Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBELLA VISTA - PDP - 45-01A - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS (13)3. The current Photometric Study shows many points on the site that exceed the maximum allowed foot-candles generated by the site lighting asset forth in Section 3.2.4(C) of the Land Use Code. What is the reason for this? APPLICANTS' RESPONSE: A revised lighting plan addressing this comment is included with this re -submittal. 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. APPLICANTS' RESPONSE: We believe all significant comments have been resolved with this re -submittal, and anticipate this project will be scheduled for a Type 1 Hearing in mid -December. Thank you for your efforts in the review of this PDP. Sincerely, Eldon Ward, President Cityscape Urban Design, Inc. c.c.: Chuck McNeal Javier Martinez Campos Frank Vaught Lucia Liley Daryl Sigler Matt Delich Page 25 APPLICANTS' RESPONSE: See response letter from Northem Engineering. 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. I. 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. 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.? APPLICANTS' RESPONSE: No existing off -site trees are proposed to be removed with this. application. 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. APPLICANTS' RESPONSE: We understand that a neighborhood meeting has been scheduled for November 13" . Page 24 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 APPLICANTS' RESPONSE: See response letter from Northern Engineering 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. Light & Power APPLICANTS' RESPONSE: So noted. 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 Authority APPLICANTS' RESPONSE: So noted 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. Stormwater Page 23 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. APPLICANTS' RESPONSE: The mid -block crossing was agreed upon at the June 10`h meeting with City Staff. 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. APPLICANTS' RESPONSE: As shown on the July 3 1 " re -submittal. Engineering APPLICANTS' RESPONSE: See response letter from Northern 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. Page 22 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. APPLICANTS' RESPONSE: Comment addressed above. 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. APPLICANTS' RESPONSE: Comment addressed above. The following comments and concerns were expressed at staff review on August 21st: Transportation Planning Page 21 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. APPLICANTS' RESPONSE: Comment addressed above. 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 tome 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. APPLICANTS' RESPONSE: Comment addressed above. 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 Page 20 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 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 19 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. 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? APPLICANTS' RESPONSE: The mid -block crossing was agreed upon during the previous round of review. Ramps are to be provided at both sides of Sanford Road at the mid -block crossing. There is no reason standard pedestrian crossing signs cannot be installed. Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Jeff Hill APPLICANTS' RESPONSE: Water - Wastewater comments will be addressed by Northern Engineeringin a separate response letter 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 Page 18 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 detail with all the appropriate dimensions for the water quality outlet boxes. Page 17 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 Some comments as last time. Topic: Eroding 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 16 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. APPLICANTS' RESPONSE: This comment has been addressed in previous submittals. Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Basil Hamdan APPLICANTS' RESPONSE: Stormwater comments will be addressed by Northern Engineeringin a separate response letter. 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 15 - 97UFC902.4 PFAPOLICY88-20 APPLICANTS' RESPONSE: So noted. 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. 97U BC APPLICANTS' RESPONSE: So noted. 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 APPLICANTS' RESPONSE: So noted. Department: Police Topic: Genera/ 9 Issue Contact: Joseph Gerdom 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. 105 Issues addressed except for: no illumination information for south faces of Bldgs A & B APPLICANTS' RESPONSE: A revised lighting nlan resolving the above comments is included with this re -submittal. Page 14 applicant consider installing as many of these provisions for the safety of the occupants and the building. See 97UBC403 APPLICANTS' RESPONSE: The applicant will consider these safety provisions Topic: Plot 57 REQUIRED ACCESS: Due to the proposed heights of these edifices, a 30 foot wide fire lone 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 APPLICANTS' RESPONSE: The 30' fire lane as previously reviewed and accepted by PFA, is shown on the site plan, and on the plat. If needed, a more detailed fire lane plan will be provided prior to installation. 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 APPLICANTS' RESPONSE: . So noted in General Note 18 of the July 3 1 " re -submittal. 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 APPLICANTS' RESPONSE: See Utility Plans. Knox Box Policy Poudre Fire Authority requires a "Knox Box" to bemounted on the front of every new building equipped with a required fire sprinkler system or fire alarm system. Page 13 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: Department: Light & Power Topic: Landscaping 1 Issue Contact: Doug Martine Street trees on the landscape plan must be adjusted to provide a minimum of 40 ft. clearance between trees and streetlights. APPLICANTS' RESPONSE: As indicated, street trees are located 40' from planned or existing street light locations. 2 It is my understanding that the developer desires the electric transformers) 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. APPLICANTS' RESPONSE: So noted. Department: Natural Resources Topic. General 111 No Issues. Department: PFA Topic: General 145 Issue Contact: Doug Moore Issue Contact: Ron Gonzales Although these towers do not technically meet the height requirements stipulated in 97UBC for the High -Rise Provisions, the PFA would request the Page 12 104 It appears that redirects are too abrupt on the street striping plan. See traffic comments regarding this. [8/211 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 anticipated vehicles that will be staging in Page 11 [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. [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. Page 10 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. 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. [8/211 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. Page 9 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 rightturn 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.) [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 Page 8 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 16-41)) 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 Page 7 [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. 123 There is an area along Stanford north of the site that is not shown on the overall or detailed grading plan. To 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. Page 6 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. Also, as discussed previously with Planning Staff, it was never intended that limited food service uses at Bella Vista would be solely to serve'the residents and tenants of this site. These uses are desirable as per a basic intent of City Plan, to create "centers" for neighborhoods (such centers are most likely to be successful if effective "social gathering" is facilitated by the provision of food and/or drink), to provide a mix of uses that "form a transition between the surrounding, neighborhoods and the ... Commercial District", and to "... work towards more complete neiehborhoods ... so more or our daily needs are met closer to home... /Thesel changes [will bel occurring in existing neighborhoods over tim as opportunity allows." General Note 1) d) iii, - as amended - is intended to allow food preparation as an accessory use to a "convenience retail" use and/or other allowed Type 1 uses (such as a Bed & Breakfast), as has been commonly allowed in other such convenience retail uses in Fort Collins. An allowed Type 1 use should not be more restricted at this location than at other locations in Fort Collins. In fact, a number of adopted City Policies, call for giving "preferential" treatment to in -fill sites. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata APPLICANTS' RESPONSE: En ing eering comments are being addressed by Northern Engineeringin a separate response letter. Topic: 6enerai 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. Page 5 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. APPLICANTS' RESPONSE: No trees are proposed within 4' of any known gas lines. 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. . APPLICANTS' RESPONSE: So noted. 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. APPLICANTS' RESPONSE: The proposed buildings are to be equipped with a central heating system requiring only gas service per building: therefore multiple gas meters will not need to be stacked at the ends of the buildings. The applicants have agreed with Light and Power on an interior location for electric meters, meaning those meters also will not be visible from the exterior of the buildings. 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 permitted in the MMN District, which note 1)d)i accounts for, but a "primary" office use is not permitted in the District. APPLICANTS' RESPONSE: Although it is not clear how a use noted as "accessory"; and as a "home occupation" could be construed as a "Primary" use, the note has been revised. 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. Page 4 the project does not satisfy the criteria set forth in Section 3.8.17(A)(3) - Contextual Height in the Land Use Code. APPLICANTS' RESPONSE: Per Section 3.8.17 (A) (1), The average finished grade elevations surrounding all three proposed buildings is 65' or less below the highest point of the applicable proposed roof surfaces, making the proposed building height less than or equal to that of the Marriott. Because it has been determined by Staff s Code interpretation that Contextual Height is measured in feet, BellaVista is in compliance with 3.8.17 (A) (3). Section 3.8.17 (A) (3) clearly states that, "This provision shall not be interpreted as requiring with the Code. At our October 4`h meeting, staff also asked us to look into any possible means of achieving more variety in building height. Specifically we were asked to see if there might be a way to reduce Building A to four stories while increasing the number of stories included in the north wing of Building C to six, (essentially moving one floor from Building A to the northerly portion of Building Q. The only potential means of accomplishing that goal we have found would be: 1. If the Planning Director is willing to broaden his interpretation regarding Contextual Height to allow a limited 6 story area - even if taller in feet than the Marriott - because the Contextual Height Provisions cannot be used to limit buildings to a lower maximum than imposed by the underlying zone district. (The underlying district allows buildings with a cumulative floor to floor height of 75'. plus roof structure for a total allowed building height of over 80'); and/or 2. If Staff and the Hearing Officer agree that Land Use Code Section 3.5.1(G) (1) (c) is applicable, and allows the Director the ability to increase the height limits for the purpose of preserving the character of existing residential neighborhoods: and/or to allow maximum utilization of activity centers: and/or to provide conscious direction to the urban form of the city through the careful placement of tall buildings or structures within activity centers. Then we would be willine to accept a condition of approval that Building A is to be reduced to 4 stories; if — and only if - the north wine of Building C is increased to 6 stories, but not exceeding 80' in height. 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. APPLICANTS' RESPONSE: please call. Page 3 1.1, MMN-2, MMN-2.2), has led the applicant to reduce the non-residential floor area from 22,000 sq. ft., to 16,000 sq. A., and devote that area to additional residential 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. APPLICANTS' RESPONSE: The words "or more" have been deleted from the last column. 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)1 of the Code? APPLICANTS' RESPONSE: At previous meetings with Planning Staff, and at our October 4a' meeting, we confirmed that the proposed landscape treatment west of Building C/D (similar to the area south of Building CID)constitutes "....an outdoor space such as a ...garden between the building and the sidewalk. (with) landscaping.... designed for pedestrian interest, comfort, and visual continuity. " A larger yard is also required in order to comply with sight distance, utility and drainage easements. The plan therefore remains in conformance with 3.5.3 (B (2) (d) 1 and 4. Further flexibility in building placement at this location also appears to be allowed by Code section 3.8.19(B). 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 Page 2 urban design, inc. 3555 stanford road, suite 105 fort collins, colorado 80525 (970) 226-4074 fax (970) 226-4196 e@cityscapeud.com October 28, 2002 Steve Olt City of Fort Collins Community Planning and Environmental Services P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 \' RE: Bella Vista PDP — August 29, 2002, PDP Review Comments Dear Steve; 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, and July 31, 2002). Applicant responses to the City Staff comments are in a "Times New Roman" font, and underlined. Note: Portions of the City Comments letter are somewhat confusing, as a large number of previously addressed comments are reprinted, with little or no distinction made between those past/addressed comments and new comments made regarding the July 31't revisions. ISSUES: Department: Current Planning Topic: Genera/ 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. APPLICANTS' RESPONSE: As discussed at our July 3` and October Ott' meetings, the limited ability to provide "vertical mixed use development" on this site (per numerous Principles and Policies including HSG- Page 1