The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTEMPEL PUD - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2011-12-09CITY OF FORT COLLINS OFFICE OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, DEVELOPMENT CENTER ,--p b�� MEMORANDUM `b TO: Planning and Zoning Board Members THRU: Tom Hays, City Engineer// Curt Smith, Director of Planning and Development FROM: Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator J;'T— DATE: September 5, 1984 RE: Offsite Street Improvement Variance Request for Tempel P.U.D. In the attached letter the developer of Tempel P.U.D. has requested a variance from the offsite street improvement ordinance. As a result of this request staff has assembled a committee to review each request on an individual basis and shall present their findings to you for a final decision. The offsite improvements, in this case, would include the design of a full arterial street from Drake Road to the southern boundary of this development and, as a minimum, construction of a 36' wide pavement section centered on the section line. This construction could be major because the current vertical alignment may not meet our standards. The developer is requesting that the improvements be delayed until the second phase. At this point the City is not considering any part of the second phase and because of this we do not have any way legally to tie such a commitment to the second phase. As a result, staff reviewed Phase One strictly as a variance request, and will use the ordinance itself to enforce the improvements at the second phase. Staff has proposed the attached handout which explains the ordinance and the procedure for requesting a variance. The above mentioned committee, comprised of representatives from Engineering, Transportation Services, Comprehensive Planning and the Development Center, was formed to review each variance request against the established requirements. The conclusions of the Committee are as follows; 1. Can the street handle the existing and proposed traffic safely and at an acceptable level of service? OFFICE OF PLANNING T 300 LaPorte Ave.. P.O. Box 580 . Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 . (303) 221-6750 S DEVELOPMENT, DEVELOPMENT CENTER Yes. The Developer is proposing to make some improvements (as described earlier) to Taft Hill Road, that will improve the safety and capacity of the street. The City will be a recipient of a facility that is better than the existing facility. 2. Will the City be harmed by the variance even if the facility is equal to or better than what is existing? Yes. The City will not be receiving the benefits of a new 36' wide street and a minor amount of traffic will be added to existing traffic on Taft Hill. 3. Will the benefits Considerin was recently rehab widened in a crucial benefits to the City Recommendation outweigh the detriments or vice versa? g that the existing road way is 32' wide, ilitated, and that the roadway is being area , staff feels that in this case the as a whole do outweigh the detriments. Staff is recommending approval of the Tempel P.U.D. request to delay the offsite street improvements to the second phase of development. -3- en CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION November 5, 1986 Mr. Keith Tempel 600 17th Street Suite 2250, South Tower Denver, CO. 80202 Re: Tempel P.U.D. Dear Mr. Tempel, It has come to our attention that the time limit for approval of the Tempel P.U.D. expired last month. Please let us know by letter whether you want to extend it or not. We can approve up to two (2) 6 month administra— tive extensions. Beyond that, any further extensions would have to be approved by the Planning and Zoning Board. When an extension is requested, we review the PUD to see if any of the design should be changed to bring it up to current City Standards. We do not ordinarily contact a developer when their PUD expires. The developer takes that initiative. However, in this case, we have been con— tacted by Elaine Wagner regarding an easement that she and her husband deeded to the City to provide for construction of a sewer line to serve you development. We understand that you made certain agreements to serve their house with sewer in exchange for the easement. If you plan not to continue with the development, it is our desire to vacate that easement back to the Wagners. However, we will not proceed with action to vacate until you inform us that the PUD should expire. Please let me know by November 30, 1986, what you intend to do. H zig Development Coordinator UEVELUPMENT, PLANNING DIVISION n E5 MARTIN, SHANNON, DROUGHT 8 TEMPEL ATTORNEYS AT LAW DOMINION PLAZA SAN ANTONIO KEITH TEMPEL SUITE 2250 -SOUTH TOWER MARTIN, SHANNON S DROUGHT 600 17TH STREET INCORPORATED DENVER,COLORA00 80202 INTERFIRST PLAZA,25TH FLOOR 300 CONVENT STREET SAN ANTONIO,TEXAS 76205 f3031 573.6200 (512) 227 7591 November 12, 1986 Mr. Mike Herzig Development Coordinator City of Fort Collins Community Development Dept. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Re: Tempel P.U.D. Dear Mike: Thank you for your letter of November 5, 1986. I would like to request an extension of the Tempel P.U.D. I have contacted, in the past, Elaine Wagner concerning the fact that my development probably will not proceed, however because of certain negotiations now going on, I would request that the P.U.D. be extended. I anticipate that those negotiations should be over prior to the end of the six month period. Could you please let me know the expiration of the first administrative extension. Thank you for your cooperation. Best personal regards. JKT/cw NOV 18 1986 PLANNING DEPARTMENT n n MARTIN, SHANNON, DROUGHT 8 TEMPEL ATTORNEYS AT LAW KEITH TEMPEL December 9, 1986 Mr. Mike Herzig Development Coordinator City of Fort Collins Planning Division P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Re: Tempel P.U.D. Dear Mr. Herzig: DOMINION PLAZA SUITE 2250-SOUTH TOWER 600 17TH STREET DENVER,COLORADO 80202 (303) 573-8200 SAN ANTONIO MARTIN, SHANNON S DROUGHT INCORPORATED INTERFIRST PLAZA,25TH FLOOR 300 CONVENT STREET SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (512) 227-7591 /t On November 12, 1986, pursuant to your telephone call to me, followed by your letter of November 5, 1986, I requested an administrative extension of the Tempel P.U.D. Since I have not heard anything from you, I am assuming that the extension was made as an administrative matter and that the time is now running. My recollection of our telephone conversation was that you originally called me concerning the Wagners contact with your office to release the easement which they had granted for the P.U.D. You indicated to me at that time that if I was not going to proceed with the P.U.D., that the City would, in fact, convey the easement back to the Wagners. To assure the Wagners, I would appreciate your advising me again if that is the City's position. Mr. and Mrs. Wagner have been very cooperative with me and I would intend to cause the easement to be reconveyed to them if I do not proceed with the development. Once again, thank you for your cooperation. JKT/cw cc: Mr. C. Edward Stirman Very tr ryours, 1i E 1H EMPEL RFCF/Ve,D DEC 121986 oPARxMCr n M CITY OF FORT COLLINS OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, PLANNING DEPARTMENT December 9, 1986 Keith Tempel Martin, Shannon, Drought R Tempel Dominion Plaza Suite 22.50, South Tower 600 17th Street Denver, r0 80202 Dear Mr. Tempel, Your request for a six month extension of final approval of the Tempel P.U.D. has been approved. The new expiration date is April 22, 1987. The P.U.D. will expire on that date unless the project ie suhstantially com- plete or another extension is granted. If you should have any questions, please feel free to call me. �Jncerely, .Joe Frank iActing Planning Director i cc. Mike Herzig, Development Coordinator L- I �L-V V-L-11jr 1V1Cw 1 :wU Larorte Ave. • N U. Box 580 • Fort Collins. Colorado 80522 • (303) 221-6750 SERVICES. PLANNING r*w 1%4 - T-C- k-x CITY OF FORT COLLINS OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, PLANNING DEPARTMENT December 15,1986 Mr. Keith Tempel Martin, Shannon, Drought b Tempel Dominion Plaza Suite 2250, South Tower 600 17th Street Denver, CO 80202 Dear Mr. Tempel: I received your letter dated December 9, 1986, mentioning that you had not heard yet on your request for an extension of the Tempel P.U.D. As it turns out a letter, also dated December 9, 1986, was sent to you from Joe Frank stating that the P.U.D. expiration date had been extended to April 22,1987. You should have received that letter by now. Regarding the sewer easement on the Wagner property, your recollection is correct. It is our intention to vacate the easement, reconveying it to the Wagner's, if you do not proceed with the development and the P.U.D. expires. Please let Joe Frank or me know prior to the April 22, 1987 date what you plan to do. Thanks. Sincerely, Mike Herzig Development Coordinator cc: Joe Frank, Acting Planning Director --- -.— 11— - , .— — — - , — vvnn �a, 1. U'U'auu 0%jjee - kJVJf LC I-U/JV SERVICES, PLANNING ITEM NO. 7 MEETING DATE 3/28/94 STAFF Kerrie AShbeck City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: Resolution PZ94-2 - Utility and Access Utility Easement in Phase 1. #17-84E Vacation of a Portion of a Easement and a Portion of a the Tempel P.U.D., Tract A, APPLICANT: Tony Yankowski Franklin Harris Mortgage 205 Del Clair Fort Collins, CO 80525 OWNER: Joseph Shea c/o Franklin Harris Mortgage 205 Del Clair Fort Collins, CO 80525 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request to vacate a portion of an access and utility easement and a portion of a utility easement in the Tempel P.U.D., Tract A, Phase 1, located south of Drake Road and east of Taft Hill Road. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Resolution PZ94-2 EXECUTIVE SUNKARY: The applicant has requested the vacation of a portion of a utility and access easement and a portion of a utility easement as shown on the attached sketch. The Owner has requested the vacation to remove the platted easement from beneath the existing house and to remove the remainder of the easement from the undeveloped P.U.D. Therefore, the Owner understands that prior to either developing the approved P.U.D., or seeking approval of a new P.U.D. on the property, new easements adequate to serve the proposed use will need to be dedicated at the time of re -review of a development proposal on the property. All pertinent City and private utilities have been notified of the proposed vacation and they have no objections. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Yes. The proposed improvements, i.e. the widening of the west side of Taft Hill Road from Moffett Drive north to the ditch crossing and the improvement adjacent to their frontage on the east side of Taft hill, should adequately handle the additional traffic the additional traffic generated by the proposal. The major concern of staff has been with left turns into the site causing unacceptable delays on Taft Hill. With the widening, a left turn lane will be possible for not only Kinnison Drive, but also Falcon Road, and a right turn lane for Kinnison Drive and Moffett Drive. Staff compiled the following information on which this decision was based: A. The Current Conditions - one lane in each direction; (assume 10% of total volume will equal peak hour volume) Volume=670 veh/pk hr, Capacity=2000 veh/pk hr V/C = .56 B. With Development - one lane in each direction and a center lane for left turns; Volume=700 veh/pk hr, Capacity=2000 veh/pk hr V/C = .35 C. Year 2005 with no other improvements - one lane in each direction and a center lane for left turns; Volume=1300 veh/pk hr, Capacity=2000 veh/pk hr V/C = .65 D. Year 2005 with Arterial Street Improvements - two lanes in each direction and a center lane for left turns; Volume=1300 veh/pk hr, Capacity=3600 veh/pk hr V/C = .36 This is basically saying that Tempel P.U.D. is improving the capacity of Taft Hill and not increasing the volume in an amount to offset the increased capacity. 2. Are the Streets maintainable at an acceptable level? Yes. In 1983, the City and the County, jointly, rehabilitated and overlaid Taft Hill. The City removed the bad areas, patched them with five inches of asphalt, widened the street and then overlaid the street with two inches of asphalt. This construction is only one year old and should require no maintenance for the next 5 years. NOTE The Committee reviewed the first two requirements with respect to the development's total impact. Twenty-three units will not, with the improvements they are proposing, overload the street nor will they cause the street to deteriorate faster than normal. 3. Is the development infill and not leap frog development? Yes. This development is adjacent to existing City development and is a portion of an existing subdivision in the county. The first three requirements have been satisfied. The committee then proceeded to review the request under the final three criteria. 1. How will this variance work? Is the developer making any improvements that may help satisfy the original three criteria? The Developer is proposing to make some improvements (as described earlier) to Taft Hill Road, that will improve the safety and capacity of the street, so with the variance, improvements will be forthcoming. 2. How will the City benefit? Will the City as a whole be gaining by allowing the development with the variance? With the improvements proposed, Traffic movement on Taft Hill would be improved. Left turn movements onto Falcon and Kinnison would no longer block traffic. 3. How will the City be harmed be the variance? Will the benefits outweigh the detriments or vice versa? The City will not be receiving the benefits of a new 36' wide street and a minor amount of traffic will be added to existing traffic on Taft Hill. Considering the facts that the existing road way is 32- wide, was recently rehabilitated, and that the roadway is being widened in a crucial area , staff feels that in this case the benefits to i n September 7, 1984 Joe Frank City of Fort Collins Office of Planning & Development 300 Laporte Avnue Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Re: Tempel Tract 'A' Phase One Final P.U.D. Dear Joe: *00 ME ani GEFROH ASSOCIATES INC ARCH ITECTS/PLAN N ERS 555 Howes Street Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 (303) 493-1080 Thanks for meeting with Dick Rutherford and myself on Tuesday, September 4th to go over your comments on the above project. I have endeavored to answer these as follows: 1. Widening of Taft Hill, west side, shown on site plan sheet #1 and utility plan, sheet A. 2. We are awaiting the determination of the structural integrity of the bridge at Kinnison Drive and will get together with you as soon as this is available to resolve this issue. 3. Flowline transitions from 30' adjacent Rossborough subdivision to 35' along the Tempel P.U.D. frontage: It appears that the majority of the trees will be removed, though a couple nearest the Rossborough side may be saved. We are as anxious as the City to preserve as many of these as possible. Unfortunately, either a 30' or a 35' widening of Taft Hill is going to be bad news for these trees. r' r4. Ditch Company approval will be obtained prior to Planning and Zoning ' .D-oard approval. 5. Location of landscaping (trees and irrigated turf grass - sodded) shown on sheet #2. Pedestrian circulation will be a 4' concrete walk, cut into the 5:1 bank of the drainage ditch, so as not to compromise the stormwater potential of the ditch. The limits of the area to be maintained by the applicant are indicated on sheets #1 & 2, as requested. The drainage easement will be maintained by the H.O.A. of the Tempel P.U.D. Dick Rutherford has justified landscaping and walks on the utility plans. I%W Mr. Joe Frank September 7, 1984 Page Two 6,7&8 - Comments noted, and addressed on utility plans. 9. Storm drainage report being provided by Dick Rutherford, to which I ' refer youj comment regarding channel capacity noted. 10. Easements now the same on site plan and subdivision plan. 11. Distance between envelopes now from closest point of envelopes. 12. Distance of building envelopes to two platted property lines now clarified, by omitting distance to building footprint. Please refer to note 20, sheet 1, which describes the distance of building footprint to the envelope, and see also site plan, for typical setback. 13. City signs, see note 23, sheet 1. 14. Site and landscape plan changes pursuant to the preliminary plan approval, now incorporated into final design. 15. Additional screening provided along south side of townhomes, as requested. 16. City minimum plant requirements now instituted on planting list, sheet #2. 17. Existing trees indicated on sheet #2. Every endeavor will be exercised to preserve these, wherever appropriate. 18. Larger trees, 4" caliper, now specified along Taft Hill Road, as requested. 19. Four foot concrete walk along south edge of property, indicated on sheets #1 and #2. 20, 21 - Handicapped Units: See note 21, sheet 1, and site plan for location of type "A" handicapped units. Three parking spaces 12' x 16' for handicapped now provided. Garages are planned as 10' x 20', and therefore are not really suitable for handicapped use. 22. Typical final building elevation now submitted. 23. Building height refer to note 22, sheet 1. 24. Net density figures now eliminated from site plan. 25. Land use data comment noted. See note 2 of this letter. 26. Location of mailboxes shown on site plan. e Mr. Joe Frank September 7, 1984 Page Three 27. Outdoor lighting indicated on sheet 2, landscape plan. Kinnison Drive will have the City of Fort Collins standard lighting, for a public R.O.W. 28. Comment noted. 29. Foundation plantings increased as requested. Turf areas shown to be sodded. See sheet 2, landscape plan. 30. Will do, Joe. Thank you, Joe and Bonnie, for your active and enthusiastic cooporation on this project, which continues to improve, as we do the final "fine-tune". Sincerely, GEFROH ASSOCIATES, INC. -1" `cam . Tony Hughe cc: Bonnie Tripoli Dick Rutherford TH:csq James H. Stewart and Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineers and Surveyors 214 North Howes Street P.O. Box 429 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 (303) 482-9331 September 18, 1984 Mrs. Bonnie Tripoli Development Coordinator City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Bonnie: Laboratory: 301 Lincoln Court P.O. Box 429 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 (303) 484.6309 As requested by the City of Fort Collins, we studied the existing bridge over the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal on Kinnison Drive in the Tempel P.U.D. The bridge is made up of 6" x 14" timber decking on three fabricated 3 1/2" pipe trusses and two 8" I beams. The abutments are concrete. It is rather difficult to analyze the structural capacity of the bridge, however it appears the bridge is capable of carrying a normal highway loading. The deck has a driving width of ten feet and a span of 15 feet. The bridge was designed and built by someone other than our office some years ago. Our opinion in this letter should not be construed as accepting liability for the structure. As stated on the site plan, the bridge is not on public right of way and there will be a sign erected stating that the bridge is on a private road. If you have any questions regarding the bridge, please call. Sincerely, JAMES H. STEWART AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Richard A. Rutherford, P.E. & L.S. Secretary/Treasurer RAR/dm CITY OF FO*T COLLINS *MOO OFFICE OF PLANNING S DEVELOPMENT, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Board Members THRU: Tom Hays, City Engineer Curt Smith, Director of Planning and Development FROM: Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator DATE: October 10, 1984 RE: Offsite Street Improvement Variance Request for Tempel P.U.Q. In the attached letter the developer of Tempel P.U.D. has requested a variance from the offsite street improvement ordinance. As a result of this request staff has assembled a committee to review each request on an individual basis and shall present their findings to you for a final decision. The offsite improvements, in this case, would include the design of a full arterial street from Drake Road to the southern boundary of this development and, as a minimum, construction of a 36' wide pavement section centered on the section line. This construction could be major because the current vertical alignment may not meet our standards. The developer is requesting that the improvements be delayed until the second phase. At this point the City is not -considering any part of the second phase and because of this we do not have any way legally to tie such a commitment to the second phase. As a result, staff reviewed Phase One strictly as a variance request, and will use the ordinance itself to enforce the improvements at the second phase. The above mentioned committee, comprised of representatives from Engineering, Transportation Services, Comprehensive Planning and the Development Center, was formed to review each variance request against the established requirements. The conclusions of the Committee are as follows; Lur'UI"Ll: HVH_. • H.U. dox 5UU . Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 9 t3031 221-67, 50 F DEVELOPMENT, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ``w 1. Can the street handle the existing and proposed traffic safely and at an acceptable level of service? Yes. The proposed improvements, i.e. the widening of the west side of Taft Hill Road from Moffett Drive north to the ditch crossing and the improvement adjacent to their frontage on the east side of Taft hill, should adequately handle the additional traffic the additional traffic generated by the proposal. The major concern of staff has been with left turns into the site causing unacceptable delays on Taft Hill. With the widening, a left turn lane will be possible for not only Kinnison Drive, but also Falcon Road, and a right turn lane for Kinnison Drive and Moffett Drive. Staff compiled the following information on which this decision was based: A. The Current Conditions - one lane in each direction; (assume 10% of total volume will equal peak hour volume) Volume=670 veh/pk hr, Capacity=2000 veh/pk hr V/C = .56 B. With Development - one lane in each direction and a center lane for left turns; Volume=700 veh/pk hr, Capacity =2000 veh/pk hr V/C = .35 C. Year 2005 with no other improvements - one lane in each direction and a center lane for left turns; Volume=1300 veh/pk hr, Capacity=2000 veh/pk hr V/C = .65 D. Year 2005 with Arterial Street Improvements - two lanes in each direction and a center lane for left turns; Volume=1300 veh/pk hr, Capacity=3600 veh/pk hr V/C = .36 This is basically saying that Tempel P.U.D. is improving the capacity of Taft Hill and not increasing the volume in an amount to offset the increased capacity. 2. Are the Streets maintainable at an acceptable level? Yes. In 1983, the City and the County, jointly, rehabilitated and overlaid Taft Hill. The City removed the bad areas, patched them with five inches of asphalt, widened the street and then overlaid the street with two inches of asphalt. This construction is only one year old and should require no maintenance for the next 5 years. The first two requirements have been satisfied. The committee then proceeded to review the request under the final three criteria. 1. Is the City to be the recipient of a facility that is equal to or better than the existing facility? -2-