HomeMy WebLinkAboutFORT COLLINS GOOD SAMARITAN VILLAGE - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2003-11-06DATE: December 11, 1996
TO: Mike Ludwig, Project Planner
FROM: Mike Herzig, Development Engineering Manager lv�
RE: Good Samaritan Village Annexation
At the Planning and Zoning Board meeting where the above titled project was heard, the Boarc
asked and heard several questions regarding the annexation of Constellation Drive, the street
adjoining the property proposed for annexation. Most questions focused on annexing more of
Constellation Drive to the north of the subject property. City staff at the meeting attempted to
answer the questions with what they knew. The following discussion may help to clarify the
issues and answer questions remaining.
Annexation of Constellation Drive adjacent to Good Samaritan
When a property is proposed for annexation, we look at the Intergovernmental Agreement
between Larimer County and the City to determine whether the adjoining streets must be annexed
or not. In accordance with the Agreement we either annex an entire width of the street or none at
all. We do not annex half of a street. The other criteria reviewed in the Agreement is whether the
street serves primarily the property proposed for annexation or it "is used primarily for other
County development." The City does not have to annex streets primarily used for other County
development. In this case Good Samaritan proposes to expand its use and take access off of the
adjoining County street, Constellation Drive. The street serves both the property proposed for
annexation and as primary access for County development. Since it serves both needs it became a
choice as to whether the City should annex the street or not. We chose to recommend
annexation. This means, only, that portion of the street, the full right of way width, adjacent to
the property proposed for annexation, would be annexed.
Streets being annexed are not required to be upgraded to City standards at the time of annexation
nor prior to the annexation. Upon annexation the City would take over maintenance of the street
from the County. The County, for many county developments, does not maintain the streets.
However, the City does maintain all public streets to certain levels of maintenance. If an annexed
street was designed and built to City standards, or equivalent to City standards at the time it was
constructed, the City would perform full maintenance in accordance with City maintenance policy,
which currently includes patching, crack sealing, surface treatments, pavement overlays and
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6605
City of Fort Collins
Project No. FTCG-6G8B-04-216
April 12, 1999
Page 2
conform to the City's maximum allowable grades, then a railroad overpass wouldbe required and, therefore,
extend the required design to well over 1000 feet.
Therefore, any redesign effort for the requested stretch along Trilby Road, short of an elevated section,
would likely not conform to City street standards as the maximum allowable grades and grade breaks over
the length of redesign would exceed the standards for an arterial street. If the City does desire to pursue an
elevated road section along this stretch of Trilby Road, the level of design effort should be weighed with
anticipated development in this area, which would most certainly impact such a design. No data has been
made available to Landmark that would be used in determining an appropriate redesign other than the RBD
1995 plan set. Based on a number of unknowns, with respect to future development and existing terrain, it
is di fficult to ascertain the value of theoretical redesign of Trilby Road West ofthe Good Samaritan Village
property line.
With respect to potential adverse impacts that sometimes arise with these types of projects, we feel that g iven
the type of development along this section of Trilby Road, our proposed transition taper is sufficient in that
the potential for adverse impacts to local development would be low. Surface runoff generated at the
Southwest corner of the project site is not expected to flow West on Trilby Road as this area contains a high
point in terrain. Therefore, runoff that historically continued to flow West toward the railroad tracks will
instead be directed to onsite detention facilities, and ultimately released to an outfall point that will not
adversely impact offsite facilities. Further, the cost effectiveness of imposing a costly redesign, that may not
be relevant in the future and almosteertainly would be revised by future development on a much needed non-
profit agency, poses an economic hardship that the Good Samaritan Village finds incredibly hard to justify
from a practicality standpoint.
With these thoughts in mind, and considering the value that the Good Samaritan Village brings to the City
of Fort Collins, the Good Samaritan Village respectfully request a variance from this requirement.
If you have any questions, or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Landmark Engineering Ltd.
John N. Lang, P.E.
Director of Engineering
JNI,/ej
cc: Sherry Friesen, Administrator
Fort Collins Good Samaritan Village
�I« _ mon 1.
_ Har
Dlael. � f c e k av _, efl 1 � ai '_ '_nov i — -- i9e��t._—
' � v.l Cre"6 �� II ' � �� I ,• t
i
�.
I Ate'
•I I
16
lo
4)92
I
II _
1 0
n I
x�ease I �
C I F ll
,9o5
Poi-hie'Y
leesenvir
•
.I
F
T QOLLINSI,
�S �,�• �� �rr� I Ip r.
Ff Pia.` t+'-�" _ � 2 � 43NL �='-i I49�9 -1v • J i \ '- \
_
HHH
Park
O C
,y o"�.
\� er. �r� 13
4 � 9 18i
S 1 t� <p
u
5061)
/ II I
C-
�I J�
�s o
.17
�4
II zl �
s
Y 1
c
IO
II .
�I
_ 19
5/HL _- /-
1/
"•-
23 \
50�9� <99Y
24 . '� I I
I
......
.,1 i �smr
0
0
n
i N
3= Q I " " M "
der �
co co co Ln
v
S�
E W
1C
i
�
o O o
014.
T T
4,
Y
3 a)d
r
to
iJ
T
W
C i L O
n L
E dEr
�ww
v
°��" -�L'
>
f .�=
c
��s�
m
o E m
00
d
O
L\T
W Q
y
L
'0 O
W m
L
N
d cn
d 0
L
3 L N
r T m
> L
d
O
r d 0
m t L
O
d C
T w
O
? L
L
m 0
r
MD m
1--• N
S
.�
m d L
O- >1 O
L .L
C C
u ••-r T
d u
C
O
C V T
S ✓� c�
v c E
d d
4- t
C
d d
c •-
Y 4
o m
U r
r m d
rNn
�
4- w 4- w. ,
a)
L Et
O
inc
Ern
O
L y
m
c
3L
fO0
C,
i
c
f7
1i
E
O O
N yt
N N N m
c4-
O
. G
—V
C L
V
1-
v
'v
d d
m.
0
d L.rn
E c -P
�, E
E Mu
r o
T
J
.. an d
u
d d
>
d al
10
U 0
_
�+ w
a)L. d
ai
'D C
d
m
O L L
o
r
�•
"
d
O N
pp
u w d
d
CO W
F •^+U
O E
daT
L
Lai
C ♦1
pi
O h Z
i� i-. N u
.f-+ >
T m c
y T
d
C-0
4-
d4-
c
d
T
Om
O
d0
mrae
Y d C
ZWN
a) r
NnW
CDO O CD7
d.-O 41
u t
d
0
T N
E C C
O
t'7 v c in
CMr
L
X V
d c T
w
m o aa)
`
L�
E T
0) d�
�..
E
o.c
i o.
O L O
4.
W
4-
c
ViON
vEu
LC
vnY
EHQMO
cm
ET
f m O U
;,�
4- 4- 4-
t tm
m X
j 0
O
O V
v_
0
w
Q
CD CD O le)
i W
L
E N
U N
�1
d d
-L
Z w (Y
O to
N
4-
E O
a
a+
W C 1-
.- r
m
V V
N N N
n
O
C.�d.�
N
3 d 0
n
m
Erb
H
_
CL ya
an d
aaa
NN u
N O
W
r
f
N d m
V C
d • +C•
W
—t O
m
LM
N
nv—
O .w tN
u �+ y N
.uc 4-
N d d
N .m L
�1=
4- 4.. 4. „'
L EL
rno
we
'o
0 0
—
caNi;
��¢
Q o o_ in o
Nn
r m
mot
i
�'��
S C
.�'wc
N E
Of
W
N i0 CD O
O�aO.i
L coV
d O'C
L
•^
IVEE7
E
E
'a 4- d
c w
rL
¢ o T
L '9 0
_
L L L
•z L
O
u X
C u
c
d d L
d n
k
r
a n
U r O
N a0i
m
oa
_
0
E E
E E
W
E
N w
O O O
� N
m
L
u O
C u 0 m
d U V
W W
!- H
I
N
0
C , V
.-Ci CC
T-2
Interoffice Memorandum
Date: 4/26/99
To: Cam McNair, City Engineer
From: Tim Blandford, Development Review Civil Engineer
RE: Variance Request for Fort Collins Good Samaritan Village
Cam —
I recently received a variance request to our street standards from Landmark Engineering, Ltd. John Lang is
requesting a variance to Section 1.02.02.06 of the Design and Construction Criteria Standards and
Specifications for Streets, Sidewalks, Alleys, and Other Public Ways manual ("Street Standards"). This
portion of the Street Standards states that a design shall be completed for an arterial street for 1000 feet beyond
the construction limits of the proposed development.
The existing grade of Trilby Road west of the Good Samaritan Village site exceeds the maximum allowable
slope for an arterial street. In order to meet our Street Standards, an overpass would need to be designed and
constructed over the existing railroad tracks. I feel this is not the kind of burden we want to put on a small
development such as this one, since this is essentially the only way we would feasibly be able to meet the
maximum street grade requirement. After visiting the actual site and reviewing the utility plans for the proposed
development, I feel that the requirement for the 1000 foot design along Trilby Road can be waived based on this
reason. The burden of the design should be left up to the City to figure out. This scenario occurred with the
Waterfield PUD, 1' Filing project, where a grade separated interchange was shown on the master street plan.
The City had the Developer set aside a certain amount of ROW to allow for such an interchange, not actually
design the interchange itself.
Please find enclosed an original copy of the variance request letter and a copy of the utility plans for your
review. Your review and comments regarding this issue would be appreciated as soon as possible so as to not
hinder the progress of this development..
Si erely,
Tim Blandford
Enc.2
City of Fort Collins
Transportation Services
higineerin,g Department
MEMORANDUM
TO: Tim Blandford, Development Engineer
FROM: Cam McNair, City Engineer I IN(� v I
DATE: April27, 1999
RE: Variance Request — Good Samaritan Village
In consideration of the justification presented by the design engineer, as well as your
recommendation regarding this variance request, it is my judgment that the requirements of
Section 1.02.03.06b requiring that "the grade and ground lines of all arterials shall be designed to
continue 1000 feet beyond the end of proposed construction" may be waived in this case. This is
not to be construed as setting a precedent for varying similar requirements on other
developments.
?SI ^yorth Collo gc A%,,nuo • CO. Roy �IW • Frn t Collins, CO Hth22-0� t� • (g7f)i 2,21-660�
Transpo. .tion Services
Engineering Department
May 3, 1999
City of Fort Collins
Mr. Stanley Dunn
Landmark Engineering, Ltd.
3521 West Eisenhower Blvd.
Loveland. Colorado 80537
SUBJECT: VARIANCE REQUEST TO THE STREET STANDARDS
Dear Mr. Dunn:
This letter is to inform you that Cam McNair, the City Engineer for the City of Fort Collins, has
granted you a variance to the City's Street Standards. It is of the opinion of Mr. McNair that the
justification presented by your engineering firm does support the need of the variance. The
variance is for Section 1.02.03.06(b) requiring that "the grade and ground lines of all arterials shall
be designed to continue 1000 feet beyond the end of the proposed construction."
If you should have any questions concerning this matter, please contact this office at
970/221.6605.
Sinc I ,
Tim Blandford `
Development Review Civil Engineer
City of Fort Collins
cc: Troy Jones, City Planner
file
281 Not College AvCnUC • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6605
Transpt tion Services
Engineering Department
City of Fort Collins
Mr. Stanley Dunn
Landmark Engineering, Ltd.
3521 West Eisenhower Blvd.
Loveland, Colorado 80537
May 3, 1999
SUBJECT: FORT COLLINS GOOD SAMARITAN VILLAGE - IMPROVEMENTS TO
CONSTELLATION DRIVE
Dear Mr. Dunn:
This letter is in response to our telephone conversation today, May 3, 1999. As you recall, we discussed
the City's requirement of improvements to Constellation Drive associated with the Fort Collins Good
Samaritan Village development. I did some research and looked into this issue and have found a couple
of items that would be of interest to you. Both items of reference are taken from the Phase 1 — Proiect
Development Plan F"ort Collins Good Samaritan Village (the "Project Development Plan") document that
was prepared by your engineering firm. The date of the document is October 2, 1998.
The Fort Collins Good Samaritan Village project was scheduled a May 5, 1997 Conceptual Review
meeting upon which the City's engineering staff stated that improvements to both Trilby Road and
Constellation Drive were required. Please refer to page 34, paragraph 9(b) of the Project Development
Plan. The Developer and/or his/her representatives acknowledged this requirement by stating that curb,
gutter, and sidewalk improvements were being designed for both the north side of Trilby Road and the
west side of Constellation Drive. Please refer to page 38, paragraph 9(c) of the Project Development
Plan.
Therefore, it is still the City's position to require and expect these necessary improvements to the streets
mentioned above. Because this site was annexed into the City limits, the expected improvements need to
meet the City of Fort Collins' street standards.
If you should have any questions concerning this matter, please contact this office at 970/221.6605.
Sin
5
Tim Blandford
Development Review Civil Engineer
City of Fort Collins
cc: Troy Jones, City Planner
Dave Stringer, Development Review Supervisor
file
281 North College Avenue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6605
Landmark
ENGINEERING Ltd.
May 11, 1999
PrgjectNo. FTCG-6G8B-04-304
Mr. Cam McNair, P.E.
City of Fort Collins
Engineering Department
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-0580
RE: Request for Variance
Fort Collins Good Samaritan Village
Project Development Plan
Dear Mr. McNair:
On behalf of the Fort Collins Good Samaritan Village, two variances are requested from the City of Fort Collins, Design and
Construction Criteria (July 1996). The first is from Section 1.02.03.09(g) - minimum flowline grade of 0.4 percent. This
involves an area of less than 300 feet along Constellation Drive. On this issue, Tim Blandford requested that I consult Rick
Richter, the City's Pavement Management Engineer. A variance was suggested based on the structural status of Constellation
Drive, the existing cross -slope, and the very limited area out of standard. The second request is from Section 1.02.03.14(a) - a
minimum cross slope on all streets shall be 2.0 percent. This involves a very isolated area of less than 100 feet along'I'rilby Road.
'this issue was discussed with Tim Blandford and Dave Stringer, with this variance request suggested as the most appropriate
resolution.
Cross sections and street plan and profile information are attached to aid in your review of these variance requests. Sheet 13 is
associated with Item No. I; Shcet 12 is associated with Item No. 2; and Sheet20 details cross section information for both traffic
corridors.
Item No. I - Request for Variance from Section 1.02.03.09(g)
Minimum grade on gutter shall be 0.4 percent - Constellation Drive
Request for variance from Section 1.02.03.09(g) is based on the fact that existing and proposed cross slopes and flowline
grades along the West half of Constellation Drive meet the City Design and Construction Criteria, with the exception of an
isolated stretch of existing flowline. 'this area is immediately North of Trilby Road on Constellation Drive between Stations
10-1 00 and 13 100. The existing flowline slope is 0.31 percent over the 300 feet.
We have performed a design analysis to mitigate this situation. Our results show that any increase in the flowline grade
along Constellation Drive through this stretch creates a corresponding reduction in cross slope grade. This would place a
portion of the road's cross section below the City's requirement of 2.0 percent. Further, to bring the western portion of
Constellation Drive's cross -slope to City standards, milling would be required from the East edge of the Good Samaritan
Village property line to the road centerline, and corresponding milling and repaving of portions of the eastern half to match
the new centerline grades.
3521 Wrst Eisenhower Blvd.
Lowland, Colorado 80517
Dale D. Olhausen. P.E. & I—S.
President
ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS
Luvcland (970) 667-6286
I;AX (970) 667-6298
Dcnvcr (303) 629-7121
City of Fort Collins
Project No. FTCG-66813-04-304
May 11, 1999
Page 2
With respect to this request, we also feel it is important to note that flowline grades both upstream and downstream of this
isolated section meet City standards. The average existing flowline slope along the East side of Constellation Drive adjacent
to the Good Samaritan Village is 0.41 percent and positive drainage is maintained throughout.
Item 42 - Request for Variance from Section 1.02.03.14(a)
Minimum cross slope on all streets shall be 2.0 percent from lip of gutter to street centerline — Trilby Road
Request for variance from Section 1.02.03.14(a) is based on the fact that existing and proposed street cross slopes along
Trilby Road meet the standards as described in the City's Design and Construction Criteria, with the exception of one
isolated section. The specific area for which this variance is being requested is located over a length of less than 100 feet
at Station 34+00. The existing and proposed cross slope of this section is 1.8 percent.
The basis for this request is that all existing and proposed cross -slopes upstream and downstream of this section meet City
standards, and all flowlines through this section are also within City of Fort Collins criteria. In order to bring this isolated
section up to City standards, approximately 100 feet of road would require milling to a depth of 92-inch at the North edge
of pavement tapering back to nothing at the road centerline. Milling to this depth would have the net affect of reducing the
structural integrity of Trilby Road through this section, as well as creating a rougher section of pavement because Trilby is
not currently scheduled for overlay.
With these thoughts in mind, and considering the value that the Good Samaritan Village brings to the City of Fort Collins, the
Good Samaritan Village respectfully requests variances for Item No. I - Section 1.02.03.09(g) and Item No. 2 — Section
1.02.03.14(a) for the areas discussed above.
If you have any questions regarding either of these requests, or need additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at
(970) 667-6286.
Sincerely,
Landmark Engineering Ltd.
John N. Lang, P.L.
Director of Engineering
JNL/ej
cc: Sherry Friesen, Administrator
Fort Collins Good Samaritan Village
Interoffice Memorandum
Date: 5/12/1999
To: Cam McNair, City Engineer
From: Tim Blandford, Development Review Civil Engineer
RE: Variance Request for Fort Collins Good Samaritan Village
Cam —
I recently received two variance requests to our street standards from Landmark
Engineering, Ltd. John Lang is requesting a variance to Section 1.02.03.09(g) (Item No.1)
and Section 1.02.03.14(a) (Item No.2) of the Design and Construction Criteria Standards
and Specifications for Streets, Sidewalks, Alleys, and Other Public Ways manual
("Street Standards"). Item No. 1 states the minimum grade on a gutter shall be a minimum
of 0.40 percent. Item No. 2 states that the minimum cross slopes on all streets shall be 2.0
percent from the lip of gutter to the street centerline.
Item No. 1: After reviewing the variance request for this portion of the street standards
and reviewing the flowline and cross section design for Constellation Drive
provided by Landmark Engineering, Ltd., I am recommending that the City
denies the request to vary the minimum flowline grade of 0.40 percent. I
believe an alternative design is feasible and needs to be implemented. At
station 12+00.00, the existing cross slope is 2.0 percent. After calculating the
flowline grade between stations 9+99.04 and 12+93.71 at 0.40 percent, the
increase in the flowline elevation at station 12+00.00 is 0.04'. This in turn
would mean the cross slope in this area would fall short of the minimum 2.0
percent, however this would be negligible.
Item No. 2: 1 met with John Lang of Landmark Engineering, Ltd. to discuss this issue. At
that meeting, we discussed the ramifications of maintaining a minimum 2.0
percent cross slope at this location. By doing this, the travel lane would be
less desirable to drive instead of maintaining a minimum flowline grade. This
is the only area of Trilby Road where the cross slope would not meet our
standards (other areas of this road either meet or exceed our minimum
requirements). My recommendation is for the City to grant this variance to the
pavement reconstruction.
For a street annexed that was not constructed to City standards at the time it was built and had
not been upgraded to City standards or equivalent, the City would perform minor maintenance
including patching potholes trying to keep the street passable. Minor maintenance would be done
until the street deteriorated to such a condition that it requires reconstruction. At that time the
property owners adjacent to the street would have to pay for the design and construction of the
street to upgrade it to City standards. After completion of the construction to City standards and
its acceptance by the City, the City would take on full service maintenance, as described above.
The process available to upgrade a street would be an improvement district. With that district
property owners would be given the option to pay off their share in one payment when the
construction was completed or pay their share in equal payment over 10 or 15 years.
When we talk about upgrading a street to City standards, it means upgrading the pavement to a
20 year design life pavement with a concrete border such as curb and gutter, valley gutter or
concrete strip, whichever the City determines is appropriate for the site conditions, such as
drainage on the street or in a borrow ditch. Sidewalk construction where none exists is not
mandatory at this time. Handicap accessibility would be required with the upgrades in accordance
with ADA requirements.
Annexation of Constellation extended north.
Some property owners in the development served by Constellation Drive requested that the
remaining portion of Constellation to the north of the Good Samaritan property to the first
intersection (approximately 200 to 300 feet) also be annexed. We can find no justification with
the Intergovernmental Agreement to annex the extra portion. It serves almost exclusively County
development. Some traffic from the Ridgewood Hills development has in the past used
Constellation Drive to access College Avenue when Trilby Road was under construction and
some traffic still uses it because of left turn delays at College and Trilby. We are still working
with the developer of Ridgewood Hills to fix the College and Trilby intersection to add the east
bound left turn lane on Trilby, a requirement of the Ridgewood Hills development. Good
Samaritan's logical access direction when they develop taking access from Constellation, will be
to Trilby Road not the County development.
Street Improvements by Good Samaritan
When Good Samaritan develops and takes access off Constellation Drive, they may be required to
upgrade the street to City standards. The details of what they would be required to do would be
established during their development review process and depend upon the intensity of their
development. They would be required to mitigate the impacts of their development at most by
making improvements to the adjacent streets, Trilby and Constellation. Since they are adjacent to
Trilby Road, an "improved arterial street" by City Code, they would not have any offsite
improvement requirements except possibly the east half of Constellation Drive. If they changed
their minds and chose not to develop, Good Samaritan would be treated like any other property
owner and have to pay their share for street improvements when the street had to be upgraded.
street standards with the understanding that this would not have a serious
impact to drainage or public safety.
Please find enclosed an original copy of the variance request letter and a copy of the utility
plans for your review. Your review and comments regarding this issue would be
appreciated as soon as possible to not hinder the progress of this development.
Sin
Tim 7BIandford�
Enc. 4
Transportation Services
Engineering Department
City of Fort Collins
June 2, 1999
Mr. John N. Lang, PE
Landmark Engineering, Ltd.
3521 West Eisenhower Blvd.
Loveland, CO 80537
RE: Variance Requests — Good Samaritan Village
Dear Mr. Lang:
I have reviewed these two requests at length, and have determined that Item #2 can be approved
while Item #1 cannot.
Item #2 — Request for Variance from Section 1.02.03.14(a) which requires a minimum cross
slope of 2.0%. The Trilby Road cross slope is only 1.8% for a section of less than 100 feet in the
vicinity of Station 34+00. This is an existing condition in an area where the flowline slope meets
our standards, so I do not anticipate a drainage or safety problem to result from this. The effort
to achieve the 2.0% cross slope would produce little benefit to the public, and in some ways may
be detrimental. This variance request can be approved, for a cross slope of not less than 1.8% on
this portion of Trilby Road. This cannot be construed as setting a precedent for variances for
similar situations on this or other projects.
Item #1 — Request for Variance from Section 1.02.03.09(g) which requires a minimum flowline
grade of 0.4%. The Constellation flowline grade is less than 0.4% for approximately 300 feet
from Station 10+00 to 13+00. This, too, is an existing situation. However, the developer made a
commitment to improve the curb -and -gutter during the review process. The section of curb -and -
gutter in question can be replaced in the same fashion that the curb -and -gutter from Station 4+10
to 6+25 will be replaced. That is, with a 2-ft to 4-11 patch along the edge of asphalt (in the
parking lane). The City is willing to accept a cross slope of less than 2.0% in this case,
recognizing that future repairs and reconstruction on Constellation can create the necessary 2.0%
cross slope. Therefore, this variance request is denied. Implicit in this is approval for a less -
than -standard cross slope on Constellation in the vicinity of Stations 10+00 to 13+00.
Let me know if you have any questions on this. My phone number is 224-6015.
Sincerely,
Cam McNair
City Engineer
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6605
City of Fort Collins
Transportation Services
I iigincering, Department
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dave Stringer, Development Review Supervisor
Tim Blandford, Development Engineer
FROM: Cam McNair, City Engineer 001
DATE: June 2, 1999
RE: Variance Requests — Good Samaritan Village
I have reviewed these two requests at length, and have determined that Item 42 can be approved
while Item #1 cannot.
Item #2 — Request for Variance from Section 1.02.03.14(a) which requires a minimum cross
slope of 2.0%. The Trilby Road cross slope is only 1.8% for a section of less than 100 feet in the
vicinity of Station 34+00. This is an existing condition in an area where the flowline slope meets
our standards, so 1 do not anticipate a drainage or safety problem to result from this. The effort
to achieve the 2.0% cross slope would produce little benefit to the public, and in some ways may
be detrimental. This variance request can be approved, for a cross slope of not less than 1.8% on
this portion of Trilby Road. This cannot be construed as setting a precedent for variances for
similar situations on this or other projects.
Item 41 — Request for Variance from Section 1.02.03.09(g) which requires a minimum flowline
grade of 0.4%. The Constellation flowline grade is less than 0.4% for approximately 300 feet
from Station 10+00 to 13+00. This, too, is an existing situation. However, the developer made a
commitment to improve the curb -and -gutter during the review process. The section of curb -and -
gutter in question can be replaced in the same fashion that the curb -and -gutter from Station 4+10
to 6+25 will be replaced. That is, with a 2-ft to 4-ft patch along the edge of asphalt (in the
parking lane). The City is willing to accept a cross slope of less than 2.0% in this case,
recognizing that future repairs and reconstruction on Constellation can create the necessary 2.0%
cross slope. Therefore, this variance request is denied. Implicit in this is approval for a less -
than -standard cross slope on Constellation in the vicinity of Stations 10+00 to 13+00.
Let me know if you have any questions on this.
cc: Rick Richter
Lance Newlin
281 \oI tII Cnllcge V ('nuc • N) Rna 580 • Fort Collins, C0 80522-(F;80 • (970) 221-660;
Community Planning and Environmental Services
Current Plannim,
Citv of Fort Collins
April 7, 2000
Sherry Friesen
Fort Collins Good Samaritan Village
SOS West"Trilby Road /"R
Port Collins, CO 80525 GJt
Dear Ms. Friesen:
This letter is to summarize the construction phasing that was agreed upon April 5°i when Current
Planning, Light & Power. Public Service. Poudre Fire Authority, and Stormwater met on site with
you and Stanley Dunn to discuss the phasing. Light and Power and Public service can work with
the phasing plan as proposed. The Stormwater improvements must be done in the first phase.
Poudre Fire authority needs a temporary gravel access drive into the construction area fi-om the
west side of the existing building, and can otherwise work with the proposed phasing as Ion, as
hydrants serving each phase are hooked up during that phase. The grading can be done in phases.
1 he streets can be built according to the proposed phases. The Constellation improvements nwst
be done in phase I.
The median in Trilby and the sidewalk along Trilby must be done in phase I. The curb and gutter
For Trilby may or may not need to be done in the first construction phase depending on if there is
enough room within the existing pavement for thru-lanes on Trilby after the median has been put
in. Please have Stanley Dunn coordinate this with Tim Blandford of the Engineering Department
at 221-6605. Stanlcc indicated that it looks like there is enough room. but he will need to confirm
that with'I im. Tim kill be back in the office on Mondac April I o'n
the hig remaining question is whether there is any flexibility with the phasing for the Fort
Collins'Lovcland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District (a representative
was not present). %Nhich at least preliminarily is asking for full water and sewer main installation
at the first phase "I -his agency is not pat of the Cin of Fort Collins government, so I recommend
that Stanley Dun i lead the coordination with them.
Sncerck
Troyllone
City I lao cr
CC: Tim Blandford
Stanley Dunn
,Ilr. Port ( )Ilin,, Ct - (»3I-o�A(l • (U; o) _I-LTI1 •PAX (970) 4I0-31120
LANDMARK ENGINEERING, LTD.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 31, 2000
TO: Terry Farril (Ft. Collins -Loveland Water District/South Ft. Collins Sanitation
District)
Ron Gonzalez (Poudre Fire Authority)
Basil Hamdan (Ft. Collins Stormwater Utility)
Rod Irish (Ft. Collins Light & Power)
Troy Jones (Ft. Collins Planning Department)
Jim Slagel (Public Service Company)
FROM: Stan Dunn (Project Engineer)
SUBJECT: Ft. Collins Good Samaritan Village Construction Sequencing —Utility
Coordination Site
COMMENTS:
In anticipation of a final engineering documents submittal for the Ft. Collins Good Samaritan
Village Project (Project) the Evangelical Good Samaritan Society (Owner) would like to begin
coordinating its proposed construction sequencing plan with the associated Utility and Technical
Review agencies.
As such, the Owner is inviting the associated agencies to assist in finalizing the attached
sequencing plan. Additionally, the Owner would appreciate the opportunity to meet On -Site to
discuss any issues that would impact the proposed plan, and address such issues as soon as
possible.
In order to facilitate Utility coordination of the proposed sequencing plan a meeting is planned
for Wednesday, April 5'� at 3:00pm. Tentatively, the meeting will take place in -field in the north
area of the Project Site. Parking is provided in the east parking area immediately outside of the
existing facility's Therapy Center. In the event that weather restricts in -field review and
discussion, the Owner has made available room accommodations inside the existing building.
Please find attached copies of the proposed construction sequencing plan. At your earliest
convenience, please review the attached drawings, and feel free to provide comments you feel
would affect or amend the proposed sequencing plan.
If you have questions regarding the attached information or meeting, please feel free to contact
me at (970) 667-6286.
Thanks for your help on this.
1'ADUNN S\GoodSamllUMcou 33I.doc
03/31/00
- --- - -
cvo�
--------------
1 �
�-
r�-��� 14 (Y
N
I
�I
LU
t IL
l
j
1
``
_1I�1
�.
r
`I. � FJ
�I �I L
J fir_
r
0
J
'I I ansportation Services
Engineering Department
Facsimile
TRANSMITTAL
to: Stanley Dunn
fax #: 970/667.6298
re: Good Samaritan Village
date: 5.2.00
pages: 2 (includes the cover sheet)
Comments:
Stan —
Here is the information you requested on the City's guidelines for a landscaped median. I
hope you find this useful. Please make sure that this detail is included within the utility
plan set.
Regarding the variance requests we discussed in our meeting on April 25, 2000, the only
variance request I could find was in conjunction with the City's requirement for the
Developer's engineer to provide a preliminary design of Arterial Streets for 1000 feet
beyond the proposed construction. According to my records, Cam McNair, the City
Engineer, granted the variance. If there are other requests you submitted to this
department or if you have any additional questions, please let me know.
Tim.
The information contained in this facsimile is confidential and
intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which this
cover sheet is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible to deliver
it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that use,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, please immediately notify the transmitter by telephone.
From the desk of...
Tim Blandford
Civil Engineer 1
City of Fort Collins Engineering Department
281 North College Avenue, P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
970/221,6605
Fax 970/221.6378
Community Planning and Environmental Services recyc/edpaper
Natural Resources Department
City of Fort Collins
!MEMORANDUM
TO: Land Developer
FROM: Natural Resources Staff
SUBJECT: Control of dust from land development
When dust blows from disturbed -round during the development process, it can cause a
significant air pollution problem. The enclosed information describes dust -control regulations of
the State of Colorado that are administered by Larimer County. As an applicant for a permit to
develop land in Fort Collins, you are required to comply with these requirements.
In general, you are required to use dust control measures to prevent off -property transport, if
your project will clear more than 5 acres of ground. If the project exceeds 25 acres or six months
duration, then you are also required to apply for an air pollution permit and file a fugitive dust
control plan with the Latimer County Department of Health and Environment.
The key to controlling dust is to plan ahead. It is much easier to prevent off -property transport of
dust throu-h advanced planning than to correct a dust problem in the midst of the construction
process. The City encourages you to prepare and follow a fugitive dust control plan, regardless
of the size of your project.
'_�i I Am II i Collcgt Avenue • PC. Box ';80 • FOCt Co.l1nG, CC) SO,522-0580 • (970) 221-6600 • FAX (970) 224-6177
LARIMER DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
A1111ILCOUNITY
1 525 Blue Spruce Drive
For, Collins, Colorado, 80524-2004
General Health (970) 498-6700
Environmental Health (970) 498-6775
• • Fax (970) 498-6772
August 24, 2001
RE: Fugitive Dust Control During Land Development
Dear Applicant:
Under Colorado's air quality regulations, the control of fugitive dust emissions
apply to land construction activities and land development. These requirements are
outlined below:
Development that involves clearing more than five acres of land must
incorporate all available and practical control methods which are
technologically feasible and economically reasonable in order to minimize
dust emissions. The County Land Use code requires submittal of a fugitive
dust control plan for land clearing that will involve 5 - 25 acres.
If land development creates more than a 25 acre contiguous disturbance, or
exceeds 6 months in duration, the responsible party is required to prepare a
fugitive dust control plan, submit an air pollution emissions notice (APEN),
and apply for a permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment.
Regardless of the size or duration of development, all land disturbance must
be conducted so that nuisance conditions are not created. If dust emissions
do create a nuisance, a Fugitive Dust Control Plan will be required. The
requirements of Colorado's Air Quality Control Commission - Regulation 1,
Section III D will have to be met (less than 20% opacity, no off -property
transport, ...).
Copies of this Regulation and forms for downloading can be viewed at:
http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/ap/download.html
If you have any questions or need assistance, please contact Doug Bjorlo at 498-6783.
Community Planning and Environmental Services
Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
September 6, 2001
Patricia Simonson
T5P Five Inc.
503 Remington Street, Suite 5
Fort Collins, CO 80524
SUBJECT: Minor Amendment- Good Samaritan Chapel and Office Addition
Dear Mr. Bailey:
This letter is in response to your Minor Amendment application dated August 6, 2001. In that
application, you requested that the City approve changes to an approved site development plan to
add 4,654 square foot chapel and 1,342 square feet of new business offices to the existing
retirement home.
The Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC) Section 2.2.10 allows an applicant to make minor amendments
of an approved site specific development plan as long as the development application, as so
amended, continues to comply with LUC standards. Staff reviewed your application for compliance
with LUC standards and for possible adverse effects your proposal may have on the overall
approved development.
Upon review of your application, revisions to your application are needed. The following issues
need to be addressed:
Current Planning [Troy Jones] - Take the word "proposed" off the site plan. Ensure that the
building addition is entirely within building envelope 17 shown on the Landmark Engineering plat of
the property. If it is not, you will need to coordinate with Landmark to revise the plat. The
revision would need to be to page 2 of 2 on the plat. Given that the signature page is on page 1 of
2, and given the fact that plat has not been recorded yet, just bring in a new mylar of the plat's
page 2 of 2, if you determine that the building envelope needs to be changed.
Zoning [Peter Barnes] - Approved with the condition that the site plan be resubmitted showing
building addition dimensions.
Engineering [Marc Virata] - Approved with the condition that updated utility plans are submitted
(and this change should be verified to work with the proposed plat by Landmark).
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020
Tim Blandford - trnscrdaggnda.wpd
Page 1
TRANSPORTATION COORDINATION
January 28, 1999
AGENDA:
Project issues to discuss:
Good Samaritan - ped connections to college on Trilby Kinternal private
drive design - Kathleen & Tim
12-1, Courtyard Commons - Ped X-ing - Kathleen
X Waterglen PUD - limiting access on Vine Drive - Kathleen
X View of the Transportation Coordination Meeting by the Development
Community - Mike
Huntington Hills - pre cursor to neighborhood meeting - Eric
6. Drake and Timberline - intersection alignment - Matt Baker
7. Design Alternatives for Hy14 - Kathleen
CUMt-tB.liS
Other items:
'.J ack EAU-rRIZ N'rt,T,AS'fv kLO� 4�.,�Ge�i(z:�,.}•Y
viL'L'ScLnJS 3'
New submittals. -
Future items: It
Time Limit: 2:30 - 4:00
Engineering conference room
I/\
U � 1a5it viS,T-
C�
2iL,3y �v
C7�
Stormwater [Basil Hamdan] - Update the plans by Landmark for the new grading being proposed on
the Nolte plans. Provide erosion control escrow calculations.
incer(ely,
JoVs
C ty Planne
cc: Peter Barnes, Zoning Department
t�Marc Virata, Engineering Department
Basil Hamdan, Stormwater Department
Sherry Friesen, Fort Collins Good Samaritan
(AiDit,
Landmark
ENGINEERING Ltd.
September 7, 2001
Project No. FTCG-1 F9I-04-200
Mr. Basil Hamdan
City of Fort Collins
Storm Water Utility Department
700 Wood Street
Ft. Collins, CO 80521
RE: Fort Collins Good Samaritan Model Home
Dear Mr. Hamdan,
Attached, please find the calculations showing the impacts of building a model unit and associated gravel
access way for the Fort Collins Good Samaritan Village. The total area disturbed by the construction of
the unit model will be approximately 30,296 f-' with 9,536 ft' consisting of the gravel access, and 4,110
ft' consisting of the buildings, roof and concrete pads. The runoff coefficient for the site is 0.50 (see
attached calculation sheet). The retention pond has been sized to retain the entire runoff from the
disturbed area due to a 100-Year storm event and requires a volume of 0.09 acre-ft. The site will be
,,raded to allow the runoff from the disturbed area to drain to the retention pond. The gravel road will
have a 2% slope toward the model home, and there will be a Swale North and South of the home to direct
the runoff into the pond.
We appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this submittal. If you have any questions, please
feel free to call.
Respectfully,
Landmark Engineering Ltd.
Brian J�Hailey, E.I.T.
L� it;'.L
Rodney Harr, P.E.
B.IH/RAH/ej
Enclosure
3521 W,, I .... hewer 131vd, Date Olhausen, PE. & L.S.
Luvul,v,d. (ulun�dn Y)537 - President
ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS
Loccl.,n 1 (9.0) 667-6_'86 17AX (970) 667-6298 Denver (303) 629-7121
a
a a
= U
o
3
�(0
aZ3
U j
o
�O
U 3
v
j
O
N d
M
Q
O
vo
a
U j
O
U 3
O
Lr)
j
o
vim
� Q
O
v
¢
------------------
o
U j
o
O
U 3
rn
O
0 N
-------------
O
R Q
O
Project:
FCGS Model Home
Project #:
FTCG-1 F9104-200
Objective:
Retention Pond Volume Requirements
Inflow Data:
Design Storm
100 Year
Drainage Area
0.67 Acres
RIO Coeff (C)
0.5
CxA
0.34
Off -Site Flow
0 cfs
outflow Data:
Design Storm
100 Year
Discharge
0.00 cfs
Comment:
TIME
(min)
10
CxA I
0.34
I
(inm
7.15
Qm
(cfs)
2.40
VOLin
(cu ft)
1437
Qout
(cfs)
0.00
VOLout
(cu ft)
0
VOLtotal
(cu ft)
1437
VOLtotal
(af)
0.0330
15
0.34
6.10
2.04
1839
0.00
0
1839
0.0422
20
25
30
35
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
5.30
4.70
4.25
3.85
1.78
1.57
1.42
1.29
2131
2362
2563
2709
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
0
2131
2362
2563
2709
0.0489
0.0542
588
±0622
40
0.34
3.55
19
2855
0.00
0
2855
655
45
0.34
3.30
1.11
2985
0.00
0
2985
0.0685
50
0.34
3.05
1.02
3066
0.00
0
3066
0.0704
55
0.34
2.85
0.95
3151
0.00
0
3151
0.0723
0.34
2.70
0.90
3257
0.00
0.0748
0.34
2.60
0.87
3390
0.00
0.077-
r70
0.34
2.49
0.83
3500
0.00
0.0804
0.34
2.38
0.80
3589
0.00
M�1�7�)OA
0.0824
0.34
2.27
0.76
3652
0.00
0.0838
85
0.34
2.16
0.73
3698
0.00
0.0849
90
0.34
2.06
0.69
3721
0.00
0.0854
95
0.34
1.95
0.65
3724
0.00
0.0855
100
0.34
1.88
0.63
3769
0.00
0
3769
0.0865
105
0.34
1.80
0.60
3799
0.00
0
3799
0.0872
110
0.34
1.73
0.58
3814
0.00
0
3814
0.0876
115
0.34
1.65
0.55
3814
0.00
0
3814
0.0876
120
0.34
1.58
0.53
3799
0.00
0
3799
0.0872
125
0.34
1.50
0.50
3769
0.00
0
3769
0.0865
130
0.34
1.46
0.49
3811
0.00
0
3811
0.0875
135
0.34
1.42
0.47
3844
0.00
0
3844
0.0882
140
0.34
1 _38
0.46
3869
0.00
0
3869
0.0888
145
0.34
1.33
0.45
3886
0.00
0
3886
0.0892
150
0.34
1.29
0.43
3894
0.00
0
3894
0.0894
155
0.34
1.25
0.42
3894
0.00
0
3894
0.0894
160
0.34
1.22
0.41
3918
0.00
0
3918
0.0899
165
0.34
1.19
0.40
3936
0.00
0
3936
0.0903
170
0.34
1.16
0.39
3947
0.00
0
3947
0.0906
175
0.34
1.12
0.38
3951
0.00
0
3951
0.0907
180
0.34
1.09
0.37
3950
0.00
0
3950
0.0907
185
0.34
1.06
0.36
3942
0.00
0
3942
0.0905
Storage Required 0.0907
BERR-OMB05-A2-321
d
E
0
2
0
0
0
� w
E
m
m
O
c
m �
0
`m 0_
E c
m o
U) c
0 o
0
C
U
r
0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
O m t0 O N
cg- awnlOA
m
r
o �
0
E
rr�Nm
0
v
mNN
>
Q
Umi
u
N
M
Q
F �
Q
m
E
3
O
�
N
>
�.
N
O
E
�
N
Un
C �
m
N
C
V
M
N
N
M
N
m
N
Q
m
m
m
cooM
m�
Q �
v�o>Q0
N0
j
O�
c
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U
Ft. Collins Good Samaritan Model Home
Erosion Control Cost Estimate
No. item
Qtv. Unit
Unit Cost
Total
1. Silt Pence Barrier
390 Feet
$ 3.00 $
1,170.00
2. Drill seed with drought
0.39 Acre
$ 600.00 $
234.00
tolerant non -irrigated
seed mix
Construction Cost
$
1,404.00
50% Construction Cost
$
702.00
Total Security
S
2,106.00
Comments
$0.014 / S.P.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 10, 2001
TO: City of Fort Collins - Fort Collins Loveland Water District
ATTN: Ijihft Virata'- Tent' Farrell
FROM: Kimberly Lambrecht
SUBJECT: Fort Collins Good Samaritan Village - Modifications to Utility Drawings
PROJECT FTCG 1 F9101 200
NO.:
The attached drawings reflect modifications to the approved Utlity Drawings. These modifications show the
addition of a Phase 1 project consisting of the construction of a Duplex Unit to serve as a Model/Show
Home for marketing purposes prior to the construction of the permanent infrastructure.
The Model/Show home unit will be constructed in its entirety, but will NOT have water or sewer servi:;e
provided at this time. Due to the drfficulty in temporarily connecting to existing water and sewer services,
and the great expense of constructing the necessary amount of permanent infrastructure, water and sewer
will be stubbed OUT of the units, to be connected to the permanent infrastructure at its time of construction.
A short section of permanent water line will be constructed with the Model Home so the proposed fire
hydrant can be included at this time to provide fire protection for this unit
An all weather gravel surface driveway with tum-around will provide access to the units from the existing
Therapy Center Parking area, and the area immediately adjacent to the units will be landscaped according
to the approved Project Development Plans.
A new sheet has been included to show the proposed Phase 1 construction, the Title Sheet has been
revised to reflect the additional sheet; and a revision to the Utility sheet showing a small section of waver
line as existing, have been included.
If you need any additional information, please let me know.
FORT COLLINS&L0WJ AND WATER DIS'IRIC SOUTH FORT COLLINS SANITA IJON DISTRICT
September 24, 2001
Ms. Kimberly Lambrecht
Landmark Ltd.
3521 W. Eisenhower Blvd.
Loveland, CO 80537
RE: Fort Collins Good Samaritan Village
Dear Ms. Lambrecht,
The Fort Collins — Loveland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District have
reviewed the above mentioned project and submit the following comments.
The District will require easements, on the District's standard easement form, for all facilities that
arc not located within the public ROW. The District's require minimum 20 foot easements for the
water lines and 30 foot easements for the sanitary sewer lines.
There appears to be a vertical, and possibly a horizontal, conflict between the proposed water
line and the storm water line and sanitary sewer lines.
The water line design needs to accommodate the future water line extension without the
disruption of service or fire protection.
A construction/development phasing plan for the entire project is to be submitted for review
and approval.
The irrigation of traffic medians in the public ROW will require a separate water tap.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 226-3104, extension 14, if you have any questions or require
additional information.
Respectfully,
Mr. Terry W. Farrill
Systems Engineer
xc: Mr. Michael D. DiTullio, Manager
Mr. Marc Virata, City of Fort Collins ✓
5150 Snead Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80525 Phone (970) 226-3104 Fax (970) 226-0186
-roncnnrfnfinn Services
Engineering Department
City of Fort Collins
October 1, 2001
Kimberly Lambrecht
Landmark Engineering Ltd.
3521 W. Eisenhower Blvd.
Loveland, CO 80537
RE: Fort Collins Good Samaritan Model Home
Dear Ms. Lambrecht,
This letter serves as written comments regarding the model home proposal submitted to
the City. Based upon this submittal, the Engineering and Stormwater Departments offer
the following comments:
Both departments have a concern with the design of a retention pond being in close
proximity to Constellation Drive. There are two main issues regarding this:
1. The retention pond (without preventative measures) could affect the integrity of
the pavement for Constellation Drive.
2. The retention pond with its close proximity to Constellation Drive could be
viewed as a nuisance by the existing residences with potential issues such as
aesthetics or odors.
As there does not appear to be any limitation of moving the retention pond west of the
model homes, further away from Constellation Drive, the design should look at changing
the location of the retention pond.
Stormwater specifically cites that a retention pond requires retention sizing of twice the
100-year volume.
Engineering cites that the differentiation of phasing between Phase 1 (model homes) and
Phase 2 (overall development) should be more clear. Proposed Phase 1 grading and
utilities, Phase 2 grading and utilities, and existing grading and utilities should all be
noticeable and distinct along with phasing boundaries.
Let me know of any questions or concerns regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Marc Virata
Development Review Engineer
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6605 • FAX (970) 221-6378
www.ci.fort-collins.co.us
Transportation Services
8n_;ineering Department
Citv of Fort Collins
October 4, 2001
Mr. Lenny Kemnitz AIA
The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society
Sioux Falls, SD 57106
Rh: Fort Collins Good Samaritan Development Agreement
Dear Mr. Kemnitz,
This letter is in response to the conversation I had with yourself and your attorney after
going over the draft development agreement for your project as well as the recent
submittal from Landmark Engineering showing the model home design. In going over
these remaining issues, let me know if there is anything I can do to help facilitate this
process. Because of some design issues regarding the model home design, a full final
draft for your review has not been completed. Upon solidifying the remaining issues
regarding the design of the model home phasing, I will have a draft available for review,
but in the interest of keeping the process going I wanted to get this letter out to you.
LB of the Development Agreement ("DA")
In our phone conversation a concern was expressed regarding Section I.B. which
Stipulates that all public improvements ("water lines, sanitary sewer collection lines,
storm sewer lines and facilities, streets, curbs, gutters', etc.) must be installed within 3
years from the date of execution of the DA. In addition, if any construction occurs after
this three-year period, the Developer shall resubmit utility plans, whereupon the City may
require the Developer to comply with the standards in place by the City at the time of
resubmittal.
This requirement in the DA is based upon Section 2.2.11 of the Land Use Code, which
states that a development receives a three-year vesting following approval. The
following is this section of code for you reference:
(3) Term of Vested Right. Within a maximum of three (3) years following the
approval of a final plan or other site specific development plan, the applicant must
undertake, install and complete all engineering improvements (water, sewer,
streets, curb_ gutter, street lights, fire hydrants and storm drainage) in accordance
with city codes, rules and regulations. The period of time shall constitute the
�..,,li, ;;c Av, nuc • PC _1 dor =RO t � i l:allin�. �. ;Oi3=-UtiRU i"70) "'�7-ibth PAX i97111 �n�78
w ww.a.?ort-cullin,.�o.us
Tim Blandford - Goodsam.doc
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 29, 1999
TO: Ted Shepard, Senior City Planner
FROM: Kathleen Reavis, Senior Transportation Planner
RE: Good Samaritan Village
Based upon my review of the applicable pedestrian and bicycle level of service standards for the Good
Samaritan Village project, it is necessary for this project to provide a pedestrian crossing on Trilby at
Constellation/Avondale. This improvement was not mentioned in the project's Transportation Impact
Study so I wanted to make you aware of it as the project moves forward in the development review
process.
This pedestrian crossing is needed for the project to meet the directness and continuity elements of the
pedestrian LOS standards. By providing this crossing, pedestrians from the Good Samaritan Village site
will have access to the adjacent sidewalk system provided by the Ridgewood Hills development on the
southside of Trilby Road. Without this pedestrian crossing, people (residents, employees, guests, etc.)
from the Good Samaritan Village would not have any walkway connections to the adjacent land uses since
currently there is not a sidewalk along the north side of Trilby Road. This pedestrian crossing will need to
be designed to include a center median/pedestrian refuge area. This is necessary since Trilby is
classified as a minor arterial at this location and given the nature of the Good Samaritan Village project,
many of the pedestrians using this crossing may be elderly and need a protected area to wait should they
not make it across both traffic lanes before another vehicle approaches.
The bicycle level of service standards are achieved by this project if they provide bikelanes along their
frontage on Trilby. This will provide the connection to the north/south bikelane on Avondale as well as into
the existing east/west shoulder/bikelane that exists on Trilby, east of this project site. The connection into
the existing shoulder/bikelane to the east will also allow cyclists to connect to the wide shoulders on
College Avenue (US287) to travel north or south. In the future as development occurs to the west,
bikelanes will be provided along Trilby to better connect cyclists with Shields Street.
I hope this information clarifies the "off -site" pedestrian and bicycle improvements that are needed for this
project. I have noted other pedestrian -related improvements (on -site) on my comment sheet with the site
plan. Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information.
Thank you.
cc: Eric Bracke, Traffic Engineer
Tim Blandford, Development Review Engineer
Bob Blanchard, Director of Current Planning
Matt Delich, Traffic Engineering Consultant
Page 1 1,
"tern of the vested property right." The foregoing term of the vested property
right shall not exceed three (3) years unless: (a) an extension is granted pursuant
to paragraph (4) of this subsection, or (b) the city and the developer enter into a
development agreement which vests the property right for a period exceeding
three (3) years. Such agreement may be entered into by the city only if the subject
development constitutes a "large base industry" as defined in Article 5 and only if
warranted in light of all relevant circumstances, including, but not limited to, the
size and phasing of the development, economic cycles and market conditions.
Any such development agreement shall be adopted as a legislative act subject to
referendum. Failure to undertake and complete the development within the term
of the vested property right shall cause a forfeiture of the vested property right
and shall require resubmission of all materials and reapproval of the same to be
processed as required by this Land Use Code. All dedications as contained on the
final plat shall remain valid unless vacated in accordance with law.
As such, the City feels that Section I.B. is consistent with our Land Use Code. In
conversations with Basil Hamdan at our Stormwater Department, there have been cases
where detention pond sizing and other stormwater related appurtenances were required to
be changed for a project in which the three-year vesting had elapsed. This was the case
with the adoption of new Stormwater criteria in response to the flood of 1997. From an
Engineering perspective, we would also desire to reserve the right to apply newer criteria
for a project in which the public improvements were not completed within the vesting
period. Because of this code provision, developers have sometimes opted to complete
their public improvements immediately and then construct their internal "pad sites" over
time, past the three-year vesting as a way to ensure not being subjugated to the newer
standards. While this may not satisfy your issue regarding this section of the DA, I hope
this sufficiently explains the justification.
Section LI of the DA
Another issue that was discussed was in regards to Section LI of the DA regarding storm
drainage facilities. You had stated your desire to add "Acts of God" as an additional
exception to the provision where the Developer indemnities and holds harmless the City
Cron claims that arise related to the discharge of storm drainage "or seepage waters from
the Property in a manner or quantity different from that which was historically discharged
and caused by the design or construction of the storm drainage facilities." The issue the
City has is that the addition of "Acts of God" does not appear to be consistent with
holding the City harmless from storm drainage "in a manner or quantity different from
that which was historically discharged". Paul Eckman, our Deputy City Attorney, notes
that "rain" itself can be viewed as an Act of God. It is the City's position that the
addition of this language would not be acceptable and would negate the intent of Section
I.I.
Section H.C.3 of the DA
Concern was expressed regarding the required security deposit related to erosion control
in the amount of S27,973.00 stated Section II.C.3 of the DA. You had requested the type
of language acceptable to the City for this deposit. Please see the attached "Letter of
Credit" and "Development Bond" documentation, which was explained to me by the
Stormwater Department to be acceptable language.
Section II.C.6 of the DA
The final issue regarding Stormwater related DA language was with regards to the last
paragraph of this section, which stipulates that the Developer is required to maintain all
on -site storm drainage facilities not accepted for maintenance by the City. It is my
recollection that you felt that there should be a level of responsibility by the City to
maintain the detention pond because some storm drainage flows are brought into the
pond offsite from the public street. I have discussed this with Basil Harridan and he has
indicated that the conveyance of offsite flows is not unusual of a development. The City's
Stormwater Department views this detention facility as primarily serving the
development and that the City as a whole does not benefit from taking over the
maintenance of this facility.
Section H.D.2 of the DA
A question was raised in regards to the language required for the performance bond
requirement for street oversizing improvements in excess of $50,000 as specified in
Section ILD 2. It should be noted that this performance bond is required only for street
improvements eligible for reimbursement under our Street Oversizing plan. The eligible
improvements were specified in the previous DA paragraph as sidewalk along Trilby
Road (the difference of 4.5' from 6' of sidewalk width for a distance of approximately
600'.) With the cost of sidewalk averaging around $5 per lineal foot, there is not a
realistic possibility of the cost exceeding $50,000, therefore this provision does not
appear to be applicable. This paragraph can perhaps be modified to eliminate the non -
applicable provision if desired. As reference, the actual language for the performance
bond is the same language as the erosion control deposit.
Section ILD.4-6 of the DA (relating to the median on Trilby Road)
There has been much discussion from both the Developer and the City in regards to the
median along Trilby Road. In response to your concerns regarding the median during our
phone conversation, I have brought this issue to Cam McNair, the City Engineer. After
internal discussion with various city departments, it was agreed upon that the City
(specifically the Parks Department) would maintain the landscaping of the median on
Trilby Road after a two-year establishment period. In addition, the City will pay for the
water usage after this two-year period, provided the irrigation source is a District water
tap, which I understand, is now the case.
Section ILD.S of the DA
A question was raised regarding the language referenced in II.D.8 of the DA. This
paragraph stated that following completion of public improvements, the Developer shall
have the responsibility for the maintenance and repair of the public improvements in
accordance with Sections 2.2.3, 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 of our Land Use Code. These code
sections are attached for your reference.
Section III.0 of the DA
This specific section of the DA, to the best of my knowledge, is not based upon any
particular section of code adopted by the City. This provision is actually in conjunction
with both Latimer County and State of Colorado regulations. Please see the attached
document "Control of dust from land development" for additional information. In
addition, 1'd encourage you to visit the State of Colorado's internet site, more specifically
the following URL's:
- (Air Quality Control Commission Regulations) httr)://www.cdphe.state-co.us/op/airrets.asp
- (Regulation No. 1 Particulate Matter, Smoke, Carbon Monoxide and Sulfur Oxides)
Intp /www.cdohe_state.co.us/op/reys/109103.ndf
The following is taken from Page 21 of the State's Regulation No.I for your reference:
Construction Activities
(i) Applicability - Attainment and Nonattainment Areas
(ii) General Requirement
Any owner or operator engaged in clearing or leveling of land or owner or
operator of land that has been cleared of greater than five acres in attainment
areas or one (1) acre in nonattainment areas from which ,fugitive particulate
emissions
will be emitted shall be required to use all available and practical methods which
are technologically feasible and economically reasonable in order to minimize
such emissions in accordance with the requirements ofSection IILD. of this
regulation.
(in) Applicable Emission Limitation Guideline
Both the 20% opacity and the no off -property transport emission limitation
guidelines shall apply to construction activities; except that with respect to
sources or activities associated with construction for which there are separate
requirements set forth in this regulation, the emission limitation guidelines there
specified as applicable to such sources and activities shall apply. Abatement and
control plans submitted for construction activities shall be evaluated for
compliance with the requirements of Section IILD. of this regulation. [Cross
Reference: Subsections e. and f of Section 1I1D.2. of
this regulation.]
(iv) Control Measures and Operating Procedures
Control measures or operational procedures to be employed may include, but are
not necessarily limited to, planting vegetation cover, providing synthetic cover,
watering, chemical stabilization, furrows, compacting, minimizing disturbed area
in the winter, wind breaks and other methods or techniques approved by the
Division.
The City feels it is important to include this language in the DA for the health, safety, and
welfare of its citizens. Because of erosion control measures that are required upon by a
development, blowing dust is not an issue in most conditions. On the rare occasion
where winds are of high velocity and dust reduces visibility onsite and/or offsite, or a
contractor fails to provide proper erosion control measures, blowing dust may occur. The
excessive blowing of dust can affect the contractor's ability to work onsite as well as
affect surrounding homes or businesses. In this instance, the City, (County, or State)
should have the right to intercede and make the determination to cease operations if your
contractor has not concluded the same. Perhaps this matter can be discussed between
your contractor and our City Inspectors so that a common understanding is made prior to
construction.
Section IILK of the DA ("loser pay language")
Your attorney had expressed concern over this provision of the DA, which he had termed
"loser pay language". In speaking with Paul Eckman, he agreed to remove the language
from the DA. This paragraph has been eliminated in the latest draft.
This concludes my understanding of the issues that were raised regarding the DA. Please
note that our Land Use Code can be accessed from the Internet via the following link:
http://bpc.iserver.net/codes/for-tcoll—landuse/index.htm
I hope I responded to all the concerns that were raised regarding the previous DA. If
there were issues I missed, please let me know. I realize that this may not answer all your
concerns in a satisfactory manner. With any remaining issues, I would suggest that a
conference call might be appropriate, perhaps also involving our City Attorney and/or
Stormwater Engineering as needed. Let me know your concerns, and I'm hopeful that
these last remaining items for Good Samaritan can be completed shortly.
Sincerely,
Ma ci` V irata
Development Review Engineer
Cc: Mr. Lenny Kemnitz (via fax)
Ms. Kimberly Lambrecht, Landmark Engineering
file
1
Landmark
ENGINEERING Ltd.
October 22, 20011
Project No. FTCG-1 F9I-04-200
Mr. Basil Hamdan
City of Fort Collins
Storm Water Utility Department
700 Wood Street
Ft. Collins, CO 80521
RE: Fort Collins Good Samaritan Model Home
Dear Mr. Harridan,
Attached, please find the calculations showing the impacts of building a model unit and associated gravel
access way for the Fort Collins Good Samaritan Village. The total area disturbed by the construction of
the unit model will be approximately 30,740 ft with 9,536 ftz consisting of the gravel access, and 4,110
ft2 consisting of the buildings, roof and concrete pads. The runoff coefficient for the site is 0.49 (see
attached calculation sheet). The retention pond has been sized to retain twice the entire runoff from the
disturbed area due to a 100-Year storm event and requires a volume of 8,000 ft . The site will be graded
to allow the runoff from the disturbed area to drain to the retention pond. The gravel road will have a 2%
slope toward the model home, and there will be a swale North and South of the home to direct the runoff
into the pond.
We appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this submittal. If you have any questions, please
feel free to call.
Respectfully,
Landmark Engineering Ltd.
Brian J. Haii E.I.T���� Pip REGZ
i
Rodney .Harr, E E . •26857
BJH/RAH/ej o� • , C
Enclosure ,NALf�ON
7inlnn n10\
3521 West Eisenhower Blvd.
Loveland, Colorado 80537
-' k r, $ - f
Dale Olhausen. P.E. & L.S.
President
ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS
Lovchnd(970) 067-6286 FAX (970) 667-6298 Denver(303) 629-7124
me
N
CD
_:3
U
N
C
0
a
C
O
U
c
N
�X
W
L
0
O
T
U
m
m
0
m
Q
a
w
th U
•�
3
o
v^
U j
o
a0
U �
�
j
O
m
p d
co
V
� Q
O
Quo
U j
O
U
O
`n
O
�Qo
a
U
cc)
O
p
O
O
j
o
0 N
O
Ix Q
O
O
O M
C
•�
Q
y
� O
Project:
FCGS Model Home
Project #:
FTCG-1 F9104-200
Objective:
Retention Pond Volume Requirements
Inflow Data:
Design Storm
100 Year
Drainage Area
0.67 Acres
R/O Coeff (C)
0.49
CxA
0.33
Off -Site Flow
0 cfs
Outflow Data:
Design Storm
100 Year
Discharge
0.00 cfs
Comment:
TIME
CxA
1
Oin
VOLin
Clout
VOLout
VOLtotal
VOLtotal
(min)
(in/hr)
(cfs)
(cu ft)
(cfs)
(cu ft)
(cu ft)
(at)
10
0.33
7.15
2.35
1408
0.00
0
1408
0.0323
15
0.33
6.10
2.00
1802
0.00
0
1802
0.0414
20
0.33
5.30
1.74
2088
0.00
0
2088
0.0479
25
0.33
4.70
1.54
2315
0.00
0
2315
0.0531
30
0.33
4.25
1 A0
2512
0.00
0
2512
0.0577
35
0.33
3.85
1.26
2655
0.00
0
2655
0.0609
40
0.33
3.55
1.17
1 2798
0.00
0
2798
0.0642
45
0.33
3.30
1.08
2926
0.00
1 0
2926
0.0672
50
0.33
3.05
1.00
3004
0.00
0
3004
0.0690
55
0.33
2.85
0.94
3088
0.00
0
3088
0.0709
60
0.33
2.70
0.89
3191
0.00
0
3191
0.0733
65
0.33
2.60
0.85
3323
0.00
0
3323
0.0763
70
0.33
2.49
0.82
3430
0.00
0
3430
0.0788
75
0.33
2.38
0.78
3517
0.00
0
3517
0.0807
80
0.33
1 2.27
0.75
1 3579
0.00
0
3579
0.0922
85
0.33
2.16
0.71
3624
0.00
1 0
3624
0.0832
90
0.33
2.06
0.68
3647
0.00
0
3647
0.0837
95
0.33
1.95
0.64
3649
0.00
0
3649
0.0838
100
0.33
1.88
0.62
3693
0.00
0
3693
0.0848
105
0.33
1.80
0.59
3723
0.00
0
3723
0.0855
110
0.33
1.73
0.57
3738
0.00
0
3738
0.0858
115
0.33
1.65
0.54
3738
0.00
0
3738
0.0858
120
0.33
1.58
0.52
3723
0.00
0
3723
0.0855
125
0.33
1.50
0.49
3693
0.00
1 0
3693
0.0848
130
0.33
1.46
0.48
3734
0.00
0
3734
0.0857
135
0.33
1 1.42
0.47
3767
0.00
0
3767
0.0865
140
0.33
1.38
045
3792
0.00
0
3792
0.0870
145
0.33
1.33
0.44
3808
0.00
0
3808
0.0874
150
0.33
1.29
0.42
3816
0.00
0
3816
0.0876
155
0.33
1.25
0.41
3816
0.00
0
1 3816
0.0876
160
0.33
1.22
0.40
3840
0.00
0
3840
0.0881
165
0.33
1.19
0.39
3857
0.00
0
3857
0.0885
170
0.33
1.16
0.38
3868
0.00
0
3868
0.0888
175
0.33
1.12
0.37
3872
0.00
0
3872
0.0889
180
0.33
1.09
0.36
3871
0.00
0
3871
0.0889
185
0.33
1.06
0.35
3863
0.00
0
3863
0.0887
Storage Required 0.0889
BERR-0G3B05-A2-321
I
I
Y:
0
m
0
m
a
I! I I I I 11
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
A N O N (D Q N
cu- awnlon
Oil
Ft. Collins Good Samaritan Model Home
Erosion Control Cost Estimate
No. Item
Qtv. Unit Unit Cost Total Comments
I. Silt Fence Barrier
478 Feet $ 3.00 $1,434.00
2. Drill Seed With Drought
0.43 Acre $ 600.00 $ 258.00 $ 0.014 / S.F.
Tolerant Non -Irrigated
Seed Mix
Construction Cost
$1,692.00
50% Construction Cost
$ 846.00
Total Security
$2,538.00
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
October 23, 2001
TO:
City of Fort Collins - Fort Collins -Loveland Water District
ATTN:
Marc Virata - Terry Farrill
FROM:
Kimberly Lambrecht
SUBJECT:
Fort Collins Good Samaritan Village - Model Home Complex
PROJECT
FTCG 1 F9104 200
NO.
The attached resubmittal reflects corrections made as a result of comments dated September 24, 2001 and
October 1, 2001.
The following narrative is a response to those comments.
City of Fort Collins Engineering and Stormwater:
The Retention Pond has been relocated to the north of the Model Home building in an effort to mitigate any
issues with respect to Constellation Drive and unsightly views.
The sizing of the pond has been modified to account for two times the 100-year event.
Phasing has been denoted on the plans.
Fort Collins -Loveland Water District:
The overall design for this project has not changed. As such, easements for the water lines remain as they
have been shown on the plat. (The plat is in the process of being recorded.)
Potential conflicts between water, sanitary and storm lines have been evaluated, and no conflicts were
found.
The phase one water line installation will be designed with a valve at the 'end' to eliminate any disruption of
service.
Phasing for the project has been shown on these plans.
The traffic median will be supplied with a separate water tap.
Qlnndmarh Ltd.
3521 W. Eisenhower Blvd., Loveland, Colorado 80517 Phone: 97MI7-G286 FAX: 970-667-6298 Email: kimbedy@landmarkftd.00m
Transpo +ion Services
Engineering Department
City of Fort Collins
March 29, 1999
Fort Collins Good Samaritan Village
Attn: Sherry Friesen
508 West Trilby Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Re: Additional roadway design for Trilby Road
Dear Miss Friesen,
I am writing this letter to explain the reason for requesting additional roadway design along Trilby
Road. As you are aware, the City of Fort Collins requires all engineers working on developments
within City limits to provide a design of adjacent streets abutting the proposed properties. There are
also certain instances where we require an offsite design of a road, which the Master Street Plan
classifies as either a collector or an arterial. The City of Fort Collins' Master Street Plan depicts
Trilby Road as a Minor Arterial street. We therefore have the design engineers provide us with a
"preliminary" design. The "preliminary" design includes the ultimate roadway section for a minimum
of 1000 feet beyond the construction limits of the development. The design not only establishes a
horizontal alignment, but a vertical alignment as well. The developer's engineer provides the offsite
design for a couple of reasons:
1. We want to make sure that the improvements being constructed along the proposed
development "work" with the grades, features, etc. surrounding it.
2. The City wants to make sure the proposed improvements to be constructed along
the property frontage do not adversely effect neighboring developments in the future.
The City of Fort Collins wants to make sure that future development projects will not
have to correct problems that can be caught with earlier developments.
I want to let you know that we are not isolating this project among the other developments that are
currently in the review process. We ask this of all developments that abut "unimproved" arterial and
collector streets. These unimproved streets are those that do not meet the current street standards.
I hope this letter has helped justify the need for the offsite roadway design. If you should have any
further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Sinc re
Tim R. Blandford
Development Review Civil Engineer
The City of Fort Collins
cc: Stan Dunn, Landmark Engineering, Ltd.
Post -it' Fax Note 7671
Date ',
pages
To —And N
From,
Co./Dept. L-ii K,
Co. � II
op PT
Phone #
(P(: 1-6 k
Phone # ..
C`�
Fax #
Fax # ..
281 North College Avenue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6605
landmark
E it , i n e r t .c P I o it it e r .%
November 5, 2001
Project No. FTCG-6G8B-04-304
Mr. George Hart
ive StrutProgressmg cures
4190 N Rarficld Avenue
Loyeiand, Colorado 80537
Dear Mr. Hart:
Ltd.
.S tt r r e N o r s A r r h i f e r t % G e o t e c It it i ( a I
We have been requested to inform you about Section III.0 of the Development Agreement. This section states:
"The developer hereby agrees that it will require its contractors and subcontractors to cooperate with the
City's construction inspectors by ceasing operations when winds are of sufficient velocity to create blowing
dust which, in the inspector's opinion, is hazardous to the public health and welfare."
Due to the nature of the erosion control measures that will be taken on the site, blowing dust will be minimized.
However, those measures will not prevent dust and debris from blowing offsite at the current areas bein, worked on.
The Citv reserves the right to make the determination to cease operations during periods of high wind, if you have
not already done so.
If you have any concerns regarding this, please refer to the following documents:
Air Quality Control Commission Regulations
http://www edphe state co us/on/airre,s asp
Regulation No. 1 Particulate Matter, Smoke, Carbon Monoxide and Sulfur Oxides
littl)://kx�rw.cdl)lie.state.co.tis/op/1-CLS/lool 0-1odf
In particular, please refer to Section IILD.2.b on Page 21 of the State's Regulation No.l "Construction Activities."
Additionally, the City would like you to meet with the inspectors prior to construction regarding this issue so an
understanding may be reached.
If you have any questions regarding this issue, please fccl free to contact us.
Sincerely,
Landmark Engineering Ltd.
Brian J. I Iailey
BJ FI/ej
cc: lVInny Kemnitz
vMark Virata
Sheny Friesen
451/ Wrvt /-.i s e nh a u'er /3ouIeIard Loveland, Colorado 805
l_orrland (970) 667-6286 Far (9701 667-6398 1 ro (303) 629-7124'
F0R"1' COLI,WS LOWLAM) WA'I'F.R DISIRICI I
G
-ter
November 6, 2001
Mr, Marc Virata, Planner
City of Fort Collins
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80525
(0 SOU IH FORT COLLINS SANFI"ATION INSi'RICT
RE: 427-96C Good Samaritan PDP (Model Homes)
Dear Mr. Virata,
The Fort Collins - Loveland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District have reviewed
the above mentioned project and submit the following comments.
General note 91 on sheet 1 of 37 needs to be corrected to indicate that all water and sanitary sewer
line shall conform to the District's requirements and specifications current at the time of
construction.
The phasing plan indicates two phases. The District will require a letter indicating that phase 2
will be the completion of the project in it's entirety.
The design of the phase I water line is incomplete. The connection from the 8" water line to the 6"
tee; for the fire hydrant requires a reducer. The contractor for phase 2 will be required to re -
pressure test the phase I waterline in accordance with District requirements and standards. Fire
protection will not be available from the phase I fire hydrant during the phase 2 construction until
phase 2 is complete.
Call out notes need to be corrected to refer to the Fort Collins — Loveland Water District, not the
Loveland Fort Collins Water District.
The water and sanitary sewer taps must be purchased prior to issuance of the building permit
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 226-3104, ext. 14, if you have any questions or require additional
information.
Respectfully,
/ram
Mr. Tay W. Farrill
Systems Engineer
xc: Mr. Michael D. DiTullio, District Manager
Ms. Kimberly Lambrecht, Landmark Ltd.
5150 Snead (hive, Fort Collins, CO 80525 Phone (970) 226-3104 Fax (970) 226-0186
Tim Buchanan List of Drought Tolerant Land capin5 � Page 1
From: Marc Virata
To: Laurie D'Audney; Tim Buchanan
Date: Wed, Nov 7, 2001 11:24 AM
Subject: List of Drought Tolerant Landscaping?
Hi,
I had asked Steve Olt and Clark Mapes whether there is a list in the City of landscaping (shurbs and low
lying plants, not trees) that do well without any irrigation and they referred me to both of you. Do you have
any insight on such a list or have ary similar type information?
Thanks!
Marc
Marc, Virata
Civil Engineer
City of Fort Collins �� r —
970 221-6605 V G �S ; �� S
mvirata@fcgov.com t;c�
l�l OJ' e .
t
Yoe � or + sow o.J N-
k �J
�'.ioiiiidi»ark ENGINEERING Ltd.
S u r r r u r A i r h i t e l i G e u t c r h A
November 27, 2001
Project No. FTCG-1 F91-04-200
Mr. Basil Hamdan
City of Fort Collins
Storm Water Utility Department
700 Wood Street
Ft. Collins, CO 80521
RE: Fort Collins Good Samaritan Model Home
Dear Mr. Harridan,
Attached, please find the calculations showing the impacts of building a model unit and associated gravel
access way for the Fort Collins Good Samaritan Village. The total area disturbed by the construction of
the unit model will be approximately 33,084 ft2 with 9,536 ff consisting of the gravel access, and 4,110
fP consisting of the buildings, roof and concrete pads. The runoff coefficient for the site is 0.40 (see
attached calculation sheet). The retention pond has been sized to retain twice the entire runoff from the
disturbed area due to a 100-Year storm event and requires a volume of 13,000 ft'. The site will be graded
to allow the runoff from the disturbed area to drain to the retention pond. The gravel road will have a 2%
slope toward the model home, and there will be a Swale North and South of the home to direct the runoff
into the pond.
We appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this submittal. If you have any questions, please
feel free to call.
Respectfully,
Landmark Engineering Ltd.
Brian J. Hailey, E.I.T.
Rodney A. Harr, P.E.
BJ1 I/RAI I/ej
Enclosure
t5,1 It'rst 1, i.re nh o;r er 130ulerard Loveland. Colorado 80)�-
l urrlund (970 007-6216 lac f970) 667 6293 Afelro (301) 629-7 /-'-!
F1
a
w
U
o
`?
.�
o
d
U j
o
d
U �
Ln
N
j
o
N m
co
� Q
O
vo
U j
o
vo
U =
�
;gym
�Qo
U
o
m
o
m
U �
LO
M
j
O
�mcy)
ono
�Qa
�Qo
C
y O
G �
.L
Q
y
� Q
Project:
FCGS Model Home
Project 9:
FTCG-1 F9104-200
Objective:
Retention Pond Volume
Requirements
Inflow Data:
Design Storm
100 Year
Drainage Area
0.76 Acres
C'
0.4
'Cr
1.25
CxCfxA
0.38
Off -Site Flow
0 cfs
Outflow Data:
Design Storm
100 Year
Discharge
0.00 cfs
Comment:
TIME
CxA
I
Din
VOLin
Dout
VOLout
VOLtotal
VOLtotal
(min)
(inlhr)
(cfs)
(cu ft)
(cfs)
(cu ft)
(cu ft)
(a
10
0.38
7.72
2.93
1760
0.00
0
1760
0.0404
15
C.38
6.52
2.48
2230
0.00
0
2230
0.0512
20
0.38
5.60
2.13
2554
0.00
0
2554
0.0586
25
0.38
4.98
1.89
2839
0.00
0
2839
0.0652
30
0.38
4.52
1.72
3092
0.00
0
3092
0.0710
35
0.38
4.08
1.55
3256
0.00
0
3256
0.0747
40
0 38
3.74
1,42
3411
0.00
0
3411
0.0783
45
0.38
3.46
1.31
3550
UO-1
3550
0.0815
50
0.38
3.23
1.23
3682
0.00
0
3682
0.0845
55
0.38
3.03
1.15
3800
0.00
0
3800
0.0872
60
0.38
2.86
1.09
3912
0.00
0
3912
0.0898
65
0.38
2.72
1.03
4031
0.00
0
4031
0.0925
70
0'38
2.59
0.98
4134
0.00
0
4134
0.0949
75
0.38
2.48
0.94
4241
0.00
0
4241
0.0974
80
0.38
2.38
0.90
4341
0.00
0
4341
0.0997
85
0.38
2.29
0.87
4438
0.00
0
4438
0.1019
90
0.38
2.21
0.84
4535
0.00
0
4535
0. 0041
95
0.38
2.13
0.81
4614
0.00
0
4614
0.1059
100
0.38
2.06
0.78
4697
0.00
0
4697
0.1078
105
0.38
2.00
0.76
4788
0.00
0
4788
0.1099
110
0.38
1.94
0.74
4866
0.00
0
4866
0.1117
115
0.38
1.89
0.72
4956
0.00
0
4956
0.1138
120
0.38
1.84
0.70
5034
0.00
0
5 334
0.1156
125
0.38
1.79
0.68
5102
0.00
0
5102
0.1171
130
0.38
175
0.67
5187
0.00
0
5187
0.1191
135
0.38
171
0.65
5263
0.00
0
5263
0.1208
140
0.38
1.67
0.63
5331
0.00
0
5331
0.1224
145
0.38
1,63
0.62
5389
0.00
0
5389
0.1237
150
0.38
1 1.60
0.61
5472
0.00
0
5472
0.1256
155
0.38
1.57
0.60
5548
0.00
0
5548
0.1274
160
0.38
1.54
0.59
5618
0.00
0
5618
0.1290
165
0.38
1.51
0.57
5681
0.00
0
5681
0.1304
170
0.38
1.48
0.56
5736
0.00
0
5736
0.1317
175
0.38
1.45
0.55
5786
0.00
0
5786
0.1328
180
0.38
1.42
0.54
5828
0.00
0
5828
0.1338
185
OH
1.40
0.53
5905
0.00
0
5905
0.1356
190
0.38
1.38
0.52
5978
0.00
0
5978
0.1372
195
0.38
136
Q52
6047
0.00
0
6047
0.1388
200
0.38
1.34
0.51
6110
0.00
0
6110
0.1403
205
0.38
1.32
0.50
6170
0.00
0
6170
0.1416
210
0.38
1.30
0.49
6224
0.00
0
6224
0.1429
215
0.38
1.28
0.49
6275
0.00
0
6275
0.1440
220
0.38
1.26
0.48
6320
0.00
0
6320
0.1451
225
0.38
1,24aO.46
6361
0.00
0
6361
0.1460
230
0.38
1.22
6398
0.00
0
6398
0.1469
235
0.38
1.21
6483
0.00
0
6483
O'1488
240
0.38
1.20
6566
0.00
0
6566
0.1507
Stora a Re wired 0.1507
0
O O O O O
,11- own[OA
N
NNM�OI
�[i
E
p
O
Q
N
M
M
�
rrorvwcn
O
r
V
NrrnoJ
o
op�ro�N
H O
0
0
0
0
0
0
E
o
r
o
v
7
rOO(p�N
r
M
OJ
N
V
O
C �
O
V
V
Lp
OJ
M
Ol
r
�
O
M
of
M
N
N
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
p
c
r
o
r
0
m
0
m
0
m
0
o
0
U
m
m
Q
O
E
Ft. Collins Good Samaritan Model Home
Erosion Control Cost Estimate
No. Item Qtt. Unit Unit Cost Total
1. Silt Fence Barrier
2. Drill Seed With Drought
Tolerant Non -Irrigated
Seed Mix
Construction Cost
50% Construction Cost
Total Security
540 Feet $ 3.00
0.48 Acre $ 600.00
Comments
$1,620.00
S 288.00 $ 0.014 / S.F.
$1,908.00
$ 954.00
$2,862.00
Cam McNair -Constellation Drive Page 1
From: "Harper, Jack" <jxharpe@gwest.com>
To: "Cam McNair (E-mail)" <cmcnair@fcgov.com>
Date: 10/7/02 3:09PM
Subject: Constellation Drive
Hi Cam -
I spoke to Sherry Frieson at Good Samaritan Retirement Village who is in
charge of their new development infrastructure. We discussed the possibility
of Good Sam helping us financially redoing the full width of Constellation
Drive along their frontage. She said that they are currently $500,000 over
budget and don't have funds available to help, although she was very
understanding about our situation and said she'd like to see both sides of
the road fixed at the same time.
She did make one suggestion, that we see how much their contractor would
charge to do the full width of the street, and compare that number to the
$68,000 figure presented as the City's bid at the August meeting.
One aspect I'm still waiting to hear about is the extent of street repair
that will actually need to be done. At the meeting it was suggested that the
street may not need to be completely rebuilt, that resurfacing may suffice.
I think the engineering crew proposed taking a sample to determine what
regulations Constellation was built to and what condition it's currently in,
then looking at what it would take to bring it up to current City code. Do
you know if anyone is proceeding with this and what it might take to
implement the sampling procedure if it's not underway? I think this
information will be necessary before we schedule another meeting with you,
Rex, etc.
I did give Todd Juergons the go-ahead to proceed rebuilding Lunar Court
South. We asked that the work be completed ASAP, Todd thinks it may be
Spring, '03 before a contractor can get to it. That will take the money
currently in our LID (about $27K), but there will be approximately the same
amount available again in January, 2003.
Thanks for working with us on this. If we keep digging, we may be able to
come up with a solution agreeable to all -
Jack
Cam MuJair- Re: Fwd: Constellation Drive Page 1
From: Rick Richter
To: Cam McNair
Date: 10/8/02 3:33PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Constellation Drive
Cam
1. 1 have been thinking about this question. I think if we pay for a proportion of the cost to improve
Constellation with P.P. $ we would be opening the City up to liabilities for miles of streets that will be or
have been annexed. I would like to see all of Constellation reconstructed but I can't justify using P.P. $.
2. 1 have looked at the condition of Constellation and the existing pavement is way past the overlay
condition. It needs to be reconstructed to bring it up to city standards.
Rick
>>> Cam McNair 10/07/02 05:31 PM >>>
Rick,
FYI - here's a message from Jack Harper. I have also spoken to Sherry Friesen at Good Sam.
Two questions for you:
1. Can the City (PMP) justify contributing any amount or proportion of the costs of improving the east
side of Constellation? How much?
2. Will an overlay suffice on the east side, or is reconstruction necessary?
Let's discuss when you have a few minutes.
Thanks,
Cam
Fort Collins Good Samaritan Village
April 6, 1999
Mr. Champney A. "Cam" McNair, Jr.
Engineering Department
City of Fort Collins
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Dear Cam:
As you know, Fort Collins Good Samaritan Village has been pursuing planning for
a project which would add 34 duplex units, a 2400 square foot therapy center and storage
building to our campus in Phase 1. After an extensive annexation process beginning in July
of 1996, we were finally annexed in January, 1997. Since that time, we had to be rezoned
which took nine months and then were allowed to proceed with our overall development
plan which was approved in April, 1998.
Nearly one year later, we are on our third go around of comments in which we
recently learned of a new requirement to design 1000 feet of Trilby Road west of our
property about one month ago. My question is "Why did we not know of this earlier?"
Ridgewood Hills did extensive design work for their project west of our facility on Ttilby,
so why does Good Samaritan need to spend another $10,000 to do work that was already
done on another project?
Good Samaritan is trying to build affordable senior housing for this community.
With all of these added requirements and changes needed to meet City Plan, there is a
question of whether this project will be financially feasible at all.
For example, because the plan must now assume no infiltration of precipitation and
all runoff, our detention ponds had to increase in size. That meant the loss of one duplex
unit and the entire landscaping and signage in front of our building. This means all of the
costs of infrastructure will need to be spread over 33 units instead of 34, increasing the per
unit cost of each duplex unit, not to mention the cost of moving our $10,000 sign and
landscaping. Much of the plans for drainage have improved the overall drainage for this
area, but no remuneration will be received by Good Samaritan for these costs.
508 West Trilby Road • Fort Collins, CO 80525-9989
Phone: 970/226-4909 Fax:970/226-6976
Transportation Services
Engineering Department
April 4, 2003
Fort Collins Good Samaritan Retirement Village
508 W Trilby Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525-4000
Attn: Sherry Friesen
Re: Fort Collins Good Samaritan Village — Check to City of Fort Collins
Dear Ms. Friesen,
In looking through the past history of the Fort Collins Good Samaritan file, I came across
a check (#012636) issued by your organization to the City in the amount of $10. I've
verified with Dave Stringer that this check was intended for an easement dedication that
was no longer needed at the conclusion of the project; therefore I'm returning the check,
enclosed in this letter.
I apologize for any inconvenience our holding onto this check this may have caused.
Sincerely,
Marc Virata
Civil Engineer
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6605 • FAX (970) 221-6378
www.fCgov.Com
October 22, 1999
City of Fort Collins
Therapy Center Project
$10.00
Sherry Friesen
FORT COLLINS GOOD SAMARITAN RETIREMENT VILLAGE
`,,a%ST S 0 CTR # 0870 FIRST NATIONAL BANK 82 26
3 T FORT COLLINS GOOD SAMARITAN RETIREMENT VILLAGE FORT COLUNS CO 1070 012636
i 508 W TRILBY RD
FORT COLLINS CO 80525-4000
TONE �O (970) 226-4909 AMOUNT
PAY�1 SS�Q DATEOct Ober 22, 1999 CHECK NO.
****TEN AND 00/100*********t*rx***+«*r+*.***+«*****+*+r**•+*t+**•*$10.00
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE
11004263611' 1:1070002621: 02 1865Lit, L1
We feel we have given much to develop this project and meet city standards.
Landmark Engineering will be giving Tim Blanford a letter asking for a variance from the
1000 foot design requirement. I would ask that you please give it your full consideration
under the circumstances. Thank you for listening.
On behalf of our Seniors,
Sherry L.�riesen
Administrator
SLF/dr
`,�R1STS z
F
m o Fort Collins Good Samaritan Village
1
oN f IS Soa``
April 6, 1999
Mr. Tim Blanford
Engineering Department
City of Fort Collins
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Dear Tim:
Thanks for taking the time to meet with our architects and myself yesterday. I
appreciate the time you took to hear all of the issues we've dealt with over the past three
years to meet city standards and move this project forward to becoming a reality for our
seniors.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to apply for the variance in light of all of
the added costs which have already been a strain on the financial feasibility of this project.
Our seniors and donors have been anxiously awaiting approval of this project for
sometime now. Anything you can do to speed up the process will be appreciated. I will
look forward to hearing the results of our request for the variance.
On behalf of our Seniors,
4 .
Sherry L. Friesen
Administrator
SLF/dr
508 West Trilby Road • Fort Collins, CO 80525-9989
Phone: 970/226-4909 Fax:970/226-6976
Landmark
Ltd.
April 26, 1999
Project No. FTCG-6G8B-04-216
Mr. Cam McNair, P.E.
City of Fort Collins
Engineering Department
P.C. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
RE: Request for Variance
Fort Collins Good Samaritan Village
Project Development Plan
Dear Mr. McNair:
On behalf of the Fort Collins Good Samaritan Village, we are requesting a variance from the City
requirement to provide ultimate design of Trilby Road (minor arterial) for 1000 feet to the West of the site
(Section 1.02.03.06 - Design and Construction Criteria Standards and Specifications for Streets, Sidewalks,
Alleys, and Other Public Ways, July 1996). This request is based on the inappropriateness of this
requirement for this particular project, due to the drastically non -conforming existing vertical alignment of
Trilby Road.
This section of Trilby Road was designed as an arterial road by RBD Engineering Consultants in 1995.
Subsequent to this effort, Trilby Road was downgraded to a minor arterial. This existing design should be
appropriate for planning purposes at this time, since no new development is currently proposed along this
road section. If and when an additional development is proposed, Trilby Road may be re-evaluated and
possibly reclassified again, voiding the requested redesign. Additionally, development that would trigger
design and modifications of this section of Trilby Road would probably be directly adjacent to this road
section.
Certainly, Landmark Engineering appreciates the City's interest in maintaining consistency between
proposed development and existing features in order to prevent potential future conflicts. However, given
the possibility of continued street reclassification, the value of the most current design as provided by RBD
Engineering Consultants, and the existing vertical alignment, we feel that the substantial effort necessary
to redesign Trilby Road for 1000 feet West of the Good Samaritan Village site may not have been the initial
intent of "Section 1.02.03.06".
Please find included with this letter of request, a set of design drawings (sheets 42 - 44 of 54) developed by
RBD in 1995 for this section of Trilby Road, and Sheet 12 of 22 from the plan set recently submitted by
Landmark on behal f of the Good Samaritan Village. Inspection of the 1000 feet or so along the stretch of
Trilby Road requested for redesign, revealed that existing roadway grades greatly exceed that required under
City of Ft. Collins Design & Construction Criteria. The most critical sections of Trilby Road, with respect
to exceedance of -maximum allowable grades, appears to be dictated by existing terrain, indicating the need
for an elevated roadway section along the stretch under interest. If an elevated section is necessary to
3521 West Fisenhower Blvd_
Lovdand, Colorado 80537
Dole D. Olhausen. P.E. & L.S.
President
ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS
to, and (970) 667-6286
FAX (970) 667-6298
Denvcr (103) 629-7124