Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMANSION PARK - PDP - 24-00B - CORRESPONDENCE - TRANSPORTATION ISSUEdesigns have been completed. However, Final Compliance will not be approved, nor plans signed, nor will a Development Agreement be started, nor will the filing of the plat occur, until the APF issues at the Timberline -Prospect intersection have been solved, either by the City having funds appropriated to design and build the improvements needed to satisfy the APF requirements, or by the developer designing and agreeing to build those improvements. I believe that if all design issues are satisfied, and APF is the only outstanding obstacle, then staff would recommend approval of the PDP with the condition stated above concerning APF. He says Sear Brown and JR Engineering (The James Co. engineering consultant) are working together very well on the Timberline design issues. That's good Thanks for your help, Ron The off -site Timberline design needs to be done to sufficient detail to insure that the future requirements and the City's standards can be met. The project frontage, where the developer is required to do a complete design and actually build the improvements, must be done in such a way that the future improvements on Timberline will work. We have asked for horizontal alignment and centerline profile alignment for Timberline in its 6-lane and 4-lane configurations. This very preliminary stage of the design will need to be carried north thru the Prospect intersection, including enough distance north of the intersection to insure proper transitions. That could be as much as 1000-ft. Again, this is only horizontal alignment and centerline profile - not a complete design. It will give us just enough information to be sure that what the developer would build on his frontage, and the site plan for his development, will not conflict with future projects and improvements. 2. If the requirement in #1 is true, he is wondering if there is opportunity for reimbursement on that 1,000' design cost if the ballot issue passes? Yes, if the tax proposal passes in April, the City could participate to some extent in reimbursing some of the off -site design costs, since we would then have a funded capital project for making improvements to Timberline. The developer is required to do the complete design for the project frontage, plus 500 feet beyond the development along all streets. Then he is also required to do preliminary design (grade and ground lines) for another 500 feet along the arterials. Anything beyond that 1000 feet off -site could be reimbursed from the Timberline capital project funds once they are appropriated. I would expect that these costs would be fairly minimal since we are only asking for preliminary alignments, not a full design with precision surveying, etc. And the reimbursement would not be made until the funds are accumulated and appropriated to the project, which could be a few years out. 3. His understanding is that the PDP is only a staff review and does not go to P&Z unless there is some variance request, and then it is only to act on the variance, not on the whole plan? It is my understanding that if no modifications of Land Use Code standards are necessary, the PDP can go to a hearing officer rather than to the P&Z Board. If modifications of LUC standards are requested, those must go to P&Z. The developer can chose to have the P&Z act on the modifications and the total PDP at the same time, or he can just ask them to rule on the modifications without acting on the PDP. Sometimes, modifications of Land Use Code standards are confused with variances to the Street Standards. The City Engineer can approve variances to the Street Standards. I take that responsibility very seriously, and make sure that the developer's design engineer submits the variance requests with full justification. 4. Will we recommend denial at PDP on the APF issue, or just have conditions? The PDP for Mansion Park may be approved with conditions pertaining to the APF issues, by the Planning and Zoning Board or Hearing Officer, after the ' Troy Jones RE MansionrvPark ,Page 1 ; M" From: "Brock Chapman" <brockchapman@qwest.net> To: "Ron Phillips" <rphillips@fcgov.com> Date: 1 /3/03 10:07AM Subject: RE: Mansion Park Ron, I just returned from vacation and received your e-mail responding to my questions about our Mansion Park project. Thank you for responding so quickly. I have distributed Cam's responses to each of our project consultants so that our entire project team understands the City's position on these issues. Thanks again for your help. - Brock -----Original Message ----- From: Ron Phillips [mailto:rphillips@fcgov.com] Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 11:15 AM To: brockchapman@qwest.net Cc: CCASS@fcgov.com; cgloss@fcgov.com; CMCNAIR@fcgov.com; DBachman@fcgov.com; DSTRINGER@fcgov.com; ebracke@fcgov.com; GBYRNE@fcgov.com; GDIEDE@fcgov.com; MBAKER@fcgov.com; MHERZIG@fcgov.com; mjackson@fcgov.com; rhensley@fcgov.com; tvosburg@fcgov.com Subject: Re: Mansion Park Brock, After we met on Friday, December 20, 1 sent the questions you had that I couldn't answer on the Mansion Park development to Cam McNair, City Engineer. My 4 questions along with Cam's answers are below. Cam's answers are under each question in italics and are a different color font from the question text - hopefully one of those enhancements will come through on your email version. I hope you had a wonderful holiday season, and that you have a happy and prosperous new year! Ron Ron Phillips, Director Transportation Services City of Fort Collins 970-221-6751 rphillips@fcgov.com >>> Ron Phillips 12/20/02 11:05AM >>> Cam, I met with Brock Chapman this morning, as you know, and could not answer these questions. Will you please get me a response that I can send on to him? 1. His engineers (Sear Brown) are telling him that not only do they have to design 1,000' north of their property, but our engineers are requiring that they do horizontal and vertical design 1,000' north of the Prospect/Timberline intersection. Is this true? If so, what is the reason?