Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBELLA VISTA - PDP - 45-01A - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS,r� 10 Brit January 28, 2002 Daman Holland Cityscape Urban Design 3555 Stanford Road, Suite 105 Fort Collins, Co 80525 RE: BELLA VISTA Dear Daman, Integrity Skill Imagination I have reviewed the Staff Project Review dated 1/10/2002. The following are Merit Electric's response to those comments: Topic: General 9. Comment: 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. Response: The labeling and notes on the luminaire detail sheet have been revised to more clearly identify fixture types. The photometry of the fixtures is dependent on the optical reflector and is independent of the hood and luminous elements. Therefore, the architectural features can be selected without affecting the photometric performance of the fixture. The layout of the pedestrian poles between buildings B & C has been revised and additional poles have been added in front of buildings A, B, and D to provide adequate light levels to building access points. Should you have any questions about the above items or need further clarification, please give me a call. Thank You, Chris Weaver Cc: Bob Mechels — Vaught Frye Architects 4700 Innox-ation Drite, Suite D-1 Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 (970) 266-8100 D1etro (303) 443-8100 Fax (970) 266-1640 1-28-02: 6:28PM:NORTHERNENG ;9702214159 U1,1401 zuric 11:4 .3C1.3bUZI I all AL L?Kb llHtXf=L FUHL` , ALBERS, DRExEL & POHLY, INC. 1860Industrial Circle, Suite D • Longmont • Colorado • 80501 January 28, 2002 Mr. Daryl Sigler Northern Engineering Services 420 S. Howes St., Suite 202 Ft. Collins, CO 80521 Re: Bella Vista PDP — Final Plat Response to City Comments Dear Daryl: # 2: 2 PAGE 01/02 Telephoner(303i692-1131 . Fax:(303) 682-1149 Via Fax & Email 970-221-4159 Following are our responses to the various comments made by the City of Ft. Collins: (28) Replace "PUD" with "PDP" on all documents. All occurrences of "PUD" were replaced with "PDP". (42) Replace all occurrences of Director of Engineering with Cityi Engineer. AN occurrences of "Director of Engineering" have been replaced with "City Engineer" (43) The Plat language (Certificate of Dedication and Maintenance and Repair Guarantee language) has been revised_ Please revise as shown (electronic format of the document is available). Ensure that the "Notice of Other Documents" language is included in the plat as well. The "Certificate of Dedication" and "Maintenance and Repair Guarantee" language have been revised per documents enclosed with the City of Fort Collins' Engineering Department's Project Comments Sheet, dated December 26, 2001, (44) The Sight Distance Easement Language on the plat has also been revised. Please revise as shown. The "Sight Distance Easement" language has been revised per documents enclosed with the City of Fort Coffins' Engineering Department's Project Comments Sheet, dated December 26, 2001. (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 recessary. An "Access and Sidewalk Easement" has been delineated on the plat. A Full Service Land Surveying Company Boundary • Title • Geodetic - Topographic • Engineering Layout . Subdivision Platting • Environmental '+ s urban design, inc. 9. There may be additional Planning comments on red -lined plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. No significant additional comments were reflected on the red -lines we have received. Sincerely, Eldon Ward Cityscape Urban Design, Inc. cc: Chuck McNeal, Stanford Development, LLC Javier Martinez Campos, Stanford Development, LLC Frank Vaught, Vaught * Frye Architects Bud Curtis, Northern Engineering Matt Delich GAWP\9000\9600\9601 PDP-RESPONSE1A.doc con@@ o urban design, inc. 3.5.1(G)(1)(b)2 of the LUC requires that a visual analysis of views be submitted for review. There are no existing views of the foothills or of Warren Lake that will be affected by this development. Vaught"Frye is providing additional view analysis for your 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. No existing, occupied structures are affected. The only existing building affected by the 9:00 or 3:00 December 215t shadows is the small storage/maintenance building at the Aspen Leaf Apartments. A future building on the Marriott expansion portion of the Marriott lot west of Stanford may be affected as the existing Marriott affects the Arena Office Buildings to the west of the hotel. C. Due to the placement of these buildings and their relationship to surrounding properties, it does not appear that "Privacy" should be an issue. We agree d. Regarding Neighborhood Scale, it would be appropriate for the developer/applicant to submit a more detailed written narrative than what has been presented in Section 9) of the Statement of Planning Objectives in support of the buildings heights and massing. 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. Additional written and graphic materials are in process. 8. The Building Elevations Plans should indicate, to some degree, the building materials and colors being proposed as set forth in Section (2) of the PDP submittal requirements. Also, what will the elevations of the buildings interior to the site look like? Typically, elevations for all 4 sides of buildings should be submitted. Vaught*Frye is providing the additional architectural information requested. G:\WP\9000\9600\9601 PDP-RESPONSE 1 A, doc Con@@ o urban design, inc. 4. Specific elevations for Building D were not part of the original development submittal. This building is of most concern regarding how it meets the standards set forth in Section 3.5.3(B) Relationship of Buildings to Streets, Walkways and Parking in the LUC. Stanford Road is a 2-lane collector street (less than full arterial) and all mixed -use and commercial buildings must be within 15' of the right-of-way (ROW) for this street. None of Building D is at or within 15' of the ROW. There are patios and a sidewalk along the west side of the building, but do they truly satisfy the criteria set forth in Section 3.5.3(B)(2)(d) of the LUC? Additional Building D elevations are included with these revisions. As per our meeting with Planning Staff on November 2"d, Building D meets #.5.3 (B)(d) 1., which states that "Exceptions to the build -to line standards shall be permitted in order to form an outdoor space such as a plaza, courtyard, patio or garden between the building and the sidewalk..." Our plans include landscaping, low walls and other similar improvements along the sidewalk designed for pedestrian interest, and visual continuity. 5. A discussion of how this project satisfies Section 3.2.1(E)(5) Parking Lot Interior Landscaping should be done involving the developers, their consultants, City Planning, and City Zoning. It is understood that the "surface" parking lot for the commercial/retail uses is above an underground parking garage; however, there may be ways to incorporate landscaping in this area. Our revised plans meet the 6% interior landscape area requirement. Areas of shading are addressed through the provision of trellis structures. It should be noted that the City of Fort Collins — to my knowledge — has not applied "parking lot" landscape requirements to the upper, uncovered, deck levels of other "parking structures" in the review process. It continues to be unclear why this project should be held to a different standard. City Plan clearly intended to encourage structured parking, while enforcement of the Code appears to actively discourage that approach. 6. Section 3.2.1(E)(5)(e) of the LUC states that parking bays shall extend no more than 15 parking spaces without an intervening tree, landscape island, or landscape peninsula. There are 20 uninterrupted parking spaces in the bay along the north side of Building B. As part of the interior landscaping discussion this concern should be addressed. We have added a landscape island. (also, see above). 7. 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 GAWP\9000\9600\9601 PDP-RESPONSP A. doc co�72@@o urban design, inc. There are automatic overhead doors planned at the entrances to the parking garage. We are not aware of any problems with their locations. Planning: 1. This development proposal, with the uses as identified on the Site Plan, is considered to be a Type I, administrative review project. However, depending on how the proposed commercial/retail uses are defined in the 22,000 square feet of non-residential floor area, and if any modifications to standards are deemed to be necessary, the proposal could be subject to a Type II, Planning & Zoning Board review. As noted on the PDP it is the applicants' intent to limit uses to those allowed as Type 1 in the MMN District, including the accessory uses as agreed with Planning Staff on November 2"d. We do not believe that modifications to the Code are needed. 2. The proposed small food service uses, Item iii) under Accessory Uses in the General Notes, may be of concern. If there are several very small users, 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 4,500 square feet) 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. Standard, "sit-down" franchise restaurants are typically 6,000 to 8,000 square feet. It is our intent to establish a limit to the size that would — from a practical point of view — essentially preclude those larger restaurants. The lack of ample customer parking on the site (further limited by the required 30' fire lanes) also makes this project un- attractive to any larger food service operations. The result of a similar discussion regarding a residential, mixed -use plan in Loveland resulted in a limit of 4,000 square feet on any individual "restaurant, pub, coffee shop, or similar use". It must be remembered that allowing some reasonable food service operation is key to the "social gathering" or "neighborhood center" function that is appropriate at this location. This site and the surrounding residential areas have no real "centers" as envisioned in City Plan. We should not be trying to preclude Bella Vista from filling this need. With these revisions, we are limiting accessory, "small food service" operations to a maximum of 3600 sq. ft. per food service use. 3. 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 Il, Planning & Zoning Board review use in the MMN District. We have revised the land use notes to limit office uses to Home Occupations. Other "work" areas allowed under the "live/work" concept at this location are limited to Type 1 uses in the MMN District. G:\WP\9000\9600\9601 PDP-RESPONSE1A.doc Con@@ o urban design, inc. 5. The necessary westbound right -turn lane on East Horsetooth Road will have an impact on the building placement in this development. (See above) 6. There is a 660' minimum separation requirement between the access onto East Horsetooth Road and Stanford Road. The distance as shown is about 610'. The applicant may submit a variance request for the minimum separation. (See above) 7. The applicant has to do a roundabout study for the intersection of East Horsetooth Road and Stanford Road. (See above) 8. Pedestrian refuge islands are needed in both East Horsetooth Road and Stanford Road. (See above) 9. The street striping as proposed does not meet the City's standards. (See above) 10. There is a requirement that the utility plans show conditions at least 100' past the limits of construction for this project. Northern Engineering has addressed this comment 11. Adequate drainage in the medians in the streets must be provided. (See above) 12. It is important that a utility coordination meeting be held. A Utility Coordination Meeting was held on January grn 13. A big issue ..... the Poudre Fire Authority has a requirement for a 30' wide emergency access on -site through this project because of the proposed height of the buildings. As per my discussions with Ron Gonzales, 30' fire lane areas have been provided on one side of each building. 14. The length of the straight section of the access drive from Stanford Road into the parking garage is not long enough. Because the access drive from Stanford into the parking garage is "in only'; no straight section is needed. The condition is not unlike a "free right" turn at a street intersection. 15. There may be a problem with the placement of the parking garage gates. G:\WP\9000\9600\9601 PDP-RESPONSEI A. doc urban design, inc. Topic: Landscaping 8 The surface level parking lot is required to have interior parking lot landscaping. (Sections 3.2.1(E)(5) and 3.2.2(M)(1). Does the parking underneath the surface lot preclude interior landscaping? If so, then a modification will be required to 3.2.2(M)(1) since there is no alternative compliance provision to that section and since there is no automatic exemption for a surface lot on top of an underground lot. The lot does have some landscaping that could qualify as interior, but not enough. The revised plan meets the 6 % interior landscape area requirement. We would be interested to know how the Mason Street Parking Garage meets this standard. Our office provided the landscape plans for that project. During the review of the Mason Street Parking Garage, no one ever suggested that the above mentioned sections of the Code would be applicable, and — to my knowledge - no modification was required. The following comments were expressed at Staff Review on December 26, 2001: Natural Resources: 1. The plans are showing only one trash enclosure location. This does not seem to be enough for the development program that is proposed. A second trash enclosure has been added. Engineering: Off -site grading on the property to the north will be required. A letter of intent from that property owner will be needed prior to scheduling this item for a public hearing and the actual off -site easement from the property owner will be needed at the time of final compliance review. (See above) 2. Additional street right-of-way for Stanford Road is not needed; however, the public sidewalk must be located in a public access easement. (See above) 3. The East Horsetooth Road design that was part of the PDP submittal is not sufficient. It does not meet the City's street design standards and requirements. A variance request will be needed. Northern Engineering has addressed this comment. 4. The 9' wide utility easement as shown along East Horsetooth Road needs to be 15' wide. The applicant may submit a variance request for the easement width. (See above) G:\WP\9000\9600\9601 PDP-RESPONSE 1 A. doc COO�M@@P(A� urban design, inc. 4 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? According the Land Use Code, "Height may be measured according to any [not all] of several methods." Building Height limitations in various zoning districts are stated in terms of the number of stories. Section 3.8.17 (A)(3) refers to Contextual Height in relation to the "zone district maximum height", which is regulated according to the number of stories. The difference in height from ground floor to "the highest point of the roof surface or structure" between the Marriott and the tallest proposed building at Bella Vista is approximately 12'. Making the Bella Vista building shorter by using a flat roof, or by changing the plan to four, identical five story buildings would result in a less attractive project, while the reduction in height would be imperceptible. 5 General note 13 - wood gates are not advisable. So noted. 6 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". At a November 2"d meeting with City Planning Staff, we were assured that small food services uses would be considered as accessory uses. This was the basis for our request for MMN zoning rather than a combination of zones that would have allowed a greater mix of uses. 7 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. We can rind nothing in the Land Use Code that precludes B&Bs from being located in a condominium building. B&Bs are clearly allowed in the MMN District, while "private houses" are allowed only on lots of less than 6,000 square feet. Such "private houses" would not be conducive to a six bedroom B&B. GAWP\9000\9600\9601 PDP-RESPONSE1A.doc coom@@P@� urban design, inc. 52 Eliminate all un-necessary bends and low angle crossings of water, sewer and storm sewer lines. Bends and low angle crossings have been minimized to the extent practical 53 Show and label all curb stops and meter pits on the overall utility plans. Clearly identify these with size and location. Northern Engineering has addressed these comments 54 Clearly show and label all water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer crossings in all utility profile views. Define any and all lowerings or adjustments. Maintain 18-inches of vertical separation between all water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer crossings. Northern Engineering has addressed these comments. 55 Will an irrigation tap be required within this site? No. Irrigation is intended to be taken off one or more of the domestic services to the buildings. 56 Provide a manhole adjustment and a concrete encasement detail with the next submittal. Norhem Engineering has addressed these comments See the site, landscape and utility plans for other comments. Rather than greatly reducing the landscape plantings, a note obligating landscape repair and replacement by the H.O.A. has been added so that 10' clearance from service lines is not required. Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes Topic: General 3 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? LivellNork is a type of mixed -use dwelling concept, wherein a work (non- residential) space is accessory or incidental to the primary residential uses in the same structure. In this case, the non-residential use may be a home occupation, or any other Type 1 use allowed in the MMN District. Although the term "live/work" is not in the Fort Collins Land Use Code, it is a common planning term in current practice, and represents a desirable mixed -use concept. GAWM9000\960W601 PDP-RESPONSE1A.doc C�o���� o 0 urban design, inc. did not have to build walkways in the Fairway Estates subdivision; or even make connections back to Boardwalk along Harmony). Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Topic: Landscaping 48 Coordinate landscape design with the civil design and provide the required landscape/utility separation distances. Show all existing and proposed water/sewer mains and services on the landscape plans. Utilities are shown, and coordinated with landscaping as requested. Topic: Plat 47 Provide a 30 foot minimum utility easement for the existing 8-inch sanitary sewer main which crosses this site. No buildings, retaining walls, trash enclosures, over hangs, landscape boulders, etc my be placed or erected within the utility easements. As per the decision at the January 9rh Utility Coordination Meeting, the easement will remain at 20' with the understanding that the existing sewer main will be encased in concrete; it will be confirmed that the existing line is not a clay tile material; and minor building encroachments 17' or more above finish grade will be allowed. Repair and replacement of landscape and hardscape plaza elements required as a result of any future requirement to excavate the adjacent portion of the sewer line will be the responsibility of the property owner/H. O.A. Topic: Utility plans 49 Call out all fittings, thrust blocks, valves, water/sewer service sizes on the overall utility plans. Northern Engineering has addressed these comments 50 Maintain a 4 feet minimum separation distance between the outside wall of all meter pits and any permanent structure (I.e. retaining walls, buildings, landscape boulders, trash enclosures, etc.). To the extent practical, meter pits will be located as requested. Further coordination will occur as construction documents are completed. 51 Provide separate water and sewer services for each building and each use within each building (I.e. commercial, residential). The required number of services will be provided GAWP\9000\9600\9601 PDP-RESPONSE1A.doc urban design, inc. Bike rack locations have been noted on the revised plans. 12 What number of HC parking spaces exist on lower level? Is there elevator access or adequate access for ADA? Elevator access and the 8 HC spaces provided on the lower level are noted. 13 Provide cross -sections of Horsetooth (arterial) and Stanford (Collector), including bike lanes to standard. Cross sections are provided on sheet 6. As per the Engineering comments, some compromises to normal standards are necessary due to existing conditions. 14 Provide pedestrian refuge for movement across Horsetooth. This can be done either through the extension of the median and/or a porkchop island for the right turn lane. As per the direction we received from Engineering, pedestrian refuge is provided at the painted median between the west bound left turn lane and the eastbound travel lanes. Belated Comment (received January 25, 2002) Requiring Bella Vista to complete the sidewalk connection on the east side of Stanford. This comment is in conflict with the direction we received earlier from Transportation Planning. The adjacent Aspen Leaf Apartments has a minimal pedestrian walkway system, which (as approved by the City of Fort Collins) includes connecting walkways only within the center of the site. These walks dead in into the asphalt parking lots, forcing resident pedestrians to walk in parking areas and landscaped areas to reach any of the surrounding streets. While there are existing walks along Monroe and Stover, my extensive personal experience with the Aspen Leaf site indicates that these public walks are not used, largely because cutting through the Aspen Leaf site — by walking in the parking areas and the central building access walks — is a more direct route to area destinations. This will also be true of any pedestrian destinations I Bella Vista; and the connecting walk previously agreed with City Staff, and proposed by this applicant works better with the "real' pedestrian circulation pattern in Aspen Leaf; while a new walk along Stanford will not integrate with the actual pedestrian circulation in the area. Because a retro-fitted walk on the east side of Stanford would be expensive to construct; will disrupt existing landscaping; and will not provide easier access to the Bella Vista site or other area destinations, we do not agree with the belated request to construct this off -site walk. It is not reasonable to require this development to correct a past mistake by the City and an earlier developer. Similar requirements have not been made of other recent developers. (For example the King Soopers at Harmony and JFK G:\WP\9000\9600\9601 PDP-RESPONSE 1 A. d oc I C�o����caa o 0 urban design, inc. WQ Pond 2 has 3:1 side slopes. This pond will not be maintained by the City of Fort Collins. Furthermore, it will not be sod -grass, but rather native grasses requiring less mowing. All maintenance will be performed by the local homeowners association. Also, an erosion control blanket has been proposed for slope stability until permanent vegetation has been established. 19 Please revise the grading plan to include top of wall and bottom of wall elevations for all retaining walls and terraces on site. Include enough grading and spot elevations on each level to show drainage patterns. Also, include details of retaining and pond walls. Please include more spot elevations around buildings and in parking lots to clarify grading and drainage. Currently some areas do not have enough information to show how water drains. Please provide low points in both detention ponds. The requested detail has been added to the grading plan. Topic: Landscaping 24 Please maintain a minimum of 1 Oft. separation between trees and storm sewers. There is very dense landscaping shown around the southern inlets and in the northern swale; please check that drainage will not be affected. 10' separation is maintained between trees and City maintained storm sewers. The minor area inlet drain system behind the walk along Horsetooth Road is to be maintained by the H.O.A. Topic: Riprap 26 Please call out all riprap on plans and profiles. Is there any riprap or protection at the outlet of Storm Sewer E? Riprap is now called -out on the storm sewer plan and profiles. The existing riprap at the outfall of Storm Sewer Line E is also shown on the plans. Topic: Spillway 21 Please provide spillways and conveyance for flows from water quality ponds in case outlet is plugged. Please provide calculations and cross sections for the spillways. Spillways (emergency overflow weirs) have been provided for both ponds. Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Mark Jackson Topic: General 11 Please show bicycle parking as appropriate at each building near main entrances. GAWP\9000\9600\9601 PDP-R ESPONSE1 A. doc con@@ o urban design, inc. 17 Please provide a signature block for the Warren Lake Owner. Please provide construction/ drainage easements on the south side of Horsetooth Rd. There is already an existing easement for the proposed improvements at the headwall. No additional easements or approval blocks are needed. Enclosed is a copy of the Utility Easement Dedication for the First Replat of The Landings First Filing. (Rec. # 366979, Book 2051, Page 0546), dated 06122180. 20 Please specify on the plans where maintenance responsibility changes from property owner to City of Fort Collins. The plans now clearly specify which storm sewer is to remain private and which storm sewer is to be maintained by the City of Fort Collins. 22 The minimum pipe size is 15" according to the Storm Drainage Design Criteria or storm sewers maintained by the City. Also, class III RCP is required under all city streets. Please revise the storm sewer system to meet the minimum criteria. All storm sewer to be maintained by the City of Fort Collins is at least 15" diameter. Also, all storm sewer located under City streets is Class Ill RCP. 23 All swales and ponds require a concrete pan when slopes are less than 2%. Please revise plans. A concrete trickle pan has been added to Swale D. 25 Please provide pond depth markers where water is more than 3 ft. deep. Please include the depth marker detail in the plans. WQ Pond 1 has a pond depth marker specified, and the detail is also included. 27 Please specify which pipes are pressure sealed on plans. Consider resizing pipes to minimize pressurized areas. Storm sewer lines requiring water-tight/pressure-sealed gaskets have been clearly noted on the plans. All storm sewer lines have been sized to convey the 100- year flows without surface ponding. Topic: Grading 18 Please maintain a maximum of 4:1 grading on site. Currently the west entrance area and west detention ponds have slopes greater than allowed. GAWP\9000\9600\9601 PDP-RESPONSE1A.doc urban design, inc. Topic: Landscaping 10 Landscape Plan: The use of Austrian Pine, cotoneaster, and ninebark along the faces of Bldg. 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. We have reviewed the landscape plan, and noted that adequate security lighting is to be provided at building entrances. Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Topic: Erosion Control 15 The report table of contents doesn't have the correct page numbers for the erosion control report. The report table of contents has been revised to correctly reference all pages. Your plan calls for straw bale inlet filters at a number of locations. Straw bales do not work on concrete or asphalt surfaces. When are these to be installed, after inlet construction but prior to hard surfacing? You need to spell the intent out with notes on the plan. Gravel bag inlet filters will replace straw bales as the BMP of choice. The gravel bags will be effective both before and after hard surfacing. What is to protect Warren Lake during the construction of the outlet drain piping system and the roadway (Horsetooth) construction? All of these and water quality pond #1 seem to be outside the limits of your erosion control BMP's. Silt fencing and a gravel bag check dam have been added near the reconstructed headwall to protect Warren Lake during construction. The surety is calculated incorrectly with regard to reseeding/mulching. Also, $1.30/lf on silt fencing is pretty cheap. Who does it for that, you? Proper unit prices are now included in the surety calculations for both reseeding and silt fencing. Topic: General 16 Please revise the general notes section to apply to this project and the city of Fort Collins. Please check that the benchmarks referenced are the closest to the site. The general notes have been updated for this project and location. GAWP\9000\9600\9601 PDP-RESPONSE1 A. OC urban design, inc. addressed from Stanford Drive. An address marquis shall be provided with 8" numerals. (Bronze numerals on brown brick are not acceptable).97UFC901.4.4 A note indicating addressing requirements has been added. 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 Northern Engineering is confirming hydrant spacing and fire flows Knox Box Policy Poudre Fire Authority requires a "Knox Box" to be mounted on the front of every new building equipped with a required fire sprinkler system or fire alarm system. 97UFC902.4 PFAPOLICY88-20 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. 97UBC Notes to this effect have been added to the plans. Further coordination will occur as construction documents are completed 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. U BC 1202.2.7 Notes to this effect have been added to the plans. Further coordination will occur as construction documents are completed 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. A revised lighting plan is included with these plans. GAWP\9000\9600\9601 PDP-RESPONSE 1 A. doc co72@1Qo urban design, inc. A revised plan for bike lanes is included with these plans. The west bound bike lane is proposed to remain on the street until the approach to the intersection and the existing lane alignment forces the bikeway to transition onto an oversized walk. 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. Northern Engineering is adding the note as needed. Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Doug Martine Topic: Landscaping 1 Street trees on the landscape plan must be adjusted to provide a minimum of 40 ft. clearance between trees and streetlights. A streetlight plan has been sent to Steve Olt via inter -office mail. Street trees have been adjusted as necessary. 2 It is my understanding that the developer desires the electric transformer(s) 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. Landscape areas have been adjusted as needed. Further coordination will occur as needed as construction documents are finalized. Department: PFA Issue Contact: Ron Gonzales Topic: Plat 57 REQUIRED ACCESS: Due to the proposed heights of these edifices, a 30 foot wide fire lane is required for aerial operations. This fire lane shall be visible by painting and signage, and maintained unobstructed. A fire lane plan shall be submitted for approval prior to installation. 97UFC901.2.2.1;901.3;901.4.2;902.2.1 Admin.Policy85-5; FCLUC 3.6.6(D)3 The above ground level of the parking structure has been modified to allow 30' fire lane areas on one side of each building. It is our understanding that other circulation areas may remain at 20' or 24' as proposed. 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 GAWP\9000\9600\9601 PDP-R ESPONSEI A. doc CO72@@o urban design, inc. Northern Engineering has shown this information on their plans 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. Northern Engineering is submitting the Variance Request. 39 Show 150' past the limits of construction (vertically and horizontally) to show how proposed improvements tie into existing. (Plan and profile street views, as well as street striping.) (per LCUASS Page E4-6) Northern Engineering has shown the additional limits on their plans 40 Can the striping for the bikelane continue further east to tie into the existing bikelane? That is the intent of our plans. 41 Per LCUASS in Section 16.6.4, the maximum length of a crosswalk without a pedestrian refuge area is 56'. This distance is being exceeded on Stanford Drive and Horsetooth Road. Transportation Services has agreed that pedestrian refuge on Stanford will not be required. As previously mentioned, a ped refuge should be looked at across Horsetooth in between the right turn lane and the through lanes. With the above comment that no raised median is to be constructed, pedestrian refuge is limited to the 7' painted median area between the west bound left turn lane and the east bound travel lanes. Even if a right turn lane were feasible, a pedestrian refuge between the right turn lane would still result in a street crossing of over 56'. 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. G:\WP\9000\9600\9601 PDP-RESPONSE1A.doc Con@@ o urban design, inc. required, 620' is provided). Transportation Services has determined that this separation will work with the construction of the "pork chop" island to deter left turns out of the development. We have maintained the location of the drive centerline. 32 Directional ramps are required on new construction in accordance with LCUASS. (Standard Drawing 164D) Provide the detail on the plan set. The City standard directional ramp is not possible at this corner, due to existing Infrastructure in place, however we have expanded the previous ramp to better access the new crosswalks at Horsetooth and Stanford. 33 The City's Traffic Engineer has determined that the Stanford/Horsetooth intersection would not make a suitable location for a roundabout and an alternative analysis (typically required on arterial/collector and arterial/arterial intersections) is not needed. Thank you. 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. As indicated above, vertical and horizontal conflicts with extensive existing drainage and utility improvements preclude construction of a right turn lane at this location. 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.) The requested cross sections are included in the Utility Plans. 36 Show centerline and flowline profiles on Horsetooth Road. Northern Engineering will show profiles as required. 37 Provide the bearing and distance for the flowline on the plan view portion of the plan and profile sheet for Horsetooth Road. G:\WP\9000\9600\9601 PDP-RESPONSE1A.doc Co�M@@o urban design, inc. 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. The needed easement has been added to the Plat. 58 Vacation of City easements on the plat do not require an easement vacation certificate. However, vacation of exclusive easements outside of the City (20' communication easement) requires a signature from the telephone company. It is our understanding that the 20' easement in question is now within the Horsetooth Road right-of-way, and no vacation is necessary. 59 Horsetooth Road appears confusing with right-of-way on top of city and private utilities. Please clarify. The location of the right-of-way has been clarified on the Plat and plans. 61 An emergency access easement needs to be dedicated on the plat where PFA specifies a fire lane is required. The needed emergency access easement has been added. Topic: Street Design 29 The Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) in Section 8.2.2 specifies all lanes shall be in alignment through each intersection. Currently a 4.5' offset is measured on the road design; no offset will be allowed for this design. Lanes have been revised to align at the intersection, and maintain the existing curb and gutter. 30 Because of the no offset requirement and some constraints involving the existing storm drainage improvements across Horsetooth, the previous discussion involving extension of the proposed median to the Horsetooth/Stanford intersection will no longer be required. Instead, no median shall be provided on Horsetooth Road and a pork chop island for the driveway off of Horsetooth shall be required. The design of the "pork chop" for this access point should prohibit left turns onto Horsetooth (to the extent reasonably feasible) while at the same time be designed to allow PFA access. The design of Horsetooth Road has been revised as requested. 31 The access out to Horsetooth Road does not provide enough separation from the intersection of Horsetooth Road and Stanford Drive as required under LCUASS (660' is G:\WP\9000\9600\9601 PDP-RESPONSE1 A. doc urban design, inc. Due to the physical constraints and the above stated traffic issues, it is respectfully requested that the westbound right -turn lane on Horsetooth Road approaching Stanford Road not be a requirement of the Bella Vista development. 3. The westbound left -turn lane @ East Horsetooth Road and Landings Drive should be 12' wide, not 11'. The thru lanes @ 11' wide are OK. Lane widths have been adjusted as needed. Please contact Eric, at 224-6062, if you have questions about his comments. Rick Lee of the Building Department is forwarding a copy of the various codes that they will be enforcing. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General 40 Replace "P.U.D." with "P.D.P" on all the documents. PDP labels have been corrected. Topic: Grading 41 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. The applicants are in the process of securing the needed letter of intent. Topic: Plat 42 Replace all occurrences of Director of Engineering with City Engineer. The Plat will reflect this change throughout. 43 The Plat language (Certificate of Dedication and Maintenance and Repair Guarantee language) has been revised. Please revised as shown (electronic format of the document is available). Ensure that the "Notice of Other Documents" language is included in the plat as well. The Plat language will be corrected as needed. 44 The Sight Distance Easement Language on the plat has also been revised. Please revise as shown. The Plat language will be corrected as needed. G:\WP\9000\9600\9601 PDP-RESPONSE 1 A. d oc AIL C�o����caa o urban design, inc. 2. The westbound right -turn should be included @ East Horsetooth Road and Stanford Road. This developer is not generating the need; however, the right -turn lane should be included in the design. " (In addition to the responses below, see the attached Memorandum from Matt Delich). The extensive existing drainage structures and other utility installations existing at the intersection preclude a right -turn lane at this location, due to both vertical and horizontal conflicts. ♦ The existing storm vault (top of structure) elevation is .95' higher than the Horsetooth Road flowline. ♦ Research indicates that the pipes within the structure are at the top of the box, which eliminates the option of lowering the lid to accommodate a right turn lane over the box. ♦ The two existing curb inlets at the intersection would conflict with a new right turn lane. ♦ A right turn lane pushed further north into the site would. - Eliminate the proposed water quality pond which is proposed at the only location where it can affect the quality of storm water from the entire frontage of Horsetooth Road and Stanford Road; Conflict with the existing traffic signal control box; ➢ Conflict with the existing traffic signal pole and street light; and Could pose something of a hazard for through, northbound traffic, due to the unusual location of the turn lane intersection with Stanford. ♦ Evaluation by our Traffic Engineer indicates that. - While a right -turn lane is warranted, based on LCUASS Figure S- 04, the existing physical constraints must be recognized. While not specifically discussed in LUCASS, right -turn lanes improve both operation and safety at intersections by removing right turns from the through traffic lane. This is particularly relevant at unsignalized intersections where it is desired that the through traffic on the major street not be significantly slowed by right -turning vehicles. However, at signalized intersections, this becomes less important, since the traffic on the major street (Horsetooth Road) will be slowing due to the signal at this intersection. Approximately 40% of the time during the peak hours, traffic on Horsetooth Road will be approaching a red light. Further, it was demonstrated in the Transportation Impact Study that acceptable operation will be achieved without the westbound right -turn lane. ➢ Elimination of the right -turn lane will not be detrimental to the public health, welfare, and safety. The City of Fort Collins has many signalized intersections with similar traffic volumes without the existence of a right -turn lane. G:\WP\9000\9600k9601 PDP-RESPONSEi A. doc r January 29, 2002 Steve Olt City of Fort Collins Community Planning and Environmental Services P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 urban design, inc. 3555 stanford road, suite 105 fort collins, colorado 80525 (970) 226-4074 fax (970) 226-4196 e@cityscapeud.com RE: Bella Vista PDP — January 10, 2002, PDP Review Comments Dear Steve; Included below are the comments received from City Staff regarding the Bella Vista Project Development Plan (submitted November 28, 2001). An explanation (in italics) of how issues have been addressed follows each comment. COMMENTS: Len Hilderbrand of Excel Energy (PSCO) offered the following comments: 1. PSCO has a 2" MW existing gas main along the west boundary of the project and a 4" FB gas main existing along the south edge of the property. Both gas mains lay in the street right-of-way. No trees may be planted within 4' of gas lines. The tree lawn has been designed to maintain 4' minimum clearance as requested. 2. The plans show a 12" storm sewer proposed in areas of PSCO's gas lines. Any relocation of existing gas lines would be at the developer's expense. The storm drain does not conflict with the gas lines. 3. Gas meters would be clustered together @ the ends of buildings, with 2 gas service lines per building. Meters will be clustered as required. Eric Bracke of Traffic Operations offered the following comments: 1. The proposed raised median is insufficient. A median should be constructed to "match" the west leg. The City Engineering Department has informed us that this comment is no longer valid, and that no raised median is to be constructed. G:\WP\9000\9600\9601 PDP-R ESPONSEI A. doc