HomeMy WebLinkAboutCENTERPOINT PARK THIRD - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2003-07-31r Roy Bingman
Mike Smith
Mauri Rupel
C Ill OI I (mI ( (A I IV, P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Pn!3031484-4220 Ext 726
PUBLIC WORKS and HATER UTILITIES DEPT.
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: November 18, 1980
TO . John E. Arnold, City Manager
FROM: Roger E. Krempel, P.E., Director of Public Works & Water Utilities
RE . Arterial Improvements Associated With Jail Site
The attached memo from Mike Herzig outlines the scope of the Timberline
and Prospect intersection project as originally conceived. Under present
policies, a site such as selected for the jail would not participate in
any way in funding the intersection construction except through street
oversizing fees.
This we believe however, is a case where the City is in a position to
negotiate with the County and should do so, particularly when consider-
ing the construction of Timberline north of Prospect to Mulberry.
An item that has not been conveyed in either of my memos is the cost of
electrical service to the jail site.
REK%sl
CITY OF FORT COLLINS P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Ph(303)4844220 Ext. 726
ars ":': k: PL.�,..: 5'.S".':"4=�..aGs. :T:i_
PUBLIC WORKS and WATER UTILITIES DEPT.
BRI E F I N G MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 27, 1981
TO : Elery Wilmarth, Mayor
FROM: Roger E. Krempel, P.E., Director of Public Works & Water Utilities
RE County Jail Site
The Traffic Office has analyzed the impact of the County jail on the City
street system in the vicinity of Prospect Road and Timberline Road, which
are the nearest arterial streets to the jail site.
The analysis indicates that there will be fourteen County employees which
operate the jail facility. In addition, County personnel estimate that
prisoners will be transported between the jail facility and the Court-
house five times each day.
This impact is very minimal upon the City street system. In fact, for
the size of the jail site the impact is much less than impacts from
normal commercial or industrial uses.
The City staff has previously prepared a schedule of costs and fees
associated with the construction of the jail facility. Included in this
schedule is a charge for street oversizing of over $33,000. This charge
is a fair share of street oversizing expense for the improvement of the
arterial streets in the vicinity of the jail site, and no other charges
would be appropriate in connection with the construction of the jail.
The City and the County have mutual concerns for the improvement of both
Prospect Road and Timberline Road in this part of the metropolitan area
which are not directly tied to the construction of the jail facility.
The City is planning for the future improvement of both streets to meet
projected metropolitan traffic needs. A large portion of both Prospect
and Timberline lie outside the Fort Collins city limits. The City has
proposed that the road and bridge mil levy be used to jointly finance
the improvement of these major roadways.
RK:RB:s1
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 18, 1981
-- 1D: John Arnold, City Manager
TfiHIJ: Roger Krempel, Director of Public Works & Water Utilities
Curt Smith, Director of Planning and Development
Tom Hays, City Engineer
Dottie Nazarenus, Acting Director of Engineering Services
FRCM: Mauri Ru.pel, Assitant City Engineer - Development -2w tf-
RE: Larimer County Jail Site - Subdivision Agreement
To refresh everyone's memory, Council asked us to try to extract some
compensation from Larimer County for Constructing the Timberline Road -Prospect
Road Intersection and Spring Creek Channel improvements and bridges. This was
felt, by Council, to be necessary since the location of the County Jail near
this Intersection will cause considerable traffic increase and will require
these improvements ahead of other anticipated development.
The City has contracted with Centennial Engineering to design this inter-
section and the bridges which are an integral and controlling aspect of the
design. Therefore, we have been unable to arrive at a cost to assess the
County until we had a preliminary cost for this work. Centennial supplied
their design report last week and we are now able to submit a suggested
assessment.
The Southeast Quadrant of the Intersection contains five industrial and/or
ccnTr�ercial city subdivisions north of the Colorado and Southern Railway
tracks. These contain 152.330 acres of which the County Jail site comprises
14.444 acres, or 9.4820/o of the area. We feel the County should not be assessed
any more than a normal developer which would be the cost of one-half a local
street including curb, gutter and concrete sidewalk four feet wide. For the
full length of the arterial streets (Prospect and Timberline).
The Centennial Report contains a cost estimate (Table I) which is the basis of
the following costs which we believe to be an accurate estimate of the
developers' costs associated with construction of the east side of Timberline
Road from Prospect: South to the C & S Railway, and for the south side of
Prospect Road from Timberline Road East to the north quarter corner of
Section 20 (at Sharp Point Drive). (Table I includes some items which
do not apply (such as the R.R. Crossings) to the Southeast Quadrant and
excludes Prospect Road East of Spring Creek and the Prospect Road Bridge
over Spring Creek. Therefore, we have estimated costs for the missing
items and have deleted items which do not -apply) .
/ h
.77
#.
a"`-."'"�`.�`,'�",'..'�".""�`�"...."'"'�..'' Ph 4$4-4220 Ext. 726
C303ITY OF FORT COLLINS P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 i )
rxa+�ras�waeRW
PUBLIC WORKS and WATER UTILITIES DEPT.
A C T I O N M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: November 20, 1981
TO : John E. Arnold, City Manager (�
THRU. Roger E. Krempel, Director of Public Works & Waler Utilities !
Curt Smith, Director of P1 nning & DevelopmenttS
Tom Hays, City Engineerjf7
Dottie Nazarenus, Assistant to City Engineerx-40
FROM: Mauri Rupel, Assistant City Engineer - Development')j?_�c
RE . Larimer Countv Jail Site - Subdivision Agreement
Council directed staff to compute some equitable charge to Larimer County
for constructing the Timberline Road -Prospect Road intersection and Spring
Creek Chanrr,l improvements and bridges, This was felt by Council, to
be necessary since the locr.tion of the County Jail near .his intersectiof.
will cause considerable traffic increase and will require Lhese improvements
ahead of other anticipated development.
The City has contracted with Centennial Engineering to design this intersec-
tion and the bridges which are an integral and controlling aspect of
the design. Their design report has been received and we are now able
to submit an equitable charge.
The Southeast Quadrant of the intersection contains five industrial and/or
commercial city subdivisions north of the Colorado and Southern Railway
tracks. These contain 152.330 acres of which the County Jail site comprises
14.444 acres, or 9.482% of the area. The County probably should not
be assessed any more than a normal developer which would be the cost
of one-half a local street including curb, gutter and concrete sidewalk
four feet wide; for the full length of the arterial streets (Prospect
and Timberline).
The Centennial report contains a cost estimate (Table I) which is the
basis of the following computation which we believe to be an accurate
estimate of -the developers' costs associated with construction of the
east side of Timberline Road from Prospect south to the C & S Railway,
and for the south side of Prospect Road from Timberline Road east to
the north quarter corner of Section 20 (at Sharp Point Drive). (Table
I includes some items which do not apply (such as the R.R. crossings)
to the Southeast Quadrant and excludes Prospect Road east of Spring Creek
and the Prospect Road bridge over Spring Creek. Therefore, we have estimated
costs for the missing items and have deleted items which do not apply.
* 4" A.C. @ $6.00
12" Base @ $5.04
(420/in/SF)
** Timberline Bridge = 88' x 100' = $580,000.00
Prospect Bridge = 70/88 x 580,000 = $461,363.64
This policy of having the County participate in the cost of arterial streets
which do not abutt their property is not in accordance with present City
policy and may set a precedent which would have future repercussions even
though we would not charge them the current oversizing fee if we charged
the above apportioned cost.
If we were to apply the current street oversizing fee to the Jail Site,
we would .collect $39,721.00 (14.444 a.c. x $2,750/a.c. for industrial).
The above calculations are my interpretation of the verbal agreements which
have been reached by others in the •politics of this subdivision. Please
advise me of any discrepancies before I take them to Wayne Lawler.
MR/sb
cc: Chuck Mabry
Mike Herzig
RER 11 1775 SHERMAN S [REET
JOHNSON SUITE 1120
AW fill 'ECITI IRE DENVER, COWRADO
WIN
ARCHITECTURE 301W.9111
RRCN:RAMMING
IN rIRIORS U33832.9135 FAX
21 July 1997
Ms. Sheri Wamhoff
City of Port Collins
Current Planning Department
281 North College Avenue
Port Collins, Colorado 80524
Dear Ms. Wamhoff:
this letter is a request for Vacation of Easement at the Larimer County Detention Center. Attached are
two site plans showing the extent of the new additions to lie existing facility which are necessitating the
casement vacation.
fhe addition consists of a one story Intake and Administrative addition on the northwest corner of the
facility, it four story Intake and Women's Housing TIM on the southwest comer of the facility, a two story
Medium Security Housing Unit (MSO)on the south west comer of the facility, and it one story Kitchen
and Maintenance addition on the south side of the facility.
'fhe portions of the addition which affect the casement are the one story Kitchen and Maintenance
addition and the two story MST 1. 'fhe Kitchen and Maintenance addition projects into the easement
approximately 38', requiring the relocation of gas, electric, and water line services to The building. The
casement vacation at tlhis location is necessvy for the kitchen and maintenance areas to expand to
accommodate the increased number of inmates. Adequate separation between buildings must be
maintained, therefore the only direction t hat die addition can occur is to Life south.
'I lie MST J contains a two story exercise yard which extends into the easement approximately four feet.
The easement vacation at the MST.I is required because the only room available on the site for this size of
building is to die south of the existing building. Due to the required number of medium security cells,
and the need for an exercise large enough to accommodate the new inmates, the exercise yard extends
into the casement.
A new site survey showing existing utilities is currently being undertaken, however, previous survey
information indicates that the MST addition will not impact any of the existing utilities.
Please review the attached site plans. Drawing Al.1 is an overall site plan, showing The entire site plan
including the existing facility and all additions. Drawing AT 2 is an enlarged utility drawing showing the
casement in greater detail.
Please call with any questions.
Sincerely,
Bob Brashears
Associate Principal
MEMORANDUM
TO: 1,JA-TE->Z/Vq5-r-& Lt'W re�2 (`l-4c) 12 u LD -6 �
FROM: Sheri Wamhoff, Development Review Engineer
DATE: August 15, 1997
RE: REQUEST TO VACATE TWO PORTIONS OF UTILITY EASEMENTS
Attached for your review and comment is a blue line showing Larimer County Detention Facility,
located south of Midpoint Drive near the intersection of Prospect Road and Timberline Road.
Extending west into the site, two portions of utility easement on the `Boundary and Topographic
Survey for Larimer County, Colorado Jail Site Plat' are proposed for vacation. The westerly
vacation is necessary due to the kitchen/maintenance addition which would extend south into the
easement, and the easterly vacation is necessary due to the addition of a medium security housing
unit.
Please sign and return any comments to Sheri Wamhoff in the Development Review Center by
September 3, 1997- If we do not hear from you by this date, we will assume you have no
objections to the proposed vacations. Please call Sheri at 221-6750 if you have any questions.
Thank you.
No Problems
Problems/Concerns as follows:
ItG i ti1}L Z.gck-Ti o1J Ov 04-vt Kl, (►) (S`-1X--i>
LOG�m-s) W ry4i iJ � �►Jl�ni`�
N,�7r-t7 u4,1< U�5G`i o
Sheri Wamhoff - Larimer county Jail - De, 'opment agreement Page 1
From: Sheri Wamhoff
To: Basil Hamdan, Glen Schlueter, Ron Phillips, WPa.
Date: 5/8/98 4:01 PM
Subject: Larimer county Jail - Development agreement
The larimer County Jail Project
Is a development agreement needed for this project?
I had previously talked briefly to Paul Eckman and Dave Spencer (of the County) and the consensus was
if we didn't need to lets not do it
The question has now been raised again by the architect. So we now need a definite answer on this.
Questions:
1) Does the county have to comply with our Code requirements? If not - Are they going to be willing then
to sign a document saying they are going to do these things.
2) Is there specific reasons why we need one for stormwater or engineering purposes?
As for Engineering - The only reason engineering would need an agreement (that I know of) is to
reimburse the county for .5 foot of the walk being built. An agreement is needed for this to occur, but it
does not have to be a development agreement.
I had mentioned this to Dave Spencer of the county after the commissioners hearing and he said for the
amount it was going to be he didn't know if it was worth it doing an agreement.
In regards to this I also don't know if the City has made other arrangements/ agreements with the County
in which the county should not be getting reimbursed. I had heard rumor that the county might be going to
give the City money for the sidewalk that was not going to built that we had wanted. ??
3) Do we do agreements with the County? And politically is this what we want to do?
If any of you can answer these questions I would appreciate some help on this thanks.
Sheri
CC: Dave Stringer