Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBELLA VISTA - PDP - 45-01A - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS (15)J QVP@P@ urban design, inc. 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 accessoryis 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. As per our meeting on December 13th, it is our understanding that all substantive been ra to be scheduled for Type 1Hear Hearing addressed,January, and tthe l Y late or is ready Feb uary. 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 ident Cityscape Urban Design, Inc. cc: Javier Martinez Campos Chuck McNeal Frank Vaught Bud Curtis Lucia Liley Page 11 UM@@P@' 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: Utility plans 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. 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 information necessary for the lowering. Northern Engineering is addressing this comment. Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes Topic: Zoning 6 REPEAT, REPEAT, REPEAT CONRAENT (11-1-02) - General note 1(d)(ii) still needs a little wordsmithing. 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/restaurant. 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, but not limited to, ready -to -eat 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 CONINIENT (8-"2) - 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 the MIvIN 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 1500 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 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 Page 10 CO � o urban design, inc. Topic: Utility plans 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 warning motorists of the nud-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 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). Furthermore, the path will serve only one way bike traffic, please narrow the width to aid in the reduction of bike 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 storm sewer crossings. Northern Engineering is addressing this comment. 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. Northern Engineering is addressing this comment. 115 Repeat Comment: Maintain 4 feet of separation between outside wall of meter pit and all permanent structures. Northern Engineering is addressing this comment. Page 9 Q y7p@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 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. 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 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. Thank you. Topic: Notes 160 Please add notes to the plans; stating that the water quality ponds and the stormceptor are to be maintained by the developer or HOA. Northern Engineering is addressing this comment. 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 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 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. Northern Engineering is addressing this comment. Page 8 cnollyp@P(A� urban design, inc. 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 alann 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 foi 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 I 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: Police Issue Contact: Joseph Gerdom 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: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Basil Hamdan 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 U M@@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 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 (thus 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 be needed at this location unless 2 different service voltages are required. No Engineering is addressing this comment. 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. Northern Engineering is addressing this comment. Topic: General (these comments are being reiterated for 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. 97UFC901.2.2.1;901.3;901.4.2;902.2.1 Adtnin.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 Page 6 COXn@@P@ urban design, inc. Topic: Plat 127 Building envelopes appear to encroach within easements. Building envelopes need to be relocated outside of easements. [ 11/201 It appears that encroachments still exist 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. 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 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. (11/201 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 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 detail 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 5 C�o���� o 0 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 channelized "T" intersection design should be looked at as specified in AASHTO. Keep in mind that tlus 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 tam 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 dais 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 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. 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 Mite 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 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. [ 11/201 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 coY5@ a o 0 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. 150 The cross sections on the utility plan set now show the sidewalk in this view. The cross section on station l 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 I"/a 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. Northern Engineering is addressing this comment. 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 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. The requested note will be added. Page 3 Co�,��caa o 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 Staffs 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 1') 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 loft/mezzanine 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 a modification of the standard set forth in Section 4.5(E)(1)(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: Stred 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 December 20, 2002 Steve Olt City of Fort Collins Community Planning and Environmental Services P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 com@@P@ urban design, inc. 3555 stanford road, suite 105 fort collins, colorad6 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 I 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 east. 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 3.2.3(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 thru D) vary in height from 64' for Buildings A & B to 65'+ 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 (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 3.8.17(A)(3) - Contextual Height in the Land Use Code. Page 1