The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004 HIGH SCHOOL - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2004-08-02Marc Virata - Re: Offsite easements on City property Page 2 in it of themselves would not require a plat to go before City Council because our rights as the City are not hampered by them. The exception to this is when a negotiation takes place to secure these areas from another entity, such as the case with the Hort Center and CSURF, in this case Council action is required. I have a few situations with the High School site needing to secure offsite easements as part of their project. Typically, these offsite easements would be dedicated to the City, however in this instance the offsite area is on City property for the future park. Based upon a meeting I attended last week involving Ron Mills, Dave Stringer, and Jack Gianola, how we process these offsite easements from both a legal as well as PDP process is perhaps open to interpretation. I'd appreciate direction given the following scenarios, each of which are somewhat unique and perhaps may result in various processes: 1) Cambridge right-of-way: PSD (through a partnership with City Parks) is building Cambridge Avenue offsite from PSD property, adjacent to the future City Park site on City owned land. They have provided me legal descriptions of this area involved. I don't know how this should be processed. Because right-of-way allows for entities outside of the City to use it (Xcel, AT&T, etc.), using the example of the Hort Center, should this City owned area be dedicated as right-of-way? Because this "right-of-way" is also limiting the City's use by allowing outside entities to use it (Xcel, etc.) does this also then require City Council approval? (Just to keep in mind, if this area were on private property, we would through the PDP process require PSD to secure from the private property, a right-of-way deed of dedication, which would not require Council action, just acceptance through either P&Z or administratively.) Would the standard deed of dedication language used as part of our PDP process suffice in this situation? (Again, this is a potential City grantor/grantee situation, the deed would state that the Grantor (City), dedicates, transfers, and conveys to the City a permanent right-of-way for public street purposes.) 2) Cambridge utility easement: As part of the construction of Cambridge Avenue offsite, PSD also needs to secure 9' of utility easement on either side of the right-of-way. These are also on City property. Am I correct to conclude that these should be dedicated to the City using the Hort Center's example and would then require Council approval? 3) sight distance easement: There is a driveway that accesses Cambridge Avenue. This driveway leads to a pump house for a detention pond, the pump house is mutually beneficial to PSD and City Parks. The driveway location is such that per Engineering criteria, a sight distance easement is required which would occur on City property. If this sight distance easement fell on private property instead of City property, as part of the PDP process, PSD would have to secure this easement from the property owner and have it dedicated to the City as a sight distance easement. The sight distance easement places restrictions on the types of structures and landscaping that can be installed within the area. Because this appears to only involve the City, as no outside utility (or any utility) can use this space, I'm thinking that this should not be dedicated as an easement. Instead, it should be reserved as an area. Would this be correct? The issue I wonder about is whether this area needs to be approved by Council because it technically reduces Parks ability to use City property? This reduced ability would in theory be based upon Engineering's ability to enforce the restrictions of a sight distance easement on Parks. 4) water line easement: There is an area within City Park property that FCLWD is installing a water line which serves the surrounding area, including City and PSD. If this was on private land, we would want PSD to show that they've secured permission from the property owner the right to have the water line installed with language acceptable to FCLWD. What would the process be in this case with the City owning the land? The item goes to City Council I assume, and I'm gathering that we would not consider granting an exclusive easement to FCLWD, rather create an area? 5) detention pond (drainage) easement: PSD's High School site and the future City Park site both share a detention pond. The detention pond's north half is on PSD property, the south half is on City property. Normally, wherever a detention pond is located, we would typically want an drainage easement from the property owner dedicated to the City. PSD is granting a drainage easement to the City on their half, what is required for the detention pond on City property? I was originally thinking that this could be shown as an area (not dedicating to ourselves) and that this would not need to go to City Council because Marc Virata - RE: Re: Ziegler Rd Plans comments Page 2 Reduce the travel lanes from 12ft to 11 ft width to accommodate an 8ft bike lane until the transition takes place ( approx. 300' to the north), Reduce the east travel lane (accel lane - the thru lane from the south would remain 12ft) from 12ft to 11ft and increase the bike lane width to 7ft, then increase the two lanes to their respective widths at the transition (approx. 300' to the north); Or. reduce the median island width from 7-ft to 5ft. This would make a 2-ft shift thru the intersection. I prefer the third option. 1 hesitate widening the road width due to the fact that the easements and R-O-W in place have been accepted by the HP people. Let's try to keep the present road width and work on agreeing to acceptable lane dimensions. ---Original Message ----- From: Marc Virata [m<)ilto:MVIRATA@fcgov.com <mailto:MVIRATA@fcgov.com> j Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 2:21 PM To: Ochwat, Thomas Cc: Prelog, James Subject: RE: Re: Ziegler Rd Plans - comments Tom, it's our standard that detached bike lanes are 6'. Attached to the curb, bike lanes are 8', of which 6' is asphalt and 2' is concrete gutter to total 8'. Hope this helps. -Marc >>> "Ochwat, Thomas' <thomas.ochwat@Nolte.com> 03/24/03 01:06PM >>> No problem. We will make the shift and stripe two lanes of travel north of Rock Creek and put the bike lane next to the curb. Is the bike lane to be 6' or 8' width? Can we keep it 6' until the transition - approx. 300' to the north? ---Original Message ----- From: Marc Virata [mailto:MVIRATA@fcgov.com <mailto:MVIRATA@fcgov.com> j Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 12:01 PM To: Ochwat, Thomas Subject: Fwd: Re: Ziegler Rd Plans - comments Tom, Below is Tom's response to the striping. Let me know your thoughts. If there is a philosophical difference, we can have a meeting with Trans Planning, yourself, and Traffic if need be. Thanks, Marc Virata - RE: Response to Nolte Letter Page 1 From: "Mark McCallum" <MMcCallum@villagehomes.com> To: FC1 GWIA("thomas.ochwat@Nolte.com") Date: Thu, Apr 4, 2002 11:41 AM Subject: RE: Response to Nolte Letter Tom, See my comments below in red. If it is necessary, please give me a call to set up a time to discuss my comments Sincerely, Mark McCallum Planning Manager Village Homes of Colorado, Inc. 303.776,4196 NOLTE WROTE: SUBJECT: 2004 High Schoo/Willowbrook PUD Rock Creek Dr. & Cambridge Ave. Coordination Below, is a summary of tasks and responsibilities that were the outcome of the coordination meeting relating to the proposed street improvements for Rock Creek Drive and Cambridge Avenue. TST Consultants will provide the following to the CFC: Update Rock Creek Drive street plans to remove the south curb returns at the Technology Parkway intersection. Yes, TST will provide this service. Also, begin the process to vacate the unnecessary r-o-w at this location. No, Nolte and/ or the School District will have to vacate all unecessary r-o-w. * Revise the Rock Creek Drive street plans to reflect pavement in the median at the intersection of Ziegler Road. Yes, TST will provide this service. The striping plan should be updated to show full turning movement at the north bus entrance to the High School as well as painting of the median island. No, Nolte will use TST's plans to create or engineer the striping plan. TST will put the striping plan into Willow Brook Utility Plans, and Village Marc Virata - RE. Response to Nolte Letter Page 2 Home will stripe the street if the plans are completed in a timely manner. The temporary paving of the transition between Rock Creek Dr. and Ziegler Rd. along Rock Creek is to be noted or modified to a permanent pavement condition. No, Nolte will have to design the interesection of Rock Creek Drive and Ziegler Road as apart of their plans. Provide revised street improvement plans for Cambridge Avenue reflecting the full width design to the CFC for their approval. In addition, remove the two west curb returns along the high school property. Yes, TST will provide this service. Also, begin the process to vacate the unnecessary r-o-w at these locations. No, Nolte and/ or the School District will have to vacate all unecessary r-o-w. The two proposed curb return entrances to the high school along Rock Creek Dr. are not to be constructed at this time due to the construction and design scheduling. The CFC Eng. Dept. concluded that this would be the most cost effective. The construction of the curb returns will be part of the high construction and will be able to remove the necessary curb and gutter. No street penalty fees, would be assessed if careful construction practices were done to minimize pavement damage. Comment Noted. I agree that this was discussed at the meeting with the City. Revise the Rock Creek Drive street plans to reflect a curb cut and sidewalk chase a the southwest flowline PCR at the intersection with Cambridge Avenue. A future Type R inlet may be constructed as part of the high school improvements. It was my understanding that we would complete the curb and gutter in this area per the approved Willow Brook utility plans. The school district would then install the Type R inlet using the same method as stated in the previous comment. Nolte Associates, Inc. will provide the following to the TST Consultants for inclusion and verification of elevations for their revisions to their street improvements plans: Provide locations and proposed "Top of Curb" elevations of all proposed inlets along the south side of Rock Creek Dr. and Cambridge Avenue. It is anticipated that inlets in Cambridge Avenue will be constructed as part of the high school construction and prior to the Cambridge Road construction. Provide locations of all addition sidewalk ramps that will be constructed with the street improvements of Rock Creek Dr. and Cambridge Avenue per the CFC review comments of the High School Plans. The final Marc Virata - RE: Response to Nolte Letter Page 3 design of the two proposed curb return entrances to the high school along Rock Creek Dr. are complete and could be incorporated into the Rock Creek road construction, if feasible. If not feasible, it is recommended that the sidewalk along Rock Creek Dr. at the location of the curb returns be not constructed to reduce unwarranted removal of the sidewalk sections. Comments Noted. These meeting minutes were construed from my note taking during the course of this meeting. If there is an item that was missed or need further clarification, please contact me (419-1316) and I will revise these minutes and forward an updated copy to all. CC: 'Brian Graves" <BGraves@villagehomes.com>, "Rob Wo... NOLTE BEY ON D E N G IN E E B ING June 6, 2002 Ms. Sheri Wamhoff Development Review Engineer City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Dear Sheri Please find enclosed an overview sheet, three right of way vacation applications, and three easement vacation applications related to the development of the 2004 High School. This application is being made on behalf of the Poudre School District in order to remove unnecessary right of way "turn ins" and to streamline utility easements along the Rock Creek Drive and Cambridge Avenue rights -of - way. Replacement utility easements, spanning the gaps created by the vacation of the "turn ins", have been drafted and are attached for information purposes. These easements will be dedicated to the City of Fort Collins by the Poudre School District. Please let me know if they need to be dedicated prior to the vacations, or afterwards. I understand that I should be expecting comments from your office in approximately two weeks. Please contact me at 419-1320 with any questions as you review this application. Sincerely, Nolte Associates, Inc. Laine Landau NOLTE ASSOCIATES, INC. 1901 SHARP POIN I DRIVE, SUITE A FORT COI.LINS. CU 8J525 9/0. 221.2400 TFL 970 221.2415 FAX WWW. NOLTF. COM BEY ON D E N G IN E E R ING June 14, 2002 Mr. Mark Virata City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Dear Mark Please find enclosed revised vacation applications for the 2004 High School site. Per our conversation this week I reviewed the applications to match up original dedications with the corresponding vacations. Hopefully, this arrangement will be more logical from a legal standpoint. Because of the above changes, I have re -submitted the entire package. Please find enclosed an overview sheet, two right of way vacation applications, and one easement vacation application related to the development of the 2004 High School. Written vacation descriptions have been added to the exhibits per your request. This application is being made on behalf of the Poudre School District in order to remove unnecessary right of way "turn ins" and to streamline utility easements along the Rock Creek Drive and Cambridge Avenue rights -of -way. Replacement utility easements, spanning the gaps created by the vacation of the "turn ins", have been drafted and are attached for information purposes. These easements will be dedicated to the City of Fort Collins by the Poudre School District. Please let me know if they need to be dedicated prior to the vacations, or afterwards. Additional easements and right of way dedications for Cambridge Avenue, Ziegler Road and on -site utilities are being finalized and will be sent to the Poudre School District for processing today. Thank you for taking the time to call me to ask for additional information. Should you have any additional concerns or direction, please contact me at 419-1320. Sincerely, Nolte Associates, Inc. Lame Landau NOLTE ASSOCIATES. INC. 1901 SHARP POINT DRIVE. SWILL A FORT COLLINS. CO 80525 970 221.2400 TEL 970 221.2415 FAX WWW. NOITF. C OM Marc Virata - PSD 2004 High School Page 1 From: Marc Virata To: Carn McNair, Dave Stringer, Jeff Baldwin, Lance Newlin, Matt Baker, Sheri Wamhoff, Wally Muscott Date: 6/17/02 12:02PM Subject: PSD 2004 High School This email is just a heads up for everyone that the school district has bid out the construction of the 2004 High School site and have had their pre -con meeting this morning. They are anticipating starting on construction of the high school site within the next month, which includes construction of Ziegler Road, Rock Creek Drive, and Cambridge Drive. As part of this, PSD apparently has a bid with their contractor whereupon the construction of Rock Creek, Cambridge and Ziegler is to be completed by August 17 of this year (in two months.) The plans for the project have not been signed off on by the City and are still awaiting a submittal from their consultant for further review. I can't speak with assurances that the plans, when resubmitted, are ready for signature According to their consultant engineer, along with this resubmittal will likely be two variance requests for eliminating a sight distance and eliminating pedestrian refuge, which PSD realizes could be denied. There are also still some outstanding issues on the existing construction of Ziegler Road which may impact their ability to complete the road improvements in two months, (operating under the assumption that plans are approved. ) Thanks, Marc BEY ON D E N G IN E E R ING June 24, 2002 FC0194 Mr. Cam McNair, P.E., City Engineer Transportation Services/Engineering Department City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 SUBJECT: Variance Request: LCUASS 7.41C -Sight Distance Triangle Easement Dear Mr. McNair We are requesting a sight distance triangle variance for the Private Drive from the 2004 High School site to Cambridge Avenue. This request is in response to the comments from Mr. Mark Virala related to the 2004 High School Civil Improvement Plans. The baseball diamond lies within the sight distance triangle easement and poses the issues of the elevation of the field and the height of the fence. We believe a deviation from the City's Standard of 42" vertical distance is warranted for this project. Three-way stop signs will be placed at the intersection of Cambridge Avenue and the Private Drive. This will reduce the speeds in this area. The fence for the baseball field will be chain link (6-ft high) on the east side and 10-ft high on the west side thus providing little obstruction. There will be only the allowed lawn trees and no other landscaping within the sight distance triangle easement. Thank you for your time and consideration regarding this variance request. Please call if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Nolte Associates, Inc. Tom Ochwat, P.E. Project Manager NOLTE ASSOCIATES. INC. 1901 SHARP POINT DRIVE. SUITE A FORT COLIINS. CO ROS25 970.221 24DO 1EL 970 221 ]41S FAX WWW NOITE.COM n:AfC0194\documents\20020624 cfc variancereq.doc j Marc Virata - Re: Fwd: Ziegler Road construction - Page 1 From: Dave Stringer To: Cam McNair; Marc Virata Date: 6/25/02 2:36PM Subject: Re: Fwd: Ziegler Road construction I'm going to weigh in on this topic. Depending on what the inspectors found out yesterday as it relates to the height of the paraphet wall from the sidewalk the North side flow line could probably stay as is so the school district could build their curb and gutter at plan elevation and just straight line grade to the bridge in 100 feet or so. If an inlet is needed on the east side then we could place the inlet next to the structure and slope to its flow line. I believe with the amount of slope ccmeing from the south it can be easily fixed in the field and then as built plans prepared. However, without seeing what PSD is proposing along their frontage for grades it maybe difficult to determine an easy solution. >>> Marc Virata 06/25/02 10:32AM >>> Cam, Below is the message that I had sent out to Ed Holder, John Little, Tom Ochwat at Nolte, and Craig Foreman. I have not made any other communication with PSD regarding this. Bill's concern about Craig having to pay more to remobilize is understood but with Craig at out meeting and not posing any objection, I don't know why this would play a factor. Bill's message did not seem to lead on much more information with the exception of his understanding that the changes needed to Ziegler Road were minor (apparently what John or Ed relayed to him from my message ) Perhaps the changes can be viewed as "minor" but the underlying issue in all of this is that we probably won't be able to have the James Company correct the errors in advance of the apparent August 18th date PSD expects Tarco to have the roads out there completed. Bill may suggest (through John or Ed) that Tarco corrects the errors as part of PSD's work and then send the bill to us or to the James Company. That's an option we didn't talk about yesterday, but I would think this option would become quite complicated rather than getting the James Company to correct their original work. Let me know if this didn't help or wasn't the information you were looking for. Thanks, Marc >>> Marc Virata 06/24/02 02:33PM >>> Please be aware that the City has done some follow up investigation on the construction of Ziegler Road. Additional survey shots were taken along the bridge structure to ascertain were construction errors had taken place. It was concluded that a number of solutions to remedy the construction are plausible and the City will place responsibility for corrections upon the developer who built the roadway. Because the timetable in which the roadway corrections will take place cannot be solidified at this time and the construction of the high school involves Ziegler Road construction to occur within the next few months, it was concluded that as part of the 2004 High School, the construction of Ziegler Road should stop along the southern boundary of the school site. This would appear to be the best solution in order to not tie down corrections to Ziegler Road with the school construction. Per Stormwater requirements, there may need to be temporary storm drainage conveyance measures designed south of the curb and gutter section as part of this. ..1 Marc Virata - Re. Fwd Ziegler Road construction :Page 2 Let me know of any questions or concerns. Thanks, Marc CC: Wally Muscott .._.......... . Marc Virata - Re: Offsite easements on City property Page 3 it's an area only of utility use by Stormwater. Thinking this through further, I'm wondering if the fact that PSD and the City's portions do not stand on their own and need both halves to function, is this a restriction on City land that would require approval through Council? I would have assumed that PSD would require a restriction on how the City operates and maintains their half of the pond (perhaps this is part of the purchase agreement when Parks bought the property?) At the same time, the language that PSD gave to the City with regards to their half of the pond is standard language, perhaps additional language would be beneficial spelling out that PSD should not be impacting their half of the pond which affect Parks? Sorry for the rambleness of this message, I think I've pretty much conveyed the concerns on these instances. I'd like to try to prepare these documents for recordation and verify the process on each to know which ones need Council approval. Let me know what to better clarify/explain. Thanks, Marc CC: Glen Schlueter 1 Marc Virata - 2002 school easement vacations Page 1 From: Doug Martine To: Marc Virata Date: 6/25/02 1:46PM Subject: 2002 school easement vacations I reviewed the request to vacate the portions of "street stubs" that are proposed for vacation. Light & Power has no comments, and the vacations are acceptable. Please call if you have any questions. Doug Martine (970)224-6152 DMARTINE@FCGOV.COM June 26, 2002 FC0194 Mr. Cam McNair, P.E., City Engineer Transportation Services/Engineering Department City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 B E Y O N O E N G I N E E B I N G SUB.IECT: Variance Request: LCUASS 16.6.4 — Maximum Cross Walk Length Dear Mr. McNair: We are requesting a maximum cross walk length variance for the cross walk at the intersection of Rock Creek Drive and Ziegler Road. This request is in response to the redline comments (dated April 23, 2002) from Mr. Mark Virata related to the 2004 High School Civil Improvement Plans. We have provided an interim striping plan for this intersection that will provide a pedestrian refuge along the south side of the intersection. Ziegler Road, south of Rock Creek Drive, is designated as a minor arterial street (52-ft roadway width). North of Rock Creek Drive, it is designated as a major arterial street (83-11 roadway width). Without knowing the time frame for the widening of Ziegler Road north of Rock Creek, the proposed interim condition will meet the pedestrian refuge criteria. When construction occurs to widen Ziegler Road north of Rock Creek, a pedestrian refuge on north side of this intersection and a pedestrian crossing in the vicinity of high school Private Drive can be provided. This cross walk will comply with the maximum cross walk length standard and provide safer access to the high school and to the planned city park located to the south. This scenario has been discussed with Mr. Eric Bracke (Traffic/Transportation Dept.) with favorable reaction. Thank you for your time and consideration regarding this variance request. Please call if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Nolte Associates, Inc. Tom Ochwat, P.E. Project Manager NOLTE ASSOCIATES, INC. 1901 SHARP POINT DRIVE, SUITE A FORT COLLINS. CO 8052,5 970. 211.2400 TLL 970 221 2415 FAX WW W. NOLTE. C ON June 27, 2002 Engineering Department 281 North College Avenue P.O. box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Art: Champney A. McNair, Jr. Mr. McNair, In response to the email of June 24, 2002 from Mark Virata regarding Ziegler Road construction (attached), Poudre School District is accepting the recommendation of the City Engineering Department. The extent of the scope of our work on Ziegler Road will be limited to Ziegler Road from Rock Creek Drive to the south boundary separating the school District and the City Park property. We have deleted this portion of the work, south of our property line to Kechter Road, from our contractor's scope of work and will leave final build out of this portion of the road to the owner of the property, City of Fort Collins Parks, (Planning, and Development. This letter serves notice that Parks, Planning, and Development will be responsible for all additional cost associated with delaying this portion of the project. Further more, the School District will not be responsible for any additional cost associated with design or implementation of storm drainage south of the curb as this expense falls to the contractor responsible to rectify the errors in the original building of Ziegler road. PIPnae feel free to contact me if you have anv additional ouestions. Respectfully Submitted ohn J. Little Project Manager, Poudre School District. Cc: Bill Franzen, Mike Spearnak, Ed Holder, Craig Foreman, Mark Virata, Corky Bradley, Tom Ochwat 2407 1 aPunc 1vc11ue • Pon (:0IhnS CO 80521-2297 • (970) 482-7420 Thu Jun 27 15:35:59 2002 Date: Mon, 24 Jun 200:2 14:33:37 -0600 From: Marc Virata <MVIRATA@fcgov.com> Subject: Ziegler Road construction To: thomas.ochwat@nolte.com, eholder@psd.kl2.co.us, jolittle@psd.kl2.co.us Cc: CFOREMAN@fcgov.com, DSTRINGER@fcgov.com, LNEWLIN@fcgov.com Message-ED: <sdl72ddc.086@fcgov.com> Please be aware that the City has done some follow up investigation on the construction of Ziegler Road. Additional survey shots were taken along the bridge structure to ascertain were construction errors had taken place. It was concluded that a number of solutions to remedy the construction are plausible and the City will place responsibilty for corrections upon the developer who built the roadway. Because the timetable in which the roadway corrections will take place cannot be solidified at this time and the construction of the high school involves Ziegler Road construction to occur within the next few months, it was concluded that as part of the 2004 High School, the construction of Ziegler Road should stop along the southern boundary of the school site. This would appear to be the best solution in order to not tie down corrections to Ziegler Road with the school construction. Per Stormwater requ irements, there may need to be temporary storm drainage conveyance measures designed south of the curb and gutter section as part of this. Let me know of any questions or concerns. Thanks, Marc Page: 1 Transportation Services Engineering Department Citv of Fort Collins July 5, 2002 Mr. John J. Little Project Manager, Poudre School District 2407 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521-2297 RE: Ziegler Road Dear Mr. Little: Thanks for your letter dated June 27, 2002. Bill Franzen and I have talked since then about design issues associated with the Ziegler Road improvements adjacent to your 2004 high school site. On the south side, there are some coordination issues associated with the bridge structure over the McClelland Channel. On the north side, the designer must work on the Ziegler @ Rock Creek intersection to provide adequate pedestrian refuge safety features, and also deal with the off -site transitions ghat this requirement produces. I understand the importance of the new high school, and I want to be sure that I and my staff are doing all we can to facilitate its proper design and eventual construction. As I told Bill, we were surprised that the site development contract was awarded to TARCO before the plans were approved. As soon as your designer completes his work, we will expedite the plans review as much as we possibly can. Please do not hesitate to contact Marc Virata, our Development Review Civil Engineer for this project, or Dave Stringer, our Development Review Supervisor, if you need assistance. You may also feel free to call me at 221-6605 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Cam McNair, PE City Engineer cc: Bill Franzen Mike Herzig Dave Stringer Marc Virata �17(_1-,n0)- - BE V ON D E N G IN E E R ING MEETING MINUTES Present: John Little,PSD DATE: July 23, 2002 Eric Bracke, CFC Transportation Mark Virata, CFC Engineering Tom Ochwat, Nolte Associates Rob Geringer, Nolte Associates PROJ #: Fc019400 Cc: Ted Shepard, CFC Planning Cam McNair, CFC Engineering SUBJECT: Ziegler Road & Rock Creek Drive Intersection / Cambridge PCR A meeting was held on July 19 at the CFC Transportation offices to discuss issues with the Ziegler Road & Rock Creek Drive intersection, including a pedestrian refuge and improvements north of the intersection. In addition, a redline comment regarding a curb return on Cambridge Avenue and the High School Private Drive was clarified. Tom began the mecling by raising concerns over impact to the new irrigation siphon in Rock Creek Drive if the "Ziegler Road width is expanded to accommodate a pedestrian refuge and an additional northbound through lane. Eric stated that there should only be one northbound through lane on the south side of the intersection, instead of the two requested during review. Eric preferred that the two (future) southbound through lanes north of the intersection be redirected prior to reaching the intersection. Therefore, north of the intersection, the two southbound lanes would be configured as one through lane and one right turn only lane. Accordingly, there should be one northbound through lane south of the intersection, and two north of the intersection. Additionally, one of the southbound through lanes south of the intersection could be dropped, as long as through lanes and turn lanes on one side of the intersection line up with corresponding through and turn lanes on the other side. Another issue raised was the concern over the length of improvements needed to the north of Rock Creek Drive. In order to eliminate redirection of the northbound through lane across the intersection, additional width is needed on the east side of Ziegler north of the intersection. Redirection with a 50:1 taper would then occur north of the intersection. Eric stated that a 40: taper could be used, thus reducing the length of improvements. Mark would like PSD to build a pedestrian refuge median island on Rock Creek Drive east of the intersection, in addition to one on Ziegler south of the intersection. He said Hewlett-Packard could reimburse PSD for their share of the cost when they develop the NE corner in the future. John stated that would be very hard to get through the school board, since they aren't the typical CATEMP\mtg Ziegler RC or Int 20020719.doc MEMORANDUM (cont.) Page 2 developer and only have a certain amount of bond money to construct the high school and surrounding improvements. In order to reduce the cost for interim improvements to the intersection, Tom suggested painted medians and pedestrian islands instead of raised median and pedestrian refuges. John agreed that would be a better scenario, with PSD sharing the cost of raised pedestrian refuge construction at the time HP develops the NE corner. Mark will check to see if painted medians instead of raised medians would be acceptable for the interim condition. Mark will also check to see if the City would pay for '/s of the Rock Creek median as part of the street over -sizing program. Eric suggested that a median (either raised or painted) on Ziegler (south of the intersection) could be designed with a 125-130' storage length, 140-150' bay taper, and 40:1 redirect taper. Tom questioned Mark about the redline comment to have the NW PCR at the Cambridge/Private Drive intersection be constructed with a 15' radius. Tom and John recalled that a 25' radius had been agreed upon during a previous meeting. Mark agreed to allow a 25' radius. These meeting minutes were derived from notes; if changes or further clarification is required, please contact Tom at 419-1316 or Rob at 419-1345. ctAtempUntg ziegler re dr int 20020719.doc II 1 n 1 r�-d r- DAvE Hqo SAiq A cE77e,r nEno Per u/e�E_ //epees J S August 2, 2002 [ c : MC k as OF Little YB(./i IO.vCC.fq✓S. John J I ittle ad and Poudre School District T .. 2407 Laporte Avenue y Port Collins, CO 80521-2297 n J KE: Ziegler Road and Rock Creek Drive Construction U- Dear John: City Staff has had internal discussions with regards to median and pedestrian refuge design requirements for the 2004 high School site. It is my understanding that Nolte is proceeding with 4 v RS a design of Ziegler Road after meetings with City Engineering and Traffic Engineering,and that b a g Y a b" pedestrian refuge and median design were left as outstanding issues. Please allow this to serve as k information which shouldr� be of benefit in the completion of the design of this area. p -D ILK tNkrw Hn[gsar� t Vy 1 t l • Zi glcRoad south of Rock CrcekmeDrivThis inc e, ad imprvent. -tides to the high school site, is required to median for both or be��.constructed as a full odes a raised pedestrian .r refuge and to transition out the eventual media on the north side of Rock Creek Drive. The median section may need to be landscaped If the width of the median exceeds 7' k Ziegler Road nortrjr, of Rock Creek Drive will n t be required to have a raised median at b' � this time. Thlsvn area will instead be striped out with/completion o�t�4us-r�tireveenerit to be done by future development of the currently owned by HP. 11,.tIt Vc�/' parcel • Rock Creek Drive adjacent to this site will also not be required to have a raised median at this time wed ettf Please note that in this case, the City will be requiring future developmei of the undeveloped parcel currently owned by PSD (at the R Rock Creek Drive) to bear responsibility for raised o lout icast corner o elg er t median/pedestrian refuge im 11rovements. Developers looking for future development at this site should be mado aware of this obligation for Rock Creek Drive median/pedestrian refuge ii4rovements. r Please let me know of any question t erns, or if I may be of anVssistance. Sincerely, Cam McNair A av-c0.-- w t City Engineer e_"e.5LO4 L5 U�),tt cc: Tom Ochwat, Nolte Marc Virata Ted Shepard Ji2U C- SM � Vr— __. Marc Virata - Offsite easements on City property Page 1 From: Marc; Virata To: Carrie Daggett; Paul Eckman; Ron Mills Date: 10/14/02 2:06PM Subject: Offsite easements on City property Afternoon all, I received a phone call from the surveyor at Nolte who is processing easements for the 2004 High School site. She wanted a status checks on the documents I have been gathering, one of the issues on my end in completing the processing of the high school documents is understanding the process for these documents. Your input(s) is/are appreciated. I think we all have an understanding with regards to how we're processing easements/alignments on City property based upon the Hort Center and other City projects. Perhaps, as a recap, here's my understanding with regards to the platting of City property. 1) If a plat shows an area reserved for utilities which normally allows an entity outside of the City (Xcel, Qwest, etc.) to operate within the area, this should be dedicated as a utility easement (the issue that the City cannot be Grantor/Grantee, is not an issue here.) An example is the typical 9' of utility easement that runs along Center Avenue for the Hort Center. When this is within City property, this area should be a utility easement dedicated to the City. Because this utility easement in theory, limits the City's ability to use the area by virtue of extending rights to Xcel, Qwest, PFA, etc., any such easement requires approval through City Council, which is why the Hort Center Plat is being presented to Council tomorrow. 2) If a plat shows an area reserved for utilities which only allows a City entity to operate within said area, (drainage easement), then no dedication takes place and the area is shown as a reservation on the plat, with a note on the plat providing notice to future City employees regarding this. These areas/alignments, in it of themselves would not require a plat to go before City Council because our rights as the City are not hampered by them. The exception to this is when a negotiation takes place to secure these areas from another entity, such as the case with the Hort Center and CSURF; in this case Council action is required. I have a few situations with the High School site needing to secure offsite easements as part of their project. Typically, these offsite easements would be dedicated to the City, however in this instance the offsite area is on City property for the future park. Based upon a meeting I attended last week involving Ron Mills, Dave Stringer, and Jack Gianola, how we process these offsite easements from both a legal as well as PDP process is perhaps open to interpretation. I'd appreciate direction given the following scenarios, each of which are somewhat unique and perhaps may result in various processes: 1) Cambridge right-of-way: PSD (through a partnership with City Parks) is building Cambridge Avenue offsite from PSD property, adjacent to the future City Park site on City owned land. They have provided me legal descriptions of this area involved. I don't know how this should be processed. Because right-of-way allows for entities outside of the City to use it (Xcel, AT&T, etc.), using the example of the Hort Center, should this City owned area be dedicated as right-of-way? Because this "right-of-way" is also limiting the City's use by allowing outside entities to use it (Xcel, etc.) does this also then require City Council approval? (Just to keep in mind, if this area were on private property, we would through the PDP process require PSD to secure from the private property, a right-of-way deed of dedication, which would not require Council action, just acceptance through either P&Z or administratively.) Would the standard deed of dedication language used as part of our PDP process suffice in this situation? (Again, this is a potential City grantor/grantee situation, the deed would state that the Grantor (City), dedicates, transfers, and conveys to the City a permanent right-of-way for public street purposes.) 2) Cambridge utility easement: As part of the construction of Cambridge Avenue offsite, PSD also needs to secure 9' of utility easement on either side of the right-of-way. These are also on City property. Am I correct to conclude that these should be dedicated to the City using the Hort Center's example and would then require Council approval? Marc Virata - Offsite easements on City property Page 2 3) sight distance easement: There is a driveway that accesses Cambridge Avenue. This driveway leads to a pump house for a detention pond, the pump house is mutually beneficial to PSD and City Parks. The driveway location is such that per Engineering criteria, a sight distance easement is required which would occur on City property. If this sight distance easement fell on private property instead of City property, as part of the PDP process, PSD would have to secure this easement from the property owner and have it dedicated to the City as a sight distance easement. The sight distance easement places restrictions on the types of structures and landscaping that can be installed within the area. Because this appears to only involve the City, as no outside utility (or any utility) can use this space, I'm thinking that this should not be dedicated as an easement. Instead, it should be reserved as an area. Would this be correct'' The issue I wonder about is whether this area needs to be approved by Council because it technically reduces Parks ability to use City property? This reduced ability would in theory be based upon Engineering's ability to enforce the restrictions of a sight distance easement on Parks. 4) water line easement: There is an area within City Park property that FCLWD is installing a water line which serves the surrounding area, including City and PSD. If this was on private land, we would want PSD to show that they've secured permission from the property owner the right to have the water line installed with language acceptable to FCLWD. What would the process be in this case with the City owning the land? The item goes to City Council I assume, and I'm gathering that we would not consider granting an exclusive easement to FCLWD, rather create an area? 5) detention pond (drainage) easement: PSD's High School site and the future City Park site both share a detention pond. The detention pond's north half is on PSD property, the south half is on City property. Normally, wherever a detention pond is located, we would typically want an drainage easement from the property owner dedicated to the City. PSD is granting a drainage easement to the City on their half, what is required for the detention pond on City property? I was originally thinking that this could be shown as an area (not dedicating to ourselves) and that this would not need to go to City Council because it's an area only of utility use by Stormwater. Thinking this through further, I'm wondering if the fact that PSD and the City's portions do not stand on their own and need both halves to function, is this a restriction on City land that would require approval through Council? I would have assumed that PSD would require a restriction on how the City operates and maintains their half of the pond (perhaps this is part of the purchase agreement when Parks bought the property?) At the same time, the language that PSD gave to the City with regards to their half of the pond is standard language, perhaps additional language would be beneficial spelling out that PSD should not be impacting their half of the pond which affect Parks? Sorry for the rambleness of this message, I think I've pretty much conveyed the concerns on these instances. I'd like to try to prepare these documents for recordation and verify the process on each to know which ones need Council approval. Let me know what to better clarify/explain. Thanks, Marc CC: Glen Schlueter Transportation Services Engineering Department Citv of tort Collins August 7, 2002 John J. Little Poudre School District 2407 Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521-2297 RE: Ziegler Road and Rock Creek Drive Construction Dear John: City Staff has had internal discussions with regards to median and pedestrian refuge design requirements for the 2004 High School site. It is my understanding that Nolte is proceeding with a design of Ziegler Road after meetings with City Engineering and Traffic Engineering, and that pedestrian refuge and median design were left as outstanding issues. Please allow this to serve as information which should be of benefit in the completion of the design and construction of this area. Ziegler Road south of Rock Creek Drive, adjacent to the high school site, is required to be designed and constructed as a full improvement. This includes a raised median for both pedestrian refuge and to transition out the eventual median on the north side of Rock Creek Drive. The median section may need to be landscaped if the width of the median exceeds 7' (measured from face -of -curb to face -of -curb). Ziegler Road north of Rock Creek Drive will not be required to have a raised median at this time. This median area will instead be striped out as an interim measure, with construction of the raised median and completion of the full Ziegler Road improvements to be done by future development of the parcel currently owned by HP. Therefore, a design for this interim area, (horizontal and vertical) showing the striped median area should be shown. While the complete design of the ultimate 4 Lane Arterial Street is not needed, the grade and ground lines along Ziegler Road should be continued north 1000 feet from the end of the full improvement south of Rock Creek Drive in order to assure that future street improvements will meet City standards (as required in LCUASS 7.4.113.7) Rock Creek Drive adjacent to this site will also not be required to have a raised median at this time. A striped -out median area with no crosswalks will suffice as an interim measure. Please note that in this case, the City will be requiring future development of the undeveloped parcel currently owned by PSD (at the southeast corner of Zeigler Road and Rock Creek Drive) to bear responsibility for raised median/pedestrian refuge improvements. Developers looking for future development at this site should be made aware of this obligation for Rock Creek Drive median/pedestrian refuge improvements. Please let me know of any questions or concerns, or if l may be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Marc Virata Civil Engineer cc: fom Ochwat, Nolte Cam McNair Dave Stringier Ted Shepard �.. �Ih_ - -vii o7r 1-ro1J5 `71) j17'i Coles Cori / C,•r, �, psC G/9a -� i8 FOIZ I COLLINS WAIFR DISTRICT J@ (0 SOUIT Il I FORT COLLINS SANAIION DISTRICT v Julv 11, 2002 Mr. Marc Virata. Planner City of Fort Collins L P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80525 RE: 2004 High School Site — Easement Vacation Along Rock Creek Drive and Cambridge Avenue Dear Mr. Virata, The Fort Collins - Loveland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District have no objections or comments regarding the vacation of the easements. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 226-3104, ext. 14, if you have any questions or require additional information. Respectfully, •�� Mr. PerryW. Farrill Systems Engineer xc: Mr. Michael. D. DiTullio, District Manager 5150 Snead (hive, Fort Collins, CO 80525 Phone (970) 226-3104 Fax (970) 226-0186 Marc Virata - RE: Re: Ziegler Rd Plans comments r T TT _ Page 3' Marc >>> Tom Reiff 03/21/03 05:25PM >>> Thanks Marc, The bike lanes should be striped as the rest of the City in order to be as consistent as possible. This means that the bike lane should be between the right turn lane and the through lane and then pick up across the intersection against the curb. Yes, this means that there will be an off set, but it eliminates the need for additional swerving movements between cars and bikes. Oh yeah, Marc could you also make sure that the bike lane pavement is properly marked with the stencil and arrow and properly signed (see dwg. 1402) as a bike lane. Let me know if you need more clarification TR >>> Marc Virata 03/21 /03 04:33PM >>> Tom, #2 was at the end of Tom's message that I responded to him and cc'd you on. Here it is again (in bold #2) in case you deleted it. -Marc Hi Tom, I wasn't able to get to the office Tuesday and only got in today With regards to the first comment, it is correct that a temporary sidewalk won't be required along the east side of Ziegler along the HP parcel, this was brought up at an internal transportation staff discussion and concluded that it wouldn't be required. I didn't notice the second comment on the plans. I've CC'd Tom Reiff on this email and perhaps a response from him verifying the comment/concern will clarify the issue. Thanks, Marc P. Virata Civil Engineer City of Fort Collins - Engineering Department Phone: (970)221-6605 Fax: (970) 221-6378 mvirata@fcgov.com >>> "Ochwat, Thomas" <thomas.ochwat@Nolte.com> 03/18/03 08:55AM >>> Hi Marc, A couple of comments from Transp. Planning that need some additional direction. Marc'✓irata - RE Re Ziegler Rd Plans comments _ Page 4 Temp. asphalt sidewalk is requested along the east side of Ziegler along the HP parcel. I thought this issue was resolved due to the fact that most (if not all) of the pedestrian traffic would be coming from the west subdivisions and there is a sidewalk along the west side of Ziegler. I am sure that PSD & HP will not want this walk. The intersection of Rock Creek & Ziegler - bike lane alignment. Transp. Planning has made a comment to move the bike lane (north bound north of Rock Creek) from being detached (next to the 12' accel lane) to being next to the curb and gutter. Then, the bike lane on the south side of the Rock Creek intersection will not line-up. This does not make sense. I thought that our lane alignments were all agreed upon in our past meetings. I prefer to keep the bike lanes as they are. Other than these comments, we are close to resubmitting plans for final approval. Tom Ochwat, PE Senior Engineer, Nolte Associates 1901 Sharp Point Dr. Suite A, Fort Collins, CO 80525 970-221-2400 tel 970 221-2415 fax 970-419-1316 direct thomas.ochwat@nolte.com CC: "Prolog, James" <James.Prelog@Nolte.com> Landau, Laine From: Landau, Laine Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 9:20 AM To: 'Marc Virata` Tcampano@fcgov.com'; 'jolittle@psd.k12.co.us' Subject: RE.: PSD easements Marc, - Fully Executed Easements signed by PSD with accompanying checks: The dedication statement corrections will need to come from the School District. Just so you know, we are no longer providing the dedication language to clients. We had extended our service to cover this as a convenience to specific clients, but it was brought to my attention that the State Board of Land Surveyors and Engineers made a policy decision regarding this practice and has deemed it a task for attorneys- - Easements along Kechter Road: I will check in with Ralph Campano. - Easements along Ziegler Road: I will check in with Ralph Campano. - Cambridge Avenue Waterline Alignment: (Et-Wt-Camb.doc)This was written and signed by me 6/05/02 as an easement. I have checked my files and do not see that this particular easement was changed by me to an alignment, though Ralph and I were auditing City easements and rights of way for the use of the words alignment and area. I will provide another copy with the words "easement" on both the legal and exhibit. A revised copy of this was sent to the School District 8/22 and to you 8/21. I will provide a new copy, but the executed copy will need to come directly from PSD. v - Cambridge and Rock Creek right-of-way street stub vacations: Do you need an additional $2 from PSD? Thanks Marc for organizing all of this Laine Landau Senior Surveyor Nolte Associates, Inc. 970-419-1320 -----Original message ----- From: Marc Virata [mailto:MVIRATA@fcgov.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 3:36 PM To: Laine.Landau@Nolte.com; thomas.ochwat@Nolte.com; jolittle@psd.kl2.co.us Cc: RCAMPANO@fcgov.com. Subject: RE: PSD easements Laine, Thanks for the clarification of those aforementioned easements; we received these and are performing final checks on them. Please allow this email to serve as a status check to all those interested regarding PSD easements. - Fully Executed Easements signed by PSD with accompanying checks: I'm in possession of a. number of these easements that are signed and include checks for recording. Some of these are being checked or re -checked with regards to their legal 1 descriptions. A few of these items were received without "Poudre School District" filled in on the top line ("KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the undersigned "). Also, a dollar amount was not filled in ("...in consideration of _ Dollars ($ ) in hand paid....") on these same easements. As I believe these need to be filled in, does PSD wish to pick these up and fill them in? On the remainder of these easements, a dollar amount of $0 is listed in the aforementioned area. I've asked Paul Eckman about this and he is uncomfortable about acceptance of deeds without a dollar amount: listed, he was going to follow up on this with PSD's attorney for clarification/correction. - Easements along Kecht_er Road: Easements (legal descriptions only) have been received by myself and Ralph Campano for these. Issues or discussions regarding easements/rights-of-way along Kechter Road should be directed towards Ra Lph Campano in City Real Estate Services. He will be processing these items. - Easements along Ziegler Road: Easements (legal descriptions only) have been received for these. Because the design of Ziegler Road is still pending, it would appear to be premature to process these at this time. Two of these easements ("REV CFC row dedication.doc" and "REV CFC utility easement dedication.doc") were accompanied by signed deeds and recording fee checks of $16.00 each. - Cambridge Avenue Waterline Alignment: (Et-Wt-Camb.doc) This legal description was received, though I question whether this should be an alignment instead of an exclusive easement. Is this okay with Terry Farrill? (I found that Terry is out for most of this month.) - Cambridge Avenue utility easement: In looking at all the documentation I have in my possession, I cannot find a legal description/deed for a utility easement that would be on the east side of Cambridge Avenue along PSD property. I have legal descriptions for utility easements on the east and west side of Cambridge along City property as well as the west side of Cambridge on PSD property, but not on the east side. - Cambridge and Rock Creek right-of-way street stub vacations: These items were approved by City Council on first reading last Tuesday. A second reading for these items will be on the 17th. The recording fees (with the additional $2) are current and recording of these easement should occur after the 17th. Thanks for all your ongoing assistance on the matters. My intention is to have all of the easement dedications processed at one time when all of the issues are settled. Thanks again, Marc >>> "Landau, Laine" <Liaine.Landau@Nolte.com> 09/09/02 02:08PM >>> Marc, I have reviewed the easements and find that the easements do contain errors as follows: 2004HS Et-Em-FA.doc (Fire Access Easement): The curve table was correct. Once the directions (SW to SE and NE to NW) 2 were corrected in the writing, the written description closed mathematically. Et-EM-PUBLIC.doc (Public/Emergency Access Easement: The writing on Page 1(12)is correct as written. The curve table had the chord bearing for C5 backwards (NE instead of SW). The curve table is generated automatically, we then hand edit it for direction, but any update to the table overwrites the edit, which is what appears to have happened. 2002 Elementary School Emgcy School.doc (Emergency Access Easement 2002 Elementary) The same thing appears to have occurred here. The curve table had the chord bearing for C6 backwards (SW instead of NE). All the above have been corrected. New copies have been made for you and for the school district. I have asked the District to execute and attach the dedications and to forward those documents to you. Laine Landau Senior Surveyor Nolte Associates, Inc. 970-419-1320 -----Original Message ----- From: Marc Virata [mailto:MVIRATA@fcgov.com] Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 2:04 PM To: laine.landau@nolte.com Subject: PSD easements Laine, The easements I received were checked for closure in our office. A couple documents apparently had issues regarding closure or discrepancies that should be verified. They are listed as follows: Et-Em-FA.doc (Fire Access Easement): Apparently does not close (off by 8'?). Also, the curve table data does not match the legal for C2, C3, & C100 Et-EM-PUBLIC.doc (Public/Emergency Access Easement) Legal description in 12 shows South 69- 32' 13" West, it should be East Emgcy School.doc (Emergency Access Easement 2002 Elementary) Curve table shows C6 with South 45 degrees West, it should be East I will follow up with the utility easement along Kechter Road for the elementary school with. Ralph. Thanks, 3 Transportation Services Engineering Department City of Fort Collins November 19, 2003 Mr. John Little Poudre School District Planning, Design & Construction 2407 Laporte Avenue Port Collins, CO 80521 Re: Irrigation ]Easement and previous checks Dear John: Per our conversation, enclosed is the irrigation easement from HP to PSD. Also enclosed are Check Nos. 770903 and 770904. I figured you may want these back with the newer checks being cut. Let me know if you have concerns and thanks again for your patience in the processing of these documents Sincerely, / 4ar6Virata Civil Engineer cc: file _;il��or±h��ilE�cvrnuc '.C.3ov,;80•or[Loilins, S0,522OS80,:°701�^_;-„e05•:Ariiu701'�]-;,3i8 .vw�•�.tcgov.com Marc Virata - Re: PSD 2004 High School Ziegler Road Meeting Page 1 From: Marc: Virata To:"jolittle@psd.k12.co.us"@FC1.GWIA;"thomas.ochwat@Nolte. com"@FC1.GWIA; Dave Stringer, Eric Bracke Date: 9/25/02 10:43AM Subject: Re: PSD 2004 High School Ziegler Road Meeting John, Per our conversation yesterday morning, the intent of this message is to present the City's understanding of the design and improvements required along Ziegler Road. Tom Ochwat had presented a horizontal design to the City for review and the following comments were expressed to Tom: - The southbound Ziegler Road movement across the Rock Creek Drive intersection shows an offset of 9' through the intersection. This will need to be relooked at. LCUASS standards (8.2.2) require a 0' offset across intersections and only allows a 2' offset through a variance in a hardship situation. (Note that it appears a 2' offset is also shown for the northbound Ziegler movement, this should also be relooked at.) - The transitions shown on the design are fine. - Angle points were apparently shown along the flowline which is not allowed. - The southbound bikelane approaching Rock Creek should be switched with the right turn lane. - Provide signing and striping information in conjunction with the design. I just noticed and confirmed with Kathleen in Transportation Planning that the bike lanes shown on Nolte's design can be reduced to 6' (instead of 8') where the bikelane is detached from the curb in between a right turn lane and a through lane. This reduction should help in the design. This horizontal design performed by Nolte was reflective of the direction provided by the City with regards to raised v. painted medians. Please see the attached memo earlier sent regarding this which I believe explains the City's position. As a final note of information: According to our Chief Inspector, the developer of Sage Creek has rectified the construction of Ziegler Road to the satisfaction of the City and it is now accepted by the City as a completed improvement under our maintenance and repair period. Thus, the improvements in the area should be used as a basis to establish what to tie into (it is my understanding that the eastern flowline of Ziegler Road did not change.) Let me know of any questions or further clarification needed regarding the scope of work. Thanks, Marc P. Virata Civil Engineer City of Fort Collins - Engineering Department Phone: (970) 221-6605 Fax: (970) 221-6378 mvirata@fcgov.com Marc Virata - RE. Re Ziegler Rd Plans comments Page 1 From: "Ochwat, Thomas" <thomas.ochwat@Nolte.com> To: "Marc Virata" <MVIRATA@fcgov.com> Date: 3/27 !03 1:38 PM Subject: RE: Re: Ziegler Rd Plans - comments Thanks for resolving this issue ... we will have the plans resubmitted shortly... -----Original Message ----- From: Marc Virata [mailto:MVIRATA@fcgov.com] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 1:31 PM To: Ochwat, Thomas Subject: RE: Re: Ziegler Rd Plans - comments Tom, We discussed the striping for Ziegler Road this morning. It was agreed to reduce the two travel lanes from 12' to 11' to make up the 2' feet loss on the bikelane (to bring it up to 8') attached to the curb. A variance request letter isn't needed (unless you desire to process one). Please include in the general notes though, indication that a reduction of travel lanes from 12' to 11' was approved specific to this area. Let me know of any concerns. Thanks, Marc >>> "Ochwat, Thomas' <thomas.ochwat@Nolte.com> 03/24/03 04:33PM >>> Can you handle a acad plot file (Version Acad 2000) of the striping plan? -----Original Message From: Marc Virata [m;ai]to:MVIRATA@fcgov.comj Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 4:30 PM To: Ochwat, Thomas Cc: Prelog, James Subject: RE: Re: Ziegler Rd Plans - comments Thanks Tom, I think I'm starting to see the constraints taking place now. Is there a way for you to send me a drawing demonstrating the situation? This way I can explain the situation to others and get a sense towards a solution. Maybe an email attachment could serve the purpose? Thanks, Marc >>> "Ochwat, Thomas" <thomas.ochwat@Nolte.com> 03/24/03 02:58PM >>> I know the City's standard.... so the street width will need to widened by 2ft. Then taper back down. The proposed width at the Rock Creek intersection is 79ft then it tapers down to match the Celestica width of 77ft. 1 would to request a variance for one of the four options below: Provide the Eft bike lane as explained below,