Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBELLA VISTA - PDP - 45-01A - CORRESPONDENCE - (11)9. There may be additional Planning comments on red -lined plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. 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, Jee Olt, Project Planner -Page 14 parking lot for the commercial/retail uses is above an underground parking garage; however, there may be ways to incorporate landscaping in this area. 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. 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 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. Due to the placement of these buildings and their relationship to surrounding properties, it does not appear that "Privacy" should be an issue. 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. 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. Page 13 12. It is important that a utility coordination meeting be held. 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. 14. The length of the straight section of the access drive from Stanford Road into the parking garage is not long enough. 15. There may be a problem with the placement of the parking garage gates. Planning: 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. 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. 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 II, Planning & Zoning Board review use in the MMN District. 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(13)(2)(d) of the LUC? 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" Page 12 v� v The following comments were expressed at Staff Review on December 26, 2001: Natural Resources: The plans are showing only one trash enclosure location. This does not seem to be enough for the development program that is proposed. 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. 2. Additional street right-of-way for Stanford Road is not needed; however, the public sidewalk must be located in a public access easement. 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. 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. 5. The necessary westbound right -turn lane on East Horsetooth Road will have an impact on the building placement in this development. 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. 7. The applicant has to do a roundabout study for the intersection of East Horsetooth Road and Stanford Road. 8. Pedestrian refuge islands are needed in both East Horsetooth Road and Stanford Road. 9. The street striping as proposed does not meet the City's standards. 10. There is a. requirement that the utility plans show conditions at least 100' past the limits of construction for this project. 11. Adequate drainage in the medians in the streets must be provided. Page 1 l 56 Provide a manhole adjustment and a concrete encasement detail with the next submittal. See the site, landscape and utility plans for other comments. 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? 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? 5 General note 13 - wood gates are not advisable. 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". 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. 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. Page 10 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. 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. Topic: Utility plans 49 Call out all fittings, thrust blocks, valves, water/sewer service sizes on the overall utility plans. 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.). 51 Provide separate water and sewer services for each building and each use within each building (i.e. commercial, residential). 52 Eliminate all un-necessary bends and low angle crossings of water, sewer and storm sewer lines. 53 Show and label all curb stops and meter pits on the overall utility plans. Clearly identify these with size and location. 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. 55 Will an irrigation tap be required within this site? Page 9 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. Topic: Landscaping 24 Please maintain a minimum of 10ft. 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. 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? 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. Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Mark Jackson Topic: General 11 Please show bicycle parking as appropriate at each building near main entrances. 12 What number of HC parking spaces exist on lower level? Is there elevator access or adequate access for ADA? 13 Provide cross -sections of Horsetooth (arterial) and Stanford (Collector), including bike lanes to standard. 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. Page 8 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. 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. The surety is calculated incorrectly with regard to reseeding/mulching. Also, $1.30/If on silt fencing is pretty cheap. Who does it for that, you? 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. 17 Please provide a signature block for the Warren Lake Owner. Please provide construction/ drainage easements on the south side of Horsetooth Rd. 20 Please specify on the plans where maintenance responsibility changes from property owner to 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. ' 23 All swales and ponds require a concrete pan when slopes are less than 2%. Please revise plans. 25 Please provide. pond depth markers where water is more than 3 ft. deep. Please. include the depth marker detail in the plans. 27 Please specify which pipes are pressure sealed on plans. Consider resizing pipes to minimize pressurized areas. 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. Page 7 minute at a residual pressure of 20 psi. No commercial building can be greater than 300.feet from a fire hydrant. 97UFC901.2.2.2 Knox Box Policy Poudre Fire Authority requires a "Knox Box" to be mounted on the front of every new building equipped with a required fire sprinkler system or fire alarm system. 97UFC902.4 PFAPOLICY88-20 SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS: These proposed buildings shall be fire sprinklered. A fire pump may also be required, as well as standpipes for the building and the parking garage below grade. 97UBC Ventilation System: A 2-stage ventilation system shall be provided for the parking garage below grade. Stage One shall be tied to a Carbon Monoxide Detection System that will detect carbon monoxide at 50ppm over 8 hours and/or 200ppm over 1 hour and ventilate the garage. Stage Two shall provide ventilation for smoke removal in the event of a car fire. UBC1202.2.7 Department: Police Issue Contact: Joseph Gerdom Topic: General 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 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. 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. Page 6 the sidewalk and create a combined bike/ped area behind the curb if the bikelane cannot be accomplished. 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. 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. 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. 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 ADDRESS NUMERALS Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the property, and posted with a minimum of 6 inch numerals on a contrasting background. The property shall be addressed from Stanford Drive. An address marquis shall be provided with 8" numerals. (Bronze numerals on brown brick are not acceptable).97UFC901.4.4 WATER SUPPLY Fire hydrants are required with a maximum spacing of 600 feet. along an approved roadway. Each hydrant must be capable of delivering 1500 gallons of water per Page 5 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.) 36 Show centerline and flowline profiles on Horsetooth Road. 37 - Provide the bearing and distance for the flowline on the plan view portion of the plan and profile sheet for Horsetooth Road. 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. 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) 40 Can the striping for the bikelane continue further east to tie into the existing bikelane? 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. 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 Page 4 61 An emergency access easement needs to be dedicated on the plat where PFA specifies a fire lane is required. 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. 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. 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 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. 32 Directional ramps are required on new construction in accordance with LCUASS. (Standard Drawing 164D) Provide the detail on the plan set. 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. 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. Page 3 65 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, 28 Replace "P.U.D." with "P.D.P" on all the documents. 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 42 Replace all occurrences of Director of Engineering with City Engineer. 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. 44 The Sight Distance Easement Language on the plat has also been revised. Please revise as shown. 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. 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. 59 Horsetooth Road appears confusing with right-of-way on top of city and private utilities. Please clarify. Page 2 STAFF PROJECT REVIEW City of Fort Collins STANFORD DEVELOPMENT, LLC Date: 1/10/2002 c/o Cityscape Urban Design - Eldon Ward 3555 Stanford Road, Suite 105 Fort Collins, CO. 80525 Staff has reviewed your submittal for BELLA VISTA PDP, TYPE I (LUC). This letter contains additional comments to the letter dated 1/8/2002 that was picked up from the Current Planning Department on 1/8. The new comments begin on Page 11. ISSUES: Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt Topic: Street Design 63 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. 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. 3. Gas meters would be clustered together @ the ends of buildings, with 2 gas service lines per building. 64 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. 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. 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. Please contact Eric, at 224-6062, if you have questions about his comments. Page 1