Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSERRANO - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2005-12-22Marc Virata - Re Upcoming conceptual item - SWC Boardwalk Drive and Lemay Avenue - Access Questions Page 1 From: Marc Virata To: Cam McNair; Dave Stringer; Eric Bracket Kathleen Reavis; Mark Jackson, Matt Baker, Mike Herzig, Sheri Wamhoff, Tom Reiff, Ward Stanford Date: 9/26/03 9 41AM Subject: Re Upcoming conceptual item - SWC Boardwalk Drive and Lemay Avenue - Access Questions Thanks for the input from all thus far. While the scenario we all seem to be in favor of is sharing access with the Hamlet, the lack of legal access (and the City not looking to help facilitate it) really makes this unlikely. Having lived in the Hamlet and being aware that they maintain their own private drives, I know they won't be thrilled with the concept. (Coincidentally I sat in on a meeting with their Board a few years ago and the subject of this parcel possibly developing came up. When I mentioned the parcel should share the access point with their development ... they weren't all too pleased.) I can envision Hamlet residents voicing that :his development will cut through their private drives, especially as a shortcut connection to/from Highcastle. It would seem best to be up -front with Linda at the conceptual review meeting stating that the connection with the Hamlet is desired by the City but doesn't look likely the way the plat was created. As a result, we'll likely have to look and accept an additional connection out to Boardwalk, but absolutely no connection out to Lemay. Eliminating parking along Boardwalk approaching Lemay is an option we can look at. I had thought historically Trans Plan isn't a fan of eliminating on -street parking with bikelanes in front of residential, and in a scenario such as this with multi -family development and a park in the area? Maybe someone else gets the angry phone calls now? (j/k) -Marc >>> Tom Reiff 09/25/03 05:25PM >>> Marc, From what I can recall regarding the sites location, there should be no access to Lemay given. The proximity to the intersection at Boardwalk and the hill to the south makes it too dangerous (sight issue). Its difficult to say whether or not an access point in the middle of the property out to Boardwalk would work since we don't have any figures on the number of vehicles using the driveway. But my gut tells me the middle is too close to the Lemay intersection but perhaps a little further to the west may work? But then you have to watch ou': for opposing left turns out of the Lodge's driveway and LT in to the proposed development impacting the Boardwalk/Lemay intersection since there is no suicide lane. However, looking at the aerial we could eliminate all on -street parking from the Boardwalk/Lemay intersection up to the Hamlet's driveway and stripe in a suicide lane and then transition back to on -street parking around the park where it is really needed? So that would give you 2-8' bikelanes along the curb, 2-11' travel lanes, and 1-12' TWTL (or LT lane at the intersection). The best scenario would be to share the access with the Hamlet. I can't image there would be much traffic using this driveway even for both developments. Thats my two cents. —TR >>> Marc Virata 09/25/03 02:21 PM >>> I recently fielded a phone call from Linda Ripley, who will be presenting an item to conceptual review this Monday This property is the last remaining developable piece of land on the southwest corner of Boardwalk Drive and Lemay Avenue and is currently a house with horses on it. It is zoned LMN and is directly east of the Hamlet condo development. There is approximately 350'-380' of frontage onto Boardwalk and perhaps 300'-340' of frontage onto Lemay (very rough scaling). Mail Creek Ditch is to the Marc Virata - Re. Upcoming conceptual item - SWC Boardwalk Drive and Lemay Avenue Access Questions Page 2 south. Please see the aerial image attached. I have questions with regards to access points. My first impression was to ensure that the development uses the existing private drive along the eastern boundary of the Hamlet as an access point. Per the aerial, the driveway looks like it was designed and intended to allow this parcel of land to tie into it. This driveway also aligns with the Lodge at Miramont's sole public access point. Linda Ripley is currently operating under the assumption that they would tie into this driveway. As it turns out, the plat (see attachment) for the Hamlet shows that this driveway is an "access, utility, and drainage easement". However, the plat language shows that only utility and drainage easements are dedicated to the City, so it appears the access easement is for private. In addition, the attachment shows that just east of the private drive, within Hamlet's platted boundaries is a 3' landscape, utility, & drainage easement It appears that even if the access easement was thought to be public for future development to tie into, this 3' strip prevents access to the easement. So, my first question is: given the potential legal questions, will we be requiring the development to secure an access point onto the existing driveway for the Hamlet? My other questions are in regards to additional access points onto Boardwalk and/or Lemay. Recalling the Lodge at Miramont, a single access point onto Boardwalk was allowed directly across from the previously mentioned Hamlet's driveway while only an emergency access point was allowed to Lemay. Am I correct to assume that an access point out to Lemay (other than emergency) will also be denied for this project? LCUASS would not allow this access without a variance (440' separation from the Lemay/Boardwalk intersection). Access onto Boardwalk east of the Hamlet driveway appears to be possible per LCUASS. Boardwalk is a minor collector (based upon having parking on it, though maybe it's a major collector based upon traffic volumes?) Minor collectors allow high volume driveways at 175' separation from other high volume driveways/intersections With the parcel being likely greater than 350' along Boardwalk, is there a concern with allowing this new driveway onto Boardwalk in the middle of the property? If a TIS is really needed to get a comfort level on these questions, that's certainly fine. I'm just trying to secure information in advance of the conceptual for Monday. My gut feeling is that in order for the project to meet LUC requirements with regards to addressing, building orientation, and connecting walkways, it might be difficult for tie property to meet all aspect of the LUC with only one access point. The public streeUprivate drive design concepts may be issues as well. Your thoughts are appreciated. Thanks for allowing me to do Trans Coordination via email... -Marc AMSHEL CORPORATION �hruary 3. 2004 Hamlet Condominiums at Miramont Home Owners Association c/o Faith Property Management 300 F. Boardwalk Building 6B Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 Re: Access fo whom it may concern: Our company has recently purchased the 3.3-acre parcel of land directly to the east of the Hamlet. It will be our intention to develop the property into eighteen (18) luxury town homes. In preparation of the deNelopment plan, there has surfaced a concern on the part of the Citv of Fort Collins that access to our property would necessitate crossing a three-foot 13' 1 landscape, utility and drainage easement. While the access driveway has been dedicated to the City there is some question as to whether the landscape easement has been dedicated. We would like to initiate a dialogue with the HOA to discuss the possibility of dedication of this access way to the city, which would allow access to our property from the driveway. Nis seems to be the preferred method for the City, as access from Boardwalk and or Lemay would be prohibited. Please have the Board of Directors discuss this situation and contact me at 970-484-5907. Your cooperation is appreciated. Sincerely, Stephen Slezak PO Box ' 978 • FORT COLLW=, COLORADO 80522 970,484.5907 FAX: 970.490.2838 Transportation Services Li ;itrev:nng Department C;t,; of nrl f:oi:i;ts March 18.2004 Mr.Mike Adams Pauh Propcity Management 300 f[. Roaidwalk, 13 dg 613 Fort Collins, Co MY RE: Proposed development east of the Hamlet at Miramont Dear Mr, Adams. Please allow this w serve as a written follow-up to our earlier phone conversation and the meeting held at the Hawlet Clubhouse on Mork, March 15" with Steve SUN. residents of the Hamlet, mid representatives of Faith Property Management. As you recall. Mr. Slezak's property directly cast of the iitunlct was dikused with regards to gaining access to the nroperw from the Hamlet's easternmost drivewav out to Boardwalk Drive. Residents of the Hamlet wanted confirmation of the City's position with rt ,ards to requiring access to the property from this driveway. City_ Transportation Staff discussed :his issue further today. City Staff concluded that given the intensity curicniiv proposed by Mr. Siezah of 6 triplexes, for a rotal of 18 dwelling units, the City would allow all additional access point for the progeny out to Boardwalk Drive and would not pursue requiring the connection to the Hamlet trough a condemnation process. if an agreement can be made without the ChV> involvement sharing dlc Hamlet's driveway with :fir. Sle U properly. the City believes his would be beneficial. However, we wNI not We -his connection through a condemnation process our would emerunri a "friendly condemnacot" should the Hamiet so request. A should be noted tar at this time, no formal plans have been submitted to the City for review and we typically do not take formai positions on these issues "Whout entering formally into the review process. At Jhe time of a development pian submittal into the City, we reserve the right to further evaluate Ks .ssue. 1,he position currently taken by the City is a "best guess" given what Vir. Slezak states is his intention to develop at dtis time and also ohnn that no technical documents isuch a, a naffic :.udy) or plans have been Kim Wed at this tune to evaluate this issue Anther. Please let me Now kf anv questions or concerns. Sincerely, ,19arc V irata Civii Engineer Stephen taczjK. . lnishct Comomaon :':ad �L,mord..Acwie i rsitic I'ucmecr .;n, +.IcC.mr any 1`.:i_ir.oer APASHEL CORPORATION February11, 2005 Steve Olt City of Ft. Collins P.O. Box 580 Ft. Collins_ CO 80522 Re: Serrano Townhomes- #41-04 Dear Mr. Olt: RECEIVED FEB CURRENT PLANNING I was disturbed by your phone call last Thursday, February 3rd. The issues that were cited have been addressed in previous discussions and are our drawings clearly meet or exceed the 50% test pending Final Compliance Issues being advanced by Marc Virata, Number 21 & Number 37, are clearly delineated as items to be resolved at time of final compliance drawings and have no bearing on an approval hearing. In the staff meeting of November 22. 2004 Senior Planner, Ted Shepard asked Mr. Virata if the design met the code and the response was affirmative. Comment number 37 clearly states, that concern has... "been removed for the time being." For the record, our drawings indicate five 15) "off street" parking spaces while there is ample room for an additional twelve (12) spaces "on street" directly along the Boardwalk frontage of this project. Onderstanding the intent of the code we believe we have met and have indeed exceeded guest parking requirements and respectfully request Mr. Virata to remove his expectations for a re -submittal. It is our belief that all storm water issues have been resolved and that information has been communicated tc our consultants that we were... "ready for a hearing." Following our meeting of November 22, 2004 our team met with Glen Schlueter and Basil Hamden and formulated a plan to verily both the: detention issue and the water quality issue. Engineering documentation was submitted in a meeting December 13, 2004 and has been discussed with Bob Barkeen on 12/ 16/04 and 12117/04. Water quality issues are being discussed through Kevin with Storm Water as an agreement has been negotiated with the Lodge FICA regarding pond maintenance. This issue should not delay our hype I hearing. In the staff meeting of 11 /22/04 Mr. Shepard stated..."we are ready for hearing..." pending resolution of storm water issues. A re -submittal would unfairly delay this project weeks if not months. It is our sincere desire that this project be scheduled for hearing as soon as possible. look forward to your response. Sincerely, Stephen Sjezak . 0, B<;m +. ; s ..._,_..... __:Lveno 80522 97G484. 590- Ftg: 970_490 283e =r'e r ?-e ----moon n lr= "s June 3, 2005 David Averill City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Ft. Collins, CO 80522 Re: Serrano PUD Dear Mr. Averill: Enclosed, please find copy of check # 37669 issued 11/21/97 by Security Title Guaranty Company in satisfaction of S. Lemay SID in the amount of $52, 826.95 on behalf of.I. E Riopelle, then seller of 5229 S. Lemay. This check represents proof of the assertion I have been making for over one full year as it relates to the improvements bordering the Serrano PUD proposal. I have spent countless hours searching records to substantiate our claim. The City has done nothing to help with this c9Z)rt even though it is evident that the payment was indeed made. As to what the SID entailed, only your SID agreements will confirm. These agreements are not public record and I have no way of securing the documents. At this point I believe the hall is in the City's court to demonstrate that these funds did not pay for the sidewalk improvements as claimed. In the absence of such evidence it is only fair and reasonable that we retain the 4' walk along Boardwalk as shown on our drawings. We will be submitting final drawings soon for compliance review. If you have evidence to the contrary to my assertion, I would appreciate a call. Sin�:efely ' Ste Slezak P;.J. 2�,;.11 1 ON! N dll F 2 SFGURITI'TIT[ E GUARANTY COMP! - Fir, v,i ror:,e 5<v+ .r,-4 11 eTc=.x IIW4t.w ff rF - FOr, cru to ricauo *40%,, "re,. „_;w•, �' °�...' ro. 37669 DATE 11 /21197 AMOUNT PAY FIFTY TWO THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED TWENITY SIX AND 95/100 S52,P,26.95 DOLLAHS - - -q - SWuKrry Tfi19 GUAP.kNCOMPANY Cady of Fort Collins TT;L^sr AcawNrIY THE Or;Ori3 - 9F SECURITY TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY PoNYwWNs.CO lOSiA VASFa AfiCi[ S O.t "A, SFII tR JF. q.opcb.MU. R'fl4Y44TeR PoOM AF�Wr 11/21/97 FCM953BA07 Payoff: S. LeMap S I D 52,826.95 NO. 37669 - 'CHECK,TOTAL 52,826.95 W. R 1,4 rAS,' rr,25 7 a J4� u3 f.. MEMORANDUM O_ N_ _Et To: Steve Slezak, Amshel Corporation��� r� C3 Jim Birdsall, The Birdsall Group Citv of Fort Collins Delich From: Matt TAI- Date: June 22, 2005 Subject: Serrano Townhomes Transportation Impact Study, Final. compliance (File: 0366ME02) This :memorandum provides a final compliance statement that the type and number of dwelling units, and the access locaLion to Boardwalk Drive have not changed, since the TIS, dated July 29, 2004, was completed and accepted by the City of Fort Collins. No further transportation analyses are required.