HomeMy WebLinkAboutCORTINA - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2004-07-23• The drive to the underground parking facility needs to start downhill as quickly as
possible from the edge of the Canyon Avenue pavement. Attaching the walk will allow
an extra 6' of "run" for the proposed drive. This extra length is critical to make the
underground parking feasible (number of spaces vs. cost of underground parking).
Variance 2 for this project will discuss the drive grading further.
This variance from the above Standards will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and
welfare.
Please call me with any questions or additional information that you may need for the approval of
this variance.
Patricia Kroetch, PE
North Star Design, Inc.
Katie Moore - Fwd Re: Cortina Page 1
From: Dave Stringer
To: Katie Moore
Date: 3131/03 3:55PM
Subject: Fwd: Re: Cortina
Well, looks like the right-of-way question is resolved.
Dave
>>> Cam McNair 03/31/03 03:18PM >>>
FYI - I can explain.
Katie Moore -Re Cortina
Page 1
From:
Gary Diede
To:
..w(ccoulsondevelopment.com".GWIA60.FC1
Date:
3/31 /03 2:50PM
Subject:
Re: Cortina
Thanks Bill. Please work with Cam on the leasing arrangement for the use of the ROW on Howes and
Canyon. Our attornievs will help with that too.
gary
>>> "William Coulson" <w@coulsondevelopment.com> 03/31/03 12:32PM >>>
Gary,
thanks so much for getting back with me and allowing me to use the space under the walk. It's a huge
help and really makes the project viable! I'll get with you on the lease/encroachment permit. It will need to
be long. 99 years?
Thanks again! You guys have been really helpful and I'll continue to let people know the great effort you
have put forth.
Regards,
Bill
CC: Cam McNair
1 North Star
"01 Atom., design, Inc.
RECEIVED
CURRENT PLANNING
April 2, 2003
Wes Lamarque
City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility
700 Wood Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Mr. Lamarque,
This letter is to request a variance to the City of Fort Collins requirements for water
quality extended detention. It is proposed to provide water quality measures by the
installation of a Stormceptor structure.
Runoff from the roof will be collected internally in the building and will be conveyed in
underground piping to the proposed Stormceptor structure. The structure has storage
capacity for 85 cubic feet of sediment. A maintenance program for this structure will be
incorporated into the Home Owners Association documents. This structure is proposed
because the 'in -fill' nature of the project limits the ability to provide a conventional water
quality extended detention pond. The proposed structure serves the purpose of removing
sediment from the runoff and, with a proposed maintenance program, will continue to
function properly in the future.
Please let me know if you have questions or require additional information for this
variance request.
°': o
G
tOPJ41 •�
700 Automation Drive, Unit I Windsor, Colorado 80550
970-686-6939 Phone • 970-686-1188 Fax
Katie Moore - Re Fwd: Sub Surface right suggested sales price. Page 1 1,
From: Ralph Campano
To: Katie Moore
Date: 4/8/03 2:57PM
Subject: Re Fwd: Sub Surface right suggested sales price.
Hello Katie,
I would suggest a lease rate of $1.00 per square foot of overlying surface area for the first year, with rent
increasing at a rate of 4% per year.
>>> Katie Moore 04/08/03 01:53PM >>>
Ralph,
How would that translate into, say, a 99-year lease?
-Katie
>>> Ralph Campano 04/08/03 12:51 PM >>>
Hello Katie,
For purposes of selling the sub -surface rights to the right-of-way in front of 211 S. Howes, I suggest a
sales price calculated as follows:
Fee Simple Land = $20.00 per square foot
Sub -Surface Rights c) 50% of fee = $10.00 square foot of overlying surface area.
Please call me at # 6275 if you have any further questions.
Ralph
>>> Ralph Campano 04/07/03 03:16PM >>>
Hello Paul,
Ron forwarded your message to me for my input on subsurface rights.
I would suggest a sales price for subsurface development rights of 50% of the fee value of the overlying
land, providing that the subsurface development does not interfere with existing or future underground
utilities.
Please let me know if you also need a dollar amount for a particular property.
Thank you,
Ralph
Katie Moore - Re. Fwd: Item # 19 -Lease with Cortina Home Owners Page 1
From: Katie Moore
To: Cam McNair, Ralph Campano
Date: 8/18/03 9:10AM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Item # 19 - Lease with Cortina Home Owners
Cam,
Looking back at my notes, and correct me if I'm wrong Ralph, the price for leasing the land was
determined by taking the estimated Fee Simple Land cost of $20.00 per square foot then dividing that in
half because the lease is only for the underground portion of the ROW. I believe we looked at a 99-year
term for Bill Coulson'_s comfort, thinking that this building will probably be around for quite a long time. In
comparison to encroachment permits, do encroachment permits ever expire? It might be good to point
out that this lease is revocable, too.
I hope this answers those questions. If not, please let me know,
Katie
>>> Cam McNair 08/18/03 08:38AM >>>
Ralph and Katie,
Can you please help me answer this question from Councilmember Hamrick. We need to answer this
today. If you will send me the info on how the lease terms and values were determined, I will put that in
the context of lease vs. permit vs. not allowing this at all.
Thanks,
Cam
Katie Moore - Re: Fwd: Item # 19 - Lease with Cortina Home Owners Page 1
From: Katie Moore
To: Cam McNair, Ralph Campano
Date: 8/18/03 9:43AM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Item # 19 - Lease with Cortina Home Owners
Cam,
I think I forgot to say that we decided on a lump -sum payment for the lease because it would be much
simpler since we aren't set up for administering leases through the Engineering Department.
-Katie
>>> Cam McNair 08/18/03 08:38AM >>>
Ralph and Katie,
Can you please help me answer this question from Councilmember Hamrick. We need to answer this
today. If you will send me the info on how the lease terms and values were determined, I will put that in
the context of lease vspermit vs. not allowing this at all.
Thanks,
Cam
Page 1
Katie Moore - Cortina
From: Chip Steiner <steinco@frii.com>
To: <kamoore@fcgov.com>
Date: 9/25/03 3:19PM
Subject: Cortina
Katie --
The Downtown Development Authority will include maintenance requirements
for those improvements that it funds as a part of the Cortina project
planned for the corner of Canyon and South Howes.
The maintenance clauses are included in the agreement we execute with
the project owner at the point when construction is complete and actual
costs for the improvements can be verified. Such maintenance
requirements are a part of every deal the DDA is involved with.
Thanks for keeping track of this.
Sincerely,
Chip Steiner
Downtown Development Authority
September 25, 2003
Page 1
Katie Moore - Telephone Conversation with Bill Colson re -Cortina plat
From: Cameron Gloss
To: Cam McNair; Dave Stringer; Katie Moore
Date: 9/26/03 11 A4 AM
Subject: Telephone Conversation with Bill Colson re -Cortina plat
Cam, Dave and Katie
My telephone conversation with Bill Colson went just fine. As he expressed in the conversation, the
requirement for a subdivision "freaked him out' (his words) because of the potential for the public to
comment at the hearing or, worse, appeal the decision.
Once he understood that this approach would not add time to the process, and that we had a back up plan
should there be an appeal, he was perfectly comfortable with it.
Thanks for everyone getting together to discuss this on such short notice. We appear to be in good
shape --Bill has instructed their surveyer to draft the plat.
Cameron
CC: Bob Barkeen
Katie Moore - CORTINA (Canyon and Howes) - storage vaults Page 1
From: "Don Bundy" <db@the-architects-studio.com>
To: "Katie Moore" <kamoore@fcgov.com>
Date: 10/23/03 8:46AM
Subject: CORTINA (Canyon and Howes) - storage vaults
Katie,
Bill Coulson has informed us that the City requires additional documentation
on the storage vaults that he wants to build under the public sidewalk as
part of this project at Canyon and Howes.
As you know we submitted drawings to you in August, which were in response
to your requests at that time. Please let me know what you require to allow
this construction to be approved. Thank you for your assistance with this.
Sincerely,
Don Bundy
mailto:db@the-architects-studio.com
The Architects' Studio, Inc
151 West Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
970-482-8125
970-482-8450 Fax
CC: "WILLIAM COULSON" <w@coulsondevelopment.com>, "Ted Beers"
<ted @sin nettbu ilders. com>
North Star
design, inc.
October 6, 2003
Ms. Katie Moore
City of Fort Collins Engineering
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, Colorado 50522-0580
Re: Cortina — Request for Variance from Minimum Cover over storm
Proj: 114-24
Dear Katie.
The following is a request for variance from Section 12.2.2 — Design Standards — Minimum
Depth in the "Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, March 2001". This variance is
requested to allow Storm 1 in Canyon Avenue to have less than the required 2' of cover below the
scarified subgrade.
The storm will not meet the minimum cover because the existing storm system that will be
connected to is shallow. We proposed to use ductile iron pipe for the storm and to pave the street
with concrete over the storm pipe. This will prevent potential damage to the street.
']'his criterion is intended to prevent street damage not protect the public health and safety.
"Therefore a variance from the above Standards will not be detrimental to the public health, safety
and welfare.
Please call me with any questions or additional information that you may need for the approval of
this variance. -.,
North Star
700 Automation Drive Unit I Windsor, Colorado 80550
970-'686-6939 Phone 970-686-1 1 88 Fax
Interoffice Memorandum
Date: December 13, 2002
To: Cam McNair, City Engineer
Thru: Dave Stringer, Development Review ManagerT?,.,
From: Katie Moore, Development Review Engineer
RE: Variance Requests for Canyon -Howes Residences
North Star Design, Inc, on behalf of the Developer for the Canyon - Howes Residences Project, has
submitted two variance requests to the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. The variances are
for allowing an attached walk on Canyon Avenue, and for allowing a driveway to slope down beyond
the back of the sidewalk. The sidewalk is requested to be a 6.5 foot attached walk, and the driveway is
requested to drop approximately 4.5 feet from the back of walk to the property line, a distance of
approximately 29 feet.
Typically, the City requires that a 4.5 foot detached sidewalk be provided on local streets. This distance
is provided to increase pedestrian safety and comfort by separating vehicular traffic from pedestrian
traffic. The engineer proposes a 6.5 foot attached sidewalk, and feels that this variance can be
supported because there will be no parking adjacent to the sidewalk, attaching the sidewalk will allow
several existing trees to be saved, the sidewalk on the other side of Canyon is attached, the additional 2
feet of width will provide pedestrian comfort, and because a proposed driveway (see the second variance
request) would need to start downhill as quickly as possible to reach the underground parking beneath
the proposed building, (a bump out on Canyon is being proposed for this sole purpose).
It is my opinion that this variance for an attached walk sI dmot_be su ort because it appears that
- - — - an adequate detached] sidewalk can be accommodated without the need to remove trees and without
constructing a bump out. Retaining a detached sidewalk in this location will serve the purpose of the
standard better than allowing the attached sidewalk, especially since this area is projected to have high
pedestrian activity.
Regarding the second variance request for the sloping driveway, the City typically requires that driveways
slope toward the public street. The engineer proposes a grade drop of 16%o_beyond the back of walk to
the property line (the driveway cut as designed slopes toward the street only from the Flow line to the
back of walk). The engineer feels that this variance can be supported because the drive to the
underground parking facility needs to start downhill as quickly as possible because it is not possible to
raise the building in order to raise the garage level. It is further argued that the slope and length of the
drive has been designed to make the parking facility feasible and if the grading were completed per
standards, the ramp to the parking lot would take up most of the proposed building. Another argument
Katie Moore - Howes/Canyon
Page 1
From:
Roger Buffington
To:
w@coulsondevelopment.com
Date:
11/14/03 8:49AM
Subject:
Howes/Canyon
Bill,
Sorry for not getting back to your telephone message from Wednesday. I did call Trisha last week to let
her know that the flows from the trench drain would have to go to the storm sewer.
With regard to that issue, I don't recall the details of past discussions on the trench drain and the
discharge point, and unfortunately, I'm not very good at documenting those things. If I had agreed to
allowing it in the sanitary as you recall, I apologize for the commotion it's caused.
Give me a call if you have other questions.
Thanks,
Roger Buffington
(970)221-6854
rbuffington @fcgov. corn
CC: Katie Moore
Katie Moore Re: Re: Replat comments
Page 1
From: "William Coulson" <w@coulsondevelopment.com>
To: "Katie Moore" <kamoore@fcgov.com>
Date: 11/14/03 3:28PM
Subject: Re: Re: Replat comments
Katie,
I dropped off those 3 copies today to Ginger so I think everything should be
fine. Thanks for following up.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Katie Moore" <kamoore@fcgov.com>
To: <w@coulsondevelopment.com>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 8:21 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Replat comments
> Bill,
> Please bring the plats to Current Planning, they need to be officially
> checked in and routed as another round of review. Please call Ginger to
> set up an appointment to do this (221-6750).
> -Katie
> Katie Moore
> Development Review Engineer (EI)
> City of Fort Collins
> (970) 221-6605
> >>> "William Coulson" <w@coulsondevelopment.com> 11/13/03 06:52PM >>>
> Katie,
> I'll pick these 3 copies up from RJL and bring it to you tomorrow.
> Roger Buffington called Trish today. He's sticking with the idea that
> we
> need to pump that water to the storm drain. I wouldn't mind them
> changing
> their mind but they tried passing it off like they never said that.
> Trish
> will make the changes on her document.
> Bill
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Katie Moore" <kamoore@fcgov.com>
> To: <w@coulsondevelopment.com>
> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 11:06 AM
> Subject: Fwd: Re: Replat comments
> > Bill,
> > It looks like 3 copies of the plat should suffice,
> > Katie
> > Katie Moore
> > Development Review Engineer (EI)
> > City of Fort Collins
> > (970) 221-6605
> > >>> Bob Barkeen 11/12/03 08:46AM >>>
Katie Moore Re Re Replat comments T Page 2
> > I would like to have a copy.
> > Thanks, Bob
> > >>> Katie Moore 11/07/03 01:21 PM >>>
> > Bob,
> > Did anyone else besides me and Technical Services need to look at
> the
> > plat again?
> > -Katie
> > >>> "William Coulson" <w@coulsondevelopment.com> 11/07/03 01:04PM
> > Katie,
> > How many copies do you want once this is changed?
> > Bill
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Katie Moore" <kamoore@fcgov.com>
> > To: <w@coulsondevelopment.com>
> > Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 11:47 AM
> > Subject: Re: Replat comments
> > > Bill,
> > > These replat comments were based on the revised replat received on
>>the
> > > 31st, and were not part an official round of review, which is why
> > they
> > > were not a part of the first comments that came with the official
> > round
> > > of review. It is the responsibility of whoever picks up the
> > comments
> > > from the City on behalf of the Developer, if not the Developer, to
> > > distribute them to the appropriate consultants, so, no, I have not
> > > passed them on to the surveyor.
> > > Your surveyor has a copy of the legals approved by Council, but
> for
> > > your information, the base elevation is 4989.5' on both lease
> areas,
> > and
> > > the height of the leased area is 9' exactly, not 9'
> > > Where the lease reception number is referenced, just add to the
> note
> > > that the area is leased to the Cortina Homeowners' Association.
> > > If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me
> > > again,
> > > Katie Moore
> > > Development Review Engineer
> > > City of Fort Collins
> > > >>> "William Coulson" <w@coulsondevelopment.com> 11/07/03 11:18AM
> > > Katie,
> > > Please tell me what the base elevation is as approved by the city
Katie Moore Re Re Replat comments Page 3
> > > council. Where would you like the Cortina Homeowners Association
> name
>> on
> > > the plan, exactly. Wondering why I did not receive these comments.
>I
» am
> > > the one that has to pass this info on the
> surveyor .... ....... unless
> > you
> > > already have?
» > Bill
Katie Moore - Re. Fwd Flood Wall
Page 1
From:
"William Coulson" <w@coulsondevelopment.com>
To:
"Katie Moore" <kamoore@fcgov.com>
Date:
11/17/03 11:28AM
Subject:
Re: Fwd: Flood Wall
I will call Glenn.
Trish will go over the calculations with Glenn.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Katie Moore" <kamoore@fcgov.com>
To: <w@coulsondevelopment.com>
Cc: "Bob Barkeen" <BBarkeen@fcgov.com>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Flood Wall
> Bill,
> Please see Glen Schlueter's response below.
> Katie Moore
> Development Review Engineer (EI)
> City of Fort Collins
> (970) 221-6605
> >>> Glen Schlueter 11/17/03 10:OOAM >>>
> No, We are not OK with that. Please forward to Bill Coulson. I talked
> with him on Friday and he was planning to build it then. He needs to
> call me. In the first place the calculations are iffy at best.
> >>> Katie Moore 11/17/03 09:56AM >>>
> Are we okay with this?
> -Katie
> >>> "William Coulson" <w@coulsondevelopment.com> 11/17/03 08:24AM >>>
> Bob,
> I have decided that I am not going to do the flood wall. I had looked
> into this on my own. We will be fine with our sump -pump system. It is a
> private issue. I originally thought we wouldn't be over the 100 year
> mark before we started to go down into the parking but we do have that.
> The guy who represents this wall has been very unreliable to this
> point(never does what he says he is going to do) and he's trying to rob
> me for the cost of it cm top of all the other things. I can fill in more
> on this later. Trish at Northstar, is going to verify her calculations
> are right with Glenn and that should be that.
> Bill
Katie Moore -Cortina Page 1
From:
Glen Schlueter
To:
w@c;oulsondevelopment.com
Date:
11 /17/03 12:13PM
Subject:
Cortina
M
I can't believe you would change your mind on this thing. I thought you were going to do the right thing
when you left here on Friday. I haven't made a big deal about the freeboard issue since you were going to
install the floodgate. Just showing the 100 year storm fits in the gutter is not enough. Our criteria requires
one foot or 1/3 extra capacity in channels. Tricia tried to convince me but 0.02 ft is not enough. We have
conceded on the calculations that we have excepted and there is absolutely no slack in them. You are
kidding yourself if you think drainage can be calculated to that accuracy. Also to know exactly when and
where the street will overtop to the other side and if there are any future overlays, the high point on the
entrance is not high enough. The floodgate is needed or the entrance raised there is way too much
liability here for the City and your engineer.
CC: Dave Stringer; Jim Hibbard, Katie Moore; Northstar@gwest.net; Wes Lamarque
Katie Moore - Flood Gate Page 1
From: "William Coulson" <w@coulsondevelopment.com>
To: "Dave Stringer' <DSTRINGER@fcgov.com>
Date: 12/2/03 1:15PM
Subject: Flood Gate
Dave,
I presented this idea to Glenn Schlueter and Jim Hibbard and they like it and will go with it. We will use the
double leaf model since we are so wide. Glenn said to call out the model and location and Tricia will do
that on her document Their engineers will catch up to it after some weeks and finish the fine details. It's
20 inches high and is completely water proof. 20 inches is a number that I pulled out the air. High enough
but not to high Thanks for all your help by letting us adjust the ramp slope and working towards a solution.
Regards,
Bill
CC: "Katie Moore" <kamoore@fcgov.com>, "Tricia Kroetch"
<tricia@north stardesigninc. com>, "Bob Barkeen" <BBarkeen@fcgov.com>
North Star
design, inc.
December 4, 2003
Ms. Katie Moore
City of Fort Collins Engineering
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, Colorado 50522-0580
Re: Canyon and Howes — Request for Variance 4 — Driveway detail
Proj : 1 14-24
Dear Katie:
The of lowing is a request for variance from the Standard Drawing 706 — Driveway Approach
Type II in the "Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, October, 2002". This variance is
regi,"ted to modify the driveway that is used to enter the underground garage.
The proposed project will consist of a 6-story building with underground parking. In an effort to
provide proper drainage, it is necessary to modify the driveway from the standard detail. It is
proposed to install a 4' concrete pan along Canyon Avenue in front of the garage entry. This, in
effect, will narrow the sidewalk through this area to 5.5' wide and this walk will be attached to
the concrete pan.
We \ odd request a variance for the following reasons:
• This modification will help convey minor [lows across the drive without impacting the
pedestrian path.
• This modification will help keep the o,)iin water from entering the garage in major
etonn events (a floodgate will also be utoized).
Thi griance from the above Standards will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and
wcl, .,c. The walks are of adequate width to ensure the safety of pedestrians along Canyon
Av,r"
Plc, :Ill me with any questions or additional information that you may need for the approval of
this � ariance.
700 Automation Drive, Unit I Windsor, Colorado e0550
970-686-6939 Phone 970-686-1 1 88 Fax
tion Services
Engineering Department
Development Review Engineering
City of Fort Collins
December 19, 2003
Patricia Kroetch, PE
North Star Design, Inc.
1194 W. Ash Street, Suite B
Windsor, CO 80550
Re: The variance request for modified driveway design for Canyon/Howes Mixed -use (AKA
Cortina)
Dear Ms. Kroetch,
This letter is in response to your request for a variance to the Larimer County Urban Area Street
Standards. The variance requested was for a modified driveway design for the driveway accessing the
underground parking off of Canyon Avenue. This variance has been approved by the City Engineer only
for this project and specifically as shown on the utility plans. One condition of the approval of this variance
is to re -include the cross-section of this driveway as shown on the previous round of review and to add
more detail to the driveway drawing on the detail sheet.
As with all variances to the street standards, the variances granted for this project are based on the
particular situation under design and the judgment that we (the designer and the City) apply to determine
whether there is a public: safety concern. The variances for this project in noway set any precedence for
relaxing these standards on other projects without complete analysis and justification.
Should you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely,
Katie Moore
Project Engineer
City of Fort Collins
cc: file
Bob Barkeen
:'xl 1,( 111(�( \%rnur • PO-Iior;80 • FortClIiir,CC)(11-0)221-6t,0 • FAX(()70)221-6378
wtrtct� �'r..cnru
Katie 'Moore - Re Cortina DA Page 1
From: "William Coulson" <w@coulsondevelopment.com>
To: "Katie Moore" <kamoore@fcgov.com>
Date: 1/20/04 6:50PM
Subject: Re: Cortina DA
Katie,
thanks for the explanation. I will be in tomorrow to sign this. I am
expecting all mylars to be signed by end of the day this Friday by the city.
Bob and Cameron agree. I am making the mylar of the Platt also and we'll
write in the reception number as you suggested.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Katie Moore" <kamoore@fcgov.com>
To: <w@coulsondevelopment.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: Cortina DA
> Bill,
> The erosion control amount is an amount your engineer calculated and
> Stormwater verified. I believe it is listed in your drainage report.
> Howes Street is considered an arterial on the master street plan, with
> a 6' sidewalk standard. The City typically reimburses developers for
> any construction over their local -street portion; in this case, you're
> responsible for 4.5' of that sidewalk, and the City will reimburse for
> the difference between the 4.5' and 6', so 1.5' of sidewalk width along
> Howes Street. The City will not reimburse for sidewalk over the
> standard 6', though. If you'd like further explanation of Street
> Oversizing and how the funds work, please contact Matt Baker at
> 221-6605.
> Hope this explanation helped. Please contact me again if you have any
> further questions,
> Katie
> >>> "William Coulson" <w@coulsondevelopment.com> 01/20/04 03:59PM >>>
> Katie,
> How did you come to a dollar amount of $4,830 for silt fence?
> What is the reimbursement for the Howes Street sidewalk oversizing?
> And........ what are the street oversizing funds talked about here and
> how
> does that work?
> I'm a little unfamiliar with a couple of these things. Other than you
> clarifying my points here, the document is fine.
> Bill
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Katie Moore" <kamoore@fcgov.com>
> To: <w@coulsondevelopment.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 12:00 PM
> Subject: Cortina DA
> > Bill,
> > I've put a copy of the Draft DA for Cortina on the Current Planning
is that the drive would have retaining walls with railings to protect pedestrians, and that the wide
attached sidewalk would provide adequate pedestrian safety.
It is my opinion that this variance for this driveway design should not be supported for a number of
reasons. The engineer does not adequately address pedestrian safety in the request. As designed, the
driver of a vehicle exiting the parking lot would not be able to see over the retaining wall until the front
of their vehicle was only a few feet from the sidewalk (the drive drops 4.5 feet over a distance of 29
feet), not giving enough response time to stop for pedestrians. The argument that the proposed 6.5
foot attached sidewalk would be sufficient width for pedestrian safety does not seem true since the grade
drops off so steeply beyond the edge of the walk. Additional leeway at a Flatter grade should be
provided for safety.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns and if you need any additional clarification.
Katie Moore - Re: Cortina DA
Page 2
> > counter for you to pick up at your convenience. Please let me know
> if
> > you have any questions or concerns, and after we work through those
>I
> > will print the final copies.
> > -Katie
> > Katie Moore
> > Development Review Engineer (El)
> > City of Fort Collins
> > (970) 221-6605
Katie Moore - Re. Fwd: Cortina construction schedule Page 1
From: Dave Stringer
To: Lance Newlin
Date: 1122/04 9:24AM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Cortina construction schedule
That's correct. They are in the process of fifnishing everytthing up. A pre -construct is scheduled for next
week
>>> Lance Newlin 01/22/04 09:16AM >>>
They will only be allowed to work if all obligations for engineering are complete.
Lance
>>> Dave Stringer 01 /22/04 08:14AM >>>
Lance,
FYI this is the site at Canyon and Howes/Oak intersection southwest corner
>>> "William Coulson" <w(a)coulsondevelopment.com> 01/21/04 05:30PM >>>
Dave,
We'll have to have Martin and Sons in there popping out sidewalks and fencing the site off and driving our
piling along the South Property line by about the 6th of February, or so. When I said the middle of
February, earlier today, for getting started I meant actually digging and hauling dirt. Just wanted to clarify
what I meant.
Thanks for your help today. I wanted to tell you that I have always respected your approach to your career,
and your demeanor, over the years that I have known you.
Thanks again,
Bill
CC: Katie Moore
Reagan Yeomans Re: Fw: Public improvements Page 1
From: Cam McNair
To: Dave: Stringer; Lance Newlin
Date: 2/25/04 7:51AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Public improvements
Dave & Lance,
I talked with Bill Coulson yesterday. He will be bringing in a check for the DCP and inspection fees soon.
At the same time, he will bring a separate check for $10,000 as partial security for the public
improvements to be built with Cortina. I told him we would hold that second check until March 10th (not
deposit it immediately), by which time he will have delivered to us the Letter of Credit for $100,000. When
we receive the LOC, return the $10,000 check to him. If the LOC is not to us by the 10th, go ahead and
deposit the check, and let me know.
As soon as the DCP is issued, please release any hold we may have on the F&F permit.
I know this is not the way we would prefer to operate, but I believe a little flexibility here will not subject the
City to much risk. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns on this.
Thanks,
Cam
>>> "Dave Stringer" <DSTRINGER@fcgov.com> 02/23/04 03:59PM >>>
Bill,
I assume this is the collateral being asked for by Engineering
Inspection prior to doing the site work. 1 understand your dilemma but
unfortunately this is out of my hands, the Land Use Code requires the
posting of collateral prior to starting work. One option I can offer is
perhaps you can do some sort of short term CD with the City as an
interest until your loan is completed and then the funds could be set
aside for the collateral and would be terminated. If you want to defer
doing any type of public improvements until you get the collateral
posted and only work on site you will need to work with our Chief
Engineering Inspector Lance Newlin. However, I'm not sure this is a
viable option with him.
Dave
>>> "William Coulson"' <w(a�coulsondevelopment.com> 02/23/04 12:37PM >>>
Dave,
I sent this a few days ago and didn't hear from you. I'm re -sending it
again now.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: William Coulson
To: Dave Stringer
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 9:03 AM
Subject: Public improvements
Dave,
I'm understanding that you guys want me to provide a bond or a letter
of credit for the public improvements ($100,000). That's fine and all
but could you help me out here just a little. It's a little messy since
Reagan Yeomans - Re: Fw: Public improvements
Sinnett can't provide these things as the contractor because their name
is not on the development agreement. I'm assuming we need to have this
done when we go in and pick up our footing and foundation permit? My
loan at the bank will not be "on the books" until about a week after we
pick up the F&F permit which precludes the bank setting aside the
$100,000 dollars that's in the loan for the public improvement costs (at
no cost to me). That rneans I then would have to go out and spend
anywhere from $1,500 to $2,500 dollars as a fee from the bonding company
for a bond or a bank for a letter of credit in order to provide this for
about one weeks time. If you could just wait for me for a week I could
save the $1,500 to $2,500 dollars that they want to charge me in fees to
provide this plus the brain damage. I've already paid the fees once in
the bank note and I'm trying not to do it again.
Bill
CC: Katie Moore; Nancy Reed; Polly Bennett; Reagan Yeomans;
w@coulsondevelopment.com
Katie Moore - Re: Fw: Public improvements Page 1
From: Katie Moore
To: Cam McNair; Dave Stringer; Lance Newlin
Date: 2/25/04 4:54PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Public improvements
Hello all,
I've re -typed the first page of the Cortina DCP with the correct amount that Cortina needs to bond for
($99,650.57) and included a few sentences regarding the arrangement detailed below with the check for
$10,000. I'll be giving it to Reagan momentarily.
-Katie
>>> Cam McNair 02/25/04 07:51AM >>>
Dave & Lance,
I talked with Bill Coulson yesterday. He will be bringing in a check for the DCP and inspection fees soon.
At the same time, he will bring a separate check for $10,000 as partial security for the public
improvements to be built with Cortina. I told him we would hold that second check until March 10th (not
deposit it immediately), by which time he will have delivered to us the Letter of Credit for $100,000. When
we receive the LOC, return the $10,000 check to him. If the LOC is not to us by the 10th, go ahead and
deposit the check, and let me know.
As soon as the DCP is issued, please release any hold we may have on the F&F permit.
I know this is not the way we would prefer to operate, but I believe a little flexibility here will not subject the
City to much risk. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns on this.
Thanks,
Cam
>>> "Dave Stringer" <DSTRINGER(aDfcoov.com> 02/23/04 03:59PM >>>
Bill,
I assume this is the collateral being asked for by Engineering
Inspection prior to doing the site work. I understand your dilemma but
unfortunately this is out of my hands, the Land Use Code requires the
posting of collateral prior to starting work. One option I can offer is
perhaps you can do some sort of short term CD with the City as an
interest until your loan, is completed and then the funds could be set
aside for the collateral and would be terminated. If you want to defer
doing any type of publlic improvements until you get the collateral
posted and only work on site you will need to work with our Chief
Engineering Inspector Lance Newlin. However, I'm not sure this is a
viable option with him.
Dave
>>> "William Coulson" <w(ccoulsondevelopment.com> 02/23/04 12:37PM >>>
Dave,
I sent this a few days ago and didn't hear from you. I'm re -sending it
again now.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: William Coulson
To: Dave Stringer
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 9:03 AM
Katie Moore - Re' Fw: Public improvements
Page 2
Subject: Public improvements
Dave,
I'm understanding that you guys want me to provide a bond or a letter
of credit for the public improvements ($100,000). That's fine and all
but could you help me out here just a little. It's a little messy since
Sinnett can't provide these things as the contractor because their name
is not on the development agreement. I'm assuming we need to have this
done when we go in and pick up our footing and foundation permit? My
loan at the bank will not be "on the books" until about a week after we
pick up the F&F permit which precludes the bank setting aside the
$100,000 dollars that's in the loan for the public improvement costs (at
no cost to me). That means I then would have to go out and spend
anywhere from $1,500 to $2,500 dollars as a fee from the bonding company
for a bond or a bank for a letter of credit in order to provide this for
about one weeks time. If you could just wait for me for a week 1 could
save the $1,500 to $2,500 dollars that they want to charge me in fees to
provide this plus the brain damage. I've already paid the fees once in
the bank note and I'm trying not to do it again.
Bill
CC: Nancy Reed, Polly Bennett; Reagan Yeomans, w@coulsondevelopment.com
MEMORADUM
DATE: March 16, 2004
TO: Edna Hoernicke, Finance
FROM: Christie White, Engineering
RE: Revocable Lease Agreement
Cortina Homeowners' Association
Per Don Bachman, the attached $9,984.40 check for the Lease Agreement between
Cortina Homeowners' Assoc. & the City of Fort Collins is to be deposited to: (410)
30100,322106 Encroachments Permits.
If there are any questions regarding this deposit, please contact Christie at ext. 6606.
Thank you.
cc: Project File
COULSON DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. 3-98 —72622
510 W. MAGNOLIA to20 2435
FORT COLLINS, CO 80521 7640123695
Date3-10-
o OrAer of the
2 ,_OF_._.i— % ( I -- $
® 3600W South
Io Bank West, N.A.
Hnrsetoa1h h L.11,o
350� Somh College Ave.
Fort Collins. CO 8045 <
6laigomm
Memo
1: 10200007Ill: 7540 Le359Silo 2435
Transportation Services
Engineering Department
TO: Dave Stringer, Development Review Manager
Katie Moore, Civil Engineer I
FROM: Cam McNair, City Engineer
DATE: December 17, 2002
RE: Variance Requests for Canyon -Howes Residences
I would not be opposed to an attached sidewalk per se. In general, in downtown areas like this
that are close to our Urban Core, a more urban streetscape may be more appropriate than the
detached walks shown in our Street Standards, especially for a vertical, high -density, mixed used
project like this. However, 6.5-feet wide attached sidewalks would be totally inadequate in such
a design setting. It should be more like 15-feet wide: (1) about 5-ft adjacent to the curb should
be used for street trees in tree grates, street furniture, bike racks, light poles, newspaper racks,
and all the other things you see downtown; (2) we would need a minimum of 7-feet of clear
space for pedestrians in high activity areas (that is the dimension that we enforce for
encroachment permits downtown), and (3) there should be about 3-ft adjacent to the building that
is "pausing space" for window-shopping and so forth. If there are restaurants or coffee shops
that anticipate outdoor eating areas, then additional width would be needed for that.
The drive approach and ramp to the underground parking needs to meet our design standards for
safety and sight distance. I agree that the "bump out" and associated ramp are not the kind of
features that we want in our right-of-way. They need to re -design this so that the existing curb -
line is maintained, and the sidewalk and drive approach within ROW all slope/drain toward the
street.
Both of these variance requests are disapproved. Let me know if you have any questions.
CC' Mike Herzig
Transportation Services
I n;,;ineering Department
Development Review Engineering
City of Fort Collins
December 17. 2002
Patricia Kroetch, PE
North Star Design Inc.
700 Automation Drive, Unit 1
Windsor, CO 80550
Re: Variance requests for Canyon -Howes Residences
Dear Ms. Kroetch,
This letter is provided in response to your request for variances to the Larimer County Urban Area Street
Standards. The variances requested were regarding attaching the sidewalk and constructing a driveway
not sloping toward the ',public street. These variances have been disapproved by the City Engineer.
The variance for attaching the sidewalk was denied because the proposed width would be inadequate for
pedestrian needs in this location. A much wider (approximately 15 foot) sidewalk with appropriate space
for street furniture, bike racks, light poles and other items, as well as clear space for pedestrians, plus
additional space adjacent to the building as "pausing space" for window shoppers and so forth would be
more fitting in a downtown/urban location such as this.
The variance request for the sloping of the drive approach was not approved because of safety concerns.
The slope and short length of the driveway result in very short sight distance for motorists to see
pedestrians or bicyclists on the sidewalk. The slope of the driveway is, in itself, a safety concern because
adequate leeway (approximately a car length) at a shallow slope is not provided beyond the back of the
sidewalk for pedestrian safety. Furthermore, the use of retaining walls in the Right -of -Way is highly
discouraged and was not approved by the City Engineer in this instance, and the use of a bump -out in this
location was also denied by the City Engineer.
Should you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely,
Katie Moore
Development Review Engineer
City City of Fort Collins
cc: file
Bob Barkeen
Post -it Fax Note 7671 date I, -
Rom
.i
CCo./Dept t` C.
Phone++
Fax 4 Fax k
'SI \mt1) CO. Hov 580 • Fort Collin>. CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-f,60,7 • 1 (970) 221-6378
�t �� w.Ci.tort-cnllins.cn.u,
William Coulson
510 W. Magnolia
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521-2628
Tel. 970-495-9942
Fax 970-493-8081
Cam McNair
City of Fort Collins
281 N. College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-0580
December 19, 2002
This letter is in response to the Variance Request that was submitted and denied, for the
Canyon -Howes PDP currently under review. We are respectfully requesting an appeal of
the decision to deny the variance requests.
We believe that the Canyon -Howes project exemplifies the kind of development that City
Plan encourages. The Canyon/Howes Mixed -Use Building embraces the objectives of the
downtown district, offering employment in the form of professional offices located on the
first two floors of the structure and high density residential located above the offices with
parking provided below grade. The project is supported by numerous City policies having
to do with visual images and appearance, enhancing the quality of life in neighborhoods,
preservation of existing trees, economic development, encouraging alternative modes of
transportation, revitalization of downtown, etc......
The project is proposed to be located on an infill site near the core central business
district. In order to provide the kind of project that is envisioned some engineering
variances are necessary. We believe that we can work through the issues that the City
staff has raised and provide creative solutions that do not impair the health, safety or
we] fare of residents. It would appear that the requested variances have been denied
without considering objectives of other departments or evaluating the project as a whole.
We respectfully request a meeting with you to discuss the issues involved in our request.
Regards,
William Coulson
Owner/Developer
cc: Patricia Kroetch
Linda Ripley
Frank Vaught
LU
i
'Pir �7�nc
r'f tr f f r� I /rr y, �i/ �� * ,j4 `}%'t � 4�1`Lf1
r
Accepi-c&lot' 4-7<Ofo,,v!�
'Lp�t- f Jyr let) 1'JRf_k
r-
�rn
^--2be l o vj
y-✓,lt�` ��I c � r� ��r
.' r( .-,` ..0
�,' G3? t-(C tc�'C S� fy:!
� . �
nn
C0."�--{{CC-4\ -4- �p�/,.I �
�
C: y`{ t�`��.,� �` rJYt
r£'."f;"%�. T % .� r '_-1 }•il
11 :: �� ^`..= d
IT 6��G
�ii� :7 vt.� +Y,'w
", ,i "+ �, t.�b.j 5z'-
_>o wo-r.d
-If
vc-I+
re- sfiree� �'rc4i�o,-o 5�74 cz ar
-c.
TP c4' Wall �rL�� '� �J� �Ygae , tti3e, ra4t'r'& -fo Prof-t"J s
__il Yiii: . �; tYS1tUII
January 14, 2003
Patricia Kroetch, PE
North Star Design Inc.
700 Automation Drive, Unit 1
Windsor, CO 80550
Re: Variance appeals for Canyon -Howes Residences
Dear Ms. Kroetch:
This letter is provided in response to the appeal of the previously denied variances to the Larimer County
Urban Area Street Standards. The variances denied were regarding attaching the sidewalk and constructing
a driveway not sloping toward the public street. These variance denials have been overturned with
conditions.
The variance denial for having the slope of the driveway descend from Canyon Avenue to the face of the
building was overturned with the following conditions:
1. The sidewalk may slope down and away from the flowline at the driveway access, but must still meet
ADA requirements.
2. The driveway within the public right of way may also slope from the back of walk at a maximum 4%
slope for at least 15 feet (or the length at which a large vehicle's back wheels would sit on the 4% slope
Without the front of the vehicle overhanging the sidewalk, whichever is greater) beyond the back of the
sidewalk. It is understood that, beyond the 4% slope, the driveway will descend at a rate not to exceed
16% within the right of way.
3. The retaining walls must be minimized as much as possible, utilizing railings for pedestrian safety and
sight distance as opposed to solid walls in those areas where the wall is greater then 6 inches in height.
Such railings shall be constructed so as to not prohibit the vehicle driver's line of sight to view oncoming
pedestrians and/or vehicles.
4. The City will maintain the right to make changes within the ROW at some future date if so desired.
Additionally, the City shall include, in the Development Agreement for this project, language addressing
the owners' responsibilities should such modifications become necessary.
5. An encroachment permit will be required for the driveway
6. It is understood that street flows will be accepted by this development into its storm drainage system,
provided that the City's outfall storm sewer system can accommodate these added flows. If the City's
system can not accept the developed and existing flows then the development has the option to explore
other alternatives. In addition, an acceptable legal agreement between the City and the Developer must be
made regarding the drainage of street water onto private property.
Concerning the second variance appeal regarding the attached sidewalk, it has now been approved as
proposed in the original variance request.
Should you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely,
Gary Diede, Transportation Operations Director
cc: Cam McNair, City Engineer L� W N
Katie Moore, Civil Engineer k tt v I �