term analysis. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 01/17/2013 01/17/2013: The TIS needs to be revised to include all City required analysis data in the Appendix such as the short term background analysis, short term background lane config and LOS and other data as required by Chapter 4 LCUASS. The short term background traffic analysis was not completed as part of the TIS. The short term background traffic scenario would include removing all traffic currently generated by the Foothills Mall development, resulting in intersections operating at levels of service far superior to current conditions and would not provide for a reasonable comparison of the impact the additional commercial uses would have on the transportation network. Comparing the short term total traffic to the existing traffic gives a better representation of the relative impact of the proposed development. Addendum #2 to the TIS includes discussion regarding the short term background traffic horizon. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: Sht C504: Extend the sewer between Lots 4 & 5 to connect to the sewer in Stanford as shown on the redlined plans. The plans have been modified as requested. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: Sht C505: The building at the south end of Block 6 shows an 8" sewer service connecting to an existing line that was a service extending to the MH in Monroe. The size of the existing service is unknown but is likely smaller PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 54 than an 8". Only a 4-inch diameter lateral is required - the larger size was specified only to match the 8-inch diameter pipe size shown by the surveyor. The plan note has been modified to match the existing pipe size, with a 4- inch minimum. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: We need to have further discussions regarding the area north of 3538 JFK Parkway. When the R.O.W. for Monroe east of JFK was vacated, a utility easement was retained for the full R.O.W. This would seem to provide some flexibility to improve the utility layouts in that area. The plans have been modified as discussed with Roger. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: At final, label all valves, fittings, hydrants, lengths of water main in between, etc., etc These labels have been added. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: Sht C602: Delete two fire hydrants as shown on the redlined plans and move one hydrant as noted. The plans have been modified as discussed with Roger. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: Sht C605: Revise the fire hydrant and water main locations as shown on the redlined plans. The plans have been modified as requested. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: Add the typical water service detail (Standard Water Detail 11). The detail has been added. PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 55 Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: Some additional valves are shown on the redlined plans. This will be reviewed in more detail during the final plan phase of the project. The plans have been modified as discussed with Roger. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/15/2013 01/15/2013: See redlined utility plans for additional comments. Please return Redlined plans with next submittal. Redlined plans were reviewed and requested changes integrated into the plans. Redlined plans were returned previously. Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/03/2013 01/03/2013: On sheet A102 under the Site Plan Notes #8 there is a reference to TRACTS H & K on Plat sheet 2. Where are TRACTS H & K? Tracts H and K are at the north end of the site adjacent to Matthews and Remington. These are listed on the Site Plan for reference. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/03/2013 01/03/2013: On sheets AR-A-106, AR-A-107, AR-A-108, AR-A-109, AR-A-110 the labels are missing. We have provided labels where they were missing. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/03/2013 01/03/2013: Building 1A requires a primary entrance on the South side to face the Street like Private Drive. We have added a pronounced entrance on this building. See sheet AR-A-302. PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 56 Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/03/2013 01/03/2013: Elevations are needed for the building labeled Fitness Club located North of building 1A We have elevated this building. See sheet AR-A-305. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/03/2013 01/03/2013: Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/07/2012 12/07/2012: Sheet A221 building entrance was enlarged, however the code directs that the entrance to be articulated with some type canopy also. We have included canopies at all public entrances of Stanford Road but there is no sheet A221. Please clarify? SHEET A221 is labeled Building Elevations BLOCK 11. There is no canopy on the entrance of this building. Canopy has been added. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/03/2013 01/03/2013: Sheets A223 and A231 (F.A.C./Restaurant and Theater) needs to be to scale with dimensions labeled. The FAC and Theater components have been formally drawn, dimensioned, and labeled in this submittal. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/04/2013 01/04/2013: Where are the trash and recycling enclosures for the residential portion of the development? We have provided trash collection rooms at the basement parking level of each structure except on Lot 6 where the trash collection room is located at the ground floor of the parking structure. We will have small vehicles to bring the dumpster out in a staging area for trash pickup. PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 57 Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/04/2013 01/04/2013: LUC 4.21(E)(2)(a) The Detention basin on the corner of Stanford and Monroe should be a pedestrian oriented outdoor space. The proposal has little variety in the landscaping. The applicant has express concerned with making it an activity area based on that high potential for a consistent wet condition, but applicant has stated it would be more visually interesting. Applicant responded that changes were made to accomplish more of a visual interest, however from the PDR 3 to this PDP submital no changes have been made it is still a low visual interaction with only native prairie grass. Vine/ornamental shrubs are planted along the retaining wall/hand rail, which will help soften the hardscape. Deciduous shrubs and ornamental trees are planted along the slope of the detention basin, which will help increase visual attraction, and native prairie grass will still be planted inside of the basin. These elements have allowed us to create an area of visual interest, but recreational activities are not appropriate as the area detains water in stormwater events. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/04/2013 01/04/2013: LUC 3.5.1(I) Mechanical/Utility Equipment (conduit, meters, vents, flues, HVAC units) shall be screened. Plans (site, landscape and elevations) shall include locations of such equipment and notes on how it is screened/painted. Three screening options are considered in this submittal: 1. Roof mechanical will be screened by building parapets. 2. Wall mounted elements will be screened by landscaping, low walls, painted to match building colors, or a combination of these strategies. 3. Ground mounted transformers will be screened by landscaping and/or low walls. Details have been placed in the architectural and landscape architectural sheets to reflect these conditions. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/04/2013 PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 58 01/04/2013: LUC 3.2.2(J) Vehicle Use areas are to be setback 10ft from non arterial street ROW. The parking stall along the West half of Monroe are possibly not in compliance. Applicant needs to label the property line on site and landscape plans to verify these stalls are in compliance. The parking has been adjusted to be 10-feet from the R.O.W. The property lines are labeled and the conditions are dimensioned. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/04/2013 01/04/2013: LUC3.2.1(D)(2) Attached sidewalks shall be at least 10ft wide to inlude tree grates (16 sq ft), that are placed in the sidewalk closer to the street (in reference to sheet LA110, LA122, LA126, LA127 and LA124). LUC3.2.1(D)(2) states that wherever (not whenever) the sidewalk is attached to the street AND (not must be) is ten (10) feet or more in width or extends from curb or property line, canopy trees shall be established in planting cutout areas of at least sixteen (16) sf at thirty foot to forty foot spacing. The application complies with this provision. This section of the LUC also provides for street trees to be planted adjacent to attached sidewalks that are less than 10 feet wide. Most sidewalks on the specific sheets indicated are 6' wide, and trees are planted in the planting zone, within 3 to 7 feet of the sidewalk. Sidewalks interior to the development site are not required to meet the street tree planting requirements of LUC3.2.1(D)(2). All walks in question have either been separated with a tree lawn or made a minimum of 10' wide and include tree grates at the required interval. LA127 indicates the existing sidewalk to remain as it is currently in a serviceable condition. Moving the walk back would destroy existing trees that are currently being saved. The current proposal maintains the walk in its existing position for this reason. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/04/2013 01/04/2013: LUC 3.10.5(C)(5) This section prohibits the use of smooth-faced concrete block in a development. This would include but not limited to trash/recycling enclosures, screening walls, retaining walls, and buildings. Also PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 59 please provide more information for Project Material labeled C-1 to verify that it is in compliance. Any concrete block used on this project will be either rock-face or burnished, and will be used minimally as an accent material or (durable) base material in locations were certain exterior materials meet the ground plane. Trash enclosures employ details with brick materials (reference sheet A256) Painted CMU may be used on the interior or truck/ service courts. Contact: Peter Barnes, 970-416-2355, pbarnes@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/04/2013 01/04/2013: SIGNS: The quantities of a number of the various sign types on Sheet A304 don't match the numbers shown on Sheet A305. i.e., A304 states that there are 3 of the 'vehicular directional signs', but Sheet A305 shows that there are 8 of them. This has been corrected and coordinated in this submittal. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/04/2013 01/04/2013: Specific sign issues: (1) Sign Type 1.1 - taller than 12', larger than 90 s.f. per side, setback appears to be closer to property line than allowed. Also, if the graphic on the bottom portion of the sign (the electronic media display) can be electronically changed by remote or automatic means, then it is classified as an 'electronic message center' sign. Such a sign needs to comply with Sec. 3.8.7(M), which doesn't allow messages to be displayed in multi-colors, and limits the number of such signs to no more than one per street per development. (2) Sign Type 1.2 - taller than 12', appears to be closer to lot line than allowed. (3) Sign Type 1.3 - appear to be closer to lot line than allowed and the one at JFK and Monroe appears to be in the ROW. (4) Sign Type 1.4 - Taller than 12', appear to be too close to lot line. (5) Sign Type 3.1 - on site traffic directional signs that are larger than 4 s.f. and that are visible from a property line, a public thoroughfare, or a ROW are regulated signs that need to comply with the sign code. The proposed signs are PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 60 about 35 s.f. and most of the 8 signs appear to be visible from a property line or ROW and they need to comply with size, height and location requlations. Some of them appear to be setback from the lot line less than the 10' required for this tall of a sign. (6) Sign Type 6.1 - Taller than 12', larger than 90 s.f.. (7) Ground signs are only allowed on lots/tracts that have street frontage, and no more than one ground sign is allowed per lot/tract per street (Sec. 3.8.7(G)). It appears that some ground signs are located on lots or tracts that don't have street frontage, and that some of the lots or tracts have more than one ground sign per street. For the purposes of the sign code, the definition of 'street' in Article 5 of the LUC states that "...the term 'street' shall only mean a dedicated public right-of-way (other than an alley) used or intended to be used for carrying motorized vehicular traffic". This has been coordinated and reconfigured as approved by the Planning and Zoning Board. Department: Zoning Contact: Peter Barnes, 970-416-2355, pbarnes@fcgov.com Topic: Modification of Standard Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/04/2013 01/04/2013: The written modification request for 'freestanding and ground signs' mentions only a modification for the 22' tall 'primary monument ID signs'. There are other sign types that also exceed the maximum allowed height of 12' and/or the maximum allowed size of 90 s.f. per side. Many of the monument signs appear to also not comply with the required setback based on height and size. The modification request needs to address all of the sign types that don't comply with the size, height and setback requirements in Sec. 3.8.7(G). Additionally, the modification request submitted states that the sign faces of the primary sign comply with the maximum 90 s.f. per side allowance. However, the area of each face of this sign type is actually 190 s.f. per side based on the correct way to measure the signage per Sec. 3.8.7(F). The written justification for the sign modification is week in my opinion. It doesn't really explain which of the criteria in Sec. 2.8.2(H) are being met. This has been coordinated and reconfigured as approved by the Planning PDP (1) Comments Responses May 22, 2013 Page | 61 and Zoning Board.