Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFEENEY - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2003-10-30PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - FEENEY SUBDIVISION STATEMENT OF PLANNING OBJECTIVES April 16, 1979 The Planned Unit Development is designed with building and lot orientation directed primarily towards Highway 287 for its immediate needs, yet situated with the future Mitchell Drive in mind. A deceleration/acceleration lane is projected (if adopted by local authorities) with one curb cut opening into a shared easement for all lots and future connection to Mitchell Drive. Temporary cul-de-sacs are planned at each end of Mitchell Drive to permit access/egress to Lot 5 until the drive becomes a reality. It is anticipated the Building structures will be one-story in height and commercial in nature as oriented to the highway business. Internal traffic and pedestrian circulation is designed to provide a better sense of "business community" and not leave the lots as totally strip commercial in development along the highway. Parking and drives are designed to have a shared relationship among the lots to encourage unity in development. Lots 2 and 4 are proposed for the first phase of development with one owner/ building structure on it. This structure is anticipated to be a restaurant with drive -up facilities. Lots 1 and 3 are projected to be developed in that order and following construction on Lots 2 and 4. It is projected at this date they will be under separate ownership with shared easements for access, parking and utilities. architecture interior design L' 226-5333 c nUIJ���VU O a a U v 5005 we e bay drive fort collins,cc. 80526 fD1876 COLORADO STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS O DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS Larimer County SH 287 July 11, 1979 Feeney PUD Approx. 800' S. of Horsetooth on E. Side of 287 DOH FILE 45100 Planning Department City of Fort Collins P. 0. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Gentlemen: We have reviewed the Feeney Subdivision Final P.U.D. - Lots 3 and 4, and we find no conflicts with our interests. However, the 25-foot temporary curb cut on U.S. 287 will, in fact, be a permanent curb cut consistent with the City's access plan for South College Avenue. Thus, the word "temporary" should be omitted. As previously recommended, the construction of a new driveway and the deceleration lane will require a permit. This permit can be obtained following final approval of this P.U.D. Thank you for the opportunity to review this plan. AC: da cc: D. M. Bower D. N. Fraser (2) File: Crier -Jacobson w/encl. RECEIVED JUL 16 1979 Mantling Department Very truly yours, DWIGHT M. BOWER DISTRICT ENGINEER Albert Chotvacs Assistant District Engineer via Rames-Finch-Graham P.O. BOX 850 GREELEY, CO 80632 (303) 353-1232 cc: 1`lauri Rupel TFILLHONE 575 8000 ARLA CODE 303 THERESA W. DORSEY HOLLAND & HART ATTORNEYS AT LAW 555 SEVENTELNT„ S,RI. I.T SUITE 2900 DENVER COLORADO MAILING ADDRESS P O. BOX 87G9 DENVER. COLORADO 80201 (303)S75-8102 December 13, 1979 Mr. G. CA Mabry, Director Planning and Development City of Fort Collins P. O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Mr. Mabry: DEC 11 1979 P1,.nning Department CABLE ADDRESS 14OLHART. DENVER TELFCOPIER 13031 575.8261 �c- P �__� •-�«�� 1 On August 15, 1979, you wrote to our client, Pay 'N Pak, Inc., regarding the status of a proposed new Mitchell Drive from Horsetooth Road south and east to a new J.F. Kennedy Parkway, as well as eventual loss of curb cuts on South College Avenue. After discussions with our clients, you and the City Attorney, we thought it advisable to inform you in writing of certain Pay 'N Pak concerns on this subject. Mitchell Drive Alignment. When Thomas Feeney initially spoke with Pay IN Pak about his plans for the Feeney Subdivision, Pay IN Pak was led to believe that the proposed Mitchell Drive would be along its east property line as shown on the enclosed survey of the vicinity. While Pay IN Pak does not favor the idea of a new Mitchell Drive, nor the other changes which will ensue, it did feel that any such roadway must utilize merely the eastern tip of their property. when Mr. Feeney produced a drawing showing the alignment further west, he was promptly advised that Pay IN Pak would never cooperate in such a program. This proposed western alignment for Mitchell Drive crosses the Pay IN Pak property much closer to the store. It would require destruction and relocation of a service yard which is conveniently located with regard to the store. It would also make it difficult, if not impossible, for large trucks to maneuver and unload at the back of the store as they presently do. It would necessitate substantial revision in the parking lot and customer entryway. Finally, it would sever from the Pay IN Pak parcel a small, triangular piece of land on the eastern side of Mitchell Drive which would become useless. If rational planning for the South College Properties is the goal, it would seem counterproductive to begin by creating irrational land use on the few already developed parcels. l 11OL AND R IIAIZT Mr. G. C. Mabry December 13, 1979 Page Two Accordingly, we would like to register our protest to the present plans for Mitchell Drive. Pay IN Pak will be unable to cooperate in the current plans. The costly and wasteful disruption of Pay IN Pak's present operation is simply too great. Mitchell Drive Financing. Pay IN Pak would also like to register its objection to the current proposals for financing Mitchell Drive and other new roads in the South College Properties by means of a special improvement district. out initial understanding of the improvement district was that it would finance only Kennedy Parkway and that other roadways would be put in by subdividers of the City. No Pay IN Pak position was formulated on this initial proposal. It now appears that Mitchell Drive is to be a project of the improvement district. Pay IN Pak recognizes that any new construction by the City of Fort Collins would cost it money, as a property taxpayer. However, Pay IN Pak prefers that the City itself do the financing since the Pay IN Pak property has been in the City for some time and contributes to City revenues. Financing through a special improvements district would greatly increase the share of the costs to be borne by Pay IN Pak. Pay IN Pak is satisfied with the present means of access to its property off of South College Avenue and sees no need for the new Mitchell Drive. if a new Mitchell Drive is to be constructed, and Pay IN Pak's access from South College is diminished, Pay IN Pak will be damaged. It is grossly unfair for the City to then designate Pay IN Pak as a 'benefited" party for purposes of sharing in the costs of the new improvements. College Avenue Curb Cuts. Finally, Pay IN Pak would like to register its objection to the proposed elimina- ton of the vehicular access which it currently enjoys i directly onto South College Avenue. At the very least, Pay IN Pak would like to be completely assured that there will be no alteration in that existing access until both the new Mitchell Drive and frontage road type access to South College Avenue are in place. We believe that these assurances are contained in your August 15 letter to Pay IN Pak. Also, these assurances were given orally by you to Richard G. Caldwell of this firm in a telephone conversation on November 23, 1979. These assurances are being relied upon in future planning for the store and deferral of formal legal action at this time. If we have misunderstood you as to those assurances, please notify us at once, since our client's future plans for the store and for possible legal action will depend thereon. IIOLLAND R IIART Mr. G. C. Mabry December 13, 1979 Page Three Pay 'N Pak would like to cooperate in rational, unified planning for the entire South College Properties. However, the current plans do not appear rational. They penalize the owner of the one major developed property in the area to benefit those whose property has not yet been committed to any particular form of development. We hope and trust that future plans for the South College Properties will take into account the legitimate concerns of our client, Pay 'N Pak. very truly ours, r� Theresa W. Dorsey" - Of HOLLAND & HART TWD:gw cc: Peter W. Gallina Thomas L. Feeney, Jr. COLORADO STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS Planning Department City of Fort Collins P. 0. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Gentlemen: DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS October 20, 1980 uePartril Larimer County SH 287 Feeney Sub. Revised PUD Approx. 800' S. of Horsetooth on E. Side of Highway DOH FILE 45100 We have reviewed the Feeney Subdivision Revised Preliminary P.U.D., and we ask for your consideration of the following comments. The right of way for U.S. Highway 287 east of the highway centerline is 50 feet. This site plan is not consistent with that width since it measures approximately 56 feet between the centerline and the east right-of-way line. The access shown on this plan is consistent with previously submitted referrals on this subdivision. Once again, we emphasize the need for a Driveway Permit to con- struct this access. Three copies of the approved subdivision, along with a completed application form, should be sent to Mr. David N. Fraser, District IV Maintenance Superintendent, P. 0. Box 850, Greeley, Colorado 80632. We would make several suggestions with regard to the design of this access: 1. The acceleration should be eliminated since it is too short to function properly. 2. The turning radii should be improved to 20 feet, if possible. 3. The trees at this driveway must not impair sight distance. Low profile shrubs may be preferable. 4. Consideration should be given to the provision of handicapped ramps at both ends of the sidewalk which meet this driveway. The attached sheet provides specifications for these ramps as well as the curb and gutter along U.S. 287. Thank you for the opportunity to review this subdivision plan. AC:da Attachment cc: D. M. Bower D. N. Fraser (2) File: Crier -Jacobson via Rames-Finch-Graham w/encl. very truly yours, DWIGHT M. BOWER DISTRICT ENGINEER 7,. Albert Choty cs Assistant District Engineer (303)353-1232 P.O. BOX 850 GREELEY, CO 80632 Curb e Grp//e TRANSVERSE CONTRACTION JOINT FOR CONCRETE PAVEMENT" (DRIVEWAYS) — e Pou�eO l0 cb�01 c a fi Ins turn �eo..��ec .'aye le+{+n o! svn r. reeds I5 Ie ef. 1 CURB AND GUTTER Type 2 (6 Barrier— 2'Gutter) (Section IIB) 4 _y c CONSTRUCTION OF CONCRETE GUTTERS AT INTERSECTIONS T� �$ s Fors of ,',urD aa (yo4�o510os) N 2 LCuHeir� POn Llne CbO ro De L,df -AeO-- I .—k De bmll +.nen� tuner $pe 2 is hOT rcr. M Gu^n T x ? /S npu.,'nb rArs o.eo snplJ be pourc.^ n+caasrermJq .: ah C Jb cv0 huller owe polo Jur os 'CO'YJeJe Fo+emenJ Ff,r Lme /ocolm.+ +,// be es/nbhs Aeo by N� SAu.n On pbnf. r-r8 a 5/O<egLK 4-o'i--_---d-C—.—. 1 •¢ O4LK S_ECrION_2_9 s 5'e.0lk ,E r10 C 6 .� /OK n � James H. Stewart and Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineers and Surveyors July 15, 1982 Mr. Robert Smith Storm Drainage Dept. City Engineer's Office Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Dear. Bob; On behalf of Mr. Spiro Palmer, the developer of Lots 1 and 2, Feeney Subdivision, Fort Collins, Colorado, I am requesting a variance to temporarily delete the requirement for on site detention. The discharge of storm water into the Larimer County No. 2 Canal has not been approved, therefore a temporary retention pond has been built. It has been sized to contain the entire 100 year storm runoff and does not have an outlet. At the time Lot 2 is developed, a permanent detention pond will be completed in the parking area on Lot 2. The detention pond will continue to discharge into the retention pond until the Lariimer County No. 2 Canal Company agrees to accept the runoff. The retention pond and detention pond are shown on Sheet 6 of the Feeney Subdivision Utility Plan. If you have any questions regarding this request, please call. Very truly yours, JAMES N. STEWART AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Richard A. Rutherford Secretary/Treasurer OFFICE-211 NORTH H0WES • flO. BOX 429 • PORT COLLINS. COIORADO80522 • 'IFLEPHONF ARFA 30NIB'-933I Ext. 728 ENGINEERING DIVISION July 16, 1982 Mr. Richard A. Rutherford James H. Stewart & Associates, Inc. p.0. Box 429 Fort Collins, Colorado Dear Dick: Regarding your request for a temporary variance in the detention requirements for Lots 1 and 2 in Feeney Subdivision located in the northwest 1/4 of Section 36, T7N, R69W, Larimer County, Colorado I have the following comments. Due to the existing retention pond intercepting the developed runoff from Feeney Subdivision, I see no problem with your request provided the retention pond has adequate capacity. It is my understanding that prior to Lot 2 being developed, runoff from Lot 1 will be channeled to the retention pond via a drainage Swale. Your request for a temporary variance in the detention requirements is hereby granted provided the following conditions be met: The temporary swale from Lot 1 to the retention pond must be constructed so as not to create any unnecessary erosion (i.e. 3:1 side slopes with riprap at transition from asphalt to swale). High water in the retention pond must not be allowed to flow back into lot 1. The swale must be seeded with a grass and the owner must accept responsibility to maintain the swale along with the retention pond. Sincerely, Robert W. Smith Assistant City Engineer - Storm Drainage ,i cc: Mauri Rupel 46W