HomeMy WebLinkAboutBELLA VISTA - PDP - 45-01A - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS (9)urban design, inc.
where this site is situated relative to the taller buildings (such as the Marriott
Hotel) in the area. How tall, in feet, is the hotel and is one building in excess
of 3 stories in height in a larger surrounding area sufficient to justify 4
buildings that exceed the maximum allowable height in the proposed zoning
district for this site?
d. Typically, elevations for all 4 sides of buildings should be submitted. What do
the building ends look like?
Applicant response:
1) Food Service uses are now limited to the LUC definition of Convenience Retail, and
limited food preparation areas - as an accessory use - as commonly found in many
existing convenience retail stores.
2) The term Live/work has been eliminated, and limited to Home Occupations, with the
level of flexibility allowed by condominium ownership. The enforcement of home
occupation users not being separate from residents will be no different here than at
other locations in Fort Collins.
3) Additional building elevations, view information, and shadow analysis information are
included in Vaught"Frye's revised plans.
Additional information is also attached for Staff consideration, including:
Alternative building elevations indicating the Applicants' preferred approach to a
mix of 4 and 6 story buildings (averaging 65' in height); as opposed to the
proposed plan - that has resulted from the Planning Director's interpretation that
contextual height is measured in feet - including all buildings at 5 stories (65'
maximum) in height.
Three-dimensional views comparing the actual and "perceived" heights of the
Marriott and proposed Bella Vista buildings.
Additional neighborhood contextlarchitectural compatibility information will be
forthcoming.
Sincerely,
Eldon Ward
Cityscape Urban Design, Inc.
cc: Chuck McNeal
Javier Martinez Campos
Frank Vaught
Daryl Sigler
Matt Delich
\\SERVER\Server D\WP\9000\9600\9601PDP-RESPONSE3.doc
urban design, inc.
Transportation Planning:
1. The off -site sidewalk along the east side of Stanford Road, going to the north, is
needed. This proposal fails the Pedestrian Level of Service portion of the TIS
without it.
2. The proposed mid -block pedestrian crossing on Stanford Road, on the curve, is not
in a good location for safety reasons.
Water/Wastewater:
1. Water/Wastewater is still reviewing the plans. A meeting with the applicant &
developer is needed.
Applicant response:
The above comments were resolved at our meeting of June 10`h, and/or with the
revised PDP and utility plans.
Planning:
1. The proposed small food service uses, Item iii) under Accessory Uses in the
General Notes, are of concern. If there are several very small users (up to 1,500
square feet in size), as staff and the developer have previously discussed, then
these food services could be considered to be accessory uses. However, if a single
restaurant were to occupy the bulk of the defined food service space (up to 3,600
square feet as shown on the Site Plan) then there would be a problem associated
with the list of permitted uses in the MMN District. Restaurants are not a permitted
use in this district.
2. The proposed live/work office uses, Item ii) under Accessory Uses in the General
Notes, is a good idea; however, offices (per say) are listed as a Type II, Planning &
Zoning Board review use in the MMN District. What assurance is there that the
office users will not be separate from residents?
3. While reviewing the Shadow Analysis Plan and Streetscape & Building Elevations
Plans against the criteria set forth in Section 3.5.1(G) Building Height Review of the
LUC, several comments have arisen:
a. Regarding Views, are there still desirable views of the foothills from the
residential areas north and south of East Horsetooth Road that will be
affected by this development? Are there views of Warren Lake from
properties north of East Horsetooth Road that will be affected? Section
3.5.1(G)(1)(b)2 of the LUC requires that a visual analysis of views be
submitted for review.
b. There would appear to be several areas of concern regarding Light and
Shadow on adjacent properties, mostly at the 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. times
as shown on the Shadow Analysis Plan. Most significant is the potential
affects on buildings and parking lots to the west, across Stanford Road.
c. Regarding Neighborhood Scale, the City still has some "contextual' concerns
regarding this issue. Understanding the "Contextual Height' definition in
Section 3.8.17(A)(3) of the LUC, there is still some discussion needed about
\\SERVER\Server D\WP\9000\9600\9601PDP-RESPONSE3.doc
C�o����c�a o
urban design, inc.
(original comment). General note 1(C)(ii) - B&B's would not be allowed. Such a use is a
use that is conducted in a private house, not in a condo building.
Applicant Response:
a) The term Live/Work has been dropped.
b) The measurement of "contextual height" at this PDP is in feet — and considers
"perceived height" -per the Code Interpretation by the Planning Director. While
the five story buildings in the revised submittal are limited to 65' (the height of the
six story Marriott) the perceived height is somewhat less due to the extensive
use of pitched roofs on the proposed buildings. A six story building on this site
could be perceived to be of less height than the Marriott, even if the actual
maximum height in feet were greater than 65'.
c) Food service is now limited by the LUC definition of Convenience Retail, and
accessory food preparation areas as commonly found in Convenience Retail
uses.
d) Condominium units including B&Bs may include more than 3 bedrooms.
The following comments were expressed at Staff Review on February 20, 2002:
Engineering:
1. The East Horsetooth Road design is still of concern. A westbound right -turn lane is
needed. It is warranted based on City street standards.
2. The striping as shown on East Horsetooth Road is unsafe.
3. The center left -turn lane is unneeded.
4. There are issues with the cross sections on East Horsetooth Road. They are not to
City standards.
5. Dedicate 57.5' of street right-of-way all the way to the east property line.
6. Flowlines need to be on the outside of the proposed bulb -outs on Stanford Road.
7. The 3 variance requests from Northern Engineering are still being reviewed.
B. There should be an emergency access easement on the surface parking only and
this should be noted on the subdivision plat.
Stormwater:
1. Storm water from this site will have to go into Tract D of Cove Island, to the south.
A storm drainage easement may be needed from them.
2. The proposed 12" storm sewer from the parking area needs to be a 15" pipe.
3. The storm sewer in East Horsetooth Road needs to be out from under the curb &
gutter.
4. There are lots of tree and storm sewer conflicts.
\\SERVER\Server D\WP\9000\9600\9601PDP-RESPONSE3.doc
urban design, inc.
describing on sheet 1 of 6 is a home occupation, which is permitted and is listed by
them on general note 1(d)(i). This type of comment is common from Zoning whenever
an applicant lists a use that is not defined. For example, we make the same comment
relative to an applicant that lists "townhomes" as a permitted use. Since there is no
such defined term, we require them to remove it. If they really want to allow offices in
the building that are not within a dwelling unit (home occupation), then they should do a
Type 2 review in order to obtain approval for things like offices, dry cleaners, hair
salons.
4
REPEAT COMMENT (1-31-02). With regards to my original comment below, I am glad
to see that they have corrected the code section reference number. I find their
explanation in their 1-29-02 letter regarding contextual height to be interesting,
However, I believe they are missing my point. I agree that height can be measured
either in stories or feet. But since the section they reference deals with establishing a
contextual height, it is important that such height be reflected in terms of "feet" not
"stories". Since the height of a story can vary from one buidling to another, City staff
needs to have the height of the applicable buildings indicated to us in "feet" in order to
determine if the proposed height is "contextual". As I stated originally, indicating that a
Bella Vista building may be 6 stories, says nothing to us about how it relates to the
height of the Marriott since one 6 story building can be considerably shorter or taller
than another 6 story building. That's why I asked the question "How tall is the Marriott
in terms of feet"? They have explained the difference in feet in their 1-29-02 letter, now
they have to put that information on the plan.
(12-18-01) - General note 2 references Section 2.8.17. There is no such section. I assume
they mean 3.8.17 (A)(3). If so, then Planning needs to determine if the 4 to 6 stories is the
appropriate "contextual height". Some of the walls of buildings are almost 90' tall. In my
opinion, "contextual height" as used in 3.8.17(A)(3) implies a similar height in feet as well as in
stories. For instance, a 6 story building on one lot may only be 70' tall, and that doesn't mean
that it's therefore ok to have a 6 story building on an adjacent lot that is 90' tall when the
maximum height allowed in the MMN zone is 3 stories (4.5(E)(1)(d). How tall is the Marriott in
terms of feet?
6
REPEAT COMMENT (1-31-02) - General note 1(d)(iii) - small food service uses listed
are not classified as accessory uses. Therefore, they are not permitted in the MMN
zone. (the only way they can be remotely "accessory" is if they serve only the
residences of the building, and are not open to the "public"). I've read the explanation in
the applicant's 1-29-02 letter, but I don't agree. For instance, would a Sushi Bar really
be accessory, serving the tenants of the building? I doubt it would remain in business
very long with such a small customer base.
7
REPLY (1-31-02). OK, I'll agree with B&B's being allowed. Editorial note - The
applicant has suggested that private houses on lots less than 6000 s.f. would not be
conducive to a six bedroom B&B. I would suggest that such a private house would be
more conducive to a B&B than would a 2 or 3 bedroom condo.
\\SERVER\Server D\WP\9000\9600\9601PDP-RESPONSE3.doc
urban design, inc.
however we will not allow landscaping to be placed directly on top of our facilitates.
Please consider the placement of shrubs and trees to minimize the impact to our
facilities.
Topic: Utility plans
54
Repeat Comment: Maintain 18-inches of vertical separation between all water, sanitary
sewer and storm sewer crossings.
92
Place all curb stops and meter pits adjacent to the main when at all possible. Curb
stops must be located within a utility easement.
93
Provide a minimum of 10 feet of separation between storm sewer manholes and
sanitary sewer mains.
94
Clearly define all water main joint deflection (I.e. Vertical, Horizontal, Beginning, ending,
etc.).
95
Clearly show that the valve box located on the south side of Horsetooth will not end up
half in and half out of the vertical curb.
96
After much consideration and discussion within the utility, it has been determined that
placing concrete around the existing sanitary sewer main will only hamper any attempt
to excavate the sewer in the future if required. Please remove all notes from this plan
set which refers to encasing the existing sanitary sewer main. It has also been
determined that the existing sanitary sewer is PVC and in good condition, so no
replacement will be required.
97
The only allowable substitution for concrete encasement of sewer mains is to use a 20
foot length of D.I.P. or C-900 PVC pipe. Clearly define any substitution of concrete
encasement.
Applicant responses are included in the revised utility plans and response letter
Provided by Northern Engineering, and shown on the revised Landscape Plans
with this PDP.
Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes
Topic: zoning
3
REPEAT COMMENT (1-31-02). General note 1(d)(ii) lists "live/work office type units" as
a possible use. What is that? No such term. Is it the same as a home occupation?
The explanation of what this is in their 1-29-02 letter is interesting, but it doesn't change
anything. Our code contains no such use, therefore the use is not allowed (4.5(C)
prohibits any use that is not expressly allowed). It still seems to me that what they are
\\SERVER\Server_D\WP\9000\9600\9601 PDP-RESPONSE3.doc
urban design, inc.
Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Mark Jackson
Topic: Sidewalk
73
Applicant needs to provide off -site sidewalk connection on Stanford from their site north
to Monroe.
Based on the City's pedestrian LOS standards within the Land Use Code (LUC) and
Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) the minimum LOS for
pedestrians is not met. Contrary to Mr. Delich's response, the proposed development is
actually located within the area types classified as "transit corridor" and "school walking
area". Therefore, all pedestrian LOS elements must meet LOS B, except for the visual
interest and amenities as stated within the LCUASS and the TIS provided. The
LCUASS further explains that all "destination areas" within a quarter mile (1,320 feet)
must be identified within the TIS for analysis. All locations are identified within the TIS
with the exception of the medium density residential land use to the north, which is
located on the NE corner of the Monroe and Stanford intersection. This "destination
area" does not meet the minimum LOS for "directness" as measured on the street grid
system, and thus, the minimum pedestrian LOS for "continuity" due to the lack of a
sidewalk along Stanford between the proposed development and the identified
intersection.
In addition, the LUC states in Section 3.2.2 C.7 "Offsite Access to Pedestrian and Bicycle
Destinations", that "offsite pedestrian or bicycle facility improvements may be required in order
to comply with the requirements of Section 3.2.2 (E) (1) (Parking Lot Layout) and Section 3.4
(Transportation Level of Service Requirements).
84
Proposed mid -block pedestrian crossing shown on Stanford looks problematic due to
curve. This is a Traffic Engineering call however.
Applicant Response:
As agreed at our June 10�h meeting, the revised plans additional analysis from Matt
Delich demonstrate that the minimum LOS is met without provision of the off -site
sidewalk along Stanford, adiacent to the Aspen Leaf Apartments. It was also agreed
that the proposed mid -block pedestrian crossing on Stanford is acceptable with the
design revisions shown on the current PDP.
Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Jeff Hill
Topic: Landscaping
48
Repeat Comment: Coordinate landscape design with the civil design and provide the
required landscape/utility separation distances. Correctly show all existing and
proposed water/sewer mains and services on the landscape plans. With the tight
constraints on this site we would be willing to relax our separation requirements,
\\SERVER\Server D\WP\9000\9600\9601PDP-RESPONSE3.doc
coo�2@@P@
urban design, inc.
Topic: Plat
89
Please connect drainage easement in driveway to off -site drainage easement on the
plat.
Topic: Roof Drainage
91
Please show on the plans how the roof drains are getting to the proposed water quality
ponds.
Topic: Tree Removal
81
The construction of the 24" pipe across Horsetooth Rd. could impact the existing 8"
Blue Spruce on the south side of Horsetooth. The note that was added to the plan calls
for the contractor to determine in the field whether this tree can be saved. This is not
acceptable. The City will not allow the contractor to remove this tree at his own
discretion. Please REMOVE this note as the City will not allow this tree to be removed
and provide plans that will preserve the tree in place.
Topic: Utility plans
82
This is a repeat comment: The proposed storm sewer coming from the Stormceptor
and tying into the line along Horsetooth is currently shown as a 12"RCP. The minimum
allowed size in the ROW is a 15" line please correct. The 15" City line should extend to
the edge of the ROW (back of walk), this part of the line should be public and separated
from the private 12" line that would extend back to the Stormceptor by a manhole.
Please make sure that storm line G has enough cover at the point it exits into Horsetooth Road.
the minimum cover requirement is 1-foot below subgrade.
The proposed storm sewer on Horsetooth Rd. seems to be very close to several
existing utilities especially at the east end of the line. The line seems to be jammed
within 4' of an existing sanitary manhole and close to existing telephone and gas lines.
Such small separations are not acceptable please revise plans. The line also seems to
be under the proposed curb and gutter. A meeting with strormwater and wastewater as
well as other utilities is recommended to discuss the pipe alignment issue.
Please specify an ASTM Standard C443 gasketed joint for all pressurized storm lines.
The existing 5-foot inlets on the corner of Horsetooth and Stanford are shown to be
remaining in place on the Utility plans, while the calcs included in the drainage report
check for the sizing these inlets and the plans show that these might need to be
relocated and reconstructed with the widening of Horsetooth Rd. Please clarify. Will
the existing inlets be moved ?
If a right turn lane is called for on Horsetooth and Stanford then the existing junction box
vault should be designed to handle traffic loads and the elevation of this box should be
checked.
Applicant responses are included in the revised utility plans and response letter
provided by Northern Engineering.
\\SERVER\Server D\WP\9000\9600\9601PDP-RESPONSE3.doc
urban design, inc.
an existing drainage easement, the landings 1 st Filing HOA which maintains this area
should ensure that the area is put back to an acceptable level, equal or better than
before construction.
Topic: Ditch Company Approval
87
Prior to allowing additional discharge from this site into Warren Lake, the Warren Lake
Ditch company must sign off on these plans.
Topic: Drainage Report
83
Please provide street capacity calculations for Horsetooth Road for the area that is
being widened by this project. Since Horsetooth is a major arterial the standards call for
no curb overtopping in the 10-year storm and one lane open in the 100 -year storm.
Please provide sizing calculations for the proposed Stormceptor.
Please provide sizing calculations for the proposed spillways on ponds 1 and 2.
Topic: Erosion Control
86
Please submit an erosion control plan that meets the standards of the City of Fort
Collins. The submitted materials do not meet our minimum standards. Contact Bob
Zakely for further directions.
Please provide a better detail for the proposed erosion control fabric for Pond 2.
Provide a seed mix for the native grass proposed in this pond.
Topic: Grading
85
The proposed offsite grading on the northwest corner of the site will require an off -site
grading easement from the adjacent property owner.
Please provide a detail of the retaining walls that are not part of the proposed buildings.
There are still some areas in the upper level parking that do not seem to drain properly.
Please revise and add spot elevations. The proposed patio area to the west of Building
B has a low point with no proposed drainage outlet.
Topic: Landscaping
90
Several inlets on private property might be affected by the dense vegetation proposed
around these. Please revise landscaping plans to ensure proper drainage from these
areas even though they will be owned and maintained by the Bella Vista HOA.
Topic: OK -site Grading Easement
88
The swale on the north side of the property as well as some grading takes place on
private property (Strachan 1 st Filing Subdivision) . The plans show that this easement
will be granted by separate document. A letter of intent will be required prior to PDP
hearing and a final easement is needed prior to Final Compliance.
\\SERVER\Server D\WP\9000\9600\9601PDP-RESPONSE3.doc
urban design, inc.
The response letter from Cityscape stated that notes to this effect have been added to
the plans. Please indicate where the notes are.
Ventilation System:
A 2-stage ventilation system shall be provided for the parking garage below grade.
Stage One shall be tied to a Carbon Monoxide Detection System that will detect carbon
monoxide at 50ppm over 8 hours and/or 200ppm over 1 hour and ventilate the garage.
Stage Two shall provide ventilation for smoke removal in the event of a car fire.
UBC1202.2.7
The response letter from Cityscape stated that notes to this effect have been added to the
plans. Please indicate where the notes are.
Applicant Response:
a) Notes regarding sprinkler requirements fire pumps standpipes and 2-stage
ventilation have been added to the PDP General Notes (#'s 23 and 24)
Department: Police Issue Contact: Joseph Gerdom
Topic: General
9
Lighting Plan: The Luminaire schedule and luminaire detail don't provide sufficient
information to determine exactly which lights are used in each location. Also, unless
there are wall fixtures there is inadequate illumination between Bldg B & C; east face of
Bldg D; and north face of Bldg B. In general, all building access points should have
minimum of 1 fc.
Topic: Landscaping
10
Landscape Plan: The use of Austrian Pine, cotoneaster, and ninebark along the faces of
Bldgs B, C, and D, particularly in front of public/private entrances will obscure these
areas and raise security issues. Lower growing species, lighting, or some combination
thereof would be recommended.
Applicant Response:
A revised lighting plan has been provided indicating locations of wall mounted
fixtures for security lighting The provision of adequate lightinq - rather than reduced
landscaping - is the preferred security measure.
Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Basil Hamdan
Topic: Construction Easements
80
The proposed 24" RCP across Horsetooth Rd. will necessitate the construction of a
headwall and part of the culvert on Tract D of The Landings 1 st Filing. Prior to
construction on this Tract owned by that HOA the contractor should make sure that the
HOA is notified and that the area will be properly restored. Even though this area is in
\\SERVER\Server_D\WP\9000\9600\9601 PDP-RESPONSE3.doc
urban design, inc.
100
The submitted "Street Cross Sections" from the site planner is not appropriate to be
submitted as a document along with the site and landscape development plan
documents. Street cross sections are to be shown on the utility plan set and will be
established based upon an approved design for the roadway(s).
101
Angle points along the flowine appear to be shown along Horsetooth, please revise and
use curves as shown in LCUASS 7.4.1.
104
It appears that redirects are too abrupt on the street striping plan. See traffic comments
regarding this.
Topic: Utility plans
76
The drawings regarding the storm system across Horsetooth originally approved by the
City showed an inlet being tied to the easternmost pipe, the submitted plans show that
the inlet is tied to the westernmost pipe.
Applicant Response:
1) General
a) The access ramp design is now reconciled on both the site plan and utility plans.
b) General note #4 has been revised to reflect adopted City Policy.
2) Grading
a) A letter of intent is being provided as requested.
3) Plat
a) Access easements for all public walks will be provided upon resolution of the
alignments of the affected walks.
b) The minimum right-of-way is now indicated, along with a utility easement
adjacent to Horsetooth Road.
c) The emergency easement is noted for the "surface levee' only as suggested.
4) Sidewalk
a) Erosion control and walk locations have been reconciled on the revised plans.
5) Street Design revisions are reflected in the utility plans and addressed in the
response letter from Northern Engineering.
6) Utility Plans revisions are reflected in the utility plans and addressed in the response
letter from Northern Engineerinq
Department: PFA Issue Contact: Ron Gonzales
Topic: Plat
SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS:
These proposed buildings shall be fire sprinklered. A fire pump may also be required,
as well as standpipes for the building and the parking garage below grade. 97UBC
\\SERVER\Server D\WP\9000\9600\9601 PDP-RESPONSE3.doc
COO�M@@P@�
urban design, inc.
The "bulb -outs" proposed on Stanford Drive may be allowed only if the gutter is
redesigned to go around and along the bulb outs, not through them. There are
maintenance concerns with the current proposal due to dirt and debris collecting
between the bulb outs and the flowline.
68
[12] The vertical curve shown is too short in length for the street classification of
Horsetooth. A K value of 110 is required, 60 is shown.
69
[13] A vertical curve is needed for the Horsetooth proposed flowline as it approaches
the existing storm lines. A grade break is shown with a 0.6% grade going to a 1.69%
grade.
70
[13] Fix the vertical elevation labeling on this sheet for the profile view.
71
Three variance requests were received regarding Bella Vista from Northern
Engineering. The variance requesting the reduction in sight distance along Stanford
Drive, the variance to reduce the driveway spacing from 660' to 610', and the variance
to reduce the utility easement along Horsetooth were all viewed favorably upon by the
City Engineer. Final approval of these variance requests will occur with completion of
the designs for Horsetooth and Stanford that are acceptable to the City and the utilities.
72
[13] The 2.55% shown on this sheet appears to actually calculate to 4.2% with the
elevations and stationing shown.
77
The Traffic Engineer has noted that the center turn lane should be continuous from the
intersection to the Cove Island development and continuing east. The Traffic Engineer
notes that a 3/4 movement to allow left turns into the site could be designed (with
painted medians) in conjunction with the porkchop island to facilitate right turns out of
this driveway.
78
The cross section sheets show the additional road width to be 4% or even greater.
Because a saw cut is being shown to the centerline for most of Horsetooth, a
continuous straight line grade needs to be maintained along the entire north half of the
roadway where the sawcut is shown. For the additional width between stations 10+00
and 11+00, (where the roadway is not being sawcut to centerline), this new portion of
roadway is limited to 3%.
79
A grade break is shown on Sheet [12] that exceeds .40%. A vertical curve would be
required based on this design.
98
Provide spot elevations at the Horsetooth and Stanford intersection in accordance with
LCUASS Standard Detail 7-32B.
\\SERVER\Server D1WP\9000\9600\9601PDP-RESPONSE3.doc
urban design, inc.
through lane, especially since the width of Horsetooth would require a ped refuge under
LCUASS.
(2/20) The issue of the right turn lane was discussed at the City's 2/14 Transportation
Coordination Meeting. It was viewed that the submitted justification for not designing the right
turn lane was not compelling and that a right turn lane could be designed into the project.
Please note that any written documentation regarding the designing of the right -turn lane should
be provided by the design engineer (a licensed professional engineer.)
35
Provide cross -sections on Horsetooth Road per LCUASS 3.3.4.0 (at 50' intervals). (It
appears that a straight-line grade from the crown of Horsetooth Road to the flowline is
not being provided as shown on the grading plan, cross -sections will help confirm or
deny this.)
(2/20) The cross section sheets need to have the centerline elevations labeled, the curb and
gutter section should be distinguishable from the asphalt section, and the right-of-way should
also be shown.
36
Show centerline and flowline profiles on Horsetooth Road.
(2/20) Can the grid lines or scale be modified in order to allow for every XX+00 stationing to be
on a grid line? Only every 3rd XX+00 stationing is on a grid line.
37
Provide the bearing and distance for the flowline on the plan view portion of the plan
and profile sheet for Horsetooth Road.
(2/20) This information isn't shown east of the driveway and only bearing (no distance) is being
shown west of the driveway.
60
Because of the aforementioned need for the right -turn lane, eliminating the offset
through the intersection, and the constraint of the existing storm drainage
improvements, it is understood that the bike lane design for westbound Horsetooth may
have to be compromised. A reduced bike lane width of 6' (including gutter) with a
continuous concrete pour should be looked at as one potential compromise. It may also
be necessary for the bike lane to stop short of the intersection to accommodate the
right -turn lane. An additional option would be to look at widening the sidewalk and
create a combined bike/ped area behind the curb if the bikelane cannot be
accomplished.
(2/20) With the right turn lane still being an outstanding issue, the proposed design of the
westbound bike lane will not be commented on by Engineering at this time. It is still considered
ideal that the bike lane is continuous to the intersection.
62
Add the following note as reference wherever patching is shown on the plans: Limits of
street repair are approximate. Final limits to be determined in the field by the City
Engineering Inspector. All repairs to be in accordance with City Street repair standards.
(2/20) Ensure that this note is referenced to the work along Stanford as well.
67
\\SERVER\Server D\WP\9000\9600\9601PDP-RESPONSE3.doc
urban design, inc.
Topic: Grading
45
Offsite grading and construction is shown occurring along the northern boundary of the
site. A letter of intent from the property owner not objecting to the offsite work is
required to be submitted prior to any public hearing for the project.
Topic: Plat
46
The Development needs to dedicate an access easement along Stanford Drive to
ensure the sidewalk proposed is in an access easement. Additional right-of-way is not
necessary.
(2/20) It appears that additional access easement along Stanford Drive (and Horsetooth Road)
is necessary to ensure that all of the proposed sidewalk is in easement.
66
A minimum of 57.5' of half street right-of-way is required to be dedicated along the
entire length of the property with a consistent utility easement width, in conformance
with LCUASS. It is understood that 9' instead of the 15' of necessary utility easement is
being proposed behind the right-of-way; when all the design and utility issues are
resolved along Horsetooth, the variance request for reduction in utility easement width
will be routed to the utilities for approval.
75
There may be a benefit in designating on the plat that the emergency access easement
is for the "surface level" only. There may be issues from a title company on how the
emergency access easement is represented as going through a building envelope.
Topic: Sidewalk
99
The grading plan appears to show that inlets with straw bales will be in close proximity
or perhaps even overlapping with the street sidewalks. These straw bales need to be
outside of the sidewalk section. Perhaps a different erosion control measure can be
used if the straw bales are encroaching into the sidewalk for a period of time.
Topic: Street Design
32
Directional ramps are required on new construction in accordance with LCUASS.
(Standard Drawing 16-4D) Provide the detail on the plan set.
(2/20) The response from the applicant stated that this could not be accommodated due to
existing constraints. The design engineer should provide documentation on why this cannot be
accomplished. Note that because of the right turn discussion, any previous limitations due to
existing constraints may no longer be applicable.
34
A right -turn lane for westbound Horsetooth onto northbound Stanford still should be
designed and constructed. There is a community wide benefit in the construction of the
right turn lane, thus this is eligible for Street Oversizing reimbursement. The design of
the right -turn lane should look at providing pedestrian refuge between the right -turn and
\\SERVER\Server D\WP\9000\9600\9601PDP-RESPONSE3.doc
urban design, inc.
b. Please get rid of the 4' painted median and use 2' for the southbound
right -turn, 1' for the southbound through, and 1' for the southbound left -
turn.
Please contact Eric, at 224-6062, if you have questions about his comments.
Applicant Response:
a) The "unacceptable" widths of bike lanes and travel lanes dimensioned at the east
end of the site are the existing off -site condition as striped by the City, and are
not part of this applicant's proposal. They are however the widths from which
we must begin the transition to the proposed lane widths. Also, the posted speed
on Horsetooth drops from 40 mph to 35 mph near the easterly end of the subiect
property. Our revised striping plan matches the existing striping to the west of
the Stanford Road intersection tapering to meet the existing condition at the east
property line.
b) The taper has been revised to match the posted speed.
c) As per City Staffs earlier direction, we are no longer proposing any modification
to the existing east bound bike lanes (on the fully improved south side of
Horsetooth Road). There will continue to be no eastbound bike lane west of
Spindrift, as per the existing condition.
d) As discussed at our meeting of June 10rh, the westbound right turn lane is
impractical, due to the numerous horizontal and vertical utility and drainage
conflicts and the overwhelming negative impacts on this small site. It is the
consensus opinion that the enormous sum of City money required to construct
this turn lane would be better spent at other locations. As indicated in our last
submittal, the intersection will function at an acceptable level without this
additional lane. We have designed the site so that — in the unlikely event this
intersection is reconstructed to include a west -bound right turn lane — the location
of the walk and street trees will not conflict.
2) Stanford Road
a) The "unacceptable" 10' right -turn lane previously indicated, simplyillustrated lustrated the
width of the existing turn lane when the original submittal of this PDP was made.
Our revised striping plan increases the width to 12'.
b) The revised stripping plan eliminates the 4' painted median as requested.
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata
Topic: General
102
The site plan shows some sort of access ramp across one of the proposed bump outs
along Stanford Drive. This is not reflected on the utility drawings.
103
Remove General Note #4 on the site plan.
\\SERVER\Server D\WP\9000\9600\9601PDP-RESPONSE3.doc
e
CU'�Y75§@P(E)
urban design, inc
July 31, 2002
Steve Olt
City of Fort Collins
Community Planning and Environmental Services
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
RE: Bella Vista PDP — March 6, 2002, PDP Review Comments
Dear Steve;
3555 stanford road, suite 105
fort Collins, Colorado 80525
(970) 226-4074
fax (970) 226-4196
e@cityscapeud.com
Included below are the March 6, 2002 comments received from City Staff
regarding the revised Bella Vista Project Development Plan (initially submitted
November 28, 2001; previous revisions were submitted January 29, 2002). Applicant
responses to the City Staff comments are in italics and underlined:
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt
Topic: Street Design
64
Eric Bracke of Traffic Operations offered the following comments:
1. East Horsetooth Road
a. On the east end of the project the plans are showing 3.5' wide bike lanes
and 10.6' wide travel lanes. This is a 40 m.p.h. street and these lane
widths are not acceptable to Traffic Engineering. Eric will settle for 6' wide
bike lanes (if Transportation Planning agrees) and 11.5' wide travel
lanes.
b. The redirect taper for westbound traffic is shown at 140'. Again, this is a
40 m.p.h. street and using the standard WS^2/60 calculation, the taper
should be 320'.
C. The eastbound bike lane at Landings Drive needs to start at the pc, not
25' east of the taper to begin the bike lane. A bicyclist is likely to get
"squished" under this design.
d. Staff's discussion at Transportation Coordination reaffirmed the need for a
westbound right -turn lane based on City standards, not the TIS or LOS
requirements. The right -turn lane still is not shown.
2. Stanford Road
a. A 10' wide right -turn lane is not acceptable.
\\SERVER\Server D\WP\9000\9600\9601PDP-RESPONSE3.doc