HomeMy WebLinkAboutBELLAVISTA PDP - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2004-12-29...............
Page 1
Marc Virata - Easement Vacations
From: Georgiana Deines
To: Current Planning, Dave Stringer, Katie Moore, M...
Date: Mon, Mar 19, 2001 10:21 AM
Subject: Easement Vacations
I had a conversation with Paul Eckman this morining after our staff meeting and the result is this:
1. We will have Greg sign a delegation to Cameron to sign Easement Vacations and Dedications
according to Section 2.1.5 of the LUC. So the signature block on easement vacations for minor
amendments and Type I hearings should be Cameron Gloss, Director of Current Planning.
2. If a minor amendment is submitted and results in the need for a easement vacation, that vacation can
be administratively approved by Cameron without a Type I hearing. No advertising requirement is needed,
nor is a Type I hearing.
3. Easement Vacations that are part of a Planning Project will still be proessed the same as they are now.
If a Type I project needs an easement vacation, it should be processed as a Type 1 concurrently with the
planning project. Same for Type II projects.
4 Stand alone requests for easement vacations should still be processed the same as they are now and
go to the P & Z Board.
5. We will get a new numbering system for administrative easement vacations.
6 No matter what type of easement vacation is being processed, the necessary fees for recording still
need to be collected. Those should be turned into me so I can get them to the City Clerk for recording.
Let me know if you have any questions.
R
CC: Gregory Byrne, WPaul Eckman
Marc Virata - RE Bella Vista Minute Notes Page 1
From: Daman Holland <daman@cityscapeud.com>
To: "'Marc Virata"' <MVIRATA@fcgov.com>
Date: 1 /11 /02 2:47PM
Subject: RE: Bella Vista Minute Notes
Marc,
Thanks for sending your notes
Daman Holland
Landscape Architect
Cityscape Urban Design
3555 Stanford Road, Suite 105
Fort Collins, CO 80525
(970)226-4074
fax (970) 226-4196
daman@cityscapeud.com
-----Original Message -----
From: Marc Virata [SMTP:MVIRATA@fcgov.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 2:16 PM
To: daman@cityscapeud.com, eldon@cityscapeud.com
Subject: Bella Vista Minute Notes
Below are the notes I took regarding yesterday's utility coordination meeting
for Bella Vista. These aren't meant to be official minutes, just notes taken
for my own reference.
-Marc
Bella Vista
Utility Coordination Meeting
1 /09/02
Roger Buffington, Daryl Sigler, Nick Haws, Doug Martine, Connie Hoskins
(Qwest), Bob Rulli (Qwest), Eldon Ward (Cityscape), Damon Holland (Cityscape),
Wes Lemarque, Dennis Greenwalt, Chuck McNeal (Bellavista), Connie Woodard
Eldon mentions that he had wanted to put in a bikelane on the south side. A &
B will go first in terms of construction (but all infrastructure and utilities
will be installed in the beginning)
Noted that a variance request is needed in order to reduce the utility easement
widths along Horsetooth Road and Stanford Road. The variance request needs to
come from Northern and will need all the utility cos. approval before this can
be granted. Also brought up the question of right-of-way on top of easement
along Horsetooth.
Connie Woodard (gas) -- existing 4' line, 8 feet south of existing row along
Horsetooth and 2' line 1 feet west of existing east row along Stanford. No
need to continue a line, just extend services.
Marc Virata - RE: Bella Vista Minute Notes Page 2
Bob Rulli -- States that: they just need to extend services, they have an
existing manhole. No need to continue a new service line, just extend
individual services.
Dennis Greenwalt -- concerned about potential private storm drain need to be
sure that the owner locates this as they don't want to be responsible for
repairs to private line that should have been located. No service agreement
with owner and AT&T.
Per Eldon, all the buildings will be sprinklered and the underground parking
will as well.
Doug -- needs 3 phase power everywhere. Need to adjust landscaping to get
transformer in. Will need proper clearances from transformer. Requires the
builder to provide service from transformer to the building. Individual
metering required. Takes a special kind of meter. Doug okay with indoor
metering. Concerned about capacity, can only get 208, not 240. Eldon thinks
the developer will provide appliances. Doug also wants additional light pole
along Stanford.
Connie (gas) - would like to be on the opposite of electric. Need individual
metering. Will be feeding from Horsetooth for A-C. Maybe D is off Stanford
Bob -- inside telephone locations within the building. 4 inch conduit into
each building from the point of presence near the intersection installed by the
Developer.
Dennis -- need a service agreement before doing work.
Overall, looks like electric will be the only utility perhaps having to go
through the parking garage. Since all utilities are only concerned about
servicing the site, reducing the utility easements my not be an issue.
January 28, 2002
Mr. Mark Varata
City of Fort Collins Engineering Department
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
RE: Bella Vista
Request for Variance
NORTHERN
ENGINEERING
1 Q
Mark,
This letter is in regards to the Bella Vista project, and in particular, to request several
variances. Our client for this project is Stanford Development Group.
The first request is in regards to sight distance easement for Stanford Road. It is my
understanding that for the classification for Stanford Road, the design speed is 40 mph.
Based on a design speed of 40 mph, per Figure 7-16, a minimum sight distance triangle
of 660' is required. The driveway is approximately 350' north of Horsetooth Road.
The variance we are requesting is that the sight distance triangle for the driveway be
reduced from 660' to 310'. This virtually ensures visibility into the northerly edge of the
intersection off lorsetooth Road. This also provides the minimum required sight distance
for a design speed of 30 mph, which is what Stanford Road is currently signed for _This
easement will be dedicated on the plat.
The second request deals with the driveway onto Horsetooth Road. The minimum
spacing for driveway spacing from an arterial roadway is 660'. Our driveway is 610' east
of the intersection.
The location of the driveway is somewhat dictated by the configuration of the site. The
area of the site east of the intersection is being used for a water quality pond. Movements
for this intersection are also being limited. There will be a "pork chop" installed in this
driveway to restrict entry from eastbound traffic, and limit movements at this driveway to
right in and right out. Therefore, this driveway will have minimal impact on traffic at the
intersection of Stanford and Horsetooth.
The variance request is that the minimum distance from an intersection to a private
driveway be reduced from 660' to 610'
The third request is for the utility easement along the north side of Horsetooth Road. Per
the LCUASS, a 15' utility easement is required. We have had utility coordination
meetings on the project, and all of the utility companies party to this easement agree they
do not necessarily need a 15' easement, and that a 9' easement will be sufficient.
1 ? 0 SONIII HOWFS. SOITF 202, FORT COUINS, CUOMO 80521, (970) 221-4158, FAX (970) 221-4159
The variance request is that there is a 9' utility easement north of the Right -of -Way for
Horsetooth Road instead of a 15' wide utility easement.
We feel justified in requesting the variances. This allows the driveways in a location that
the developer, and City staff believes provides the best protection of pedestrians, traffic,
and the ultimate property owner. We do not feel that this variance will be detrimental to
the public health, safety or welfare, nor will it reduce the design life of any public
roadway or cause the City of Fort Collins additional maintenance costs.
Please call if you have any questions.
362
Roger A Curtiss, P.E.
Project Manager
cc: Eldon Ward — Cityscape Urban D69fgh"
Frank Vaught— Vaught -Frye Architects
MEMORANDUM
01)
co
Ln
O
m
coo
TO: Chuck McNeal, Stanford Development LLC
•
Javier Martinez Campos, Stanford Development LLC
0
0>
Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design
o
Cr
cp
City of Fort Collins
O
O
O
U
rn
FROM: Matt Delich
•
o
X
a
tL
DATE: January 28, 2002
z
a
w
SUBJECT: Bella Vista Transportation Impact Study - Response to
O
staff comments (File: 0160ME01)
J
C)
w
>_
O
C�
This memorandum responds to a staff comment regarding
¢
M
0)
Pedestrian LOS for the Bella Vista development, proposed in the
z
northeast quadrant of the Horsetooth/Stanford/Landings intersection.
Appendix A contains an e-mail message detailing the staff comment,
I
which originated from Tom Reiff, but was transmitted by Mark Jackson,
z
iii
who is the transportation planning staff member reviewing the Bella
w
o
Vista de v,�l opment proposal. The comment specifically relates to the
o
directness standard within the overall Pedestrian LOS evaluation.
r
There is no sidewalk on the east side of Stanford Road between
N
cu
❑orsetooth Road and Monroe Drive. The Bella Vista development would
build sidewalks adjacent to their site as a component in creating the
site infrastructure. It is staff's desire to force Bella Vista to
build the remaining sidewalk on the east side of Stanford Road. I
contacted Mark Jackson on January 25, 2002 to discuss this comment
and could not convince him that this issue should be dropped.
Therefore, I am required to address this in detail, in order to
demonstrate that this issue should not be forced on Bella Vista.
As stated in the "Bella Vista Transportation Impact Study,"
November 2001, this site is in an area type termed "transit corridor"
and "other." In order to simplify the Pedestrian LOS analysis, the
W
highest minimum level of service was used in the transportation
impact study (T1S) However, in light of the staff comments
C.
z
regarding Pedestrian LOS and the specific standards (directness,
¢
tonalunity, street crossings, visual interest and amenity, and
w
i
security), there may be merit in relating each destination area to
a specific area type. Obviously, the area type termed "transit
V
z
corridor" only applies to existing and future transit routes in the
_J
W
area. The minimum level of service for "transit corridor' is B for
W
z
O
all categories, except for the visual interest & amenities category
a
where it is LOS C. The closest that the existing Routes 1 and 6 get
¢
to the Bella Vista site is the intersection of Horsetooth Road and
a
JFK Parkway. The directness standard for these routes is LOS A,
srnc e. actual./measured (A/M) ratio is 1.0. Existing Route 5 operates
z
a
1—
on Horsetooth Road adjacent to the Bella Vista site. The directness
standard for this route is LOS A, since the A/M ratio i_:; 1.0.
W
dS
Existing_ Route 7 operates on Stover Street, Monroe Drive, and an
c)
unnamed east./west street south of Monroe Drive. The nearest has stop
to the Bella Vista site is located on Stanford Road, approximately
200 feet south of Monroe Drive. The pedestrian route (with existing
Qsidewalks)
from Bella Vista to this site would be crossing Stanford
Road norm of Horsetooth Road and then proceeding north (on the east
side of Stanford Road) to this bus stop. The distance is approximately
1200 feet. The A/M ratio is 1.0. Therefore, the directness standard to
this bus stop is LOS A. This exceeds the minimum directness standard of
Los B. The distance to a Route 7 bus stop by walking on the east side of
Stanford Road (where no sidewalk exists) is approximately 1200 feet.
Therefore, it is concluded that the Bella Vista site meets/exceeds the
directness LOS standard without having to build a sidewalk on the east side
of Stanford Road adjacent to the Aspen Leaf Apartments.
The future Fort Collins Transit System Plan indicates a high
frequency corridor on Horsetooth Road. This corridor is adjacent to the
Bella Vista site. Therefore, the directness standard for the future
transit system will be acceptable at LOS A.
The area type termed "other" would apply to all other pedestrian
destination areas with 1320 feet of Bella Vista. The minimum level of
service for "other" is C for all categories. In the comment, staff
indicated that a minimum of LOS B was necessary for the directness
standard. This is not the case for the area type termed "other." The A/M
ratio for LOS C is 1.4 to 1.6. The issue in the staff comment was directly
related to people living in the apartment/condos on the east side of
Stanford Road and their ability to get the retail/commercial services that
are proposed on the Bella Vista site. In my conversation with Mark
Jackson, he indicated that the specific residential areas were the Aspen
Leaf Apartments and the Windmill Condominiums.
There are existing apartments (Aspen Leaf Apartments) located to the
north of the Bella Vista site, between Stanford Road and Stover Street.
These apartments also are adjacent to Monroe Drive. The location is
depicted by the letter "X" on the pedestrian influence area graphic shown
in Appendix B. This apartment complex has sidewalks along its frontage on
Horsetooth Road, Stover Street, and Monroe Drive. There is no sidewalk
along the Stanford Road frontage (approximately 900 feet). This apartment
project, when approved by the City of Fort Collins, was not required to
place a sidewalk in this area. There is a landscaped strip, approximately
40 feet wide, that has grass, trees, and an extensive irrigation system.
It is important: to note that, other than the adjacent sidewalks mentioned
above, the only sidewalks within this apartment complex are in the
apartment building area in the center. These internal sidewalks take
residents from the buildings to the inside edge of the parking area. In
order to reach a vehicle or leave the property as a pedestrian, a person
must walk through the parking lot. Therefore, it is concluded that the
parking lot itself is, in fact, part of the pedestrian system for this
apartment complex. As shown on the Bella Vista site plan provided in
Appendix C (circled), a direct pedestrian connection is made to the parking
lot of this apartment complex. Since the parking lot is part of the
pedestrian circulation system, this direct sidewalk connection achieves a
level- of service A for the directness standard. Building sidewalks along
the frontage of this apartment complex could not improve on the level of
service A for the directness standard for this apartment complex as a
specific destination area.
The Windmill Condominiums are depicted by the letter "Y" on the
pedestrian influence area graphic shown in Appendix B. From the northeast
corner of the Stanford/Monroe intersection (a common starting point for a
pedestrian) to the nearest retail./commercial land use within the Bella
Vista site, the shortest measured distance is approximately 1000 feet. This
measured distance is long the east side of Stanford Road along the frontage
of the Aspen Leaf Apartments, where there is no sidewalk_ The route that
currently has sidewalks would require a crossing of Stanford Road to the
west side, then proceeding south to the north side of Horsetooth Road, and
crossing Stanford Road to the Bella Vista site. This actual distance
scales at approximately 1540 feet. The A/M ratio is 1.54. Conversations
with Mark Jackson indicated that staff calculated the A/M ratio at 1.55.
Based upon my analysis and the staff analysis, it is concluded that the A/M
ratio for the directness standard will be at LOS C. As discussed above,
the minimum standard for directness standard is LOS C and is, therefore,
acceptable.
The above analyses and discussions clearly demonstrate that the
directness standard is acceptable. Therefore, the Bella Vista development
should not be forced to build the "off -site" sidewalk adjacent to the Aspen
Leaf Apartments. If the City feels that this segment of sidewalk is
critical, it should be funded by the City or by the owners of the owners
of the Aspen Leaf Apartments.
APPENDIX A
Page I of 1
Matt Del
From: "Eldon Ward" <eldon@cityscapeud-com>
To: "Matt Delich (E-mail)" <mdelich@frii.com>, "Frank Vaught (E-mail)" <fvaught@vfavfr.com>,
"Javier Martinez Campos (E-mail)" <javier.martinez3@world net. att. net>, "Chuck McNeal (E-mail)"
<cmcneal@fni.com>' "Daryl Sigler (E-mail)" <daryl@northernengineering.com>
Cc: "Daman Holland (E-mail)" <daman@cityscapeud.com>
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 11:38 AM
Subject: FW: Bella Vista Pedestrian LOS
Eldon Ward, President
Cityscape Urban Design, Inc.
3555 Stanford Road
Suite 105
Fort Collins, CO 80525
(970)226-4074
(970) 226-4196 - FAX
eldon(ri?cityscapcud.corn
-----Original Message -----
From: Mark Jackson [SMTP:mjackson(� fcgov.com]
Sent: Friday, January 2.5, 2002 8:44 AM
To: mcirata((Mcgov.com
Cc: rhenslcy!d fcgov.com; treiff(d cgov.com
Subject: Bella Vista Pedestrian LOS
Flowdy,
Tom Reiff has come to me and (he's very persuasive) shown how the Bella
Vista project fails to meet Pedestrian LOS level B for directness. We had
previously talked about the possibility of requiring Bella Vista to
complete the sidewalk connection on the east side of Stanford. 1 had
initially resisted as 1 thought nexus would be tough to establish. Seeing
this however, I would like to amend my comments and call for the developer
to make this side,.valk connection. It is unreasonable to assume that people
living in the apartment/'condos on the east side of Stanford will cross to
the west side to walk to any retail/commercial services back on the
northeast corner of Stanford and Horsetooth.
Please add this comment to the list and let me know if you have any
questions or if 1 can provide further information.
Thanks Marc.
MJ 4IL, 2�
1 /25/2002
APPENDIX B
Cd�Y72 a o
urban design, inc.
BELLA VISTA
Statement of Planning Obiectives
November 28, 2001
Bella Vista embodies the basic philosophy of City Plan — that higher quality, pedestrian
oriented, higher intensity mixed -use infill development is to be encouraged as a positive
alternative to low density, automobile oriented sprawl.
1) Site Description.
a) Bella Vista is located on a ±3 acre site at the northeast corner of East Horsetooth Road and
Stanford Road in Fort Collins.
b) The City of Fort Collins Structure Plan indicates this property is a part of a Medium Density
Mixed Use Neighborhood Area; and this specific site is located at the confluence of
Employment, Community Commercial, and Residential districts.
c) The Structure Plan also indicates that Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhoods should be
located next to Community Commercial Districts and along existing or future transit routes,
and should have higher densities. The plan further assumes that about 10% of the new
housing built in the early 2V' Century will be in the form of infill development, indicating that
infill sites will necessarily be developed at a higher level of intensity.
d) An important goal of the Structure Plan is, "...to work towards more complete
neighborhoods... so more of our daily needs are met closer to home. This will reduce
dependence on driving..... [These] changes [will be] occurring in existing neighborhoods over
time, as opportunity allows."
e) Key NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER elements of the existing area surrounding Bella
Vista include:
i) A definable pattern of increase in building height, mix of uses, and development
intensity centered on the lot including the Marriott Hotel and the Marriott expansion
site adjacent to Bella Vista.
ii) A mix of sloped and flat roof forms; with generally more flat roofs to the north and
west of the site, and more sloped roofs to the south and east.
iii) A wide variety of building finish materials including stucco, wood, brick and other
masonry.
iv) A "stair step" architectural approach to the highest buildings.
v) A "saw -tooth" building pattern along the Horsetooth Road frontage adjacent to the
corner of Horsetooth and Stanford.
vi) A mix of contemporary and more traditional architectural forms.
vii) The lack of an identifiable neighborhood center.
viii) A generally good variety of housing types, but a lack of "higher -end" multi -family
units.
ix) The confluence of land uses at the intersection of Horsetooth and Stanford is also
located at one of only two signalized four-way intersections between College
Avenue and Lemay Avenue.
x) While Horsetooth Road features a formal vista of Horsetooth Mountain, no other
strong visual landmarks exist as termini for street vistas. The alignment of
Stanford Road and Landings Drive create the opportunity for a strong visual
landmark at the northeast corner of Horsetooth and Stanford.
2) City Plan Principles and Policies achieved by the plan are outlined and paraphrased below:
a) The City Plan Community Vision document emphasizes the need for a compact land use
pattern (more intense infill is preferable to low density sprawl), variety in housing, pedestrian
G: \W P\9000\9600\9601objt.doc
N
Y
0
o c: o
� � X �O
4
co
Horsetooth
O
arc
ac
0\ �
SGALt: I z=buu
PEDESTRIAN INFLUENCE AREA
f,�\
APPENDIX C
4Z I
:� I% r
SCALE: 1"=100'
lie
r
' I
tiv>Eu iEnE nPnmF+Exrs r � r 1 ;
srawcww /��
-
EiRsrFaRYG
j/ �R r✓ � / C II �� lI , i
REMD'NI NI l I L_
o
(j Y
P
• ^r /� t 6, M.'XEDl194E
ESID6MI
nB'JVE W%ED 45F
{r
ahfor Roa ��i r C /'l
(I w rr
DIKEGT PEDESTKIA/J
CoN/1EGT l OJQ
STMFIRN PW
SiR.
s BRNsm
THIRD R 1
SITE PLAN
III
Landings Drive
(7
Figure 4
W
CI)
Ln
O
0
q
n
0
O
0
0
z
a
w
O
J
w
w
2
w
C7
N
r
N
N
W
2
't
CI)
O
rn
0
t`
rn
a
LL
C)
O
N
m
co
c�
r
rn
�i
0
z
a
0
z
w
w
z
z
z
w
z
0
a
O
a
z
Z
Q
F-
ad
O
LL
a
Lz
TO: Chuck McNeal, Stanford Development LLC
Javier Martinez Campos, Stanford Development LLC
Eldon Ward, Cityscape urban Design
Daryl Sigler, Northern Engineering Services
City of Fort Collins
FROM: Matt Delich -:;P1
DATE: June 19, 2002
SUBJECT: Bella Vista Transportation Impact Study - iorsetooth Road
access (File: 0160ME02)
The direct access to Horsetooth Road from Bella Vista is being
designed as a right-in/right-out/left-in at the suggestion of City
staff. The transportation impact study (TIS) analyzed this access
as a right-in/right-out access. This memorandum provides the traffic
documentation so that Northern Engineering Services can provide the
lane striping design for Horsetooth Road at this access.
Appendix A contains Figure 8, Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic
Prom the cited TlS. With the change of the Horsetooth Road access
to right-in/right-out/left-in, it is likely that half of the 18/1'/
eastbound left turns at the HorsetooCh/Stanford/Landings intersection
would become eastbound left turns at the Horsetooth Road access.
Figures 9 and 10 in Appendix B show the short range (2006) total peak
hour traffic and Che long range (2020) total peak hour traffic,
respectively, with right-in/right-out/left-in access to Horsetooth
Road. This access will operate acceptably in both the short range
future and long range future. Calculation forms are provided in
Appendix C. By inspec Cion, all other key intersections will operate
acceptably.
Given the forecasted traffic shown in Figures 9 and 10 in
Appendix 13, the eastbound left -turn lane should provide storage for
one vehicle (20 feet) plus deceleration, per the "Larimer County
urban Area Street standards" (LCOASS). Given the physical
consCrain--a in the area, the minimum design criteria on Figure 8-02
in I,CDA;9 was used. At 40 mph, the deceleration length should be 280
feet including a bay taper at 160 feet (WS/3). The components of Lite
eastbound left --turn lane at this access will total 300 feet including
bay taper. Desiqu drawings w.i11 be provided by Northern Engineering
Sarvi_ccs.
APPENDIX A
4.
N
f = AM/PM
SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 8
APPENDIX B
0
N
f7
O
1eN-
/ �Iy
^h h
Mal-rot,q
CCess <
Si15
IVO41,
J
0
", o
M
h
0 0 � RTi
^ate ,Access
N O N
O
o
— 70/115
n 0
790/1230
95/150
35/125
�l
865/1040
nl N
15/35
n o
n
iN O N
(O 01
Access
O
O
10110
1010/1300 —�
C
F- u>
0' O N
N �
15/10
�n co
945/1
�-- 945/1485
�.--- AM/PM
Rounded to Nearest
5 Vehicles
40/140 —J
965/1170 —
U)
O
m
I&
N
— 50190
-- 905/1385
Horsetooth
SHORT RANGE (2006) TOTAL Figure 9
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
7,
o p0
n,
nh �y
Ma?ion, � i o
��ess
No4f
10/10
-30/30
no �0 o n'�Tin
h h q
^ ass
N C1 OD
R— 85/135
in o 0
940/1460
J 1 110/175
45/150
1030/1235
O N h
20/40--
» o `n
� r
Access
C
N
� N �
o N
cn �
15/10
�--1125/25/1760 �J y
1Oil 0
120511540 --+►
.. AM/PM
Rounded to Nearest
5 Vehicles
45/170 —)�
1145/1385 —
N
a�
0
A
60/110
-�— 1075/1650
Horsetooth
LONG RANGE (2020) TOTAL Figure 10
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
APPENDIX C
friendly plans, "...and the creation of a distinct urban ambience."
i) Infill and redevelopment will build on the unique and positive qualities of the
neighborhood in dynamic and creative ways.
ii) Housing distribution throughout the community should serve eve income.
i) Community Commercial areas (i.e. the area designated adjacent to Bella Vista) combine
moderate density residential, employment, service, retail, and other uses. The
environment will be conducive to walking bicycling and other modes; Vertical mixed -use
is to be encouraged. Bella Vista represents an opportunity to remedy some of the
shortcomings of the designated Community Commercial area adjacent to the site.
ii) Community growth will be structured in a compact pattern that facilitates pedestrian,
bicycle, and transit travel.
iii) The City is to encourage the private sector to help reduce the number (and length) of
daily trips made by single -occupant vehicles. Vertical mixed -use and higher density near
jobs and services facilitates that goal.
iv) Walking is to be a practical and enjoyable means of travel.
v) The viability of cycling as a transportation choice is to be enhanced.
vi) Housing in many different forms is to be provided in attractive, safe neighborhoods that
encourage walking and social interaction.
vii) Fort Collins will promote the development of high quality multi -family throughout the
community.
viii) The community system of open spaces will include urban streetscapes.
ix) Preferential consideration is to be given to infill and redevelopment with adequate
public utilities and services.
b) Community -wide Principles and Policies achieved by the Bella Vista plan include:
i) Policy LIJ-1.1 Compact Urban Form. The desired urban form will be achieved by
directing future development to mixed -use neighborhoods...
ii) Policy T-5.1 Land Use. The City will promote a mix of land use and activities that will
maximize the potential for pedestrian mobility throughout the community.
iii) Policy T-•7.1 Pedestrian Facilities. The City will encourage the provision of pedestrian
scale improvements that fit the context of the area. This is to include attractive
improvements which enhance the character and pedestrian scale of the urban
environment, and encouraging outdoor cafes and activity areas that contribute to the
character and human scale of the sidewalk environment.
iv) Policy CAD-1.4 Street Tree Design. Street trees should be used in a formal architectural
fashion to reinforce, define and connect the spaces and corridors created by buildings
and other features along a street....
v) Policy CAD-2.2 Public Space Design. Mixed -use commercial proposals should
incorporate pedestrian circulation, plazas, sitting areas, and the like.
vi) Policy HSG-1.1 Land Use Patterns. The City will encourage a variety of housing types
and densities, including mixed -use developments, that are well -served by public
transportation and close to employment centers, services, and amenities. In particular,
the City will promote the siting of higher density housing near public transportation,
shopping, and in designated neighborhoods and districts.
vii) Policy EINV-1.21 Land Use. The City will support proposals for higher density residential
development and mixed land use development in appropriate neighborhoods and
districts, if they are designed to enhance the use of alternatives to single -occupant motor
vehicle transportation....
viii) Policy NIOL-3.2 Urban Public Space. Small pocket parks, public plazas, and sidewalk
gathering places should include "street furniture" such as benches, and be incorporated
into urban designs for... Community Commercial Districts, and Residential Districts
throughout the City.
G:\WP\9000\9600\9601abat.doc
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
Genera Information
Site Information
Analyst
natt
rnldPe
Agency/Go. Co.
rformed
1311812002
Tirne Period
am
--
Project Description 0160
North/South Street
rim -rout -tin
-ast/West Street horsetootlr
Stud Period hrs :
0.25
ntersection Orientation: East-West
ehicle Volumes and Ad'iustments
Eastbound
Westbound
a"or Street
3
4
5
6
ovement
1
2
L
T
R
L
T
R
olume
10
1010
0
0,85
0
085
945
085
15
O.II5
Peak -Hour Factor, PHF
0.85
0.85
0
1111
17
Hourl Flow Rate, HIM
11
1188
0
percent Heavy Vehicles
0
0
Two Way Left Turn
Lane
edian Type
0
RT Channelized
0
2
0
1
2
0
0
anes
T
4
T
TR
onfiguration
L
0
U stream Signal _
_
0
Northbound
Southbound
inor Street
ovement
7
8
9
10
11
12
L
T
R
L
T
R
olurne
eak-Hour Factor, PHF
0
0.85
0
0.85
0
0.85
0
0.85
0
0,65
10
0,85
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
ercent Heavy Vehicles
0
0
0
0
0
ercent Grade (%)
0
0
Flared Approach
N
N
Storage
0
0
T Channelized
0
0
Lanes
0
0
0
0
0
1
R
ration
_
Queue Len th and Level of Service
Southboundent
ch
EB
WB
Northbound
relay,
1
4
7 8
9
10 11
12
R
onfiguration
L11
11
474
(m) (vph)
627
0.02
lc
0.02
0.07
51yo queue length
0,05
12.8
Control Delay
10.8
8
LOS
B
128
pproach Delay
8
pproach LOS
v. �t�.,�, -i nr
Intersection
iorsetooth/nn-rout-tin
Jurisdiction
fort Collins
Analysis Year
006
//Uti'00lI
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
eneral Information Site Information
Intersection horsetooth/rin-rout-lit)
nal st natt
Agency/co 1Ijdpe
Date Performed 5/18/2002
Jurisdiction
Analysis Year
fort collies
2006
nalysis Time Period ¢m nn
—
—
ro ect Descri tion 0160
North/South Street: rin-rout-lie
ast/West Street horsetootll
Study Period hrs : a25
entation East-West
umes and Ad'ustmentsWestbound
Eastbound
Vehicle
3L
1
2
R L
T
R
10
T
1300
0 0
1485
10
eak-Hour Factor, PHI= 0.85
085
0.85 0.85
0,85
0.85
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 11
1529
0 0
1747
11
ercent Heavy Vehicles 0
-
0
Two Way Left Tum Lane
edian Type
0
T Channelized
0
2
0
anes 1
2
0 0
T
TR
onfiguration L
T
0
stream Signal
0
inor Street
Northbound
Southbound
ovement 7
8
9 10
11
12
R
L
T
R L
T
olume
eak-Hour Factor, PHF
0
0.85
0
0.85
0
0.85
0
085
0
0.85
10
Q
oudy Flow Rate, HFR
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
ercent Heavy Vehicles
0
0
0
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
fared Approach
N
N
Storage
0
0
0
T Channelized
0
1
Lanes 0
0
0 0
0
R
onfiguration
--
-
ela , Queue Length, and Level of Service
Southbound
pproach EB
WB
Northbound
1
4
7 8 9
10 11
12
overnent
R
ane Configuration L
11
(vph) 11
295
(m) (vph) 361
0.04
Ic 0.03
0.12
5%n queue length 0.09
177
ontrol Delay 15.3
C
LOS C
17.7
Approach Delay
C
Approach LOS -
V,"'n I lr
Lt '�^PUU��� Copyright <'$lUo Univcnfly orl9on la, All Rcscrvcd
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information
Site Information
rorselooth/rin-rout-lin
Analyst
Hatt
Intersection
urisdiction
fort colli is
_
Agency/Go.
rnjdpeV.
1812002
nal sis Year
2 202
Date Performed
Analysis Time Period
am
ro ect Description 0160
North/South Street:
fin -tout -fir?
ast(West Street: horsetooth
tudy Period hrs :
025
ntersection Orientation: East-West
ehicle Volumes and Ad'ustments
Eastbound
Westbound
a'or Street
3
4
5
6
ovement
1
2
R
L
T
R
L
10
T
1205
0
0
1125
15
olume
eak-Hour Factor, PHF
0.95
095
0,95
095
0,
0.95
15
ourl Flow Rate, HFR
10
1268
0
84
ercent Heavy Vehicles
0
—
0
Two Way Left Turn Lane
edian Type
0
T Channelized
0
2
0
1
2
0
0
anes
T
TR
onhgwation
L
T
0
stream Si nal
0
Northbound
Southbound
inor Street
9
10
11
12
ovement
7
8
L
T
R
L
T
R
olurne
eak-Hour Factor, PHI-0,95
0
0
095
0
0,95
0
0.95
0
0�5
10
.95
010
ourly Flow Rate, HFR
0
0
0
0
0
ercent Heavy Vehicles
0
0
0
0
0
ercent Grade (%)
0
0
lared Approach
N
N
Storage
0
0
0
T Channelized
0
0
1
Lanes
0
0
0
0
R
onfiguration
elay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Southbound
pproach
EB
WB
Northbound
1
a
7 8
9
10 11
12
overnent
R
ane Configuration
L
10
(vph)
10
449
(m)(Vph)
589
0.02
!c
0,02
0.07
5 Y. queue length
0.05
13.2
ontrol Delay
112
B
LOS
B
13.2
pproach Delay
B
pproach LOS
//(SY001114 � PlonuY/�u
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
eneral Information
Site Information
Intersection orsetooth/nn-rout-lit)
Analyst
ency/co.
Date Performed
anal[
nd e
G/18/ 002
id
Jurisdiction
Analysis Year
fort Collins
2020
nawis Time Period
r rm
—
ro ect Descri )tion 0160
North/South Street: nn-rout-fin
-ast/West Street horsetoollr
Study Period hrs): 025
ntersection Orientation: East-West
_
ehicle Volumes and Ad'ustments
Eastbound
Westbound
Westbound
a"or Street
3 4
5
overnent
1
2
R L
T
R
L
10
T
1540
0 0
1760
10
olume
eak-Hour Factor, PHF
095
0.95
095 0.�5
0.95
0.95
010
burly Flow Rate, HFR
10
1621
0
ercent Heavy Vehicles
0
—
— 0
Two Way Left Turn Lane
edian Type
0
T Channelized
0
2
0
1
2
0 0
anes
T
T
TR
onfiguration
L
0
streaS dal
m
0
Northbound
Soulhbound
inor Street
8
9 10
11
12
ovement
7
R L
T
R
L
T
0
0
0 0
0
10
olurne
eak-Hour Factor, PHF
0.95
0,95
0,95 0.95
0.�5
0,0
ourly Flow Rate, HFR
0
0
0 0
0
ercent Heavy Vehicles
0
0
0 0
0
ercent Grade (%)
0
0
fared Approach
N
N
Storage
0
0
0
2T Channelized
0
0
1
0
0
0 0
anes
R
.onfiguration __
ela , Queue fen th and Level of Service
Southbound
pproach
EB
WB
Northbound
1
4
7 8 9
10 11
12
overnent
R
ane Configuration
L
10
(vph)
10
272
(in) (vph)
329
0.04
/c
0.03
11
0.11
50% queue length
0.09
18- 7
Control Delay
16.3
C
OS
C
18.7
pproach Delay
—
C
pproach LOS
//('ti:0001 h1 l opynphl rt'^(H1O rIImCISt(y OI I'Ifvltl9, All k ", us ncs Ivud
m
CO
LO
0
0
0
0
0
c�
0
z
E
w
J
Q
z
N
N
N
LU
n:
U_
J
LIJ
r
G�
LL
i
G
v
0
0
LO
co
0
0)
July 15, 2002
Engineering Department
City of Fort Collins
P.O_ [3ox 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
File: 0160LTO!
a To Whom it May Concern:
u_
Based upon the "Larimer County Urban Area Street
:',I-andards," (LCOASS), Figure 8-14, a westbound right -turn
lane is warranted on Horsetooth Road approaching Stanford
Road. While not sped=ically discussed in LCUASS, right-
turn lanes improve both the operation and safety at
c° intersection by removing right -turning vehicles from the
CD through lane. This is particularly relevant at
y unsignalized intersections where it is important that the
o through _raffic 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
slowina due to the signal at the Horsetooth/Stanford/
Landis- intersection. Approximately 40', of the time
during the peak hours, traffic on Horsetooth Road will be
app-roaching a red signal indication. Even when not
approaching a red signal indication, there is a driver
expectation taat there will be turns at this intersection.
There is an existing physical constraint that makes
construction of this right -turn lane extremely difficult.
This constraint is an existing sewer under Horsetooth Road
z and inlet at the location of the right -turn lane. The
w sewer_ under Horsetooth Road is at a high elevation.
w
z Shanging the is -et location may cause the sewer lines to be
z change:i. provision of this right -turn lane would tie an
Ld ,xtI to the City of Fort Collins. In
z �a r - 2e t-e is small, especially
g a ui�i:zn hi:,, the 11a � .�ta
ain hF, ne`rti:/;;ctitn direction. Necessary features of the
o --"urn lane is bull'
I- w, 'emcns ated�n the trarnsportarion ,_:npact
z
a �ica gat _r _ - -ble perat._-n a_-i be achieved wi`.hout
H w-�sr-b:,uno -ihr turn lane on Icrsetooth Road. The
�rh06 ct cu =nt1y _ _-st. while
U
Hcr: c rroth .cad, the -- ght-�.,.rnrng
a 1r 0 nor crea. _ ,i.4n Le4ntly. Phere
would be corrected by the presence of a westbound right -turn
lane. Not having this right -turn lane will not be detriniental
to the public health, welfare, and safety.
Due to the physical constraints and the additional issues
stated shove, it is respectfully requested that the westbound
right -turn Dine on Horsetooth Road approaching Stanford Road not
be required.
Sincerely,
Matthew J. Celich, P.E.
Go
Ln
0
03
O
a
R
0
0
C�
0
w
O
J
W
[L
0
z
w
tI
z
C7
N
t`
N
N
W
L=
r
m
TO: Chuck
McNeal,
Stanford Development. LLC
0
to
Javier
Martinez
Campos, StanLord Development LLC
F,ldon
Ward, cityscape
[)roan Design
�
Daryl
Sigler,
Northern Engineering Services
City
of Fort
Collins
rn
R
FROM MaLL
Delich
leo
LL
DATE: July 18, 2002
SUBJECT: Bella Vista 'Transportation Impact, Study - Pedestrian Level
rp of Service (File: 01(,0MP03)
O
N
m
� 'Phis memorandum responds to the pedestrian level oC service
o (LOS) for Bella Vist.a, related to the Windmill Condominiums as the
do,nat t_i i on arnc ea. The Windmill condominiums arlocated in the
r-
Lj
nurthea:;I. quadrant of the Stanford/Monroe in Le rsec L ion. The cited
z 'I' I d ui not . i ncl ude the W indmi l 1 Conciomin i urns in t:lie pedes tri an LOS
O anaIys Ia, since IIt( pedestrian affinity between t_he WindrniIt
LL condominiums and Bella Vista would be very small. Ilowever, sLaff
i ucl i_cat U(I I.haI this did net maLt.er and concLuded that the pedestrian
LOS, namely directness, did not meet- the ievel of service 13 necessary
Lot a "transit corridor" or "school walking area."
Figure. 1 shows Lhe location of the Windmill Condonuniums and
BPIJa Vita. The pedest. rian LOS worksheet for Lhis analysis is
provided in Appendix A. The latest site plan shows a pedestrian
crosswalk on ;Lanford Roar) near the north portion of Life Bella Vista
site. Thera wi_11_ be 'bulb -outs" on the east side of Stanford Road
which will provide a shorter_ crossing distance of Stanford Road. from
the- nor 1. he,u;I corner- of Lhe Stanford/Monroe intersection (a common
:;Lort.ing poinh for a pedestrian) In I=he Bella Vista site, the
WortvsL measured distance is approximately 1000 feet. This is
nunasnred al_onq tire eastside of Stanford Road, alonq Lhe frontage of
c7 t_he Aspen Leaf Apartmen Cs, where there is no sidewalk_ The route
z
that. currently has sidewalks would require crossing to the west: side
w of Stanford Roacl, [-hen proceeding south [-o the aforementioned
pode:;1 rian cro:;swaLk, and Chen crossing Stanford Road back to the
z ear;l si(lP to the Bo).la Vista site to the same point. since Stanford
11J pond i:; approximately 60 feet wide, I_his route would be 1120 feet.
O ThP dir-ecl_nc;r; standard is calculated by (lividing the actual (A)
G dist'ancc by Lhe. urinirtwm (M) distance. I -or LOS B, the A/M ratio is
¢ 1.2 to 1.4. The ca].c:ulaLed ratio for fire two routes descrihed above
O
X i:; 112!0/1000 or 1.12. The directness standard is determined Lo be
z .it Los A with the pedestrian crosswalk on StanfordRoad,Road, near the
north pertionof t_he Bella Vista site.
H
'd It is concluded that the pedestrian LOS will moot- the criteria
O for "transit corridor" and "school walking area."
IL
Q
Q
1O - Windmill Condominiums
Horsetooth
M
SCALE: V" 500'
P16,
PEDESTRIAN INFLUENCE AREA Figure 1
APPENDIX A
Em
CO
oB
11i][i-ii
.9
Ih
1
C
7
I U
ix) Policy GM-5.1 Phasing of Development...... Preferential consideration will be given to
the extension and augmentation of public services and facilities to accommodate infill
and redevelopment...
x) Principle GM-8: The City will promote compatible infill development in targeted
areas within the Community Growth Management Area Boundary.
c) Neighborhoods Principles and Policies achieved by the Bella Vista Plan include:
i) Policy MMN-1.3 Non -Residential Uses. Secondary uses can fit this transitional higher -
activity location including the following:
ii) Principle MMN-2: The layout and design of a medium density Mixed -Use
Neighborhood will form a transition and a link between surrounding neighborhoods
and the... Community Commercial District.
iii) Policy MMN-2.2 Relationships and Transitions at Edges. Non-residential uses and
larger buildings of multi -family housing should be encouraged to be near the commercial
core...
iv) Policy IMMN-2.3 Building Orientation. Buildings will face public sidewalks or other public
outdoor spaces that connect to streets... Parking lots must not be the primary focus of
buildings. Examples of public outdoor spaces include... squares, gardens with walkways,
and courtyards.
v) Principle MMN-3: A Neighborhood Commercial Center will provide uses to meet
consumer demands from surrounding Residential Districts for everyday goods and
services, and will be a pedestrian oriented place that serves as a focal point for the
surrounding neighborhoods.
vi) Policy MMN-3.2 Surrounding Neighborhoods. The Neighborhood Commercial Center
should be integrated into the surrounding Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood,
contributing to the neighborhoods positive identity and image...
vii) Policy MMN-3.3 Urban Design Character. Buildings will be placed to form active
commercial street fronts and other connecting pedestrian spaces. The visual dominance
of parking should be reduced by ... forming interior -block locations for parking...
viii) Policy MMN-3.6 Central Feature or Gathering Place. A Neighborhood Commercial
Center will include a comfortable, prominently located plaza or other public gathering
place with amenities such as benches, kiosks,..... Other recreation uses could be
combined with the public gathering space.
ix) Policy EXN-1.4 Infill Development and Redevelopment. Infill/redevelopment policies...
will apply to proposals for such activity in designated areas.... For parcels under 20
acres, infill activity will be supported if designed to complement and extend the positive
qualities of surrounding development and adjacent buildings... Compatibility with
existirig elements does not mean uniformity.
x) Policy EXN-1.5 Introduction of Neighborhood -Related, Non -Residential
Development. New services, conveniences, and/or gathering places will be supported
in an existing neighborhood that lacks such facilities, provided they meet performance
and architectural standards......
d) Districts Principles and Policies
i) Policy RD-1.4 Landmarks and Views. View corridors to the mountains or other
landmarks should be a basic consideration in the arrangement of streets, Neighborhood
Commercial Centers and other shared spaces within a Residential District.
ii) Principle CCD-1: Community Commercial Districts will be community -wide
destinations... offering retail, offices, services, and higher density housing. The
physical environment will promote walking, bicycling, transit and ridesharing, as
well as provide a high quality urban life for residents. Vertical mixed -use will be
encouraged.
G:\WP\9000\9600\9601objt.doc
Marc Virata -Belle Vista Variance Request
From:
Eric Bracke
To:
Marc Virata
Date:
9/11 /02 1:26PM
Subject:
Belle Vista - Variance Request
Marc,
Thank you for sending over the Belle Vista Variance request regarding the WB right turn lane on
Horsetooth @ Stanford. Based on our previous discussions and meetings, the request is acceptable and
should be granted.
Kind Regards,
Eric L. Bracke, P.E.
Traffic Engineer
(970)224-6062
ebracke@fcgov.com
CC: Britney Sorensen; Mark Jackson; Ward Stanford
City of Fort Collins
Community Planning, and Environmental Services
Building and Zoning Department
1997 liBC Permit Exemptions
Section 106.2 w/Amendments
A Building Permit shall not be required for the following:
1) Detached accessory buildings used for playhouses, lawn and garden equipment, tool storage
and similar uses provided such buildings do not exceed one hundred twenty (120) square feet
of floor area nor eight (8) feet in height, do not house flammable liquids in quantities
exceeding ten (10) gallons per building and are constructed entirely of noncombustible
materials when located less than three (3) feet from an adjoining properry line.
2) Fences not over six (6) feet in height.
3) Oil derricks.
4) Movable cases, counters, and partitions not over five (5) feet nine (9) inches high.
�) Retaining walls that are not over four (4) feet in height measured from the bottom of the
footing to the top of the wall, unless supporting a surcharge or impounding Class I, II, or III -
A liquids.
6) Water tanks supported directly upon grade if the capacity does not exceed five thousand
(5.000) gallons and the height to diameter or width does not exceed 2:1.
7) Platforms, walks and driveways not more than thirty (30) inches above grade and not over
any basement or story below.
8) Painting, repairing, wallpapering, texturing, cabinetry and similar finish or cosmetic work.
9) Temporary motion picture, television and theater stage sets and scenery.
10) Window awnings on Group R Division 3 and Group U Occupancies projecting not more that
fifty four (54) inches, window replacement requiring no structural alteration and when such
work is determined not to be historically significant, storm window. storm door and rain
gutter installations.
11) Prefabricated portable swimming or wading pools, hot tubs or spas accessory to Group R
Division 3 Occupancies when the walls are entirely above grade and contain water no more
than twenty-four (24) inches deep.
12) Exterior walks, driveways, parking lots except as required for facility accessibility by Chapter
11.
13) Roofing repair or replacement work not exceeding one (1) square of covering per building.
14) Replacement of non-structural siding on buildings classified as Group R Division 3 and
Group U Occupancies.
1j) Minor work valued at less than five hundred (500) dollars and not involving alteration of
bearing walls, structural or fire -rated assemblies, plumbing, electrical or mechanical
components or fire -extinguishing systems.
Marc Virata - Re: Stanford Signing and Striping (Fwd Bella Vista PDP) Page 1
From: Eric Bracke
To: Mark Jackson, Tom Reiff
Date: 1017/02 2:29PM
Subject: Re: Stanford Signing and Striping (Fwd: Bella Vista PDP)
Let's try to look at this; from a bigger picture point of view. First, having the southbound through lane line
up with the NB left turn lane is not safe for anyone. Second, as the southbound through movement
weaves to the west (due to the offset) to get into the receiving lane, what are the odds the motorist is
looking for a cyclist on their left? This puts the cyclists at high risk in a side swipe accident.
I would resubmit that unless there is a way to have Belle Vista make geometric improvements at the
intersection, the existing striping pattern is safer for cyclists and motorists.
Eric
>>> Tom Reiff 10/07102 02:12PM >>>
Mark,
My opnion is that this is a heavily used north to south bike route in the City. Its used by people going to
work or the mall since riding on College is not permitted and by students going to and from Boltz Jr. High.
By separating the facilities it improves safety and visibility for those cyclists. Something should be done at
this intersection.
If you also note the proposed bikelane on Horsetooth is also dropping off at the intersection. This is going
to make matters worse in an area that needs improvements.
Let me know what you decide
Tom
>>> Mark Jackson 10/07/02 01:19PM >>>
Tom,
Can you please weigh in on this one? Is this an all or nothing situation?
Thanks,
MJ
CC: Marc Virata; Randy Hensley
��.,
Marc Virata - Re Stanford Signing and Striping (Fwd Bella Vista PDP) Page 1
From: Eric Bracke
To: Marc Virata; Mark Jackson; Tom Reiff
Date: 10/7/02 1:12PM
Subject: Re Stanford Signing and Striping (Fwd: Bella Vista PDP)
A 9' offset is not acceptable. The existing striping pattern should remain.
Eric
>>> Marc Virata 10/07/02 11:34AM >>>
I had made the comment last round for Bella Vista to show the existing striping on Landings Drive to verify
how the proposed striping on Stanford will line up across Horsetooth. Northern Engineering has
responded with the attached information and is looking for input on direction.
The existing striping in the attachment shows that there currently is a 3+' offset for the southbound through
movement. By adding the bike lane for southbound Stanford (which currently dies before the
intersection), the offset is further magnified (around 9'). Due to the existing constraint of the opening for
Landings Drive coupled with the desire for the right turn lane on southbound Stanford as well as the
bikelane, there appears to be no way around the offset issue.
Is the offset issue something than can be accepted as a variance request in your judgment, or are there
options that I'm not seeing regarding the striping?
Thanks,
Marc
>>> "Daryl Sigler" <daryl(a)northernengineering.com> 10/07/02 08:53AM >>>
Marc,
Enclosed are files containing the existing and proposed striping scenario's
for Stanford Road. Take note that the proposed southbound thru lane for
Stanford, does not align with the southbound thru lane for Landings Drive.
Please review and comment at your earliest convenience.
Thank You,
Daryl
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti -virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.385 / Virus Database: 217 - Release Date: 9/4/2002
14 October 2002
Mr. Bob Mechels
Vaught Frye Architects
401 West Mountain Avenue. Ste 200
Ft. Collins, CO 80521
Re: Bella Vista Nlixed-use Development
Job No. 3 17 1.0
Dear Bob:
As a result of our preliminary structural investigation into framing solutions for the above
referenced project, we have included a preliminary study of the impact to the structure from
emergencv seniccvehicles in the emergencv access area. Our study has included a preliminan
analysis in conformance to the "Design of Precast Parking Decks with Fire Truck Load"
publication bN the Colorado Prestresser's Association. In addition, we have contacted and
received information from the Poudre Fire Authority (Mr. Ron Gonzales) regarding the fire
equipment which would be anticipated for use at this site.
Our preliminary evaluation indicates that precast prestressed concrete double tees 10' wide and
24" deep will be required for the spans in the emergencv, access area. These tees would be used
in conjunction with a 5" thick composite concrete topping slab. Originally conceived column
locations have been adjusted to provide capacity for support of the precast double tees and the
inverted T-beam members.
During the construction document design phase of this project. final structural designs for tlhe
parking structure will be based on the above referenced manual in conjunction with final
information obtained from the Poudre Fire Authority and the equipment manufacturers.
We understand a signed and stamped letter will be required at the completion of the
construction documents phase indicating the emergency access area has been designed to
support the live and dead loads of the emergency services vehicles. RNF Consultants will be
prepared to execute such a document at the completion of the final design phase.
Please call if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
RNF CONSULTANTS. INC..
Ronald N. Frickel, P.F. 14 _ e�
President
RNF/co
WCONSULTANTS • STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS • 11290 W ALAMELIA • LAKEWOOD COLO. • 80226 • 303 • 986 7546
Marc Virata - Re: Spindrift CourllHorsetooth medians (Bella Vista) Page 1
From: Eric, Bracke
To: Marc Virata
Date: 11/14/02 4:02PM
Subject: Re Spindrift Court/Horsetooth medians (Bella Vista)
The design as shown will cause problems. If they were to build a median to accomplish the left in/left out,
it should be designed as a channelzed "T" intersection. This will provide the mass and safety required.
Eric
>>> Marc Virata 11/14/02 02:23PM >>>
Hi Eric,
At the second neighborhood meeting for Bella Vista last night, traffic issues were raised by residents living
in the Cove Island neighborhood. They expressed concerns regarding their ability to turn left from
Spindrift Court to westbound Horsetooth, as well as situations where vehicles traveling east on Horsetooth
looking to head north on Stover will use the reversible left turn lane early before passing Spindrift Court
and potentially creating a head-on collision issue for westbound Horsetooth vehicles looking to turn into
their development.
It was suggested that: a raised median(s) be put on Horsetooth west of their entrance for a few reasons.
In their view: 1) It will prevent vehicles from using the reversible turn lane until after the Spindrift Court
intersection. 2) It could be designed to allow them to have a protective pocket to make lefts out of their
neighborhood, "vehicular refuge". 3) By having the area raised rather than painted it will also serve as
protection for those heading eastbound turning left into Bella Vista.
The Developer indicated that they would be in favor of the residents requests. I indicated that we typically
don't like to install medians for short stretches but will check with you on this.
Attached is an image file of what the residents were proposing (with the exception of the second northern
"ribbon" median which I drew in, recalling something you sketched on Lemay when discussing Fossil
Creek Community Park.) Is this concept, to provide a vehicular refuge for Cove Island, something that
could be looked at in your view? If not, what are the issues so that we can formally get back to the
neighborhood on this? If this is a possibility, then what are the design parameters? (with regards to
minimum median widths? is only the southern median sufficient? 12 foot minimum lane? etc.) (I think if
you agreed to do this, the Developer will find that it involves much more right-of-way and design work, and
they'll back off from being as agreeable to the neighborhood.)
Thanks!
Marc
CC: Steve Olt
Interoffice Memorandum
Date: 02/26/03
To: Cam McNair, City Engineer
Thru: Dave Stringer, Development Review Manager 7Z>`
From: Marc Virata, Development Review Engineer
RE: Variance Requests for Bellavista PDP
Northern Engineering Services Inc., on behalf of Bellasvista Development, L.L.C. has
submitted three variance requests pertaining to the Bellavista PDP. These requests dated
.January 28, 2002, involve sight distance, driveway separation, and utility easement width
concerns. A response to these variance requests had been intentionally delayed until
various site design issues were worked out during the project development plan process
and verification was received from outside agencies (utilities) that the overall design is
plausible and possible. The project is presently in its sixth round of review and appears
to have many design issues addressed with multiple agencies; therefore processing these
variance requests appears to be appropriate. I'm of the opinion that all three of the
variance requests can be supported and do not appear to be a detriment to the public
health and safety.
The first variance request is to reduce the corner sight distance easement for Stanford
Road from 660, to 310'. The design engineer provides fairly condensed justification,
noting that a 310' sight distance fits the criteria for a design speed of 30 mph, which is
the posted speed limit for Stanford_ At the February 14, 2002 Transportation
Coordination Meeting, this variance request was discussed and it was concluded that
support of the variance request is justifiable. This was based upon the conclusion that the
driveway is set higher in elevation than the intersection of Horsetooth and Stanford,
which allows, for better visibility and gives ample reaction time for ingress/egress turning
movements from the driveway with this lessening of the sight distance. In addition, the
relatively close proximity of the driveway to the Stanford/Horsetooth intersection results
in reduced speeds in the general area because of movements slowing or stopping at the
intersection.
The second variance request is to reduce the minimum distance from a high volume
driveway on Horsetooth Road to the Horsetooth Road/Stanford Road intersection
from the standard of 660' to 610'. The design engineer justified this request based
upon a "pork chop" island being installed to limit ell movements to right -in -right out
for the driveway. At the same previous Transportation Coordination Meeting, this
variance request was discussed and also concluded that it could be supported. The
difference between 610' and 660' was seen as minimal. In addition, the latest revision of
the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, allows for the separation to be from
460' to 660'; under the new standards, a variance request is not needed.
The third and final variance request is to reduce the standard u_tility_easement _width on
Horsetooth Road from 15' to 91. This variance request has been the main issue in
processing Northern's letter. After several rounds of review and multiple utility
coordination meetings, all the utilities have indicated that the 9' utility easement is
sufficient. This is mainly due to none of the utilities needing the easement along
Horsetooth Road for distribution to surrounding areas. Their concern was strictly serving
the development, which did not require the full 15' in width in order to accomplish this.
Please inform me of any questions or concerns you might have.
Marc Virata - Bellavista offstreet bike area Page 1
From:
Marc Virata
To:
Mark Jackson; Tom Reiff
Date:
2/27/03 3:41 PM
Subject:
Bellavista offstreet bike area
Messrs. Jackson & Reiff,
Dave and I were looking at the detail that Northern provided (finally) for the area where the WB Horsetooth
Road bikelane goes off-street and merges with pedestrians. In the last round of comments, the comment
was made from Trans Plan that there are safety concerns with this area and to contact Tom for further
discussion. Were these safety concerns addressed in this latest submittal?
The comment previous to that last comment concentrated on safety for the bicyclists leaving the public
street area. Dave and I were postulating that the present design could be a concern for pedestrians,
especially for blind pods who might walk down the bike area onto Horsetooth, thinking its an intersection.
It seems that the sidewalk on the south side of the planter strip running parallel to Horsetooth isn't a good
pedestrian space with the merging with bicyclists. Any thoughts?
If you're in agreement and in general are uncomfortable with the design, we should try to come up with
suggestions/changes that work better, although perhaps not reinventing the wheel with this being the sixth
round of review. Maybe put Bellavista on Trans Cord next week for old times sake?
Thanks,
Marc
CC: Dave Stringer
Marc Virata - Fwd: Bellavista offstreet bike area
Page 1
From:
Mark Jackson
To:
David Averill; Tom Reiff
Date:
2/27/03 3:55PM
Subject:
Fwd: Bellavista offstreet bike area
Can you work with Marc on this to address your previous concerns? I think Marc raises a good point
about the potential conflicts with peds. Let me know what you come up with.
IA91
CC: Marc Virata
(1) Bella Vista represents an opportunity to make up for many of the shortcomings of the
adjacent Community Commercial area.
iii) Policy CCD-1-1 Primary Activity Centers. Community Commercial Districts will be
uniquely distinct and identifiable places. These Districts are primary activity centers within
the community and should act as important destinations for living, working, and
shopping...
e) Corridors Principles and Policies
i) Policy TC-1.1 Locating Transportation Corridors. Transportation Corridors will
include... Horsetooth Road...
ii) Policy TC-4.4 Density of Development. A compact land use pattern will guide
development of Transportation Corridors by providing densities necessary to support
alternative modes of travel, such as walking and bicycling...
iii) Policy TC-4.5 Infill and Redevelopment. The City will encourage infill and
redevelopment in corridors that complement and support the efficiency of the
Transportation Corridor.
3) Site Design Elements.
a) Open areas at Bella Vista comprise an intricate system of terraced walkways, urban
character plazas, courtyards, formal streetscape treatment, perimeter landscape buffering,
and a more passive open area in the easterly portion of the site.
b) Access, circulation, and parking are designed according to Code requirements, balanced with
direction from City Staff. Full movement access is located at the northerly end of the site
frontage on Stanford Road; a right-in/right-out access is provided on Horsetooth Road at a
location that allows the needed left turn lanes at Stanford/Landings while allowing the
existing full -movement access into the Cove Island Townhomes to remain; An "in only'
access to the underground residential parking is provided on Stanford Road across from the
existing driveway access serving the Stanford Plaza office building.
c) Buildings are: designed with respect to the NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER elements listed
above. The proposed buildings will provide a visual focus and an improved mix of housing
and other uses to help create a more complete neighborhood.
4) Ownership and Maintenance.
a) All common areas at Bella Vista are anticipated to be owned and maintained by a property
owner" association.
b) Dwelling units and non-residential building spaces are anticipated to be held in condominium
ownership.
5) Estimated Employment.
a) Employment for 40 to 60 persons — a number of who may be residents of the site — is
expected at Bella Vista.
6) Planning Rationale and Assumptions that have shaped the plan for Bella Vista include:
a) The basic premise of City Plan — the promotion of quality, urban, infill at higher intensity — is
appropriate at this site located at the juncture of one of Fort Collins' key activity centers, with
existing surrounding employment and residential uses.
b) This site represents an opportunity to create a more complete neighborhood by adding an
element of higher -end multi -family residential uses, bolstering the adjacent "Community
Commercial" area, and demonstrating the "urban ambience' sought by City Plan.
c) Parking should be largely hidden from public view; and resident parking should be covered,
safe, and clearly distinguished from guest/patron parking.
d) While the development is primarily residential, non-residential uses that may help reduce the
number (and/or length) of automobile trips by residents of the site and surrounding area - and
uses that foster social gathering - should be included.
7) Applicable LUC Criteria.
a) Article 3 criteria — as applicable — are met to the best of the applicant's knowledge.
G:\WP\9000\9600\9601objt.doc
1 Marc Virata RE. Bella Vista
From:
"Eldon Ward" <eldon@cityscapeud.com>
To:
"Marc Virata" <MVIRATA@fcgov.com>
Date:
9/27/03 8:18AM
Subject:
RE: Bella Vista
Marc,
Sorry, I had out of town meetings most of last week. In response to your
e-mails
1. You are correct to leave "Bella Vista" as two words for the Development
Agreement; and we'll leave it as one word on all the plan sheets.
2. The architects and contractors are still trying to figure out how - or
if - the parking structure can be phased and still maintain fire (and other
service vehicle) access. We're not sure, but it may be that virtually the
entire parking structure will have to be constructed initially, and the
second phase of occupied buildings added above. It is understood that fire
access will have to be maintained through the phased construction of the
project. I think the best we can do at the moment is put language to that
effect in the Development Agreement.
Eldon Ward, President
Cityscape Urban Design, Inc.
3555 Stanford Road
Suite 105
Fort Collins, CO 80525
(970)226-4074
(970) 226-4196 - FAX
eldon@cityscapeud.com
-----Original Message -----
From: Marc Virata [mailto:MVIRATA@fcgov.com]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 11:53 AM
To: eldon@cityscapeud.com
Cc: cmcneal@thegroupinc.com, javier.martinez3@worldnet.att.net
Subject: RE: Bella Vista
Eldon,
I did a search at the state's business center and it appears to me that
the LLC is two words: "Bella Vista Development". Please see the
attached screen shot from their website. Alternatively you can click on
the link below and search business entities.
http://www.sos.state co.us/pubs/business/main.htm
Thus, I'm assuming the DA (as well as the ownership blocks on the plat
and site plans) should all read "Bella Vista Development LLC". Please
let me know otherwise. The titles of the site, landscape, plat,
utility, etc can all remain one word ("Bellavista") from a City
perspective, provide all ownership information is reflected as legally
documented.
Thanks,
Marc Virata - RE: Bella Vista Page 2
Marc P. Virata
Civil Engineer
City of Fort Collins - Engineering Department
Phone: (970) 221-6605
Fax: (970) 221-6378
mvirata@fcgov.com
>>> "Eldon Ward" <eldon@cityscapeud.com> 09/17/03 08:55AM >>>
Marc,
We just noticed that on the contact information form for the
BELLAVISTA
Development Agreement, the project name was broken into two words
(Bella
Vista) It should be one word as per all the drawing sheets.
Thanks,
Eldon Ward, President
Cityscape Urban Design, Inc.
3555 Stanford Road
Suite 105
Fort Collins, CO 80525
(970)226-4074
(970) 226-4196 - FAY
eldon@cityscapeud.com
-----Original Message -----
From: Marc Virata [mailto:MVIRATA@fcgov.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 11:50 AM
To: eldon@cityscapeud.com
Cc: cmcneal@thegroupinc.com, javier.martinez3@worldnet.att.net
Subject: RE: Bella Vista
I did look in Planning and couldn't find the document in Steve's files
and I'm not finding it in mine as well. I'd appreciate the file being
filled out and can just be emailed back to me at your convenience.
Thanks, Marc
Let me look further on this to see if it's in Planning or in a stack
I'm not finding before asking it to be re -done, I'll respond again
shortly. Thanks, Marc
>>> "Eldon Ward" <eldon@cityscapeud.com> 08/26/03 11:29AM >>>
Marc, I thought we submitted the form with the check set of Final
Compliance
Plans. However, I'm forwarding the electronic copy you just sent me
to
Chuck and Javier. They'll fill it out again and return it to you.
Thanks,
Eldon Ward, President
Marc Virata - RE: Bella Vista Page 3
Cityscape Urban Design, Inc.
3555 Stanford Road
Suite 105
Fort Collins, CO 80525
(970)226-4074
(970) 226-4196 - FAX
eldon@cItyscapeud.com
-----Original Message -----
From: Marc Virata [rriailto:MVIRATA@fcgov.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 10:18 AM
To: eldon@cityscapeud.com
Subject: RE: Bella Vista
Eldon,
My recollection is that I've been awaiting to receive back the
"information for development agreements" sheet which I need to start
working on the DA. At a meeting I had recently with Northern
Engineering (Nick Haws and others) prior to the last submittal, I seem
to recall asking them if the information sheet was going to be
submitted
back in to me, they seem to recall sending it out but it hadn't been
filled out yet.
If I'm wrong on all this, my apologies. Just in case, attached is an
electronic version of the document.
Having the plat filed in September shouldn't be a problem from a DA
standpoint. We do need to ensure that the easement from Aspen Leaf is
completed (if not already) before the DA can be executed.
Thanks,
Marc
>>> "Eldon Ward" <eldon@cityscapeud.com> 08/26/03 09:49AM >>>
Thanks, Marc. What is the status of the Development Agreement. We
hope to
get the Plat filed by late September.
Eldon Ward, President
Cityscape Urban Design, Inc.
3555 Stanford Road
Suite 105
Fort Collins, CO 80525
(970) 226-4074
(970) 226-4196 - FAX
eldon@cityscapeud.com
-----Original Message -----
From: Marc Virata [rnailto:MVIRATA@fcgov.com]
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 11:50 AM
To: eldon@cityscapeud.com, Steve Olt
Subject: Fwd: Bella 'Vista
Marc Virata RE Bella Vista Page 4'
Steve & Eldon,
I had sent out via email last week a comment letter generated for
Bella
Vista in Steve's absence.
I just realized that Eric Bracke's comments weren't incorporated.
They
are noted below.
Thanks,
Marc P. Virata
Civil Engineer
City of Fort Collins - Engineering Department
Phone: (970) 221-6605
Fax: (970) 221-6378
mvirata@fcgov.com
>>> Eric Bracke 07/28/03 02:07PM >>>
Marc,
I went over the utility plans for the Bella Vista project and my
comments are as follows:
Sheet 19:
- we don't use "diamonds" anymore for bike lanes
- the only stencil required for the westbound approach is the left
turn
arrows. The thru and thru/right are not necessary.
Eric
CC: "Frank Vaught" <fvaught@vfavfr.com>
Community Planning and Environmental Services
Current Planning
February21, 2007
Mr. Javier Martinez -Campos
Bella Vista Development, LLC
4025 Automation Way, Suite B-3
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Subject: Bella Vista PDP one-year extension
Dear Javier,
The City of Fort Collins has reviewed and approved your request for a one year
extension to the Bella Vista PDP Fourth Filing #45-01A/B officially approved and
recorded on October 4, 2004. Based on this extension, all engineering
improvements (water, sewer, streets, curb, gutter, street lights, fire hydrants and
storm drainage) must be completed no later than October 4, 2008.
Pursuant to Section 2.2.11(D) (4) of the Land Use Code, I am authorized to grant
an additional one year extension should you find that the above new deadline
cannot be met. Application for such extension must be requested in writing no
later than September 4, 2008. Please note that additional requests beyond the
two consecutive one year periods fall outside my purview and may only be
authorized by the Planning and Zoning Board.
Should you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free
to give me a call at 970/221-6765.
Sincerely,
Cameron Gloss, Al
Current Planning Director
cc: Steve Olt/Project File
Marc Virata
Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design
281 North College Avenue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020
BellaVista Development, LLC
February 21, 2007
Cameron Gloss
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning Department
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
Dear Cameron;
This letter represents a request for an extension of the effective period of approval for
the BellaVista development plans, as per the provisions of the Fort Collins Land Use
Code section 2.2.11 (D), (4). It is our understanding that the Director may grant
extensions for two (2) successive period of one (1) year each. The Development
Agreement for BellaVista is dated April 26, 2004, and the Plat was recorded on October
4, 2004. Therefore the extension requested here will result in the approved plans
remaining in effect through October 4, 2008. It is our further understanding that, if
requested in writing by no later than September 4, 2008, the Director may also grant an
additional one year extension.
Please let me know by March 19, 2007 if this request for an extension has been
approved.
Sincerely,
Javier Martinez -Campos
Bella Vista Development, LLC
cc: Eldon Ward: Cityscape Urban Design
Lucia Liley: Liley, Martell, and Rogers
BellaVista Development, LLC
4025 Automation Way Suite B-3
Ft. Collins CO, 80525 970 472 9234
b) MMN District criteria are addressed as follows:
i) Purpose. Bella Vista provides concentrated housing within easy walking distance of
transit, and a commercial district; proposes supporting land uses that serve the
neighborhood; and is configured to create an inviting and convenient living environment.
ii) Uses. "Type 1" uses as per the L.U.C. are proposed.
iii) Land Use Standards.
(1) The density proposed exceeds the minimum code requirement of 12 d.u./ac.
(2) The site is less than 16 acres, so there is no requirement for a mix of housing types.
(3) Over 90% of the dwellings are within '/4 mile of an existing Community Facility (the
Youth Activities Center at Stanford and Monroe).
(4) The: plan comprises less than 10 acres, but contributes to the overall mix of land use
within the surrounding area as described above.
iv) Development Standards
(1) The block configuration, size, and structure have been pre -determined by existing
streets and adjacent development.
(2) Over 50% of the block faces consist of building frontage, plazas, and other functional
open space.
(3) Building Height is governed by L.U.C. Section 3.8.17 (A) (3).
(4) No minimum setback from street rights -of -way is required.
8) Conflict Mitigation.
a) Proposed buildings are oriented so that windows look away from the adjacent apartment
units, and toward mountain and lake views. Adjacent Cove Island Townhome buildings are
oriented toward Warren Lake, and away from the Bella Vista site.
b) Ground floor non-residential uses are placed in the locations most impacted by traffic.
c) Terraced landscape treatment along perimeter streets creates a pedestrian scale
environment while providing enhanced privacy for residents.
9) Primary Neighborhood Meeting Issues included:
a) Building Height.
i) The buildings are decreased in height as the distance from the commercial area
increases, and to complement the "stair step" design of the Marriott.
ii) Architectural articulation (breaking up facades, roof forms, balconies, first floor patios and
plazas) has been increased to provide additional visual relief.
b) Land Use Mix.
i) The proposed non-residential uses are limited, and are of low intensity. The provision
of these uses is clearly consistent with the intent of City Plan.
c) Horsetooth Road Access.
i) The proposed right-in/right-out access is located to allow the Stanford intersection to
function as needed, and to allow continued full movement into the Cove Island
townhomes.
d) Pedestrian vs. Automobile Orientation.
i) The argument that, "All of the surrounding area is totally automobile oriented, and
therefore a pedestrian friendly urban environment is therefore inappropriate." Simply
cannot be supported by City Plan or the Land Use Code.
10) Project Name.
a) The applicants for Bella Vista are not aware of any previous names assigned or any previous
development applications made to the City of Fort Collins for this property. An early concept
for Bella Vista was presented at a Conceptual Review Meeting on April 3, 2000.
11) Anticipated Development Schedule.
a) Construction at Bella Vista is expected to begin in June of 2002. Construction of Buildings
A and B should be completed by early or mid-2003; with total site build -out by sometime in
2005.
G:\WP\9000\9600\9601objt.doc
From: Toni Reiff
To: Dave Stringer, Eric Bracke;
Date: Fri, Nov 30, 2001 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: Bella Vista
92
Katie Moore; Matt B...
>>> Katie Moore 11/30 4:14 PM >>>
Please add my name to further emails regarding Bella Vista. I'll be the engineer on the project.
Thanks, j
Katie
>>> Tom Reiff 11130 3:24 PM >>>
I think the right turn lane and a wide median are both necessary and should be designed with the project.
However, according to our street standards if the intersection exceeds 56' in width a pedestrian refuge is
necessary within the imedian. If there is a right turn lane and bike lanes (shown on the site plan), which
are both needed for the roadway then a median refuge would also need to be included.
It would make for a challenging design, but since Landings / Stanford is an important route to school, the
mall, the new CFC Youth Center, and with the new development, there will be an increase in pedestrian
traffic further necessitating the need for a pedestrian refuge.
Tom R.
>>> Eric Bracke 11/30 9:37 AM >>>
I just reviewed the utility plans for Bella Vista and have several concerns.
1. At a Transportation Coordination meeting awhile back, we discussed the median design and if I
remember correctly, we were going to have them "mirror' the median on the west leg for symmetry. They
are still showing a strip median that is bound to be hit by cars and snow plows
2. They are showing 1 V lanes on westbound Horsetooth. I can easily live with the 11' thru lanes but
would like to see a 12' wb left turn lane.
3. The developer is not showing a WB right turn lane at the intersection of Horsetooth/Landings. The
developer is not causing the need for the right turn lane but the need exists, in my opinion. Based on
Figure 8-04 of the Larimer County Urban Area Streets Standards and the NCHRP Report 279, a
westbound right turn lane is warranted. Acceptable LOS can be achieved without the right turn lane, but
our standards state there should be one installed. Is this a project the city will participate?
Please let me know your thoughts.
Kind Regards,
Eric L. Bracke, P.E.
Traffic Engineer
City of Fort Collins
970-224.6062
ebracke@fcgov.com
CC: Kathleen Reavis; Mark Jackson, Steve Olt; Ward ...
Marc Virata - Re. Bella Vista Page 1
From: Marc; Virata
To: Basil Harridan, Clark Mapes, Eric Bracket Marc Virata, Mark Jackson, Peter Barnes,
Roger Buffington, Ron Gonzales; Steve Olt, Tom Reiff, Wes Lamarque
Date: 1/3/02 2:07PM
Subject: Re: Bella Vista
Further discussions with PFA and Transportation Services have taken place regarding Bella Vista. I don't
think a meeting among City Staff is necessary at this point. A synopsis of transportation/emergency
services issues is as follows:
- PFA is requiring 30' of fire lane width along the private drive north of the buildings for access. This is
consistent with LUC 3.6.4(D)(3)
Horsetooth Road Design:
-The highest priority from Transportation Services (Engineering, Traffic, Transportation Planning) involves
no offset of lanes across the intersection of Horsetooth/Stanford. Currently a 4.5' offset is measured on
the road design, no offset will be allowed for this design.
-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.
-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.
-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.
I will be revising my comments in DMS to reflect these discussions. Let me know of any concerns.
Thanks,
Marc
>>> Marc Virata 12/26 2:46 PM >>>
The project known as Bella Vista PDP was discussed today at staff review in some length, but with a
limited number of staff persons (understandably) present for the discussion. It appeared that issues were
raised from various viewpoints (transportation, emergency services, planning) and that there may be the
potential of conflict between departments.
Discussion on the project concluded with the thought that City Staff should meet together to discuss their
respective concerns and recognize any conflicts between Departments. Because of the somewhat
intense development proposed on this infill project, issues such as roadway widths, right-of-way and utility
easement widths, as well as building setbacks, could result in changes internal to the development that
may not be viewed favorably by the Developer.
Marc Virata - Re: Bella Vista Page 2
Please indicate your availability the first two weeks in January to discuss this project internally to ensure
that the City's position to the Developer is presented clearly and concisely.
Thanks,
Marc
CC: Cameron Gloss; Dave Stringer, Katie Moore; Matt Baker