HomeMy WebLinkAboutEAGLE CLIFFS - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2003-07-31North Star
design, inc.
April 22, 2002
Mr. Marc Virata
City of Fort Collins Engineering
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, Colorado 50522-0580
Re: Request for Variances — Eagle Cliffs Internal Streets
Proj : 114-20
Dear Marc:
The following is a request for variances from Section 7.4.1A.2. — Horizontal Alignment —
Minimum Tangent Length and Section 7.6.1.A. — Cul-de-sacs — Permitted Locations in the
"Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, March 2001". These variances are requested to
allow for reduced tangent lengths at the intersections on Scarlet Ibis Lane and to allow for a
Hammerhead at the west end of Nightingale Road.
Scarlet Ibis Lane is the west entrance road to this site and the only full movement access. It will
connect Southridge Greens Boulevard with Nightingale Road (the main local road through the
site). The proposed design of the road calls for both intersections to be at 90' to the cross streets
and to have a 165' radius curve in the middle of the street. It is requested that the tangent
lengths be allowed to be less than 100' as specified in Table 7-3 for the following reasons:
• The proposed street is only 150' in length. Southridge Greens Boulevard is existing and
Nightingale Road parallels the existing sanitary sewer easement. Both of the cross street
angles are fixed and it is not possible to lengthen the street because of the existing sewer
and Natural Resources Buffers on the south.
• The curve in the street meets the Standards and the intersection angles are at 90°.
Meeting these two constraints provides for a better design than meeting the tangent
length criteria. If the radius was reduced, or if the angles of intersection were skewed,
the tangent distances would still not be met and would still require a variance.
• Sight distances will not be an issue if the variance is granted. As a driver enters the
street from either direction, they will be able to see the stop sign at the opposite
intersection (approximately 135'). It is unlikely that the design speed of 25 mph will
ever be achieved on this short length of street.
Nightingale Road will have a terminal end at the west end of the site. During the process of
design and layout, it was found that the Hammerhead geometry specified in Detail 7-24B fits this
location better than a cul-de-sac. Section 7.6.1.A. specifies that the Hammerhead is only allowed
in Loveland. It is requested that a Hammerhead be allowed in this location for the following
reasons:
700 Automation Drive, Unit I Windsor, Colorado 80550
979!-FE;813-5939 Phone • 9 7 0 - 6 8 6 - I 1 8 8 Fax
07/15/2002 14:47 9706861188 NORTH STAR DESIGN PAGE 02
July 15, 2002
3. All of the information requested is squashed into the room available on the sheet,
which affects readability of the plans. Since the centerline Information will not be
used during the construction, there is a chance that with extra information on the
plans, the wrong station or elevation may be staked and built.
I have also discussed using centerline stationing with flowiine profiles with local
surveyors and all prefer true flowline profiles. Because there is a desire not to have long,
straight local streets there are many short horizontal curves on any given street. On arterials
(typically straight) it makes sense to have a more traditional street design with everything
based on centerline.
Lastly, there are other requirements in the standards that I think should be reviewed.
These include showing utilities in the plan view of the street plan as well as any crossings in
the profiles; and showing horizontal PC and PT locations in the profile (they are currently in
the plan view). On a roadway project the utility information is needed (and is often split of
onto a utility plan, demolition plan, etc.). On a typical subdivision project, all of the information
is within the plan set and all of the utilities (except for water) are profiled. Duplicating this
information makes the street plans cluttered and does not add to the constructability of the
street. Duplicating the PC and PT locations in the plan and profile simply adds to the
likelihood that one will be revised and the other may not (a mistake on the designers part).
I know, that a ton of work went into the standards and I will admit that I did not
participate. I have professional liability issues with having extra and duplicate information
within a plan set because it is difficult to find every place a piece of data is located when plans
are being modified. An example of problems with duplicate information is the Street
Standards themselves; there is a section that discusses minimum utility cover and another
with minimum cover for RCP which do not match. There are requirements in Chapter 3 that
conflict with the Checklist in Appendix E, This is just an example, I am not criticizing the
people or the work that went into the standards, but if I have duplicate information on a plan
and mistakenly do not keep both correct, I am liable for those errors and any construction
costs associated with those errors.
Please review the following variance. If it is definitely going to be denied, I would like
to meet with Katie and Dave to try to find a way to protect my liability and provide the City with
the information that it requires.
Thank you for your time.
0 Page 2
1
North Star
ft,., design, inc.
July 16, 2002
Ms. Katie Moore
City of Fort Collins Engineering
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, Colorado 50522-0580
Re: Eagle Cliffs Request for Variance #3 — Centerline Design Information on Local Streets
Proj: 114-20
Dear Katie:
The following is a request for variance from Section 3.3.4 — Information Required on Public
Improvement Plans — Street Improvements, as it relates to centerline information on local
streets in the "Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, March 2001". It is requested that the
design information for the local streets on the above project be limited to true flowline profiles
and horizontal stationing.
This project has approximately 1,200 linear feet of local residential streets. These streets have
been designed per the above Standards. The information shown on the plans is consistent with
past projects that have been designed, approved, and built since the inception of the LCUASS.
This information includes centerline and flowline horizontal geometry, stationing down each
flowline, a typical section with minimum and maximum cross slopes, and flowline profiles along
the flowline stationing (true length and grade), stations and elevations in the plan view of all PC's
and PT's, and spot elevations at intersections and critical locations.
There was a comment on the first submittal of this project to include centerline profiles on the
plan and profile sheets (siting the above standard). A variance from this portion of the
standard is requested for the following reasons:
Centerline profile information (if provided) would not be used during the construction of
the street. On streets this narrow, surveyors do not stake (bluetop) the crown of the
street. Typically, the minimum cross slope (2%) is extended off of the higher curb to the
center of the street to provide for the crown elevation.
Information provided on plan sheets, which is not used for the construction, can lead to
confusion and construction errors. The amount of space that a third profile takes up on a
plan sheet will lead to "jamming" the additional information onto the page and make it
more difficult to find the information that is needed for construction.
The Fort Collins Checklist in the Standards, Number VI. S., states that Local and
Collector Street have both flowlines profiled. Number VI. T. states that Arterial Streets
have the! Centerline and Flowlines profiled. This criteria is more in line with what is
proposed above. Just as cross sections are not required on Local streets (because they
would not be used) we are requesting, on this project, that the centerline profile be
exempt as well.
700 Automation Drive, Unit I Windsor, Colorado 80550
970-686-6939 Phone • 970-686-11B8 Fax
This variance from the above Standard will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and
welfare. This variance will not compromise the constructability of the plans.
Please call me with any questions or additional information that you may need for the approval of
this variance. I have sent copies of this letter to other members of the Engineering Staff because
it is my understanding that the staff is currently discussing this requirement; it is not my intention
to supercede your authority, rather, if there are discussions prior to the routing of the submittal, I
would like these issues to be discussed.
Sincerely,
V0.,
i34288 m�
o;
Michael Oberlander, PE, LSI
North Star Design, Inc.
S/ONALENG\
1
North Star
'01 ft,., design, inc.
July 16, 2002
Ms. Katie Moore
City of Fort Collins Engineering
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, Colorado 50522-0580
Re: Eagle Cliffs Request for Variance #2 — Centerline Tangent Distance at Eyebrow
Proj: 114-20
Dear Katie:
The following is a request for variance from Section 7.4.1.2.a. — Street General Design
Elements —Horizontal Alignment — Minimum Tangent Length in the "Larimer County Urban
Area Street Standards, March 2001". This variance is requested to allow the tangent distances
entering and leaving the proposed eyebrow to be less than the 200' required by Table 7-3.
This project has patio home lots and three six-plex buildings. The geometry of the internal streets
is constrained by existing features (Fossil Creek, an existing trunk sewer, and existing streets).
The street layout proposed makes use of an eyebrow in the southeast corner of the site. There are
horizontal curves and short tangent lengths (less than the required 200' for curves in the same
direction) on both sides of the eyebrow. This site does not have any "through" streets connecting
to other parcels.
A variance is requested from the requirement for 200' of tangent length between curves on
the same direction on local streets for the following reasons:
• An eyebrow acts more like an intersection than a "through street". The purpose for long
tangents between curves in the same direction is to avoid drivers being "surprised" at the
second curve. The sharp corner created by the eyebrow will require drivers to reduce
their speed and, again, make the curve drive more like an intersection. Sight distance
easements have been added to preserve the view at the inside corner.
This variance from the above Standard 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.
Pp0
Sincerely,
OWY0.21M
Michael Oberlander, PE,
North Star Design, Inc. 9 '•., Cl/�Q
SS�ONAL ENG
700 Automation Drive, Unit I Windsor, Colorado 80550
97C►-686-6939 Phone . 970-GBG-1 188 Fax
1
North Star
'401 a,, design, inc.
July 16, 2002
Ms. Katie Moore
City of Fort Collins Engineering
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, Colorado 50522-0580
Re: Eagle Cliffs Request for Variance #1 — Driveway Spacing
Proj: 114-20
Dear Katie:
The following is a request for variance from Section 9.4.3 —Access Requirements — Minimum
Space Between Openings in the "Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, March 2001 ".
This variance is requested to allow opposing residential driveways on local streets to have less
separation than the 12' required by Table 7-3.
This project has patio home lots and three six-plex buildings. The local streets that serve the
project are proposed to have vertical curb and gutter, because of this, all proposed driveways are
shown on the utility plans. This site does not have any "through" streets connecting to other
parcels.
A variance is requested from the requirement for 12' edge -to -edge driveway spacing on
local streets for the following reasons:
• This site has geometric constraints (Fossil Creek and existing streets), which limit the
possible internal street configurations.
• The present site layout meets the minimum density requirement by Code. With this
density, the lots are quite small and it is basically impossible for drives to line up or be
12' offset on opposing sides of the street.
• In Section 9.4.3 it is stated that local streets with mountable curb are not subject to this
standard. The developer of this project prefers the finished appearance of vertical curb.
It is logical to conclude that the drive spacing is not a safety or street operation issue
because similar projects with only a different type of curb �6 not need to meet the
standard. �`��
This variance from the above Standard will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and
welfare.
Please call me with any questions or add' ' formation that you may need for the approval of
this variance. �OP�p0 E�n�sT
Sincerely, v�_3#e•• •e
�r v Vl- j4eaa r :
Michael Oberlander, PE, LSIO
I 'O9 '•..�•I yLD
North Star Design, Inc. A1. 4 • ��
700 Automation Drive, Unifl' Windsor, Colorado 80550
970-686-6939 Phone e 670-686-1188 Fax
Interoffice Memorandum
Date: August 2, 2002
To: Cam McNair, City Engineer
Thru: Dave Stringer, Development Review Manager r_-Ajsi3
From: Katiie Moore, Development Review Engineer
RE: Variance Requests for Eagle Cliffs
North Star Design, on behalf of the Developer for the Eagle Cliffs project, has submitted variance
requests to the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. The variances are for driveway
separations, minimum tangent lengths, and centerline profile. The driveway separations are requested to
be smaller (0 feet) as opposed to the standard separation distance of 12 feet. The minimum tangent
lengths are requested to be shorter (56 feet) as opposed to the standard 200 foot length for a tangent
on a broken -back cure. The centerline profile requirement is requested to be waived completely.
Typically, the City requires that the separation distance between driveway edges on a local street be a
_minimum of 12 feet. This applies to driveways adjacent to each other on the same side of the road, as
well as alignment with driveways on the opposite side of the road, and the requirement serves to reduce
traffic conflicts. The engineer proposes a minimum separation requirement of 0 feet, and believes that
this variance can be supported due to the fact that local streets with mountable curb are not subject to
this standard (LCUASS 9.4.3), and that the developer for this project simply prefers the appearance of
the vertical curb over the mountable curb. The engineer also cites site constraints negating the ability to
align driveways.
It is my opinion that this variance can be supported based on the fact that traffic volumes will be low on
this local residential street, and based on the engineer's arguments above.
The engineer also requested a variance regarding minimum tangent length between cures in the same
direction on local streets. Typically, the City requires that tangents in this case must be 200 feet, twice
the tangent required for cures in opposite directions. This length is to allow for rideability and to avoid
surprising drivers with additional road shifting. The engineer proposes tangents as small as 50 feet, and
feels that this variance can be supported because these tangents are located on either side of an eyebrow,
and that the "eyebrow acts more like an intersection than a `through street."' The engineer further
argues that the sharp corner will result in reduced speeds.
It is my opinion that this variance can be supported based on the fact that this location will function
more as an intersection than a through street, which is what the standard was intended to apply to.
The third request is for the elimination of the requirement to show centerline profiles for the local street
designs. Typically, the City requires that centerline profiles be shown for all street designs. This is to
allow for greater accuracy of design and to facilitate the reviewing engineer's ability to check the design.
The engineer feels that this variance can be supported because the centerline profile information would
not be used for construction, the additional information shown on the sheets would add to confusion
and construction errors, and that although the text of LCUASS requires the centerline profile, the
checklist does not require it on local streets.
It is my opinion that this variance can be supported based on the fact that the engineer has provided
centerline spot elevations in the critical locations.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns and if you need any additional clarification.
City of Fort Collins
Transportation Services
Engineering Department
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dave Stringer, Development Review Manager
Katie Moore, Civil Engineer I
FROM: Cam McNair, City Engineer aYVA
DATE: August 12, 2002
RE: Eagle Cliffs — Requests' for Variances
I am willing to approve the three variance requests recently submitted by Mike Oberlander of
North Star Design:
(1) The driveway separation requirement is not necessary for public safety in this case, and I
strongly support the use of vertical curb -and -gutter in residential situations such as this.
(2) The reduced tangent lengths will also be acceptable in the proposed design, considering
the short streets with eyebrow curves.
(3) The elimination of the centerline profiles in the plan set for the local street designs is
approved, following conversations with the design engineer. His assurance that his
design begins from the centerline, plus the fact that this information is not necessary for
construction staking, persuades me that this variance request can be supported for this
particular designer on this particular project.
As on all variances approved by the Engineering Department, these three for Eagle Cliffs do not
necessarily constitute a precedent for similar situations on other projects.
cc: Mike Herzig
281 North College Avenue a PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6605
09/10/2002 11:19 '3706861188 NORTH STAR DESIGN PAGE 01
NwA Star
aaw design
= Auloa Om Oft Unk 1
VOW1 o., oo 8M
Phow amass w
Fac vraaea1tee ftx
T -r'i1F—: "Or�r--rF,bm:
,% z Z -76 � 7:-f>
Plwnw amw 9 to t o
Res �il /� r . rc c CCt
C] urRem A For Rarlaw O PISMO Comment 0 Please Reply KFor your use
T15
P�g�eS�
pz-eaS,C- reo l ,
A
09/10/2002 11:19 9706861188
NORTH STAR DESIGN
PAGE 03
PT �7A 2+88.76
ELEV� 4915196
PC STA 8+14.82
PC IELEV-4914.29
!.P ELEV-491 Z
PT STA E
PT ELEV-
/
,, J-
1.31 / /PT STA 6+57.6
.54 / PT ELEV-4912�
VDOR DRIVE
4cnLr- Cw s
(kro s�
-FT, S-W 41.71
3.co°7n
5TA
14.19 �1
PT STA 8+85.14 i
PT EL.EV-4913.K
1
PRC STA 8+48.62
PRC ELEV-4913.38
LP STA 7+0Q02
LP ELEV=4912.07
• There is an existing 54' Emergency Access Easement on the north side of the proposed
Hammerhead right of way that connects to Southridge Greens Boulevard. No
improvements are proposed in this easement, but it would be available to the Fire
Department if they found themselves in the Hammerhead and did not want to turn
around. The easement is in the open space of Miramont Valley P.U.D. and it is assumed
that it was provided to service this property and the needs of the Sanitation District. The
area is currently sodded and installing pavement and a chain or gate in the easement
would not be desired by the developer or the residents of Miramont. The installation of
grass pavers could be an aesthetically acceptable solution which would meet everyone's
needs.
• The Hammerhead only needs to serve 5 lots on this site. Requiring a cul-de-sac would
require at least one of these lots to be removed (this would work against the minimum
density required by City Plan). If only 4 lots are served, it would be possible to simply
install a private drive to these homes and not have a public street of any type. It was
determined during the layout of the site that the City, Fire Department, and Lot Owners
would be best served with a public right-of-way adjacent to the lots.
• The Loveland Fire Department and Engineering Department use the proposed
Iammerhead Geometry as a standard. If it did not meet their needs, it is unlikely that it
would be included as a permanent turnaround option in this community.
These variances from the above Standards will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and
welfare. The shape of this site, proximity to the existing sewer, Fossil Creek, and the Natural
Resources Buffers as well as the minimum density requirements of City Plan have driven these
variance requests.
Please call me with any questions or additional information that you may need for the approval of
these variances.
Sincerely,
Michael Oberlander, PE, LSI
North Star Design, Inc.
2 34288
9oc •• ......• G��
FSS1QNAt-E��
SEP-30-2002 11:37 VAUGHTFRYE/UF RIPLEYTS 970 224 1662 P.03iO4
September 10, 2002
Mr. Tom Graff
Miramont Valley Homeowner's Assn.
Ft. Collins, CO 80525
Reference: Eagle Cliffs, LLC off -site grading and improvement letter of
intent.
Dear Mr. Graff
Eagle Cliffs, LLC has written this letter for the purpose of retaining the right
to create easements or right-of-way across property owned by the Miramont
Valley Homeowner's Assn. The easements or right of way are for the
construction of the proposed improvements within the construction plans for
the Eagle Cliffs development at the corner of Lemay Ave. and Southridge
Greens Blvd.
These plans are currently in the review process with the City of Ft. Collins.
This letter assures the City of Ft. Collins that The Miramont Valley
Homeowner's Assn, intends to grant easements or right-of-way for the
improvements and construction outside the boundary of the plat of the Eagle
Cliffs development.
This letter is a requirement of the City and will be provided to them in our
plan submittal prior to the Administrative Hearing requesting approval this
fall. The Letter of Intent must be acceptable to the City before it will provide
approval of the referenced project.
In order to relieve you of having to write the Letter of intent, we have
written this letter for the required easements or right-of-way to provide
access and construction easements to Eagle Cliffs, LLC. If you agree with
the content of this letter, please sign below. Upon receiving your signature,
we will include this letter with our plan submittal to the City. Please be
assured that this Letter of Intent means only that you intend to grant the
easements or right-of-way to Eagle Cliffs, LLC for the referenced items and
that you are not obligating yourself at this time to do so. Formal easement or
right-of-way documents (legal descriptions and exhibits) will be provided
for your review and signature if those items are required or, as the
information becomes more complete.
SEP-30-2002 11:37 UAUGHTFRYE/UF RIPLEYTS 970 224 1662 P.04iO4
If you have an.y questions regarding this Letter of Intent please call me at
your convenience.
Sincerely,
Javier Martinez Campos
Eagle Cliffs, LLC
Accepted by:
Name
Title
Date 91, ,3 /0:7--
W110.1wWOU
SEP-30-2002 11:37
UAUGHTFRYE/UF RIPLEYTS 970 224 1662 P.01iO4
Pose -it" rax Noce roi I I-- -// (pages' I-
September 10, 2002
Mr. Craig Foreman
City of Ft. Collins Parks Department
Ft. Collins, CC) 80521
To
Prom
Co./Dept.
Co_
Phone 0
Phone X
Fax #
Fax 1t
Reference: Eagle Cliffs, LLC off -site grading and improvement letter of
intent.
Dear Mr. Foreman:
Eagle Cliffs, LLC has written this letter for the purpose of retaining the right
to create easements or right-of-way across property owned by the City of Ft.
Collins Parks Department. The easements or right of way are for the
construction ofthe proposed improvements within the construction plans for
the Eagle Cliffs development at the corner of Lemay Ave. and Southridge
Greens Blvd.
These plans are currently in the review process with the City of Ft. Collins.
This letter assures the City of Ft. Collins that The City of Ft. Collins Parks
Department intends to grant easements or right-of-way for the improvements
and construction outside the boundary of the plat of the Eagle Cliffs
development.
This letter is a requirement of the City and will be provided to them in our
plan submittal prior to the Administrative Hearing requesting approval this
fall. The Letter of Intent must be acceptable to the City before it will provide
approval of the referenced project.
In order to relieve you of having to write the Letter of Intent, we have
written this letter for the required easements or right-of-way to provide
access and construction easements to Eagle Cliffs, LLC. If you agree with
the content of -this letter, please sign below. Upon receiving your signature,
we will include this letter with our plan submittal to the City. Please be
assured that this Letter of Intent means only that you intend to grant the
easements or right-of-way to Eagle Cliffs, LLC for the referenced items and
that you are not obligating yourself at this time to do so. Formal easement or
right-of-way documents (legal descriptions and exhibits) will be provided
for your review and signature if those items are required or, as the
information becomes more complete.
SEP-30-2002 11:37 VAUGHTFRYE/VF RIPLEYTS 970 224 1662 P.02iO4
If you have amp questions regarding this Letter of Intent please call me at
your convenience.
Sincerely,
Javier Martinez Campos
Eagle Cliffs, LLC
Accepted by:
Name
Title/ 6 44 z gk1<- L'4-
Date
09/10/2002 11:19
9706861168
NORTH STAR DESIGN
PAGE 02
North Star
�ajow design, iinc.
September 10, 2002
Ms, Katie Moore
City of Fort Collins Engineering
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, Colorado 50522-0580
Re: Eagle Cliffs Request for variance #4 — Maximum Cross Slope
Proj : 11 A-20
Dear Katie:
The following is a request for variance from Section 7.4,2.B. — Street General. Design Elements
Cross Slope — Maximum Cross Slope in the "Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards,
March 2001". This variance is requested to allow 2 sections within the proposed eyebrow to have
a cross slope of more than 3% on one side of the street (3.2% and 3.6%). The opposite side of the
street in both :locations has been designed with a cross slope of 2%. Please see the attached
drawing showing the spot elevations throughout the eyebrow.
Standard cross slopes of 2% to 3% cannot be attained at these locations for several reasons:
• Adhering to minimum grade and maximum grade break of the flowline profiles.
• The horizontal locations of the handicap ramp, drives, and inlets in this area.
• Designing the lowpoint to have a 1 % grade break (eliminating the vertical curve at the
lowpoint).
Maintaining acceptable cross slopes throughout the remaining portions of the eyebrow.
• Locating the crown 15' from the left flowline for the entire eyebrow.
The eyebrow will be driven at lower speeds than a typical local street because of the sharp comer
— the variations in cross slopes in this area will not be difficult to drive at low speeds.
We have designed the two areas in questions with the maximum cross slope steeper than standard
rather than flattening the opposite side of the street below the minimum cross slope. This design
decision was made to reduce any drainage problems that could occur with shallow cross slopes.
This variance from the above Standard 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. A
- { p
Michael Oberlander, PE, LS1
North Star Design, Inc.
NAt
700 Automation Drive, Unit I Windsor, Colorado 80550
970-686-6839 Phone 0 970-686-1188 Fax
r ffi e Memorandum W
lnte o c �
Date: September 16, 2002
To: Cam McNair, City Engineer 1��a
Thru: Dave Stringer, Development Revie4 Manager >�S
From: Katie Moore, Development Review Engineer
RE: Variance Request for Eagle Cliffs
North Star Design, on behalf of the Developer for the Eagle Cliffs project, has submitted a variance
request to the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. The request is regarding maximum cross-_
slopes, which are requested to be larger (3.2% and 3.6%,.f 0 than the typically required maximum
cross -slope of 3%.
The engineer proposes a 3.2% cross -slope in one location, and a 3.6% cross -slope in another, and
believes that this variance can be supported due to the fact that the standard 3% cross -slope "cannot be
attained at these locations for several reasons:
Adhering to minimum grade and maximum grade break of the flowline profiles,
The horizontal locations of the handicap ramps, drives, and inlets in this area,
Designing the lowpoint to have a 1 % grade break (eliminating the vertical curve at the
lowpoint),
Maintaining acceptable cross -slopes throughout the remaining portions of the eyebrow,
And locating the crown 15' from the left flowline for the entire eyebrow."
It is my opinion that this variance can be supported based on the arguments above, except for the
horizontal locations of the ramps, drives, and n6ets, and also except for designing the lowpoint to have a
1 % grade break. The areas with the above -maximum cross -slopes are outside of the areas influenced by
needing the 1 % grade break at the inlets, and the locations of the ramps and drives have no influence on
the vertical flowline design.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns and if you need any additional clarification.
3/11/2002 08:37 9706861188 NORTH STAR DESIGN PAGE 02
?D Scams
V11/2002 08:37 9706861188 NORTH STAR DESIGN PAGE 04
0 "g0
0l18
C
II t
l
Q
'
rl
5� t
6 3 /13'
.1
I
C
CL
-3 A
I ' i + c
�
a
I I�
oa•
+c
I
� v
£F+ I
� I
fit
ppp
i
>4b
LO'Z l6ti �A31
zd eov[ = 1 d
v
(
C
u
ilnl
CL
f
i
1 d
Ind
J
1 1 I
IVIS !Adl
I
�r i
C
(kb f 0 A .&
— v i r- r
,..,, ...
4
19/11/2002 08:37 9.706861188 NORTH STAR DESIGN PAGE 03
'I
O I �
I I i i I I 1
fi'S 16-0 _ A3 ] IA n
+1 lAd Li4ql+ 1-91TS 1dN
v Ind I:1-I
fi�.4Gfi' -!A IAA�-'
Yl 'Ind
LLI
99'£l6 :33A3' 00
96 cal :SDA3
�i
T -I
N f .
' I � t L +
II 11 �i 10
ti @
_ X
I
O 98'L6 :V1S' d111 �.
q£'E tgy ;A l3 ld
0* :3011e
,:SOA9
I II I I j I i I I v
OL d C7
• I i
b '
Transportation Services
Vngineerinr, Department
Development Review Engineering
City of Dort Collins
September 17, 2002
Mr. Michael Oberlander
North Star Design, Inc.
700 Automation Drive, Unit 1
Windsor, CO 80550
Re: The variance requests for larger -than -maximum cross -slopes for the
Eagle Cliffs Project
Dear Mr. Oberlander,
This letter is in response to your request for a variance to the Larimer County Urban Area Street
Standards. Your request for the variance to allow larger than maximum cross -slopes has been approved
only for this project and only for the locations indicated on the variance request.
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 no way 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
Dave Stringer
Bob Barkeen
2�1 ^J�rtli Coll. �;c:1�rnuc PO fiox �80 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-660; • FAX (970) 22141"78
�-�w-w.ci.fort-collins.co.us
April 23, 2002
City of Fort Collins
Planning Department
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
RE: Planning Objectives for Eagle Cliffs
Dear Bob Barkeen,
The Eagle Cliffs project was taken to conceptual review, for staff comment, in November
of 2001 (See Figure 1). Since that time, the site plan has been revised to better meet the
requirements of the Fort Collins Landuse Code (See Figure 2). The PDP site plan now
includes only public streets and allows all units to be addressed from a public street.
Additionally, all residents shall have access to public street sidewalks and bike lanes for
better pedestrian circulation. (Please refer to the `response to conceptual review
comments' letter for further information on how the plan has been changed to meet
staff's concerns.)
Figure 1-Conceptual Review Plan
12/02/2002 11:05
9706861188
NORTH STAR DESIGN
PAGE 01
North Star
design
700 Automation DM, Unit t
WWXW)r, CO 80550
Phone; 97mae-6939
Falc: 970-6ae-1188
To: Katie Moore From: Mike ObOrIander
1Ra= 221-6378 Payee: a
Phoee: polo: 12/2/02
Re: Eagle Cliffs Ramps CC:
® Urgent 10 For Review 0 P4008e Coomnent ® Mlense Reply ❑ For your use
* Commentsa
Katie -
Instead of making the driveways on Eagle Cliffs ADA compliant, we are proposing adding
ramps in the areas where the drives were going to serve as ramps. A few notes:
• At the cul-de-sac, we added a ramp directly across from the parking.
• At the intersection of Scarlet Ibus and Nightingale, we mirrored the ramp location and
added a ramp on the south side.
At the eyebrow, we rotated the ramps to the north side of the eyebrow. This should
actually work well because of a walk into the multi -family and a the ramp will and up
next to the only street light in the intersection.
Please review and call — if these are OK the only thing I have left is adding the new ADA
details.
Thanks
Mike
12/02/2002 11:05 9706861188 NORTH STAR DESIGN PAGE 02
II
/Z,
i
BLOCK 3
12/02/2002 11:05 9706861188 NORTH STAR DESIGN PAGE 03
l
LG
C.J''
12/02/2002 11:05 9706861188 NORTH STAR DESIGN PAGE 04
Njtid�9/
Cultural, Library, and Recreational Services
Park Planning and Development Division
City of Illort Collins
MEMORANDUM
DT: January 30, 2003
TO: Katie Moore, Civil Engineer I
FR: Craig Foreman, Manager of Park Planning and Development (-��
RE: Eagle Cliff Stormwater Easement on Fossil Creek Community Park
This memorandum is to inform you that the stormwater easement requested by the Eagle Cliff
Development on the park property will be granted by the City. The stormwater discharge
improvements on park property are compatible with the park.
The granting of the easement will be presented at the February 18`h and March 4`" City Council
meetings. The granting of this easement is contingent upon approval by City Council.
If you need anything else, please let me know.
cc: Deborah Myer
^; �: a ih i.� ;., Inc>t f t,rt Ci pins, CU OiZ=F +f)R • (.97M 221-6360 • FAX (970) 221-6586
Community Planning and Environmental Services
Current Planning
Citv of Fort Collins
January 11, 2001
Rachel Linder
VF Ripley & Associates
401 west Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Re; Eagle Cliffs Conceptual Review
Dear Rachel,
Attached is a copy of the staffs comments concerning the development
proposal at the southwest corner of South Lemav avenue and Southridge
Greens Boulevard presented before the Conceptual Review Team on
November 19, 2001.
The comments are offered informally by staff to assist you in preparing the
detailed components of the project application. Modifications and additions
to these comments may be made at the time of formal review of this project.
If you should have any questions regarding these comments or the next steps
in the review process, please feel free to call me at 221-6750.
nOere v,
Bo e n
City Planner
cc: file
enclosure
281 North Coil ege avenue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-n750 • FAX (970) 41()-2020
Katie Moore - Re: Eagle Cliffs
Page 1
From:
Matt Baker
To:
Dave Stringer
Date:
2/12/03 10:08AM
Subject:
Re: Eagle Cliffs
Dave --
Sorry to be so tardy on this. The local street portion was originally done by Dueck's SID and the repay
filed during the closeout of the district. It was filed against Fossil Creek Meadows, which was the name
before Huntington Hills, and it took me a while to find. I did have the City Clerks office send me a copy,
since this was before 1 took over the repay agreements and there wasn't a file over here.
The repay has exceeded the ten years since acceptance of the roadway and is no longer valid. The
developer could extend the term with Council action, but Dueck is no longer a viable entity here. The
amount was only $8,130. So, the repay has expired on the Eagle Cliffs project.
Again, my apologies for taking so long.
--Matt
>>> Dave Stringer 02/11/03 05:OOPM >>>
M att,
Katie is at the point where she is trying to finish up the Development Agreement for Eagle Cliffs. Needless
to say she is frustrated that she hasn't been able to get this information from you. I understand you are
busy and this is a low priority for you. However, your input is the last that she needs to get this DA out.
The applicant has been after her for several weeks now to get a DA draft.
Katie needs to know if there are any repays due to the City for adjacent street improvements done on
Lemay.
Your quick response to this request would be greatly appreciated. If you don't have time to research this
maybe it's something Pam can do.
CC: Katie Moore
Figure 2- PDP Submittal Plan
rcZ SOUTHRIDGE
v-
N
Eagle Cliffs is located on the southwest corner of Lemay Avenue and Southridge Greens
Boulevard. Previously, several projects have been submitted for this location. The Eagle
Cliffs development is proposing a 42 dwelling unit neighborhood. This neighborhood
will have 24 Patio Home lots and 1S Multi -family units on 10.3 acres. Approximately,
2.62 acres are being excluded from the total site area. The excluded acreage is comprised
of an existing sewer easement within a natural area buffer. The remaining acreage results
in a net residential density of 5.1 dwelling units per acre. This density meets the
standards set forth for in the LMN zone.
The architecture for the patio homes has been custom designed. Each home will have a
front porch or court yard area. Additional amenities include bay windows, open floor
plans, back decks, and a variety of exterior finishes (See architectural elevations). Units
17-24 have been uniquely designed to allow the homebuyer the option of having a
guesthouse, artist studio, or workshop detached from the main house. All of the garages
will be recessed behind the front fagade of the homes. All homes will have a two -car
garage with additional drive way parking. There will be a variety of paint colors for all
of the buildings. 'The goal of this project is to create a neighborhood that will be unique,
in comparison, to the other patio home communities around the Fossil Creek area.
The multi -family buildings, or Manor Homes, are comprised of six -units per building
(See Figure 3). These buildings have been designed to look like a large single-family
home. Each Manor Home unit will have a two -car garage and some units share a
common driveway court. The architecture features porches, private entries, wall plane
returns, large windows, and decks. The Manor Home is a great multi -family product that
eliminates large off-street parking areas and traditional box -like apartments. The
maximum building height is 30 feet.
Figure 3-Manor home (3-plex example)
AWN
Vehicular access to Eagle Cliffs is from Southridge Greens Boulevard (See Figure 2).
The main entrance to the site is Scarlet Ibis Lane, which intersects with Nightingale
Road. Condor Road provides limited access to the east. Condor intersects with
Southridge Greens Boulevard and provides a right -in, right -out only intersection. Unlike
the plan presented at conceptual review, all of the streets on this site are public streets.
All buildings have direct pedestrian access to the public street sidewalk system. The
public street sidewalks provide connections throughout the site and directly connect the
neighborhood to Fossil Creek Park.
The design objectives of the landscape plan are to provide an attractive streetscape and to
enhance the pedestrian and open spaces throughout the site (See landscape plan).
Deciduous trees, evergreen trees, and foundation plantings will be used to enhance the
open space areas, compliment the architectural character, and provide seasonal interest.
Varied planting schemes will be used to delineate the common areas. All common
spaces are to be owned and maintained by the Homeowner's Association.
City Plan Principles and Policies achieved by the proposed plan include:
PRINCIPLE LU-2: The city will maintain and enhance its character and sense of
place as defined by its neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and edges.
Policy LU-2.1 City -Wide Structure
Policy LU-2.2 Urban Design.
This neighborhood will compliment the surrounding land uses and promote a compact
development with a unique identity.
Eagle Cliffs will create a neighborhood with distinct edges that fit within the city
structure plan. The design of this site meets the guidelines for new construction to form a
citywide structure with diverse identities.
PRINCIPLE T-1: The physical organization of the city will be supported by a
framework of transportation alternative that maximizes access and mobility
throughout the city, while reducing dependence upon the private automobile.
Policy T-1.1 Land Use Patterns.
Policy T-1.2 Multi -Modal Streets.
Policy T-1.3 Street Design Criteria
The site is located along the Southridge Greens Boulevard. The proposed streets will
efficiently tie into existing traffic circulation as well as provide access for motor vehicles.
The proposed development is also to connect with existing street bicycle lanes and public
street sidewalks in order to provide connectivity to adjacent neighborhoods as well as to
Fossil Creek Park.
PRINCIPLE T-5: The City will acknowledge pedestrian travel as a viable
transportation mode and elevate it in importance to be in balance with all other
modes. Direct ,pedestrian connections will be provided and encouraged from place
of residence to transit, schools, activity centers, work and public facilities.
Policy T-5.2 Connections
Eagle Cliffs will provide a mix of housing types with pedestrian mobility throughout the
community including a public street sidewalk connection to the adjacent Fossil Creek
Park.
PRINCIPLE CAD-1: Each addition to the street system will be designed with
consideration to the visual character and the experience of the citizens who will use
that street system and the adjacent property. Together, the layout of the street
network and the streets themselves will contribute to the character, form and scale
of the city.
Policy CAD-1.1 Street Design Standards
Policy CAD-1.3 Streetscape Design
Policy CAD-1.4 Street Tree Design
A11 of the public streets around the proposed developments shall meet the street design
criteria from the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. All of these streets will
be lined with canopy shade trees to provide for a functional, safe and visually appealing
layout. The majority of the tree plantings will be canopy trees with a diversity of species
represented.
PRINCIPLE C.AD-4: Security and crime prevention will continue to be important
factors in urban design.
Policy CAD-4.2 Lighting and Landscaping
Lighting and landscaping will be designed to promote security and comfortable area -wide
visibility.
PRINCIPLE ECON-1: The City will pursue a balanced and sustainable economic
development program.
Policy ECON-IA Jobs/Housing Balance
The type of housing that will be located on the Eagle Cliffs site will have options for
different levels of income.
PRINCIPLE HSG —1: A variety of housing types and densities will be available
throughout the urban area for all income levels.
Policy HSG-1.1 Land Use Patterns
Policy HSG-1.2 Housing Supply
Policy HSG-1.4 Land for Residential Development
The Eagle Cliffs development offers additional housing opportunities for residents in
southern Fort Collins.
PRINCIPLE AN-2: A wide range of open lands, such as small parks, squares,
greens, play fields, natural area, orchards and gardens, greenways, and other
outdoor space should be integrated into neighborhoods.
Policy AN-2.1 Neighborhood Parks and Outdoor Spaces.
Policy AN-2.2 Ownership of Outdoor Spaces.
A network of small open spaces and Fossil Creek Park will be within walking distance of
all homes. All of the Eagle Cliffs open space will be owned and maintained by the
Homeowner's Association.
Trnncnnrtatinn Services
Engineering Department
Development Review Engineering
City of Fort Collins
May 7, 2002
Mr. Michael Oberlander
North Star Design, Inc.
700 Automation Drive, Unit 1
Windsor, CO 80550
Re: The variance requests for tangent lengths for Scarlet Ibis Lane and for the hammerhead
termination of Nightingale Road
Dear Mr. Oberlander,
This letter is in response to your request for a variance to the Larimer County Urban Area Street
Standards. One variance requested was a reduction of required tangent lengths on Scarlet Ibis Road.
It has been determined that this variance is unneeded since the deflection of Scarlet Ibis Road within 100
feet of the intersection falls within the 90 degrees +/- 10 degrees allowed by the Standards.
The second variance requested was to allow a hammerhead configuration in lieu of the standard cul-de-
sac design for the termination of Nightingale Road (Nightingale Court?). This letter is being provided as
a formal record of the City's determination, as discussed in previous meetings with the developer's
consultant, that the hammerhead configuration would not be approved. One option that would still be
considered is the off -set bulb cul-de-sac configuration (Figure 7-19 LCUASS), for which PFA would most
likely require a 100' radius as set forth in their standards.
Should you have any Further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely,
4-fti- -Z8G
Katie Moore
Project Engineer
City of Fort Collins
cc: file
Dave Stringer
Bob Barkeen
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6605 • FAX (970) 221-6378
www.fcgov.com
07/15/2002 14:47 9706861188 NORTH STAR DESIGN PAGE 01
1
North Star
�,. design
700 Auftxns ion drive, Unit I
Windsor, CO 80550
Phone: 970-6864939
Fax: 970-686-1108
Tor Katie Moore, Mike Herzig, From: Mike Obadander
Dave Stringer, Cam McNair
Few 221-6378 Pages: 4
Phensc Dab: 7/15/02
Re: Eagle Cliffs Request For Variance CC:
0
❑ Urgent 0 For Review 0 Ple=* Comment ❑ Ptewse Reply ❑ For your use
• Comments:
Lady and Gentlemen;
Following is a variance that I will be submitting tomorrow related to centerline
information required on local street plan sheets. It is my understanding after speaking with
other consultants that you as a group are currently discussing this requirement. I am faxing
this to all of you in the event that you meet on the issue prior to Planning routing the submittal
and variance letter to Katie.
I am requesting that the information shown on small streets be limited to true flowline
profiles, flowline alignments, and typical sections- I am requesting this because centerline
profile information is not staked and is not needed for construction ff a proper typical section is
held. If an additional profile is added to each sheet and centerline stations, PC's and PT's
were added to the plan view, several changes to the plans may be required and I feel that all
of these would be detrimental to the correct construction of the street
1, The profiles may need to be on their own sheet with no plan view. This would require
flipping pages for the review, staking, and construction of the streets. Timberline
plans at Harmony were done this way — I prefer having plan and profile on the same
page.
2. With all of the required information, i have seen plans where markers and tables are
used in the plan view of the sheet. This totally separates the numbers from the
graphical location on the plans and creates an opportunity for errors in interpolating
the tabulated information.