Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBELLA VISTA - PDP - 45-01A - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS (10)b. There would appear to be several areas of concern regarding Light and Shadow on adjacent properties, mostly at the 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. times as shown on the Shadow Analysis Plan. Most significant is the potential affects on buildings and parking lots to the west, across Stanford Road. C. Regarding Neighborhood Scale, the City still has some "contextual' concerns regarding this issue. Understanding the "Contextual Height" definition in Section 3.8.17(A)(3) of the LUC, there is still some discussion needed about where this site is situated relative to the taller buildings (such as the Marriott Hotel) in the area. How tall, in feet, is the hotel and is one building in excess of 3 stories in height in a larger surrounding area sufficient to justify 4 buildings that exceed the maximum allowable height in the proposed zoning district for this site? d. Typically, elevations for all 4 sides of buildings should be submitted. What do the building ends look like? ************************************************************************************************ This completes staff comments at this time. Additional comments may be forthcoming. This development request is subject to the 90-day revision re - submittal (from the date of this comment letter) as set forth in Section 2.2.11(A) of the Land Use Code. Be sure and return all of your redlined plans when you re -submit. If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project, please feel free to call me at (970) 221-6341. Yours Truly, Steve Olt, Project Planner Paoc 17 4. There are lots of tree and storm sewer conflicts. This i5 now ie5olved. Transportation Planning: 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. Planning: 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. Pa,-, c 16 Engineering: The East Horsetooth Road design is still of concern. A westbound right -turn lane is needed. It is warranted based on City street standards. NIA 2. The striping as shown on East Horsetooth Road is unsafe. Please refer to the revised slripinq plan for further review. 3. The center left -turn lane is unneeded. 4. There are issues with the cross sections on East Horsetooth Road. They are not to City standards. The cross seclions have been revised and creel Gi/y crileria, 5. Dedicate 57.5' of street right-of-way all the way to the east property line. The POW, has been revised to r7ee/ the rVnir7ur7 width of 57,50' and wider to accomnodale the "fulure" westbound (t1orse1oo1h) righl lum lane, See Plol, 6. Flowlines need to be on the outside of the proposed bulb -outs on Stanford Road. This has ben done, 7. The 3 variance requests from Northern Engineering are still being reviewed. 8. There should be an emergency access easement on the surface parking only and this should be noted on the subdivision plat. This is shown on the plal, 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. An existing uldi/y easer7enlencor7passes /he area of concern, recorded wilh /he Gounly on June 22, 080 for /he firs/ Pep/a/ of Me Landings P,U,D,, l ir5/ Pi/inq, 2. The proposed 12" storm sewer from the parking area needs to be a 15" pipe. This has been done, 3. The storm sewer in East Horsetooth Road needs to be out from under the curb & gutter. 5lorr7 sewer is no longer proposed under the curb and quller. Page 15 4 REPEAT COMMENT (1-31-02). With regards to my original comment below, I am glad to see that they have corrected the code section reference number. I find their explanation in their 1-29-02 letter regarding contextual height to be interesting, However, I believe they are missing my point. I agree that height can be measured either in stories or feet. But since the section they reference deals with establishing a contextual height, it is important that such height be reflected in terms of "feet" not "stories". Since the height of a story can vary from one buidling to another, City staff needs to have the height of the applicable buildings indicated to us in "feet" in order to determine if the proposed height is "contextual". As I stated originally, indicating that a Bella Vista building may be 6 stories, says nothing to us about how it relates to the height of the Marriott since one 6 story building can be considerably shorter or taller than another 6 story building. That's why I asked the question "How tall is the Marriott in terms of feet"? They have explained the difference in feet in their 1-29-02 letter, now they have to put that information on the plan. (12-18-01) - General note 2 references Section 2.8.17. There is no such section. I assume they mean 3.8.17 (A)(3). If so, then Planning needs to determine if the 4 to 6 stories is the appropriate "contextual height". Some of the walls of buildings are almost 90' tall. In my opinion, "contextual height" as used in 3.8.17(A)(3) implies a similar height in feet as well as in stories. For instance, a 6 story building on one lot may only be 70' tall, and that doesn't mean that it's therefore ok to have a 6 story building on an adjacent lot that is 90'tall when the maximum height allowed in the MMN zone is 3 stories (4.5(E)(1)(d). How tall is the Marriott in terms of feet? 6 REPEAT COMMENT (1-31-02) - General note 1(d)(iii) - small food service uses listed are not classified as accessory uses. Therefore, they are not permitted in the MMN zone. (the only way they can be remotely "accessory" is if they serve only the residences of the building, and are not open to the "public"). I've read the explanation in the applicant's 1-29-02 letter, but I don't agree. For instance, would a Sushi Bar really be accessory, serving the tenants of the building? I doubt it would remain in business very long with such a small customer base. 7 REPLY (1-31-02). OK, I'll agree with B&B's being allowed. Editorial note - The applicant has suggested that private houses on lots less than 6000 s.f. would not be conducive to a six bedroom B&B. I would suggest that such a private house would be more conducive to a B&B than would a 2 or 3 bedroom condo. (original comment). General note 1(C)(ii) - B&B's would not be allowed. Such a use is a use that is conducted in a private house, not in a condo building. The following comments were expressed at Staff Review on February 20, 2002: Pa_e 14 93 Provide a minimum of 10 feet of separation between storm sewer manholes and sanitary sewer mains. This has ben done, 94 Clearly define all water main joint deflection (Le. Vertical, Horizontal, Beginning, ending, etc.). fly shown on the overall ufilify plan. 95 Clearly show that the valve box located on the south side of Horsetooth will not end up half in and half out of the vertical curb. This conflicl has been ellminafed. See /he overall ufilify plan, 96 After much consideration and discussion within the utility, it has been determined that placing concrete around the existing sanitary sewer main will only hamper any attempt to excavate the sewer in the future if required. Please remove all notes from this plan set which refers to encasing the existing sanitary sewer main. It has also been determined that the existing sanitary sewer is PVC and in good condition, so no replacement will be required. 97 The only allowable substitution for concrete encasement of sewer mains is to use a 20 foot length of D.I.P. or C-900 PVC pipe. Clearly define any substitution of concrete encasement. fnca5ernenf is not propo5e4 al fhi5 line, Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes Topic: zoning 3 REPEAT COMMENT (1-31-02). General note 1(d)(ii) lists "live/work office type units" as a possible use. What is that? No such term. Is it the same as a home occupation? The explanation of what this is in their 1-29-02 letter is interesting, but it doesn't change anything. Our code contains no such use, therefore the use is not allowed (4.5(C) prohibits any use that is not expressly allowed). It still seems to me that what they are describing on sheet 1 of 6 is a home occupation, which is permitted and is listed by them on general note 1(d)(i). This type of comment is common from Zoning whenever an applicant lists a use that is not defined. For example, we make the same comment relative to an applicant that lists "townhomes" as a permitted use. Since there is no such defined term, we require them to remove it. If they really want to allow offices in the building that are not within a dwelling unit (home occupation), then they should do a Type 2 review in order to obtain approval for things like offices, dry cleaners, hair salons. Pa-c i 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. Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Topic: Landscaping 48 Repeat Comment: Coordinate landscape design with the civil design and provide the required landscape/utility separation distances. Correctly show all existing and proposed water/sewer mains and services on the landscape plans. With the tight constraints on this site we would be willing to relax our separation requirements, however we will not allow landscaping to be placed directly on top of our facilitates. Please consider the placement of shrubs and trees to minimize the impact to our facilities. Topic: Utility plans 54 Repeat Comment: Maintain 18-inches of vertical separation between all water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer crossings. With exception to 5forn Line'G', the ninirwm separation is provided, We respeclfully request a waiver from the mininun _-eparation requiremenl, where Line 'G' crosses the existing 8" sanitary sewer. Allernolive5 to this have been explored wilh no Success, 92 Place all curb stops and meter pits adjacent to the main when at all possible. Curb stops must be located within a utility easement. This requirenenl is nol possible wilh the endless conflicts /hat exisl for this proposal, We respectfully request a waiver from lhis requirenent, Please review the currenl layout and respond, Page 12 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 noled 5lorrn Sewer pipe has been upgraded to 6", I /inimun cover i5 provided, 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. offer rneelinq wilh Gily Uli111ie5, d was agreed to relocate lhi5 Sloan line doper to the center of l­Ior�oolh, lhu5 reducing conflicts, Please specify an ASTM Standard C443 gasketed joint for all pressurized storm lines. GaSkeled joinl5 are called oul on Sloan Sewer profiles, where required. The existing 5-foot inlets on the corner of Horsetooth and Stanford are shown to be remaining in place on the Utility plans, while the calcs included in the drainage report check for the sizing these inlets and the plans show that these might need to be relocated and reconstructed with the widening of Horsetooth Rd. Please clarify. Will the existing inlets be moved ? The exi5linq inlel5 will be rnainloined in place. 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. NIA 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 Topic: Off -site Grading Easement 88 The swale on the north side of the property as well as some grading takes place on private property (Strachan 1st 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. A leller of inienf is forfhcoming, Topic: Plat 89 Please connect drainage easement in driveway to off -site drainage easement on the plat. This will be Shown on fhe plat, Topic: Roof Drainage 91 Please show on the plans how the roof drains are getting to the proposed water quality ponds. Defer fo fhe overall ufilily plan for roof drain conneclion5 to Storm Sewer or Surface drainage, 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. if has not yef been determined lhal the exist, s5pruce tree will have to be removed, The noie has been removed from the plans, 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. Naec 10 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. The fro5ion Gonirol Man has been updated, including the delail and drylond grass seed MIX, 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. A leller of inienl has been Secured for the offsile easemenl and will be provided, Please provide a detail of the retaining walls that are not part of the proposed buildings. Retaining walls will be delailed by a sfruclura/ engineer prior to issuance of the building perr7/i, There are still some areas in the upper level parking that do not seem to drain properly. Please revise and add spot elevations. The proposed patio area to the west of Building B has a low point with no proposed drainage outlet. The grodinq plan is now Shown of P—/O' wilh ample 5pol elevations to more clearly verify drainage patterns, 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. Pace 9 Topic: Landscaping 10 Landscape Plan: The use of Austrian Pine, cotoneaster, and ninebark along the faces of Bldgs B, C, and D, particularly in front of public/private entrances will obscure these areas and raise security issues. Lower growing species, lighting, or some combination thereof would be recommended. Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Basil Harridan Topic: Construction Easements 80 The proposed 24" RCP across Horsetooth Rd. will necessitate the construction of a headwall and part of the culvert on Tract D of The Landings 1st Filing. Prior to construction on this Tract owned by that HOA the contractor should make sure that the HOA is notified and that the area will be properly restored. Even though this area is in an existing drainage easement, the landings 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 EMM Prior to allowing additional discharge from this site into Warren Lake, the warren Lake Ditch company must sign off on these plans. The Warren lobe Dilch Gornpony is currently reviewinq Phis proposal, but to dale have nol received a response, since our initial submIllol. 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. >aacti 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. Upon field verificofion, fhe inlef does fie info fhe we5ier1y pipe. Department: PFA Topic: Plat Issue Contact: Ron Gonzales SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS: These proposed buildings shall be fire sprinklered. A fire pump may also be required, as well as standpipes for the building and the parking garage below grade. 97UBC The response letter from Cityscape stated that notes to this effect have been added to the plans. Please indicate where the notes are. Ventilation System: A 2-stage ventilation system shall be provided for the parking garage below grade. Stage One shall be tied to a Carbon Monoxide Detection System that will detect carbon monoxide at 50ppm over 8 hours and/or 200ppm over 1 hour and ventilate the garage. Stage Two shall provide ventilation for smoke removal in the event of a car fire. UBC 1202.2.7 The response letter from Cityscape stated that notes to this effect have been added to the plans. Please indicate where the notes are. Department: Police Topic: General Issue Contact: Joseph Gerdom 9 Lighting Plan: The Luminaire schedule and luminaire detail don't provide sufficient information to determine exactly which lights are used in each location. Also, unless there are wall fixtures there is inadequate illumination 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. F>ssc 7 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%. Defer to the updaled cross sections, indicafinq proposed cross slopes between Z e 79 A grade break is shown on Sheet [12] that exceeds .40%. A vertical curve would be required based on this design. This is shown.. 98 Provide spot elevations at the Horsetooth and Stanford intersection in accordance with LCUASS Standard Detail 7-32B. Shown on t lorsetoolh Plan and Profile sheet. 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). 5ee cover sheet, for street cross secfion of Ytorseloolh road. 101 Angle points along the flowine appear to be shown along Horsetooth, please revise and use curves as shown in LCUASS 7.4.1. horizontal flowhre curves alonq llor5toolh load have been revised to /000' radii, 104 It appears that redirects are too abrupt on the street striping plan. See traffic comments regarding this. The entire lane geomelry for horsetooth is revised indicalinq more appropiiale redirects. Page 6 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. This note has been added to the general notes on plans where pafchinq occurs, (2/20) Ensure that this note is referenced to the work along Stanford as well. 67 The "bulb -outs" proposed on Stanford Drive may be allowed only if the gutter is redesigned to go around and along the bulb outs, not through them. There are maintenance concerns with the current proposal due to dirt and debris collecting between the bulb outs and the flowline. The flowline has been revised with posifive flow to fhe oulside of the "bulb -outs, 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. This has been correcled, Ilaoc 1 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. The above noled inforroafion is included wifhin fhe cross secfion5. 36 Show centerline and flowline profiles on Horsetooth Road. //3ofh cenfei/ine and flowline profiles are Shown a5 porl of fhe l�or5eloofh road Plan. (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. This i5 Me slondard foetal wilhin our design soflwore. /f is po55ib/e to generale cross sec/ion grids by hand, bul fine infensive, 37 Provide the bearing and distance for the flowline on the plan view portion of the plan and profile sheet for Horsetooth Road. This infol-nation can be found on the Striping Plan. (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. P%Vl (2/20) With the right turn lane still being an outstanding issue, the proposed design of the westbound bike lane will not be commented on by Engineering at this time. It is still considered ideal that the bike lane is continuous to the intersection. N/;l i.e 4 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. Sand boq check dares are proposed in this condition. 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. The Gily required direclional ramp is nol feasib/e of the corner of Stanford and /-10r5efoolh, due /o /he existing inlet locolions, traffic ligl standard and conlroller locolions. 34 A right -turn lane for westbound Horsetooth onto northbound Stanford still should be designed and constructed. There is a community wide benefit in the construction of the right turn lane, thus this is eligible for Street Oversizing reimbursement. The design of the right -turn lane should look at providing pedestrian refuge between the right -turn and through lane, especially since the width of Horsetooth would require a ped refuge under LCUASS. The righi ium lane for westbound norseloolh Pood is no longer regired by staff, as defcrrained of r7eelinq wilh Gily 51aff on June l0, 2002. (2/20) The issue of the right turn lane was discussed at the City's 2/14 Transportation Coordination Meeting. It was viewed that the submitted justification for not designing the right turn lane was not compelling and that a right turn lane could be designed into the project. Please note that any written documentation regarding the designing of the right -turn lane should be provided by the design engineer (a licensed professional engineer.) Pa-c 3 b. Please get rid of the 4' painted median and use 2' for the southbound right -turn, 1' for the southbound through, and 1' for the southbound left - turn. Please contact Eric, at 224-6062, if you have questions about his comments. Department: 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. 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. W, P iec STAFF PROJECT REVIEW Stanford Development, LLC c/o Cityscape Urban Design, Inc. 3555 Stanford Road, Suite 105 Fort Collins, CO. 80525 Date: 3/6/2002 Staff has reviewed your submittal for BELLA VISTA PDP, TYPE I (LUC), and we offer the following comments: ISSUES: Department: Current Planning Topic: Street Design Issue Contact: Steve Olt 64 Eric Bracke of Traffic Operations offered the following comments: 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. Paoc i