HomeMy WebLinkAboutBRAZIL 99 (CAMPUS WEST REDEVELOPMENT) - PDP - 45-98 - CORRESPONDENCE - VARIANCE REQUESTTranspor, .on Services
Engineering Department
City of Fort Collins
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mark McCallum, Development Engineer
FROM: Cam McNair, City Engineer aw
DATE: February 8, 1999
RE: Variance Request, Campus West Theaters
It is my understanding that it is possible to achieve an unobstructed utility easement of ten -foot
(10-ft) width along the West Elizabeth Street frontage, measured from the new Right -of -Way
(ROW). I am willing to concede a variance which reduces our utility easement requirement
along this arterial street from 15-ft to 10-ft, given that most of the utilities are already present in
that area. This will mean that the utility easement boundary will line up with the building
setback line. If the attached sketch is accurate, the builder will need to be careful to keep his
proposed storefront structure from encroaching into the easement/setback area.
It is also my understanding that the overhead canopy can be permitted to extend out into the
easement/setback area, provided that such encroachment into said area is vacated above ground
by separate document. Also, the canopy cannot extend into the setback more than 5-ft, even
after the utility easement vacation (above ground). The setback requirement will have to be
modified by the P & Z Board.
281 North College Avenue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6605
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MEMORANDUM b V�
February 23, 1999
TO: Cam M air
FROM: Mark McCallum
RE: Variance for Campus West Redevelopment P.D.P.
Jim Birdsall, Kenney and Associates, has submitted a language variation to the variance
to reduce the utility easement from 15 feet to 10 feet along West Elizabeth Street for the
Campus West Redevelopment project. It was his opinion that the variance letter did not
explain that the Engineering Department would allow the airspace above the required
utility easement to be vacated for the sloped storefront support trellis. In your letter dated
February 8, 1999 you indeed made it clear that the builder would have to be careful to
keep his proposed storefront structure from encroaching into the easement/ setback area.
On the other hand, I thought the original intend was to allow the encroachment of the
canopy and the sloped storefront support trellis into the required utility easement.
If you have any questions I would be happy to answer them.
Sincerely,
Mark McCallum