Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBELLAVISTA PDP - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2004-12-29PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Co (fins MM�M= Current Planninu DATE: N,wember 28, 2001 TO: Traffic Operation 01 PROJECT: #45-01A Bella Vista PDP - Type I (LUC) All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: December 26, 2001 l� Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference W-jam:=Te;lfr-1a.Dr-N�l'�-T� 1'�G ✓4--`^' 7-IS. � RECEIVED rURRENT PLANNING Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other _Utility —Redline Utility _Landscape City of Fort Collins Provide cross -sections on Horsetooth Road per LCUASS 3.3.4.0 (at 50' intervals). (It appears that a straight-line grade from the crown of Horsetooth Road to the flowline is not being provided as shown on the grading plan, cross -sections will help confirm or deny this.) 36 Show centerline and flowline profiles on Horsetooth Road. 37 Provide the bearing and distance for the flowline on the plan view portion of the plan and profile sheet for Horsetooth Road. 38 15' of utility easement is required along Horsetooth per LCUASS. An approved variance request is required to deviate from this. A variance request should be submitted to Engineering and will require approval from all the utilities in order to reduce the utility easement down to 9'. In addition, 9' of utility easement should be provided along Stanford Road. Again, a variance request should be submitted to Engineering and will require approval from all the utilities in order to eliminate this easement. 39 Show 150' past the limits of construction (vertically and horizontally) to show how proposed improvements tie into existing. (Plan and profile street views, as well as street striping.) (per LCUASS Page E4-6) 40 Can the striping for the bikelane continue further east to tie into the existing bikelane? 41 Per LCUASS in Section 16.6.4, the maximum length of a crosswalk without a pedestrian refuge area is 56'. This distance is being exceeded on Stanford Drive and Horsetooth Road. Transportation Services has agreed that pedestrian refuge on Stanford will not be required. As previously mentioned, a ped refuge should be looked at across Horsetooth in between the right turn lane and the through lanes. 60 Because of the aforementioned need for the right -turn lane, eliminating the offset through the intersection, and the constraint of the existing storm drainage improvements, it is understood that the hike lane design for westbound Horsetooth may have to he compromised. A reduced hike lane width of 6' fincluding gutter) with a continuous concrete pour should be looked at as one potential compromise. It may also he necessary for the bike lane to stop short of the intersection to accommodate the right turn lane. An additional option would be to look at widening the sidewalk and create a combined hikelped area behind the curb if the bikelane cannot be accomplished. 62 Add the following note as reference wherever patching is shown on the plans: Limits of street repair are approximate. Final limits to he determined in the field by the City Engineering Inspector. All repairs to be in accordance with City Street repair standards. Page 3 urban design, inc. (original comment). General note 1(C)(ii) - B&B's would not be allowed. Such a use is a use that is conducted in a private house, not in a condo building. Applicant Response: a) The term Live/Work has been dropped. b) The mea:wrement of "contextual height" at this PDP is in feet — and considers "perceived height" - per the Code Interpretation by the Planning Director. While the five story buildings in the revised submittal are limited to 65' (the height of the six story Aarriott) the perceived height is somewhat less due to the extensive use of pitched roofs on the proposed buildings. A six story building on this site could be perceived to be of less height than the Marriott, even if the actual maximum height in feet were greater than 65'. c) Food sere ice is now limited by the LUC definition of Convenience Retail, and accessory food preparation areas as commonly found in Convenience Retail uses. d) Condominium units including B&Bs may include more than 3 bedrooms. The following comments were expressed at Staff Review on February 20, 2002: Engineering: 1. The East Horsetooth Road design is still of concern. A westbound right -turn lane is needed. It is warranted based on City street standards. 2. The striping as shown on East Horsetooth Road is unsafe. 3. The center left -turn lane is unneeded. 4. There are issues with the cross sections on East Horsetooth Road. They are not to City standards. 5. Dedicate 57.5' of street right-of-way all the way to the east property line. 6. Flowlines need to be on the outside of the proposed bulb -outs on Stanford Road. 7. The 3 variance requests from Northern Engineering are still being reviewed. 8. There should be an emergency access easement on the surface parking only and this should Ibe noted on the subdivision plat. Stormwater: Storm water from this site will have to go into Tract D of Cove Island, to the south. A storm drainage easement may be needed from them. The proposed 12" storm sewer from the parking area needs to be a 15" pipe. The storm sewer in East Horsetooth Road needs to be out from under the curb & gutter. 4. There are lots of tree and storm sewer conflicts. \\SERVER\Server D\WP\9000\9600\9601PDP-RESPONSE3.doc Co����a o 0 urban design, inc. Transportation Planning: 1. The off -site sidewalk along the east side of Stanford Road, going to the north, is needed. This proposal fails the Pedestrian Level of Service portion of the TIS without it. 2. The proposed mid -block pedestrian crossing on Stanford Road, on the curve, is not in a good location for safety reasons. Water/Wastewater: 1. Water/Wastewater is still reviewing the plans. A meeting with the applicant & developer is needed. Applicant response: The above comments were resolved at our meeting of June 10rh, and/or with the revised PDP and utility plans. Planning: 1. The proposed small food service uses, Item iii) under Accessory Uses in the General Notes, are of concern. If there are several very small users (up to 1,500 square feet in size), as staff and the developer have previously discussed, then these food services could be considered to be accessory uses. However, if a single restaurant were to occupy the bulk of the defined food service space (up to 3,600 square feet as shown on the Site Plan) then there would be a problem associated with the list of permitted uses in the MMN District. Restaurants are not a permitted use in this district. 2. The proposed live/work office uses, Item ii) under Accessory Uses in the General Notes, is a good idea; however, offices (per say) are listed as a Type II, Planning & Zoning Board review use in the MMN District. What assurance is there that the office users will not be separate from residents? 3. While reviewing the Shadow Analysis Plan and Streetscape & Building Elevations Plans against the criteria set forth in Section 3.5.1(G) Building Height Review of the LUC, several comments have arisen: a. Regarding Views, are there still desirable views of the foothills from the residential areas north and south of East Horsetooth Road that will be affected by this development? Are there views of Warren Lake from properties north of East Horsetooth Road that will be affected? Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(b)2 of the LUC requires that a visual analysis of views be submitted for review. b. There would appear to be several areas of concern regarding Light and Shadow on adjacent properties, mostly at the 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. times as shown on the Shadow Analysis Plan. Most significant is the potential affects on buildings and parking lots to the west, across Stanford Road. c. Regarding Neighborhood Scale, the City still has some "contextual' concerns regarding this issue. Understanding the "Contextual Height' definition in Section 3.8.17(A)(3) of the LUC, there is still some discussion needed about \\SERVER\Server D\WP\9000\9600\9601PDP-RESPONSE3.doc o urban design, inc. where this site is situated relative to the taller buildings (such as the Marriott Hotel) in the area. How tall. in feet, is the hotel and is one building in excess of 3 stories in height in a larger surrounding area sufficient to justify 4 buildings that exceed the maximum allowable height in the proposed zoning district for this site? d. Typically, elevations for all 4 sides of buildings should be submitted. What do the building ends look like? Applicant response: 1) Food Service uses are now limited to the LUC definition of Convenience Retail, and limited food preparation areas -as an accessory use -as commonly found in many existing convenience retail stores. 2) The term Live/work has been eliminated, and limited to Home Occupations with the /eve/ of flexibility allowed by condominium ownership. The enforcement of home occupation u:sers not being separate from residents will be no different here than at other locations in Fort Collins. 3) Additional bu�Vding elevations, view information, and shadow analysis information are included in Vaught"Frye's revised plans. Additional information is also attached for Staff consideration, including. Alternative building elevations indicating the Applicants' preferred approach to a mix of 4 and 6 story buildings (averaging 65' in height) as opposed to the proposed plan - that has resulted from the Planning Director's interpretation that contextual height is measured in feet - including all buildings at 5 stories (65' maximum) in height. Three-dimensional views comparing the actual and "perceived" heights of the Marriott and proposed Bella Vista buildings. Additional neighborhood context/architectural compatibility information will be forthcoming. Sincerely, Eldon Ward Cityscape Urban Design, Inc. cc: Chuck McNeal Javier Martinez Campos Frank Vaught Daryl Sigler Matt Deliclh \\SERVER\Server D\WP\9000\9600\9601PDP-RESPONSE3.doc Project Comments Sheet 6it of tl)m ort (tritin Selected Departments Department: Engineering Date: August 16, 2002 Project: BIELLA VISTA PDP, TYPE I (LUC) All comments must be received by STEVE OLT in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: August 21, 2002 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General 102 / The site plan shows some sort of access ramp across one of the proposed bump outs" along Stanford Drive. This is not reflected on the utility drawings. �0 ove General Note #4 on the site plan. Topic: Grading 45 Offsite grad ng and stru ion is showp cc ring alon�hern b da of the site. A letter of i tent from the pr perty ow er not plbjecting-tb the( ffsde work is req fired to be Sul � to any publi hepririg for theCroject: Topic: Plat 46 The Developmentyeed5 to dedicate an access ease nt along tanford Drive to ensure e side alk proposed is in an access e�ment. Additional right-of-wa s not necessar . (2/20) It ppears that add tional access e� ein long S anfor Drive (and H setooth Road)ecessary to ensure hat all ofthe nroo sed sidewatk'is in easement. 66 A minimum of 57.5' of half street right-of-way is required to be dedicated along the entire length of the property with a consistent utility easement width, in conformance with LCUASS. It is understood that 9' instead of the 15' of necessary utility easement is Signature Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat _ Site Drainage Report Other_ Utility _ Redline Utility- Landscape Page 1 being proposed behind the right-of-way; when all the design and utility issues are resolved along Horsetooth, the variance request for reduction in utility easement width will be routed to the utilities for approval. 75 There may be a benefit in designating on the plat that the emergency access easement is for the "surface level" only. There may be issues from a title company on how the emergency access easement is represented as going through a building envelope. Topic: Sidewalk 99 The grading plan appears to show that inlets with straw bales will be in close proximity or perhaps even overlapping with the street sidewalks. These straw bales need to be outside of the sidewalk section. Perhaps a different erosion control measure can be used if the straw bales are encroaching into the sidewalk for a period of time. Topic: Street Design 32 Directional ramps are required on new construction in accordance with LCUASS. (Standard Drawing 164D: Provide the detail on the plan set. (2/20) The response from the applicant stated that this could not be accommodated due to existing constraints. The design engineer should provide documentation on why this cannot be accomplished. Note that because of the right turn discussion, any previous limitations due to existing constraints may no longer be applicable. 34 A right -turn lane for westbound Horsetooth onto northbound Stanford still should be designed and constructed. '['here is a community wide benefit in the construction of the right turn lane, thus this is eligible for Street Oversizing reimbursement. The design of the right -turn lane should look at providing pedestrian refuge between the right -turn and through lane, especially since the width of Horsetooth would require a ped refuge under LCUASS. (2/20) The issue of the right turn lane was discussed at the City's 2/14 Transportation Coordination Meeting. It was viewed that the submitted justification for not designing the right turn lane was not compelling and that a I ight turn lane could be designed into the project. Please note that any written documentation regarding the designing of the right -turn lane should be provided by the design engineer (a licensed professional engineer.) 35 Provide cross-sectionson Horsetooth Road per LCUASS 3.3.4.0 (at 50' intervals). (It appears that a straight- line grade from the crown of Horsetooth Road to the flowline is not being provided as shown on the grading plan, cross -sections will help confirm or deny this.) (2/20) The cross section sheets need to have the centerline elevations labeled, the curb and gutter section should be distinguishable from the asphalt section, and the right-of-way should also be shown. 36 Show centerline and flowline profiles on Horsetooth Road. Page 2 (2/20) Can the grid lines or scale be modified in order to allow for every XX+00 stationing to be on a grid line? Only every 3rd XX+00 stationing is on a grid line. 37 Provide the bearing and distance for the flowline on the plan view portion of the plan and profile sheet for Horsetooth Road. (2/20) This information isn't shown east of the driveway and only bearing (no distance) is being shown west of the driveway. 60 Because of the aforementioned need for the right -turn lane, eliminating the offset through the intersection, and the constraint of the existing storm drainage improvements, it is understood that the bike lane design for westbound Horsetooth may have to be compromised. A reduced bike lane width of 6' (including gutter) with a continuous concrete pour should be looked at as one poteraial compromise. It may also be necessary for the bike lane to stop short of the intersection to accommodate the right -turn lane. An additional option would be to look at widening the sidewalk and create a combined bike/ped area behind the curb if the bikelane cannot be accomplished. (2/20) With the right turn lane still being an outstanding issue, the proposed design of the westbound bike lane will not be commented on by Engineering at this time. It is still considered ideal that the bike lane is continuous to the intersection. 62 Add the following note as, reference wherever patching is shown on the plans: Limits of street repair are approximate. Final limits to be determined in the field by the City Engineering Inspector. All repairs to be in accordance with City Street repair standards. (2/20) Ensure that this note is referenced to the work along Stanford as well. 67 The "bulb -outs" proposed on Stanford Drive may be allowed only if the gutter is redesigned to go around and along the bulb outs, not through them. There are maintenance concerns with the current proposal due to dirt and debris collecting between the bulb outs and the flowline. 68 [12] The vertical curve shown is too short in length for the street classification of Horsetooth. A K value of 110 is required, 60 is shown. 69 [13] A vertical curve is needed for the Horsetooth proposed flowline as it approaches the existing storm lines. A grade break is shown with a 0.6% grade going to a 1.69% grade. 70 [13] Fix the vertical elevation labeling on this sheet for the profile view. 71 Three variance requests were received regarding Bella Vista from Northern Engineering. The variance requesting the reduction in sight distance along Stanford Drive, the variance to reduce the driveway spacing from 660' to 610', and the variance to Page 3 reduce the utility easement along Horsetooth were all viewed favorably upon by the City Engineer. Final approval of these variance requests will occur with completion of the designs for Horsetooth and Stanford that are acceptable to the City and the utilities. 72 [13] The 2.55% shown on this sheet appears to actually calculate to 4.2% with the elevations and stationing shown. 77 The Traffic Engineer has noted that the center turn lane should be continuous from the intersection to the Cove Island development and continuing east. The Traffic Engineer notes that a 3/4 movement to allow left turns into the site could be designed (with painted medians) in conjunction with the porkchop island to facilitate right turns out of this driveway. 78 The cross section sheets show the additional road width to be 4% or even greater. Because a saw cut is being shown to the centerline for most of Horsetooth, a continuous straight line grade needs to be maintained along the entire north half of the roadway where the sawcut is shown. For the additional width between stations 10+00 and 11+00, (where the roadway is not being sawcut to centerline), this new portion of roadway is limited to 3%. 79 A grade break is shown on Sheet [12] that exceeds .40%. A vertical curve would be required based on this design. 98 Provide spot elevations at the Horsetooth and Stanford intersection in accordance with LCUASS Standard Detail 7-32B. 100 The submitted "Street Cross Sections" from the site planner is not appropriate to be submitted as a document along with the site and landscape development plan documents. Street cross sections are to be shown on the utility plan set and will be established based upon an approved design for the roadway(s). 101 Angle points along the flowine appear to be shown along Horsetooth, please revise and use curves as shown in LCUASS 7.4.1. 104 It appears that redirects are too abrupt on the street striping plan. See traffic comments regarding this. Topic: Utility plans 76 The drawings regarding the storm system across Horsetooth originally approved by the City showed an inlet being tied to the easternmost pipe, the submitted plans show that the inlet is tied to the westernmost pipe. Page 4 Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments Department: Transportation Planning Date: August 21, 2002 Project: BELLA VISTA PDP, TYPE I (LUC) All comments must be received by STEVE OLT in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: August 21, 2002 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Mark Jackson Topic: General 106 1 understand this is not my call. That being said, I have serious reservations about the mid -block crossing shown on Stanford Rd. This is in my opinion a terrible end -around way of technically meeting Pedestrian LOS, rather than doing A correctly. 107 Will a ramp cut be made on the west end of Stanford Rd. at the new mid -block crossing? It is unclear from the site & utility plan. Please provide ramp cut. 108 Can we provide appropriate signage warning motorists of the mid -block pedestrian crossing? Signature a/Z 1 /UZ Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat NC, Site Drainage Report Other o Utility _ Redline Utility Landscape Page 1 Pit e. Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments Citv of Port Collins Department: Water Wastewater Date: August 21, 2002 Project: BELLA VISTA PDP, TYPE I (LUC) All comments must be received by STEVE OLT in Current Planning no later than the staff review meetiing: August 21, 2002 Mote - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: ,Jeff Hill Topic: General 109 Provide steel casing around proposed water main at multiple storm sewer crossing. Include detail on detail sheet. 110 No permanent structures are allowed in sanitary sewer easement (I.e. retaining walls, headwalls, etc.). 112 Are 1.5' water services adequate for these size of buildings? Provide flow demand calculations for our review. Provide separate water and sewer services for residential and commercial uses. 113 Provide grease traps for all food preparation facilities. 114 Provide concrete encasement of all sewers which cross above or within 18-inches vertically of water lines. Clearly define this on plans. Show all water, storm and sanitary sewer crossings in all profile views. 115 Maintain 4 feet of separation between outside wall of meter pit and all permanent structures. 116 It is unacceptable to have multiple underground storm sewers cross at a sanitary sewer crossing. Topic: Landscaping 48 Repeat Comment: Coordinate landscape design with the civil design and provide the required land scape,futility separation distances. Correctly show all existing and proposed Signature Date CHECK ]HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat _ Site Drainage Report Other_ Utilitv _ Redline Utility Landscape Page I water/sewer mains and services on the landscape plans. With the tight constraints on this site we would be willing to relax our separation requirements, however we will not allow landscaping to be placed directly on top of our facilitates. Please consider the placement of shrubs and trees to minimize the impact to our facilities. Topic: Utility plans, 54 Repeat Comment: Maintain 18-inches of vertical separation between all water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer crossings. 92 Repeat Comment: Place all curb stops and meter pits adjacent to the main when at all possible. Curb stops must be located within a utility easement. Water and sewer services must be perpendicular to the main when possible. 94 Repeat Comment: Clearly define all water main joint deflection (Le. Vertical, Horizontal, Beginning, ending, etc.). Is entire length of proposed 8-inch water main to be lowered? See site, landscape and utility plans for other comments. Page 2 STAFF PROJECT REVIEW CIIF ul FortCollins STANFORD DEVELOPMENT, LLC Date: 1/8/2002 c/o Cityscape Urban Design - Eldon Ward 3555 Stanford Road, Suite 105 Fort Collins, CO. 80525 Staff has reviewed your submittal for BELLA VISTA PDP, TYPE I (LUC), and we offer the following comments: Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt Topic: Street Design 63 Len Hilderbrand of Excel Energy (PSCO) offered the following comments: 1. PSCO has a 2" MW existing gas main along the west boundary of the project and a 4" FB gas main existing along the south edge of the property. Both gas mains lay in the street right-of-way. No trees may be planted within 4' of gas lines. 2. The plans show a 12" storm sewer proposed in areas of PSCO's gas lines. Any relocation of existing gas lines would be at the developer's expense. 3. Gas meters would be clustered together @ the ends of buildings, with 2 gas service lines per building. 64 Eric Bracke of Traffic Operations offered the following comments: 1. The proposed raised median is insufficient. A median should be constructed to "match" the west leg. 2. The westbound right -turn should be included @ East Horsetooth Road and Stanford Road. This developer is not generating the need, however, the right - turn lane should be included in the design. 3. The westbound left -turn lane @ East Horsetooth Road and Landings Drive should be 12' wide, not 11'. The thru lanes @ 11' wide are OK. Please contact Eric, at 224-6062, if you have questions about his comments. Page 1 Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments Department: Stormwater Utility Date: August 27, 2002 Project: BELLA VISTA PDP, TYPE I (LUC) All comments must be received by STEVE OLT in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: August 21, 2002 .Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Basil Harridan Topic: Construction Easements 80 The proposed 24" RCP across Horsetooth Rd. will necessitate the construction of a headwall and part of the culvert on Tract D of The Landings 1st Filing. Prior to construction on this Tract owned by that HOA the contractor should make sure that the HOA is notified and that the area will be properly restored. Even though this area is in an existing drainage easement, the: landings 1st Filing HOA which maintains this area should ensure that the area is put back to an acceptable level, equal or better than before construction. Topic: Ditch Company Approval 87 Prior to allowing additional discharge from this site into Warren Lake, the warren Lake Ditch company must sign off on these plans. Topic: Easements 129 The drainage pan proposed on the north end of the site extends into neighboring property. Please provide a drainage easement for that pan. Topic: Erosion Control 117 Second Review February 4, 2002 The plan still indicates straw bales on concrete and/or asphalt. This doesn't work, they float. Please correct. Your report/calculations call for mulching in certain areas of the project. Please spell out with a note on the plan what areas are to be seeded/mulched. Third Review August 22, 2002 Same com as last ZL b Signatu / Date HECK: HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIV COPIES OF REVISIONS —_L, "` rama Report Other_ tility i Rednne Utility dscape Page I Topic: Grading Plans 128 The larger scale grading plans are a bit disjointed and hard to follow while the smaller scale grading plans are too small to read. Please chose a scale that is more usable. Please extend the grading plans to cover the area to the north of the site and tie into the existing site to the north along Stanford Rd. It seems that a portion of the driveway to the east of Building A could be draining unto the building, please adjust. The high point in the east entrance off of Horsetooth seems to be shallow and flows from Horsetooth Rd could enter the site. The east pond grading plans uses both absolute elevations and relative elevations to a 100.00 arbitrary datum. Please remove relative elevations from the plans. Topic: Line G capacity 135 Line G has several locations where the water surface elevations is very close to or exceeds the ground floor elevation. Please consider the use of larger diameter pipe to eliminate such a condition. Topic: Sewer Line Crossing 134 Line G seems to have a sewer line crossing that is below the required 18" clearance. Please check with Wastewater as to what minimum separation would be acceptable to them. Topic: Storm Line Across Horsetooth 118 It seems that the proposed storm line across Horsetooth Rd could impact the existing Evergreen tree on the south side of Horsetooth. Please show the location of that tree compared to the proposed line on the utility plan and clarify whether that tree is to be preserved. Topic: Storm Line Alignment 132 It seems that the storm line going from the east water quality pond to the west one is shown to be under building envelopes. Please make sure all storm sewers are outside of building envelopes. Topic: Water Line Crossing 133 Please show the crossing of the water line on the sanitary sewer profile of Storm Line E. Topic: Water Quality Pond 120 It seems that the retaining walls of the water quality pond overlap an existing sewer line. Those concrete walls are considered permanent structures and thus would not be allowed to straddle the existing sanitary line and easement. Please provide a concrete reinforcing detal with all the appropriate dimensions for the water quality outlet boxes. Page 2 Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments Department: Engineering Date: August 28, 2002 Project: BELLA VISTA PDP, TYPE I (LUC) All comments must be received by STEVE OLT in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: August 21, 2002 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General 119 The bump -outs along Stanford need to either be extended south of the southern driveway, or reduced to fall short of the southern driveway. The present configuration is viewed as a concern by Transportation with regards to the right turn movement into the southern driveway and its interaction with the bikelane. Topic: Grading 45 Offsite grading and construction is shown occurring along the northern boundary of the site. A letter of intent from the property owner not objecting to the offsite work is required to be submitted prior to any public hearing for the project. [8/211 An unsigned Graat of Easement document was received. Per Stormwater, the document in concept is not acceptable. The necessary easement needs to be dedicated to the City using our standard City deed of dedication language. Also, because the Grant of Easement was unsigned, this does not serve as a letter of intent, which is required prior to any hearing for the project. 122 The contours and spot elevations on the overall grading plan are difficult to read and should be shown better. The information also will not "scan" well. 123 There is an area along Stanford north of the site that is not shown on the overall or detailed grading plan. Dat HECK HEWIT YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS /Plat _/ Site Drainage Report Other —T Utility _Redline Utility ✓Landscape Page 1 Topic: Plat 46 The Development needs to dedicate an access easement along Stanford Drive to ensure the sidewalk proposed is in an access easement. Additional right-of-way is not necessary. (2/20) It appears that additional access easement along Stanford Drive (and Horsetooth Road) is necessary to ensure that all of the proposed sidewalk is in easement. [8/21] Replace all instances of "sidewalk easement" with "access easement". 66 A minimum of 57.5' of half street right-of-way is required to be dedicated along the entire length of the property with a consistent utility easement width, in conformance with LCUASS. It is understood that 9' instead of the 15' of necessary utility easement is being proposed behind the right-of-way; when all the design and utility issues are resolved along Horsetooth, the variance request for reduction in utility easement width will be routed to the utilities for approval. [8/21] With design issues outstanding and issues regarding retaining wall(s) over easements still in question, this issue is left as unresolved. 75 There may be a benefit in designating on the plat that the emergency access easement is for the "surface level" only. There may be issues from a title company on how the emergency access easement is represented as going through a building envelope. (8/21 ] Further discussion with the City Surveyor suggests revising the label as a "surface grade level". An explanation on the plat may also be of benefit. These are more "suggestions" than requirements, the intent is to ensure that there are no issues with title or being able to pull a building permit. 127 Building envelopes appear to encroach within easements. Building envelopes need to be relocated outside of easements. Topic: Sidewalk 124 The placement of the sidewalk requires a horizontal clearance of 1' and a vertical clearance of 8' from all fixed objects. It appears that the proposed retaining wall(s) are of issue with this standard. Topic: Street Design 32 Directional ramps are required on new construction in accordance with LCUASS. (Standard Drawing 16-4D) Provide the detail on the plan set. (2/20) The response from the applicant stated that this could not be accommodated due to existing constraints. The design engineer should provide documentation on why this cannot be accomplished. Note that because of the right turn discussion, any previous limitations due to existing constraints may no longer be applicable. Page 2 [8/21 ] The design engineer cited underground utilities and traffic control devices in the response letter as justification. Site visits and follow up discussion internal to City Engineering does not share the view that these are constraints. The "constraints" appear far enough away to allow the placement of directional ramps with no modifccation to our standard drawings, or slight modification. Please note that since directional ramps are considered standard, documentation on why this cannot be accomplished needs to be in the form of a variance request. 34 A right -turn lane for westbound Horsetooth onto northbound Stanford still should be designed and constructed. There is a community wide benefit in the construction of the right turn lane, thus this is eligible for Street Oversizing reimbursement. The design of the right -turn lane should look at providing pedestrian refuge between the right -turn and through lane, especially since the width of Horsetooth would require a ped refuge under LCUASS. (2/20) The issue of the right turn lane was discussed at the City's 2/14 Transportation Coordination Meeting. It was viewed that the submitted justification for not designing the right turn lane was not compelling and that a right turn lane could be designed into the project. Please note that any written documentation regarding the designing of the right -turn lane should be provided by the design engineer (a licensed professional engineer.) [t21 ] The variance request is currently with Traffic Engineering. 35 Provide cross -sections on Horsetooth Road per LCUASS 3.3.4.0 (at 50' intervals). (It appears that a straight- line grade from the crown of Horsetooth Road to the flowline is not being provided as shown on the grading plan, cross -sections will help confirm or deny this.) (2/20) The cross section sheets need to have the centerline elevations labeled, the curb and gutter section should be distinguishable from the asphalt section, and the right-of-way should also be shown. 9/21 ] The cross sections need to show the sidewalk, especially with potential issues regarding its relationship to retaining walls. Because the detail for the inflow curb and gutter with the continuous pour bikelane is not to standard, the cross slope for the cross sections shown weren't evaluated. In addition, the cross sections weren't evaluated because the flowline design still does not meet standards (vertical curve, grade breaks, etc.) 36 Show centerline and flowline profiles on Horsetooth Road. (2/20) Can the grid lines or scale be modified in order to allow for every XX+00 stationing to be on a grid line? Only every 3rd XX+00 stationing is on a grid line. [8/211 The response from the design engineer indicates that this modification is time intensive. In researching, other plan sets at 30 scale do not have this issue. Please modify the drawings to reflect every XX+00 on a grid line. While this may be viewed as time consuming from the design engineer's perspective, it results in a more time consuming review for the review engineer. Page 3 37 Provide the bearing and distance for the flowline on the plan view portion of the plan and profile sheet for Horsetooth Road. (2/20) This information isn't shown east of the driveway and only bearing (no distance) is being shown west of the driveway. [8/21) This information is required on the street design and is not a waived requirement if shown on the street striping plan. 38 15' of utility easement is required along Horsetooth per LCUASS. An approved variance request is required to deviate from this. A variance request should be submitted to Engineering and will require approval from all the utilities in order to reduce the utility easement down to 9'. In addition, 9' of utility easement should be provided along Stanford Road. Again, a variance request should be submitted to Engineering and will require approval from all the utilities in order to eliminate this easement. [8/211 This comment is left as unresolved until all the design issues are worked out and agreed to by the utilities. It is my understanding that utilities have expressed concern with the placement of their utilities under retaining walls. This may require additional utility easement width to compensate. 67 The "bulb -outs" proposed on Stanford Drive may be allowed only if the gutter is redesigned to go around and along the bulb outs, not through them. There are maintenance concerns with the current proposal due to dirt and debris collecting between the bulb outs and the flowline. [8/21 ] The bump outs need to show a flowline design and how it ties into the existing flowline along Stanford. In addition, cross sections on Stanford (as done with Horsetooth) should be done in order to verify adequate cross slopes are being maintained. 68 [12] The vertical curve shown is too short in length for the street classification of Horsetooth. A K value of 110 is required, 60 is shown. [8/21] There are vertical curves that still fall short of meeting standards. 69 [13] A vertical curve is needed for the Horsetooth proposed flowline as it approaches the existing storm lines. A grade break is shown with a 0.6% grade going to a 1.69% grade. [8/21] A grade break exceeding .4% is still shown. Page 4 71 Three variance requests were received regarding Bella Vista from Northern Engineering. The variance requesting the reduction in sight distance along Stanford Drive, the variance to reduce the driveway spacing from 660' to 610', and the variance to reduce the utility easement along Horsetooth were all viewed favorably upon by the City Engineer. Final approval of these variance requests will occur with completion of the designs for Horsetooth and Stanford that are acceptable to the City and the utilities. 104 It appears that redirects are too abrupt on the street striping plan. See traffic comments regarding this. [8/21 ] The proposed travel lane signage doesn't appear to tie in very well with the existing signage east of the property. 121 Street patching limits need to be revised as redlined (perpendicular to the direction of travel as well as to the edge or middle of a lane line.) The patching shown on Stanford Drive needs to be expanded from how it is currently shown, and may need to expand further in order to ensure proper cross slopes. 125 Show utility crossings and depth of utilities on the street plan and profile sheets. 126 The detail for the inflow curb and gutter along Horsetooth Road does not have sufficient depth along the gutter, please revise the detail as shown on the redlines. 131 The "bump -outs" along Stanford are required to be built with vertical curb and gutter in accordance with LCUASS. Please specify the use of vertical curb, with transitioning to the existing driveover curb. Topic: Structural 136 A structural engineer will be required to submit a signed and stamped letter indicating that the emergency access area (defined by the plat) is designed to support the live and dead loading of emergency services vehicles. This letter is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. The structural engineer should coordinate with PFA on the anticpated vehicles that will be staging in this area and follow up with information from the manufacturer(s) of the vehicle(s) on the loading specific to each vehicle(s). A follow up letter stating that the structure was constructed to meet these requirements will also be required prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. (This will also be stated in the Development Agreement for the project.) Topic: Utility plans 140 Page 5 Please see redlines for additional coments/clarifications. Page 6 STAFF PROJECT REVIEW Cilv o(Fort Collins STANFORD DEVELOPMENT, LLC Date: 8/29/2002 c/o Cityscape Urban Design - Eldon Ward 3555 Stanford Road, Suite 105 Fort Collins, CO. 80525 Staff has reviewed your submittal for BELLA VISTA PDP, Type I (LUC), and we offer the following comments: ISSUES: Department: Current Planning Topic: General 139 Issue Contact: Steve Olt There has been an increase in the proposed number of residential dwelling units (excluding any B&B operation), from 70 units to 81 units, since the last plan. The applicant's response letter does not acknowledge or discuss the reasons for the increase in the number of dwelling units. 141 The number of proposed parking spaces for the residential uses as shown on Sheet 2 of the revised PDP Cover Sheet would be sufficient for the mix of 1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom units as indicated in the Land Use Breakdown table. However, the last or far -right column indicates that there may be more than 3 bedrooms in some units. The "required" 151 spaces as shown does not allow for any dwelling units with 4 or more bedrooms. 144 The west end of Building C does not meet the "build -to" line requirements in Sections 3.5.3(B;)(2)(a) & (b) of the Land Use Code. On the Site Plan the building is shown to be set back 20' to 22' from the Stanford Road right-of-way and it must be located no more than 15' from the right-of-way of that street. If possible, how can this building satisfy the criteria for an exception to the build - to line standard as set forth in Section 3.5.3(B)(2)(d)l of the Code? Page 1 146 The buildings (A thru D) vary in height from 67' for Building D to 72' for Building C. This is based on Section 3.8.17(A)(1) - Building Height Measured in Feet in the City's Land Use Code. Buildings A, B, and D are 5 stories + a loft on all sides; however, Building C is 5 stories + a loft on the east and north sides but is "perceived" to be 6 stories + a loft from the south and west (street) sides. Based on the existing conditions on surrounding properties in the C - Commercial, E - Employment, MMN - Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood, and RL - Low Density Residential Districts, staff's position at this time is that the project does not satisfy the criteria set forth in Section 3.8.17(A)(3) - Contextual Height in the Land Use Code. Topic: Plat 137 City staff requested that 6 copies of the subdivision plat be re -submitted for review. No copies of the plat were received with the July 31, 2002 re -submittal. Topic: Utility plans 130 Len Hilderbrand of Public Service Company of Colorado (Excel Energy) offered the following comments: a. No trees may be planted within 4' of gas lines. Existing gas lines are located in the street rights -of -way. b. Public Service Company of Colorado will need to open cut streets (East Horsetooth Road and Stanford Road) to install gas services to each building. Permits will be required. C. Meters will need to be staked at the ends of buildings. The elevations will need to show areas to meet the requirements for meter stacks. Topic: zoning 142 As indicated by the Zoning Department, General Note 1)d)ii on the PDP Cover Sheet (2 of 6) must be eliminated because the language could be construed to allow a "primary" office use in the development. Home occupations are Page 2 65 Rick Lee of the Building Department is forwarding a copy of the various codes that they will be enforcing. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General 28 Replace "P.U.D." with "P.D.P" on all the documents. Topic: Grading 45 Offsite grading and construction is shown occurring along the northern boundary of the site. A letter of intent from the property owner not objecting to the offsite work is required to be submitted prior to any public hearing for the project. Topic: Plat 42 Replace all occurrences of Director of Engineering with City Engineer. 43 The Plat language (Certificate of Dedication and Maintenance and Repair Guarantee language) has been revised. Please revised as shown (electronic format of the document is available). Ensure that the "Notice of Other Documents" language is included in the plat: as well. 44 The Sight Distance Easement Language on the plat has also been revised. Please revise as shown. 46 The Development needs to dedicate an access easement along Stanford Drive to ensure the sidewalk proposed is in an access easement. Additional right-of-way is not necessary. 58 Vacation of City easements on the plat do not require an easement vacation certificate. However, vacation of exclusive easements outside of the City (20' communication easement) requires a signature from the telephone company. 59 Horsetooth Road appears confusing with right-of-way on top of city and private utilities. Please clarify. Page 2 permitted in the MMN District, which note 1)d)i accounts for, but a "primary" office use is not (permitted in the District. 143 General Note 1)d)iii on the PDP Cover Sheet (2 of 6) still does not restrict the type of proposed "food service uses" to accessory uses for the purpose of providing that service to the residents and tenants of the Bella Vista project. Anything resembling even a small fast food operation, with the intent to serve the general public, would be defined as a restaurant use, which is not permitted in the MMN District. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: Genera/ 119 The bump -outs along Stanford need to either be extended south of the southern driveway, or reduced to fall short of the southern driveway. The present configuration is viewed as a concern by Transportation with regards to the right turn movement into the southern driveway and its interaction with the bikelane. Topic: Grading 45 Off site grading and construction is shown occurring along the northern boundary of the site. A letter of intent from the property owner not objecting to the offsite work is required to be submitted prior to any public hearing for the project. [8/21] An unsigned Grant of Easement document was received. Per Stormwater, the document in concept is not acceptable. The necessary easement needs to be dedicated to the City using our standard City deed of dedication language. Also, because the Grant of Easement was unsigned, this does not serve as a letter of intent, which is required prior to any hearing for the project. 122 The contours and spot elevations on the overall grading plan are difficult to read and should be shown better. The information also will not "scan" well. Page 3 123 There is an area along Stanford north of the site that is not shown on the overall or detailed'. grading plan. Topic: Plot 46 The Development needs to dedicate an access easement along Stanford Drive to ensure the sidewalk proposed is in an access easement. Additional right-of-way is not necessary. (2/20) It appears that additional access easement along Stanford Drive (and Horsetooth Road) is necessary to ensure that all of the proposed sidewalk is in easement. [8/21] Replace all instances of "sidewalk easement" with "access easement". 66 A minimum of 57.5' of half street right-of-way is required to be dedicated along the entire length of the property with a consistent utility easement width, in conformance with LCUASS. It is understood that 9' instead of the 15' of necessary utility easement is being proposed behind the right-of-way; when all the design and utility issues are resolved along Horsetooth, the variance request For reduction in utility easement width will be routed to the utilities for approval. [8/21] With design issues outstanding and issues regarding retaining wall(s) over easements still in question, this issue is left as unresolved. 75 There may be a benefit in designating on the plat that the emergency access easement is for the "surface level" only. There may be issues from a title company on how the emergency access easement is represented as going through a building envelope. (8/21] Further discussion with the City Surveyor suggests revising the label as a "surface grade level". An explanation on the plat may also be of benefit. These Page 4 are more "suggestions" than requirements, the intent is to ensure that there are no issues with title or being able to pull a building permit. 127 Building envelopes appear to encroach within easements. Building envelopes need to be relocated outside of easements. Topic: Sidewalk 124 The placement of the sidewalk requires a horizontal clearance of 1' and a vertical clearance; of 8' from all fixed objects. It appears that the proposed retaining wall(s) are of issue with this standard. Topic: Street Design 32 Directional ramps are required on new construction in accordance with LCUASS. (Standard Drawing 16-41)) Provide the detail on the plan set. (2/20) The response from the applicant stated that this could not be accommodated due to existing constraints. The design engineer should provide documentation on why this cannot be accomplished. Note that because of the right turn discussion, any previous limitations due to existing constraints may no longer be applicable. [8/21] The design engineer cited underground utilities and traffic control devices in the response letter as justification. Site visits and follow up discussion internal to City Engineering does not share the view that these are constraints. The "constraints" appear far enough away to allow the placement of directional ramps with no modification to our standard drawings, or slight modification. Please note that since directional ramps are considered standard, documentation on why this cannot be accomplished needs to be in the form of a variance request. 34 A right -turn lane, for westbound Horsetooth onto northbound Stanford still should be designed and constructed. There is a community wide benefit in the construction of the right turn lane, thus this is eligible for Street Oversizing reimbursement. The design of the right -turn lane should look at providing Page 5 pedestrian refuge: between the right -turn and through lane, especially since the width of Horsetooth would require a ped refuge under LCUASS. (2/20) The issue of the right turn lane was discussed at the City's 2/14 Transportation Coordination Meeting. It was viewed that the submitted justification for not designing the right turn lane was not compelling and that a right turn lane could be designed into the project. Please note that any written documentation regarding the designing of the right -turn lane should be provided by the design engineer (a licensed professional engineer.) [8/211 The variance request is currently with Traffic Engineering. 35 Provide cross -sections on Horsetooth Road per LCUASS 3.3.4.0 (at 50' intervals). (It appears that a straight-line grade from the crown of Horsetooth Road to the flowline is not being provided as shown on the grading plan, cross - sections will help confirm or deny this.) (2/20) The cross section sheets need to have the centerline elevations labeled, the curb and gutter section should be distinguishable from the asphalt section, and the right-of-way should also be shown. (8/211 The cross sections need to show the sidewalk, especially with potential issues regarding its relationship to retaining walls. Because the detail for the inflow curb and gutter with the continuous pour bikelane is not to standard, the cross slope for the cross sections shown weren't evaluated. In addition, the cross sections weren't evaluated because the flowline design still does not meet standards (vertical curve, grade breaks, etc.) 36 Show centerline and flowline profiles on Horsetooth Road. (2/20) Can the grid lines or scale be modified in order to allow for every XX+00 stationing to be on a grid line? Only every 3rd XX+00 stationing is on a grid line. Page 6 [8/21] The response from the design engineer indicates that this modification is time intensive. In researching, other plan sets at 30 scale do not have this issue. Please modify the: drawings to reflect every XX+00 on a grid line. While this may be viewed as time consuming from the design engineer's perspective, it results in a more time consuming review for the review engineer. 37 Provide the bearing and distance for the flowline on the plan view portion of the plan and profile sheet for Horsetooth Road. (2/20) This information isn't shown east of the driveway and only bearing (no distance) is being shown west of the driveway. [8/21] This information is required on the street design and is not a waived requirement if shown on the street striping plan. 38 15' of utility easement is required along Horsetooth per LCUASS. An approved variance request is required to deviate from this. A variance request should be submitted to Engineering and will require approval from all the utilities in order to reduce the utiility easement down to 9'. In addition, 9' of utility easement should be provided along Stanford Road. Again, a variance request should be submitted to Engineering and will require approval from all the utilities in order to eliminate this easement. (8/21] This comment is left as unresolved until all the design issues are worked out and agreed to by the utilities. It is my understanding that utilities have expressed concern with the placement of their utilities under retaining walls. This may require additional utility easement width to compensate. 67 The "bulb -outs" proposed on Stanford Drive may be allowed only if the gutter is redesigned to go around and along the bulb outs, not through them. There are maintenance concerns with the current proposal due to dirt and debris collecting between the bulb outs and the flowline. Page 7 [8/21] The bump outs need to show a flowline design and how it ties into the existing flowline along Stanford. In addition, cross sections on Stanford (as done with Horsetooth) should be done in order to verify adequate cross slopes are being maintained. 68 [12] The vertical curve shown is too short in length for the street classification of Horsetooth. A K value of 110 is required, 60 is shown. [8/21] There are vertical curves that still fall short of meeting standards. 69 [13] A vertical curve is needed for the Horsetooth proposed flowline as it approaches the existing storm lines. A grade break is shown with a 0.6% grade going to a 1.69% grade. (8/21] A grade break exceeding .4% is still shown. 71 Three variance requests were received regarding Bella Vista from Northern Engineering. The variance requesting the reduction in sight distance along Stanford Drive, the variance to reduce the driveway spacing from 660' to 610', and the variance to reduce the utility easement along Horsetooth were all viewed favorably upon by the City Engineer. Final approval of these variance requests will occur with completion of the designs for Horsetooth and Stanford that are acceptable to the City and the utilities. 104 It appears that redirects are too abrupt on the street striping plan. See traffic comments regarding this. [8/21] The proposed travel lane signage doesn't appear to tie in very well with the existing signage East of the property. Page 8 121 Street patching limits need to be revised as redlined (perpendicular to the direction of travel as well as to the edge or middle of a lane line.) The patching shown on Stanford Drive needs to be expanded from how it is currently shown, and may need to expand further in order to ensure proper cross slopes. 125 Show utility crossings and depth of utilities on the street plan and profile sheets. 126 The detail for the: inflow curb and gutter along Horsetooth Road does not have sufficient depth along the gutter, please revise the detail as shown on the redlines. 131 The "bump -outs" along Stanford are required to be built with vertical curb and gutter in accordance with LCUA55. Please specify the use of vertical curb, with transitioning to the existing driveover curb. Topic: structural 136 A structural engineer will be required to submit a signed and stamped letter indicating that the emergency access area (defined by the plat) is designed to support the live and dead loading of emergency services vehicles. This letter is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. The structural engineer should coordinate: with PFA on the anticipated vehicles that will be staging in this area and follow up with information from the manufacturer(s) of the vehicle(s) on the loading specific to each vehicle(s). A follow up letter stating that the structure was constructed to meet these requirements will also be required prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. (This will also be stated in the Development Agreement for the project.) Topic: Utility plans 140 Please see redlines for additional comments/clarifications. Page 9 Department: Light & Power Topic: Landscaping Issue Contact: Doug Martine 1 Street trees on the landscape plan must be adjusted to provide a minimum of 40 ft. clearance between trees and streetlights. 2 It is my understanding that the developer desires the electric transformer(s) to be placed immediately adjacent to the east side of the mechanical enclosure. This is acceptable: to L&P, but the landscaping in this area will need to be adjusted to provide for the transformers. The size of the transformers cannot be determined until the developer provides electric load information for each electric service at the site. Department: Natural Resources Topic: Genera/ 111 No Issues. Issue Contact: Doug Moore Department: PFA Issue Contact: Ron Gonzales Topic: Genera/ 145 Although these towers do not technically meet the height requirements stipulated in 97UBC for the High -Rise Provisions, the PFA would request the applicant consider installing as many of these provisions for the safety of the occupants and the building. See 97UBC403 Topic: Plot 57 REQUIRED ACCE:55: Due to the proposed heights of these edifices, a 30 foot wide fire lane is required for aerial operations. This fire lane shall be visible by painting and signage, and maintained unobstructed. A fire lane plan shall be submitted for approval prior to installation. 97UFC901.2.2.1;901.3;901.4.2;902.2.1 Admin.Policy85-5; FCLUC 3.6.6(D)3 Page 10 ADDRESS NUMERALS Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the property, and posted with a minimum of 6 inch numerals on a contrasting background. The property shall be addressed from Stanford Drive. An address marquis shall be provided with 8" numerals. (Bronze numerals on brown brick are not acceptable).97UFC901.4.4 WATER SUPPLY Fire hydrants are required with a maximum spacing of 600 feet along an approved roadway. Each hydrant must be capable of delivering 1500 gallons of water per minute at a residual pressure of 20 psi. No commercial building can be greater than 300 feet from a fire hydrant. 97UFC901.2.2.2 Knox Box Policy Poudre Fire Authority requires a "Knox Box" to be mounted on the front of every new building equipped with a required fire sprinkler system or fire alarm system. 97UFC902.4PFAPOLICY88-20 SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS: These proposed buildings shall be fire sprinklered. A fire pump may also be required, as well as standpipes for the building and the parking garage below grade. 97UBC Ventilation System: A 2-stage ventilation system shall be provided for the parking garage below grade. Stage One shall be tied to a Carbon Monoxide Detection System that will detect carbon monoxide at 50ppm over 8 hours and/or 200ppm over 1 hour and ventilate the garage. Stage Two shall provide ventilation for smoke removal in the event of a car fire. UBC1202.2.7 Department: Police Topic: 6eneroi Issue Contact: Joseph Gerdom 9 Lighting Plan: The Luminaire schedule and luminaire detail don't provide sufficient information to determine exactly which lights are used in each location. Also, unless there are wall fixtures there is inadequate illumination Page 11 between Bldg B & C; east face of Bldg D; and north face of Bldg B. In general, all building access points should have minimum of 1 fc. 105 Issues addressed except for: no illumination information for south faces of Bldgs A & B Topic: Landscaping 10 Landscape Plan: The use of Austrian Pine, cotoneaster, and ninebark along the faces of Bldgs B, C, and D, particularly in front of public/private entrances will obscure these areas and raise security issues. Lower growing species, lighting, or some combination thereof would be recommended. Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Basil Hamdan Topic: Construction Easements 80 The proposed 24" RCP across Horsetooth Rd. will necessitate the construction of a headwall and part of the culvert on Tract D of The Landings 1st Filing. Prior to construction on this Tract owned by that HOA the contractor should make sure that the HOA is notified and that the area will be properly restored. Even though this area is in an existing drainage easement, the landings 1st Filing HOA that maintains this area should ensure that the area is put back to an acceptable level, equal or better than before construction. Topic: Ditch Company Approval 87 Prior to allowing additional discharge from this site into Warren Lake, the warren Lake Ditch company must sign off on these plans. Topic: Easements 129 The drainage pan proposed on the north end of the site extends into neighboring property. Please provide a drainage easement for that pan. Page 12 61 An emergency access easement needs to be dedicated on the plat where PFA specifies a fire lane is required. Topic: Street Design 29 The Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) in Section 8.2.2 specifies all lanes shall be in alignment through each intersection. Currently a 4.5' offset is measured on the road design; no offset will be allowed for this design. 30 Because of the no offset requirement and some constraints involving the existing storm drainage improvements across Horsetooth, the previous discussion involving extension of the proposed median to the Horsetooth/Stanford intersection will no longer be required. Instead, no median shall be provided on Horsetooth Road and a pork chop island for the driveway off of Horsetooth shall be required. The design of the "pork chop" for this access point should prohibit left turns onto Horsetooth (to the extent reasonably feasible) while at the same time be designed to allow PFA access. 31 The access out to Horsetooth Road does not provide enough separation from the intersection of Horsetooth Road and Stanford Drive as required under LCUASS (660' is required, E320' is provided). Transportation Services has determined that this separation will work with the construction of the "pork chop" island to deter left turns out of the development. 32 Directional ramps are required on new construction in accordance with LCUASS. (Standard Drawing 16-4D) Provide the detail on the plan set. 33 The City's Traffic Engineer has determined that the Stanford/Horsetooth intersection would not make a suitable location for a roundabout and an alternative analysis (typically required on arterial/collector and arterial/arterial intersections) is not needed. 34 A right -turn lane for westbound Horsetooth onto northbound Stanford still should be designed and constructed. There is a community wide benefit in the construction of the right turn lane, thus this is eligible for Street Oversizing reimbursement. The design of the right -turn lane should look at providing pedestrian refuge between the right -turn and through lane, especially since the width of Horsetooth would require a ped refuge under LCUASS. Page 3 Topic: Erosion Control 117 Second Review February 4, 2002 The plan still indicates straw bales on concrete and/or asphalt. This doesn't work, they float. Please correct. Your report/calculations call for mulching in certain areas of the project. Please spell out with a note on the plan what areas are to be seeded/mulched. Third Review August 22, 2002 Same comments as last time. Topic: Grading Plans 128 The larger scale grading plans are a bit disjointed and hard to follow while the smaller scale grading plans are too small to read. Please chose a scale that is more usable. Please extend the grading plans to cover the area to the north of the site and tie into the existing site to the north along Stanford Rd. It seems that a portion of the driveway to the east of Building A could be draining unto the building, please adjust. The high point in the east entrance off of Horsetooth seems to be shallow and flows from Horsetooth Rd could enter the site. The east pond grading plans uses both absolute elevations and relative elevations to a 100.00 arbitrary datum. Please remove relative elevations from the plans. Topic: Line 6 capacity 135 Page 13 Line 6 has several locations where the water surface elevations is very close to or exceeds the ground floor elevation. Please consider the use of larger diameter pipe to eliminate such a condition. Topic: Sewer Line Crossing 134 Line 6 seems to have a sewer line crossing that is below the required 18" clearance. Please check with Wastewater as to what minimum separation would be acceptable to them. Topic: Storm Line Across Horsetooth 118 It seems that the: proposed storm line across Horsetooth Rd could impact the existing Evergreen tree on the south side of Horsetooth. Please show the location of that tree compared to the proposed line on the utility plan and clarify whether that tree is to be preserved. Topic: Storm Line Alignment 132 It seems that the: storm line going from the east water quality pond to the west one is shown to be under building envelopes. Please make sure all storm sewers are outside of building envelopes. Topic: Water Line Crossing 133 Please show the crossing of the water line on the sanitary sewer profile of Storm Line E. Topic: Water Quality Pond 120 It seems that the retaining walls of the water quality pond overlap an existing sewer line. Those concrete walls are considered permanent structures and thus would not be allowed to straddle the existing sanitary line and easement. Please provide a concrete reinforcing detail with all the appropriate dimensions for the water quality outlet boxes. Page 14 Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Mark Jackson Topic: Genera/ 106 I understand this is not my call. That being said, I have serious reservations about the mid -block crossing shown on Stanford Rd. This is in my opinion a terrible end -around way of technically meeting Pedestrian LOS, rather than doing it correctly. 107 Will a ramp cut be made on the west end of Stanford Rd. at the new mid -block crossing? It is unclear from the site & utility plan. Please provide ramp cut. 108 Can we provide appropriate signage warning motorists of the mid -block pedestrian crossing? Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Topic: Genera/ 109 Provide steel casing around proposed water main at multiple storm sewer crossing. Include detail on detail sheet. 110 No permanent structures are allowed in sanitary sewer easement (I.e. retaining walls, headwalls, etc.). 112 Are 1.5" water services adequate for these size of buildings? Provide flow demand calculations for our review. Provide separate water and sewer services for residential and commercial uses. 113 Provide grease traps for all food preparation facilities. 114 Provide concrete encasement of all sewers which cross above or within 18- inches vertically of water lines. Clearly define this on plans. Show all water, storm and sanitary sewer crossings in all profile views. Page 15 115 Maintain 4 feet of separation between outside wall of meter pit and all permanent structures. 116 It is unacceptable to have multiple underground storm sewers cross at a sanitary sewer crossing. Topic: Landscaping 48 Repeat Comment: Coordinate landscape design with the civil design and provide the required landscape/utility separation distances. Correctly show all existing and proposed water/sewer mains and services on the landscape plans. With the tight constraints on this site we would be willing to relax our separation requirements, however we will not allow landscaping to be placed directly on top of our facilitates. Please consider the placement of shrubs and trees to minimize the impact to our facilities. Topic: Utility plans 54 Repeat Comment: Maintain 18-inches of vertical separation between all water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer crossings. 92 Repeat Comment: Place all curb stops and meter pits adjacent to the main when at all possible. Curb stops must be located within a utility easement. Water and sewer services must be perpendicular to the main when possible. 94 Repeat Comment: Clearly define all water main joint deflection (I.e. Vertical, Horizontal, Beginning, ending, etc.). Is entire length of proposed 8-inch water main to be lowered? Page 16 Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes Topic: zoning 3 REPEAT, REPEAT COMMENT (8-6-02). The latest revision of General Note 1(d)(ii) has replaced the term "live/work office type units" with some lengthy explanation of some sort of office use. Since the only type of office use allowed without a Type 2 review is a home occupation office, and since General Note 1(d)(i) lists home occupations, please just delete 1(d)(ii). The way they've described it just complicates things and leaves open the possibility of a disagreement over, its intent. The bottom line is that if the office use complies with the home occupation ordinance, then it's allowed, and since note 1(d)(i) covers home occupations, NOTHING ELSE NEEDS TO BE SAID. REPEAT COMMENT (1-31-02). General note 1(d)(ii) lists "live/work office type units" as a possible use. What is that? No such term. Is it the same as a home occupation? The explanation of what this is in their 1-29-02 letter is interesting, but it doesn't change anything. Our code contains no such use, therefore the use is not allowed (4.5(C) prohibits any use that is not expressly allowed). It still seems to me that what they are describing on sheet i of 6 is a home occupation, which is permitted and is listed by them on general note 1(d)(i). This type of comment is common from Zoning whenever an applicant lists a use that is not defined. For example, we make the same comment relative to an applicant that lists "townhomes" as a permitted use. Since there is no such defined term, we require them to remove it. If they really want to allow offices in the building that are not within a dwelling unit (home occupation), then they should do a Type 2 review in order to obtain approval for things like offices, dry cleaners, hair salons. 6 REPEAT, REPEAT COMMENT (8-6-02) - General note 1(d)(iii) regarding small food service uses has now been replaced by another lengthy description of a use that I still don't think is permitted in the MMN zone. It seems to be saying that they can have a "food service use" (no longer limited to ready -to -eat) as long as the food preparation area is less than 1500 sf. I would interpret a "food service use"' with a food preparation area as a RESTAURANT. There are 6000 and 7000 sf full service restaurants with about 1500 sf of food preparation area, so what would prevent a full service restaurant from locating in the building. There are now convenience retail stores that have Subways, Page 17 Taco Bells, etc inside them. Those operations are not considered to be "ready - to -eat" food products. So I don't know what they are trying to describe as a use. THERE IS NO SUCH USE IN THE CODE AS A "FOOD SERVICE USE BEYOND READY -TO -EAT", and they must only use terms that we have in the Code. The only way we can come up with new terms or uses is by a Code amendment, not be a listing on a PIP. If it operates as a restaurant as defined in the Code, then the only way it is allowed is if it is accessory, meaning that the restaurant must serve only the residences of the building. If that's what they want to allow, then it should be stated just that way. If that's not what is intended, then it's not allowed and the note must be removed. No building permit or CO will be issued for anything that is classified as a restaurant use. REPEAT COMMENT (1-31-02) - General note 1(d)(iii) - small food service uses listed are not classified as accessory uses. Therefore, they are not permitted in the MMN zone. (the only way they can be remotely "accessory" is if they serve only the residences of the building, and are not open to the "public"). I've read the explanation in the applicant's 1-29-02 letter, but I don't agree. For instance, would a Sushi Bar really be accessory, serving the tenants of the building? I doubt it would remain in business very long with such a small customer base. The following comments and concerns were expressed at staff review on August 215t: Transportation PI inning 1. The mid -block crossing on Stanford Road is of concern. A handicapped ramp probably is needed on the west end of this crossing. Also, appropriate signage must be provided. 2. This development will be responsible for the construction of a new sidewalk off -site on the east side of Stanford Road, north to the Aspen Leaf Apartments entry only. Page 18 Engineering 1. There are lots of technical issues still unresolved. 2. The length of vertical curve on Stanford Road is not sufficient. 3. Reduce or expand the "bump out" along Stanford Road. 4. The patching limits for both East Horsetooth Road and Stanford Road need to be revised. 5. A letter of intent from the adjacent property owner for drainage along the north property line is needed before the item can go to a public hearing. 6. Show the needed additional grading at the northwest corner of the site. 7. Utility crossings are needed for East Horsetooth Road. 8. The westbound right -turn lane is not needed at this time; however, the right-of-way necessary for a future turn lane must be dedicated at this time. 9. The applicant was asked to re -submit copies of the subdivision plat but none were submitted with this last round of review. 10. The applicant's engineer did not respond to some of staff's comments with this last round of review. Water/Wastewater 1. Maintain a minimum 10' separation between the detention area wall and the sanitary sewer near the southwest corner of the site. 2. The water main is shown to be under multiple storm sewers and, therefore, it must be encased. Page 19 Light & Power 1. Some buildings are almost to the edge of the street right-of-way. All utilities must be shown on the plans so that any potential conflicts can be identified and addressed. 2. There will be ,just one point of service for each building. Poudre Fire Author 1. There will be just one point of water service for fire flows for each building. 2. Engineering should verify the structural calculations for the parking structure based on the live and dead loads. 3. The utility plans show 4" fire services; however, 6" services are needed. 5tormwater 1. Stormwater is not sure how the utility conflicts will work. 2. The stormsewer is being shown to go under retaining walls for Buildings A and B. This is not allowed. 3. There are trees within 5' of the stormsewer on the south side of East Horsetooth Road. The proposed stormsewer would eliminate at least one large Blue Spruce. Can this be done and will mitigation be required? 4. The Landscape Plan must show all existing off -site trees at the southeast corner of the East Horsetooth Road - Landings Drive intersection and how they will be affected. 5. The grading plans are still very confusing and difficult to read. Page 20 Planning 1. The Landscape Plan must show all existing off -site trees that will be affected by this development plan and indicate what is intended for each one. Will they be retained, relocated, removed, mitigated, etc.? 2. Staff has determined that, because of the changes to the development plan and lingering questions and concerns expressed by residents in the area, another neighborhood information meeting should be held very soon. Staff's opinion is that it is imperative that the developers and/or their design consultants be present at this meeting. The Current Planning Department will work with the applicants to schedule the meeting. 3. The current Photometric Study shows many points on the site that exceed the maximum allowed foot-candles generated by the site lighting as set forth in Section 3.2.4(C) of the Land Use Code. What is the reason for this? This completes staff comments at this time. Additional comments may be forthcoming. This development request is subject to the 90-day revision re - submittal (from the date of this comment letter) as set forth in Section 2.2.11(A) of the Land Use Code. Be sure and return all of your redlined plans when you re -submit. If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project, please feel free to call me at (970)221-6341. Yours Truly, Steve Olt, City Planner Page 21 4; ) STAFF PROJECT REVIEW C9ty of Purl Caitias STANFORD DEVELOPMENT, LLC Date: 812912002 c% Cityscape Urban Design - Eldon Ward 3555 Stanford Road, Suite 105 Fort Collins, CO. 80525 Staff has reviewed your submittal for 9ELLA VISTA PDP, Type I (L UC), and we offer the followiiag comments: ISSUES: Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt Topic: General 139 There has been an increase in the proposed number of residential dwelling units (excluding any B&B operation), from 70 units to 81 units, since the last plan. The applicant's response letter does not acknowledge or discuss the reasons for the increase in the number of dwelling units. 141 The number of proposed parking spaces for the residential uses as shown on Sheet 2 of the revised PDP Cover Sheet would be sufficient for the mix of I-, 2-, and 3-bedroom units as indicated in the Land Use Breakdown table. However, the last or for -right column indicates that there may be more than 3 bedrooms in some units The "required" 151 spaces as shown does not allow for any dwelling units with 4 or more bedrooms 144 The west end of Building C does not meet the "build -to " line requirements in Sections 3.5.3(B)(2)(a) d (b) of the Land Use Code. On the Site Plan the building is shown to be set back 20' to 22' from the Stanford Road right-of-way and it must be located no more than 15' from the right-of-way of that street. If possible, how can this building satisfy the criteria for an exception to the build - to line standard as set forth in Section 3.5.3(R)(2)(d)1 of the Code? Page I 35 Provide cross -sections on Horsetooth Road per LCUASS 3.3.4.0 (at 50' intervals). (It appears that a straight-line grade from the crown of Horsetooth Road to the flowline is not being provided as shown on the grading plan, cross -sections will help confirm or deny this.) 36 Show centerline and flowline profiles on Horsetooth Road. 37 Provide the bearing and distance for the flowline on the plan view portion of the plan and profile sheet for Horsetooth Road. 38 15' of utility easement is required along Horsetooth per LCUASS. An approved variance request is required to deviate from this. A variance request should be submitted to Engineering and will require approval from all the utilities in order to reduce the utility easement down to 9'. In addition, 9' of utility easement should be provided along Stanford Road. Again, a variance request should be submitted to Engineering and will require approval from all the utilities in order to eliminate this easement. 39 Show 150' past the limits of construction (vertically and horizontally) to show how proposed improvements tie into existing. (Plan and profile street views, as well as street striping.) (per LCUASS Page E4-6) 40 Can the striping for the bikelane continue further east to tie into the existing bikelane? 41 Per LCUASS in Section 16.6.4, the maximum length of a crosswalk without a pedestrian refuge area is 56'. This distance is being exceeded on Stanford Drive and Horsetooth Road. Transportation Services has agreed that pedestrian refuge on Stanford will not be required. As previously mentioned, a ped refuge should be looked at across Horsetooth in between the right turn lane and the through lanes. 60 Because of the aforementioned need for the right -turn lane, eliminating the offset through the intersection, and the constraint of the existing storm drainage improvements, it is understood that the bike lane design for westbound Horsetooth may have to be compromised. A reduced bike lane width of 6' (including gutter) with a continuous concrete pour should be looked at as one potential compromise. It may also be necessary for the bike lane to stop short of the intersection to accommodate the right -turn lane. An additional option would be to look at widening Page 4 146 The buildings (A thru D) vary in height from 67' for Building D to 72' for Building C. This is based on Section 38.17(A)(1) - Building Height Measured in Feet in the City'.s Land Use Code. Buildings A, R, and D are 5stories + a loft on all sides however, Building C is 5 stories + a loft on the east and north sides but is 'perceived" to be 6 stories + a loft from the south and west (street) sides Based on the existing conditions on surrounding properties in the C - Commercial, E - Employment, MMN - Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood, and RL - Low Density Residential Districts, staff 's position at this time is that the project does' not satisfy the criteria set forth in Section 3.8.17(A)(3) - Contextual Height in the Land Use Code, Topic: Plat 137 City staff requested that 6 copies of the subdivision plat be re -submitted for review. No copies of the plat were received with the July 31, 2002 re -submittal. Topic: Utility plans 130 Len Hilderbrand of Public Service Company of Colorado (Excel Energy) offered the following comments: a. No trees may be planted within 4' of gas lines. Existing gas lines are located in the street rights -of -way. b. Public Service Company of Colorado will need to open cut streets (East Horsetooth Road and Stanford Road) to install gas services to each building. Permits will be required. A note has been added to the overall utility plan indicating that permits will be required for gas services. C. Meters willl need to be staked at the ends of buildings. The elevations will need to show areas to meet the requirements for meter stacks. Topic: zoning 142 As indicated by the Zoning Department, General Note 1)d)ii on the PDPCover Sheet (2 of 6) must be eliminated because the language could be construed to Page 2 allow a 'primary" office use in the development. Home occupations are permitted in the MMN District, which note I)d)i accounts for, but a 'primary" office use is not permitted in the District. 143 6eneral Note 1)a)iii on the PDP Cover Sheet (2 of 6) still does not restrict the type of proposed "food service uses" to accessory uses for the purpose of providing that service to the residents and tenants of the Bella Vista project. Anything resembling even a small fast food operation, with the intent to serve the general public, would be defined as a restaurant use, which is not permitted in the MMN District. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: 6eneral The b p-outs along Stanford need to either be extended south of the southern driveway, or reduced to fall short of the southern driveway. The present configuration is viewed as a concern by Transportation with regards to the right turn movement into the southern driveway and its interaction with the bikelane. The bump -outs along Stanford have been revised to transition between the two access drives. T ic. Grading 45 site grading and construction is shown occurring along the northern boundary of the site. A letter of intent from the property owner not objecting to the offsite work is required to be submitted prior to any public hearing for the project. [8/21] An unsigned Grant of Easement document was received. Per Stormwater, the document in concept is not acceptable. The necessary easement needs to be dedicated to the City using our standard City deed of dedication language. Also, because the Grant of Easement was unsigned, this does not serve as: a letter of intent, which is required prior to any hearing for the project. Page 3 The letter of intent will be signed and included as part of the submittal. Th contours and spot elevations on the averallgrading plan are difficult to read and should be shown better. The information also will not "scan" well. Discussion with irity Staff indicated that the contours and spot elevations are acceptable. XTheis an area along Stanford north of the site that is not shown on the overall or detailedgrading plan. The plans have been revised to include the area along Stanford north of the site indicating off -site grading. opi . P la t The evelopmeni needs to dedicate an access easement along Stanford Drive to ensure the sidewalk proposed is in an access easement. Additional right-of-way is not necessary. (2/20) It appears that additional access easement along Stanford Drive (and Horsetooth Road) is necessary to ensure that all of the proposed sidewalk is in easement. [8/21] Replace all instances of "sidewalk easement" with "access easement". Revised as requested. ,mum of 57.5' of half street right-of-way is required to be dedicated 9 Y along the entire length of the property with a consistent utility easement width, in conformance with LCUASS. It is understood that 9' instead of the 15' of necessary utility easement is being proposed behind the right-of-way; when all the design and utility issues are resolved along Horsetooth, the variance request for reduction in utility easement width will be routed to the utilities for approval. [8/21] With design issues outstanding and issues regarding retaining wall(s) over easements still in question, this issue is left as unresolved. Paac 4 Per coordination with City Staff, it was agreed that dry stack walls and landscaping could co -exist over the 9' utility easement provided utility company's are not held responsible for landscape, walls, etc. A note has been added to the overall utility plan, responding to this issue. 5 re may be a benefit in designating on the plat that the emergency access easement is for the "surface level" only. There may be issues from a title company on how the emergency access easement is represented as going through a building envelope. This has been reflected in the plat. [8/211 Further discussion with the City Surveyor suggests revising the label as a "surface grade level". An explanation on the plat may also be of benefit. These are more "suggestions" than requirements, the intent is to ensure that there are no issues with title or being able to pull a building permit. The requested change in language has been revised on the plat. 127 Building envelopes appear to encroach within easements Building envelopes need to be relocated outside of easements. Building envelopes previously shown were general and over -sized to accommodate bump -outs found around the perimeter of the buildings. To simplify the play; building envelopes have been removed. In no case, do building structures encroach within easements. Topic: Sidewalk The placement of the sidewalk requires a horizontal clearance of P and a vertical clearance of 8' from all fixed objects It appears that the proposed retaining wall(s) are of issue with this standard. To facilitate the P horizontal clearance, retaining walls and walks have been re -aligned. There are no instances of vertical clearance less than B' above the sidewalk. I Pa.e 5 Topic: Street Design 3)� Directional ramps are required on new construction in accordance with LCUASS. (Standard Drawing 16-40) Provide the detail on the plan set. (2/20) The response from the applicant stated that this could not be accommodated due to existing constraints. The design engineer should provide documentation on why this cannot be accomplished. Note that because of the right turn discussion, any previous limitations due to existing constraints may no longer be applicable. [8/21] The design engineer cited underground utilities and traffic control devices in the response letter as justification. Site visits and follow up discussion internal to City Engineering does not share the view that these are constraints. The: "constraints" appear for enough away to allow the placement of directional ramps with no modification to our standard drawings, or slight modification. Please note that since directional ramps are considered standard, documentation on why this cannot be accomplished needs to be in the form of a variance request. Directional pedestrian ramps have been provided as requested. right -turn lane: for westbound Horsetooth onto northbound Stanford still should be designed and constructed. There is a community wide benefit in the construction of the right turn lane, thus this is eligible for Street Oversizing reimbursement. The design of the right -turn lane should look at providing pedestrian refuge between the right -turn and through lane, especially since the width of Horsetooth would require a ped refuge under LCUASS. (2/20) The issue of the right turn lane was discussed at the City's 2/14 Transportation Coordination Meeting. It was viewed that the submitted justification for not designing the right turn lane was not compelling and that a right turn lane could be designed into the project. Please note that any written documentation regarding the designing of the right -turn lane should be provided by the design engineer (a licensed professional engineer.) Page 6 [8/211 The variance request is currently with Traffic Engineering. Noted. .Provide cross -sections on Horsetooth Road per LCUASS 3.3AC (at 50' intervals). (It appears that a straight-line grade from the crown of Horsetooth Road to the flowlline is not being provided as shown on the grading plan, cross - sections will help confirm or deny this.) (2/20) The cross section sheets need to have the centerline elevations labeled, the curb and gutter section should be distinguishable from the asphalt section, and the right-of-way should also be shown. [8/211 The cross sections need to show the sidewalk, especially with potential issues regarding its relationship to retaining walls. Because the detail for the inflow curb and gutter with the continuous pour bikelane is not to standard, the cross slope for the cross sections shown weren't evaluated. In addition, the cross sections weren't evaluated because the flowline design still does not meet standards (vertical curve, grade breaks, etc.) The cross sections have been revised to address these concerns. 1�6 Show centerline and flowline profiles on Horsetooth Road. (2/20) Can the grid lines or scale be modified in order to allow for every XX+00 stationing to be on a grid line? Only every 3rd XX+00 stationing is on a grid line. [8/211 The response from the design engineer indicates that this modification is time intensive. In researching, other plan sets at 30 scale do not have this issue. Please modify the drawings to reflect every XX+00 on a grid line. While this may be viewed as time consuming from the design engineer's perspective, it results in a more time consuming review for the review engineer. Profile grids have been revised as requested. Paee 7 3�� Provide the bearing and distance for the flowline on the plan view portion of the plan and profile sheet for Horsetooth Road. (2/20) This information isn't shown east of the driveway and only bearing (no distance) is being shown west of the driveway. [8/21] This information is required on the street design and is not a waived requirement if shown on the street striping plan. Horizontal control for the proposed flowline alignment along Horsetooth has been shown on the street sheet as well as the striping plan. A8 15' of utility easement is required along Horsetooth per LCUASS. An approved variance request is required to deviate from this. A variance request should be submitted to Engineering and will require approval from all the utilities in order to reduce the utility easement down to 9'. In addition, 9' of utility easement should be provided along Stanford Road. Again, a variance request should be submitted to Engineering and will require approval from all the utilities in order to eliminate this easement. [8/21] This comment is left as unresolved until all the design issues are worked out and agreed to by the utilities. It is my understanding that utilities have expressed concern with the placement of their utilities under retaining walls. This may require additional utility easement width to compensate. As per the most recent Utility Coordination Meeting, it was agreed by the City and Utilities that as long as they were not held responsible for replacement of landscape and structures above the easement, this would be acceptable. It should also be noted, that to date, there are no utilities located within this easement. 67. The "'bulb -outs" proposed on Stanford Drive may be allowed only if the gutter is redesigned to go around and along the bulb outs, not through them. There are maintenance concerns with the current proposal due to dirt and debris collecting between the bulb outs and the flowline. Page 8 [8/21] The bump outs need to show a flowline design and how it ties into the existing flowline along Stanford. In addition, cross sections on Stanford (as done with Horsetooth) should be done in order to verify adequate cross slopes are being maintained. Refer to plan sheet 18 of 25 for plan and profile of bump -out improvements along Stanford Road. 0 [12] The vertical curve shown is too short in length for the street classification of Horsetooth. A K value of 110 is required, 60 is shown. [8/21] There are vertical curves that still fall short of meeting standards. A# vertical curves now attain a K value of 110. [13] A vertical curve is needed for the Horsetooth proposed flowline as it approaches the existing storm lines. A grade break is shown with a 0.6% grade going to a 1.69% grade. [8/21] A grade break exceeding .4% is still shown. A# grade break:, are now. 4% or less. i, 71 Three variance requests were received regarding Bella Vista from Northern Engineering. The variance requesting the reduction insight distance along Stanford Drive, the variance to reduce the driveway spacing from 660' to 610', and the variance to reduce the utility easement along Horsetooth were all viewed favorably upon by the City Engineer. Final approval of these variance requests will occur with completion of the designs for Horsetooth and Stanford that are acceptable to the City and the utilities. It appears that redirects are too abrupt on the street striping plan. See traffic comments regarding this. Page 9 [s/211 The proposed travel lane signage doesn't appear to tie in very well with the existing signage east of the property. The existing lanes east of the site have been revised to transition into the proposed striping along the frontage of the site. 121 Street patching limits need to be revised as redlined (perpendicular to the direction of travel as well as to the edge or middle of a lane line.) The patching shown on Stanford Drive needs to be expanded from how it is currently shown, and may need to expand further in order to ensure proper cross slopes Street patching limits have been revised as requested. tow utility crossings and depth of utilities on the street plan and profile sheets A# utility crossings are now shown in the street plan and profile. 126 'The detail for the inflow curb andgutter along Horsetooth Road does not have sufficient depth along the gutter, please revise the detail as shown on the redlines As per coordination with City Staff, the inflow curb and gutter section has been revised as requested. 1,31 The "bump -outs"' along Stanford are required to be built with vertical curb and gutter in accordance with LCUASS. Please specify the use of vertical curb, with transitioning to the existing driveover curb. The bump -outs along Stanford have been revised to vertical curb and gutter. Topic: Structural 136 A structural engineer will be required to submit a signed and stamped letter indicating that the emergency access area (defined by the plat) is designed to Pane 10 support the live and dead loading of emergency services vehicles. This letter is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. The structural engineer should coordinate with PFA on the anticipated vehicles that will be staging in this area and follow up with information from the manufacturer(s) of the vehicle(s) on the loading specific to each vehicle(s). A follow up letter stating that the structure was constructed to meet these requirements will also be required prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. (This will also be stated in the Development Agreement for the project.) Topic: Utility plans 140 Please see redlines for additional comments/clarifications. Noted. Department: Light & Power Topic: Landscaping Issue Contact: Doug Martine 1 Street trees on the landscape plan must be adjusted to provide a minimum of 40 ft. clearance between trees and streetlights Z It is my understanding that the developer desires the electric transformer(s) to be placed immediately adjacent to the east side of the mechanical enclosure. This is acceptable to L&P, but the landscaping in this area will need to be adjusted to provide for the transformers The size of the transformers cannot be determined until the developer provides electric load information for each electric service at the site. Department: Natural Resources Topic: General 111 No Issues Issue Contact: Doug Moore Department: PFA Issue Contact: Ron Gonzales Topic: General 145 Although these ;rowers do not technically meet the height requirements stipulated in 97U9C for the High -Rise Provisions, the PFA would request the Page I I the sidewalk and create a combined bike/ped area behind the curb if the bikelane cannot be accomplished. 62 Add the following note as reference wherever patching is shown on the plans: Limits of street repair are approximate. Final limits to be determined in the field by the City Engineering Inspector. All repairs to be in accordance with City Street repair standards. Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Doug Martine Topic: Landscaping 1 Street trees on the landscape plan must be adjusted to provide a minimum of 40 ft. clearance between trees and streetlights. A streetlight plan has been sent to Steve Olt via inter -office mail. 2 It is my understanding that the developer desires the electric transformer(s) to be placed immediately adjacent to the east side of the mechanical enclosure. This is acceptable to L&P, but the landscaping in this area will need to be adjusted to provide for the transformers. The size of the transformers cannot be determined until the developer provides electric load information for each electric service at the site. Department: PFA Issue Contact: Ron Gonzales Topic: Plat 57 REQUIRED ACCESS: Due to the proposed heights of these edifices, a 30 foot wide fire lane is required for aerial operations. This fire lane shall be visible by painting and signage, and maintained unobstructed. A fire lane plan shall be submitted for approval prior to installation. 97UFC901.2.2.1;901.3;901.4.2;902.2.1 Admin.Policy85-5; FCLUC 3.6.6(D)3 ADDRESS NUMERALS Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the property, and posted with a minimum of 6 inch numerals on a contrasting background. The property shall be addressed from Stanford Drive. An address marquis shall be provided with 8" numerals. (Bronze numerals on brown brick are not acceptable).97UFC901.4.4 WATER SUPPLY Fire hydrants are required with a maximum spacing of 600 feet along an approved roadway. Each hydrant must be capable of delivering 1500 gallons of water per Page 5 applicant consider installing as many of these provisions for the safety of the occupants and the building. See 97UBC403 After meeting with PFA, the plans were revised to show striping indicating fire lanes throughout the upper deck parking. Topic: P/ot 57 REQUIRED ACCE:55: Due to the proposed heights of these edifices, a 30 foot wide fire lane is required for aerial operations. This fire lane shall be visible by painting and signage, and maintained unobstructed. A fire lane plan shall be submitted for approval prior to installation. 97UFC901.2.2.1;901.3;901.4.2;902.2.1 Admin.Policy85-5; FCLUC 3.6.6(D)3 After meeting with PFA, the plans were revised to show striping indicating fire lanes throughout the upper deck parking. ADDRESS NUMERALS Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the property, and posted with a minimum of 6 inch numerals on a contrasting background. The property shall beaddressed from Stanford Drive. An address marquis shall be provided with 8" numerals. (Bronze numerals on brown brick are not acceptable).97UFC901.4.4 WATER SUPPLY Fire hydrants are required with a maximum spacing of 600 feet along an approved roadway. Each hydrant must be capable of delivering 1500 gallons of water per minute: at a residual pressure of 20 psi. No commercial building can be greater than 300 feet from a fire hydrant. 97UFC901.2.2.2 Hydrants shown meet the required spacing requirement, in addition, a hydrant has been added adjacent to the upper deck parking, as requested by PFA. Verification has been requested of City Utilities for flow rates and residual pressure. This information is still pending. Knox Box Policy Poudre Fire Authority requires a "Knox Box" to be mounted on the front of every new building equipped with a required fire sprinkler system or fire alarm system. 97UFC902.4 PFAPOLICY88-20 Page 12 SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS: These proposed buildings shall be fire sprinklered. A fire pump may also be required, as well as standpipes for the building and the parking garage below grade. 97UBC Ventilation System: A 2-stage ventilation system shall be provided for the parking garage below grade. Stage One shall be tied to a Carbon Monoxide Detection System that will detect carbon monoxide at 50ppm over 8 hours and/or 200ppm over 1 hour and ventilate the garage. Stage Two shall provide ventilation for smoke removal in the event of a car fire. UBC1202.2.7 Department: Police Issue Contact: Joseph Gerdom Topic: General 9 Lighting Plan: The Luminaire schedule and luminaire detail don't provide sufficient information to determine exactly which lights are used in each location. Also, unless there are wall fixtures there is inadequate illumination between Bldg B d C,' east face of Bldg D; and north face of Bldg B. In general, all building access points should have minimum of 1 fc. 105 Issues addressed except for: no illumination information for south faces of Bldgs A d B Topic: Landscaping 10 Landscape Plan: The use of Austrian Pine, cotoneaster, and ninebark along the faces of Bldgs B, C, and D, particularly in front of public/private entrances will obscure these areas and raise security issues. Lower growing species, lighting, or some combination thereof would be recommended. Page 13 Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Basil Hamdan Topic: Construction Easements 80 The proposed 24' RCP across Horsetooth Rd will necessitate the construction of a headwall and part of the culvert on Tract D of The Landings 1st Filing. Prior to construction on this Tract owned by that HOA the contractor should make sure that the HOA is notified and that the area will be properly restored. Even though this area is in an existing drainage easement, the landings 1st Filing HOA that maintains this area should ensure that the area is put back to an acceptable level, equal or better than before construction. Notes have been added to the plan to ensure that the area disturbed is left in as good or better condition than before construction. Topic: Ditch Company Approval 87 Prior to allowing additional discharge from this site into Warren Lake, the warren Lake Ditch company must sign off on these plans Current plans and supporting documentation have been submitted to the Warren Lake Ditch Company and signature blocks have been added to the necessary plan sheets for their approval. Topic: Easements 129 The drainage pan proposed on the north end of the site extends into neighboring property. Please provide a drainage easement for that pan. The above -noted easement has been noted on the plat. Topic: Erosion Control 117 Second Review February 4, 2002 The plan still indicates straw bales on concrete and/or asphalt. This doesn't work, they float. Please correct. All instances of straw bales on concrete have been revised to gravel bag dikes. Paae 14 Your report/calculations call for mulching in certain areas of the project. Please spell out with a note on the plan what areas are to be seeded/mulched. Due to the site plan and construction schedule, no areas will require seeding and mulching, thus, no text or calculations /n the report call for seeding and mulching. Third Review August 22, 2002 Same comments as last time. Topic: Grading Plans 128 The larger scale grading plans are a bit disjointed and hard to follow while the smaller scale grading plans are too small to read. Please chose a scale that is more usable. After discussion and meeting with City Staff, /t was agreed that the grading plans are acceptable as presented. Please extend the grading plans to cover the area to the north of the site and tie into the existing site to the north along Stanford Rd. The grading plans have been adjusted to show the area north of the site. It seems that a portion of the driveway to the east of Building A could be draining unto the: building, please adjust. A proposed trench drain w//l intercept all runoff from the driveways into the underground parking garage. The high point in the east entrance off of Horsetooth seems to be shallow and flows from Horsetooth Rd could enter the site. The flows in the north flowl/ne of Horsetooth Road are nominal. Calculations have been provided to ensure street flows will not overtop into the Site. The east pond grading plans uses both absolute elevations and relative elevations to a 100,00 arbitrary datum. Please remove relative elevations from the plans. The grading plans in this area have been revised to prevent confusion. Page 15 Topic: Line 6 capacity 135 Line 6 has several locations where the water surface elevations is very close to or exceeds the ground floor elevation. Please consider the use of larger diameter pipe to eliminate such a condition. As discussed in a previous memo, this storm sewer primarily drains the covered parking garage from nuisance flows, thus, the "100-yr" H6L is not a true "100-yr H6L_ Notes have been added to help clarify this. Topic: Sewer Line Crossing 134 Line 6 seems to have a sewer line crossing that is below the required 18" clearance. Please check with Wastewater as to what minimum separation would be acceptable to them. Per a meeting with Jeff Hill, Roger Buffington and Basil Hamdan, it was deemed that 12"' C-900 PVC for Storm Line Cr would make this crossing acceptable. Topic: Storm Line Across Horsetooth 118 It seems that the proposed storm line across Horsetooth Rd could impact the existing Evergreen tree on the south side of Horsetooth. Please show the location of that tree compared to the proposed line on the utility plan and clarify whether that tree is to be preserved. Tim Buchanan of the City Forestry Department has been contacted. At his direction, tree protection notes have been added to the plans. Topic: Storm Line Alignment 132 It seems that Ore storm line going from the east water quality pond to the west one is shown to be under building envelopes Please make sure all storm sewers are outside of building envelopes. The plat no longer includes building envelopes, furthermore, Storm Line 8 has been removed from the design plans. Page 16 Topic: Water Line Crossing 133 Please show the crossing of the water line on the sanitary sewer profile of Storm Line E The crossing referred to above is now shown on the plans. Topic: Water 42uality Pond 120 It seems that the retaining walls of the water quality pond overlap an existing sewer line. Those concrete walls are considered permanent structures and thus would not be allowed to straddle the existing sanitary line and easement. This issue was resolved at a meeting on September 25, 2002_ All vertical walls have been moved outside of the sanitary sewer easements. Please provide a concrete reinforcing detail with all the appropriate dimensions for the water quality outlet boxes. Reinforcement and dimensioning have been added to the outlet details. Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Mark Jackson Topic: General 106 I understand this is not my call. That being said, I have serious reservations about the mid -block crossing shown on Stanford Rd. This is in my opinion a terrible end -around way of technically meeting Pedestrian LOS, rather than doing it correctly. Noted. 107 Will a ramp cut be made on the west end of Stanford Rd. at the new mid -block crossing? It is unclear from the site d utility plan. Please provide ramp cut. A ramp cut is shown on the west side of Stanford Road for the mid -block crossing. Pagc 17 108 Can we provide appropriate signage warning motorists of the mid -block pedestrian crossinys2 A pedestrian crossing sign has been added in both directions along Stanford Road for this crossing. Refer to sheet 19 of 25. Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Topic: General 109 Provide steel casing around proposed water main at multiple storm sewer crossing. Include detail on detod sheet. Steel casing and detail have been added to the ponds. 110 No permanent structures are allowed in sanitary sewer easement (I.e. retaining walls, headwalls, etc.). Structures and walls have been removed from the sanitary sewer easement. 112 Are 1.5" water services adequate for these size of buildingsP Provide flow demand calculations for our review. Provide separate water and sewer services for residential and commercial uses Flow demands are currently being analyzed for these buildings. Once complete, any new information will be reflected on the overall utility plan. 113 Pro vide grease traps for all food preparation facilities There will be no food preparation on this Site. 114 Provide concrete encasement of all sewers which cross above or within 18- inches vertically of water lines Clearly define this on plans Show all water, storm and sanitory sewer crossings in all profile views Concrete encasements have been added where necessary. Pagc 18 115 Maintain 4 feet of separation between outside wall of meter pit and all permanent structures Four feet minimum is provided between permanent structures and outside wall of meter pits. 116 It is unacceptable to have multiple underground storm sewers cross at a sanitary sewer crossing. The multiple crossings have been reduced to a single crossing. Topic: Landscaping 48 Repeat Comment: Coordinate landscape design with the civil design and provide the required landscape/utility separation distances. Correctly show all existing and proposed water/sewer mains and services on the landscape plans With the tight constraints on this site we would be willing to relax our separation requirements, however we will not allow landscaping to be placed directly on top of our facilitates. Please consider the placement of shrubs and trees to minimize the impact to our facilities. Topic: Utility plans 54 Repeat Comment: Maintain 18-inches of vertical separation between all water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer crossings. With exception to Storm Line G, all crossings provide for 18" of vertical separation. Where Storm Line G intersects the existing 8" sanitary sewer, it was agreed by City Utilities that the implementation of C-900 PVC over the existing sewer main with high -density foam between, would be acceptable. 92 Repeat Comment: Place all curb stops and meter pits adjacent to the main when at all possible. Curb stops must be located within a utility easement. Water and sewer services must be perpendicular to the main when possible. Utility easements have been provided for the proposed curb stops. Curb stops and meter pits have been relocated, adjacent to the main where Page 19 possible. Water and sewer services are perpendicular to the main, in all cases. 94 Repeat Comment: Clearly define all water main joint deflection (I.e. Vertical, Horizontal, Beginning, ending, etc.). Is entire length of proposed 8-inch water main to be lowered. Water main deflections have been clarified. Department, Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes Topic: zoning 3 REPEAT, REPEAT COMMENT (8-6-02). The latest revision of General Note 1(d)(ii) has replaced the term "live/work office type units" with some lengthy explanation of some sort of office use. Since the only type of office use allowed without a Type 2 review is a home occupation office, and since General Note 1(d)(i) lists home occupations, please just delete 1(d)(ii). The way they've described it just complicates things and leaves open the possibility of a disagreement over its intent. The bottom line is that if the office use complies with the home occupation ordinance, then it's allowed, and since note 1(d)(i) covers home occupations, NOTHING ELSE NEEDS TO BE SAID. REPEAT COMMENT (1-31-02). General note 1(d)(ii) lists "live/work office type units" as a possible use. What is that? No such term. Is it the same as a home occupation? The explanation of what this is in their 1-29-02 letter is interesting, but it doesn't change anything. Our code contains no such use, therefore the use is not allowed (4.5(C) prohibits any use that is not expressly allowed). It still seems to me that what they are describing on sheet 1 of 6 is a home occupation, which is permitted and is listed by them on general note 1(d)(i). This type: of comment is common from Zoning whenever an applicant lists a use that is not defined. For example, we make the same comment relative to an applicant that lists "townhomes" as a permitted use. Since there is no such defined term, we require them to remove it. If they really want to allow offices in the building that are not within a dwelling unit (home occupation), then they should do a Type 2 review in order to obtain approval for things like offices, dry cleaners, hair salons. Page 20 6 REPEAT, REPEAT COMMENT (8-6-02) - General note 1(d)(iii) regarding small food service uses has now been replaced by another lengthy description of a use that I still don't think is permitted in the MMN zone. It seems to be saying that they can have a "food service use" (no longer limited to ready -to -eat) as long as the food preparation area is less than 1500 sf. I would interpret a "food service use." with a food preparation area as a RESTAURANT. There are 6000 and 7000 sf full service restaurants with about 1500 sf of food preparation area; so what would prevent a full service restaurant from locating in the building. There are now convenience retail stores that have Subways, Taco Bells, etc inside them. Those operations are not considered to be "ready - to -eat" food products. So I don't know what they are trying to describe as a use. THERE IS NO SUCH USE IN THE CODE AS A "FOOD SERVICE USE BEYOND READY -TO -EAT", and they must only use terms that we have in the Code. The only way we can come up with new terms or uses is by a Code amendment, not be a listing on a PDP. If it operates as a restaurant as defined in the Code, then the only way it is allowed is if it is accessory, meaning that the restaurant must serve only the residences of the building. If that's what they want to allow, then it should be stated just that way. If that's not what is intended, then it's not allowed and the note must be removed. No building permit or CO will be issued for anything that is classified as a restaurant use. REPEAT COMMENT (1-31-02) - General note 1(d)(iii) - small food service uses listed are not classified as accessory uses. Therefore, they are not permitted in the MMN zone:. (the only way they can be remotely "accessory" is if they serve only the residences of the building, and are not open to the "public"). I've read the explanation in the applicant's 1-29-02 letter, but I don't agree. For instance, would a Sushi Bar really be accessory, serving the tenants of the building? I doubt it would remain in business very long with such a small customer base. The following comments and concerns were expressed at staff review on August 2-rf: p".�e 21 minute at a residual pressure of 20 psi. No commercial building can be greater than 300 feet from a fire hydrant. 97UFC901.2.2.2 Knox Box Policy Poudre Fire Authority requires a "Knox Box" to be mounted on the front of every new building equipped with a required fire sprinkler system or fire alarm system. 97UFC902.4 PFAPOLICY88-20 SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS: These proposed buildings shall be fire sprinklered. A fire pump may also be required, as well as standpipes for the building and the parking garage below grade. 97UBC Ventilation System: A 2-stage ventilation system shall be provided for the parking garage below grade. Stage One shall be tied to a Carbon Monoxide Detection System that will detect carbon monoxide at 50ppm over 8 hours and/or 200ppm over 1 hour and ventilate the garage. Stage Two shall provide ventilation for smoke removal in the event of a car fire. UBC1202.2.7 Department: Police Issue Contact: Joseph Gerdom Topic: General 9 Lighting Plan: The Luminaire schedule and luminaire detail don't provide sufficient information to determine exactly which lights are used in each location. Also, unless there are wall fixtures there is inadequate illumination between Bldg. B & C; east face of Bldg. D; and north face of Bldg. B. In general, all building access points should have minimum of 1 fc. Topic: Landscaping 10 Landscape Plan: The use of Austrian Pine, cotoneaster, and ninebark along the faces of Bldg. B, C, and D, particularly in front of public/private entrances will obscure these areas and raise security issues. Lower growing species, lighting, or some combination thereof would be recommended. Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Topic: Erosion Control 15 The report table of contents doesn't have the correct page numbers for the erosion control report. Page 6 Transportation Planning The mid -block crossing on Stanford Road is of concern. A handicapped romp probably is needed on the west end of this crossing. Also, appropriate signage must be provided! This development will be responsible for the construction of a new sidewalk off - site on the east side of Stanford Road, north to the Aspen Leaf Apartments entry only. Engineering There are lots of technical issues still unresolved. The length of vertical curve on Stanford Road is not sufficient. Reduce or expand the "bump out" along Stanford Road. The patching limits for both East Horsetooth Road and Stanford Road need to be revised. A letter of intent from the adjacent property owner for drainage along the north property khe is needed before the item can go to a public hearing. Show the needed additionalgrading at the northwest corner of the site. Utility crossings are needed for East Horse tooth Road. The westbound right -turn lone is not needed at this time; however, the right- of-way necessary for a future turn lane must be dedicated at this time. The applicant was asked to re -submit copies of the subdivision plat but none were submitted with this lost round of review. The applicant's engineer did not respond to some of staffs comments with this last round of review. Page 22 Water/Wastewater Maintain a minimum 10' separation between the detention area wall and the sanitary sewer near the southwest corner of the site. The water main is shown to be under multiple storm sewers and, therefore, it must be encased. Light d Power Some buildings ai-e almost to the edge of the street right-of-way. All utilities must be shown on the plans so that any potential conflicts can be identified and addressed. Dry utilities utilized by this project have been added to the overall utility plan. There will be just one point of service for each building. One point of service is provided per building. Poudre Fire Authorit There will be just one point of water service for fire flows for each building. Services have been reduced to one per building. Engineering should verify the structural calculations for the parking structure based on the live and dead loads The utility plans show 4" fire services• however, 6"services are needed. 6" fire services are now shown. Stormwater Stormwater is not sure how the utility conflicts will work Page 23 The stormsewer is being shown to go under retaining walls for Buildings A and B. This is not allowed. The storm sewer line has been eliminated from the plans. There are trees within 5' of the stormsewer on the south side of East Horsetooth Rood The proposed stormsewer would eliminate at least one large Blue Spruce. Can this be done and will mitigation be required2 The Landscape Plan must show all existing off -site trees at the southeast corner of the East Horsetooth Road - Landings Drive intersection and how they will be affected. The grading plans are still very confusing and difficult to read. It was agreed after meeting with City Staff, that the grading plans as presented are acceptable. Planning The Landscape Plan must show all existing off -site trees that will be affected by this development plan and indicate what is intended for each one. Will they be retained, relocated, removed, mitigated, etc.? Staff has determined that, because of the changes to the development plan and lingering questions and concerns expressed by residents in the area, another neighborhood information meeting should be held very soon. Staffs opinion is that it is imperative that the developers and/or their design consultants be present at this meeting. The Current Planning Department will work with the applicants to schedule the meeting. The current Photometric Study shows many points on the site that exceed the maximum allowed foot-candles generated by the site lighting as set forth in Section 324(C) of the Land Use Code. What is the reason for this.' Page 24 This completes staff comments at this time. Additional comments may be forthcoming. This development request is subject to the 90-day revision re - submittal (from the date of this comment letter) as set forth in Section 2.2.11(A) of the Land Use Code. Be sure and return all of your redlined plans when you re -submit. If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project, please feel free to call me at (970)221-6341. Yours Truly, Steve Olt, City Planner Page 25 REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: October 30, 2002 TO: Technical Services PROJECT: #45-01A Bella Vista PDP - Type I (LUC) All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: ryM anG November 20, 2002 No Continent Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) "PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE'' ?,,0% A 2, P(EfiS� AESGR{e> RCL 4ou'8oa�Q �d SC C-1",d,"'Y-licCcSS �5"'^1 l CC, t�,�f Pla�r HERE T YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF RFPISIONFSignatu Plat- - Utifity _ Redline UW'ty —LMISW � S o ffsi ?e . Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments City of Fort Collins Department: Engineering Date: November 20, 2002 Project: BELLA VISTA PDP, TYPE I (LUC) All comments must be received by STEVE OLT in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: November 20, 2002 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Marc Virata _ Topic: General-- 149 The sidewalk that continues north of this site along Stanford appears to impact an existing tree and landscape bed that is not reflected on the plan set. Will the tree be relocated? 150 The cross sections on the utility plan set now show the sidewalk in this view. The cross section on station 11+50 shows the sidewalk as sloped away from the street. This is not per standards as the sidewalk is required to slope towards the street at 1/4" per foot. There is a general concern about this occurrence because of the transition that takes place, resulting in a section of sidewalk with no slope. Because the flowline grade of the street at this section is less than 1%, there is a concern that there is not enough grade on the sidewalk in this area. 1/4" per foot cross slope sloped to the street (for public sidewalk) is required to be maintained on Horsetooth and Stanford, why is this proposed otherwise? Please provide LCUASS Standard Drawing 7-20B in the details sheet. 151 Because of the proposed placement of the permanent wall structure in the utility easement, the City is requiring the following note be placed on the plat and will require this same note in the Development Agreement for the project. Upon receipt of written request from the City or any other utility agency occupying the 9-foot utility easement along Horsetooth Road for the removal and/or replacement for utility purposes of the retaining wall, or for the removal of any other permanent structures as shown on the Final Development Plan Documents located within Signature Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site Drainage Report Other_ Utility Redline Utility Landscape Page 1 said 9-foot utility easement, the Developer/Owner and/or its successors and assigns (hereafter the "Developer") shall promptly comply with such request by performing the work requested. In the event that the Developer Should fail to perform the aforesaid obligation within 60 days following receipt of said written request, then the City or such other utility shall have the right to remove and/or replace such structures and the cost thereof shall be borne by the Developer which cost, until paid, shall accrue interest at the rate of 8% per annum. If the Developer shall fail to make reimbursement for such costs within 30 days of receipt of a written accounting of cost, then, if demand for removal and/or replacement was from the City, electric service to the development may be discontinued until payment is made; and if the request for removal and/or replacement was from another Utility, such utility service as provided by said utility may be discontinued until payment is made. In addition, the City and/or such other utility shall have a right of action against the Developer in damages for recovery of any such cost incurred by the City or such other utility. 155 At the 11/13/02 neighborhood meeting it was suggested by some of the residents of the Cove Island neighborhood that a raised median be provided that allows a storage area for residents turning left out of Spindrift Court. In discussing this with the Traffic Engineer, the singular median design will cause problems. If a design creating medians is desired, a channelized "T" intersection design should be looked at as specified in AASHTO. Keep in mind that this design would require medians on both sides of the protective left turn pocket(s) and the medians would need to be a minimum of 4' in width; additional right-of-way width is needed along the center area (only 12' exists which is the bare minimum amount for a left turn lane with no medians) which would result in longer transitions along the existing lanes. In addition, the length of the medians in order for a channelized "T" to work would more than likely extend medians past the 3/4 movement into Bella Vista off of Horsetooth. Further investigation of this design should be coordinated between Northern Engineering and the City Traffic Engineer. 158 Coordinate the name of the project, is it "Bellavista PDP" or "Bella Vista PDP"? Ensure the title is consistent on all documents. Topic: Grading 45 Offsite grading and construction is shown occurring along the northern boundary of the site. A letter of intent from the property owner not objecting to the offsite work is required to be submitted prior to any public hearing for the project. I8/21 ] An unsigned Grant of Easement document was received. Per Stormwater, the document in concept is not acceptable. The necessary easement needs to be dedicated to the City using our standard City deed of dedication language. Also, because the Grant of Easement was unsigned, this does not serve as a letter of intent, which is required prior to any hearing for the project. [ 1 1/20] Checking with Current Planning, a letter of intent was apparently not received Topic: Plat 127 Building envelopes appear to encroach within easements. Building envelopes need to be relocated outside of easements. Page 2 [11/201 It appears that encroachments still exists for both walls and buildings, especially into the sanitary sewer easement. Please bear in mind that walls along Horsetooth over 4 feet in height will require a permit from the Building and Zoning Department and they would not issue a permit for a wall that encroaches into an easement. Topic: Street Design 71 Three variance requests were received regarding Bella Vista from Northern Engineering. The variance requesting the reduction in sight distance along Stanford Drive, the variance to reduce the driveway spacing from 660' to 610', and the variance to reduce the utility easement along Horsetooth were all viewed favorably upon by the City Engineer. Final approval of these variance requests will occur with completion of the designs for Horsetooth and Stanford that are acceptable to the City and the utilities. 121 Street patching limits need to be revised as redlined (perpendicular to the direction of travel as well as to the edge or middle of a lane line.) The patching shown on Stanford Drive needs to be expanded from how it is currently shown, and may need to expand further in order to ensure proper cross slopes. [11/20] The patching on Stanford Drive should be revised as redlined (see sheet 3 of 25). 156 Indicate on the detail for the monolithic vertical curb and gutter that the cross slope for the bikelane shall be greater than or equal to the asphalt section, while being between 2-3%. Topic: Utility plans 152 Clarify whether the striping shown on Stanford is existing or proposed. 153 It appears that there are electric facilities that should be in an utility easement 154 Portions of Building C and a wall appear to be within the existing City Sanitary Sewer Easement. If this encroachment is allowed by City utilities, it would appear that portions of this easement would at least have to be vacated because of the building. Page 3 Project Comments Sheet iz Selected Departments Citv of Fort Collins Department: Stormwater Utility Date: November 22, 2002 Project: BELLA VISTA PDP, TYPE I (LUC) All comments must be received by STEVE OLT in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: November 20, 2002 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Basil Harridan Topic: Ditch Company Approval 87 Prior to allowing additional discharge from this site into Warren Lake, the warren Lake Ditch company must sign off on these plans. Topic: Drainage Plan 162 Please correct the labeling of the contours south of buildings A, B and C so that they are not upside down. Topic: Easements 129 The drainage pan proposed on the north end of the site extends into neighboring property. Please provide a drainage easement for that pan. If the existing easement on the Strachan Subdivision First Filing is to be used, then please provide a written approval from the owners of that property for the construction activities that are to take place within that existing easement. Topic: Grading 161 Please clarify what off -site grading will be done to the north of the entrance drive off of Stanford Rd., if grading is to be done outside of ROW easements may be required. Topic: Hearing 165 This project is ready for hearing from Stormwater's perspective as soon as letter of intent is obtained for the drainage easement on the Aspen Leaf Apts property, and when the City forester indicates that he is satisfied with the tree protection measures that are needed to protect the large conifer tree that is close to the storm sewer outfall into Warren Lake. Topic: Notes 160 Signatu a Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat x Site x Drainage Report Other Utility Redline Utility x Landscape Page 1 Please add notes to the plans, stating that the water quality ponds and the stormceptor are to be maintained by the developer or HOA. Topic: Storm Line Across Horsetooth 118 It seems that the proposed storm line across Horsetooth Rd could impact the existing Evergreen tree on the south side of Horsetooth. Please add tee protection measures such as coonstruction fencing to the utility plans, please add tree protection notes to the utility plans (not only the landscape plans) as directed by the City forester. Topic: Storm Line E1 163 It seems that the publicly maintained Storm Line E1 will be crossing a landscaping planter box. Please add a note that it is the responsibility of the developer to replace that box and the landscaping if that line would need to be dug up by the City in the future. Topic: Utility plans 159 Please call out the C-900 12" line as a plastic pipe on the utility plans, not an RCP Page 2 Your plan calls for straw bale inlet filters at a number of locations. Straw bales do not work on concrete or asphalt surfaces. When are these to be installed, after inlet construction but prior to hard surfacing? You need to spell the intent out with notes on the plan. What is to protect Warren Lake during the construction of the outlet drain piping system and the roadway (Horsetooth) construction? All of these and water quality pond #1 seem to be outside the limits of your erosion control BMP's. The surety is calculated incorrectly with regard to reseeding/mulching. Also, $1.30/If on silt fencing is pretty cheap. Who does it for that, you? Topic: General 16 Please revise the general notes section to apply to this project and the city of Fort Collins. Please check that the benchmarks referenced are the closest to the site. 17 Please provide a signature block for the Warren Lake Owner. Please provide construction/ drainage easements on the south side of Horsetooth Rd. 20 Please specify on the plans where maintenance responsibility changes from property owner to City of Fort Collins. 22 The minimum pipe size is 15" according to the Storm Drainage Design Criteria or storm sewers maintained by the City. Also, class III RCP is required under all city streets. Please revise the storm sewer system to meet the minimum criteria. 23 All swales and ponds require a concrete pan when slopes are less than 2%. Please revise plans. 25 Please provide pond depth markers where water is more than 3 ft. deep. Please include the depth marker detail in the plans. 27 Please specify which pipes are pressure sealed on plans. Consider resizing pipes to minimize pressurized areas. Topic: Grading 18 Please maintain a maximum of 4:1 grading on site. Currently the west entrance area and west detention ponds have slopes greater than allowed. Page 7 I ftN Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments Citv of Fort Collins Department: Water Wastewater Date: November 25, 2002 Project: BELLA VISTA PDP, TYPE I (LUC) All comments must be received by STEVE OLT in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: November 20, 2002 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Topic: General 109 Steel casing on the proposed water main must extend 5 feet clear beyond storm sewer crossings. 112 Repeat comment: Are 1.5' water services adequate for these size of buildings? Provide flow demand calculations for our review. Provide separate water and sewer services for residential and commercial uses. 115 Repeat Comment: Maintain 4 feet of separation between outside wall of meter pit and all permanent structures. L"T It is unacceptable to havemuftiple underground storm sewers erQ�s3nitarysewer crossing. 169 Maintain a 10 feet separation between the proposed fire hydrant/lateral and electric transformer/main. 92 Repeat Comment: Place all curb stops and meter pits adjacent to the main when at all possible. Curb stops must be located within a utility easement. Water and sewer services must be perpendicular to the main when possible. 94 Water mains may not be joint deflected to a depth of 8 feet. Use fitting to lower the proposed 8-inch water main in Horsetooth. Provide all information necessary for the lowering. See site, landscape and utility plans for other comments. CHECK HERE Date IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site Drainage Report Other, Utility Redline Utility Landscape Page 1 Project Comments Sheet 6-z - . Selected Departments City of Port Collins Department: Engineering Date: November 25, 2002 Project: BELLA VISTA PDP, TYPE I (LUC) All comments must be received by STEVE OLT in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: November 20, 2002 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General 149 The sidewalk that continues north of this site along Stanford appears to impact an existing tree and landscape bed that is not reflected on the plan set. Will the tree be relocated? 150 The cross sections on the utility plan set now show the sidewalk in this view. The cross section on station 11+50 shows the sidewalk as sloped away from the street. This is not per standards as the sidewalk is required to slope towards the street at 1/4" per foot. There is a general concern about this occurrence because of the transition that takes place, resulting in a section of sidewalk with no slope. Because the flowline grade of the street at this section is less than 1 %, there is a concern that there is not enough grade on the sidewalk in this area. 1 /4" per foot cross slope sloped to the street (for public sidewalk) is required to be maintained on Horsetooth and Stanford, why is this proposed otherwise? Please provide LCUASS Standard Drawing 7-20B in the details sheet. 151 Because of the proposed placement of the permanent wall structure in the utility easement, the City is requiring the following note be placed on the plat and will require this same note in the Development Agreement for the project. Upon receipt of written request from the City or any other utility agency occupying the 9-foot utility easement along Horsetooth Road for the removal and/or replacement for utility purposes of the retaining wall, or for the removal of any other permanent structures as shown on the Final Development Plan Documents located within Signature Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISION Plat ✓ Site Drainage Report Other eJ ,-�`,�af<<- / Utility / Redline Utility Landscape Page I said 9-foot utility easement, the Developer/Owner and/or its successors and assigns (hereafter the "Developer") shall promptly comply with such request by performing the work requested. In the event that the Developer Should fail to perform the aforesaid obligation within 60 days following receipt of said written request, then the City or such other utility shall have the right to remove and/or replace such structures and the cost thereof shall be borne by the Developer which cost, until paid, shall accrue interest at the rate of 8% per annum. If the Developer shall fail to make reimbursement for such costs within 30 days of receipt of a written accounting of cost, then, if demand for removal and/or replacement was from the City, electric service to the development may be discontinued until payment is made; and if the request for removal and/or replacement was from another utility, such utility service as provided by said utility may be discontinued until payment is made. In addition, the City and/or such other utility shall have a right of action against the Developer in damages for recovery of any such cost incurred by the City or such other utility. 155 At the 11/13/02 neighborhood meeting it was suggested by some of the residents of the Cove Island neighborhood that a raised median be provided that allows a storage area for residents turning left out of Spindrift Court. In discussing this with the Traffic Engineer, the singular median design will cause problems. If a design creating medians is desired, a channelized "T" intersection design should be looked at as specified in AASHTO. Keep in mind that this design would require medians on both sides of the protective left turn pocket(s) and the medians would need to be a minimum of 4' in width; additional right-of-way width is needed along the center area (only 12' exists which is the bare minimum amount for a left turn lane with no medians) which would result in longer transitions along the existing lanes. In addition, the length of the medians in order for a channelized "T" to work would more than likely extend medians past the 3/4 movement into Bella Vista off of Horsetooth. Further investigation of this design should be coordinated between Northern Engineering and the City Traffic Engineer. 158 Coordinate the name of the project; is it "Bellavista PDP" or "Bella Vista PDP"? Ensure the title is consistent on all documents. 168 The raised planter bed, within the proposed access easement, (now evident on the street design cross section sheet) is a potential concern with any future widening for a right turn lane, as it may be in the way for a future realigned sidewalk. It is preferred that the raised planter bed be removed. If the applicant desires it to remain, development agreement language may need to be worked on illustrating that any future construction of Horsetooth may result in the planter bed having to be removed at the expense of the property owner. Topic: Grading 45 Offsite grading and construction is shown occurring along the northern boundary of the site. A letter of intent from the property owner not objecting to the offsite work is required to be submitted prior to any public hearing for the project. [8/21 ] An unsigned Grant of Easement document was received. Per Stormwater, the document in concept is not acceptable. The necessary easement needs to be dedicated to the City using our standard City deed of dedication language. Also, because the Grant of Easement was unsigned, this does not serve as a letter of intent, which is required prior to any hearing for the project. Page 2 [1 1 /201 Checking with Current Planning, a letter of intent was apparently not received Topic: Plat 127 Building envelopes appear to encroach within easements. Building envelopes need to be relocated outside of easements. [11/20] It appears that encroachments still exists for both walls and buildings, especially into the sanitary sewer easement. Please bear in mind that walls along Horsetooth over 4 feet in height will require a permit from the Building and Zoning Department and they would not issue a permit for a wall that encroaches into an easement. Topic: Street Design 71 Three variance requests were received regarding Bella Vista from Northern Engineering. The variance requesting the reduction in sight distance along Stanford Drive, the variance to reduce the driveway spacing from 660' to 610', and the variance to reduce the utility easement along Horsetooth were all viewed favorably upon by the City Engineer. Final approval of these variance requests will occur with completion of the designs for Horsetooth and Stanford that are acceptable to the City and the utilities. 121 Street patching limits need to be revised as redlined (perpendicular to the direction of travel as well as to the edge or middle of a lane line.) The patching shown on Stanford Drive needs to be expanded from how it is currently shown, and may need to expand further in order to ensure proper cross slopes. [11/20] The patching on Stanford Drive should be revised as redlined (see sheet 3 of 25). According to the City Engineering Pavement Manager, the street was recently redone and a mill and inlay for this section is likely. 153 The cross slopes indicated for Horsetooth Road on the cross sections sheets do not appear to match calculated values based on elevations and widths indicated. Despite this, the cross slope values still appear to fall within City criteria, with the exception of Station 10+00, which appears to fall below 2%. 156 Indicate on the detail for the monolithic vertical curb and gutter that the cross slope for the bikelane shall be greater than or equal to the asphalt section, while being between 2-3%. 167 Please provide a detail on the details sheet indicating the area where the bikelane terminates and leads onsite combined with the sidewalk. Design of this area should keep in mind drainage along Horsetooth, containing the flows on the street and preventing flows from entering the sidewalk to the extent feasible. The bike "ramp" between the street and the sidewalk should have a curb along either side of the ramp. Page 3 Topic: Utility plans 152 Clarify whether the striping shown on Stanford is existing or proposed. 154 Portions of Building C and a wall appear to be within the existing City Sanitary Sewer Easement. If this encroachment is allowed by City utilities, it would appear that portions of this easement would at least have to be vacated because of the building. Page 4 er Project Comments Sheet 11062aiisil' Selected Departments C itcut Iurt Collins Department: Water Wastewater Date: November 25, 2002 Project: BELLA VISTA PDP, TYPE 1 (LUC) All comments must be received by STEVE OLT in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: November 20, 2002 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Topic: General 109 Steel casing on the proposed water main must extend 5 feet clear beyond storm sewer crossings. 112 Repeat comment: Are 1.5" water services adequate for these size of buildings? Provide flow demand calculations for our review. Provide separate water and sewer services for residential and commercial uses. 115 Repeat Comment: Maintain 4 feet of separation between outside wall of meter pit and all permanent structures. 4-W Maintain a 10 feet separation between the proposed fire hydrant/lateral and electric transformer/main. 92 Repeat Comment: Place all curb stops and meter pits adjacent to the main when at all possible. Curb stops must be located within a utility easement. Water and sewer services must be perpendicular to the main when possible. 94 Water mains may not be joint deflected to a depth of 8 feet. Use fitting to lower the proposed 8-inch water main in Horsetooth. Provide all information necessary for the lowering. See site, landscape and utility plans for other comments. /-:2- 0 Date HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Alm Plat _ 2�- Site Drainage Report Other '_ Utility _� Redline Utility V Landscape Page I December 20, 2002 Steve Olt City of Fort Collins Community Planning P.O. Box 580 and Environmental Services Fort Collins, CO 80522 Go����caa o 0 urban design, inc. 3555 stanford road, suite 105 fort Collins, Colorado 80525 (970) 226-4074 fax (970) 226-4196 e@cityscapeud.com RE: Bella Vista PDP — November 27, 2002, PDP Review Comments Dear Steve; Included below are the November 27, 2002 comments received from City Staff regarding the revised Bella Vista Project Development Plan (initially submitted November 28, 2001; previous revisions were submitted January 29, 2002, July 31, and October 28, 2002). Applicant responses to the City Staff comments are in a bold "Arial" font. ISSUES: Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt Topic: General The buildings in the Bella Vista project have been decreased in height somewhat from the last submittal of the plans. However, the Shadow Analysis that was resubmitted does not reflect any less of a shadow cast onto the Aspen Leaf Apartments to the north and cast. There appears to be a significant shadow impact to the Aspen Leaf Apartments parking lot and two of the buildings. How does this satisfy the criteria set forth in Section 32.3(D) of the LUC? A revised shadow analysis — reflecting the most recent reductions in building height — is included with this submittal. 146 The buildings (A thin D) vary in height from 64' for Buildings A & B to 65'+ for Building C. Tlus is based on Section 3.8. l7(A)(1) - Building Height Measured in Feet in the City's Land Use Code (LUC). Buildings A & B are 5 stories + a loft on all sides; however, Building C is 5 stories + a loft on the east and north sides but is 6 stories + a loft from the south and west (street) sides. Based on the existing conditions on surrounding properties in the C - Commercial, E - Employment, MMN - Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood, and RL - Low Density Residential Districts. staffs position at this time is that the project does not satisfy the criteria set forth in Section I.S. 17(A)(3) - Contextual Height in the Land Use Code. Page I urban design, inc. 11/26/02 - City staff had previously instructed the applicant/developer to verify the actual height of the Marriott Hotel in feet, not stories (being used as the highest "contextual height" building in the area) and demonstrate this project's contextual compatibility with that comparative height in feet. The City's project planner, development review engineer, and survey crew were at the Marriott Hotel on 11/26/02 to measure the height of the building in feet. Based on heights shot by instrument on the northwest, northeast, and southeast sides of the building, it has been determined that the hotel building is 60.5' in height. Prior to the second Neighborhood Meeting, we have no record of previously being "instructed" to verify the actual height of the Marriott. While City Staff's method of measuring the height does not exactly match LUC provisions requiring an average of finish grades on all sides of the building; Staff's conclusions are not greatly different (approximately V) than our revised measurements. As per our December 13th meeting with City Staff we have agreed upon 61' as the actual height in feet of the Marriott. Revised building elevations meeting the agreed upon height requirements are included with this submittal. Building 'A' has been reduced by one floor; and the loftimezzanine levels have been eliminated from the redesigned upper floors of the other buildings so that — except for elevator towers and some minor ornamental elements — the maximum building heights are 61'. It states in Section 3.8.17(A)(3) that:....The allowed "contextual" height may fall at any point between the zone district maximum height limit and the height of a building that exists on lots that are adjacent to the subject Iot.....The maximum building height in the MMN Zoning District is 3 stories (commonly no more than 40' to 45' in height) and the height of the tallest building in this area is 60.5'. The 5' (+/-) difference between the buildings in the Bella Vista project and the Marriott Hotel doestion of the LUC. The applicant has the option to request it modification of the standard set forth in Section 4.5(E)(I)(d) of the LUC regarding building height in the MMN District The proposed buildings at BellaVista conform to the Contextual Height provisions (3.8.17(A)(3) of the Land Use Code in that they include the same or fewer stories than the six story Marriott Hotel that exists on a lot adjacent to the subject lot; and the proposed buildings — by code - cannot be required to have a lower maximum height than imposed by the underlying zone district (something greater than 75'). The height of buildings "commonly" constructed in the MMN Zone has no bearing on technical Code requirements. No modification is needed, as the proposed buildings meet Code requirements. Topic: Street Design 64 The latest comments from Eric Bracke of Traffic Operations are offered on a red -lined copy of the Detailed Site Plan that is being forwarded to the applicant with this comment letter. Page 2 CO �Y2@Qo urban design, inc. While full movement at the Horsetooth Road entry drive location may be allowed, we do not feel it should be encouraged at this location. Eric has concurred that our current plan is acceptable. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General 149 The sidewalk that continues north of this site along Stanford appears to impact an existing tree and landscape bed that is not reflected on the plan set. will the tree be relocated? The walk alignment has been adjusted. I50 The cross sections on the utility plan set now show the sidewalk in this view. The cross section on station 11+50 shows the sidewalk as sloped away from the street. This is not per standards as tine sidewalk is required to slope towards the street at 1/4" per fool. There is a general concern about this occurrence because of the transition that lakes place, resulting in a section of sidewalk with no slope. Because the llowline grade of the street at this section is less than 1%, there is a concern that there is not enough grade on the sidewalk in this area. 1 /4" per fool cross slope sloped to the street (for public sidewalk) is required to be maintained on Horsetooth and Stanford, why is this proposed otherwise? Please provide LCUASS Standard Drawing 7-20B in the details sheet. Northern Engineering is addressing this comment. 151 Because of the proposed placement of the permanent wall stricture in the utility easement, the City is requiring the following note be placed on the plat and will require this same note in the Development Agreement for the proiect. Upon receipt of written request from the City or any other utility agency occupying the 9-foot utility easement along Horsetooth Road for file removal and/or replacement for utility purposes of the retaining wall, or for the removal of any other permanent structures as shown on the Final Development Plan Documents located within said 9-foot utility casement. the Developer/Owner and/or its successors and assigns (hereafter the "Developer") shall promptly comply with such request by performing tite work requested. In the event that the Developer should fail to perform the aforesaid obligation within 60 days following receipt of said written request, then the City or such other utility sliall have the right to remove and/or replace such structures and the cost thereof shall be borne by the Developer which cost, until paid, shall accrue interest at the rate of 8% per annual. If the Developer shall fail to niAc reimbursement for such costs within 30 days of receipt of a written accounting of cost, then, if demand for removal and/or replacement was from the City, electric service to the development ther may be discontinued until payment is made; and if the request for removal and/or replacement was from 1, utility, such utility service as provided by said utility may be discontinued until payment is made. In addition, the City and/or such other utility shall have a right of action against the Developer in damages for recovery of any such cost incurred by the City or such other utility. The requested note will be added. Page 3 CO �Yp urban design, inc. 155 At the 11/13/02 neighborhood meeting it was suggested by some of the residents of the Cove island neighborhood that a raised median be provided that allows a storage area for residents turning left out of Spindrift Court. In discussing this with the Traffic Engineer, the singular median design will cause problems. If a design creating medians is desired, a charnelized "T" intersection design should be looked at as specified in AASHTO. Keep in mind that this design would require medians on both sides of the protective felt tum pocket(s) and the medians would need to be a minimum of 4' in width; additional right-of-way width is needed along the center area (only 12' exists which is the bare minimum amount for a left turn lane with no medians) which wound result in longer transitions along the existing lanes. In addition, the length of the medians in order fora channelized "T" to work would more than likely extend medians past (lie 3/4 movement into Bella Vista off of Iforse(ooth. Further investigation of this design should be coordinated between Northern Engineering and the City Traffic Engineer. Because the design criteria noted above would require extensive off -site demolition and reconstruction, this concept will not be pursued further. 158 Coordinate the name of the project, is it "Bellavista PDP" or "Bella Vista PDP"? Ensure the title is consistent on all documents. "Bellavista" is one word. 168 The raised planter bed, within the proposed access casement, (now evident on the street design cross section sheep is a potential concern with any future widening for a right turn lane, as it may be in the way for a future realigned sidewalk. It is preferred that the raised planter bed be removed. If the applicant desires it to remain, development agreement language may need to be worked on illustrating that any future construction of Horse(oolh may result in the planner bed having to be removed at the expense of the property owner. The raised planter is important to the pedestrian environment at the corner. The suggested language should be included in the Development Agreement. Topic: Grading 45 Offsite grading and construction is shown occurring along the northern boundary of the site. A letter of intent from the property owner not objecting to the offsite work is required to be submitted prior to any public hearing for the project. 18/2 11 An unsigned Grant of Easement document was received. Per Stonnwater, the document in concept is not acceptable. The necessary easement needs to be dedicated to the City using our standard City deed of dedication language. Also, because the Grant of Easement was unsigned, this does not serve as a letter of intent, which is required prior to any hearing for the project. 111/201 Checking with Current Planning, a letter of intent was apparently not received The applicants have verbal commitments from the adjacent property owner, and are in the process of securing the needed signature. Page 4 19 Please revise the grading plan to include top of wall and bottom of wall elevations for all retaining walls and terraces on site. Include enough grading and spot elevations on each level to show drainage patterns. Also, include details of retaining and pond walls. Please include more spot elevations around buildings and in parking lots to clarify grading and drainage. Currently some areas do not have enough information to show how water drains. Please provide low points in both detention ponds. Topic. Landscaping 24 Please maintain a minimum of 10ft. separation between trees and storm sewers. There is very dense landscaping shown around the southern inlets and in the northern swale; please check that drainage will not be affected. Topic: Riprap 26 Please call out all riprap on plans and profiles. Is there any riprap or protection at the outlet of Storm Sewer E? Topic: Spillway 21 Please provide spillways and conveyance for flows from water quality ponds in case outlet is plugged. Please provide calculations and cross sections for the spillways. Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Mark Jackson Topic: General 11 Please show bicycle parking as appropriate at each building near main entrances. 12 What number of HC parking spaces exist on lower level? Is there elevator access or adequate access for ADA? 13 Provide cross -sections of Horsetooth (arterial) and Stanford (Collector), including bike lanes to standard. 14 Provide pedestrian refuge for movement across Horsetooth. This can be done either through the extension of the median and/or a porkchop island for the right turn lane. Page 8 Co�yp@o urban design, inc. Topic: Plat 127 Building envelopes appear to encroach within easements. Building envelopes need to be relocated outside o easements. 111/201 It appears that encroachments still exist for both walls and buildings, especially into the salutary sewer casanent. Please bear in mind that walls along Horsetooth over 4 feet in height will require a permit from the Building and Zoning Department and they would not issue a pennit for a wall that encroaches into an easement. The encroachment of the floors above the walkout basement into the sewer easement has been resolved since the initial submittal of this project in November of 2001. The dry -stack retaining walls in utility easements were reviewed and agreed upon at our second utility coordination meeting. Topic: street Design Northern Engineering is addressing these comments. 71 Three variance requests were received regarding Bella Vista from Northern Engineering. The variance requesting the reduction in sight distance along Stanford Drive, the variance to reduce the driveway spacing From 660' to 610', and the variance to reduce the utility casement along Horsetooth were all viewed favorably upon by the City Engineer. Final approval of these variance requests will occur with completion of the designs for Horsetooth and Stanford that are acceptable to the City and the utilities. 121 Street patching limits need to be revised as redlined (perpendicular to the direction of travel as well as to the edge or middle of a lane line.) The patching shown on Stanford Drive needs to be expanded from how it is currently shown, and may need to expand further in order to ensure proper cross slopes. It 1/201 The patching on Stanford Drive should be revised as redlined (see sheet 3 of 25). According to the City Engineering Pavement Manager, the street was recently redone and a mill and inlay for this section is likely. 153 The cross slopes indicated for Horsetooth Road on the cross sections sheets do not appear to match calculated values based on elevations and widths indicated. Despite this, the cross slope values still appear to Call within City criteria, with the exception of Station Ill+00, which appears to fall below 2%. 156 Indicate oil the detail for the monolithic vertical curb and gutter that the cross slope for the bikelane shall be greater than or equal to the asphalt section, while being between 2-3%. 167 Please provide a detail on the detail sheet indicating the area where the bikelane l ng Hors and leads containing combined with the sidewalk. Design of thus area should keep in nand drainage along Horsetooth, contaitung the " Chows on the street and preventing flows from entering the sidewalk to the extent feasible. The bike "ramp between the street and the sidewalk should have a curb along either side of the rarnp. Page 5 coM(§@P urban design, inc. Topic: Utility plans Northern Engineering is addressing these comments. 152 Clarify whether the striping shown on Stanford is existing or proposed. 154 Portions of Building C and a wall appear to be within the existing City Sanitary Sewer Easement. If this encroachment is allowed by City utilities, it would appear that portions of this easement world at least have to be vacated because of the building. Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Doug Martine Topic: Electric 148 will need to see detailed drawings showing the electric services to buildings A Light & Power Engineering before the electric system is installed (this is NOT a condition of PDP approval). Thank you. Topic: Utility plans 147 Two electric transformers are shown on the utility plan north of building A. Only one transformer will e needed at this location unless 2 different service voltages are required. Northern Engineering is addressing this comment. Department: PFA Issue Contact: Ron Gonzales Topic: Fire 157 Fire sprinkler (ire department connections shall be located on the fire lane side of all the buildings. This is to e verified at the time of building pennit plan review. Northern Engineering is addressing this comment. Topic: General (these comments are being reiteratedfor general information) 57 REQUIRED ACCESS: Due to the proposed heights of these edifices, a 30 foot wide fire lane is required for aerial operations. This fire lane shall be visible by painting and signage, and maintained unobstructed. A fire lane plan shall be submitted for approval prior to installation. 97UFC90L2.2.1:901.3,90L4.2;902.2.1 Adnrin.Policy85-5.FCLUC3.6.6(D)3 ADDRESS NUMERALS Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the property, and posted with a minimum of 6 inch numerals on a contrasting background. The property shall be addressed from Stanford Drive. An address Page 6 urban design, inc marquis shall be provided with 8" numerals. (Bronze numerals on brown brick are not acceptable).97UFC90 L4.4 WATER SUPPLY Fire hydrants are required with a nraxinumr spacing of 600 reel along an approved roadway. Each hydrant must be capable of delivering 1500 gallons of water per urinute at a residual pressure of 20 psi. No commercial building can be greater than 300 feet from a fire hydrant. 97UFC90 L2.2.2 Knox Box Policy Poudre Fire Authority requires a "Knox Box" to be mounted on the front of every new building equipped with a required fire sprinkler system or fire alarm system. 97UFC902.4 PFAPOLICY88-20 SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS: These proposed buildings shall be fire spritildered. A fire pump may also be required, as well as standpipes for the building and the parking garage below grade. 97UBC Ventilation System: A 2-stage ventilation system shall be provided for the parking garage below grade. Stage one shall be tied to a Carbon Monoxide Detection System that will detect carbon monoxide at 50ppnr over 8 hours and/or 200ppm over I hour and ventilate the garage. Stage Two shall provide ventilation for smoke removal in the event of a car tire. UBC1202.2 7 Department: Police Issue Contact: Joseph Gerdont Topic: General 105 Issues addressed except for: no illumination information for south faces of Bldgs A & B The illumination information for the south faces of the buildings is on the lighting plan. Department: Storntwater Utility Issue Contact: Basil Harridan Topic: Ditch Company Approval 87 Prior to allowing additional discharge from this site into Warren Lake, the Warren Lake Ditch company must sign off on these plans. Northern Engineering is addressing this comment. Topic: Drainage Plan 162 Please correct the labeling of the contours south of buildings A, B and C so that they are not upside down. Northern Engineering is addressing this comment. Page 7 Co�Y7 P urban design, inc. Topic: Easements 129 The drainage pan proposed on the north end of the site extends into neighboring property. Please provide a drainage easement for that pan. If the existing easement on the Slrachan Subdivision First Filing is to be used, then please provide a written approval from the owners of that property for the construction activities that are to take place within that existing casement. Northern Engineering is addressing this comment. Topic: Grading 161 Please clarify what off -site grading will be done to the north of the entrance drive off of Stanford Rd., if grading is to be done outside of ROW easements may be required. Northern Engineering is addressing this comment. Topic: Hearing 165 This project is ready for hcalring front Stonnwater's perspective as soon as letter of intent is obtained for the drainage easement oil the Aspen Leaf Apts. property, and when the City forester indicates that lie is satisfied with the tree protection measures that are needed to protect the large conifer tree that is close to the storm sewer outfall into Warren Lake. Thank you. Topic: Notes 160 Please add notes to the plans, staling that the water quality ponds and the storniceptor are to be maintained by the developer or FICA. Northern Engineering is addressing this comment. Topic: Morm Line Across Horsc400th 119 it seems that the proposed storm line across Horsetooth Rd could impact the existing Evergreen tree on the south side of Horsetooth. Please add tee protection measures such as construction fencing to the utility plans, please add tree protection notes to the utility plans (not only the landscape plans) as directed by the City forester. Northern Engineering is addressing this comment. Topic: Storm Line El 163 It seems that the publicly maintained Storm Line EI will be crossing a landscaping planter box. Please add a note that it is the responsibility of the developer to replace that box and the landscaping if that line would need to be dug up by the City in the future. Northern Engineering is addressing this comment. Page 8 co urban design, inc. Topic: Utilityplans 159 Please call out the C-900 12" line as a plastic pipe on the utility plans, not an RCP Northern Engineering is addressing this comment. Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Mark Jackson Topic: General 108 The applicant should provide appropriate signage wanting motorists of the mid -block pedestrian crossing. Northern Engineering is addressing this comment. 166 Safety concerns have arisen regarding the proposed bike path design where it diverts off of Horsetooth Road and then crosses Stanford in the crosswalk. In order to improve safety and prevent potential accidents with right laming vehicles please provide the following measures; I) Signs (2) along Horsetooth Road that informs both cyclists and motor vehicles that the bike late ends - the signs should be spaced to provide sufficient tune to acknowledge and prepare, 2) The off-street bike path surface should be treated in a manner to slow cyclists and alert them to their new surroundings, 3) And a sign infonning cyclists that they must dismount their bike in the crosswalk (see red lines). Furthermore, the path will serve only one way bike traffic, please narrow the width to aid in the reduction of bilke speeds. Northern Engineering is addressing the needed traffic signage on their Traffic Control Plan. The off-street path alignment and width as shown reflects previous direction by City Staff. Narrowing the width could create conflicts with "wayward" pedestrians. Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Topic: General 109 steel casing on the proposed water main must extend 5 feet clear beyond stone sewer crossings. Northern Engineering is addressing this comment. 112 Repeat continent: Are 1.5" water services adequate for these size of buildings? Provide flow demand calculations for our review. Provide separate water and sewer services for residential and commercial uses. Northern Engineering is addressing this comment. 115 Repeat CouunenC Maintain 4 feet of separation between outside wall of meter pit and all permanent structures. Northern Engineering is addressing this comment. Page 9 an@@ urban design, inc. 169 Maintain a 10 feet separation between the proposed fire hydrant/lateral and electric transformer/main. See site. landscape and utility plans for other comments. Northern Engineering is addressing this comment. Topic: Iltilitp plans 92 Repeat Conuucnt: Place all curb stops and meter pits adjacent to the main when at all possible. Curb stops must be located within a utility easement. Water and sewer services must be perpendicular to the main when possible. Northern Engineering is addressing this comment. 94 Water mains may not be joint deflected to a depth of 8 feet. Use fitting to lower the proposed 8-inch water main in Horsetooth. Provide all infomnatiou necessary for the lowering. Northern Engineering is addressing this comment. Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes Topic: Zoning 6 REPEAT, REPEAT, REPEAT COMMENT (11-1-02) - General note I(d)(h) still needs a little wordsmithurg. On page 5 of the applicant's response letter dated 10-28-02, it states "allow food preparation as an accessory use to a "convenience retail" use". The key words are "accessory use". However, the note on the plan should be clarified so that there is no misunderstanding that any food preparation use is indeed accessory to the convenience retail (i.e. they can't have a 700 S.F. tenant space with a 300 S.F. food preparation area and a few tables, and then the only other offerings in the unit are a sunglass rack and a magazine rack, and have it then be classified as convenience retail). It has to be clear that the principal use of the space is convenience retail - not food preparation/restaurmt. I suggest the following wording or similar be added to the end of the sentence in the note: "...and that the principal use of the convenience retail store is the sale of everyday goods and services including, bill not limited to, ready -to -cat food products, groceries, over-the-counter drugs and sundries." The actual language from the LUC definition — making the same statement as the requested "wordsmithing" - is already included. A clear reference to that language has also been added. REPEAT. REPEAT COMMENT (8-6-02) - General note I (d)(iii) regarding small food service uses has now been replaced by another lengthy description of a use that I still don't think is permitted in die MMN zone. It seems to be saying that they can have a "food service use,, (no longer limited to ready -to -eat) as long as the food preparation area is less than 1500 S.F.. I would interpret a "food service use" with a food preparation area as a RESTAURANT. There are 6000 and 7000 S.F. full service restaurants with about I500 S.F. of food preparation area, so what would prevent a full service restaurant from locating in the building. There are now convenience retail stores Mutt have Subways, Taco Bells, etc inside them. Those operations are not considered to be "ready -to -eat" food products. So I don't know what they are trying to describe as a use. THERE IS NO Page 10 Qy7 urban design, inc. SUCH USE IN THE CODE AS A "FOOD SERVICE USE BEYOND READY -TO -EAT", and they must oldv use terms that we have in the Code. The only way we can come up with new terms or uses is by a Code aiicndncnl, not be a listing on a PDP. If it operates as a restaurant as defined in die Code, then the only way it is allowed is if it is accessory, meaning that the restaurant must serve only the residences of the building. If at w,av if allowed and tl c note ii t sllow. then it be removed �ioNobuild be stated pennittor CO willtbetissued foiranythi ais nything l�dtisen it's not classified as a restaurant use. REPEAT COMMENT (1-31-02) - General note I (d)(iii) - small food service uses listed are not classified as accessory uses. Therefore, they are not permitted in the MMN zonetitle only way they can be remotely "are "accessory" is if they sce only the residences of the building and are not open to the "public" explanation in the applicant's 1-29-02 letter, but I don't agree. For instance, would a Sushi Bar really be rI've read the accessory, serving the tenants of the building? I doubt it would remain in business very long with such a small customer base. As per our meeting on December 13th, it is our understanding that all substantive comments have been addressed, and that the Bellavista PDP is ready to be scheduled for a Type 1 Hearing in late January, or early February. Please let us know as soon as possible the exact date of the scheduled hearing, and call -to coordinate needed presentation materials. Sincerely, Eldon Ward, Pre int Cityscape Urban Design, Inc. cc: Javier Martinez Campos Chuck McNeal Frank Vaught Bud Curtis Lucia Liley Page 11 LOAMN Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments Citv of Fort Collins Depart r Wastewater Date: January 15, 2003 Project: BELLA VISTA PDP, TYPE I (LUC) All comments must be received by STEVE OLT in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: January 15, 20'03 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Topic: General 112 Repeat comment: Are 1.5" water services adequate for these size of buildings? Provide flow demand calculations for our review. Provide separate water and sewer services for residential and commercial uses. Topic: Utility plans 94 Water mains may not be joint deflected to a depth of 8 feet. Use fittings to lower the proposed 8-inch water main in Horsetooth. Provide all information necessary for the lowering. Now that the storm sewer and water main have been raised to the bury depth of 6.5 feet, joint deflection is the preferred method of lowering. If a fitting lowering is still to be used then provide a complete detail of the lowering. See site, landscape and utility plans for other comments. Signature Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat _ Site Drainage Report Other_ Utility _ < Redline Utility Landscape Page 1 MMNMMMMM�_ Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments Department: Stormwater Utility Date: January 17, 2003 Project: EiELLA VISTA PDP, TYPE I (LUC) All comments must be received by STEVE OLT in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: January 15, 2003 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Basil Harridan Topic: Ditch Company Approval 87 Prior to allowing additional discharge from this site into Warren Lake, the warren Lake Ditch company must sign off on these plans. Topic: Easements 129 The drainage pan proposed on the north end of the site extends into neighboring property. Please provide a drainage easement for that pan. If the existing easement on the Strachan Subdivision First Filing is to be used, then please provide a written approval from the owners of that property for the construction activities that are to take place within that existing easement. Topic: Hearing 165 This project is ready for hearing from Stormwater's perspective as soon as letter of intent is obtained for the drainage easement on the Aspen Leaf Apts property, and when the City forester indicates that he is satisfied with the tree protection measures that are needed to protect the large conifer tree that is close to the storm sewer outfall into Warren Lake. Topic: Storm Line Across Horsetooth 118 It seems that the proposed storm line across Horsetooth Rd could impact the existing Evergreen tree on the south side of Horsetooth. Please add tee protection measures such as coonstruction fencing to the utility plans, please add tree protection notes to the utility plans (not only the landscape plans) as directed by the City forester. Topic: Storm Line E1 163 It seems that the publicly maintained Storm Line E1 will be crossing a landscaping planter box. Please add a note that it is the responsibility of the develo lace that box and the landscaping if that line would need to be dug up by the City in the future. .Cionnlu---------N� Dat b C$ECK.HERE IF Y WISH TO RECEIy9XOPIES OF REVISIONS la a ainage Report Other tility Redline Utility Landscape Page 1 Project Comments Sheet S City of Fort Collins Selected Departments Department: Engineering Date: January 22, 2003 Project: BE?LLA VISTA PDP, TYPE I (LUC) All comments must be received by STEVE OLT in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: January 15, 2003 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General 150 The cross sections on the utility plan set now show the sidewalk in this view. The cross section on station 11+50 shows the sidewalk as sloped away from the street. This is not per standards as the sidewalk is required to slope towards the street at 1/4" per foot. There is a general concern about this occurrence because of the transition that takes place, resulting in a section of sidewalk with no slope. Because the flowline grade of the street at this section is less than 1 %, there is a concern that there is not enough grade on the sidewalk in this area. 1/4" per foot cross slope sloped to the street (for public sidewalk) is required to be maintained on Horsetooth and Stanford, why is this proposed otherwise? Please provide LCLIASS Standard Drawing 7-20B in the details sheet. [1/151 Detail 7-20B was not provided. 158 Coordinate the name of the project, is it "Bellavista PDP" or "Bella Vista PDP"? Ensure the title is consistent on all documents. [1/151 "Bella Vista" is still shown on the site/PDP plans. Signature Dote / CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat _-� Site Drainage Report Other Utility _ Redline Utility Landscape Page 1 Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Topic: Landscaping 48 Coordinate landscape design with the civil design and provide the required landscape/utility separation distances. Show all existing and proposed water/sewer mains and services on the landscape plans. Topic: Plat 47 Provide a 30 foot minimum utility easement for the existing 8-inch sanitary sewer main which crosses this site. No buildings, retaining walls, trash enclosures, over hangs, landscape boulders, etc my be placed or erected within the utility easements. Topic: Utility plans 49 Call out all fittings, thrust blocks, valves, water/sewer service sizes on the overall utility plans. 50 Maintain a 4 feet minimum separation distance between the outside wall of all meter pits and any permanent structure (i.e. retaining walls, buildings, landscape boulders, trash enclosures, etc.). 51 Provide separate water and sewer services for each building and each use within each building (I.e. commercial, residential). 52 Eliminate all un-necessary bends and low angle crossings of water, sewer and storm sewer lines. 53 Show and label all curb stops and meter pits on the overall utility plans. Clearly identify these with size and location. 54 Clearly show and label all water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer crossings in all utility profile views. Define any and all lowerings or adjustments. Maintain 18-inches of vertical separation between all water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer crossings. 55 Will an irrigation tap be required within this site? Page 9 Topic: Grading 45 Offsite grading and construction is shown occurring along the northern boundary of the site. A letter of intent from the property owner not objecting to the offsite work is required to be submitted prior to any public hearing for the project. [8/21 ] An unsigned Grant of Easement document was received. Per Stormwater, the document in concept is not acceptable. The necessary easement needs to be dedicated to the City using our standard City deed of dedication language. Also, because the Grant of Easement was unsigned, this does not serve as a letter of intent, which is required prior to any hearing for the project. [11/201 Checking with Current Planning, a letter of intent was apparently not received Topic: Street Design 71 Three variance requests were received regarding Bella Vista from Northern Engineering. The variance requesting the reduction in sight distance along Stanford Drive, the variance to reduce the driveway spacing from 660' to 610', and the variance to reduce the utility easement along Horsetooth were all viewed favorably upon by the City Engineer. Final approval of these variance requests will occur with completion of the designs for Horsetooth and Stanford that are acceptable to the City and the utilities. 167 Please provide a detail on the details sheet indicating the area where the bikelane terminates and leads onsite combined with the sidewalk. Design of this area should keep in mind drainage along Horsetooth, containing the flows on the street and preventing flows from entering the sidewalk to the extent feasible. The bike "ramp" between the street and the sidewalk should have a curb along either side of the ramp. [1/15] This information was not apparently provided. 171 A detail will need to be addled for the truncated dome design on the general details sheet (for ADA compliance). See the redlines for the detail. Topic: Utility plans 154 Portions of Building C and a wall appear to be within the existing City Sanitary Sewer Easement. If this encroachment is allowed by City utilities, it would appear that portions of this easement would at least have to be vacated because of the building. Page 2 r. STAFF PROJECT REVIEW Cily of Fort Collins STANFORD DEVELOPMENT, LLC Date: 1/28/2003 c/o Cityscape Urban Design/Eldon Ward 3555 Stanford Road, Suite 105 Fort Collins, CO. 80525 Staff has reviewed your re -submittal for BELLA VISTA PDP, TYPE I (LUC), and we offer the following comments: ISSUES: Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt Topic: Street Design 63 Len Hilderbrand of Excel Energy (PSCO) offered the following comments: PSCO has a 2" MW existing gas main along the west boundary of the project and a 4" FB gas main existing along the south edge of the property. Both gas mains lay in the street right-of- way. No trees may be planted within T of gas lines. The plans show a 12" storm sewer proposed in areas of PSCO's gas lines. Any relocation of existing gas lines would be at the developer's expense. Gas meters would be clustered together @ the ends of buildings, with 2 gas service lines per building. Topic: Utility plans 130 Len Hilderbrand of Public Service Company of Colorado (Excel Energy) offered the following comments: a. No trees may be planted within 4' of gas lines. Existing gas lines are located in the street rights -of -way. b. Public Service Company of Colorado will need to open cut streets (East Horsetooth Road and Stanford Road) to install gas services to each building. Permits will be required. C. Meters will need to be staked at the ends of buildings. The elevations will need to show areas to meet the requirements for meter stacks. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General 150 The cross sections on the utility plan set now show the sidewalk in this view. The cross section on station 1 1+50 shows the sidewalk as sloped away from the street. This is not per standards as the sidewalk is required to slope towards the street at 1/4" per foot. There is a general concern about this occurrence because of the transition that takes place, resulting in a section of sidewalk with no slope. Because the flowline grade of the street at this section is less than 1%, there is a concern that there is Page 1 not enough grade on the sidewalk in this area. 1/4" per foot cross slope sloped to the street (for public sidewalk) is required to be maintained on Horsetooth and Stanford, why is this proposed otherwise? Please provide LCUA.SS Standard Drawing 7-20B in the details sheet. [1/15] Detail 7-20B was not provided. 158 Coordinate the name of the project, is it "Bellavista PDP" or "Bella Vista PDP"? Ensure the title is consistent on all documents. [1/15] "Bella Vista" is still shown on the site/PDP plans Topic: Grading 45 Offsite grading and construction is shown occurring along the northern boundary of the site. A letter of intent from the property owner not objecting to the offsite work is required to be submitted prior to any public hearing for the project. [8/21 ] An unsigned Grant of Easement document was received. Per Stormwater, the document in concept is not acceptable. The necessary easement needs to be dedicated to the City using our standard City deed of dedication language. Also, because the Grant of Easement was unsigned, this does not serve as a letter of intent, which is required prior to any hearing for the project. [11/20] Checking with Current Planning, a letter of intent was apparently not received Topic: Street Design 71 Three variance requests were received regarding Bella Vista from Northern Engineering. The variance requesting the reduction in sight distance along Stanford Drive, the variance to reduce the driveway spacing from 660' to 610', and the variance to reduce the utility easement along Horsetooth were all viewed favorably upon by the City Engineer. Final approval of these variance requests will occur with completion of the designs for Horsetooth and Stanford that are acceptable to the City and the utilities. 167 Please provide a detai'I on the details sheet indicating the area where the bikelane terminates and leads onsite combined with the sidewalk. Design of this area should keep in mind drainage along Horsetooth, containing; the flows on the street and preventing flows from entering the sidewalk to the extent feasible. The bike "ramp" between the street and the sidewalk should have a curb along either side of the ramp. [1/15] This information was not apparently provided. 171 A detail will need to be added for the truncated dome design on the general details sheet (for ADA compliance). See the redlines for the detail. Page 2 Topic: Utility plans 154 Portions of Building C and a wall appear to be within the existing City Sanitary Sewer Easement. If this encroachment is allowed by City utilities, it would appear that portions of this easement would at least have to be vacated because of the building. Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Doug Martine Topic: Electric 148 Light & Power Engineering will need to see detailed drawings showing the electric services to buildings A & B before the electric system is installed (this is NOT a condition of PDP approval). Topic: Utilityplans 147 Two electric transformers are shown on the utility plan north of building A. Only one transformer will be needed at this location unless 2 different service voltages are required. Department: PFA Issue Contact: Ron Gonzales Topic: Fire 157 Fire sprinkler fire department connections shall be located on the fire lane side of all the buildings. This is to be verified at the time of building permit plan review. Topic: General 145 Although these towers do not technically meet the height requirements stipulated in 97UBC for the High -Rise Provisions. the PEA would request the applicant consider installing as many of these provisions for the safety of the occupants and the building. See 97UBC403 Topic: Plat 57 REQUIRED ACCESS: Due to the proposed heights of these edifices, a 30 foot wide fire lane is required for aerial operations. This fire lane shall be visible by painting and signage, and maintained unobstructed. A fire lane plan shall be submitted for approval prior to installation. 97UFC901.2.2.1;901.3;901.4.2;902.2.1 Admin.Policy85-5; FCLUC 3.6.6(D)3 ADDRESS NUMERALS Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the property, and posted with a minimum of 6 inch numerals on a contrasting background. The property shall be addressed from Stanford Drive. An address marquis shall be provided with 8" numerals. (Bronze numerals on brown brick are not acceptable).97UFC901.4.4 WATER SUPPLY Fire hydrants are required with a maximum spacing of 600 feet along an approved roadway. Each hydrant must be capable of delivering 1500 gallons of water per minute at a residual pressure of 20 psi. No commercial building can be greater than 300 feet from a fire hydrant. 97UFC901.2.2.2 Knox Box Policy Poudre Fire Authority requires a "Knox Box" to be mounted on the front of every new building equipped with a required fire sprinkler system or fire alarm system. Page 3 97UFC902.4 PFAPOI-ICY88-20 SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS: These proposed buildings shall be fire sprinklered. A fire pump may also be required, as well as standpipes for the building and the parking garage below grade. 97UBC Ventilation System: A 2-stage ventilation system shall be provided for the parking garage below grade. Stage One shall be tied to a Carbon Monoxide Detection System that will detect carbon monoxide at 50ppm over 8 hours and/or 200ppm over 1 hour and ventilate the garage. Stage Two shall provide ventilation for smoke removal in the event of a car fire. UBC 1202.2.7 Department: Stormwater Utility Topic: Ditch Company Approval 87 Issue Contact: Basil Harridan Prior to allowing additional discharge from this site into Warren Lake, the Warren Lake Ditch company must sign off on these plans. Topic: Easements 129 The drainage pan proposed on the north end of the site extends into neighboring property. Please provide a drainage easement for that pan. If the existing easement on the Strachan Subdivision First Filing is to be used, then please provide a written approval from the owners of that property for the construction activities that are to take place within that existing easement. Topic: Hearing 165 This project is ready for hearing from Stormwater's perspective as soon as letter of intent is obtained for the drainage easement on the Aspen Leaf Apts. property, and when the City forester indicates that he is satisfied with the tree protection measures that are needed to protect the large conifer tree that is close to the storm sewer outfall into Warren Lake. Topic: Stone Line Across Horsetooth 118 It seems that the proposed storm line across Horsetooth Rd could impact the existing Evergreen tree on the south side of Horsetooth. Please add tee protection measures such as construction fencing to the utility plans, please; add tree protection notes to the utility plans (not only the landscape plans) as directed by the City forester. Topic: Storm Line El 163 It seems that the publicly maintained Storm Line E 1 will be crossing a landscaping planter box. Please add a note that it is the responsibility of the developer to replace that box and the landscaping if that line would need to be dug up by the City in the future. Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Mark Jackson Topic: General 108 Can we provide appropriate signage warning motorists of the mid -block pedestrian crossing? Page 4 166 Safety concerns have arisen regarding the proposed bike path design where it diverts off of Horsetooth Road and then crosses Stanford in the crosswalk. In order to improve safety and prevent potential accidents with right turning vehicles please provide the following measures; 1) Signs (2) along Horsetooth Road that informs both cyclists and motor vehicles that the bike lane ends - the signs should be spaced to provide sufficient time to acknowledge and prepare, 2) The off-street bike path surface should be treated in a manner to slow cyclists and alert them to their new surroundings, 3) And a sign informing cyclists that they must dismount their bike in the crosswalk (see red lines). Furthennore, the path will serve only one way bike traffic, please narrow the width to aid in the reduction of bike speeds. 170 Regarding comment # 166. I realize that the site design reflects earlier staff comments, but subsequent analysis from bike/pedestrian planners have resulted in safety concerns. Hence the request for redesign of this piece. Please contact Tom Reiff in Transportation Planning at (970) 416- 2040 for further information. Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Topic: General 112 Repeat comment: Are 1.5" water services adequate for these size of buildings? Provide flow demand calculations for our review. Topic: Utilityplans 94 Water mains may not be joint deflected to a depth of 8 feet. Use fittings to lower the proposed 8-inch water main in Horsetooth. Provide all information necessary for the lowering. Now that the storm sewer and water main have been raised to the bury depth of 6.5 feet, joint deflection is the preferred method of lowering. If a fitting lowering is still to be used then provide a complete detail of the lowering. Items #45 (Engineering), #165 (Stormwater), and #170 (Transportation Planning) appear to be the primary deterrents to scheduling this item for an administrative public hearing. Once addressed and resolved to the City's satisfaction we can schedule a hearing date. If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project, please feet free to call me at (970) 221-6341. Yours Truly, Steve Olt, City Planner Page 5 Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments Department: Transportation Planning Date: March 12, 2003 Project: BELLA VISTA PDP, TYPE I (LUC) All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning, no later than the staff review meeting: March 12, 2003 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Topic: General Number: 176 Created: 3/12/2003 Follow - Up Comment to # 170 (3-12-03) Concerns have arisen from Engineering regarding the potential for blind pedestrians to wonder out onto the bike path and Horsetooth Road. Please make the following corrections to address this issue. 1. Instead of having the bike path continue directly in line with the access ramp and the crosswalk, swing the path northward to intersect with the sidewalk at or near 90 degrees (see red Hines). Then the area vacated by the path can be used to clearly mark the sidewalk and bike path with landscaping (see red lines). This will also require the proposed raised planter to shift eastward. 2. Please remove the walkway connection to the bike path from the building's main south entrance to physically separate the bike path and sidewalk. 3. It is important that the concrete pour where the on street bike lane transitions to the off street path be constructed flush with NO lip or seam that may cause a cyclists to lose balance or control of their bike. See red lines for additional comments. Signature Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat _ Site Drainage Report Other_ Utility __ Redline Utility Landscape Page I Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments City of Fort Collins Department: Water Wastewater Date: March 16, 2003 Project: BE?LLA VISTA PDP, TYPE I (LUC) All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning, no later than the staff review meeting: March 12, 2003 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Roger Buffington Topic: Utility plans Number: 178 Created: 3/16/2003 Sheet 15: How much clearance is between the storm and sanitary (outside of pipe to outside of pipe)? Can storm be raised? May need detail showing method of protecting the sanitary depending on the clearance. Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Topic: Utility plans Number: 94 Created: 2/22/2002 Repeat comment 3/16/03: Water mains may not be joint deflected to a depth of 8 feet. Use fittings to lower the proposed 8-inch water main in Horsetooth. Provide all information necessary for the lowering. Now that the storm sewer and water main have been raised to the bury depth of 6.5 feet, joint deflection is the preferred method of lowering. If a fitting lowering is still to be used then provide a complete detail of the lowering.----------- It is unclear whether joint deflection is being used at this crossing. It was our understanding that the storm sewer would be raised eliminating the need for lowering the water main, but the profile looks the same as last round of review. Please clarify Signature Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site Drainage Report Other Utility Redline Utility Landscape Page 1 Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments Department: Stormwater Utility Date: March 17, 2003 Project: BELLA VISTA PDP, TYPE I (LUC) All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning, no later than the staff review meeting: March 12, 2003 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Basil Harridan Topic: Drainage Reports Number: 180 Created: 3/17/2003 Please provide three signed and atamped copies of the drainage report, including plans in the back for approval. Topic: Easements Number: 165 Created: 11 /20/2002 Please provide a copy of the drainage easement on Aspen Leaf Apts property for our records,if this easement has been secures. The easement will be needed prior to approval of final plans. Topic: Utility plans Number: 179 Created: 3/17/2003 Please add detail of storm/sanitary sewer crossing on storm line G. Provide as much clearance as possible. CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH at Site Utility _ Redline Utility 3/17-(03 Dat TORE IVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Drainage Report Other_ Landscape Page 1 Project Comments Sheet (06�- Selected Departments City of Fort Collins Department: Engineering Date: March 21, 2003 Project: BELLA VISTA PDP, TYPE I (LUC) All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning, no later than the staff review meeting: March 12, 2003 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General Number: 158 Created: 11 /19/2002 Coordinate the name of the project, is it "Bellavista PDP" or "Bella Vista PDP"? Ensure the title is consistent on all documents. [1/15] "Bella Vista" is still shown on the site/PDP plans. [2/20] repeat comment (site/landscape plans differ from utility/plat). Number: 181 Created: 3/21 /2003 The letter of intent was received and is acceptable. Copies of the actual signed easement, (recorded at the county with reception numbers) is required prior to the submittal of mylars. Please indicate the reception number(s) for the easement on the plat. Also, please remove the City Acceptance provision from the document, as it is a private easement agreement between two parties outside of the City. Topic: Street Design Number: 71 Created: 2/18/2002 Three variance requests were received regarding Bella Vista from Northern Engineering. The variance requesting the reduction in sight distance along Stanford Drive, the variance to reduce the driveway spacing from 660' to 610', and the variance to reduce the utility easement along Horsetooth were all viewed favorably upon by the City Engineer. Final approval of these variance requests will occur with completion of the designs for Horsetooth and Stanford that are acceptable to the City and the utilities. [2/27] The three variance requests were approved by the City Engineer and can be indicated as such on General Note #58. No additional notice or follow up will be made, unless requested. Al narure/ Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site Drainage Report y Other Utility Redline Utility Landscape ' Page 1 PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: November 28, 2001 TO: Engineering Pavement PROJECT: #45-01A Bella Vista PDP - Type I (LUC) All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: December 26, 2001 Note- Please identify your redlines for fieture reference rl) e C'rC'C°r-l�-. y i Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape 56 Provide a manhole adjustment and a concrete encasement detail with the next submittal. See the site, landscape and utility plans for other comments. Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes Topic: General 3 General note 1(d)(ii) lists "live/work office type units" as a possible use. What is that? No such term. Is it the same as a home occupation? 4 General note 2 references Section 2.8.17. There is no such section. I assume they mean 3.8.17 (A)(3). If so, then Planning needs to determine if the 4 to 6 stories is the appropriate "contextual height". Some of the walls of buildings are almost 90' tall. In my opinion, "contextual height" as used in 3.8.17(A)(3) implies a similar height in feet as well as in stories. For instance, a 6 story building on one lot may only be 70' tall, and that doesn't mean that it's therefore ok to have a 6 story building on an adjacent lot that is 90' tall when the maximum height allowed in the MMN zone is 3 stories (4.5(E)(1)(d). How tall is the Marriott in terms of feet? 5 General note 13 - wood gates are not advisable 6 General note 1(d)(iii) - small food service uses listed are not classified as accessory uses. Therefore, they are not permitted in the MMN zone. (the only way they can be remotely "accessory" is if they serve only the residences of the building, and are not open to the "public". 7 General note 1(C)(ii) - B&B's would not be allowed. Such a use is a use that is conducted in a private house, not in a condo building. Topic: Landscaping 8 The surface level parking lot is required to have interior parking lot landscaping. (Sections 3.2.1(E)(5) and 3.2.2(M)(1). Does the parking underneath the surface lot preclude interior landscaping? If so, then a modification will be required to 3.2.2(M)(1) since there is no alternative compliance provision to that section and since there is no automatic exemption for a surface lot on top of an underground lot. The lot does have some landscaping that could qualify as interior, but not enough. Page 10 - STAFF PROJECT REVIEW C;tv"r tort c"us Stanford Development, LLC Date: 3/25/2003 c/o Cityscape Urban Design - Eldon Ward 3555 Stanford Road, Suite 105 Fort Collins, CO. 80525 Staff has reviewed your submittal for BELLA VISTA PUP, TYPE I (LUC), and we offer the following comments: ISSUES: Department: Engiineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: Genera/ Number: 158 Created: 11/19/2002 Coordinate the name of the project, is it "Bellavista PDP" or "Bella Vista PDP" or "BellaVista PDP"? Ensure that the title is consistent on all documents. (1/15] "Bella Vista' is still shown on the site/PDP plans. [2/20] repeat comment (site/landscape plans differ from utility/plat). Number: 181 Created: 3/21/2003 The letter of intent was received and is acceptable. Copies of the actual signed easement, (recorded at the county with reception numbers) is required prior to the submittal of mylars. Please indicate the reception number(s) for the easement on the plat. Also, please remove the City Acceptance provision from the document, as it is a private easement agreement between two parties outside of the City. Topic: Street Design Number: 71 Created: 2/18/2002 Three variance requests were received regarding Bella Vista from Northern Engineering. The variance requesting the reduction in sight distance along Stanford Drive, the variance; to reduce the driveway spacing from 660' to 610', and the variance to reduce the utility easement along East Horsetooth Road were all viewed favorably upon by the City Engineer. Final approval of these variance requests will occur with completion of the designs for Horsetooth Road and Stanford Road that are acceptable to the City and the utilities. [2/27] The three variance requests were approved by the City Engineer and can be indicated as such on General Note #58. No additional notice or follow up will be made, unless requested. Page I Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Basil Hamdan Topic: Drainage Reports Number: 180 Created: 3/17/2003 Please provide three signed and stamped copies of the drainage report, including plans in the back for approval. Topic: Easements Number:165 Created:1112012002 Please provide a copy of the drainage easement on the Aspen Leaf Apartments property for our records, if this easement has been secures. The easement will be needed prior to approval of final plans. Topic: Utility plans Number: 179 Created: 3/17/2003 Please add detail of storm/sanitary sewer crossing on storm line G. Provide as much clearance as possible. Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Topic: General Number:176 Created:3/12/2003 Follow - Up Comment to # 170 (3-12-03) Concerns have arisen from Engineering regarding the potential for blind pedestrians to wonder out onto the bike path and East Horsetooth Road. Please make the following corrections to address this issue: 1. Instead of having the bike path continue directly in line with the access ramp and the crosswalk, swing the path northward to intersect with the sidewalk at or near 90 degrees (see red lines). Then the area vacated by the path can be used to clearly mark the sidewalk and bike path with landscaping (see red lines). This will also require the proposed raised planter to shift eastward. 2. Please remove the walkway connection to the bike path from the building's main south entrance to physically separate the bike path and sidewalk. 3. It is important that the concrete pour where the on street bike lane transitions to the off street path be constructed flush with NO lip or seam that may cause a cyclists to lose balance or control of their bike. See red lines for additional comments.. Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington Topic: Utility plans Number:178 Created:3/16/2003 Sheet 15: How much clearance is between the storm and sanitary (outside of pipe to outside of pipe)? Can storm be raised? May need detail showing method of protecting the sanitary depending on the clearance. Page 2 Department: Washer Wastewater Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Topic: Utility plans Number: 94 Created: 2/22/2002 Repeat comment 3 /16/03: Water mains may not be joint deflected to a depth of 8 feet. Use fittings to lower the proposed 8-inch water main in East Horsetooth Road. Provide all information necessary for the lowering. Now that the storm sewer and water main have been raised to the bury depth of 6.5 feet, joint deflection is the preferred method of lowering. If a fitting lowering is still to be used then provide a complete detail of the lowering. It is unclear whether joint deflection is being used at this crossing. It was our understanding that the storm sewer would be raised eliminating the need for lowering the water main, but the profile looks the same as last round of review. Please clarify This item has been scheduled for an administrative public hearing on the evening of Thursday, April 10, 2003, in the City Council chambers. The hearing will begin promptly at 5:30 p.m. and the Bella Vista PDP is second on the agenda (following the Maple Hill PDP). Please submit to the City the number of copies of all documents as shown on the attached Revision Routing Sheet as soon as possible. Be sure and return all of the red - lined plans when you submit. If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project, please feel free to call me at (970)221-6341. Yours Truly, Aukoy, Steve Olt City Planner Page 3 sq Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments Citvot Fort Collins .`.��� Department: Sbormwater Utility Date: Angust 12, 2003 Project: BELLA VISTA PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, FINAL COMPLIANCE #45-01 A/B All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning, no later than the staff review meeting: 8/6/03 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Basil Harridan Topic: Utility plans Number: 186 Created: 8/12/2003 Please look into alternative pipe material such as ductile iron pipe for the storm sewer crossing over the water line in Horsetooth Road, as the encasement is a concern to the City Engineering Department due to the shallowness of that storm line. C v Sib na! Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site Drainage Report Other_ Utility Redline Utility Landscape Page 1 Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments City of FortCol of tins ��� Department: Engineering Date: August 14, 2003 Project: BELLA VISTA PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, FINAL COMPLIANCE #45-01A/B All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning, no later than the staff review meeting: Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General Number: 158 Created: 11/19/2002 Coordinate the name of the project, is it "Bellavista PDP" or "Bella Vista PDP"? Ensure the title is consistent on all documents. [t/t 51 "Bella Vista" is still shown on the site/PDP plans. [2/201 repeat comment (site/landscape plans differ from utility/plat). [8/6] The utility plans now specify the project as "Bellavista F.D.P.". The preference is to leave the title as P.D.P as it matches the plat and other documents. Better yet, remove the FDP/PDP designation all together. There may be some future confusion as to why the plans would say FDP as no other documents have this in the title. Number: 181 Created: 3/21/2003 The letter of intent was received and is acceptable. Copies of the actual signed easement, (recorded at the county with reception numbers) is required prior to the submittal of mylars. Please indicate the reception number(s) for the easement on the plat. Also, please remove the City Acceptance provision from the document, as it is a private easement agreement between two parties outside of the City. [8/6] As the actual easement has not been received, the comment is left as unresolved. Topic: Utility plans Number: 182 Created: 8/5/2003 Please remove the truncated dome detail shown on Sheet 22A. The City's Engineering Department has decided to forego requiring the construction of these as constructability and ADA compliance issues are being worked out. Number: 184 Created: 8/5/2003 The use of concrete encasement for the storm pipe above the water line on Horsetooth is an Engineering concern with regards to maintaining cover over the top of the storm pipe. Please look at using ductile iron pipe instead of RCP to eliminate the use of encasement. Please also include a note on the plans that the pavement engineer shall address the shallowness of this storrnwater pipe crossing Horsetooth Road as part of the pavement design report. _y r Signature Dn e CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat / Site Drainage Report / Other Utility _ Redline Utility Landscape Page t NORTHERN ENGINEERING N'l SERVICES, INC. September It, 2003 Mr. Steve Olt City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-0580 RE: Bella Vista PDP Response to City comments Steve, This letter is in response to the City Comments we received dated August 14, 2003 regarding the BellaVista PDP project in Fort Collins, Colorado: No. 158 — The client and project team would like to leave the title as BellaVista PDP No. 181 — The easement will be provided by the owner No. 182 — Detail has been removed No. 184 — Ductile Iron Pipe has been specified for this section of storm sewer. In addition, we added a note on the plan and profile sheet stating that the pavement engineer will need to take into account the shallow nature of that particular stretch of storm sewer. No. 186 — Similar to 184, see response above. In addition, we received an Email from Eric Braake to Mark Varata, and made the following corrections: "Diamond" symbols were removed from the bike lanes Removed "through" stencils from the striping plan I hope that this addresses all of the remainder of the City's concerns. We are sending mylars to the City for signatures. Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions. Roger A urP.E. Project Engineer 420 SOUTH HOWES, SUITE 202 / FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521 / 970 221 4158 / FAX 970.221.4159 This completes staff comments at this time. Additional comments will be forthcoming. This development request is subject to the 90-day revision re - submittal as set forth in Section 2.2.11(A) of the Land Use Code. Be sure and return all of your redlined plans when you re -submit. If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project, please feel free to call me at (970) 221-6341. Yours Truly, C, Steve Olt, Project Planner Pale I I �P ALBERS, DRExEL & POHLY, INc. 1860 Industrial Circle, Suite D # Longmont • Colorado • 80501 January 28, 2002 Mr. Daryl Sigler Northern Engineering Services 420 S. Howes St., Suite 202 Ft. Collins, CO 80521 Re: Bella Vista PDP — Final Plat Response to City Comments Dear Daryl: Telephone: (303) 682-1131 . Fax: (303) 682-1149 Via Fax & Email 970-221-4159 Following are our responses to the various comments made by the City of Ft. Collins: (28) Replace "PUD" with "PDP" on all documents. All occurrences of "PUD" were replaced with "PDP (42) Replace all occurrences of Director of Engineering with City Engineer. All occurrences of "Director of Engineering" have been replaced with "City Engineer" (43) The Plat language (Certificate of Dedication and Maintenance and Repair Guarantee language) has been revised. Please revise as shown (electronic format of the document is available). Ensure that the "Notice of Other Documents" language is included in the plat as well. The "Certificate of Dedication" and "Maintenance and Repair Guarantee" language have been revised per documents enclosed with the City of Fort Collins' Engineering Department's Project Comments Sheet, dated December 26, 2001. (44) The Sight Distance Easement Language on the plat has also been revised. Please revise as shown. The "Sight Distance Easement" language has been revised per documents enclosed with the City of Fort Collins' Engineering Department's Project Comments Sheet, dated December 26, 2001. (46) The Development needs to dedicate an access easement along Stanford Drive to ensure the sidewalk proposed is in an access easement. Additional Right-of-way is not necessary. An 'Access and Sidewalk Easement" has been delineated on the plat. A Full Service Land Surveying Company Boundary • Title • Geodetic • Topographic • Engineering Layout • Subdivision Platting • Environmental �I !p ALBERS, DREXEL & POHLY, INC. Bella Vista PDP — Final Plat Response to City Comments (58) Vacation of City easements on the plat do not require an easement vacation certificate. However, vacation of exclusive easements outside of the City (20' communication easement) requires a signature from the telephone company. The Vacation Certificate for the City easements was removed from the final plat. A vacation and signature block for the local telephone company has been added to the plat. (59) Horsetooth Road appears confusing with Right-of-way on top of city and private utilities. Please clarify. The plat correctly depicts various easements within the Right-of-way for Horsetooth Road. Also, the communications and City electric easements do overlap. Apparently, through the acquisition of additional road right-of-way over the years, easements formerly not within the road right-of-way are now within the current road right-of-way. (61) An emergency access easement needs to be dedicated on the plat where PFA specifies a fire lane is required. An Emergency Access Easement has been delineated on the plat per drawing supplied to ADP on January 28, 2002 by Northern Engineering, Inc. Other Comments (1) Comments regarding graphic appearance of plat. Line weights of text were corrected. (2) How was the 50 feet of Horsetooth Road dedicated? The Client's title to the subject parcel is to the North Right-of-way Line of Horsetooth Road and fixes its mathematical position at 50 feet from section line. The North 20 feet of the South 50 feet was dedicated to the City of Ft. Collins by deed recorded July 9, 1992, as Reception No. 92039565 as shown on this final plat. The Right-of-way for Horsetooth Road adjacent to the subject parcel on its east and west sides were dedicated on the final plats of Strachan Subdivision, First and Third Filings. Our research thus far has not identified the specific document that dedicated the South 30 feet. Please feel free to call me of you have any questions. Regards ALBERS, DREXEL & POHLY, INC. Frank N. Drexel, PLS President -2- 1-Ze-02: 5: 28PM: NORTHERNENG Ol/Loi LUOL 11:4/ jvSbtzllg7 ALibtKS DKEXEL HUHLY :9702214159 # 2/ 2 PAGE 01/02 ALBERS, DREXEL & POHLY INC. 1860 Industrial Circle, Suite D . Longmont . Colorado . 80501 January 28, 2002 Mr. Daryl Sigler Northern Engineering Services 420 S. Howes St., Suite 202 Ft. Collins, CO 80521 Re: Bella Vista PDP — Final Plat Response to City Comments Dear Daryl: Telephoner (303) 682-1131 . Fax. (303) 6824149 Via Fax & Email 970-221-4159 Following are our responses to the various comments made by the City of Ft. Collins: (28) Replace "PUD" with "PDP" on all documents. All occurrences of "PUD" were replaced with PDP" (42) Replace all occurrences of Director of Engineering wlth City Engineer. i All occurrences of "Director of Engineering" have been replaced with "City Engineer" (43) The Plat language (Certificate of Dedication and Maintenance and Repair Guarantee language) has been revised. Please revise as shown (electronic format of the document is available). Ensure tliat the "Notice of Other Documents" language is included in the plat as well. The "Certificate of Dedication" and "Maintenance and Repair Guarantee" language have been revised per documents enclosed with the City of Fort Collins' Engineering Department's Project Comments Sheet, dated December 26, 2001, (44) The Sight Distance Easement Language on the plat has also been revised. Please revise as shown. The "Sight Distance Easement" language has been revised per documents enclosed with the City of Fort Collins' Engineering Department's Project Comments Sheet, dated December 26, 2001. (46) The Development needs to dedicate an access easement along Stanford Drive to ensure the sidewalk proposed is in an access easement. Additional Right-of-way is not necessary. An "Access and Sidewalk Easement" has been delineated on the plat. A Full Service Land Surveying Company Boundary . Title • Geodetic - Topographic • Engineering Layout . Subdivision Platting . Environmental 0 Brit January 28, 2002 Daman Holland Cityscape Urban Design 3555 Stanford Road, Suite 105 Fort Collins, Co 80525 RE: BELLA VISTA Dear Daman, Integrity Skill Imagination I have reviewed the Staff Project Review dated 1/10/2002. The following are Merit Electric's response to those comments: Topic: Generall 9. Comment: The Luminaire schedule and luminaire detail don't provide sufficient information to determine exactly which lights are used in each location. Also, unless there are wall fixtures there is inadequate illumination between Bldg. B & C; east face of Bldg. D; and north face of Bldg. B. In genera!, all building access points should have minimum of 1 fc. Res ores& The labeling and notes on the luminaire detail sheet have been revised to more clearly identify fixture types. The photometry of the fixtures is dependent on the optical reflector and is independent of the hood and luminous elements. Therefore, the architectural features can be selected without affecting the photometric performance of the fixture. The layout of the pedestrian poles between buildings B & C has been revised and additional poles have been added in front of buildings A, B, and D to provide adequate light levels to building access points. Should you have any questions about the above items or need further clarification, please give me a call. Thank You, Chris Weaver Cc: Bob Mechels — Vaught Frye Architects 4700 lnnocution DiiNc, Snitc D-1 Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 (970) 266.8100 b[etro (303) 443-8100 Fax (970) 266.1640 January 29, 2002 Steve Olt City of Fort Collins Community Planning and P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Environmental Services COKYPC o urban design, inc 3555 stanford road, suite 105 fort collins, colorado 80525 (970) 226-4074 fax (970) 226-4196 e@cityscapeud.com RE: Bella Vista PDP — January 10, 2002, PDP Review Comments Dear Steve, Included below are the comments received from City Staff regarding the Bella Vista Project Development Plan (submitted November 28, 2001). An explanation (in italics) of how issues have been addressed follows each comment. COMMENTS: Len Hilderbrand of Excel Energy (PSCO) offered the following comments: PSCO has a 2" MW existing gas main along the west boundary of the project and a 4" FB gas main existing along the south edge of the,property. Both gas mains lay in the street right-of-way. No trees may be planted within 4' of gas lines. The tree lawn has been designed to maintain 4' minimum clearance as requested. The plans show a 12" storm sewer proposed in areas of PSCO's gas lines. Any relocation of existing gas lines would be at the developer's expense. The storm drain does not conflict with the gas lines. 3. Gas meters would be clustered together @ the ends of buildings, with 2 gas service lines per building. Meters will be clustered as required. Eric Bracke of Traffic Operations offered the following comments: 1. The proposed raised median is insufficient. A median should be constructed to "match" the west leg. The City Engineering Department has informed us that this comment is no longer valid, and that no raised median is to be constructed. G:\WP\9o00\9600\9601 P DP -RESPONSE 1 A. doc o urban design, inc. 2. The westbound right -turn should be included @ East Horsetooth Road and Stanford Roadl. This developer is not generating the need; however, the right -turn lane should be included in the design. * (In addition to the responses below, see the attached Memorandum from Matt Delich). The extensive existing drainage structures and other utility installations existing, at the intersection preclude a right -turn lane at this location, due to both vertical and horizontal conflicts. ♦ The existing storm vault (top of structure) elevation is .95' higher than the Horsetooth Road flowline. ♦ Research indicates that the pipes within the structure are at the top of the box, which eliminates the option of lowering the lid to accommodate a right turn lane over the box. ♦ The two existing curb inlets at the intersection would conflict with a new right turn lane. ♦ A right turn lane pushed further north into the site would: i Eliminate the proposed water quality pond which is proposed at the only location where it can affect the quality of storm water from the entire frontage of Horsetooth Road and Stanford Road; ➢ Conflict with the existing traffic signal control box; Conflict with the existing traffic signal pole and street light; and Could pose something of a hazard for through, northbound traffic, due to the unusual location of the turn lane intersection with Stanford. ♦ Evaluation by our Traffic Engineer indicates that: While a right -turn lane is warranted, based on LCUASS Figure 8- 04, the existing physical constraints must be recognized. y While not specifically discussed in LUCA SS, right -turn lanes improve both operation and safety at intersections by removing right turns from the through traffic lane. This is particularly relevant at unsignalized intersections where it is desired that the through traffic on the major street not be significantly slowed by right -turning vehicles. However, at signalized intersections, this becomes less important, since the traffic on the major street (Horsetooth Road) will be slowing due to the signal at this intersection. Approximately 40% of the time during the peak hours, traffic on Horsetooth Road will be approaching a red light. Further, it was demonstrated in the Transportation Impact Study that acceptable operation will be achieved without the westbound right -turn lane. Elimination of the right -turn lane will not be detrimental to the public health, welfare, and safety. The City of Fort Collins has many signalized intersections with similar traffic volumes without the existence of a right -turn lane. G:\W P\9000\9600\9601 P DP -RESPONSE 1 A. d oc Go����caa o 0 urban design, inc. Due to the physical constraints and the above stated traffic issues, it is respectfully requested that the westbound right -turn lane on Horsetooth Road approaching Stanford Road not be a requirement of the Bella Vista development. The westbound left -turn lane @ East Horsetooth Road and Landings Drive should be 12' wide, not 11'. The thru lanes @ 1 V wide are OK. Lane widths have been adjusted as needed. Please contact Eric, at 224-6062, if you have questions about his comments. Rick Lee of the Building Department is forwarding a copy of the various codes that they will be enforcing. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General 40 Replace "P.U.D." with "P.D.P" on all the documents. PDP labels have been corrected. Topic: Grading 41 Offsite grading and construction is shown occurring along the northern boundary of the site. A letter of intent from the property owner not objecting to the offsite work is required to be submitted prior to any public hearing for the project. The applicants are in the process of securing the needed letter of intent. Topic: Plat 42 Replace all occurrences of Director of Engineering with City Engineer The Plat will reflect this change throughout. 43 The Plat language (Certificate of Dedication and Maintenance and Repair Guarantee language) has been revised. Please revised as shown (electronic format of the document is available). Ensure that the "Notice of Other Documents" language is included in the plat as well. The Plat language will be corrected as needed. 44 The Sight Distance Easement Language on the plat has also been revised. Please revise as shown. The Plat language will be corrected as needed. G:\W P\9000\9600\9601 PDP-RESPONSE 1 A. doc conry@ o urban design, inc. 46 The Development needs to dedicate an access easement along Stanford Drive to ensure the sidewalk proposed is in an access easement. Additional right-of-way is not necessary. The needed easement has been added to the Plat. 58 Vacation of City easements on the plat do not require an easement vacation certificate. However, vacation of exclusive easements outside of the City (20' communication easement) requires a signature from the telephone company. It is our understanding that the 20' easement in question is now within the Horsetooth Road right-of-way, and no vacation is necessary. 59 Horsetooth Road appears confusing with right-of-way on top of city and private utilities. Please clarify. The location of the right-of-way has been clarified on the Plat and plans. 61 An emergency access easement needs to be dedicated on the plat where PFA specifies a fire lane is required. The needed emergency access easement has been added. Topic: Street Design 29 The Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) in Section 8.2.2 specifies all lanes shall be in alignment through each intersection. Currently a 4.5' offset is measured on the road design; no offset will be allowed for this design. Lanes have been revised to align at the intersection, and maintain the existing curb and gutter. 30 Because of the no offset requirement and some constraints involving the existing storm drainage improvements across Horsetooth, the previous discussion involving extension of the proposed median to the Horsetooth/Stanford intersection will no longer be required. Instead, no median shall be provided on Horsetooth Road and a pork chop island for the driveway off of Horsetooth shall be required. The design of the "pork chop" for this access point should prohibit left turns onto Horsetooth (to the extent reasonably feasible) while at the same time be designed to allow PFA access. The design of Horsetooth Road has been revised as requested. 31 The access out to Horsetooth Road does not provide enough separation from the intersection of Horsetooth Road and Stanford Drive as required under LCUASS (660' is G:\WP\9000\9600\9601 PDP-RESPONSE1A.doc PROJECT COMMENT SHEET Current Planning DATE: November 28, 2001 TO: Technical Services PROJECT: #45-01A Bella Vista PDP - Type I (LUC) All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: ,�Alj December 26, 2001 Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference 1, 60amp 4, � l.t_-GgC Z' asE , ?, �r1n/7a4�S TEXT /5 700 (��c7 Tf/E vu1mr3��s ACE Lf%QE�tl LEGIAtFl ll GOvrec I� �✓+^� �i. lex�' It�e waicl%i' IS T00 heauy, MgKy q�eaS 1 d ut��Pss be Me,��. pjc,- W;Ll Viol ke ? t" ow w4s 1 I`Q- SOl e-� IzorSelno�� �a. decticCT�� > Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat _Site _Drainage Report Other _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape Cj�y7 ( o 0 urban design, inc. required, 620' is provided). Transportation Services has determined that this separation will work with the construction of the "pork chop" island to deter left turns out of the development. We have maintained the location of the drive centerline. 32 Directional ramps are required on new construction in accordance with LCUASS. (Standard Drawing 16-4D) Provide the detail on the plan set. The City standard directional ramp is not possible at this corner, due to existing Infrastructure in place, however we have expanded the previous ramp to better access the new crosswalks at Horsetooth and Stanford. 33 The City's Traffic Engineer has determined that the Stanford/Horsetooth intersection would not make a suitable location for a roundabout and an alternative analysis (typically required on arterial/collector and arterial/arterial intersections) is not needed. Thank you. 34 A right -turn lane for westbound Horsetooth onto northbound Stanford still should be designed and constructed. There is a community wide benefit in the construction of the right turn lane, thus this is eligible for Street Oversizing reimbursement. The design of the right -turn lane should look at providing pedestrian refuge between the right -turn and through lane, especially since the width of Horsetooth would require a ped refuge under LCUASS. As indicated above, vertical and horizontal conflicts with extensive existing drainage and utility improvements preclude construction of a right turn lane at this location. 35 Provide cross -sections on Horsetooth Road per LCUASS 3.3.4.0 (at 50' intervals). (It appears that a straight-line grade from the crown of Horsetooth Road to the flowline is not being provided as shown on the grading plan, cross -sections will help confirm or deny this.) The requested cross sections are included in the Utility Plans. 36 Show centerline and flowline profiles on Horsetooth Road. Northern Engineering will show profiles as required. 37 Provide the bearing and distance for the flowline on the plan view portion of the plan and profile sheet for Horsetooth Road. G:\WP\9000\9600\9601 PDP-RESPONSE 1 A. doc urban design, inc. Northern Engineering has shown this information on their plans 38 15' of utility easement is required along Horsetooth per LCUASS. An approved variance request is required to deviate from this. A variance request should be submitted to Engineering and will require approval from all the utilities in order to reduce the utility easement clown to 9'. In addition, 9' of utility easement should be provided along Stanford Road. Again, a variance request should be submitted to Engineering and will require approval from all the utilities in order to eliminate this easement. Northern Engineering is submitting the Variance Request. 39 Show 150' past the limits of construction (vertically and horizontally) to show how proposed improvements tie into existing. (Plan and profile street views, as well as street striping.) (per LCUASS Page E4-6) Northern Engineering has shown the additional limits on their plans 40 Can the striping for the bikelane continue further east to tie into the existing bikelane? That is the intent of our plans. 41 Per LCUASS in Section 16.6.4, the maximum length of a crosswalk without a pedestrian refuge area is 56'. This distance is being exceeded on Stanford Drive and Horsetooth Road. Transportation Services has agreed that pedestrian refuge on Stanford will not be required. As previously mentioned, a ped refuge should be looked at across Horsetooth in between the right turn lane and the through lanes. With the above comment that no raised median is to be constructed, pedestrian refuge is limited to the T painted median area between the west bound left turn lane and the east bound travel lanes. Even if a right turn lane were feasible, a pedestrian refuge between the right turn lane would still result in a street crossing of over 56'. 60 Because of the aforementioned need for the right -turn lane, eliminating the offset through the intersection, and the constraint of the existing storm drainage improvements, it is understood that the bike lane design for westbound Horsetooth may have to be compromised. A reduced bike lane width of 6' (including gutter) with a continuous concrete pour should be looked at as one potential compromise. It may also be necessary for the bike lane to stop short of the intersection to accommodate the right -turn lane. An additional option would be to look at widening the sidewalk and create a combined bike/ped area behind the curb if the bikelane cannot be accomplished. G:\WP\9000\9600\9601 PD P-RESPONSE 1 A. doc C OKM@C o urban design, inc. A revised plan for bike lanes is included with these plans. The west bound bike lane is proposed to remain on the street until the approach to the intersection and the existing lane alignment forces the bikeway to transition onto an oversized walk. 62 Add the following note as reference wherever patching is shown on the plans: Limits of street repair are approximate. Final limits to be determined in the field by the City Engineering Inspector. All repairs to be in accordance with City Street repair standards. Northern Engineering is adding the note as needed. Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Doug Martine Topic: Landscaping 1 Street trees on the landscape plan must be adjusted to provide a minimum of 40 ft. clearance between trees and streetlights. A streetlight plan has been sent to Steve Olt via inter -office mail. Street trees have been adjusted as necessary. 2 It is my understanding that the developer desires the electric transformer(s) to be placed immediately adjacent to the east side of the mechanical enclosure. This is acceptable to L&P, but the landscaping in this area will need to be adjusted to provide for the transformers. The size of the transformers cannot be determined until the developer provides electric load information for each electric service at the site. Landscape areas have been adjusted as needed. Further coordination will occur as needed as construction documents are finalized. Department: PFA Issue Contact: Ron Gonzales Topic: Plat 57 REQUIRED ACCESS: Due to the proposed heights of these edifices, a 30 foot wide fire lane is required for aerial operations. This fire lane shall be visible by painting and signage, and maintained unobstructed. Afire lane plan shall be submitted for approval prior to installation. 97UFC901.2.2.1,901.3,901.4.2;902.2.1 Admin.Policy85-5; FCLUC 3.6.6(D)3 The above ground level of the parking structure has been modified to allow 30' fire lane areas on one side of each building. It is our understanding that other circulation areas may remain at 20' or 24' as proposed. ADDRESS NUMERALS Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the property, and posted with a minimum of 6 inch numerals on a contrasting background. The property shall be G:\W P\9000\9600\9601 P DP -RESPONSE 1 A. doc Co�7g@@o urban design, inc. addressed from Stanford Drive. An address marquis shall be provided with 8" numerals. (Bronze numerals on brown brick are not acceptable).97UFC901.4.4 A note indicating addressing requirements has been added. WATER SUPPLY Fire hydrants are required with a maximum spacing of 600 feet along an approved roadway. Each hydrant must be capable of delivering 1500 gallons of water per minute at a residual pressure of 20 psi. No commercial building can be greater than 300 feet from a fire hydrant. 97UFC901.2.2.2 Northern Engineering is confirming hydrant spacing and fire flows Knox Box Policy Poudre Fire Authority requires a "Knox Box" to be mounted on the front of every new building equipped with a required fire sprinkler system or fire alarm system. 97UFC902.4 PFAPOLICY88-20 So noted. SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS: These proposed buildings shall be fire sprinklered. Afire pump may also be required, as well as standpipes for the building and the parking garage below grade. 97UBC Notes to this effect have been added to the plans. Further coordination will occur as construction documents are completed Ventilation System: A 2-stage ventilation system shall be provided for the parking garage below grade. Stage One shall be tied to a Carbon Monoxide Detection System that will detect carbon monoxide at 50ppm over 8 hours and/or 200ppm over 1 hour and ventilate the garage. Stage Two shall provide ventilation for smoke removal in the event of a car fire. UBC1202.2.7 Notes to this effect have been added to the plans. Further coordination will occur as construction documents are completed Department: Police Issue Contact: Joseph Gerdom Topic: General 9 Lighting Plan: The Luminaire schedule and luminaire detail don't provide sufficient information to determine exactly which lights are used in each location. Also, unless there are wall fixtures there is inadequate illumination between Bldg. B & C; east face of Bldg. D; and north face of Bldg. B. In general, all building access points should have minimum of 1 fc. A revised lighting plan is included with these plans. G:\W P\9000\9600\9601 P DP -RESPONSE 1 A doc C'�Y7 § O 0 urban design, inc. Topic: Landscaping 10 Landscape Plan: The use of Austrian Pine, cotoneaster, and ninebark along the faces of Bldg. B, C, and D, particularly in front of public/private entrances will obscure these areas and raise security issues. Lower growing species, lighting, or some combination thereof would be recommended. We have reviewed the landscape plan, and noted that adequate security lighting is to be provided at building entrances. Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Topic: Erosion Control 15 The report table of contents doesn't have the correct page numbers for the erosion control report. The report table of contents has been revised to correctly reference all pages. Your plan calls for straw bale inlet filters at a number of locations. Straw bales do not work on concrete or asphalt surfaces. When are these to be installed, after inlet construction but prior to hard surfacing? You need to spell the intent out with notes on the plan. Gravel bag inlet filters will replace straw bales as the BMP of choice. The gravel bags will be effective both before and after hard surfacing. What is to protect. Warren Lake during the construction of the outlet drain piping system and the roadway (Horsetooth) construction? All of these and water quality pond #1 seem to be outside the limits of your erosion control BMP's. Silt fencing and a gravel bag check dam have been added near the reconstructed headwall to protect Warren Lake during construction. The surety is calculated incorrectly with regard to reseeding/mulching. Also, $1.3O/lf on silt fencing is pretty cheap. Who does it for that, you? Proper unit prices are now included in the surety calculations for both reseeding and silt fencing. Topic: General 16 Please revise the general notes section to apply to this project and the city of Fort Collins. Please check that the benchmarks referenced are the closest to the site. The general notes have been updated for this project and location. G:\WP\9000\9600\9601 PDP-RESPONSE1A.doc Co�Y7PQ o urban design, inc 17 Please provide a signature block for the Warren Lake Owner. Please provide construction/ drainage easements on the south side of Horsetooth Rd. There is already an existing easement for the proposed improvements at the headwall. No additional easements or approval blocks are needed. Enclosed is a copy of the Utility Easement Dedication for the First Replat of The Landings First Filing. (Rec. # 366979, Book 2051, Page 0546), dated 06122180. 20 Please specify on the plans where maintenance responsibility changes from property owner to City of Fort Collins. The plans now clearly specify which storm sewer is to remain private and which storm sewer is to be maintained by the City of Fort Collins. 22 The minimum pipe size is 15" according to the Storm Drainage Design Criteria or storm sewers maintained by the City. Also, class III RCP is required under all city streets. Please revise the storm sewer system to meet the minimum criteria. All storm sewer to be maintained by the City of Fort Collins is at least 15" diameter. Also, all storm sewer located under City streets is Class 111 RCP. 23 All swales and ponds require a concrete pan when slopes are less than 2%. Please revise plans. A concrete trickle pan has been added to Swale D. 25 Please provide pond depth markers where water is more than 3 ft. deep. Please include the depth marker detail in the plans. WQ Pond 1 has a pond depth marker specified, and the detail is also included. 27 Please specify which pipes are pressure sealed on plans. Consider resizing pipes to minimize pressurized areas. Storm sewer lines requiring water-tight/pressure-sealed gaskets have been clearly noted on the plans. All storm sewer lines have been sized to convey the 100- year flows without surface ponding. Topic: Grading 18 Please maintain a maximum of 4:1 grading on site. Currently the west entrance area and west detention ponds have slopes greater than allowed. G:\WP\9000\9600\9601 PDP-RESPONSE1A.doc urban design, inc. WQ Pond 2 has 3:1 side slopes. This pond will not be maintained by the City of Fort Collins. Furthermore, it will not be sod -grass, but rather native grasses requiring less mowing. All maintenance will be performed by the local homeowners association. Also, an erosion control blanket has been proposed for slope stability until permanent vegetation has been established. 19 Please revise the grading plan to include top of wall and bottom of wall elevations for all retaining walls and terraces on site. Include enough grading and spot elevations on each level to show drainage patterns. Also, include details of retaining and pond walls. Please include more spot elevations around buildings and in parking lots to clarify grading and drainage. Currently some areas do not have enough information to show how water drains. Please provide low points in both detention ponds. The requested detail has been added to the grading plan. Topic: Landscaping 24 Please maintain a minimum of 1 Oftseparation between trees and storm sewers. There is very dense landscaping shown around the southern inlets and in the northern swale, please check that drainage will not be affected. 10' separation is maintained between trees and City maintained storm sewers. The minor area inlet drain system behind the walk along Horsetooth Road is to be maintained by the H.O.A. Topic: Riprap 26 Please call out all riprap on plans and profiles. Is there any riprap or protection at the outlet of Storm Sewer E? Riprap is now called -out on the storm sewer plan and profiles. The existing riprap at the outfall of Storm Sewer Line E is also shown on the plans. Topic: Spillway 21 Please provide spillways and conveyance for flows from water quality ponds in case outlet is plugged. Please provide calculations and cross sections for the spillways. Spillways (emergency overflow weirs) have been provided for both ponds. Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Mark Jackson Topic: General 11 Please show bicycle parking as appropriate at each building near main entrances. G:\W P\9000\9600\9601 PD P-RESPONSE 1 A. d oc UYpQ o urban design, inc. Bike rack locations have been noted on the revised plans. 12 What number of HC parking spaces exist on lower level? Is there elevator access or adequate access for ADA? Elevator access and the 8 HC spaces provided on the lower level are noted. 13 Provide cross -sections of Horsetooth (arterial) lanes to standard. and Stanford (Collector), including bike Cross sections are provided on sheet 6. As per the Engineering comments, some compromises to normal standards are necessary due to existing conditions. 14 Provide pedestrian refuge for movement across Horsetooth. This can be done either through the extension of the median and/or a porkchop island for the right turn lane. As per the direction we received from Engineering, pedestrian refuge is provided at the painted median between the west bound left turn lane and the eastbound travel lanes. Belated Comment (received January 25, 2002) Requiring Bella Vista to complete the sidewalk connection on the east side of Stanford. This comment is in conflict with the direction we received earlier from Transportation Planning. The adjacent Aspen Leaf Apartments has a minimal pedestrian walkway system, which (as approved by the City of Fort Collins) includes connecting walkways only within the center of the site. These walks dead in into the asphalt parking lots, forcing resident pedestrians to walk in parking areas and landscaped areas to reach any of the surrounding streets. While there are existing walks along Monroe and Stover, my extensive personal experience with the Aspen Leaf site indicates that these public walks are not used, largely because cutting through the Aspen Leaf site — by walking in the parking areas and the central building access walks — is a more direct route to area destinations. This will also be true of any pedestrian destinations 1 Bella 'Vista; and the connecting walk previously agreed with City Staff, and proposed by this applicant works better with the "real' pedestrian circulation pattern in Aspen Leaf, while a new walk along Stanford will not integrate with the actual pedestrian circulation in the area. Because a retro-fitted walk on the east side of Stanford would be expensive to construct; will disrupt existing landscaping; and will not provide easier access to the Bella Vista site or other area destinations, we do not agree with the belated request to construct this off -site walk. It is not reasonable to require this development to correct a past mistake by the City and an earlier developer. Similar requirements have not been made of other recent developers. (For example the King Soopers at Harmony and JFK G:\W P\9000\9600\9601 PDP-RESPONSE 1 A. d oc urban design, inc. did not have to build walkways in the Fairway Estates subdivision; or even make connections back to Boardwalk along Harmony). Department: Waiter Wastewater Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Topic: Landscaping 48 Coordinate landscape design with the civil design and provide the required landscape/utility separation distances. Show all existing and proposed water/sewer mains and services on the landscape plans. Utilities are shown, and coordinated with landscaping as requested. Topic: Plat 47 Provide a 30 foot minimum utility easement for the existing 8-inch sanitary sewer main which crosses this site. No buildings, retaining walls, trash enclosures, over hangs, landscape boulders, etc my be placed or erected within the utility easements. As per the decision at the January 9th Utility Coordination Meeting, the easement will remain at 20' with the understanding that the existing sewer main will be encased in concrete; it will be confirmed that the existing line is not a clay tile material, and minor building encroachments 17' or more above finish grade will be allowed. Repair and replacement of landscape and hardscape plaza elements required as a result of any future requirement to excavate the adjacent portion of the sewer line will be the responsibility of the property owner/H.O.A. Topic: Utility plans 49 Call out all fittings, thrust blocks, valves, water/sewer service sizes on the overall utility plans. Northern Engineering has addressed these comments 50 Maintain a 4 feet minimum separation distance between the outside wall of all meter pits and any permanent structure (I.e. retaining walls, buildings, landscape boulders, trash enclosures, etc.). To the extent practical, meter pits will be located as requested. Further coordination will occur as construction documents are completed. 51 Provide separate water and sewer services for each building and each use within each building (I.e. commercial, residential). The required number of services will be provided G:\WP\9000\9600\9601 PDP-RESPONSE1A.doc urban design, inc. 52 Eliminate all un-necessary bends and low angle crossings of water, sewer and storm sewer lines. Bends and low angle crossings have been minimized to the extent practical 53 Show and label all curb stops and meter pits on the overall utility plans. Clearly identify these with size and location. Northern Engineering has addressed these comments 54 Clearly show and label all water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer crossings in all utility profile views. Define any and all lowerings or adjustments. Maintain 18-inches of vertical separation between all water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer crossings. Northern Engineering has addressed these comments. 55 Will an irrigation tap be required within this site? No. Irrigation is intended to be taken off one or more of the domestic services to the buildings. 56 Provide a manhole adjustment and a concrete encasement detail with the next submittal. Northern Engineering has addressed these comments See the site, landscape and utility plans for other comments. Rather than greatly reducing the landscape plantings, a note obligating landscape repair and replacement by the H.O.A. has been added so that 10' clearance from service lines is not required. Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes Topic: General 3 General note 1(d)(ii) lists "live/work office type units" as a possible use. What is that? No such term. Is it the same as a home occupation? Live/Work is a type of mixed -use dwelling concept, wherein a work (non- residential) space is accessory or incidental to the primary residential uses in the same structure. In this case, the non-residential use may be a home occupation, or any other Type 1 use allowed in the MMN District. Although the term "live/work" is not in the Fort Coffins Land Use Code, it is a common planning term in current practice, and represents a desirable mixed -use concept. G:\WP\9000\9600\9601 P DP -RESPONSE IA. d oc Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments Citv of Fort Collins Department: Stormwater Utility Date: December 24, 2001 Project: BELLA VISTA PDP, TYPE I (LUC) All comments must be received by STEVE OLT in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: December 26, 2001 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Topic: Erosion Control 15 The report table of contents doesn't have the correct page numbers for the erosion control report. Your plan calls for straw bale inlet filters at a number of locations. Straw bales do not work on concrete or asphalt surfaces. When are these to be installed, after inlet construction but prior to hard surfacing? You need to spell the intent out with notes on the plan. What is to protect Warren Lake during the construction of the outlet drain piping system and the roadway (Horsetooth) construction? All of these and water quality pond #1 seem to be outside the limits of your erosion control BMP's. The surety is calculated incorrectly with regard to reseeding/mulching. Also, $1.30/If on silt fencing is pretty cheap. Who does it for that, you? Topic: General 16 Please revise the general notes section to apply to this project and the city of Fort Collins. Please check that the benchmarks referenced are the closest to the site. 17 Please provide a signature block for the Warren Lake Owner. Please provide construction/ drainage easements on the south side of Horsetooth Rd. 20 Please specify on the plans where maintenance responsibility changes from property owner to City of Fort Collins. 22 The minimum pipe size is 15" according to the Storm Drainage Design Criteria on storm sewers maintained by the City. Also, class III RCP is requ d under all city streets. Please revise the storm sewer system to meet the minimum criteria. 'W' yl-( /Z/ Z Z� /ry Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS y _ Plat _ X Site X Drainage Report _ Other Ve-,Vwsy Utility _ Redline Utility X_ Landscape «, SkK o tt n o r�v'n Page 1 �lg(actn.g urban design, inc. 4 General note 2 references Section 2.8.17. There is no such section. I assume they mean 3.8.17 (A)(3). If so, then Planning needs to determine if the 4 to 6 stories is the appropriate "contextual height". Some of the walls of buildings are almost 90' tall. In my opinion, "contextual height" as used in 3.8.17(A)(3) implies a similar height in feet as well as in stories. For instance, a 6 story building on one lot may only be 70' tall, and that doesn't mean that it's therefore ok to have a 6 story building on an adjacent lot that is 90' tall when the maximum height allowed in the MMN zone is 3 stories (4.5(E)(1)(d). How tall is the Marriott in terms of feet? According the Land Use Code, "Height may be measured according to any [not all] of several methods." Building Height limitations in various zoning districts are stated in terms of the number of stories. Section 3.8.17 (A)(3) refers to Contextual Height in relation to the "zone district maximum height", which is regulated according to the number of stories. The difference in height from ground floor to "the highest point of the roof surface or structure" between the Marriott and the tallest proposed building at Bella Vista is approximately 12'. Making the Bella Vista building shorter by using a flat roof, or by changing the plan to four, identical five story buildings would result in a less attractive project, while the reduction in height would be imperceptible. 5 General note 13 - wood gates are not advisable. So noted. 6 General note 1(d)(iii) - small food service uses listed are not classified as accessory uses. Therefore, they are not permitted in the MMN zone. (the only way they can be remotely "accessory" is if they serve only the residences of the building, and are not open to the "public". At a Novernber 2 Id meeting with City Planning Staff, we were assured that small food services uses would be considered as accessory uses. This was the basis for our request for MMN zoning rather than a combination of zones that would have allowed a greater mix of uses. 7 General note 1(C)(ii) - B&B's would not be allowed. Such a use is a use that is conducted in a private house, not in a condo building. We can find nothing in the Land Use Code that precludes B&B's from being located in a condominium building. B&Bs are clearly allowed in the MMN District, while "private houses" are allowed only on lots of less than 6,000 square feet. Such "private houses" would not be conducive to a six bedroom B&B. G 1W P\9000\9600\9601 PDP-R ESP ON S E 1 A. d oc co �Y2�§Qo urban design, inc. Topic: Landscaping 8 The surface level parking lot is required to have interior parking lot landscaping. (Sections 3.2.1(E)(5) and 3.2.2(M)(1). Does the parking underneath the surface lot preclude interior landscaping? If so, then a modification will be required to 3.2.2(M)(1) since there is no alternative compliance provision to that section and since there is no automatic exemption for a surface lot on top of an underground lot. The lot does have some landscaping that could qualify as interior, but not enough. The revised plan meets the 6% interior landscape area requirement. We would be interested to know how the Mason Street Parking Garage meets this standard. Our office provided the landscape plans for that project. During the review of the Mason Street Parking Garage, no one ever suggested that the above mentioned sections of the Code would be applicable, and — to my knowledge - no modification was required. The following comments were expressed at Staff Review on December 26, 2001: Natural Resources: The plans are showing only one trash enclosure location. This does not seem to be enough for the development program that is proposed. A second trash enclosure has been added. Engineering: Off -site grading on the property to the north will be required. A letter of intent from that property owner will be needed prior to scheduling this item for a public hearing and the actual off -site easement from the property owner will be needed at the time of final compliance review. (See above) 2. Additional street right-of-way for Stanford Road is not needed; however, the public sidewalk must be located in a public access easement. (See above) 3. The East Horsetooth Road design that was part of the PDP submittal is not sufficient. It does not meet the City's street design standards and requirements. A variance request will be needed. Northern Engineering has addressed this comment. 4. The 9' wide utility easement as shown along East Horsetooth Road needs to be 15' wide. The applicant may submit a variance request for the easement width. (See above) G\WP\9000\9600\9601PDP-RESPONSE1Adoc urban design, inc. 5. The necessary westbound right -turn lane on East Horsetooth Road will have an impact on the building placement in this development. (See above) 6. There is a 660' minimum separation requirement between the access onto East Horsetooth, Road and Stanford Road. The distance as shown is about 610'. The applicant may submit a variance request for the minimum separation. (See above) 7. The applicant has to do a roundabout study for the intersection of East Horsetooth Road and Stanford Road. (See above) 8. Pedestrian refuge islands are needed in both East Horsetooth Road and Stanford Road. (See above) 9. The street striping as proposed does not meet the City's standards. (See above) 10. There is a requirement that the utility plans show conditions at least 100' past the limits of construction for this project. Northern Engineering has addressed this comment 11. Adequate drainage in the medians in the streets must be provided. (See above) 12. It is important that a utility coordination meeting be held. A Utility Coordination Meeting was held on January 9rn 13. A big issue ..... the Poudre Fire Authority has a requirement for a 30' wide emergency access on -site through this project because of the proposed height of the buildings. As per my discussions with Ron Gonzales, 30' fire lane areas have been provided on one side of each building. 14. The length of the straight section of the access drive from Stanford Road into the parking garage is not long enough. Because the access drive from Stanford into the parking garage is "in only" no straight section is needed. The condition is not unlike a "free right" turn at a street intersection. 15. There may be a problem with the placement of the parking garage gates. G:\W P\9000\9600\9601 PDP-RESPONSE 1 A. doc o urban design, inc. There are automatic overhead doors planned at the entrances to the parking garage. We are not aware of any problems with their locations. Planning: 1. This development proposal, with the uses as identified on the Site Plan, is considered to be a Type I, administrative review project. However, depending on how the proposed commercial/retail uses are defined in the 22,000 square feet of non-residential floor area, and if any modifications to standards are deemed to be necessary, the proposal could be subject to a Type II, Planning & Zoning Board review. As noted on the PDP it is the applicants' intent to limit uses to those allowed as Type 1 in the MMN District, including the accessory uses as agreed with Planning Staff on November 2"d. We do not believe that modifications to the Code are needed. 2. The proposed small food service uses, Item iii) under Accessory Uses in the General Notes, may be of concern. If there are several very small users, as staff and the developer have previously discussed, then these food services could be considered to be accessory uses. However, if a single restaurant were to occupy the bulk of the defined food service space (up to 4,500 square feet) then there would be a problem associated with the list of permitted uses in the MMN District. Restaurants are not a permitted use in this district. Standard, "sit-down" franchise restaurants are typically 6,000 to 8,000 square feet. It is our intent to establish a limit to the size that would — from a practical point of view — essentially preclude those larger restaurants. The lack of ample customer parking on the site (further limited by the required 30' fire lanes) also makes this project un- attractive to any larger food service operations. The result of a similar discussion regarding a residential, mixed -use plan in Loveland resulted in a limit of 4,000 square feet on any individual "restaurant, pub, coffee shop, or similar use". It must be remembered that allowing some reasonable food service operation is key to the "social gathering" or "neighborhood center" function that is appropriate at this location. This site and the surrounding residential areas have no real "centers" as envisioned in City Plan. We should not be trying to preclude Bella Vista from filling this need. With these revisions, we are limiting accessory, "small food service" operations to a maximum of 3600 sq. ft. per food service use. 3. The proposed live/work office uses, Item ii) under Accessory Uses in the General Notes, is a good idea; however, offices (per say) are listed as a Type Il, Planning & Zoning Board review use in the MMN District. We have revised the land use notes to limit office uses to Home Occupations. Other "work" areas allowed under the "live/work" concept at this location are limited to Type 1 uses in the MMN District. G:\W P\9000\9600\9601 PD P-RESPONSE 1 A. d oc urban design, inc. 4. Specific elevations for Building D were not part of the original development submittal. This building is of most concern regarding how it meets the standards set forth in Section 3.5.3(B) Relationship of Buildings to Streets, Walkways and Parking in the LUC. Stanford Road is a 2-lane collector street (less than full arterial) and all mixed -use and commercial buildings must be within 15' of the right-of-way (ROW) for this street. None of Building D is at or within 15' of the ROW. There are patios and a sidewalk along the west side of the building, but do they truly satisfy the criteria set forth in Section 3.5.3(13)(2)(d) of the LUC? Additional Building D elevations are included with these revisions. As per our meeting with Planning Staff on November 21d, Building D meets #.5.3 (B)(d) I., which states that "Exceptions to the build -to line standards shall be permitted in order to form an outdoor space such as a plaza, courtyard, patio or garden between the building and the sidewalk..." Our plans include landscaping, low walls and other similar improvements along the sidewalk designed for pedestrian interest, and visual continuity. 5. A discussion of how this project satisfies Section 3.2.1(E)(5) Parking Lot Interior Landscaping should be done involving the developers, their consultants, City Planning, and City Zoning. It is understood that the "surface" parking lot for the commercial/retail uses is above an underground parking garage; however, there may be ways to incorporate landscaping in this area. Our revised plans meet the 6% interior landscape area requirement. Areas of shading are addressed through the provision of trellis structures. It should be noted that the City of Fort Collins — to my knowledge — has not applied "parking lot" landscape requirements to the upper, uncovered, deck levels of other "parking structures" in the review process. it continues to be unclear why this project should be held to a different standard. City Plan clearly intended to encourage structured parking, while enforcement of the Code appears to actively discourage that approach. 6. Section 3.2.1(E)(5)(e) of the LUC states that parking bays shall extend no more than 15 parking spaces without an intervening tree, landscape island, or landscape peninsula. There are 20 uninterrupted parking spaces in the bay along the north side of Building B. As part of the interior landscaping discussion this concern should be addressed. We have added a landscape island. (also, see above). 7. While reviewing the Shadow Analysis Plan and Streetscape & Building Elevations Plans against the criteria set forth in Section 3.5.1(G) Building Height Review of the LUC, several comments have arisen: a. Regarding Views, are there still desirable views of the foothills from the residential areas north and south of East Horsetooth Road that will be affected by this development? Are there views of Warren Lake from properties north of East Horsetooth Road that will be affected? Section G:\WP\9000\9600\9601 PDP-RESPONSE1 A. doc o urban design, inc. 3.5.1(G)(1)(b)2 of the LUC requires that a visual analysis of views be submitted for review. There are no existing views of the foothills or of Warren Lake that will be affected by this development. Vaught'Frye is providing additional view analysis for your review. b. There would appear to be several areas of concern regarding Light and Shadow on adjacent properties, mostly at the 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. times as shown on the Shadow Analysis Plan. Most significant is the potential affects on buildings and parking lots to the west, across Stanford Road. No existing, occupied structures are affected. The only existing building affected by the 9:00 or 3:00 December 21st shadows is the small storage/maintenance building at the, Aspen Leaf Apartments. A future building on the Marriott expansion portion of the Marriott lot west of Stanford may be affected as the existing Marriott affects the Arena Office Buildings to the west of the hotel. C. Due to the placement of these buildings and their relationship to surrounding properties, it does not appear that "Privacy" should be an issue. We agree d. Regarding Neighborhood Scale, it would be appropriate for the developer/applicant to submit a more detailed written narrative than what has been presented in Section 9) of the Statement of Planning Objectives in support of the buildings heights and massing. The City still has some "contextual" concerns regarding this issue. Understanding the "Contextual Height' definition in Section 3.8.17(A)(3) of the LUC, there is still some discussion needed about where this site is situated relative to the taller buildings (such as the Marriott Hotel) in the area. Additional written and graphic materials are in process. 8. The Building Elevations Plans should indicate, to some degree, the building materials and colors being proposed as set forth in Section (2) of the PDP submittal requirements. Also, what will the elevations of the buildings interior to the site look like? Typically, elevations for all 4 sides of buildings should be submitted. Vaught*Frye is providing the additional architectural information requested. G:\WP\9000\9600\9601 PDP-RESPONSE1A.doc C OX72@@ o urban design, inc. 9. There may be additional Planning comments on red -lined plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. No significant additional comments were reflected on the red -lines we have received. Sincerely, Eldon Ward Cityscape Urban Design, Inc. cc: Chuck McNeal, Stanford Development, LLC Javier Martinez Campos, Stanford Development, LLC Frank Vaught, Vaught ` Frye Architects Bud Curtis, Northern Engineering Matt Delich G:\WP\9000\9600\9601 PDP-RESPONSE1A.doc REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: January 30, 2002 TO: Engineering PROJECT: #45-01A Bella Vista PDP - Type I (LUC) All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: February 20, 2002 El No Comment ❑ Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) "PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE** Date: __Signature:_ CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat _ Site _ Eminage Report Other Utility Redlinc Utility Landscape Marc Virata --Bella Vista Utili Plans Pa e 1 g From: Eric: Bracke To: Cam McNair; Dave Stringer; Kathleen Reavis; Mar... Date: Tue, Feb 5, 2002 11:41 AM Subject: Bella Vista Utility Plans I just reviewed the Belle Vista Utility Plans and provide the following comments: 1. Horsetooth Road: - on the east end of the project, they are showing 3.E' t ike lanes and 10.6' travel lanes. This is a 40 mph facility and these lane widths are not acceptable to Traffic Engineering. I would settle for 6' bike lanes ( if TP agrees) and 11.5' travel lanes. -The redirect taper for westbound traffic is shown at '40'. Again, this is a 40 mph facility and using the standard WS^2/60 calculation, the taper should be 320'. -The eastbound bike lane at Landings needs to start at the pc, not 25' east of the taper to begin the bike lane A cyclist is likely to get "squished" under this design. - I definitely remember the discussion at TC regarding the need for a WB right turn lane - based on our standards and not the TIS or LOS requirements. It is still not shown. 2. Stanford - a 10' right turn lane is not acceptable - have them get rid of the 4' painted median and use 2' for the SB right turn, 1' for the SB thru, and 1' for the SB left turn. Kind Regards, Eric L. Bracke, P.E. Traffic Engineer City of Fort Collins 970-224-6062 ebracke@fcgov.com urban design. inc. Topic: Grading 45 Offsite grading and construction is shown occurring along the northern boundary of the site. A letter of intent from the property owner not objecting to the offsite work is required to be submitted prior to any public hearing for the project. Topic: Plat 46 The Development needs to dedicate an access easement along Stanford Drive to ensure the sidewalk proposed is in an access easement. Additional right-of-way is not necessary. (2/20) It appears that additional access easement along Stanford Drive (and Horsetooth Road) is necessary to ensure that all of the proposed sidewalk is in easement. 66 A minimum of 57.5' of half street right-of-way is required to be dedicated along the entire length of the property with a consistent utility easement width, in conformance with LCUASS. It is understood that 9' instead of the 15' of necessary utility easement is being proposed behind the right-of-way; when all the design and utility issues are resolved along Florsetooth, the variance request for reduction in utility easement width will be routed to the utilities for approval. 75 There may be a benefit in designating on the plat that the emergency access easement is for the "surface level" only. There may be issues from a title company on how the emergency access easement is represented as going through a building envelope. Topic: Sidewalk 99 The grading plan appears to show that inlets with straw bales will be in close proximity or perhaps even overlapping with the street sidewalks. These straw bales need to be outside of the sidewalk section. Perhaps a different erosion control measure can be used if the straw bales are encroaching into the sidewalk for a period of time. Topic: Street Design 32 Directional ramps are required on new construction in accordance with LCUASS. (Standard Drawing 16-4D) Provide the detail on the plan set. (2/20) The response from the applicant stated that this could not be accommodated due to existing constraints. The design engineer should provide documentation on why this cannot be accomplished. Note that because of the right turn discussion, any previous limitations due to existing constraints may no longer be applicable. 34 A right -turn lane for westbound Horsetooth onto northbound Stanford still should be designed and constructed. There is a community wide benefit in the construction of the right turn lane, thus this is eligible for Street Oversizing reimbursement. The design of the right -turn lane should look at providing pedestrian refuge between the right -turn and \\SERVER\Server D\WP\9000\9600\9601PDP-RESPONSE3.doc 23 All swales and ponds require a concrete pan when slopes are less than 2%. Please revise plans. 25 Please provide pond depth markers where water is more than 3 ft. deep. Please include the depth marker detail in the plans. 27 Please specify which pipes are pressure sealed on plans. Consider resizing pipes to minimize pressurized areas. Topic: Grading 18 Please maintain a maximum of 4:1 grading on site. Currently the west entrance area and west detention ponds have slopes greater than allowed. 19 Please revise the grading plan to include top of wall and bottom of wall elevations for all retaining walls and terraces on site. Include enough grading and spot elevations on each level to show drainage patterns. Also, include details of retaining and pond walls. Please include more spot elevations around buildings and in parking lots to clarify grading and drainage. Currently some areas do not have enough information to show how water drains. Please provide low points in both detention ponds. Topic: Landscaping 24 Please maintain a minimum of loft, separation between trees and storm sewers. There is very dense landscaping shown around the southern inlets and in the northern swale; please check that drainage will not be affected. Topic: Riprap 26 Please call out all riprap on plans and profiles. Is there any riprap or protection at the outlet of Storm Sewer E? Topic: Spillway 21 Please provide spillways and conveyance for flows from water quality ponds in case outlet is plugged. Please provide calculations and cross sections for the spillways. Page 2 cc n@ o urban design, inc. through lane, especially since the width of Horsetooth would require a ped refuge under LCUASS. (2/20) The issue of the right turn lane was discussed at the City's 2/14 Transportation Coordination Meeting. It was viewed that the submitted justification for not designing the right turn lane was not compelling and that a right turn lane could be designed into the project. Please note that any written documentation regarding the designing of the right -turn lane should be provided by the design engineer (a licensed professional engineer.) 35 Provide cross -sections on Horsetooth Road per LCUASS 3.3.4.0 (at 50' intervals). (It appears that a straight-line grade from the crown of Horsetooth Road to the flowline is not being provided as shown on the grading plan, cross -sections will help confirm or deny this.) (2/20) The cross section sheets need to have the centerline elevations labeled, the curb and gutter section should be distinguishable from the asphalt section, and the right-of-way should also be shown. 36 Show centerline and flowline profiles on Horsetooth Road. (2/20) Can the grid lines or scale be modified in order to allow for every XX+00 stationing to be on a grid line? Only every 3rd XX+00 stationing is on a grid line. 37 Provide the bearing and distance for the flowline on the plan view portion of the plan and profile sheet for Horsetooth Road. (2/20) This information isn't shown east of the driveway and only bearing (no distance) is being shown west of the driveway. 60 Because of the aforementioned need for the right -turn lane, eliminating the offset through the intersection, and the constraint of the existing storm drainage improvements, it is understood that the bike lane design for westbound Horsetooth may have to be compromised. A reduced bike lane width of 6' (including gutter) with a continuous concrete pour should be looked at as one potential compromise. It may also be necessary for the bike lane to stop short of the intersection to accommodate the right -turn lane. An additional option would be to look at widening the sidewalk and create a combined bike/ped area behind the curb if the bikelane cannot be accomplished. (2/20) With the right turn lane still being an outstanding issue, the proposed design of the westbound bike lane will not be commented on by Engineering at this time. It is still considered ideal that the bike lane is continuous to the intersection. 62 Add the following note as reference wherever patching is shown on the plans: Limits of street repair are approximate. Final limits to be determined in the field by the City Engineering Inspector. All repairs to be in accordance with City Street repair standards. (2/20) Ensure that this note is referenced to the work along Stanford as well. 67 \\SERVER\Server D\WP\9000\9600\9601PDP-RESPONSE3.doc urban design, inc The "bulb -outs" proposed on Stanford Drive may be allowed only if the gutter is redesigned to go around and along the bulb outs, not through them. There are maintenance concerns with the current proposal due to dirt and debris collecting between the bulb outs and the flowline. 68 [12] The vertical curve shown is too short in length for the street classification of Horsetooth. A K value of 110 is required, 60 is shown. 69 [13] A vertical curve is needed for the Horsetooth proposed flowline as it approaches the existing storm lines. A grade break is shown with a 0.6% grade going to a 1.691/c grade. 70 [13] Fix the vertical elevation labeling on this sheet for the profile view. 71 Three variance requests were received regarding Bella Vista from Northern Engineering. The variance requesting the reduction in sight distance along Stanford Drive, the variance to reduce the driveway spacing from 660' to 610', and the variance to reduce the utility easement along Horsetooth were all viewed favorably upon by the City Engineer. Final approval of these variance requests will occur with completion of the designs for Horsetooth and Stanford that are acceptable to the City and the utilities. 72 [13] The 2.55% shown on this sheet appears to actually calculate to 4.2% with the elevations and stationing shown. 77 The Traffic Engineer has noted that the center turn lane should be continuous from the intersection to the Cove Island development and continuing east. The Traffic Engineer notes that a 3/4 movement to allow left turns into the site could be designed (with painted medians) in conjunction with the porkchop island to facilitate right turns out of this driveway. 78 The cross section sheets show the additional road width to be 4% or even greater. Because a saw cut is being shown to the centerline for most of Horsetooth, a continuous straight line grade needs to be maintained along the entire north half of the roadway where the sawcut is shown. For the additional width between stations 10+00 and 11+00, (where the roadway is not being sawcut to centerline), this new portion of roadway is limited to 3%. 79 A grade break is shown on Sheet [12] that exceeds .40%. A vertical curve would be required based on this design. 98 Provide spot elevations at the Horsetooth and Stanford intersection in accordance with LCUASS Standard Detail 7-32B. \\SERVER\Server D\WP\9000\9600\9601PDP-RESPONSE3.doc o urban design, inc. 100 The submitted "Street Cross Sections" from the site planner is not appropriate to be submitted as a document along with the site and landscape development plan documents. Street cross sections are to be shown on the utility plan set and will be established based upon an approved design for the roadway(s). 101 Angle points along the flowine appear to be shown along Horsetooth, please revise and use curves as shown in LCUASS 7.4.1. 104 It appears that redirects are too abrupt on the street striping plan. See traffic comments regarding this. Topic: Utility plans 76 The drawings retarding the storm system across Horsetooth originally approved by the City showed an inlet being tied to the easternmost pipe, the submitted plans show that the inlet is tied to the westernmost pipe. Applicant Response: 1) General a) The access ramp design is now reconciled on both the site plan and utility plans. b) General note #4 has been revised to reflect adopted City Policy. 2) Grading a) A letter of intent is being provided as requested. 3) Plat a) Access easements for all public walks will be provided upon resolution of the alignment:3 of the affected walks. b) The minimum right-of-way is now indicated, along with a utility easement adiacent to Horsetooth Road. c) The emergency easement is noted for the "surface level" only as suggested. 4) Sidewalk a) Erosion control and walk locations have been reconciled on the revised plans. 5) Street Design revisions are reflected in the utility plans and addressed in the response letter from Northern Engineering. 6) Utility Plans revisions are reflected in the utility plans and addressed in the response letter from Northern Engineerinq Department: PFA Issue Contact: Ron Gonzales Topic: Plat SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS: These proposed buildings shall be fire sprinklered. A fire pump may also be required, as well as standpipes for the building and the parking garage below grade. 97UBC \\SERVER\Server D\WP\9000\9600\9601PDP-RESPONSE3.doc urban design, inc. The response letter from Cityscape stated that notes to this effect have been added to the plans. Please indicate where the notes are. Ventilation System: A 2-stage ventilation system shall be provided for the parking garage below grade. Stage One shall be tied to a Carbon Monoxide Detection System that will detect carbon monoxide at 50ppm over 8 hours and/or 200ppm over 1 hour and ventilate the garage. Stage Two shall provide ventilation for smoke removal in the event of a car fire. U BC 1202.2.7 The response letter from Cityscape stated that notes to this effect have been added to the plans. Please indicate where the notes are. Applicant Response: a) Notes regarding sprinkler requirements fire pumps standpipes and 2-stage ventilation have been added to the PDP General Notes (#'s 23 and 24) Department: Police Issue Contact: Joseph Gerdom Topic: General 9 Lighting Plan: The Luminaire schedule and luminaire detail don't provide sufficient information to determine exactly which lights are used in each location. Also, unless there are wall fixtures there is inadequate illumination between Bldg B & C; east face of Bldg D; and north face of Bldg B. In general, all building access points should have minimum of 1 fc. Topic: Landscaping 10 Landscape Plan: The use of Austrian Pine, cotoneaster, and ninebark along the faces of Bldgs B, C, and D, particularly in front of public/private entrances will obscure these areas and raise security issues. Lower growing species, lighting, or some combination thereof would be recommended. Applicant Response: A revised light�nq plan has been provided indicating locations of wall mounted fixtures for security lighting. The provision of adequate lighting — rather than reduced landscaping — is the preferred security measure. Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Basil Harridan Topic: Construction Easements 80 The proposed 24" RCP across Horsetooth Rd. will necessitate the construction of a headwall and part of the culvert on Tract D of The Landings 1 st Filing. Prior to construction on this Tract owned by that HOA the contractor should make sure that the HOA is notified and that the area will be properly restored. Even though this area is in \\SERVER\Server_D\WP\9000\9600\9601 PDP-RESPONSE3.doc CXM@Q o urban design, inc. an existing drainage easement, the landings 1 st Filing HOA which maintains this area should ensure that the area is put back to an acceptable level, equal or better than before construction. Topic: Ditch Company Approval 87 Prior to allowing additional discharge from this site into Warren Lake, the Warren Lake Ditch company must sign off on these plans. Topic: Drainage Report 83 Please provide street capacity calculations for Horsetooth Road for the area that is being widened by this project. Since Horsetooth is a major arterial the standards call for no curb overtopping in the 10-year storm and one lane open in the 100 -year storm. Please provide sizing calculations for the proposed Stormceptor. Please provide sizing calculations for the proposed spillways on ponds 1 and 2. Topic: Erosion Control 86 Please submit an erosion control plan that meets the standards of the City of Fort Collins. The submitted materials do not meet our minimum standards. Contact Bob Zakely for further directions. Please provide a better detail for the proposed erosion control fabric for Pond 2. Provide a seed mix for the native grass proposed in this pond. Topic: Grading 85 The proposed offsite grading on the northwest corner of the site will require an off -site grading easement from the adjacent property owner. Please provide a detail of the retaining walls that are not part of the proposed buildings. There are still some areas in the upper level parking that do not seem to drain properly. Please revise and add spot elevations. The proposed patio area to the west of Building B has a low point with no proposed drainage outlet. Topic: Landscaping 90 Several inlets on private property might be affected by the dense vegetation proposed around these. Please revise landscaping plans to ensure proper drainage from these areas even though they will be owned and maintained by the Bella Vista HOA. Topic: Off -site Grading Easement 88 The swale on the north side of the property as well as some grading takes place on private property (Strachan 1 st Filing Subdivision) . The plans show that this easement will be granted b,y separate document. A letter of intent will be required prior to PDP hearing and a final easement is needed prior to Final Compliance. \\SERVER\Server D\WP\9000\9600\9601PDP-RESPONSE3.doc urban design, inc. Topic: Plat 89 Please connect drainage easement in driveway to off -site drainage easement on the plat. Topic: Roof Drainage 91 Please show on the plans how the roof drains are getting to the proposed water quality ponds. Topic: Tree Removal 81 The construction of the 24" pipe across Horsetooth Rd. could impact the existing 8" Blue Spruce on the south side of Horsetooth. The note that was added to the plan calls for the contractor to determine in the field whether this tree can be saved. This is not acceptable. The City will not allow the contractor to remove this tree at his own discretion. Please REMOVE this note as the City will not allow this tree to be removed and provide plans that will preserve the tree in place. Topic: Utility plans 82 This is a repeat comment: The proposed storm sewer coming from the Stormceptor and tying into the! line along Horsetooth is currently shown as a 12"RCP. The minimum allowed size in the ROW is a 15" line please correct. The 15" City line should extend to the edge of the ROW (back of walk), this part of the line should be public and separated from the private '12" line that would extend back to the Stormceptor by a manhole. Please make sure that storm line G has enough cover at the point it exits into Horsetooth Road. the minimum cover requirement is 1-foot below subgrade. The proposed storm sewer on Horsetooth Rd. seems to be very close to several existing utilities especially at the east end of the line. The line seems to be jammed within 4' of an existing sanitary manhole and close to existing telephone and gas lines. Such small separations are not acceptable please revise plans. The line also seems to be under the proposed curb and gutter. A meeting with strormwater and wastewater as well as other utilities is recommended to discuss the pipe alignment issue. Please specify an ASTM Standard C443 gasketed joint for all pressurized storm lines. The existing 5-foot inlets on the corner of Horsetooth and Stanford are shown to be remaining in place on the Utility plans, while the calcs included in the drainage report check for the sizing these inlets and the plans show that these might need to be relocated and reconstructed with the widening of Horsetooth Rd. Please clarify. Will the existing inlets be moved ? If a right turn lane is called for on Horsetooth and Stanford then the existing junction box vault should be designed to handle traffic loads and the elevation of this box should be checked. Applicant responses are included in the revised utility plans and response letter provided by Northern Engineering. \\SERVER\Server D\WP\9000\9600\9601PDP-RESPONSE3.doc cXn@ o urban design, inc. Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Mark Jackson Topic: Sidewalk 73 Applicant needs to provide off -site sidewalk connection on Stanford from their site north to Monroe. Based on the City's pedestrian LOS standards within the Land Use Code (LUC) and Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) the minimum LOS for pedestrians is not met. Contrary to Mr. Delich's response, the proposed development is actually located within the area types classified as "transit corridor" and "school walking area". Therefore, all pedestrian LOS elements must meet LOS B, except for the visual interest and amenities as stated within the LCUASS and the TIS provided. The LCUASS further explains that all "destination areas" within a quarter mile (1,320 feet) must be identified within the TIS for analysis. All locations are identified within the TIS with the exception of the medium density residential land use to the north, which is located on the NE corner of the Monroe and Stanford intersection. This "destination area" does not meet the minimum LOS for "directness" as measured on the street grid system, and thus, the minimum pedestrian LOS for "continuity" due to the lack of a sidewalk along Stanford between the proposed development and the identified intersection. In addition, the LUC states in Section 3.2.2 C.7 "Offsite Access to Pedestrian and Bicycle Destinations", that "offsite pedestrian or bicycle facility improvements may be required in order to comply with the requirements of Section 3.2.2 (E) (1) (Parking Lot Layout) and Section 3.4 (Transportation Level of Service Requirements). 84 Proposed mid -block pedestrian crossing shown on Stanford looks problematic due to curve. This is a Traffic Engineering call however. Applicant Response: As agreed at our June le meeting, the revised plans additional analysis from Matt Delich demonstrate that the minimum LOS is met without provision of the off -site sidewalk along Stanford, adjacent to the Aspen Leaf Apartments. It was also agreed that the proposed mid -block pedestrian crossing on Stanford is acceptable with the design revisions shown on the current PDP. Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Topic: Landscaping 48 Repeat Comment: Coordinate landscape design with the civil design and provide the required landscape/utility separation distances. Correctly show all existing and proposed water/sewer mains and services on the landscape plans. With the tight constraints on this site we would be willing to relax our separation requirements, \\SERVER\Server D\WP\9000\9600\9601PDP-RESPONSE3.doc o urban design,inc. however we will not allow landscaping to be placed directly on top of our facilitates. Please consider the placement of shrubs and trees to minimize the impact to our facilities. Topic: Utility plans 54 Repeat Comment: Maintain 18-inches of vertical separation between all water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer crossings. 92 Place all curb stops and meter pits adjacent to the main when at all possible. Curb stops must be located within a utility easement. 93 Provide a minimum of 10 feet of separation between storm sewer manholes and sanitary sewer mains. 94 Clearly define all water main joint deflection (I.e. Vertical, Horizontal, Beginning, ending, etc.). 95 Clearly show that the valve box located on the south side of Horsetooth will not end up half in and half out of the vertical curb. 96 After much consideration and discussion within the utility, it has been determined that placing concrete around the existing sanitary sewer main will only hamper any attempt to excavate the sewer in the future if required. Please remove all notes from this plan set which refers to encasing the existing sanitary sewer main. It has also been determined that the existing sanitary sewer is PVC and in good condition, so no replacement will be required. 97 The only allowable substitution for concrete encasement of sewer mains is to use a 20 foot length of D.I.P. or C-900 PVC pipe. Clearly define any substitution of concrete encasement. Applicant responses are included in the revised utility plans and response letter Provided by Northern Engineering and shown on the revised Landscape Plans with this PDP. Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes Topic: zoning 3 REPEAT COMMENT (1-31-02). General note 1(d)(ii) lists "live/work office type units" as a possible use. What is that? No such term. Is it the same as a home occupation? The explanation of what this is in their 1-29-02 letter is interesting, but it doesn't change anything. Our code contains no such use, therefore the use is not allowed (4.5(C) prohibits any use that is not expressly allowed). It still seems to me that what they are \\SERVER\Server_D\WP\9000\9600\9601 PDP-RESPONSE3.doc co�YP@o urban design, inc. describing on sheet 1 of 6 is a home occupation, which is permitted and is listed by them on general mote 1(d)(i). This type of comment is common from Zoning whenever an applicant lists a use that is not defined. For example, we make the same comment relative to an applicant that lists "townhomes" as a permitted use. Since there is no such defined term, we require them to remove it. If they really want to allow offices in the building that are not within a dwelling unit (home occupation), then they should do a Type 2 review in order to obtain approval for things like offices, dry cleaners, hair salons. 4 REPEAT COMMENT (1-31-02). With regards to my original comment below, I am glad to see that they have corrected the code section reference number. I find their explanation in their 1-29-02 letter regarding contextual height to be interesting, However, I believe they are missing my point. I agree that height can be measured either in stories or feet. But since the section they reference deals with establishing a contextual height, it is important that such height be reflected in terms of "feet" not "stories". Since the height of a story can vary from one buidling to another, City staff needs to have the height of the applicable buildings indicated to us in "feet" in order to determine if the proposed height is "contextual". As I stated originally, indicating that a Bella Vista building may be 6 stories, says nothing to us about how it relates to the height of the Marriott since one 6 story building can be considerably shorter or taller than another 6 story building. That's why I asked the question "How tall is the Marriott in terms of feet"? They have explained the difference in feet in their 1-29-02 letter, now they have to put that information on the plan. (12-18-01) - General note 2 references Section 2.8.17. There is no such section. I assume they mean 3.8.17 (A)(3). If so, then Planning needs to determine if the 4 to 6 stories is the appropriate "contextual height". Some of the walls of buildings are almost 90' tall. In my opinion, "contextual height" as used in 3.8.17(A)(3) implies a similar height in feet as well as in stories. For instance, a 6 story building on one lot may only be 70' tall, and that doesn't mean that it's therefore ok to have a 6 story building on an adjacent lot that is 90' tall when the maximum height allowed in the MMN zone is 3 stories (4.5(E)(1)(d). How tall is the Marriott in terms of feet? 6 REPEAT COMMENT (1-31-02) - General note 1(d)(iii) - small food service uses listed are not classified) as accessory uses. Therefore, they are not permitted in the MMN zone. (the only way they can be remotely "accessory" is if they serve only the residences of the building, and are not open to the "public"). I've read the explanation in the applicant's 1-29-02 letter, but I don't agree. For instance, would a Sushi Bar really be accessory, serving the tenants of the building? I doubt it would remain in business very long with such a small customer base. 7 REPLY (1-31-02). OK, I'll agree with B&B's being allowed. Editorial note - The applicant has suggested that private houses on lots less than 6000 s.f. would not be conducive to a six bedroom B&B. I would suggest that such a private house would be more conducive to a B&B than would a 2 or 3 bedroom condo. \\SERVER\Server D\WP\9000\9600\9601PDP-RESPONSE3.doc urban design, inc. (original comment). General note 1(C)(ii) - B&B's would not be allowed. Such a use is a use that is conducted in a private house, not in a condo building. Applicant Response: a) The term Live/Work has been dropped. b) The measurement of "contextual height" at this PDP is in feet — and considers "perceived height" - per the Code Interpretation by the Planning Director. While the five story buildings in the revised submittal are limited to 65' (the height of the six story Marriott) the perceived height is somewhat less due to the extensive use of pitched roofs on the proposed buildings. A six story building on this site could be perceived to be of less height than the Marriott, even if the actual maximum height in feet were greater than 65'. c) Food service is now limited by the LUC definition of Convenience Retail, and accessory food preparation areas as commonly found in Convenience Retail uses. d) Condominium units including B&B's may include more than 3 bedrooms. aaaaaaaaaaaaaa as aaaa aaaaaaaaw��s.s..'��x++�+�rts.�x�xs.t+�+fs.� f �txfs.s.� w�� si r.� s.� w.'x+.rw r.+awwx�w.ttr..t�t wax The following cornments were expressed at Staff Review on February 20, 2002: Engineering: 1. The East Horsetooth Road design is still of concern. A westbound right -turn lane is needed. It is warranted based on City street standards. 2. The striping as shown on East Horsetooth Road is unsafe. 3. The center left -turn lane is unneeded. 4. There are issues with the cross sections on East Horsetooth Road. They are not to City standards. 5. Dedicate 57.5' of street right-of-way all the way to the east property line. 6. Flowlines need to be on the outside of the proposed bulb -outs on Stanford Road. 7. The 3 variance requests from Northern Engineering are still being reviewed. 8. There should be an emergency access easement on the surface parking only and this should be noted on the subdivision plat. Stormwater: 1. Storm water from this site will have to go into Tract D of Cove Island, to the south. A storm drainage easement may be needed from them. 2. The proposed 12" storm sewer from the parking area needs to be a 15" pipe. 3. The storm sewer in East Horsetooth Road needs to be out from under the curb & gutter. 4. There are lots of tree and storm sewer conflicts. \\SERVER\Server D\WP\9000\9600\9601 PDP-RESPONSE3.doc 6 Project Comments Sheet Ali' Selected Departments City of Fort Collins Department: Water Wastewater Date: December 27, 2001 Project: BELLA VISTA PDP, TYPE I (LUC) All comments must be received by STEVE OLT in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: December 26, 2001 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Topic: Landscaping 48 Coordinate the landscape design with the civil design and provide the required landscape/utility separation distances. Show all existing and proposed water/sewer mains and services on the landscape plans. Topic: Plat 47 Provide a 30 foot minimum utility easement for the existing 8-inch sanitary sewer main which crosses this site. No buildings, retaining walls, trash enclosures, over hangs, landscape boulders, etc may be placed or erected within the utility easements. Topic: Utility plans 49 Call out all fittings, thrust blocks, valves, water/sewer service sizes on the overall utility plans. 50 Maintain a 4 feet minimum separation distance between the outside wall of all meter pits and any permanent structure (Le. retaining walls, buildings, landscape boulders, trash enclosures, etc.). 51 ./z-z7 vi Muturu U D¢te CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS ;! Plat _ '< Site Drainage Report Other Utility Redline Utility Landscape Page 1 urban design, inc. Transportation Planning: 1. The off -site sidewalk along the east side of Stanford Road, going to the north, is needed. This proposal fails the Pedestrian Level of Service portion of the TIS without it. 2. The proposed mid -block pedestrian crossing on Stanford Road, on the curve, is not in a good location for safety reasons. Water/Wastewater: 1. Water/Wastewater is still reviewing the plans. A meeting with the applicant & developer is needed. Applicant response: The above comments were resolved at our meeting of June 10`", and/or with the revised PDP and utility plans. Planning: 1. The proposed small food service uses, Item iii) under Accessory Uses in the General Notes, are of concern. If there are several very small users (up to 1,500 square feet in size), as staff and the developer have previously discussed, then these food services could be considered to be accessory uses. However, if a single restaurant were to occupy the bulk of the defined food service space (up to 3,600 square feet as shown on the Site Plan) then there would be a problem associated with the list of permitted uses in the MMN District. Restaurants are not a permitted use in this district. 2. The proposed livelwork office uses, Item ii) under Accessory Uses in the General Notes, is a good idea; however, offices (per say) are listed as a Type II, Planning & Zoning Board review use in the MMN District. What assurance is there that the office users will not be separate from residents? 3. While reviewing the Shadow Analysis Plan and Streetscape & Building Elevations Plans against the criteria set forth in Section 3.5.1(G) Building Height Review of the LUC, several comments have arisen: a. Regarding Views, are there still desirable views of the foothills from the residential areas north and south of East Horsetooth Road that will be affected by this development? Are there views of Warren Lake from properties north of East Horsetooth Road that will be affected? Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(b)2 of the LUC requires that a visual analysis of views be submitted for review. b. There would appear to be several areas of concern regarding Light and Shadow on adjacent properties, mostly at the 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. times as shown on the Shadow Analysis Plan. Most significant is the potential affects on buildings and parking lots to the west, across Stanford Road. c. Regarding Neighborhood Scale, the City still has some "contextual" concerns regarding this issue. Understanding the "Contextual Height' definition in Section 3.8.17(A)(3) of the LUC, there is still some discussion needed about \\SERVER\Server D\WP\9000\9600\9601PDP-RESPONSE3.doc o urban design, inc. where this site is situated relative to the taller buildings (such as the Marriott Hotel) in the area. How tall, in feet, is the hotel and is one building in excess of 3 stories in height in a larger surrounding area sufficient to justify 4 buildings that exceed the maximum allowable height in the proposed zoning district for this site? d. Typically, elevations for all 4 sides of buildings should be submitted. What do the building ends look like? Applicant response: 1) Food Service uses are now limited to the LUC definition of Convenience Retail, and limited food preparation areas - as an accessory use - as commonly found in many existing convcsnience retail stores. 2) The term Live/work has been eliminated and limited to Home Occupations, with the level of flexibility allowed by condominium ownership. The enforcement of home occupation u:rers not being separate from residents will be no different here than at other locations in Fort Collins. 3) Additional building elevations view information and shadow analysis information are included in V iught'Frye's revised plans. Additional information is also attached for Staff consideration, including: Alternative building elevations indicating the Applicants' preferred approach to a mix of 4 and 6 story buildings (averaging 65' in height): as opposed to the Proposed olan - that has resulted from the Planning Director's interpretation that contextuai height is measured in feet - including all buildings at 5 stories (65' maximum) in height. r Three-dimensional views comparing the actual and "perceived" heights of the Marriott and proposed Bella Vista buildings. Additional neighborhood context/architectural compatibility information will be forthcoming. Sincerely, Eldon Ward Cityscape Urban Design, Inc. cc: Chuck McNeal Javier Martinez Campos Frank Vaught Daryl Sigler Matt Delich \\SERVER\Server D\WP\9000\9600\9601PDP-RESPONSE3.doc Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments .MMMMMMMM�_ Department: Stormwater Utility Date: February 20, 2002 Project: BIELLA VISTA PDP, TYPE I (LUC) All comments must be received by STEVE OLT in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: February 20, 2002 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Basil Hamdan Topic: Construction Easements 80 The proposed 24" RCP across Horsetooth Rd. will necessitate the construction of a headwall and part of the culvert on Tract D of The Landings 1st Filing. Prior to construction on this Tract owned by that HOA the contractor should make sure that the HOA is notified and that the area will be properly restored. Even though this area is in an existing drainage easement, the landings 1 st Filing HOA that maintains this area should ensure that the area is put back to an acceptable level, equal or better than before construction. Topic: Ditch Company Approval 87 Prior to allowing additional discharge from this site into Warren Lake, the Warren Lake Ditch Company must sign off on these plans. Topic: Drainage Report 83 Please provide street capacity calculations for Horsetooth Road for the area that is being widened by this project. Since Horsetooth is a major arterial the standards call for no curb overtopping in the 10- year storm and one lane open in the 100 -year storm. Please provide sizing calculations for the proposed Stormceptor. Please provide sizing calculations for the proposed spillways on ponds 1 and 2. Topic: Erosion Control 86 Please submit an erosion control plan that meets the standards of the City of Fort Collins. The submitted materials do not meet our minimum standards. Contact Bob Zakely for further directions. kDD2 Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat _ V Site 1-4rainage Report Other !/Utility _ L�edline Utility !=-U—andscape C[:/JofLtAEW :61C. Page 1 �C: 1tARC Vi¢I'w Please provide a better detail for the proposed erosion control fabric for Pond 2. Provide a seed mix for the native grass proposed in this pond. Topic: Grading 85 The proposed offsite grading on the northwest corner of the site will require an off -site grading easement from the adjacent property owner. Please provide a detail of the retaining walls that are not part of the proposed buildings. There are still some areas in the upper level parking that do not seem to drain properly. Please revise and add spot elevations. The proposed patio area to the west of Building B has a low point with no proposed drainage outlet. Topic: Landscaping 90 Several inlets on private property might be affected by the dense vegetation proposed around these. Please revise landscaping plans to ensure proper drainage from these areas even though they will be owned and maintained by the Bella Vista HOA. Topic: Off -site Grading Easement 88 The swale on the north side of the property as well as some grading takes place on private property (Strachan 1 st Filing Subdivision). The plans show that this easement will be granted by separate document. A letter of intent will be required prior to POP hearing and a final easement is needed prior to Final Compliance. Topic: Plat 89 Please connect drainage easement in driveway to off -site drainage easement on the plat. Topic: Roof Drainage 91 Please show on the plains how the roof drains are getting to the proposed water quality ponds. Topic: Tree Removal 81 The construction of the 24" pipe across Horsetooth Rd. could impact the existing 8" Blue Spruce on the south side of Horsetooth. The note that was added to the plan calls for the contractor to determine in the field whether this tree can be saved. This is not acceptable. The City will not allow the contractor to remove this tree at his own discretion. Please REMOVE this note as the City will not allow this tree to be removed and provide plans that will preserve the tree in place. Topic: Utility plans 82 This is a repeat comment: The proposed storm sewer coming from the Stormceptor and tying into the line along Horsetooth is currently shown as a 12"RCP. The minimum allowed size in the ROW is a 15 line please correct. The 15' City line should extend to the edge of the ROW (back of walk); this part of the line should be public and separated from the private 12" line that would extend back to the Stormceptor by a manhole. Please make sure that storm line G has enough cover at the point it exits into Horsetooth Road. The minimum cover requirement is 1-foot below subgrade. Page 2 The proposed storm sewer on Horsetooth Rd. seems to be very close to several existing utilities especially at the east end of the line. The line seems to be jammed witting 4' of an existing sanitary manhole and close to Existing telephone and gas lines. Such small separations are not acceptable please revise plans. The line also seems to be under the proposed curb and gutter. A meeting with strormwater and wastewater as well as other utilities is recommended to discuss the pipe alignment issue. Please specify an ASTM Standard C443 gasketed joint for all pressurized storm lines. The existing 5-foot inlets on the corner of Horsetooth and Stanford are shown to be remaining in place on the Utility plans, while the talcs included in the drainage report check for the sizing these inlets and the plans show that these might need to be relocated and reconstructed with the widening of Horsetooth Rd. Please clarify. Will the existing inlets be moved? If a right turn lane is called for on Horsetooth and Stanford then the existing junction box vault should be designed to handle traffic loads and the elevation of this box should be checked. Page 3 Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments Department: Water Wastewater Date: February 22, 2002 Project: BELLA VISTA PDP, TYPE I (LUC) All comments must be received by STEVE OLT in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: February 20, 2002 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Topic: Landscaping 48 Repeat Comment: Coordinate landscape design with the civil design and provide the required landscape/utility separation distances. Correctly show all existing and proposed water/Sewer mains and services on the landscape plans. With the tight constraints on this site we would be willing to relax our separation requirements, however we will not allow landscaping to be placed directly on top of our facilitates. Please consider the placement of shrubs and trees to minimize the impact to our facilities. Topic: Utility plans 54 Repeat Comment: Maintain 18-inches of vertical separation between all water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer crossings. 92 Place all curb stops and meter pits adjacent to the main when at all possible. Curb stops must be located within a utility easement. 93 Provide a minimum of 10 feet of separation between storm sewer manholes and sanitary sewer mains. 94 Clearly define all water main joint deflection (i.e. Vertical, Horizontal, Beginning, ending, etc.). 95 Clearly show that the valve box located on the south side of Horsetooth will not end up half in and half out of the vertical curb. Suture Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat _ ! Site Drainage Report Other_ Utility _ Redline Utility Landscape Page 1 96 After much consideration and discussion w�thin the utility, it has been determined that placing concrete around the existing sanitary sewer main will only hamper any attempt to excavate the sewer in the future f required. Please remove all notes from this plan set which refers to encasing the existing sanitary sewer main. It has also been determined that the existing sanitary sewer is PVC and in good condition, so no replacement will be required. 97 The only allowable substitution for concrete encasement of sewer mains is to use a 20 foot length of D.I.P. or C-900 PVC pipe. Clearly define any substitution of concrete encasement. See Site, Landscape and Utility plans for other comments. Page 2 Project Comments Sheet S City of Fort Colains elected Departments Department: Engineering Date: February 26, 2002 Project: BELLA VISTA PDP, TYPE I (LUC) All comments must be received by STEVE OLT in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: February 20, 2002 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General 102 The site plan shows some sort of access ramp across one of the proposed bump outs along Stanford Drive. This is not reflected on the utility drawings. 103 Remove General Note #4 on the site plan. Topic: Grading 45 Offsite grading and construction is shown occurring along the northern boundary of the site. A letter of intent from the property owner not objecting to the offsite work is required to be submitted prior to any public hearing for the project. Topic: Plat 46 The Development needs to dedicate an access easement along Stanford Drive to ensure the sidewalk proposed is in an access easement. Additional right-of-way is not necessary. (2/20) It appears that additional access easement along Stanford Drive (and Horsetooth Road) is necessary to ensure that all of the proposed sidewalk is in easement. 66 A minimum of 57.5' of half street right-of-way is required to be dedicated along the entire length of the property with a consistent utility easement width, in conformance with LCUASS. It is understood that 9' instead of the 15' of necessary utility easement is Signature Date L HECK HE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS flat _ SiW Drainage Report Other /Utility ,/Redline UtilityLandscape Page 1 being proposed behind the right-of-way; when all the design and utility issues are resolved along Horsetooth, the variance request for reduction in utility easement width will be routed to the utilities for approval. 75 There may be a benefit in designating on the plat that the emergency access easement is for the "surface level" only. There may be issues from a title company on how the emergency access easement is represented as c.oing through a building envelope. Topic: Sidewalk 99 The grading plan appears to show that inlets with straw bales will be in close proximity or perhaps even overlapping with the street sidewalks. These straw bales need to be outside of the sidewalk section. Perhaps a different erosion control measure can be used if the straw bales are encroaching into the sidewalk for a period of time. Topic: Street Design 32 Directional ramps are required on new construction in accordance with LCUASS. (Standard Drawing 16-4D) Provide the detail on the plan set. (2/20) The response from the applicant stated that this could not be accommodated due to existing constraints. The design engineer should provide documentation on why this cannot be accomplished. Note that because of the right turn discussion, any previous limitations due to existing constraints may no longer be applicable. 34 A right-tum lane for westbound Horsetooth onto northbound Stanford still should be designed and constructed. There is a community wide benefit in the construction of the right turn lane, thus this is eligible for Street Oversizing reimbursement. The design of the right -turn lane should look at providing pedestrian refuge between the right -turn and through lane, especially since the width of Horsetooth would require a ped refuge under LCUASS. (2/20) The issue of the right turn lane was discussed at the City's 2/14 Transportation Coordination Meeting. It was viewed that the submitted justification for not designing the right turn lane was not compelling and that a right turn lane could be designed into the project. Please note that any written documentation regarding the designing of the right-tum lane should be provided by the design engineer (a licensed professional engineer.) 35 Provide cross -sections on Horsetooth Road per LCUASS 3.3.4.0 (at 50' intervals). (It appears that a straight- line grade from the crown of Horsetooth Road to the flowline is not being provided as shown on the grading plan, cross -sections wil I help confirm or deny this.) (2/20) The cross section sheets need to have the centerline elevations labeled, the curb and gutter section should be distinguishable from the asphalt section, and the right-of-way should also be shown. 36 Show centerline and flowline profiles on Horsetooth Road. Page 2 (2120) Can the grid lines or scale be modified in order to allow for every XX+00 stationing to be on a grid line? Only every 3rd XX+00 stationing is on a grid line. 37 Provide the bearing and distance for the flowline on the plan view portion of the plan and profile sheet for Horsetooth Road. (2/20) This information isn't shown east of the driveway and only bearing (no distance) is being shown west of the driveway. 60 Because of the aforementioned need for the right -turn lane, eliminating the offset through the intersection, and the constraint of the existing storm drainage improvements, it is understood that the bike lane design for westbound Horsetooth may have to be compromised. A reduced bike lane width of 6' (including gutterl with a continuous concrele pour should be looked at as one potential compromise. It may also be necessary for the bike lane to stop short of the intersection to accommodate the right turn lane. An additional option would be to look at widening the sidewalk and create a combined bikelped area behind the curb if the bikelane cannot be accomplished. (2120) With the right turn lane still being an outstanding issue, the proposed design of the westbound bike lane will not be commented on by Engineering at this time. It is still considered ideal that the bike lane is continuous to the intersection. 62 Add the following note as reference wherever patching is shown on the plans: Limits of street repair are approximate. Final limits to be determined in the field by the City Engineering Inspector. All repairs to be in accordance with City Street repair standards. (2120) Ensure that this note is referenced to the work along Stanford as well. 67 The "bulb -outs" proposed on Stanford Drive may be allowed only if the gutter is redesigned to go around and along the bulb outs, not through them. There are maintenance concerns with the current proposal due to dirt and debris collecting between the bulb outs and the flowline. 68 [12] The vertical Curve shown is too short in length for the street classification of Horsetooth. A K value of 110 is required, 60 is shown. 69 [13] A vertical curve is needed for the Horsetooth proposed flowline as it approaches the existing storm lines. A grade break is shown with a 0.6% grade going to a 1.69% grade. 70 [13] Fix the vertical elevation labeling on this sheet for the profile view. 71 Three variance requests were received regarding Bella Vista from Northern Engineering. The variance requesting the reduction in sight distance along Stanford Drive, the variance to reduce the driveway spacing from 660' to 610', and the variance to reduce the utility easement along Horsetooth were all viewed favorably upon by the City Page 3 Provide separate water and sewer services for each building and each use within each building (i.e. commercial, residential). 52 Eliminate all un-necessary bends and low angle crossings of water, sewer and storm sewer lines. 53 Show and label all curb stops and meter pits on the overall utility plans. Clearly identify these with size and location. 54 Clearly show and label all water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer crossings in all utility profile views. Define any and all lowerings or adjustments. Maintain 18-inches of vertical separation between all water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer crossings. 55 Will an irrigation tap be required within this site? 56 Provide a manhole adjustment and a concrete encasement detail with the next submittal. See the site, landscape and utility plans for other comments. Page 2 Engineer. Final approval of these variance requests will occur with completion of the designs for Horsetooth and Stanford that are acceptable to the City and the utilities. 72 [13] The 2.55% shown on this sheet appears to actually calculate to 4.2% with the elevations and stationing shown. 77 The Traffic Engineer has noted that the center turn lane should be continuous from the intersection to the Cove Island development and continuing east. The Traffic Engineer notes that a 3/4 movement to allow left turns into the site could be designed (with painted medians) in conjunction with the porkchop island to facilitate right turns out of this driveway 78 The cross section sheets show the additional road width to be 4% or even greater. Because a saw cut is being shown to the centerline for most of Horsetooth, a continuous straight line grade needs to be maintained along the entire north half of the roadway where the sawcut its shown. For the additional width between stations 10+00 and 11+00, (where the roadway is not being sawcut to centerline), this new portion of roadway is limited to 3%. 79 A grade break is shown on Sheet [12] that exceeds .40%. A vertical curve would be required based on this design. 98 Provide spot elevations at the Horsetooth and Stanford intersection in accordance with LCUASS Standard Detail 7-32B. 100 The submitted "Street Cross Sections" from the site planner is not appropriate to be submitted as a document along with the site and landscape development plan documents. Street cross sections are to be shown on the utility plan set and will be established based upon an approved design for the roadway(s). 101 Angle points along the flowine appear to be shown along Horsetooth, please revise and use curves as shown in LCUASS 7.4.1. 104 It appears that redirects are too abrupt on the street striping plan. See traffic comments regarding this. Topic: Utility plants 76 The drawings regarding the storm system across Horsetooth originally approved by the City showed an inlet being tied to the easternmost pipe, the submitted plans show that the inlet is tied to the westernmost pipe. Page 4 STAFF PROJECT REVIEW City' of Port Collins Stanford Development, LLC c/o Cityscape Urban Design, Inc. 3555 Stanford Road, Suite 105 Fort Collins, CO. £30525 Date: 3/6/2002 Staff has reviewed your submittal for BELLA VISTA PDP, TYPE I (LUC), and we offer the following comments: ISSUES: Department: Current Planning Topic: Street Design Issue Contact: Steve Olt 64 Eric Bracke of Traffic Operations offered the following comments: 1. East Horsetooth Road a. On the east end of the project the plans are showing 3.5' wide bike lanes and 10.6' wide travel lanes. This is a 40 m.p.h. street and these lane widths are not acceptable to Traffic Engineering. Eric will settle for 6' wide bike lanes (if Transportation Planning agrees) and 11.5' wide travel lanes. b. The redirect taper for westbound traffic is shown at 140'. Again, this is a 40 m.p.h. street and using the standard WSA2/60 calculation, the taper should be 320'. C. The eastbound bike lane at Landings Drive needs to start at the pc, not 25' east of the taper to begin the bike lane. A bicyclist is likely to get "squished" under this design. d. Stafi's discussion at Transportation Coordination reaffirmed the need for a westbound right -turn lane based on City standards, not the TIS or LOS requirements. The right -turn lane still is not shown. 2. Stanford Road a. A 10' wide right -turn lane is not acceptable. Pale I b. Please get rid of the 4' painted median and use 2' for the southbound right -turn, 1' for the southbound through, and 1' for the southbound left - turn. Please contact Eric, at 224-6062, if you have questions about his comments. Department: Enc�ineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General 102 The site plan shows some sort of access ramp across one of the proposed bump outs along Stanford Drive. This is not reflected on the utility drawings. 103 Remove General Note #4 on the site plan. Topic: Grading 45 Offsite grading and construction is shown occurring along the northern boundary of the site. A letter of intent from the property owner not objecting to the offsite work is required to be submitted prior to any public hearing for the project. Topic: Plat 46 The Development needs to dedicate an access easement along Stanford Drive to ensure the sidewalk proposed is in an access easement. Additional right-of-way is not necessary. (2/20) It appears that additional access easement along Stanford Drive (and Horsetooth Road) is necessary to ensure that all of the proposed sidewalk is in easement. 66 A minimum of 57.5' of half street right-of-way is required to be dedicated along the entire length of the property with a consistent utility easement width, in conformance with LCUASS. It is understood that 9' instead of the 15' of necessary utility easement is being proposed behind the right-of-way; when all the design and utility issues are resolved along Horsetooth, the variance request for reduction in utility easement width will be routed to the utilities for approval. 75 Pa.c 2 There may be a benefit in designating on the plat that the emergency access easement is for the "surface level" only. There may be issues from a title company on how the emergency access easement is represented as going through a building envelope. Topic: Sidewalk 99 The grading plan appears to show that inlets with straw bales will be in close proximity or perhaps even overlapping with the street sidewalks. These straw bales need to be outside of the sidewalk section. Perhaps a different erosion control measure can be used if the straw bales are encroaching into the sidewalk for a period of time. J �I haq CheCI ctG/"5 GR' p/OGGieG� n thl5 CCnCi7'Cn, Topic: Street Design 32 Directional ramps are required on new construction in accordance with LCUASS. (Standard Drawing 16-4D) Provide the detail on the plan set. (2/20) The response from the applicant stated that this could not be accommodated due to existing constraints. The design engineer should provide documentation on why this cannot be accomplished. Note that because of the right turn discussion, any previous limitations due to existing constraints may no longer be applicable. -h v,flie {,c, :✓ 7;%;' G, er he o` ;G;Tolr, and lFl� A ✓ 00/h, d��' f0 ih< vk ji 1,^�J v' ICCaI OnS, % G lC ily7 5;'Gnd v_-, G(i',l CCn(/ClfP1 /ocoflonS, 34 A right -turn lane for westbound Horsetooth onto northbound Stanford still should be designed and constructed. There is a community wide benefit in the construction of the right turn lane, thus this is eligible for Street Oversizing reimbursement. The design of the right -turn lane should look at providing pedestrian refuge between the right -turn and through lane, especially since the width of Horsetooth would require a ped refuge under LCUASS. The right four h'CG4 /5 no lcnger regiree by Sfaf`, Gs cietem inee at eefinq with Gifv Sfa`f on June 10 2002. (2/20) The issue of the right turn lane was discussed at the City's 2/14 Transportation Coordination Meeting. It was viewed that the submitted justification for not designing the right turn lane was not compelling and that a right turn lane could be designed into the project. Please note that any written documentation regarding the designing of the right -turn lane should be provided by the design engineer (a licensed professional engineer.) Page 3 35 Provide cross -sections on Horsetooth Road per LCUASS 3.3.4.0 (at 50' intervals). (It appears that a straight-line grade from the crown of Horsetooth Road to the flowline is not being provided as shown on the grading plan, cross -sections will help confirm or deny this.) (2/20) The cross section sheets need to have the centerline elevations labeled, the curb and gutter section should be distinguishable from the asphalt section, and the right-of-way should also be shown. I 47/l7M.'ro G`055 _-�-C//O(/5, 36 Show centerline and flowline profiles on Horsetooth Road. /i011 'Nnd %'!�Wi'^e t'.'(c ,F _- G(e ^:Ovin G- ^G�f Oi f/!e /�O/ 700/h NOGa P/GrS, (2/20) Can the grid lines or scale be modified in order to allow for every XX+00 stationing to be on a grid line? Only every 3rd XX+00 stationing is on a grid line. l ✓i! l 'r "' '_ i i r:'li ,: 1011"01 ✓✓ `/"^ G:,'(5 '0 U'ene(GTe cr05_' ��h �n ; !�- b✓ hcn�, r�� !ire :nien�ive 37 Provide the bearing and distance for the flowline on the plan view portion of the plan and profile sheet for Horsetooth Road. 7hl_, irhOff,urI on aG e he ^d On the �h circ rG: (2/20) This information isn't shown east of the driveway and only bearing (no distance) is being shown west of the driveway. 60 Because of the aforementioned need for the right -turn lane, eliminating the offset through the intersection, and the constraint of the existing storm drainage improvements, it is understood that the bike lane design for westbound Horsetooth may have to be compromised. A reduced bike lane width of 6' (including gutter) with a continuous concrete pour should be looked at as one potential compromise. It may also be necessary for the bike lane to stop short of the intersection to accommodate the right -turn lane. An additional option would be to look at widening the sidewalk and create a combined bike/ped area behind the curb if the bikelane cannot be accomplished. N/11 (2/20) With the right turn lane still being an outstanding issue, the proposed design of the westbound bike lane will not be commented on by Engineering at this time. It is still considered ideal that the bike lane is continuous to the intersection. N/A Page 4 62 Add the following note as reference wherever patching is shown on the plans: Limits of street repair are approximate. Final limits to be determined in the field by the City Engineering Inspector. All repairs to be in accordance with City Street repair standards. Thies note has been added /o the general notes on plans where pafchinq occurs. (2/20) Ensure that this note is referenced to the work along Stanford as well. 67 The "bulb -outs" proposed on Stanford Drive may be allowed only if the gutter is redesigned to go around and along the bulb outs, not through them. There are maintenance concerns with the current proposal due to dirt and debris collecting between the bulb outs and the flowline. he r cwl' P r�r� J<'?� �a i; �_��{ �f h D05i' VP �lC%�/ jC the O f�i,�Je Olr il'e v'Ul �J'CUiS, 68 [12] The vertical curve shown is too short in length for the street classification of Horsetooth. A K value of 110 is required, 60 is shown. 69 [13] A vertical tune is needed for the Horsetooth proposed flowline as it approaches the existing storm lines. A grade break is shown with a 0.6% grade going to a 1.69% grade. 70 [13] Fix the vertical elevation labeling on this sheet for the profile view. Done 71 Three variance requests were received regarding Bella Vista from Northern Engineering. The variance requesting the reduction in sight distance along Stanford Drive, the variance to reduce the driveway spacing from 660' to 610', and the variance to reduce the utility easement along Horsetooth were all viewed favorably upon by the City Engineer. Final approval of these variance requests will occur with completion of the designs for Horsetooth and Stanford that are acceptable to the City and the utilities. 72 [13] The 2.55% shown on this sheet appears to actually calculate to 4.2% with the elevations and stationing shown. %hi,, ha5 been correcfee. Page 5 77 The Traffic Engineer has noted that the center turn lane should be continuous from the intersection to the Cove Island development and continuing east. The Traffic Engineer notes that a 3/4 movement to allow left turns into the site could be designed (with painted medians) in conjunction with the porkchop island to facilitate right turns out of this driveway. 78 The cross section sheets show the additional road width to be 4% or even greater. Because a saw cut is being shown to the centerline for most of Horsetooth, a continuous straight line grade needs to be maintained along the entire north half of the roadway where the sawcut is shown. For the additional width between stations 10+00 and 11+00„ (where the roadway is not being sawcut to centerline), this new portion of roadway is limited to 3%. n F'! i lC ihr_ r Cate. l //'. " :=F CtiC^5. lnGllCGtln^ ,7rGD05e� C(O%5 5/ope5 /J_, we .cn 2- e f57 79 A grade break is shown on Sheet [12] that exceeds .40%. A vertical curve would be required based on this design. l nl c, l5 5ro'wr;,, 98 Provide spot elevations at the Horsetooth and Stanford intersection in accordance with LCUASS Standard Detail 7-32B. Jhown On i Jer ;', o` nn an„ rro;'-le 5 eet 100 The submitted "Street Cross Sections" from the site planner is not appropriate to be submitted as a document along with the site and landscape development plan documents. Streel cross sections are to be shown on the utility plan set and will be established based upon an approved design for the roadway(s). e- o F r y r %rvo/ v She l lCr oo ec//on of or efcofh hoae, 101 Angle points along the flowine appear to be shown along Horsetooth, please revise and use curves as shown in LCUASS 7.4.1. t'o/7[on/Gl tIowt r' C;;Nv`, "1,-rCl :�/StCCt�' ;POCG ^G'✓e jven /e'✓15�C t0 %����� rhr7il, 104 It appears that redirects are too abrupt on the street striping plan. See traffic comments regarding this. The entire /ane qeo etry or 7or5efooth is re i ea in�icGtinq ore appropriate redirects, Page 6 Topic: Utility plans 76 The drawings regarding the storm system across Horsetooth originally approved by the City showed an inlet being tied to the easternmost pipe, the submitted plans show that the inlet is tied to the westernmost pipe. Jpon `iefd ve caiion, ' e; fef ee5 fie info fhe.ve,te,fy pipe Department: PFA Topic: Plat Issue Contact: Ron Gonzales SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS: These proposed buildings shall be fire sprinklered. A fire pump may also be required, as well as standpipes for the building and the parking garage below grade. 97UBC The response letter from Cityscape stated that notes to this effect have been added to the plans. Please indicate where the notes are. Ventilation System: A 2-stage ventilation system shall be provided for the parking garage below grade. Stage One shall be tied to a Carbon Monoxide Detection System that will detect carbon monoxide at 50ppm over 8 hours and/or 200ppm over 1 hour and ventilate the garage. Stage Two shall provide ventilation for smoke removal in the event of a car fire. U BC 1202.2.7 The response letter from Cityscape stated that notes to this effect have been added to the plans. Please indicate where the notes are. Department: Police Issue Contact: Joseph Gerdom Topic: General 9 Lighting Plan: The Luminaire schedule and luminaire detail don't provide sufficient information to determine exactly which lights are used in each location. Also, unless there are wall fixtures there is inadequate illumination between Bldg B & C; east face of Bldg D; and north face of Bldg B. In general, all building access points should have minimum of 1 fc. Pa,,t 7 Topic: Landscaping 10 Landscape Plan: The use of Austrian Pine, cotoneaster, and ninebark along the faces of Bldgs B, ., and D, particularly in front of public/private entrances will obscure these areas and raise security issues. Lower growing species, lighting, or some combination thereof would be recommended. Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Basil Harridan Topic: Construction Easements 80 The proposed 24" RCP across Horsetooth Rd. will necessitate the construction of a headwall and part of the culvert on Tract D of The Landings 1 st Filing. Prior to construction on this Tract owned by that HOA the contractor should make sure that the HOA is notified and that the area will be properly restored. Even though this area is in an existing drainage easement, the landings 1st Filing HOA which maintains this area should ensure that the area is put back to an acceptable level, equal or better than before construction. Topic: Ditch Company Approval M Prior to allowing additional discharge from this site into Warren Lake, the warren Lake Ditch company must sign off on these plans. We _o^panv 1sGeVierinqp;�ul /oW4afe hoof not recr ved a rep pone, Since our n1/10/ Topic: Drainage Report 83 Please provide street capacity calculations for Horsetooth Road for the area that is being widened by this project. Since Horsetooth is a major arterial the standards call for no curb overtopping in the 10-year storm and one lane open in the 100 -year storm. Please provide sizing calculations for the proposed Stormceptor. Please provide sizing calculations for the proposed spillways on ponds 1 and 2. Page 9 Topic: Erosion Control 86 Please submit an erosion control plan that meets the standards of the City of Fort Collins. The submitted materials do not meet our minimum standards. Contact Bob Zakely for further directions. Please provide a better detail foir the proposed erosion control fabric for Pond 2. Provide a seed mix for the native grass proposed in this pond. f hL- Crosion Gonfrol Flan has bnfn Uplafee, defai/ Gnd 4rylGnj q�ass eel rdx. Topic: Grading 85 The proposed offsite grading on the northwest corner of the site will require an off - site grading easement from the adjacent property owner. C ' /nIP^I no, v^c-e ,�-CL'rec7 C./ %h< or, �i,,c �e ^;!�ni GOd Will Z rrC' Please provide a detail of the retaining walls that are not part of the proposed buildings. i`r.�e al/iMC7 Y✓Gll=5 W/// 6e ,lP'Gllv,j 3V ;✓ 1550Gncc of Ge bUlleL^O per/7%f. There are still some areas in the upper level parking that do not seem to drain properly. Please revise and add spot elevations. The proposed patio area to the west of Building B has a low point with no proposed drainage outlet. the (IfOdIn, /U/r ni W =r)oWn G/ rr- �G ✓✓/fh o-,7if 5/iC7 ce'iGI/On5 l0 ;-,7o(P Ci'fadv Ve'/fV �; Girage pcitf�m� Topic: Landscaping 90 Several inlets on private property might be affected by the dense vegetation proposed around these. Please revise landscaping plans to ensure proper drainage from these areas even though they will be owned and maintained by the Bella Vista HOA. Page 9 6aProject Comments Sheet Selected Departments City of Fort Collins Department: Engineering Date: January 4, 2002 Project: BELLA VISTA PDP, TYPE i (LUC) All comments must be received by STEVE OLT in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: December 26, 2001 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General 28 Replace "P.U.U." with "PAP" on all the documents. Topic: Grading 45 Offsite grading and construction is shown occurring along the northern boundary of the site. A letter of intent from the property owner not objecting to the offsite work is required to be submitted prior to any public hearing for the project. Topic: Plat 42 Replace all occurrences of Director of Engineering with City Engineer. 43 The Plat language (Certificate of Dedication and Maintenance and Repair Guarantee language) has been revised. Please revised as shown (electronic format of the document is available). Ensure that the "Notice of Other Documents" language is included in the plat as well. 44 The Sight Distance Easement Language on the plat has also been revised. Please revise as shown. 46 The Development needs to dedicate an access easement along Stanford Drive to ensure the sidewalk proposed is in an access easement. Additional right-of-way is not necessary. Signature i Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat _ Site Drainage Report Other_ Utility Redline Utility Landscape Page 1 Topic: Off -site Grading Easement 88 The swale on the north side of the property as well as some grading takes place on private property (Strachan 1 st Filing Subdivision) . The plans show that this easement will be granted by separate document. A letter of intent will be required prior to PDP hearing and a final 'easement is needed prior to Final Compliance. e'ti c( of intent i rCythccri Pq. Topic: Plat 89 Please connect drainage easement in driveway to off -site drainage easement on the plat. r hi5 will be 5/;own on, /he pial, Topic: Roof Drainage 91 Please show on the plans how the roof drains are getting to the proposed water quality ponds. /` r_`` (l0 the / ^✓e,'Glll Utlll`v plan �J( rOG,' G�,rGM Co, ''eCtlOr/5 t0 5/O!r) 52we( or 5urfacc Topic: Tree Removal 81 The construction of the 24" pipe across Horsetooth Rd. could impact the existing 8" Blue Spruce on the south side of Horsetooth. The note that was added to the plan calls for the contractor to determine in the field whether this tree can be saved. This is not acceptable. The City will not allow the contractor to remove this tree at his own discretion. Please REMOVE this note as the City will not allow this tree to be removed and provide plans that will preserve the tree in place. ha /,/ ✓el t�F ; aele�e� lhai f,he exi5�, 55pruce free will have lG be removed, The note here. ceen (el�ewee' ,`! %� /ne Clans, Topic: Utility plans 82 This is a repeat comment: The proposed storm sewer coming from the Stormceptor and tying into the line along Horsetooth is currently shown as a 12"RCP. The minimum allowed size in the ROW is a 15" line please correct. The 15" City line should extend to the edge of the ROW (back of walk), this part of the line should be public and separated from the private 12" line that would extend back to the Stormceptor by a manhole. Page 10 Please make sure that storm line G has enough cover at the point it exits into Horsetooth Road. the minimum cover requirement is 1-foot below subgrade. l''7F r)i vif '_,{irr.:;r/✓G 'r pP C,'Q Dew?U�C1(aGlvO iol'7INII/'li'^U/n COV�,'l5 D✓OVIdP_�, The proposed storm sewer on Horsetooth Rd. seems to be very close to several existing utilities especially at the east end of the line. The line seems to be jammed within 4' of an existing sanitary manhole and close to existing telephone and gas lines. Such small separations are not acceptable please revise plans. The line also seems to be under the proposed curb and gutter. A meeting with strormwater and wastewater as well as other utilities is recommended to discuss the pipe alignment issue. Afler heeling wish Gify Uri/ifies, it was agreed to reloco/c Phis sfor li e loser to fhe cove, 0, l or iocfh, thus reau ng corer/icis. Please specify an ASTM Standard C443 gasketed joint for all pressurized storm lines. 6aekefed�oinfs are calle,j ouf on stow/ sewer prc,'iles; where required. The existing 5-foot inlets on the corner of Horsetooth and Stanford are shown to be remaining in place on the Utility plans, while the calcs included in the drainage report check for the sizing these inlets and the plans show that these might need to be relocated and reconstructed with the widening of Horsetooth Rd. Please clarify. Will the existing inlets be moved ? l he cxlj ,Ilnq inlcl t, /'lll be r"Glfralliicj In ',7iGCe. If a right turn lane is called for on Horsetooth and Stanford then the existing junction box vault should be designed to handle traffic loads and the elevation of this box should be checked. N/A Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Mark Jackson Topic: Sidewalk 73 Applicant needs to provide off -site sidewalk connection on Stanford from their site north to Monroe. Based on the City's pedestrian LOS standards within the Land Use Code (LUC) and Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) the minimum LOS for pedestrians is not met. Contrary to Mr. Delich's response, the proposed development is actually located within the area types classified as "transit corridor" and "school walking area". Therefore, all pedestrian LOS elements must meet LOS B, except for the visual interest and amenities as stated within the LCUASS and the TIS provided. The LCUASS further explains that all "destination areas" within a quarter mile (1,320 feet) must be identified within the TIS for analysis. All locations are identified within the TIS with the exception of the medium density residential land use to the north, which is located on the NE corner of the Monroe and Stanford intersection. This "destination area" does not meet the minimum LOS for "directness" as measured on the street grid system, and thus, the minimum pedestrian LOS for "continuity" due to the lack of a sidewalk along Stanford between the proposed development and the identified intersection. In addition, the Ll1C states in Section 3.2.2 C.7 "Offsite Access to Pedestrian and Bicycle Destinations", that "offsite pedestrian or bicycle facility improvements may be required in order to comply with the requirements of Section 3.2.2 (E) (1) (Parking Lot Layout) and Section 3.4 (Transportation Level of Service Requirements). 84 Proposed mid -block pedestrian crossing shown on Stanford looks problematic due to curve. This is a Traffic Engineering call however. Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Topic: Landscaping 48 Repeat Comment: Coordinate landscape design with the civil design and provide the required landscape/utility separation distances. Correctly show all existing and proposed water,/sewer mains and services on the landscape plans. With the tight constraints on this site we would be willing to relax our separation requirements, however we will not allow landscaping to be placed directly on top of our facilitates. Please consider the placement of shrubs and trees to minimize the impact to our facilities. Topic: Utility plains 54 Repeat Comment: Maintain 18-inches of vertical separation between all water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer crossings. W/W excepllon lc 5forr, Line '6', We rinlrruri separa{ion is provided, We fc- eclfully reauesl a waiver -0or /he ini u 5epara}icn require enl, where Lire '6' cros es fhe exisfinq o sanilary ewer, f lemafives to lhis have ceen explored with no success, 92 Place all curb stops and meter pits adjacent to the main when at all possible. Curb stops must be located within a utility easement. This requirer�enf i not posih/e wr'fh the end/ess conf/icfs Thai exist for Phis proposal. We respechrully request a waiver yoro fhis require enl. P/ear review the currenl layoul and respond. Pao*e 12 93 Provide a minimum of 10 feet of separation between storm sewer manholes and sanitary sewer mains. 7hi-� ha-, one. 94 Clearly define all water main joint deflection (i.e. Vertical, Horizontal, Beginning, ending, etc.). fig shown en fhe cuerall ufilify plan 95 Clearly show that: the valve box located on the south side of Horsetooth will not end up half in and half out of the vertical curb. / /7/., ��cnF//Cl hG5 been e;'//"MC7e,7, Jee 1/ie GVvra!�l / plan, 96 After much consideration and discussion within the utility, it has been determined that placing concrete around the existing sanitary sewer main will only hamper any attempt to excavate the sewer in the future if required. Please remove all notes from this plan set which refers to encasing the existing sanitary sewer main. It has also been determined that the existing sanitary sewer is PVC and in good condition, so no replacement will be required. 97 The only allowable substitution for concrete encasement of sewer mains is to use a 20 foot length of D.I.P. or C-900 PVC pipe. Clearly define any substitution of concrete encasement. CncG / e;;t /� ncl propc;e<i Gf Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes Topic: zoning 3 REPEAT COMMENT (1-31-02). General note 1(d)(ii) lists "live/work office type units" as a possible use. What is that? No such term. Is it the same as a home occupation? The explanation of what this is in their 1-29-02 letter is interesting, but it doesn't change anything. Our code contains no such use, therefore the use is not allowed (4.5(C) prohibits any use that is not expressly allowed). It still seems to me that what they are describing on sheet 1 of 6 is a home occupation, which is permitted and is listed by them on general note 1(d)(i). This type of comment is common from Zoning whenever an applicant lists a use that is not defined. For example, we make the same comment relative to an applicant that lists "townhomes" as a permitted use. Since there is no such defined term, we require them to remove it. If they really want to allow offices in the building that are not within a dwelling unit (home occupation), then they should do a Type 2 review in order to obtain approval for things like offices, dry cleaners, hair salons. Page 13 4 REPEAT COMMENT (1-31-02). With regards to my original comment below, I am glad to see that they have corrected the code section reference number. I find their explanation in their 1-29-02 letter regarding contextual height to be interesting, However, I believe they are missing my point. I agree that height can be measured either in stories or feet. But since the section they reference deals with establishing a contextual height, it is important that such height be reflected in terms of "feet" not "stories". Since the height of a story can vary from one buidling to another, City staff needs to have the height of the applicable buildings indicated to us in "feet" in order to determine if the proposed height is "contextual". As I stated originally, indicating that a Bella Vista building may be 6 stories, says nothing to us about how it relates to the height of the Marriott since one 6 story building can be considerably shorter or taller than another 6 story building. That's why I asked the question "How tall is the Marriott in terms of feet"? They have explained the difference in feet in their 1-29-02 letter, now they have to put that information on the plan. (12-18-01) - General note 2 references Section 2.8.17. There is no such section. I assume they mean 3.8.17 (A)(3). If so, then Planning needs to determine if the 4 to 6 stories is the appropriate "contextual height Some of the walls of buildings are almost 90' tall. In my opinion, "contextual height" as used in 3.8.17(A)(3) implies a similar height in feet as well as in stories. For instance, a 6 story building on one lot may only be 70' tall, and that doesn't mean that it's therefore ok to have a 6 story building on an adjacent lot that is 90' tall when the maximum height allowed in the MMN zone is 3 stories (4.5(E)(1)(d). How tall is the Marriott in terms of feet? 6 REPEAT COMMENT (1-31-02) - General note 1(d)(iii) - small food service uses listed are not classified as accessory uses. Therefore, they are not permitted in the MMN zone. (the only way they can be remotely "accessory" is if they serve only the residences of the building, and are not open to the "public"). I've read the explanation in the applicant's 1-29-02 letter, but I don't agree. For instance, would a Sushi Bar really be accessory, serving the tenants of the building? I doubt it would remain in business very long with such a small customer base. 7 REPLY (1-31-02). OK, I'll agree with B&B's being allowed. Editorial note - The applicant has suggested that private houses on lots less than 6000 s.f, would not be conducive to a six bedroom B&B. I would suggest that such a private house would be more conducive to a B&B than would a 2 or 3 bedroom condo. (original comment). General note 1(C)(ii) - B&B's would not be allowed. Such a use is a use that is conducted in a private house, not in a condo building. The following comments were expressed at Staff Review on February 20, 2002: Page 14 Engineering: The East Horsetooth Road design is still of concern. A westbound right -turn lane is needed. It is warranted based on City street standards. AVA 2. The striping as shown on East Horsetooth Road is unsafe. UeG e /e`er fo }he revise,/ sfripinq plan for `urlher review, 3. The center left -turn lane is unneeded. 4. There are issues with the cross sections on East Horsetooth Road. They are not to City standards. U G055 CtlOnS half Deen re'✓l=e// Gr;C '^ee` Gliy CTii e/l G. 5. Dedicate 57.5' of street right-of-way all the way to the east property line. "/' UU.I✓✓', hO5 ✓ee:'%'O t0 r^er' f�^o ^'/n !"i�/`� U✓l4%Y; J,� n7,FO GW/G'e/ lO u��o r�o4Gte the " u'ure" wesfhoun CY or eieofh� nigh} Turn lane. See Flat, 6. Flowlines need to be on the outside of the proposed bulb -outs on Stanford Road. T hi ha-, b:Q done, 7. The 3 variance requests from Northern Engineering are still being reviewed. 8. There should be an emergency access easement on the surface parking only and this should be noted on the subdivision plat. 7 his is Uc&n on the plat, Stormwater: 1. Storm water from this site will have to go into Tract D of Cove Island, to the south. A storm drainage easement may be needed from them. tlllly eta e✓"entenCCl^pG5'`5 the Greta o concern reCC(AZG 1N/7,h the � r ounty on June UU /��O ,ror the f;i51 Fey/a} of 1he Landings FUD„ Firsf Fitinq, 2. The proposed 12" storm sewer from the parking area needs to be a 15" pipe. This has been ,Jofe, 3. The storm sewer in East Horsetooth Road needs to be out from under the curb & gutter. Uforrl ;ewe; if� no longer p/op0;e4 under the curb GU qu}ter. Pace 15 4. There are lots of tree and storm sewer conflicts. T nip is now ne�clvea Transportation Planning: 1. The off -site sidewalk along the east side of Stanford Road, going to the north, is needed. This proposal fails the Pedestrian Level of Service portion of the TIS without it. 2. The proposed mid -block pedestrian crossing on Stanford Road, on the curve, is not in a good location for safety reasons. Water/Wastewater: Water/Wastewater is still reviewing the plans. A meeting with the applicant & developer is needed. Planning: 1. The proposed small food service uses, Item iii) under Accessory Uses in the General Notes, are of concern. If there are several very small users (up to 1,500 square feet in size), as staff and the developer have previously discussed, then these food services could be considered to be accessory uses. However, if a single restaurant were to occupy the bulk of the defined food service space (up to 3,600 square feet as shown on the Site Plan) then there would be a problem associated with the list of permitted uses in the MMN District. Restaurants are not a permitted use in this district. 2. The proposed live/work office uses, Item ii) under Accessory Uses in the General Notes, is a good idea: however, offices (per say) are listed as a Type II, Planning & Zoning Board review use in the MMN District. What assurance is there that the office users will not be separate from residents? 3. While reviewing the Shadow Analysis Plan and Streetscape & Building Elevations Plans against the criteria set forth in Section 3.5.1(G) Building Height Review of the LUC, several comments have arisen: a. Regarding Views, are there still desirable views of the foothills from the residential areas north and south of East Horsetooth Road that will be affected by this development? Are there views of Warren Lake from properties north of East Horsetooth Road that will be affected? Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(b)2 of the LUC requires that a visual analysis of views be submitted for review. Page 16 b. There would appear to be several areas of concern regarding Light and Shadow on adjacent properties, mostly at the 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. times as shown on the Shadow Analysis Plan. Most significant is the potential affects on buildings and parking lots to the west, across Stanford Road. C. Regarding Neighborhood Scale, the City still has some "contextual' concerns regarding this issue. Understanding the "Contextual Height' definition in Section 3.8.17(A)(3) of the LUC, there is still some discussion needed about where this site is situated relative to the taller buildings (such as the Marriott Hotel) in the area. How tall, in feet, is the hotel and is one building in excess of 3 stories in height in a larger surrounding area sufficient to justify 4 buildings that exceed the maximum allowable height in the proposed zoning district for this site? d. Typically, elevations for all 4 sides of buildings should be submitted. What do the building ends look like? This completes staff comments at this time. Additional comments may be forthcoming. This development request is subject to the 90-day revision re - submittal (from the date of this comment letter) as set forth in Section 2.2.11(A) of the Land Use Code. Be sure and return all of your redlined plans when you re -submit. If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project, please feel free to call me at (970) 221-6341. Yours Truly, Steve Olt, Project Planner Paae 17 COKYW o urban design, inc. July 31, 2002 Steve Olt City of Fort Collins Community Planning and Environmental Services P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 130522 RE: Bella Vista PDP — March 6, 2002, PDP Review Comments Dear Steve, 3555 stanford road, suite 105 fort collins, colorado 80525 (970) 226-4074 fax (970) 226-4196 e@cityscapeud.com Included below are the March 6, 2002 comments received from City Staff regarding the revised Bella Vista Project Development Plan (initially submitted November 28, 2001; previous revisions were submitted January 29, 2002). Applicant responses to the City Staff comments are in italics and underlined: Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt Topic: Street Design 64 Eric Bracke of Traffic Operations offered the following comments: 1. East Horsetooth Road a. On the east end of the project the plans are showing 3.5' wide bike lanes and 10.6' wide travel lanes. This is a 40 m.p.h. street and these lane widths are not acceptable to Traffic Engineering. Eric will settle for 6' wide bike lanes (if Transportation Planning agrees) and 11.5' wide travel lanes. b. The redirect taper for westbound traffic is shown at 140'. Again, this is a 40 m.p.h. street and using the standard WS^2/60 calculation, the taper should be 320'. C. The eastbound bike lane at Landings Drive needs to start at the pc, not 25' east of the taper to begin the bike lane. A bicyclist is likely to get "squished" under this design. d. Staf's discussion at Transportation Coordination reaffirmed the need for a westbound right -turn lane based on City standards, not the TIS or LOS requirements. The right -turn lane still is not shown. 2. Stanford Road a. A 10' wide right -turn lane is not acceptable. \\SERVER\Server D\WP\9000\9600\9601PDP-RESPONSE3.doc EOM@Q o urban design, inc. b. Please get rid of the 4' painted median and use 2' for the southbound right -turn, 1' for the southbound through, and 1' for the southbound left - turn. Please contact Eric, at 224-6062, if you have questions about his comments. Applicant Response: a) The "unacceptable" widths of bike lanes and travel lanes dimensioned at the east end of the site are the existing off -site condition as striped by the City, and are not part of this applicant's proposal. They are however the widths from which we must ,begin the transition to the proposed lane widths. Also, the posted speed on Horsetooth drops from 40 mph to 35 mph near the easterly end of the subject Property. Our revised striping plan matches the existing striping to the west of the Stanford Road intersection tapering to meet the existing condition at the east Property ljne. b) The taper has been revised to match the posted speed. c) As per City Staffs earlier direction we are no longer proposing any modification to the existing east bound bike lanes (on the fully improved south side of Horsetooth Road). There will continue to be no eastbound bike lane west of Spindrift, as per the existing condition. d) As discussed at our meeting of June le, the westbound right turn lane is impractical due to the numerous horizontal and vertical utility and drainage conflicts, and the overwhelming negative impacts on this small site. It is the consensus opinion that the enormous sum of City money required to construct this turn lane would be better spent at other locations. As indicated in our last submittal the intersection will function at an acceptable level without this additional lane. We have designed the site so that — in the unlikely event this intersection is reconstructed to include a west -bound right turn lane — the location of the walk and street trees will not conflict. 2) Stanford Road a) The "unacceptable" 10' right -turn lane previously indicated, simply illustrated the width of the existing turn lane when the original submittal of this PDP was made. Our revised striping plan increases the width to 12'. b) The revised stripping plan eliminates the 4' painted median as requested. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General 102 The site plan shows some sort of access ramp across one of the proposed bump outs along Stanford Drive. This is not reflected on the utility drawings. 103 Remove General Note #4 on the site plan. \\SERVER\Server D\WP\9000\9600\9601PDP-RESPONSE3.doc 58 Vacation of City easements an the plat do not require an easement vacation certificate. However, vacation of exclusive easements outside of the City 120' communication easement) requires a signature from the telephone company. 59 Horsetooth Road appears confusing with right -of way on tap of city and private utilities. Please clarify. 61 An emergency access easement needs to be dedicated an the plat where PFA specifes a fire lane is required. Topic: Street Design 29 The Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards ILCUASSI in Section 8.2.2 specifies all lanes shall be in alignment through each intersection. Currently a 4.5' offset is measured on the road design; no offset will be allowed for this design. 30 Because of the no offset requirement and some constraints involving the existing storm drainage improvements across Horsetooth, the previous discussion involving extension of the proposed median to the Horsetooth/Stanford intersection will no longer be required. Instead, no median shall be provided on Horsetooth Road and a pork chop island for the driveway off of Horsetooth shall be required. The design of the "pork chop" for this access point should prohibit left turns onto Horsetooth (to the extent reasonably feasible) while at the same time be designed to allow PFA access. 31 The access out to Horsetooth Road does not provide enough separation from the intersection of Horsetooth Road and Stanford Drive as required under LCUASS (660' is required, 620' is provided). Transportation Services has determined that this separation will work with the construction of the "pork chop" island to deter left turns out of the development. 32 Directional ramps are required on new construction in accordance with LCUASS. (Standard Drawing 16-4D) Provide the detail on the plan set. 33 The City's Traffic Engineer has determined that the Stanford/Horsetooth intersection would not make a suitable location for a roundabout and an alternative analysis (typically required on arterial/collector and arterial/arterial intersections) is not needed. 34 A right -turn lane for westbound Horsetooth onto northbound Stanford still should be designed and constructed. There is a community wide benefit in the construction of the right turn lane, thus this is eligible for Street Oversizing reimbursement. The design of the right - turn lane should look at providing pedestrian refuge between the right -turn and through lane, especially since the width of Horsetooth would require a ped refuge under LCUASS. 35 Page 2 urban design, inc. Topic: Grading 45 Offsite grading and construction is shown occurring along the northern boundary of the site. A letter of intent from the property owner not objecting to the offsite work is required to be Submitted prior to any public hearing for the project. Topic: Plat 46 The Development needs to dedicate an access easement along Stanford Drive to ensure the sidewalk proposed is in an access easement. Additional right-of-way is not necessary. (2/20) It appears that additional access easement along Stanford Drive (and Horsetooth Road) is necessary to ensure that all of the proposed sidewalk is in easement. 66 A minimum of 57.5 of half street right-of-way is required to be dedicated along the entire length of the property with a consistent utility easement width, in conformance with LCUASS. It is understood that 9' instead of the 15' of necessary utility easement is being proposed behind the right-of-way, when all the design and utility issues are resolved along Florsetooth, the variance request for reduction in utility easement width will be routed to the utilities for approval. 75 There may be a benefit in designating on the plat that the emergency access easement is for the "surface level" only. There may be issues from a title company on how the emergency access easement is represented as going through a building envelope. Topic: Sidewalk 99 The grading plan appears to show that inlets with straw bales will be in close proximity or perhaps even overlapping with the street sidewalks. These straw bales need to be outside of the sidewalk section. Perhaps a different erosion control measure can be used if the straw bales are encroaching into the sidewalk for a period of time. Topic: Street Design 32 Directional ramps are required on new construction in accordance with LCUASS. (Standard Drawing 16-4D) Provide the detail on the plan set. (2/20) The response from the applicant stated that this could not be accommodated due to existing constraints. The design engineer should provide documentation on why this cannot be accomplished. Note that because of the right turn discussion, any previous limitations due to existing constraints may no longer be applicable. 34 A right -turn lane for westbound Horsetooth onto northbound Stanford still should be designed and constructed. There is a community wide benefit in the construction of the right turn lane, thus this is eligible for Street Oversizing reimbursement. The design of the right -turn lane should look at providing pedestrian refuge between the right -turn and \\SERVER\Server D\WP\9000\9600\9601 PDP-RESPONSE3.doc CO�M@ a o urban design, inc. through lane, especially since the width of Horsetooth would require a ped refuge under LCUASS. (2/20) The issue of the right turn lane was discussed at the City's 2/14 Transportation Coordination Meeting. It was viewed that the submitted justification for not designing the right turn lane was not compelling and that a right turn lane could be designed into the project. Please note that any written documentation regarding the designing of the right -turn lane should be provided by the design engineer (a licensed professional engineer.) 35 Provide cross -sections on Horsetooth Road per LCUASS 3.3.4.0 (at 50' intervals). (It appears that a straight-line grade from the crown of Horsetooth Road to the flowline is not being provided as shown on the grading plan, cross -sections will help confirm or deny this.) (2/20) The cross section sheets need to have the centerline elevations labeled, the curb and gutter section should be distinguishable from the asphalt section, and the right-of-way should also be shown. 36 Show centerline and flowline profiles on Horsetooth Road. (2/20) Can the grid) lines or scale be modified in order to allow for every XX+00 stationing to be on a grid line? Only every 3rd XX+00 stationing is on a grid line. 37 Provide the bearing and distance for the flowline on the plan view portion of the plan and profile sheet for Horsetooth Road. (2/20) This information isn't shown east of the driveway and only bearing (no distance) is being shown west of the driveway. 60 Because of the aforementioned need for the right -turn lane, eliminating the offset through the intersection, and the constraint of the existing storm drainage improvements, it is understood that the bike lane design for westbound Horsetooth may have to be compromised. A reduced bike lane width of 6' (including gutter) with a continuous concrete pour should be looked at as one potential compromise. It may also be necessary for the bike lane to stop short of the intersection to accommodate the right -turn lane. An additional option would be to look at widening the sidewalk and create a combined bike/ped area behind the curb if the bikelane cannot be accomplished. (2/20) With the right turn lane still being an outstanding issue, the proposed design of the westbound bike lane will not be commented on by Engineering at this time. It is still considered ideal that the bike lane is continuous to the intersection. 62 Add the following note as reference wherever patching is shown on the plans: Limits of street repair are approximate. Final limits to be determined in the field by the City Engineering Inspector. All repairs to be in accordance with City Street repair standards. (2/20) Ensure that this note is referenced to the work along Stanford as well. 67 \\SERVER\Server D\WP\9000\9600\9601PDP-RESPONSE3.doc urban design, inc. The "bulb -outs" (proposed on Stanford Drive may be allowed only if the gutter is redesigned to go around and along the bulb outs, not through them. There are maintenance concerns with the current proposal due to dirt and debris collecting between the bulb outs and the flowline. 68 [12] The vertical curve shown is too short in length for the street classification of Horsetooth. A K: value of 110 is required, 60 is shown. 69 [13) A vertical curve is needed for the Horsetooth proposed flowline as it approaches the existing storm lines. A grade break is shown with a 0.6% grade going to a 1.69% grade. 70 [13] Fix the vertical elevation labeling on this sheet for the profile view. 71 Three variance requests were received regarding Bella Vista from Northern Engineering. The variance requesting the reduction in sight distance along Stanford Drive, the variance to reduce the driveway spacing from 660' to 610', and the variance to reduce the utility easement along Horsetooth were all viewed favorably upon by the City Engineer. Final approval of these variance requests will occur with completion of the designs for Horsetooth and Stanford that are acceptable to the City and the utilities. 72 [13] The 2.55% shown on this sheet appears to actually calculate to 4.2% with the elevations and stationing shown. 77 The Traffic Engineer has noted that the center turn lane should be continuous from the intersection to the Cove Island development and continuing east. The Traffic Engineer notes that a 3/4 movement to allow left turns into the site could be designed (with painted medians) in conjunction with the porkchop island to facilitate right turns out of this driveway. 78 The cross section sheets show the additional road width to be 4% or even greater. Because a saw cut is being shown to the centerline for most of Horsetooth, a continuous straight line grade needs to be maintained along the entire north half of the roadway where the sawcut is shown. For the additional width between stations 10+00 and 11+00, (where the roadway is not being sawcut to centerline), this new portion of roadway is limited to 3%. 79 A grade break is shown on Sheet [12] that exceeds .40%. A vertical curve would be required based on this design. 98 Provide spot elevations at the Horsetooth and Stanford intersection in accordance with LCUASS Standard Detail 7-32B. \\SERVER\Server D\WP\9000\9600\9601PDP-RESPONSE3.doc CXM@@ o urban design, inc. 100 The submitted "Street Cross Sections" from the site planner is not appropriate to be submitted as a document along with the site and landscape development plan documents. Street cross sections are to be shown on the utility plan set and will be established based upon an approved design for the roadway(s). 101 Angle poinis along the flowine appear to be shown along Horsetooth, please revise and use curves as shown in LCUASS 7.4.1. 104 It appears that redirects are too abrupt on the street striping plan. See traffic comments regarding this. Topic: Utility plans 76 The drawings regarding the storm system across Horsetooth originally approved by the City showed an inlet being tied to the easternmost pipe, the submitted plans show that the inlet is tied to the westernmost pipe. Applicant Response: 1) General a) The acce;>s ramp design is now reconciled on both the site plan and utility plans. b) General note #4 has been revised to reflect adopted City Policy. 2) Grading a) A letter of intent is being provided as requested. 3) Plat a) Access easements for all public walks will be provided upon resolution of the alignments of the affected walks. b) The min ?um right-of-way is now indicated, along with a utility easement adjacent to Horsetooth Road. c) The emergency easement is noted for the "surface level' only as suggested. 4) Sidewalk a) Erosion control and walk locations have been reconciled on the revised plans 5) Street Design revisions are reflected in the utility plans and addressed in the response letter from Northern Engineering. 6) Utility Plans =visions are reflected in the utility plans and addressed in the response letter from Northern Engineering Department: PPA Issue Contact: Ron Gonzales Topic: Plat SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS: These proposed buildings shall be fire sprinklered. A fire pump may also be required, as well as standpipes for the building and the parking garage below grade. 97UBC \\SERVER\Server_D\WP\9000\9600\9601 PDP-RESPONSE3.doc urban design, inc. The response letter from Cityscape stated that notes to this effect have been added to the plans. Please indicate where the notes are. Ventilation System: A 2-stage ventilation system shall be provided for the parking garage below grade. Stage One shall be tied to a Carbon Monoxide Detection System that will detect carbon monoxide at 50ppm over 8 hours and/or 200ppm over 1 hour and ventilate the garage. Stage Two shall provide ventilation for smoke removal in the event of a car fire. UBC1202.2.7 The response letter from Cityscape stated that notes to this effect have been added to the plans. Please indicate where the notes are. Applicant Response: a) Notes regarding sprinkler requirements fire pumps standpipes and 2-stage ventilation have been added to the PDP General Notes (#'s 23 and 24) Department: Police Issue Contact: Joseph Gerdom Topic: General 9 Lighting Plan: The Luminaire schedule and luminaire detail don't provide sufficient information to determine exactly which lights are used in each location. Also, unless there are wall fixtures there is inadequate illumination between Bldg B & C; east face of Bldg D; and north face of Bldg B. In general, all building access points should have minimum of 1 fc. Topic: Landscaping 10 Landscape Plan: The use of Austrian Pine, cotoneaster, and ninebark along the faces of Bldgs B, C, and D, particularly in front of public/private entrances will obscure these areas and raise security issues. Lower growing species, lighting, or some combination thereof would be recommended. Applicant Response: A revised lighting plan has been provided indicating locations of wall mounted fixtures for security lighting. The provision of adequate lighting — rather than reduced landscaping — is the preferred security measure. Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Basil Hamdan Topic: Construction Easements 80 The proposed 24" RCP across Horsetooth Rd. will necessitate the construction of a headwall and part of the culvert on Tract D of The Landings 1 st Filing. Prior to construction on this Tract owned by that HOA the contractor should make sure that the HOA is notified and that the area will be properly restored. Even though this area is in \\SERVER\Server_D\WP\9000\9600\9601 PDP-RESPONSE3.doc Ca�Y2(§C o urban design, inc. an existing drainage easement, the landings 1st Filing HOA which maintains this area should ensure that the area is put back to an acceptable level, equal or better than before constructiion. Topic: Ditch Company Approval 87 Prior to allowing additional discharge from this site into Warren Lake, the Warren Lake Ditch company must sign off on these plans. Topic: Drainage Report 83 Please provide street capacity calculations for Horsetooth Road for the area that is being widened by this project. Since Horsetooth is a major arterial the standards call for no curb overtopping in the 10-year storm and one lane open in the 100 -year storm. Please provide sizing calculations for the proposed Stormceptor. Please provide sizing calculations for the proposed spillways on ponds 1 and 2. Topic: Erosion Control 86 Please submit an erosion control plan that meets the standards of the City of Fort Collins. The submitted materials do not meet our minimum standards. Contact Bob Zakely for further directions. Please provide ai better detail for the proposed erosion control fabric for Pond 2. Provide a seed mix for the native grass proposed in this pond. Topic: Grading, 85 The proposed offsite grading on the northwest corner of the site will require an off -site grading easement from the adjacent property owner. Please provide a detail of the retaining walls that are not part of the proposed buildings. There are still some areas in the upper level parking that do not seem to drain properly. Please revise and add spot elevations. The proposed patio area to the west of Building B has a low point with no proposed drainage outlet. Topic: Landscaping 90 Several inlets on private property might be affected by the dense vegetation proposed around these. Please revise landscaping plans to ensure proper drainage from these areas even though they will be owned and maintained by the Bella Vista FICA. Topic: Off -site Grading Easement 88 The swale on the north side of the property as well as some grading takes place on private property (Strachan 1 st Filing Subdivision) . The plans show that this easement will be granted by separate document. A letter of intent will be required prior to PDP hearing and a final easement is needed prior to Final Compliance. \\SERVER\Servef_D\WP\9000\9600\9601 PDP-RESPONSE3.doc urban design, inc. Topic: Plat 89 Please connect drainage easement in driveway to off -site drainage easement on the plat. Topic: Roof Drainage 91 Please show on the plans how the roof drains are getting to the proposed water quality ponds. Topic: Tree Removal 81 The construction of the 24" pipe across Horsetooth Rd. could impact the existing 8" Blue Spruce on the south side of Horsetooth. The note that was added to the plan calls for the contractor to determine in the field whether this tree can be saved. This is not acceptable. The City will not allow the contractor to remove this tree at his own discretion. Please REMOVE this note as the City will not allow this tree to be removed and provide plans that will preserve the tree in place. Topic: Utility plans 82 This is a repeat comment: The proposed storm sewer coming from the Stormceptor and tying into the line along Horsetooth is currently shown as a 12"RCP. The minimum allowed size in the ROW is a 15" line please correct. The 15" City line should extend to the edge of the ROW (back of walk), this part of the line should be public and separated from the private 12" line that would extend back to the Stormceptor by a manhole. Please make sure that storm line G has enough cover at the point it exits into Horsetooth Road. the minimum cover requirement is 1-foot below subgrade. The proposed storm sewer on Horsetooth Rd. seems to be very close to several existing utilities especially at the east end of the line. The line seems to be jammed within 4' of an existing sanitary manhole and close to existing telephone and gas lines. Such small separations are not acceptable please revise plans. The line also seems to be under the proposed curb and gutter. A meeting with strormwater and wastewater as well as other utilities is recommended to discuss the pipe alignment issue. Please specify an ASTM Standard C443 gasketed joint for all pressurized storm lines. The existing 5-foot inlets on the corner of Horsetooth and Stanford are shown to be remaining in place on the Utility plans, while the talcs included in the drainage report check for the sizing these inlets and the plans show that these might need to be relocated and reconstructed with the widening of Horsetooth Rd. Please clarify. Will the existing inlets be moved ? If a right turn lane is called for on Horsetooth and Stanford then the existing junction box vault should be designed to handle traffic loads and the elevation of this box should be checked. Applicant responses are included in the revised utility plans and response letter provided by Northern Engineering. \\SERVER\Server D\WP\9000\9600\9601PDP-RESPONSE3.doc o urban design, inc. Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Mark Jackson Topic: Sidewalk 73 Applicant needs to provide off -site sidewalk connection on Stanford from their site north to Monroe. Based on the City's pedestrian LOS standards within the Land Use Code (LUC) and Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) the minimum LOS for pedestrians is not met. Contrary to Mr. Delich's response, the proposed development is actually located within the area types classified as "transit corridor" and "school walking area". Therefore, all pedestrian LOS elements must meet LOS B, except for the visual interest and amenities as stated within the LCUASS and the TIS provided. The LCUASS further explains that all "destination areas" within a quarter mile (1,320 feet) must be identified within the TIS for analysis. All locations are identified within the TIS with the exception of the medium density residential land use to the north, which is located on the NE corner of the Monroe and Stanford intersection. This "destination area" does not meet the minimum LOS for "directness" as measured on the street grid system, and thus, the minimum pedestrian LOS for "continuity" due to the lack of a sidewalk along Stanford between the proposed development and the identified intersection. In addition, the LUC states in Section 3.2.2 C.7 "Offsite Access to Pedestrian and Bicycle Destinations", that "offsite pedestrian or bicycle facility improvements may be required in order to comply with the requirements of Section 3.2.2 (E) (1) (Parking Lot Layout) and Section 3.4 (Transportation Level of Service Requirements). 84 Proposed mid -block pedestrian crossing shown on Stanford looks problematic due to curve. This is a Traffic Engineering call however. Applicant Response: As agreed at our June 10t" meeting, the revised plans additional analysis from Matt Delich demonstrate that the minimum LOS is met without provision of the off -site sidewalk along Stanford, adjacent to the Aspen Leaf Apartments. It was also agreed that the proposed mid -block pedestrian crossing on Stanford is acceptable with the design revisions shown on the current PDP. Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Topic: Landscaping 48 Repeat Comment: Coordinate landscape design with the civil design and provide the required landscape/utility separation distances. Correctly show all existing and proposed water/sewer mains and services on the landscape plans. With the tight constraints on this site we would be willing to relax our separation requirements, \\SERVER\Server_D\WP\9000\9600\9601 PDP-RESPONSE3.doc urban design, inc. however we will not allow landscaping to be placed directly on top of our facilitates. Please consider the placement of shrubs and trees to minimize the impact to our facilities. Topic: Utility plans 54 Repeat Comment: Maintain 18-inches of vertical separation between all water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer crossings. 92 Place all curb stops and meter pits adjacent to the main when at all possible. Curb stops must be located within a utility easement. 93 Provide a minimum of 10 feet of separation between storm sewer manholes and sanitary sewer mains. 94 Clearly define all water main joint deflection (I.e. Vertical, Horizontal, Beginning, ending, etc.). 95 Clearly show that the valve box located on the south side of Horsetooth will not end up half in and half out of the vertical curb. 96 After much consideration and discussion within the utility, it has been determined that placing concrete around the existing sanitary sewer main will only hamper any attempt to excavate the sewer in the future if required. Please remove all notes from this plan set which refers to encasing the existing sanitary sewer main. It has also been determined that the existing sanitary sewer is PVC and in good condition, so no replacement will be required. 97 The only allowable substitution for concrete encasement of sewer mains is to use a 20 foot length of D.I. P. or C-900 PVC pipe. Clearly define any substitution of concrete encasement. Applicant responses are included in the revised utility plans and response letter provided by Northern Engineering, and shown on the revised Landscape Plans with this PDP. Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes Topic: zoning 3 REPEAT COMMENT (1-31-02). General note 1(d)(ii) lists "live/work office type units" as a possible use. What is that? No such term. Is it the same as a home occupation? The explanation of what this is in their 1-29-02 letter is interesting, but it doesn't change anything. Our code contains no such use, therefore the use is not allowed (4.5(C) prohibits any use that is not expressly allowed). It still seems to me that what they are \\SERVER\Server D\WP\9000\9600\9601PDP-RESPONSE3.doc o urban design, inc. describing on sheet 1 of 6 is a home occupation, which is permitted and is listed by them on general note 1(d)(i). This type of comment is common from Zoning whenever an applicant lists a use that is not defined. For example, we make the same comment relative to an applicant that lists "townhomes" as a permitted use. Since there is no such defined term, we require them to remove it. If they really want to allow offices in the building that are not within a dwelling unit (home occupation), then they should do a Type 2 review in order to obtain approval for things like offices, dry cleaners, hair salons. 4 REPEAT COMMENT (1-31-02). With regards to my original comment below, I am glad to see that they have corrected the code section reference number. I find their explanation in their 1-29-02 letter regarding contextual height to be interesting, However, I believe they are missing my point. I agree that height can be measured either in stories or feet. But since the section they reference deals with establishing a contextual height, it is important that such height be reflected in terms of "feet" not "stories". Since the height of a story can vary from one buidling to another, City staff needs to have the height of the applicable buildings indicated to us in "feet" in order to determine if the proposed height is "contextual". As I stated originally, indicating that a Bella Vista building may be 6 stories, says nothing to us about how it relates to the height of the Marriott since one 6 story building can be considerably shorter or taller than another 6 story building. That's why I asked the question "How tall is the Marriott in terms of feet"'' They have explained the difference in feet in their 1-29-02 letter, now they have to put that information on the plan. (12-18-01) - General note 2 references Section 2.8.17. There is no such section. I assume they mean 3.8.17 (A)(3). If so, then Planning needs to determine if the 4 to 6 stories is the appropriate "contextual height". Some of the walls of buildings are almost 90' tall. In my opinion, "contextual height" as used in 3.8.17(A)(3) implies a similar height in feet as well as in stories. For instance, a 6 story building on one lot may only be 70' tall, and that doesn't mean that it's therefore ok to have a 6 story building on an adjacent lot that is 90' tall when the maximum height allowed in the MMN zone is 3 stories (4.5(E)(1)(d). How tall is the Marriott in terms of feet? 6 REPEAT COMMENT (1-31-02) - General note 1(d)(iii) - small food service uses listed are not classified as accessory uses. Therefore, they are not permitted in the MMN zone. (the only way they can be remotely "accessory" is if they serve only the residences of the building, and are not open to the "public"). I've read the explanation in the applicant's 1-29-02 letter, but I don't agree. For instance, would a Sushi Bar really be accessory, serving the tenants of the building? I doubt it would remain in business very long with such a small customer base. 7 REPLY (1-31-02). OK, I'll agree with B&B's being allowed. Editorial note - The applicant has suggested that private houses on lots less than 6000 s.f. would not be conducive to a six bedroom B&B. I would suggest that such a private house would be more conducive to a B&B than would a 2 or 3 bedroom condo. \\SERVER\Server D\WP\9000\9600\9601PDP-RESPONSE3.doc