Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAMBRIDGE HOUSE LOFTS - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2005-04-07Susan Joy - Re. Closing thoughts Scott St Page 1 From: Troy Jones To: Clark Mapes; Susan Joy, Tom Reiff Date: 1 /15/04 1:52P M Subject: Re: Closing thoughts Scott St You sumed it up well >>> Clark Mapes 01/15104 09:33AM >>> Closing thoughts regarding an SID: I see no time in the future when our Scott Street idea would be a special benefit to Cambridge House for which they could be assessed. Their property works fine for them as is and they don't much care whether their tenants have a sidewalk down to Elizabeth Street. Whatever benefit one could find for tenants. would probably be offset by the brain damage and the change to the integrity of the property in the switch from on -site parking to off -site, on -street parking. The only "benefit" I can see at all is if we denied any expansions until Scott Street is brought up to a standard. This is the "hostage" situation Troy mentioned. (The "benefit" would be that we would then release our lock on the property). Of course we're not doing that as we just told them and as agreed in the Campus West Study. And rightly so in this case, in my opinion - the link between the east side parking lot and Scott Street is pretty weak. Unfortunately for good town planning, I have to wonder if the City would have to PAY THEM to get Scott Street. I share these closing thoughts just for common understanding and to see if you have any others. Then I'll delete this and go back to wait -and -see mode. Thanks. July 15, 2003 Bile: 03491;C01. CD co rn p "T Ms. Susan Joy m co City of Fort. coilins Engineering Department 0 `n NO r: t_h college Avenue O < art CD I'.()- Ito5£30 `l 0 IP Part CoIIisc, co 30b22-0530 J u 0 cJ? I)(uu JUsan: iC Q LL The following is a request for, variances from Drawing 19- LL� 03, Mi nirmam Off -Street LarkingSetback Dls tance in the "Larrmer ('ounty Urban Area Street Standards, October 1., 2002, Louthe eXPausion of the Cambridge House Aparlmenl-s. These variances LL, CDpertain to the two Onisli.ng driveways that dC[`_,., West Plum nl M rn St. reset. C] cD W D CD The east. driveway is approximately 300 feet, WE'St Of :7hlelds Q rn a oxi_maLel b30 feet rc<°t (on -(enters) and tire west access is gn Fl Y Z z p. wlrst of Shields, Street (on comer_) not of t_hef-,e accesses have: w U pt'rp end l( Ill_ ar Far kino with Km first palling StdII Ioc,ited CD D_ approk l lra :ely 10 (Pet_ south o f the South cut 1) of West Plum C,J � i;t_IOnt.. west: Plum ltreel- i_s cIa,sifi.d as a cmIIn Lor stroe C. cv (lNI With the expansion of the Cambr Ldge (louse Apartmen Cs, the two existing accesses to Shields :street will be closed. 'Hie two IlA"sses to West Plum Street will be the only accesses to the Gambridge house Apartments. There is a transportation impact study underway for the expansion of the Cambridge House, Apartments. 'Traffic foracists indicate that both accesses will generltc 300--350 daily traffic movements. Therefore, according to Drawing 19-03, the minimum oft -street parking setbnk di. :stance is iid feet horn the flowline of West Plum 0treet. In older to achieve the minimum parking setback, 4-5 Milking spaces will, be lost on each parking bay. Thas would CL z l "l al 1.'-1 `e parking spa os. This site is -under balked" and cannL>L at Lo lose many parking spaces. As such, it is y w z l tb �.e. wo pa �.q sl a<<., c1 cast o Wes":ct V (.7 he e 1 Imi_nat ed and be t Irrfed itppr0pr I at e I Y. It if; Further Ui propo ud that the next two park rnq spaces be designated as long zz ter_In .p'acos. 'fill c wiil bc. accomplished by sinas gnaq th rrl esnploy(e pall:inq. These would bc for employee, of the Cambridge 0 a 11Luse mar.ugenlent- oYmale and employees (,f the future retail/offlce O ll:;es that are proposed on the ground floor of the new building. % z It. c expecIed that these employees would not_ move their vehicles ..I:; OFIell .I, -.I type al. I inluidgo Hoc re sldenL. [llir'. w<.uld IM i uc'r '.Ise tIII l of liar k 1 l 'standard p n_Ll nq p ace" t o 11luent SO U f net L�L r' LL LL a 'I'h,,. pi lm,.lry reason for the minimum parking setback is so F Chat 'Art loge erisjng vehcl is not- forced to stop in a lrtave_1 larin Irn W:St i'Iunl :y net at a time when it vehicle in a V'r-Unq 'pace is unparking. Since the accesses to West Plum Street- are the only two accr saes to Che site, an unparking vehicle from a perpendicular space will. 1_ikcly back to the south so that it is facing north in order that it can enter West Plum Streets in a forward direction. Under the proposal, an entering vehicle (20' long) will have sufficient area for storage, completely out of West Plum Street. The unparking maneuver takes 5-10 seconds. since the entering vehicle has the right-of-way, the unparking vehicle must yield to an entering vehicle. Therefore, the only time an entering vehicle would be delayed is if the unparking maneuver was begun before the entering vehicle arrived. As such, the delay might be 1-5 seconds. With this little delay, the probabil.i_ty of two or more entering vehicles arriving in the 1-5 second window is very small. There is little chance that a second entering vehic:Le would be stopped in the travel .Lane of West Plum Street. It is concluded that the proposal would not create an unsafe condition. 910 reinforce this conclusion that it will not be an unsafe condition, accident data was obtained from the M rt Collins Traffic Operations Department. The current situation is that the parking setback is 10 feet_. This is not even enough for one vehicle to wait for an unparking vehicle without extending into the travel lane of West Plum Street_. In the last 2" years, there were three reported accidents. One accident occurred during the peak hour (5:OOpm). Police were not called. It was a minor property damage only accident. There were no details regarding this accident. The report was filed by one of the parties. A property damage only accident occurred at about 7:OOpm. it: was a "hit and run" accident where at vehicle struck a parked car. This accident was not caused by insufficient parking setback, since one of the vehicles was not moving. The third accident - occurred at 4:OOam. It was a property damage only accident. Police were not called. The report was filed by one of the parties after the fact:. There were no details regarding this accident. This accident history indicates that the current condition is not unsafe. Since the proposed condition will be an improvement, it would also not be unsafe. The variances from the parking setback s.."adard at each access will not be detrimental to the public health, welfare, and safety. Please cal] me with any questions or if you require additional information regarding these variance requests. Sincerely, Matthew J. DeILch, P.P. Susan Joy - Re: sign in right of way Page 1 From: Peter Barnes To: Cam McNair; Lance Newlin; Polly Bennett, Susan Joy, Troy Jones Date: 1/16/04 8:11AM Subject: Re: sign in right of way Actually, per a previous ruling from the City Attorney's office, no signs are allowed in the ROW except those in Section 24-1 of the City Code, so I don't believe this sign would be allowed. We deal with something similar to this; quite often whenever the City widens a street and has to acquire additional ROW and a business has an existing sign that ends up in the ROW as a result of the project. In those instances, the City has to pay the property owner the cost of moving the sign or constructing a new sign on private property. We are in the process right now of having to pay a number of businesses on West Elizabeth who have to move their existing signs out of the new proposed ROW. So I'm of the opinion that it isn't possible for Cambridge House to get an encroachment permit. (Even if we could issue an encroachment permit, we wouldn't be able to issue a sign permit, which is required by the sign code, since the sign wouldn't comply with the sign setback regulations of the sign code). >>> Cam McNair 01/15/04 04:57PM >>> We could do this with an Encroachment Permit. Susan, could you work with Lance on that? >>> Troy Jones 01/15/04 04:40PM >>> Cam and Peter, Susan Joy and I weren't sure who to direct this question to, so I'll try both of you. As part of the Cambridge Lofts Apartments PDP, we are asking for additional right of way to be dedicated along Plum Street, adjacent to the existing Cambridge House Apartments. We're not requiring any street improvements to be done to Plum at this time, but just having the right of way dedicated for potential future widening. The owner has been planning to put a monument sign for the apartments in that area that is currently on his property but would be in the right of way after this development is approved. What would be the process for him to request to put that monument sign in that right of way until such time that the street is widened? Troy CC: Susan Joy Susan Joy - Re: sign in right of way Page 1 From: Troy Jones To: Cam McNair, Lance Newlin, Susan Joy Date: 1/16/04 8:43AM Subject: Re: sign in right of way Currently there's a 20'+ on -site front yard beweeen the building and the right of way. We are going to be asking for 18 feet of additional right-of-way for potential future widening of Plum. Once the 18 feet becomes public, this yard area will be mostly within the right of way. It sounds like, based on Peter's response, that they won't be able to put this sign there once it's dedicated as right-of-way. That's what I'll tell the applicant. Troy >>> Lance Newlin 01/16/04 08:29AM >>> Why can't the monument sign be put on private property now and not have to move it after we obtain the R.O.W. then it will be in its permanent location. Lance >>> Cam McNair 01/15/04 04:57PM >>> We could do this with an Encroachment Permit. Susan, could you work with Lance on that? >>> Troy Jones 01/15/04 04:40PM >>> Cam and Peter, Susan Joy and I weren't sure who to direct this question to, so I'll try both of you. As part of the Cambridge Lofts Apartments PDP, we are asking for additional right of way to be dedicated along Plum Street, adjacent to the existing Cambridge House Apartments. We're not requiring any street improvements to be done to Plum at this time, but just having the right of way dedicated for potential future widening. The owner has been planning to put a monument sign for the apartments in that area that is currently on his property but would be in the right of way after this development is approved. What would be the process for him to request to put that monument sign in that right of way until such time that the street is widened? Troy CC: Susan Joy CC: Peter Barnes, Polly Bennett Susan Joy - Re: sign in right of way Page 1 From: Peter Barnes To: Cam McNair, Lance Newlin, Susan Joy, Troy Jones Date: 1/16/04 8:43AM Subject: Re: sign in right of way As indicated in my earlier email (attached), whenever the City acquires ROW, any signs that are in that ROW have to be moved out of the ROW. They can't stay. i.e what we're currently having to pay to do on W. Elizabeth in Campus West. >>> Lance Newlin 01 /16/04 08:29AM >>> Why can't the monument sign be put on private property now and not have to move it after we obtain the R O.W. then it will be in its permanent location. Lance >>> Cam McNair 01/15/04 04:57PM >>> We could do this with an Encroachment Permit. Susan, could you work with Lance on that? >>> Troy Jones 01/15/04 04:40PM >>> Cam and Peter, Susan Joy and I weren't sure who to direct this question to, so I'll try both of you. As part of the Cambridge Lofts Apartments PDP, we are asking for additional right of way to be dedicated along Plum Street, adjacent to the existing Cambridge House Apartments. We're not requiring any street improvements to be done to Plum at this time, but just having the right of way dedicated for potential future widening. The owner has been planning to put a monument sign for the apartments in that area that is currently on his property but would be in the right of way after this development is approved. What would be the process for him to request to put that monument sign in that right of way until such time that the street is widened? Troy CC: Susan Joy CC: Polly Bennett Susan Joy - Re: sign in right of way Page 1 From: Cam McNair To: Lance Newlin; Susan Joy; Troy Jones Date: 1/16/04 8:48AM Subject: Re: sign in right of way I think the ROW dedication that is contemplated would go back almost to the building facade that is already there, so there may not be room left to construct the monument sign. The additional ROW is not going to be built on anytime soon. This is just an opportunity to get it dedicated so that eventual widening of Plum Street won't cost so much. But it could be 10-20 years or more before the actual improvements to Plum St occur. Considering Peter's comments, maybe we just need to do the same thing we are doing on Scott Street and have them dedicates an access easement rather than ROW, in order to reserve the space for eventual dedication or acquisition as ROW. I hate to adversely impact the business, so let's see if we can come up with a practical compromise. Does anyone have other ideas? Cam >>> Lance Newlin 01/16/04 08:29AM >>> Why can't the monument sign be put on private property now and not have to move it after we obtain the R.O.W then it will be in its permanent location. Lance >>> Cam McNair 01/15/04 04:57PM >>> We could do this with an Encroachment Permit. Susan, could you work with Lance on that? >>> Troy Jones 01/15/04 04:40PM >>> Cam and Peter, Susan Joy and I weren't sure who to direct this question to, so I'll try both of you. As part of the Cambridge Lofts Apartments PDP, we are asking for additional right of way to be dedicated along Plum Street, adjacent to the existing Cambridge House Apartments. We're not requiring any street improvements to be done to Plum at this time, but just having the right of way dedicated for potential future widening. The owner has been planning to put a monument sign for the apartments in that area that is currently on his property but would be in the right of way after this development is approved. What would be the process for him to request to put that monument sign in that right of way until such time that the street is widened? Troy CC: Susan Joy CC: Dave Stringer; Peter Barnes, Polly Bennett Susan Joy - Re: sign in right of way From: Cam McNair To: Lance Newlin; Paul Eckman; Date: 2/4/04 11:53AM Subject: Re: sign in right of way Peter Barnes, Polly Bennett; Susan Joy, Troy Jones Yes. We (staff) had discussed this option previously, and the call from Don Brookshire came to me yesterday. I don't think we will be widening Plum St anytime soon, so as long as we have a way to reserve the space for future ROW, such as the public access easement used on Scott St, then I think that should suffice for now. Let me know if we need to discuss this further. Cam >>> Susan Joy 02/04/04 10:46AM >>> I just got a voicemail from Don Brookshire/Cambridge House Apartments saying that they were given the option of dedicating an 18' public access easement instead of ROW so that they could construct their sign in what would be the future ROW. I am to call him back to confirm this. Is this true? >>> Peter Barnes 01/113/04 08:11AM >>> Actually, per a previous ruling from the City Attorney's office, no signs are allowed in the ROW except those in Section 24-1 of the City Code, so I don't believe this sign would be allowed. We deal with something similar to this quite often whenever the City widens a street and has to acquire additional ROW and a business has an existing sign that ends up in the ROW as a result of the project. In those instances, the City has to pay the property owner the cost of moving the sign or constructing a new sign on private property. We are in the process right now of having to pay a number of businesses on West Elizabeth who have to move their existing signs out of the new proposed ROW. So I'm of the opinion that it isn't possible for Cambridge House to get an encroachment permit. (Even if we could issue an encroachment permit, we wouldn't be able to issue a sign permit, which is required by the sign code, since the sign wouldn't comply with the sign setback regulations of the sign code). >>> Cam McNair 01/15/04 04:57PM >>> We could do this with an Encroachment Permit. Susan, could you work with Lance on that? >>> Troy Jones 01/15/04 04:40PM >>> Cam and Peter, Susan Joy and I weren't sure who to direct this question to, so 1'11 try both of you. As part of the Cambridge Lofts Apartments PDP, we are asking for additional right of way to be dedicated along Plum Street, adjacent to the existing Cambridge House Apartments. We're not requiring any street improvements to be done to Plum at this time, but just having the right of way dedicated for potential future widening. The owner has been planning to put a monument sign for the apartments in that area that is currently on his property but would be in the right of way after this development is approved. What would be the process for him to request to put that monument sign in that right of way until such time that the street is widened? Troy CC: Susan Joy Page 1 Susan Joy - Fwd: Re: Page 1 From: To: Date: Subject: If7I Dave Stringer dev engineers 2/19/04 9:17AM Fwd: Re: >>> Eric Bracke 02/19/04 09:16AM >>> Dear Mr. Brookshire, Under the circumstances, I don't see a need for a Traffic Study for your project at 502 Laurel Street. Please consider the requirement to prepare a TIS waived. You need to check with Tom Reiff in Transportation Planning to see if he will require any alternative mode analyses. Tom's email is treiff(afcgov.com Regards, Eric L. Bracke, P.E., P.T.O.E. City Traffic Engineer (970)224-6062 ebrackena.fcgov.com >>> "Don Brookshire" <eastpoint(a)frii.com> 02/18/04 03:45PM >>> Eric, I am writing to request a traffic study be waived for a proposed Apartment building at 502 W. Laurel Street. The proposed project will have 28 apartment units, 24-2 bedroom, and 4 - 1 Bedroom units. Currently on this site is a 15. The current facility located here is a group home for Larimer County Detention Facilities. We have received a letter from the Larimer County Corrections, stating that there are currently 104 occupants, and 22 full time staff members. The site is designed to have a maximum 28 parking spaces. Based on this information, we feel the actual trips per day will be decreased from the current conditions. Given this scenario, will a traffic study be required? We currently have submitted the first PDP, and if necessary can follow up with a study. We have a very compressed time schedule, as we put together the PDP Submittal over the past two weeks, and at this time Matt Dellich cannot begin a study, based on his current work load. Please let me know if this requirement can be waived, or what information we will need to get to you for further review. Thank you very much for your consideration in this matter. Donald Brookshire A Design Collaborative Susan Joy - Fwd: Re: _ Page 2 3207 Kittery Ct. Fort Collins, CO 80526 phone (970)207.1973 fax (970) 206.0183 e-mail eastpoint(a,)frii.com July 29, 2003 Matthew Dehlich, P.E. 2272 Glen Haven Drive Fort Collins, CO 80538 RE: Cambridge House — Variance request for Reducing the Minimum Parking Setback Dear Matthew, This letter is in response to the variance request, dated July 15, 2003, to reduce the minimum parking setback off of Plum Street from the 50' required by code to 28'. The variance request is granted for 28' from the current flow line. This variance request does not set a precedence or change the application of our design standards in other situations. If you have any questions, please contact Susan Joy at 221-6605. Sincerely, Susan Joy Development Review Engineer Cc: Troy Jones, file