HomeMy WebLinkAboutBELLA VISTA - PDP - 45-01A - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS (16)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
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 l(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.
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 221-6341.
Yours Truly,
Steve Olt,
City Planner
Page 9
Response: The steel casing has been extended 5 foot clear of 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.
Response: Flow demand calculations will be provided by Mechanical Engineer at time of design and
prior to issuance of building permit. An additional domestic service has been added to facilitate
commercial and residential uses within building C.
115
Repeat Comment: Maintain 4 feet of separation between outside wall of meter pit and all permanent structures
Response: Meter pits have been adjusted to maintain the required 4 feet separation.
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.
Response: The fire hydrant has been relocated to maintain the minimum 10-foot separation from the
transformer.
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.
Response: This has been done to the best of our ability, given all of the constraints.
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.
Response: Please refer to sheet 3 for revised mechanical joint deflection information.
Department: Zoning
Issue Contact: Peter Barnes
Topic: Zoning
6
REPEAT, REPEAT, REPEAT COMMENT (11-1-02) - General note I(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."
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 the MMN zone. II
Page 8
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.
Response: Please refer to overall utility plan noting tree protection measures and sheet 5 for tree
protection notes.
Topic: Storm Line El
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.
Response: The planter in question will be temporary in nature. Since the construction will be a dry -stack
wall, 24" high. As previously agreed to by the City and Utilities, attending the previous utility
coordination meetings, as long as they are not held responsible for reconstruction or replacement of
surface features or plantings, this would be acceptable. Refer to note # 14 on the Overall Utility Plan, to
this effect.
Topic: Utility plans
159
Please call out the C-900 12" line as a plastic pipe on the utility plans, not an RCP
Response: Revised as requested.
Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Mark Jackson
Topic: General
108
The applicant should provide appropriate signage warning motorists of the mid -block pedestrian crossing.
Response: Please refer to Horsetooth Road striping plan for locations of pedestrian crossing signs along
Stanford Road.
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.
Response: Please refer to the striping plan for additional signage as requested.
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.
Page 7
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.
Warren Lake Ditch Company is currently reviewing this project and presently have no concerns with
regard to this project.
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
Response: Contour annotations have been revised.
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.
Response: The drainage pan north of the project will be contained within the proposed 20' wide
drainage, utility, landscape, grading and access easement. A letter of intent is forthcoming for this offsite
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.
Response: Proposed grading is contained within the R.O.W.
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.
Response: A letter of intent for the drainage easement is forthcoming. Tree protection measures and
notes have been added to the plans at the direction of the City Forrester (see sheet 3 for plan notes and
sheet 5 for tree protection notes).
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.
Response: This note has been added to the plans.
Page 6
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.
Response: This issue will be clarified prior to issuance of building permits by the electrical contractor.
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.
Noted.
Topic: General (these comments are being reiterated for general information)
Noted
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.
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
105
Issues addressed except for: no illumination information for south faces of Bldgs A & B
This comment will be addressed by Cityscape.
Page 5
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.
Response: The sawcut limits have been expanded to reflect that shown on the redlines.
[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.
Noted.
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%.
Response: This area has been revised, as requested.
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%.
Response: This detail has been revised to reflect this information.
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.
Response: Curbs have been added along the sides of the bike lane and drainage will be contained within
the roadway.
Topic: Utility plans
152
Clarify whether the striping shown on Stanford is existing or proposed.
Response: The striping shown exists and has been noted on the 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.
Response: 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.
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).
Noted.
Page 4
off of Horsetooth. Further investigation of this design should be coordinated between Northern Engineering
and the City Traffic Engineer.
Response: This issue has since been discussed with the City Traffic Engineer resulting in the current
design.
158
Coordinate the name of the project, is it "Bellavista PDP" or "Bella Vista PDP"? Ensure the title is consistent
on all documents.
Response: Project name has been coordinated as, BellaVista PDP.
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.
This comment will be addressed by Cityscape.
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
This comment will be addressed by Cityscape.
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 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
This comment will be addressed by Cityscape.
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.
Noted.
Page 3
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?
This comment will be addressed by Cityscape.
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?
Response: This area has been revised per City Standards.
Please provide LCUASS Standard Drawing 7-20B in the details sheet.
Response: This detail has been added to the plans.
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.
Response: Note added to plat.
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.
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
Page 2
Im
NORTHERN ENGINEERING
RESPONSE TO CITY REVIEW
City of Fort Collins COMMENTS
STANFORD DEVELOPMENT, LLC Date: 11/27/2002
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 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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cityscape will address this comment.
Page 1