HomeMy WebLinkAboutBLOCK 127 706 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE VIALE COLLEGIO - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2004-07-22VIALE COLLE I cJ
Planning Objectives
ADDRESS: 706 S. College Ave.
Ft. Collins, CO
OWNER: Venturepro, LLP ARCHITECT: Hilhouse Architects, Inc.
Robin and Christian Bachelet Jim Hillhouse
706 S. College Ave.
Ft. Collins, CO 80525
Ph:970-224-9204
8897 Gander Valley Ln.
Windsor, CO 80550
Ph:970-686-0505
EXISTING SITE
The proposed project is located at 706 S. College Avenue, across the street from
the University campus, between Laurel and Plum Streets, just 3 blocks south of Old
Town. It is the site of the present Poudre Property Services office, which is located in a
Former bank building. Zoning is Community Commercial. The site consists of the S 1/2
of Lot 3 and all of Lot 4, Block 127, City of Ft. Collins, and is 21,000 SF. Existing on -
site buildings are in a bad state of repair and consist of the aforementioned former 1,800
SF bank (with drive thru canopy), an older 4,000 SF office building (also occupied by
Poudre Property Services) and a 3,600 SF two story frame house presently used as
student rentals. The property faces College Ave. on the west, and has a paved alley access
to the east. Adjacent one and two story buildings to the north and south are located on
the property liners. Drainage is by surface runoff to the paved alley, with virtually the
entire site being impervious. Utilities are located both in the alley and in College Ave.
DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
This project proposes the replacement of the three older buildings, two of which
are in a bad state of repair, with an urban mixed -use facility. The architectural character
is reminiscent of a side street bistro/cafe in France or Italy, incorporating the streetscape
into the project by way of new plaza style sidewalk under the mature trees for a
sidewalk caf6. The streetscape is enhanced by the addition of a fountain plaza, which
doubles as a bicycle parking area, encouraging the residents to utilize this type of
alternative transportation. The building massing is sensitive to both the human scale, by
stepping the upper levels back from the street, and proper urban design massing by
pyramiding with the one and two story adjacent buildings.
The upper levels of the building will cover the ground/street level of retail space
and parking spaces. Street level retail/caf6 space screens the parking from College Ave.
pedestrians and drivers. Stepped back from the street on the upper level is an open air
rooftop garden for the use of the residential tenants of the topmost levels.
Susan Joy - Re: Fwd: College Avenue Project/Important update Page 2
Dear Ray,
There is an important new development regarding our project that I need
to pass along to you and Mr. Fischbach.
After much time spent researching streets, utilities, facilities and the
like it has come to our attention that the city wide project to
underground utilities has already completed burying utility lines in our
alley . The Streets department claims that the alley was paved to city
specifications strictly enforced by engineering. We are not sure where
the breakdown in communication has happened but it is our job now to
show engineering that what they are requesting we do was completed last
October by Streets and Facilities. I am currently awaiting a letter
from the Streets superintendent stating this fact.
I am hopeful this will resolve this issue and that our project will
resume.
1 will keep you posted as to the outcome of our meeting next Tuesday.
Thank you again for taking the time to hear our concerns. I have attached a color rendering for your
review.
Very Truly Yours,
Robin and Christian Bachelet
>>> Dave Stringer 03/27 05:03 PM >>>
Greg,
Attached is my respose to the Bachelet's.
Dave
dstringer(a)fcgov.com
>>> Cam McNair 03/25 04:06 PM >>>
Greg,
Dave is out of the office today - he will be back tomorrow. I took a brief look at the "Viale Collegio"
development plans with Susan Joy, our development review engineer on this project. Susan will get with
Dave tomorrow and prepare a thorough response. I can say preliminarily, however, that this development
is being subjected to the same Codes and Standards requirements with regard to alley improvements, as
well as all of the infrastructure requirements necessary to support the development, as are all other similar
projects. Examples of recent projects in the downtown area that have upgraded alleys at their expense
are the Northern Hotel, the City's new Administration Building, the North Transit Center, and the Civic
Center Parking Structure. This is not unusual and it is certainly not extortion. It is part of the way that
development helps to pay for its impacts.
Cam
>>> Gregory Byrne 03/25 12:54 PM >>>
Dave, John sent the attached over. Can you help with a response. I'm not familiar with the application or
the requirements. Thanks.
Greg
Susan Joy - Re: Fwd: College Avenue Project/Important update Page 3
>>> John Fischbach 03/25 12:51 PM >>>
Please let me know the problem. Thanks.
John
John F. Fischbach
City Manager
P.O. Box 580
300 West LaPorte Avenue
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
970-221-6505
fax 970-224-6107
fischbachno fcgov.com.
CC: Cynthia Scott, Dave Stringer, Don Bachman, Gregory Byrne, Larry Schneider, Susan
Joy, Tom Frazier
LSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC.
1889 York Street
Denver, Colorado 80206
(303) 333-1105
FAX: (303) 333-1107
e-mail: I sOct1seden.com
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 1, 2002
TO: Jim Hill use
FROM: ave . Ru le, Jr.
SUBJECT: Poudre Property Services - Response to City of Fort Collins Comments
The City of Fort Collins has provided one comment on the traffic impact analysis report dated
September 18, 2001.
Comment No. 42 - The TIS numbers do not add up. Your summary states that 50% of the traffic
accesses the property from the north, 10% from College, and 20% from the east and south.
Where is the other 30%?
Response - On page two of the September 18, 2001 traffic impact analysis report, second
paragraph, it states that "it is assumed that 20 percent of the traffic visiting the proposed
development will come from the east and south, ten percent will access the site to and from the
west, and the remaining 50 percent will access the site to and from the north." This totals 100
percent - 20 percent from the east, 20 percent from the south, 10 percent from the west, and
50 percent from the north. The phrase "20 percent of the traffic visiting the proposed
development will come from the east and south" means that 20 percent will come from the east
and another 20 percent will come from the south. The reviewer may have assumed that the 20
percent was shared between the east and south; however, the critical word is "and," which
means that the 20 percent will come from both directions.
I hope this response addresses the City of Fort Collins' comment on the traffic impact analysis
report.
Server \LSC\Projects\2001 \011150\PPS001.wpd
David Shupe, Consultant
7525 Joel Place,
Loveland, CO 80537
April 4, 2002
Mr. Cam McNair, City Engineer
City of Fort Collins,
P.O. Box 580,
Ft. Collins, CO 80522
Re: Viale Collegio PDP - Type 1 (LUC), 706 So. College Ave.
Dear Mr. McNair:
On behalf of our clients, Venture Pro LLP, we request a variance from the
Development standards of the City for the alley behind the referenced
project, in accordance with the variance procedure outlined in Chapter
1.9.2 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards.
We have been informed by the City of Fort Collins Street Department in
their Memorandum of March 28, 2002 that some 6 months ago (October,
2001) the alley was in fact rebuilt by them to the current pavement
standard thickness by the overlaying of 6" of HBP. We believe this was
part of a program of undergrounding utilities in the area. This should
allay many of the staff concerns expressed in the initial review
comments. The broader issue of widening the alley to 30' appears to be
well beyond the scope of this or any other developer, in that only the City
has the powers of eminent domain which would be required to acquire the
additional right-of-way to do so.
In light of the value of such a project as is being proposed to the
rehabilitation of the downtown area and to the community at large, as
well as the fact that traffic being added to the alley over and above the
present use potential is negligible, we feel a variance from this
requirement is worthy of consideration. We are under the understanding
that the Fire Department has posed no objection to the project.
We are proposing, therefore,
that the
alley be left in its present state,
rather than being rebuilt. In
terms of
pavement standards,
the Street
Department feels it is adequate. The
loads placed on it by
this project or
the Fire Department will not
present any untoward impact
upon capital
and maintenance costs, and
its design
was prepared by the
City itself.
This being the ease, it is our belief that granting this variance would not
pose a detriment to the public health, safety and welfare of the
community, nor will it reduce the design life of the alley or increase its
cost of maintenance. Given the projected traffic volumes of the existing
and projected uses, we believe that the needs of the community will be
better served by leaving the alley 20' wide, as it is, rather than by
widening it to 30', possibly making it a thru-way for higher -speed traffic.
There are other, non-structural, variances from standards which are
architecture -related, and which we also seek. These are addressed in the
Architect's Memorandum attached to this letter. These include parking
setback and Right -turn -in -only driveway width, Please consider these
items also in your analysis of the feasibility of granting this variance.
Ver ly yours I"
David S pe, Cons ant
Colorado P.E. 5914 --'
F St3El4x �� itll•'
Encl.
cc: Poudre Properties
James Hillhouse
Very truly yours,
Susan Joy - Re: Viale Collegio/706 South College Ave
Page 1
From: Dave Stringer
To:"RBachelet@poudreproperty.com"@FC1.GWIA
Date: 4/9/02 5:10PM
Subject: Re: Viale Collegio/706 South College Ave
Dear Robin,
This is in response to your e-mail sent yesterday inquiring about possible variance requests to the
proposed Viale Collegio project. As I understand your e-mail you are seeking input on two questions that
relate to City engineering Standards.
Question 1.
Would the City be willing to consider a variance request to the 50 foot set back requirement from the
College Avenue flowline to the first parking space?
Answer: I made some actual field measurements at the site this morning and found the distance from the
flowline on College Avenue to the first existing parking space is 54 feet. Therefore, if the site plan
accurately depicts what is being proposed with the removal of the three cedar trees and parking lot curb
along the south west side of the property there should not be an issue with the set back requirement. The
site already accommodates the 50 foot requirement. However, when I scale what is shown on the site
plan there appear to be discrepancies from the location of the existing trees and curb as it relates to
what's being proposed.
Question 2:
Would the city be will to allow the existing 24 foot driveway to remain as is and not require a reduced width
to transition into the 15 foot drive isle width on the project site?
Answer:
Again, I made a field measurement and found the existing width to be 27 feet 6 inches plus or minus. This
is also in conflict with the driveway width as shown on the site plan. However, regardless of the existing
width, I believe that for this drive entrance to function safely it needs to be narrowed to a maximum width
of 20 feet with the Colorado Department of Transportation's approval (College Avenue is a State highway
and must comply with (heir State Highway Access Code). This width will allow vehicles turning right off of
College to enter the drive quickly, help control pedestrian/vehicle conflicts and discourage vehicles from
the parking lot making illegal movements into the one way drive isle and trying to make right turns onto
College Avenue from this driveway.
Hopefully, I have understood and addressed you questions correctly, though I must admit I am confused
with what is shown on the proposed site plan verus what exists in the field. Perhaps we can meet to
discuss the site plan so I can better understand what is proposed and what will stay the same.
Dave Stringer
>>> "Robin Bachelet" RBachelet@poucIreproperty.com> 04/08 12:27 PM >>>
Dear Dave,
First and most importantly I would like to thank you for attending our Tuesday AM meeting.
I greatly appreciate the way in which you were able to facilitate a solutions oriented tone to the meeting.
I have held lengthy discussions with our Architect, Jim Hillhouse, and our Engineer, David Shupe,
regarding the issues discussed in the meeting and we are all working very diligently to submit completely
second round. Most of the comments have been addressed completely and we feel very confident that we
are close.
There are a couple of issues that I know we discussed but I must revisit them with you in order to further
clarify due to the fact that ultimately they will inhibit the success of the project either economically or
functionally.
The 50' set back: according to my Architect, the measurements were not adequately depicted in the plans
Susan Joy - Re: Viale Collegio/706 South College Ave
Page 2
and the proposed set back is 38' maintaining our current number of parking spaces. We are already so
very tight on parking and my question to you is in your opinion would a variance request for 38' be granted.
Again, I am interested in submitting completely this next round so I would like to know our chances for
success on this variance request. Jim Hillhouse has assured me that the plaza wall is only 28" high and
any parking or driveway activity will be easily visable from inside a vehicle. This may seem like a small
issue but the parking is critical to the success of our lease up which will ultimately reflect on the overall
success of the project. Additionally, the block directly to the North of us has diagonal on -street parking.
Just three blocks north of us there is also diagonal on -street parking in old town on both sides and in the
center. Many of the businesses south of us have parking within this 50' setback. Furthermore, I would like
to add that the set back was not an issue in the Conceptual Review and had it been, we probably would
have designed the building differently. At this time a re -design would be an impossiblity. Please consider
our request since we will only be 12' off from the suggested 50'.
Narrowing the Drive/Curb Cut: I need clarification as to the importance of narrowing this entryway since it
will ad significant and we feel unnecessary cost and risk to our project. We do not feel that a one way/right
in from college poses a potential danger since there is a median in the street that prevents any left turns
into the site, and thedriveway necks down to 15' once under the building. We have "one way do not enter'
signs leading from the parking lot to this drive. If we have to rebuild the existing drive cut to accomodate a
4' difference (from 24' to 20'), we'll have to re -do many feet of expensive curb, shut down one lane of
College Ave traffic while the work is going on, and patch College Ave to expensive street standards. We
are considering adding this to the request for a variance and I would again like your opinion as to the
possiblity of this variance being granted.
Thank you in advance for your consideration. I anxiously await your response.
Very Truly Yours,
Robin Bachelet
dstringer@fcgov.com
CC: Cam McNair, Susan Joy
April 9, 2003
Resident / Business Owner
(Address)
Re: Viale Collegio Construction Project
706 South College Avenue
Dear Resident or Business Owner:
For the next nine months Sinnett Builders, Inc. will be constructing a project in your
neighborhood. This project is a new, three story, multiple use building with retail spaces, covered
parking, offices and studio apartments. The existing former bank building and a residence will be
demolished, and other improvements to the property are included with the project. This project will be
an excellent example of multiple use buildings designed from the guidelines of the current City Plan.
This project will also require some closures of portions of the rear alley east of College Avenue,
and sidewalk / traffic lane closures on College Avenue itself adjacent to the site. Part of the project
includes new water utilities, fire line, and sewer lines which will be brought in from the alley, and the
entrance to the building from College Avenue will be removed and replaced. To start the work, Sinnett
Builders, Inc. will have the pedestrian sidewalk on College Avenue closed for safe demolition
operations. The sidewalk on College Avenue and the rear alley may be closed for extended periods of
time during construction. This project is being constructed on a "zero lot line", meaning the building
envelope (perimeter) rests on the property line on all sides. Thus, for the safety of pedestrians and
motorists, these closures are of a great necessity. We will have enclosed pedestrian walkways when
appropriate and safe for pedestrian traffic.
We anticipate_ starting this project the week of April 14th, and the sidewalk on College will be
closed to start the demolition operations. Exact dates for the other closures for the sidewalk and alley
have yet to be finalized. We will be sending out additional letters to inform you of these dates prior to
the closures. We have worked closely with the Colorado Department of Transportation, City of Fort
Collins Engineering Department, City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineering Department, and Poudre Fire
Authority in relation to these closures. We hope that these closures will be of minimal inconvenience to
the business and residents of your neighborhood. You may also experience contractor's vehicles parking
on adjacent city streets where legal, as there is limited construction parking. If you have any questions
regarding these closures, please do not hesitate to give us a call. We appreciate your assistance and
patience throughout this project.
Sincerely,
Sinnett Builders, Inc.
John Sinnott
Vice President, Project Manager
cc: Mark Baker, Sinnett Builders, Inc. Project Supervisor
Syl Mireles, City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineering
Lance Newlin, City of Fort Collins Engineering Department
Joe Jaramillo, Poudre Fire Authority Fire Prevention
'Tess Jones, ('DOT
Venture Pro, LLC
A\,RCH111TECTS, INC.
AKCIII"I'F.C"fS & PL,ANNF.RS
May 2, 2002
Mr. Bob Barkeen
City Planner
City of Ft. Colllins
281 N. College Ave.
Ft. Collins, CO 190522
Re: Viale Collegio PDP Resubmittal
Dear Mr. Barkeen:
Presented herewith are the following documents in support of our resubmittal response to
your review of the PDP for the project known as Viale Collegio:
1. request for alley requirement variance
2. request for variance to parking setback and landscaping buffer
3. revised site plan and landscape plan
4. utility plans
5. grading and erosion control plans
6. response to your Staff Project Review comments of 02.14.02
1 will be out of the country until May 15, but if you have any questions or require any
additional information to process this project, please feel free to contact Adam Hillhouse
at my office.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter, and we look forward to an early approval.
Yours truly,
Jim Hillhouse,
Architect
Cc: Robin Bachelet
8897 SANDFR VALLEY LN. WINDSOR, CO. 80550 LOCAL (970) 686-0505 METRO (303) 666-6646
JhdIhouse@cs. com
Susan Joy - Re: Fw: Viale Collegio / 2nd round submittal Page 2
----- Original Message -----
From: Robin Bachelet
To: Dave Stringer
Sent: Monday, May Ofi, 2002 2:01 PM
Subject: Viale Collegio / 2nd round submittal
Dear Dave,
I just wanted to give you a heads up that I will be re -submitting plans for
Viale Collegio at 281 North College today by 3pm.
I have designated a copy for each of the following staff.
Bob Barkeen - Current Planning
Tim Buchanan - Forestry
Susan Joy - Engineering
Ward Stanford - Traffic Operations
Ron Gonzales - PFA
Basil Hamdan - Stormwater Utility
Tom Reiff - Transportation Planning
Jeff Hill - Water Wastewater
Gary Lopez - Zoning
If you would be so kind as to let me know if I have forgotten anyone or any
department. Also, please let me know if you would like your own copy, I do
have extras.
Additionally, I am respectfully requesting as expedited a review as possible
due to the continous safety concerns this property causes. I am hopeful
that we have achieved a complete submittal as requested in the meeting of
April 2nd, I am hopeful that your staff will contact me immediately should
they find anything to be missing or unanswered.
Thank you for your continued support and concern for this project.
Very Truly Yours,
Robin Bachelet
CC: Bob Barkeen; Susan Joy
Viale Collegio
Project Summary
Page 2
(Planning Objectives Continued)
Retail/cafe space available is approximately 4700 SF. Net leaseable office space of
12,500 SF is arranged around an open-air two-story atrium, which brings light into the
interior of the space. Twenty residential flats/efficiencies are targeted toward students and
young working singles, and are grouped around the atrium, as well as having their own
private exterior decks. Thirty three parking spaces are located under the building and
screened from College Ave view. These spaces will serve the residents during off peak
office and retail times, and will supplement the bicycle parking plaza.
This being a redevelopment of existing buildings, it is consistent with City Plan goals of
rehabilitating blighted or substandard facilities. The Poudre Fire Authority strongly
supports the removal of the existing buildings. Additional lower income bracket
residential units targeted toward students is a goal answered by this project. The design
concept of marketing to students without vehicles, made possible by the site adjacency to
CSU, will not adversely impact the transportation system. Additionally, the projected
office and retail uses will not adversely affect the transportation system, creating less than
a one -second impact, as determined by the Traffic Impact Study performed by LSC
Transportation Consultants. The improvements to the streetscape by this proposal will be
substantial, and should be a welcome addition to the College Avenue experience, both
pedestrian and vehicular.
Due to the age of the existing buildings, it is suspected that asbestos removal will be
required during the demolition process. This will be evaluated and accommodated prior
to demolition by a licensed hazardous removal company.
TIMING
The residential portion of the project is market targeted for college students and
young working singles. Therefore, the projected completion date is mid -summer 2002, in
time for the start of university classes- Construction financing is being completed at the
present time, and construction can begin upon City approval and building permit
issuance. Preleasing of the retail and office spaces will begin approximately three or four
months prior to completion.
VIALS COLLE610
706 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE
FOIJT COLLINS, CO 60524
Susan Joy
Engineering
City of Fort Collins
5/6/02
RE: Viale Collegio 706 South College Avenue
Dear Ms. Joy,
Please accept the following second round submittal for Viale Collegio (LUC).
My husband and I hope that you will find this submittal to be complete and worthy of
approval.
We are continually concerned with regard to the safety of this building, as conveyed by
Kevin Wilson ol'PFA during a recent fire inspection. Since this project has suffered
numerous time line set backs due to requirements that have since been either resolved or
dismissed by city staff, we respectfully request an expedited review of this submittal in
hopes that we might be able to mitigate the continuous fire risk .
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Very Truly Yours,
Robin Bachelet, CCIM Christian Bachelet
Susan Joy - Re: Fw: Viale Collegio / 2nd round submittal Page 1
From: Dave Stringer
To: "RBachelet@poudreproperty.com".GWIA.FC1
Date: 5/13/02 11:11 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Viale Collegio / 2nd round submittal
Good morning Robin,
I had a chance to review your latest submital for Viale Collegio project. There are two items that need to
be addressed. The variance request to the parking set back criteria needs to be submitted to the City
Engineer in the same format as the alley request supplied by Mr. David Shupe. Since this is a request to
vary the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, the City Engineer requires that variance requests
be analyzed, signed and stamped by a professional engineer.
I understand this may seem like an unnecessary step to you. However, when the City varies it's minimum
standards we are assuming some legal risk. For this reason the variance request process asks that the
engineer submitting such request use good engineering judgement in their
analysis. In this case I believe the same reasoning as what was proposed by Mr. Hillhouse is sufficient it
just needs to be from an engineers view point.
If you will have your engineer prepare this request as soon as possible we will accept it without a formal
submital.
The second item of concern has to do with the location of the trash and recycle facility. The City's alley
standards require a minimum 3 feet set back from the alley right of way to a fence. Since the trash area
will be enclosed it is the same as a fence. Therefore, I must request that the trash enclosure wall be set
back at least 3 feet. This set back will provide some sight distance gap for those vehicles leaving the
parking lot, entering the alley, as well as vehicles traveling in the alley will be able to see the front of those
vehicles pulling into the alley.
Other then some minor details that can be addressed on the mylar plans, Engineering does not have any
issues with the project as submitted.
Thank you for your cooperation
Dave Stringer
in Bachelet" <RBachelet@poudreproperty.com> 05/13/02 06:39AM >>>
Dave,
Hope you had a great vacation - they are always too short though...
Thanks for the response, I do appreciate you looking over things for me.
Robin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Stringer" <DSTRINGER(a)fcgov com>
To: <RBachelet(a)pouclreproperty.com>
Cc <BBarkeen(ai fcgov.com>; <siov(a)fcgov.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Viale Collegio / 2nd round submittal
Hello Robin,
I've recently returned from vacation and haven't had an opportunity to look
over the latest submital for your project. I will do so tomorrow morning
and get back with you if I see anything for concern from my perspective.
Dave
>>> "Robin Bachelet" <:RBachelet(�poudreproperty com> 05/08/02 06:50PM >>>
Interoffice Memorandum
Date: May 22, 2002
To: Cam McNair, City Engineer
Thru: Dave Stringer, Development Review Manager
From: Susan Joy, Development Review Engineer
RE: Variance Request for Viale Collegio
Dave Shupe, P.E., on behalf of the Developer for the Viale Collegio project, has submitted three variance
requests to the Street Standards, the Land Use Code and the City Code. The property in question is bordered
on the west by College Avenue (a 6-1-ane Arterial) and to the east by an alley.
In accordance with detail 19-03, the minimum parking setback distance from an arterial street is 50'. The project
is showing the first parking stall 47' back from flowline, or 3' short of the minimum requirement. The present
driveway is 28' wide and accommodates two way traffic. The proposed driveway has been narrowed to 20'
wide and becomes one way, therefore reducing both speed and opportunity for conflict. It is our belief that this
variance request should be granted because there will be little, if any, impact to public health and safety.
In accordance with section 3.6.6(D)3, the minimum unobstructed width of the emergency access shall be thirty
(30) feet for access roads serving buildings three (3) stories or more in height on at least one (1) side of the
building. The variance request is to maintain the existing 20' width in the alley. Poudre Fire Authority has
determined that all emergency access for that particular stretch of College Avenue is taken from the arterial
because of the confined nature of the area. Ron Gonzales also stated that PFA would not make the additional
10' width a requirement for this or any other property owner in the area. It is our belief that this variance request
be granted as the additional 10' would serve no useful purpose.
In accordance with section 24-95, the Developer is required to construct their local portion of a public street
adjacent to the properly at such time the property is developed. This variance request is for allowing the
developer to make no alley improvements at this time. The alley was paved by the Street Department several
years ago for dust control but was never designed to any street standard but rather as an interim condition and
temporary solution to the complaints from the neighborhood. The alley was again repaved last year after the
City undergrounded their existing overhead utilities rather than making multiple patches. The cable and
telephone lines are still overhead and the utility companies do not wish underground at this time. After many
discussions, we believe that the variance request for the alley improvements should be granted with the
understanding that the Developer must make improvements at such time as the City decides that additional
improvements are necessary.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns and if you need any additional clarification
Sincerely,
Susan Joy
Enclosures J
Susan Joy - Alley Upgrades with Infill & Redevelopment Projects Page 1
From: Cam McNair
To: Cameron Gloss; Gary Diede; Larry Schneider; Mike Herzig; Rick Richter; WPaul
Eckman
Date: 5/29i 02 10:23AM
Subject: Alley Upgrades with Infill & Redevelopment Projects
Reply requested when convenient
Please look over the attached memo concerning the "Viale Collegio" redevelopment project. This is on
College Avenue (east side), just south of Laurel Street. There were some variance requests, which this
memo addresses. The main part I would ask you to focus on is the criteria for requiring alley upgrades.
Does this sound reasonable to you?
Mike and Paul, please consider whether changes to our codes and standards may be appropriate. For
sure, I think that Municipal Code Section 24-95 (a) needs to be tweaked. I recommend the following:
Sec. 24-95. Obligation for construction.
(a) The construction of the local portion of a public street adjacent to undeveloped developing real
property is hereby declared to be the obligation of the owner of the adjacent property at the time such
property is developed or redeveloped. The timing of the construction shall be as specified in the
development agreement for such property or, if not specified, it shall be required at the time of issuance of
the first building permit upon such property.
If we need to do anything else to legalize the "interim" alley improvements that I suggest, then feel free to
find a place to put that. I would like to keep it in LCUASS as much as possible, so that we have some
flexibility in application of the standards.
Please let me know what you think. Thanks!
Cam
CC: DavE: Stringer
(_tty of tort k-otuns
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Transportation Services
Fnilineering Department
MEMORANDUM
Dave Stringer
Susan Joy
Cam McNair
May 29, 2002
Variance Requests for Viale Collegio
I am comfortable with approving these three variance requests:
(1) The setback: distance from College Avenue to the first parking stall can be varied to 47
feet (as opposed to the standard of 50 feet) without any detriment to public safety.
(2) The emergency access requirements are satisfactory to PFA, so there is no need to
require additional ROW in the alley.
(3) The existing alley paving can be considered to be adequate as an interim standard.
Therefore, it is not necessary to require additional alley improvements at this time.
However, li agree with your placing the stipulation on the plans and/or in the
development agreement that the property owner will be responsible for contributing to
the ultimate alley improvements at such time as the City decides the improvements are
necessary.
The alley issue is one that we have struggled with a number of times on a variety of infill and
redevelopment projects. Our codes and standards allow us to require improvements to alleys in
conjunction with development activities. However, doing so often becomes an impediment to
the types of projects that the City is trying to encourage. I believe we should look carefully at
each infill and redevelopment project that is adjacent to an alley, and decide whether or not to
require alley improvements based on the following criteria:
• What is the present condition of the alley? If the alley has received interim paving
improvements and is functional in terms of all-weather access, drainage, dust control and
so forth, then alley improvements may not be needed at present. However, the property
owners should be reminded of their obligation (in the development agreement) to
participate in improving the alley to its ultimate standards in the future.
• Have sufficient ROW and utility easements been dedicated to the City? If not, these
dedications should be obtained as a minimum with development activities. Getting any
overhead utilities undergrounded, especially service lines, and placing conduit for future
undergrounding of the distribution lines, is a requirement that we should continue to
enforce.
'NI .A'nr!li(n�li .r \inue F().RoyW • F)rtCnllin,,C0805'_2-O HO • (970)221-6605 • FAX(970)227_6378
t%« x0cgm.com
• Will the proposed project add traffic impacts to the alley? A rule of thumb can be that if
the new use increases ADT by 20% or more over the previous use, and a proportionate
amount of the new traffic impacts the alley, then requiring alley improvements may be
justified.
• Is the proposed project a low intensity residential use? Adding an "alley -house" or
"mother-in-law suite" or similar use with minimal traffic impacts should not trigger the
need for alley upgrades to ultimate standards.
• Are there "interim" repairs or improvements, such as pothole patching or overlaying,
which can be done to mitigate a small project's impacts? If so, it may not be necessary to
require full upgrade to ultimate standards. Consult with the Pavement Management
Engineer and/or the Streets Department if you need assistance in determining an adequate
level of treatment to be required as an interim measure, when it is not reasonable to
require the ultimate upgrade.
I hope this guidance is helpful. Let me know if we need to further discuss these alley criteria for
future projects.
CC' Gary Diede
Cameron Gloss
Larry Schneider
Paul Eckman
Mike Herzig,
Rick Richter
Transportation Services
Engineering Department
City of Fort Collins
June 5, 2002
David Shupe, P.E.
Consultant
7525 Joel Place
Windsor, CO 80550
RE: Request for Variances — Viale Collegio
Dear David,
This letter is in response to the variance requests, dated April 4, 2002 and May 13, 2002.
The variance request to the 30' alley width requirement has been granted. The Poudre
Fire Authority will not require the additional 10' of ROW and is satisfied with the current
20' width.
The variance request to the 50' parking setback along College Avenue has been granted.
The proposed 47' setback is approved.
Please be informed that the variance request to not require alley improvements at this
time has been approved by the City Engineer with the condition that the development
agreement for this project will obligate the owners for contributing to the ultimate alley
improvements at such time as the City decides the improvements are necessary.
This variance request does not set a precedence or change the application of our design
standards in other situations. If you have any questions, please contact Susan Joy at
221-6605.
Sincerely,
Susan Joy
Development Review Vngineer
Cc: Bob Barkeen, file
281 North College Avenue • I'O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6605 • FAX (970) 221-6378
ww w. ci. to rt-col I ns.co. us
Susan Joy - project review
Page 1
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Dave,
"Robin Bachelet" <RBachelet@poudreproperty.com>
"Dave Stringer" <DSTRINGER@fcgov.com>
6/10i02 9:12AM
project review
Christian and I received a copy of the comments to our second round submittal. We need to go over it
with our architect but off the cuff I am surprised at the number of comments still outstanding.
When I emailed you just after we submitted you seemed to think with the two changes we requested
Engineering would have no further comment. Additionally I am disappointed in Basil, who really
downplayed his 2nd round requirements even having supposedly got back with Dave Shupe on his
requirements and then, if I am reading the review correctly, is now requiring additional work that will cost
more time and more dollars.
If you have received a copy of the review, can you run through it quickly for me and respond.
In the mean time I will wait to hear from my architect and hopefully we can all get on the same page and
turn this around quickly.
Thanks Dave,
Robin
Susan Joy - Re: Laurel Street Paving - Robin Bachelet Page 1
From: Ron Phillips
To: John Fischbach
Date: Thu, Jul 18, 2002 9:53 AM
Subject: Re: Laurel Street Paving - Robin Bachelet
John,
Below is Mike Herzig's response to the Robin Bachelet issue that he developed after extensive
discussions with all involved. As the voice mail message this morning from Robin says, 1 think we will get
this worked out OK. I'll let you know how it goes.
Ron
>>> Mike Herzig 07/17/02 04:28PM >>>
The Pavement Management Program is doing a rehab paving project of Laurel from College to the east
that has been planned since last year. The Streets Department is currently milling and putting down the
first lift of asphalt on Laurel, and the Contractor will be doing the final lift August 8-9. We talked with Robin
Bachelet's Engineer, Jeff Couch, on Tuesday morning about her project (Viale Collegio). He indicated that
the waterline would need to be tapped in Laurel and extended south into the alley. Our response was that
the final lift of asphalt on Laurel was scheduled for August 8th and 9th which would allow them 3 weeks to
complete the waterline extension. We discussed getting partial approval for the waterline only in order to
allow for the installation of their waterline, or at least the tap before the final lift is done. It is not
uncommon for the Water Department to allow for this type of improvement to occur prior to full approval
of the utility plans.
The second option that was discussed with the Engineer was to install the line after the final lift of
pavement, however, if a new street is cut, the street cut fees are tripled and this would require a
substantial pavement repair that would include rotomilling and a pavement inlay. It certainly was our
preference to have the waterline installed prior to the final lift of pavement.
A third option is to delay the final lift another week to give them a little more time, but we have concerns
about postponing the final lift past the middle of August because Centennial High School will be opening,
as will CSU, and paving the final lift after they are in session will create a greater inconvenience for more
people in the community. In addition, Laurel is a major school bus route transporting students to schools
on the east side of town.
A possible fourth option would be to leave the final lift of pavement off in the block between Remington
and College and have the developer pave that block at their expense after the waterline installation is
complete. This was done once on Magnolia Street for another developer, but the expense is large.
Another concern we have is that the Viale Collegio project has not received final approval and we don't
know when this project will actually begin construction.
One other issue associated with this project is what type of alley repair or improvements will the developer
be required to construct after the construction of the waterline in the alley way. We've been deferring our
answer to this question until Cam gets back on Monday the 22nd. Cam gave this developer a variance to
standard requirements for alleys based upon the fact that the alley had recently been reconstructed by the
Streets Department. This variance was given prior to our knowledge that a waterline was going to have to
be constructed in this alley. Consequently we are not sure at this point what may be required as an alley
repair.
We will continue to work with her to resolve the waterline installation issue.
Susan Joy - Re: Laurel Street paving/ Viale Collegio proposed development Page 1
From: Dave Stringer
To: Ron Phillips
Date: Fri, Jul 19, 2002 10:23 AM
Subject: Re: Laurel Street paving/ Viale Collegio proposed development
Ron,
Following is the latest development as it relates to Robin Bachelet's project south of Laurel Street,
Roger Buffington, Jeff Hill and I meet with Jeff Couch, the engineer for the Viale Collegio project, this
morning to discuss the installation of a portion of the water line crossing Laurel Street to feed the
proposed development. Jeff Couch is preparing a plan for the City's review that will install the
waterline from the water main in Laurel, across the street to a point behind the sidewalk. He intends to
have the plan to us late: this afternoon or first thing Monday morning. He is also trying to locate a Utility
contractor that will be able to install the line once the plan is approved. It is the Developers intent to get
this work accomplished prior to the finial lift of asphalt pavement being placed on Laurel.
Hopefully, this will occur within the next couple of weeks.
Dave
CC:"RBachelet@poudreproperty.com"@FC1.GW IA; Cam McNair; Gary Diede; Jeff Hill;
Larry Schneider; Mike Herzig; Rick Richter; Roger Buffington; Susan Joy
Dave Stringer - Re: Fw: Viale Collegio / 2nd round submittal Page 1
From: Dave Stringer
To:"RBachelet@poudreproperty.com".GWIA.FC1
Subject: Re: Fw: Viale Collegio / 2nd round submittal
Good morning Robin,
I had a chance to review your latest submital for Viale Collegio project. There are two items that need to
be addressed. The variance request to the parking set back criteria needs to be submitted to the City
Engineer in the same format as the alley request supplied by Mr. David Shupe. Since this is a request to
vary the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, the City Engineer requires that variance requests
be analyzed, signed and stamped by a professional engineer.
I understand this may seem like an unnecessary step to you. However, when the City varies it's minimum
standards we are assuming some legal risk. For this reason the variance request process asks that the
engineer submitting such request use good engineering judgement in their
analysis. In this case I believe the same reasoning as what was proposed by Mr. Hillhouse is sufficient it
just needs to be from an engineers view point.
If you will have your engineer prepare this request as soon as possible we will accept it without a formal
submital.
The second item of concern has to do with the location of the trash and recycle facility. The City's alley
standards require a minimum 3 feet set back from the alley right of way to a fence. Since the trash area
will be enclosed it is the same as a fence. Therefore, I must request that the trash enclosure wall be set
back at least 3 feet. This set back will provide some sight distance gap for those vehicles leaving the
parking lot, entering the alley, as well as vehicles traveling in the alley will be able to see the front of those
vehicles pulling into the alley.
Other then some minor details that can be addressed on the mylar plans, Engineering does not have any
issues with the project as submitted.
Thank you for your cooperation
Dave Stringer
in Bachelet" <RBachelet@poudreproperty.com> 05/13/02 06:39AM >>>
Dave,
Hope you had a great vacation - they are always too short though...
Thanks for the response, I do appreciate you looking over things for me.
Robin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Stringer" <DSTRINGER(cilfcgov.com>
To: <RBachelet(a).poudreproperty.com>
Cc: <BBarkeen(a)fcgov.com>; <sioy(o)fcgov.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Viale Collegio / 2nd round submittal
Hello Robin,
I've recently returned from vacation and haven't had an opportunity to look
over the latest submital for your project. I will do so tomorrow morning
and get back with you if I see anything for concern from my perspective.
Dave
>>> "Robin Bachelet" <RBachelet(a)poudreproperty.com> 05/08/02 06:50PM >>>
Susan Joy - Re: Laurel Street paving/ Viale Collegio proposed development/resubmittal pending
Page 1
From: "Robin Bachelet" <RBachelet@poudreproperty.com>
To: "Dave Stringer" <DSTRINGER@fcgov.com>
Date: Wed, Jul 24, 2002 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: Laurel Street paving/ Viale Collegio proposed development/resubmittal pending
Dave,
Thank you for keeping me in the loop on the pending street work. We are
moving forward rapidly on the water line installation and expect to have it
installed by the 8th of August. Ron Phillips has been very helpful.
We will be resubmitting Viale Collegio at 11:30 am today the 24th of July.
Our team has met with respective departments on all pending issues and
comments and we are anticipating a smooth round ... we are even praying for an
approval! We appreciate anything you can do to expedite the process.
Respectfully,
Robin Bachelet
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Stringer" <DSTRINGER@fcgov.com>
To: <rphillips@fcgov.com>
Cc:<cmcnair@ci.fort-c;olIins.co.us>; <GDIEDE@fcgov.com>; <JEHILL@fcgov.com>;
<Ischneider@fcgov.com>; <MHERZIG@fcgov.com>; <RBUFFINGTON@fcgov.com>;
<RRICHTER@fcgov.com>; <sjoy@fcgov.com>; <RBachelet@poudreproperty.com>
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 10:23 AM
Subject: Re: Laurel Street paving/ Viale Collegio proposed development
Ron,
Following is the latest development as it relates to Robin Bachelet's
project south of Laurel Street.
Roger Buffington, Jeff Hill and I meet with Jeff Couch, the engineer for the
Viale Collegio project, this morning to discuss the installation of a
portion of the water line crossing Laurel Street to feed the proposed
development. Jeff Couch is preparing a plan for the City's review that will
install the
waterline from the water main in Laurel, across the street to a point behind
the sidewalk. He intends to have the plan to us late this afternoon or
first thing Monday morning. He is also trying to locate a Utility
contractor that will be able to install the line once the plan is approved.
It is the Developers intent to get this work accomplished prior to the
finial lift of asphalt pavement being placed on Laurel.
Hopefully, this will occur within the next couple of weeks.
Dave
Susan Joy - 8" Tap on E Laurel
Page 1
From: Roger Buffington
To: Dwight Dufloth
Date: Fri, Jul 26, 2002 3:19 PM
Subject: 8" Tap on E Laurel
We have approved an 8" tap on the 8" main in Laurel approximately one half block east of College (at the
alley). This is being done ahead of signing final mylars to allow the work to be done before the final lift of
asphalt is placed within the next week or so. Let me know if you have questions.
Thanks, Roger
CC: Dave Stringer; Lance Newlin; Rick Richter; Susan Joy; Terry Robinson
Susan Joy - Re: 8" Tap on E Laurel
Page 1
From: Dave Stringer
To: Dwight Dufloth; Roger Buffington
Date: Fri, Jul 26, 2002 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: 8" Tap on E Laurel
Rick and Roger,
I signed the mylar for Jeff this afternoon and he is supposed to get me signed stamped bluelines yet
today. The work is scheduled to start first thing Monday the 29th of July. JIB Excavating is doing the work
and will be using flowfill for back fill material in the street.
Dave
>>> Roger Buffington 137/26/02 03:17PM >>>
We have approved an 8" tap on the 8" main in Laurel approximately one half block east of College (at the
alley). This is being done ahead of signing final mylars to allow the work to be done before the final lift of
asphalt is placed within the next week or so. Let me know if you have questions.
Thanks, Roger
CC: Lance Newlin; Rick Richter; Susan Joy; Terry Robinson
Susan Joy - Re: Viale Collegio DA
Page 1
From: Dave Stringer
To: Susan Joy
Date: Thu, Jan 16, 2003 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: Viale Collegio DA
Susan my comments in red,
Also you need to reword the F&F and Hazards clause to be applicable to this site.
1. No construction may occur within the public rights of way ( State Highway 287/College Avenue) until the
State Highway Access Permit is obtained and the Notice to Proceed has been issued by (omit from)from
the Colorado Department of Transportation.
2. In accordance with Section 24-95 of the City Code, the Developer is responsible for constructing the
improvements to the Alley located on the east side of the property including curb, gutter,(Omit sidewalk)
sidewalk, and pavement prior to the issuance of the (omit First)first building permit. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the Developer shall have the option to postpone the Alley design and construction adjacent to
the property Out to Laurel Street until such time that the City deems that the improvements to on the Alley
are needed. At such time, the Developer agrees to pay for his local street portion (including design and
construction costs) and dedicate all additional right of way and all necessary easements as required by
code and that may be needed to accommodate the improvements. If the Alley improvements are
designed and constructed by another party, than the Developer agrees to dedicate all additional right of
way and necessary easements as required by code and necessary to accommodate the improvements
and reimburse said party(s) for the design and construction costs of the Developer's local street portion.
>>> Susan Joy 01/16/03 01:03PM >>>
Oh pardon me! How silly of me! I've attached the complete draft and the two paragraphs you just read
are under the Streets section. I've also left the Footings and Foundations section (G) in to give them the
ability to pull an F&F permit if they so choose ... that is, if you agree.
>>> Dave Stringer 01/16/03 12:59PM >>>
As they stand they are okay. Are these in Special conditions? I need to see the complete context
>>> Susan Joy 01/16/03 12:11PM >>>
Here are the two paragraphs I added to the DA. Do you have any additional requirements that I might
have left out? And what do you think of paragraph 4? Thank you Dave!
3. No construction may occur within the public rights of way until the State Highway Access Permit is
obtained from the Colorado Department of Transportation.
4. In accordance with Section 24-95 of the City Code, the Developer is responsible for constructing
the improvements to the Alley located on the east side of the property including curb, gutter, sidewalk, and
pavement prior to the issuance of the first building permit. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Developer
shall have the option to postpone the Alley design and construction adjacent to the property until such time
that the City deems that the improvements on the Alley are needed. At such time, the Developer agrees
to pay for his local street portion (including design and construction costs) and dedicate all additional right
of way and all necessary easements as required by code and that may be needed to accommodate the
improvements. If the Alley improvements are designed and constructed by another party, than the
Developer agrees to dedicate all additional right of way and necessary easements as required by code
and necessary to accommodate the improvements and reimburse said party(s) for the design and
construction costs of the Developer's local street portion.
John Fischbach - Christian and Robin Bachelet.doc
Page 1
Christian and Robin Bachelet
304 Camino Real Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80524
4/8/03
Re: permit fees Viale Collegio
Dear Mayor Martinez;
After 24 months in process, 18 of that navigating through the city requirements, our
mixed-usc redevelopment project on College Avenue is nearly ready to break ground. For
the last 8 weeks we have heard "next week the permit should be ready" and always there
was one last change, one last staff member had to have their addition to the plan. Even
though, according to our staff, all code requirements had been satisfied. At the meeting it
was always promised that this was the "the last meeting". Each change, though seemingly
miniscule to city staff, created a ripple effect through our plans ultimately requiring more
professional time on the clock, which equated to thousands more in architectural and
engineering fees.
This morning we received the much -awaited copulation of city fees. Permit fees, we had
been warned, would most likely come in around one hundred thousand dollars
($100,000.00). We felt 5% of the cost to build was excessive but we had prepared
ourselves and our lending institution for that figure. We were astounded and dismayed to
see that the fees for the project came in at over two hundred and thirty one thousand
dollars ($231,000.00). Just within 10% of the cost to build.
I have included with this letter a copy of the permit fee guidelines. Though all the fees
seem exorbitant and I could argue each one independently the bottom line is that the fees
are so excessive our project will never begin because of them. First arid foremost the
bank has committed to loan 75% of the value of the property. Our 25% equity is in the
land and architectural and engineering fees. We do not have an extra one hundred and
thirty thousand dollars ($I30,000.00) for capital expansion and street over sizing. I
understand that progress must pay its own way but our project is a redevelopment in an
existing neighborhood with mature trees, existing parks, libraries and other services. We
would expect that our thousands of commercial property tax dollars already pay for these
existing services. We do not feel it is warranted that our project be charged seventy one
thousand two hundred and fifteen dollars ($71,215.00) in capital fund fees when our team
has proven that new demands will negligible to the immediate community. More
specifically, we were required to provide a traffic impact study to determine the impact of
our project on current traffic patterns. It was determined, and accepted by the city staff,
that our project would have insignificant impact to existing traffic and roads and yet our
project has been leveled with thirty two thousand dollars (32,000.00) of commercial and
residential street over sizing fees. Additionally, we were only credited for services for 4
living units w;tcn we had 8 living units in the existing property. We have attempted to
argue this at the staff level however no one is willing to commit to anything more than
that is how the, "computer calculates the fees". It is precisely these fees and this city
iJohn Fischbach - Christian and Robin Bachelet.doc Page 2
process that cause the cost of living in Fort Collins to skyrocket. Furthermore forcing
local developers out of the business of developing. Local landowners have two choices,
either never develop/redevelop their properties or sell to out of town developers with
deeper pockets. When ownership goes out of town so do revenues and concerns about the
good of the community.
Several small local developers that we know have vowed to "never build anything in Fort
Collins again", these are long time members of the community that would only have the
community's best interest in mind. This is a loss for our community.
I Iypothetically, where would mid town and down town Fort Collins be without small
developers? The infill and redevelopment projects aren't grand enough to attract large
developers, so the vitality of the mid town and down town areas depends on the small
local developer. T would imagine the city staff members should treat such a limited
resource with much more respect.
The small and now nonexistent profit margin we planned to gain from our redevelopment
project was earmarked for another mid town redevelopment project. Another mixed use
project that apparently the local staff and city plan welcomes and supports. Because of
the repeated delays and now the excessive, insurmountable permit fees this could be our
first and last attempt at a project.
We desperately need a variance from the required fees for our project. The fees as
charged cause an adverse economic hardship and jeopardize our ability to begin this
project.
We thank you for your time and anxiously await your reply.
Very Truly Yours,
Robin Bachelet Christian Bachelet
Owner Owner
Susan Joy - ChristianandRob inBacheletAlleyAtVialeColleg ioMayor.doc Page 1
Dear Christian and Robin Bachelet,
This letter is in response to your question to the Mayor regarding the City's
requirement to reconstruct the alley adjacent to the proposed project known as
Viale Collegio . As I understand your e-mail there seems to be some concern
that the alley construction requirement places an undue hardship that is not
warranted with this project. I will address the reasons why the City believes the
alley reconstruction is a legitimate requirement.
The City's Land Use Code Division 3.3.2 Development Improvements,
Engineering Standards (D) (6) and (E) (1) (c) and (F) (1) (b) places the
responsibility of street and/or alley improvements upon the person(s) proposing
to develop or redevelop within the City. In addition, as a you are aware from the
City's conceptual review comments and Engineering's initial review of February
6, 2002 the current condition of the alley will not with stand the impact of the
additional traffic being proposed by the Viale project. The original asphalt
pavement placed in the alley was done as a dust control measure and the
subsequent repaving, last year after the utility repairs, was done as a repair to
what had been destroyed during the utility installation process. Neither of these
asphalt pavements was designed to accommodate a higher traffic use then what
existed at the time. The proposed project appears to be placing a much higher
number of vehicles onto the alley then what had existed in the past. The traffic
study that Engineering and the Traffic Engineer received did not include Figures
1 - 3, Table 1, traffic counts or the computer analyses to justify the numbers
addressed in the report. However, it does state that at a minimum 50 percent of
the vehicle trips will be coming from the North, which suggests that the alley will
be used by at least one half (241) of the vehicles per day needing to access the
site.
I understand your frustration with this requirement and the concern it is causing
your design team. However, there is a Variance process to the City street design
standards. The process for the variance request can be found in the Larimer
County Urban Area Street Standards Chapter 1.9.2. If you desire to apply for a
variance request for the alley -paving requirement please have your civil engineer
prepare such request in accordance with the above -cited chapter and present
the variance request with your next project submittal.
Sincerely
David Stringer
Development Review Manager
Susan Joy - Fwd: Re: Christian and Robin Bachelet Page 1
From: Cam McNair
To: Gregory Byrne
Date: Mon, Mar 25, 2002 4:06 PM
Subject: Fwd: Re: Christian and Robin Bachelet
Greg,
Dave is out of the office today - he will be back tomorrow. I took a brief look at the "Viale Collegio"
development plans with Susan Joy, our development review engineer on this project. Susan will get with
Dave tomorrow and prepare a thorough response. I can say preliminarily, however, that this development
is being subjected to the same Codes and Standards requirements with regard to alley improvements, as
well as all of the infrastructure requirements necessary to support the development, as are all other similar
projects. Examples of recent projects in the downtown area that have upgraded alleys at their expense
are the Northern Hotel, the City's new Administration Building, the North Transit Center, and the Civic
Center Parking Structure. This is not unusual and it is certainly not extortion. It is part of the way that
development helps to pay for its impacts.
Cam
>>> Gregory Byrne 03/25/02 12:54PM >>>
Dave, John sent the attached over. Can you help with a response. I'm not familiar with the application or
the requirements. Thanks.
Greg
>>> John Fischbach 03/25/02 12:51 PM >>>
Please let me know the problem. Thanks.
John
John F. Fischbach
City Manager
P.O. Box 580
300 West LaPorte Avenue
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
970-221-6505
fax 970-224-6107
Ifisch bach(c)fcc ov. corn
>>> Ray Martinez 03/25/02 12:46 PM >>>
Robin and Christian:
I cannot give you legal advise, but it sounds like you are having difficulty in getting a plan through because
of some unreasonable demands by the City? If this is the case, I will share this with our City Manager to
see if he can give some direction and explanation of the requests, and determine if they are rquired or not
per code.
Take care.
Ray Martinez, Mayor
PO Box 580
300 Laporte Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Susan Joy - Fwd: Re: Christian and Robin Bachelet Page 2
970-416-2154
ram artinez(afcgov. com
>>> 'Robin Bachelet'<RBachelet(a7poudreproperty.com> 03/23 10:52 AM >>>
Dear Mr. Mayor,
Christian and I have received word from our architect and engineer that they have exhausted discussions
with Susan Joy in Engineering. She is requiring us to dig up the entire alley block and re- curb, re-
structure and re -gutter etc.. before she will sign off on our project. Our team is livid beyond words. We
have two options, should this request not be dismissed; 1) to discontinue the project and sell, we have a
buyer who has no plans to redevelop and would only continue with the property as is or 2) retain legal
counsel to fight this extortion.
Time is of the essence, please let us know your opinion once formed.
Sincerely,
Christian and Robin Bachelet
CC: Cameron Gloss; Dave Stringer; Gary Diede; Ron Phillips; Susan Joy
i9AR-28-2002 THU 11:17 AM FT COLLINS STREETS DEPT FAX NO. 9702216270 P. 02
Transportation Services
Streets Department
Memorandum
Date: March 28, 2002
To: Robin Bachelet 17�p,,,�
From: Mike Mossburgh, Crew Chief, Streets Department
l'/�
Re: Paving Alley at 700 blk of College
Dear Robin:
The City of Fort Collins, Streets Department, did work on the alley in the 700
block of South College. Work began October 3, 2001, and at that time
crews milled and prepared the alley for poving. On October 4, 2001, the
crews placed 212 tons of 1 /2"HBP at a depth of 4". The crews returned
October 9, 2001, and placed 136 tons of 3/4" HBP at a depth of 2" to bring
the total depth of asphalt placed to 6".
If you have any further questions or concerns please don't hesitate to call
me at (970) 221-6615.
Thank you,
Cc: Mike Wermuth, Lorry Schneider
025 Ninth Street • P.O. Box 580 • Fart Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6615
EP lr kD -JD't- :r 1
S e r v i c e s
Bob Barkeen
City Planner
City of Fort Collins
281 N. College Ave
Fort Collins, CO 80524
3/29/02
Dear Bob,
70s Sotilh C.ollcgc
Pr. Collins. Colorado 5052
�'-u01 234J204
Fax IS 701 224 0242
vv�w�-v. pond rchrnpert; :con I
The following will serve as response to Engineering's general comments numbered 43
and 44:
According to Utilities all lines have been under -grounded in the alley adjacent to our
property. Scott Dah!gren managed this project to underground the utilities, and he
expressly indicated to me that digging up the alley now, after lines have been buried and
the alley paved, would be senseless, risky and a waste of taxpayer dollars.
Mr. Dahlgren went on to say this alley project was a collaborative effort between the
special utility under -grounding project and City of Fort Collins Streets Department.
Apparently funds had been earmarked for this alley project with supplemental funds
coming from Streets and the utility under -grounding project. According to Mr.
Mossburgh from the Streets Department, the alley was paved and graded to city code.
Please see enclosed letter from Mike Mossburgh.
It is apparent that this work has already been completed and I respectfully request at this
time that comment 43 and 44 be considered resolved and ultimately dismissed from our
project summary.
I look forward to our Tuesday morning meeting when we can address and resolve
additional comments.
Very Truly Yours,
Robin Bachelet, CCIM
cc: Susan Joy
Mike Mossburgh
=,inr- I; Sid(']I[I' Con:nu idol , Centers - Honx �;��,-.i7=_ „iaui rnr..
4
X
C C
W
>
O
a
N
E
n
ClQ
3Qq
w
m
Q
4
�
m
o
Q
a- a
�,
m
V
�➢
®
tB
G
a'1
a
i
ao
c
n
�c
"
NQ
h
07
U
b O m
48
[°a
m
m
UD
a) O
v m
m
(D
L
m
n
3
m
w
.=N
d
N
=
o
m
a c
0
H
Q
®
m
c
d
a
E
®
t
CD
v
>
o
va
un
ro
`o s
E
>
�`v o 9
❑
w
aID
a)
_o
@
=
c
a
o
>
p !7
-S
c
O {A
T
C)
D
m
—
CD
a 3 p
m
O E
a
Ci
a,
C
a n' "a
c
Q
m
m
` Q
c
w
3 i3 v`
m
�,
ci C
E m
ms>w
v
m
oa
a`
E
mi3�
_
CD®
c
j O
o
U
.�
r L)
N
fl`.
�h
o—
>CD
]
m
u
C
U
co
m
c
a
m ¢' w
a)
"
C2
a s
a
>
cl
o ®
o
�a�
n
c
a o
c
dty
u
>
o
d
�mQ
Eo
m
Y ae
�o
Em
_
U>
o
LD
G ®
ar m
5D
u )
a®
O
Q
�Y r�
^' p
=
Susan Joy - Re: Fwd: College Avenue Project/Important update Page 1
From: Gary Diede
To: Cam McNair; Ron Phillips
Date: 4/1/02 5:05PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: College Avenue Project/Important update
Ron /Cynthia, I think Cam's letter explains what was done in paving the alley, but I believe we should
include from Larry S. why he paved th alley last October and what the circumstances were.
Gary
>>> Cam McNair 04/01/02 04:58PM >>>
In case you did not receive this message (below) that I sent last Friday, I am sending it again. Our
position on the alley is that it has not been designed and built to standards. There has been no drainage
design, there is no curb -and -gutter or other provisions for handling drainage, there was no pavement
design, the overhead utilities have not all been placed underground, there are encroachments in the alley
ROW, etc. That said, it may not be appropriate to tear out what has been done, but the developer should
prepare a proper design and contribute funds to the eventual improvement of the alley to standards.
Ron & Gary,
The original request came down via CPES channels on Monday. I am copying that below, along with all
other messages that I have seen on this, in reverse chronological order. And I am attaching Dave
Stringer's response (a Word document) which went back up thru CPES. That probably has not been sent
out yet - I'm not sure if it was going out over Greg's signature or John's. Either way, the Bachelots have
probably not seen it yet.
I am also attaching a copy of the referenced letter from Streets Dept to the Bachelots, that is dated today.
Streets did pave that alley last year, but it has not been designed or built to current standards. There is no
curb -&-gutter or other drainage improvements. There are still other issues with that alley, such as making
provisions for undergrounding the Qwest lines.
As Dave's letter indicates, we would probably entertain a variance request in this case, since the alley was
recently improved, even though the improvements are not fully to standard. However, the developer
would still be obligated for some contribution to the ultimate design and construction of the alley to
standard. If the developer would please deal with us directly, instead of going thru the Mayor, we might be
able to work out some of these details more efficiently.
Cam
>>> Ron Phillips 03/28 01:36PM >>>
Cam and Gary,
What is this about? John wants a comment form me.
Ron
>>> John Fischbach 03/28 12:22 PM >>>
Comment please.
John
>>> RBachelot(o�poudreproperty.com 03/28 08:19 AM >>>