Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSOLAR VILLAGE MAPLE - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2011-11-304 September 5, 2007 Mr. Randy Maiziand City Of Fort Collins Engineering 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 RE: Solar Village MOPIt Variance Requests Dear Mr. Maiziand: kX3M OL, YON() ENCINE 1FRIN[3 This letter is on behalf of Solar Village, UC for their proposed Solar Village Maple development in Fort Collins, Colorado. Overall, we feel we have worked to keep within the spirit and the intent of the I xi r ban me jjr Areas Street Standards (LCUASS). The requested variances are as fo1jows: - 1. Non-standard Alley Cross Section Issue Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) Figure 7-1 IF and 7- 12F show the two standard cross sections for a pubic alley. We are proposing an alley similar to the alley shown in 7-12F that has the drainage going to one side of the alley. This standard alley section utilizes a drive over curb and gutter. However, we would like to keep the existing concrete pan and vertical.curb and gutter that is already in place on the east side of the alley. We are requesting a variance from the standard alley cross section. Alternate Desin One alternative is to remove the existing concrete pan and vertical curb and gutter and replace it with drive over curb and gutter. The height of the drive over curb and gutter is six inches from the flow line to the top back of curb. This is the same as vertical curb and gutter, but more than the concrete pan which is only two inches. This creates grade problems for the existing parking lot and landscape islands that are immediately east of the alley, The alley would need to be lowered an additional four inches in order to avoid completely reconstrm-ting the private parking lot to the cast of the alley. This lower grade in the flow line in the drive over curb and gutter would not make it practical to drain water to the south to the flow line in Maple Street, zLugsdficati - on for Variance This is an existing asphalt alley with flat grades (average = 0.4%) established to drain the alley to the south via a concrete pan and vertical curb and gutter. The existing private improvements to the cut were constructed to drain to this alley. NOLTE ASSOCIATES, INC, 190SHkRP POINT C)RwF. 5oj7E A FORT COL' INS r0 6D523 1429 970 221 2400 J'F,L 970 221.241S FAX W*W.N0LTE.CCM 1-here is very little that can be done in the way of grade changes to the alley and a change of four inches is impractical without signir 'cant improvements to private Property- The concrete Pan in the alley does increase the drainage that flows outside of the right Of way onto private property. However, these flows are in a parking lot and not next to a building where any Property damage would occur. It is my opinion that the existing condition will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and will not reduce the design life of the improvement nor cause the IA)cal Entity additional maintenance costs. 2. Utility Fastments Issue Latimer County Urban Area Street Standards Figures 7-1 F through 7-13F all show utility easements outside of the standard right of way for public streets and alleys. Due to the age of these streets and alleys there are not existing utility easements in place. As a new development, LCUASS 1-9.2.11.2 requires necessary right of way and easements to be dedicated to the public entity. However, this project is located in an area that allows zero setback from the building to the right of way. In order to take advantage of the zero setback it leaves no room for an additional utility easement outside of the right of way. We are requesting a variance from providing an 8' utility easement outside of the right cif way.. Alternate des �n One alternative is to add the 8' utility easement outside of the 20' right of way for the alley and the 100' right of way for Maple and Meldrum Street. This would reduce the developable land on the property and also not meet the city's goal of zero setback, for mixed use properties in this area, 'Me additional utility easement would allow the existing dry utilities (gas, cable, electric, and telephone) to be moved from the right of way to the 8' utility easement. However, since these utilities are already established in the right of way it is unlikely that they would need to be moved to this easement. JUStific2finn fear The existing utilities are already established and those that are moving have ample space to exist within the right or way, An additional s, utility easement would not Meet the city's goal Of zero setback for a mixed use Will development such as this. It is my Opinion that the existing condition will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and will not reduce the design life of the improvement nor cause the Local Entity additional maintenance. costs. 3. Building column and retaining wall within the right of way and sight lines ka—ule Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards 1,9.2.13.2 requires neees . sary right ()I - way and easements to be dedicated to the Public entity. LCUASS standard drawing NOLTE ASSOCIATES, INC, 2 Vx"Arw� Rapic"4 doc 803 and figure 7-12F show a I 01x 10' triangle that is to be dedicated for visibility purposes at the intersection of a public alley and public street. This additional right of way for visibility is being dedicated as part of the development of this project. LCU ASS Figure 7-12F says that these right of way areas may be landscaped no higher than 12" and fences may not encroach in this area. The current design proposes a structural building column and a retaining wall in this area. The building column is used for structural support of the upper levels and the retaining wall will he used to elevate the building as per city floodplain requirements. We are requesting a variance to allow a structural column and retaining wall to be placed within the I O'x 10' triangle dedicated as right of way for visibility. Alternate DesiLyn One alternative is to remove the 8"xg" column by increasing the structural members in the overhang that supports the floors above. This would need to he done for the other three corners of the south building in order to provide a consistent architectural theme. This was deemed costly and it did not fit the visual aesthetics that the architect had planned for the building. Another alternative is to move the wall outside of the right of way triangle. The wall would still be necessary due to the floodplain requirements, but could possibly be placed outside of the right of way. Again this would not fit the visual aesthetics that the architect had planned for the building. Jusfiftegiop for Variance Our location is unique in the fact that the property line for thispmject is located 20' from the edge of street curb and beyond the curb is diagonal parking. This dedicated R.O.W. is far removed from the traffic flow on Maple Street. The extent of -the structural column placed within this R.O.W. would be approximately 8" X 8" and the retaining wall will only be two feet in height. In section LCUASS 7.4. 1 -C.6 there are some requirements listed for sight obstructions. In the first paragraph it says that any object that is above 30" is constituted as a sight obstruction.The walls that we are proposing are under this height requirement. In the third paragraph, there is an exception made for street trees if they are pruned up to 8. It is my opinion that an 8"x8" column poses approximately the same visual hazard as an I I" caliper tree without the worries of timely pruning. We have provided what we believe is anexemplary solution to maintaining visual access within the fiarnework of buildings that affect Downtown Fort Collins. It addresses the issue of providing visual access within the right of way triangle with a nominal change to what the LUCASS is requiring. It is my opinion that the existing condition will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and will Valiance RarAead('.� NOLTE ASSOCIATES, INC. not reduce the design life of the improvement nor cause the Local Entity additional maintenance costs. If you have any questions, please contact me at (970) 419-1307 Sincerely, Nolte Associates, ljlc. Samuel M. Eliason, P.E. Senior Engineer CC: Solar Village, Li C JCL Arr-hitecture NOLTE ASSOCJATFS. tNC.