HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/16/2018 - Planning And Zoning Board - Supplemental Documents - Regular MeetingITEM 4, PHOTO SIMULATION 55'
Supplemental Documents, Pg. 1
ITEM 4, PHOTO SIM LOOKING NE
Supplemental Documents, Pg. 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: INDEMNIFICATION STATEMENT:
BENCHMARKS:
TITLE SHEET
T-1
SOUTHSIDE BAPTIST
CHURCH MINOR SUB
SITE NAME:
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION:
TOWER TYPE:
SITE ADDRESS:
55' STEALTH TOWER
CENTURY
ZONING: R-L, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
620 W HORSETOOTH ROAD
FORT COLLINS, CO 80526
(LARIMER COUNTY)
POWER COMPANY:
CONTACT:
PHONE:
METER# NEAR SITE:
TELEPHONE COMPANY:
CONTACT:
PHONE:
PEDESTAL # NEAR SITE:
TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS
500 E 84TH AVE, SUITE C-10
THORNTON, CO 80229
NICHOLAS M. CONSTANTINE
(303) 566-9914
WiBLUE, INC.
KEN BRADTKE
(303) 448-8896
SITE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER:
SITE APPLICANT:
SURVEYOR:
CIVIL ENGINEER:
PROPERTY OWNER:
NAME:
ADDRESS:
CITY, STATE, ZIP:
CONTACT:
PHONE:
NAME:
ADDRESS:
CITY, STATE, ZIP:
NAME:
ADDRESS:
CITY, STATE, ZIP:
CONTACT:
PHONE:
NAME:
ADDRESS:
CITY, STATE, ZIP:
CONTACT:
PHONE:
NAME:
CONTACT:
PHONE:
N
GENERAL NOTES:
STRUCTURAL STEEL NOTES:
FORT COLLINS SITE PLAN NOTES
H CENTURY
KES NMC
TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS
OFFICE: (303) 566-9914
THORNTON, CO 80229
500 E 84TH AVE, SUITE C-10
76097.67480
ZONING
ZONING
REVIEW
ZONING
ZONING
C 07-17-17
ZONING
D 10-12-17
ZONING
E 12-08-17
ZONING
F 04-17-18
G 06-18-18
H 07-02-18
GENERAL
NOTES I
N-1
GENERAL NOTES
ITEM 4, ZONING REVIEW
Supplemental Documents, Pg. 4
LCUASS GENERAL NOTES:
“ ”
“ ”
H CENTURY
KES NMC
TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS
OFFICE: (303) 566-9914
THORNTON, CO 80229
500 E 84TH AVE, SUITE C-10
76097.67480
ZONING
ZONING
REVIEW
ZONING
ZONING
C 07-17-17
ZONING
D 10-12-17
ZONING
E 12-08-17
ZONING
F 04-17-18
G 06-18-18
H 07-02-18
GENERAL
NOTES II
N-2
GENERAL NOTES
ITEM 4, ZONING REVIEW
Supplemental Documents, Pg. 5
W. HORSETOOTH RD.
(100' PUBLIC R.O.W.)
LEGEND
1-A COORDINATES
NOTES: SCHEDULE B., SECTION II. EXCEPTIONS:
SITE PLAN &
COMPOUND
DETAIL
Z-1
SITE PLAN
H CENTURY
KES NMC
TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS
OFFICE: (303) 566-9914
THORNTON, CO 80229
500 E 84TH AVE, SUITE C-10
76097.67480
ZONING
ZONING
REVIEW
ZONING
ZONING
C 07-17-17
ZONING
D 10-12-17
ZONING
E 12-08-17
ZONING
F 04-17-18
G 06-18-18
H 07-02-18
COMPOUND DETAIL
ITEM 4, ZONING REVIEW
Supplemental Documents, Pg. 6
FENCE NOTE: DRAWING NOTES:
6' HIGH FENCE FOOTINGS
WOODEN FENCE ATTACHMENT BRACKET
NOTE:
620
TOWER NOTES:
TOWER
ELEVATION &
FENCE DETAILS
Z-2
TOWER ELEVATION
H CENTURY
KES NMC
TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS
OFFICE: (303) 566-9914
THORNTON, CO 80229
500 E 84TH AVE, SUITE C-10
76097.67480
ZONING
ZONING
REVIEW
ZONING
ZONING
C 07-17-17
ZONING
D 10-12-17
ZONING
E 12-08-17
ZONING
F 04-17-18
G 06-18-18
H 07-02-18
TYPICAL FENCE ELEVATION
GATE DETENT DETAIL
BRICK WALL DETAILS WALL SIDE ELEVATION BOARD MOUNTING DETAIL FENCE SIDE VIEW
ITEM 4, ZONING REVIEW
Supplemental Documents, Pg. 7
SECTION A-A
A
A
NOTES:
TYPE IV
ATTACHED WALK
DRIVEWAY WIDTHS
CLASSIFICATION APPROACH
TYPE
MINIMUM
WIDTH
MAXIMUM
WIDTH
●
●
●
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC NOTES:
SITE GRADING NOTES:
EROSION CONTROL
& DRIVEWAY
DETAILS
Z-3
LCUASS DRAWING 707.2 (STANDARD DRIVEWAY APPROACH)
H CENTURY
KES NMC
TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS
OFFICE: (303) 566-9914
THORNTON, CO 80229
500 E 84TH AVE, SUITE C-10
76097.67480
ZONING
ZONING
REVIEW
ZONING
ZONING
C 07-17-17
ZONING
D 10-12-17
ZONING
E 12-08-17
ZONING
F 04-17-18
G 06-18-18
H 07-02-18
NOT USED
EROSION CONTROL PLAN SILT FENCE DETAIL
ITEM 4, ZONING REVIEW
Supplemental Documents, Pg. 8
,
August 3, 2018
Honorable Planning and Zoning Board Members,
I am writing to you to express and inform you of my thoughts, since it is doubtful that time will permit
much opportunity for public comment at the August 19, 2018 hearing for the Country Club Reserve
proposed development.
I have lived in the Fort Collins area for almost 50 years-some of my neighbors more. But, regardless of
whether we are newcomers or old timers, we have all worked hard to preserve and protect the quality of
life and character of our area that we value so much. Our properties are unique in many ways and highly
desirable from a real estate perspective-they give us the privacy, space and opportunity to pursue a
lifestyle that many might envy. During my 25 years at my present residence, I and many of my
neighbors have participated in various boards, commissions, focus groups, working groups and other
citizen advisory groups with both the City and the County. We felt that our involvement was an
opportunity to represent residents and ensure the future quality of life in our area.
After much discussion with many of the County residents in the area, f have concluded that most of us
feel that the current design of this proposed development is incompatible with:
1. Its geographic location:
This property is in the furthest reaches of the City limits, surrounded by rural, County residential
acreages (not large lots as described in the Staff Report), agriculture, and conservation easements.
This property was basically a "flag-pole" annexation--contiguity is very marginal. There are no
offices, schools, entertainment, recreation, or shopping opportunities within walk/bike distances.
Presently there is no public transportation serving this area and it is not practical for residents to
walk or bike to reach any service locations. A development in this location only serves to increase
the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) by residents-in direct opposition to the stated goals of the
City of Fort Collins. Emergency response in our area is often confusing with either State or County
officers responding; but then eventually directed to City services. Will additional personnel be
assigned to cover this area? What is the expected response time and familiarity with the area for
police, fire or emergency? Current residents in the area have experienced delays and difficulties
with emergency responses for many years. This proposed development will also impact traffic and
road maintenance issues that have dramatically increased over the past few years in the northeast
area. Every resident added to this area has an effect on already failing routes such as Country Club
Road, North LemayNine, TimberlineNine (RR switching yard). Can the increased costs of
service extensions to this fringe development be justified? Although Poudre School District may
indicate that there is space available in the District for students from this development, it is highly
likely that it will require busing to further locations; as schools such as Tavelli Elementary School
are already at capacity (more traffic, safety issues and VMT for parents). Why develop on the
fringes, leaving little or no incentive for infill?
ITEM 5, PUBLIC COMMENT, K. KILKELLY
Supplemental Documents, Pg. 1 Pg. of 9 3
2. Environmental issues of the property:
This proposed development property contains five oil wells, as part of the Muddy Sandstone
Unit, one of the oldest oil fields in northern Colorado. This oil field has been in production,
under many different owners, for almost 100 years. As a result, much of the past construction,
operation and maintenance is unknown, due to inadequate records and mapping. There have been
efforts to locate flow lines, but it is highly likely that there remain other historic flow lines that
have not been identified. There have been complaints from neighbors about odors, broken flow
lines, spills and fires throughout the years-many unreported to authorities.
Under Colorado law, once the surface and mineral estates have been severed, the mineral estate
is the dominant estate. This means that the owner of the mineral estate has such rights of
ingress, egress, exploration and surface usage in the surface estate as are reasonably necessary to
the successful exploitation of the mineral estate. An easement on and across the surface estate for
all such purposes is implied without express language.
Cases cited: Black gold Petroleum Co v. Hill (1940)
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Cargill (1960)
Miami Petroleum Co. v. Neal (1960)
Martens v. Prairie Producing Co. (1984)
While the UE designation may seem to be low density for City development standards, a 2 du/ac
is considered by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) standards to be
a high-density area. If application for a new well permit were currently made under COGCC
Rule 603. b, a much stricter 500 ft setback would be required. According to recent news releases,
the City of Fort Collins is considering updating their present requirement of350 ft setbacks to
the State standards of 500 ft. We feel that to not go forward with this increased setback, and to
indeed decrease setbacks would reflect a backwards step-in the wrong direction--for the City of
Fort Collins. The City of Fort Collins would be putting residents of this development in a
situation that State and industry standards would indicate to be unsafe. Both the City of Fort
Collins Natural Resources Advisory Board and the Air Quality Advisory Board strongly
recommended updating the Land Use Code to State standards, actually increasing setbacks from
active wells and limiting setbacks from plugged/abandoned wells to no less than 150 ft. They
also expressed serious concerns regarding health and safety issues; and the compatibility of any
producing oil field with residential development. Perhaps strictly limiting development, or use of
the property for purposes other than residential would better serve the residents of Fort Collins.
The northeast area, within the City limits, would significantly benefit from additional open space
or recreational opportunities.
How does approving this proposed development, with its current design, contribute to
maintaining the quality of life for future Ft. Collins, residents? Are you willing to accept the
responsibility to ensure an opportunity for a safe, clean, and healthy living environment for
citizens of Fort Collins?
ITEM 5, PUBLIC COMMENT, K. KILKELLY
Supplemental Documents, Pg. Pg. 2 of 10 3
3. The character of existing, surrounding County neighborhoods:
Although most of the current County residents nearby would like to see the property remain
undeveloped, we realize that is not a practical approach. Basically, we understand that eventually
there will be some development of this property. We also realize that a development doesn't
have to be "like" us: but it should fit in, be sensitive to, and complement our existing
neighborhoods. It would be impossible to replicate what presently exists here, because our area
has developed slowly, over the past 50+ years. We have a natural diversity that cannot be
artificially created. These rural properties range from approximately 3 acres to 40+ acre tracts
and include a wide variety of uses, such as: raising livestock, creating wildlife habitat, horse
boarding, beekeeping, Community Supported Agriculture projects (CSA's), feedlots, tree farms,
turf farms, agricultural row crops, pasture/hay production, and excavation and construction small
businesses. A new neighborhood should contribute in a positive way to our community, as a
whole. The current proposed design of this development does not do this, and in fact, would
conflict with the integrity of our neighborhood and lifestyle. How is this design sensitive to
maintaining the character of our existing neighborhood? A marginal buffer and landscaping do
not come close to making this current design compatible with the rural, residential acreages and
uses of the surrounding area.
Unfortunately, there is no property that comes with a guarantee of financial profit. There are properties
that, for one reason or another, should probably not be developed at all-or, development should be
carefully limited or restricted. Everyone involved in the application process for the Country Club
Reserve should surely realize by this time that this is a very unique and challenging property with
serious issues. For that reason, I believe it is important to give this process the time and attention it
deserves. The public process, to this point, has not led to what I would describe as a fair and thoughtful
outcome. In addition, much of what might work well for the average suburban subdivision within the
City limits is probably not as easily applicable here. This proposed development should be treated as an
individual case requiring special treatment and creative solutions-not always found in general
development standards.
In conclusion, most of the County residents that I have spoken with feel that, with a design that better
respects the surrounding, existing character of the area, we could support a development proposal for this
property. We would welcome the opportunity to actually work with the applicant to design something that
we feel is more "livable" for us. For these reasons we ask that you delay your decision, and continue the
process~ requesting that the applicant truly consider our input, suggestions and ideas. If the applicant has
no interest in working with us, then we would request that you deny this proposal.
Thank you for your time and attention,
4~/(:44
Kathleen Kilkelly /
920 Inverness Road
Fort Collins 80524
970-493-7958
katzen2k@frii.com
ITEM 5, PUBLIC COMMENT, K. KILKELLY
Supplemental Documents, Pg. Pg. 3 of 11 3
August 6, 2018
Concerning the Country Club Reserve Development Proposal
The Issue of "Connectivity" to Juanita Road and Cherrywood Acres:
To the members of the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board:
My purpose is to refute the purposes of "connectivity'' as being applied to our subdivision.
Please bear with me in a definition of connectivity that I found online, which I think is
compatible and similar to anything the City probably uses: "connectivity refers to the directness
of links and the density of connection in a transport network; a highly permeable network has
many short links, numerous intersections and minimal dead ends. As connectivity increases,
travel distances decrease and route options increase, allowing more direct travel between
designation, creating a more accessible and resilient transportation system. Connectivity affects
the degree to which transportation networks, such as streets and cycle and walking paths connect
people to their destinations".
l. Travel distances will not decrease-Juanita's dead-end gravel road virtually parallels
Prospect Energy's gravel road from north to south separated by approximately 90 ft in
most places. Both exit onto Douglas Road.
2. There are no new travel options-Country Club Reserve will have 3 exit/entrances onto
Douglas Road.
3. There is no possibility to create a more accessible and resilient transportation system to
connect people to their destination.
a. If future residents of Country Club Reserve desire to get to Hearthfire, they must
use its entrance. There is no connectivity possible.
b. Likewise, if residents desire to enter Serramonte Highlands they must use its
entrance. There is no connectivity possible.
4. The problem of connectivity to Cherrywood Acres (Juanita Road)
a. Actual place on site plan to connect is right at Prospect energy's "cabinet", under
which are their flow lines and high voltage lines. This area has been dug up before for
their maintenance. These lines go directly under Juanita's circular tum-around.
b. A path escorting people into our subdivision to fulfill the purposes of connectivity
(that are truly inapplicable) can bring about undesirable results: as an example, not
long ago, some kids from the trailer park on Douglas Road, walked up Juanita Road
to our dead end (the circular tum-about). They then went through our gate, crossed
into our tree windbreak, looked at me on their way (I was working outside}, gave me
no explanation about why they were there, continued west, passing the horse corral,
ITEM 5, PUBLIC COMMENT, M. LOTZ (et al.)
Supplemental Documents, Pg. 12
went through our fence, crossed into our neighbor's acreage and went through his
property, on their way to Hearthfire.
If you force this nonfunctional connectivity pathway on us, and our 6 other neighbors, I for
one, will have to put up "no trespassing" signs on our property to protect us from possible
liability issues coming from wandering people; who might think that path would be taking them
somewhere new, or into Hearthfire, etc.
For these reasons I would ask you to waive this "connectivity" to our road; and instead, consider
constructing a loop which would remain on the property of this subdivision. giving residents an
opportunity to enjoy a safe and secure route for leisure.
Thank you very much,
Marsha Lotz
3501 Juanita Road,
Larimer County
970-481-3050
ITEM 5, PUBLIC COMMENT, M. LOTZ (et al.)
Supplemental Documents, Pg. 13
We the undersigned. as residents of Larimer County and Juanita Road, oppose the
pedestrian/bike connection proposed by the Country Club Reserve development plan. We feel
that it is not compatible with our acreage properties. This proposed connection would funnel
residents from a 160-home, suburban subdivision onto a short, gravel, dead-end road that
basically serves as a driveway for six County residences. We have chosen to live in the County
for the privacy, space and lifestyle that we value and do not wish to be connected to the City of
Ft. Collins. This connection will only serve to risk the potential safety and security of our
residences, while providing no benefit to the planned subdivision. Juanita Road is a steep gravel
road, connecting only to Douglas Road, with minimal maintenance and it is often in rough
condition-making bicycle and stroller travel difficult. There are no opportunities via this route
for connecting to shopping, entertainment, recreation, offices, schools, public transportation or
other similar neighborhoods. In fact, there are unfortunate possibilities to encounter "attractive
nuisances" for the subdivision residents. Livestock, barns, chicken coops, sheds, shops, gardens,
orchards, haystacks, farm equipment and construction materials are all possible hazards for
children from the subdivision. In our opinion, it provides a one-way path to trouble. We cannot
imagine, in the foreseeable future, that we would want to connect to this subdivision; and do not
anticipate the possibility of our acreages being subdivided and developed into a neighborhood
similar to the proposed development. For these reasons, we ask that the Country Club Reserve
development respect the character of our existing neighborhood and keep this pedestrian/bike,
concrete pathway, wholly on the subdivision site property.
ITEM 5, PUBLIC COMMENT, M. LOTZ (et al.)
Supplemental Documents, Pg. 14
R Blinderman
Environmental Consultants, Inc
Date: August 8, 2018
To: Clark Mapes, City Planer; Sylvia Tatman-Burruss, Neighborhood Development Review Outreach Specialist;
Planning and Zoning Board, City of Fort Collins, Colorado
From: Robert Blinderman, R Blinderman Environmental Consultants, Inc.
Re: Country Club Reserve
Dear Mr. Mapes, Ms. Tatman-Burruss & Planning and Zoning Board Members:
Attached, please find my concerns regarding issues I have with the proposed Country Club Reserve Project. Most of
my concerns are of an environmental nature.
I feel qualified to provide observations, comments and recommendations on these issues because of my
background, which includes the following:
• MS Industrial Science, 1967, Florida State Univ; MS Natural Sciences, 1973, Colorado State Univ.
• Adult resident of northeast Ft. Collins since 1969; property owner and continuous resident at 1225 E. Douglas
Rd since 1975 of acreage directly adjacent to the west property boundary of the Fort Collins Oil Field tank
battery, wells, and injection system. This facility serves the oil production facilities at the proposed Country
Club Reserve project.
• Over 30 years environmental consulting– 27 years with Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc of Ft Collins
and the past three years with my own company, R Blinderman Environmental Consultants, Inc, a Colorado
Corporation. Performed numerous projects for oil/gas companies and property owners with oil/gas facilities.
• Past member Larimer County Environmental Advisory Board – one and one-half terms.
• Participated with the Northeast Neighborhood Coalition in planning of the Hearthfire Development.
Thank you for allowing me to provide the attached observations, comments and recommendations.
I would appreciate it if you could distribute my letter to the Planning and Zoning Board members prior to their
Friday, August 10, 2018 work session.
Best regards,
R BLINDERMAN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Robert J. Blinderman, President
Enc.
1225 East Douglas Road | Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 | (970) 217-2042 | rblinderman@msn.com
ITEM 5, PUBLIC COMMENT, R. BLINDERMAN
1 of 5
Supplemental Documents, Pg. 15
R Blinderman
Environmental Consultants, Inc
1.0 OIL PRODUCTION FACILITIES – POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO HUMAN HEALTH & THE ENVIRONMENT
1.1 Active Pump-Jack Well MSSU No 30-6
This unit is an “attractive nuisance” to kids (or immature adults)! With many starter homes in this project, there
will be many young families and a significant number of on-site children and teenagers. How is the developer
going to keep kids from accessing this well site? It is presently fenced, which would take a youngster less than a
minute to climb, drop down, and access the derrick pump jack with intention to ride it up and down. You can’t put
up enough signs or build a fence capable of keeping kids out of this attractive nuisance. Once accessing the rig
and pump jack equipment, serious injury or death is almost a certainty.
1.2 Messerschmitt Well
This well is classified as “Permanently Abandoned/Plugged and Abandoned (P&A).” The developer is requesting
less than 150’ setback at this well. It is my understanding that this reduced setback is only applicable to P&A wells
that meet current Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) and State regulations for abandonment
including environmental monitoring.
Prospect Energy installed groundwater monitoring wells adjacent to the Messerschmitt Well last year. However,
the big issue is that this well was installed in 1926 and neither COGCC nor the owner/operator knows the details of
the plugging. It is unknown when the well was plugged as well as the abandoning details. Purportedly, the well
was a poor producer and was closed within six months of completion. I contend that well closure almost 100
years ago could not possibly meet today’s P&A regulations.
How can P&Z possibly grant the developer’s request for setback of less than 150’, when there are no known
details of the plugging operation. I contend that the developer provide information that the 100 year old plugging
meets current standards. If he cannot do so, P&Z should require at a minimum a 500’ setback at this unit.
1.3 Future Redevelopment of the Three Injection Wells
Current status of MSSU No. 30-10 is “Shut-in Injection.” Status of Wells No. 30-7 and 30-17 is “Active-Injection.” All
three wells are installed into the Muddy Sand Stone Formation.
In the past three years, the owner/operator has recompleted two previously existing wells at the Ft Collins Battery
located approximately one-quarter mile west of the proposed development and directly adjacent to my property.
These wells were redrilled, recompleted into the Cordell Formation and fracked as part of the development process.
There is potential that the present owner/operator or a future owner/operator would perform the same recompleting
and fracking at the three injection wells at the proposed development.
Recompletion requires use of a huge rework drill rig with a tall tower; it is noisy and requires daily drilling for several
weeks. The fracking operation requires injection of hazardous materials, trucks, trailers, noise, numerous personnel,
significant on-site commotion, and physical danger to any youngsters/residents that may trespass the work zone.
If all three wells were redeveloped as above, each well may require its own on-site storage tanks. Presence of storage
tanks would mean off loading of bulk oil to tank trucks at regular intervals. Trucks are noisy and operate on a 24/7
basis; there are odors associated with the storage tanks, and there is the potential for releases during off loading.
Has the developer discussed these issues with Prospect Energy? Have they provided P&Z with any information
regarding potential future redevelopment of these three wells? I suggest that P&Z require the developer to discuss
this issue with Prospect Energy. With fracking being the hot topic that it is in Ft Collins and likely with future residents
ITEM 5, PUBLIC COMMENT, R. BLINDERMAN
2 of 5
Supplemental Documents, Pg. 16
R Blinderman
Environmental Consultants, Inc
of this planned development, this issue requires addressing prior to the City potentially granting development of this
property as residential.
I suggest that a 500’ setback be a minimum at these wells.
1.4 Well Maintenance
The existing wells require inspections and maintenance. The operator checks the on-site wells at the proposed
development seven days a week. Approximately once per year, a rework rig (referenced in 1.3, above) is set up over
each well and the well bore is cleaned out to its depth. This may take several days and sometimes a week. As
previously referenced, there is excessive noise, trucks, trailers, commotion, and physical danger to any youngsters
that may trespass the work zone. Again, I suggest that a 500’ setback be a minimum at these wells.
COGCC requires a Mechanical Integrity Test (MIT) of each well on a five-year basis. The MIT requires high pressure
hydraulic testing of the well including seals.
1.5 Subsurface Flowlines
The project’s on-site oil production facilities are connected to the Ft Collins tank battery adjacent to my property on
East Douglas Rd. In the 43 years that I have lived adjacent to the battery, there have been numerous releases of bulk
oil and/or produced water. These releases have impacted surface/subsurface soils and the shallow groundwater
aquifer with hazardous materials including carcinogens such as benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene and zylenes.
Remediation required excavation and off-site disposal of soils, on-site treating of impacted soils and groundwater with
hydrogen peroxide. Although the last large release at the battery was not from a flow line but from a large bulk oil
storage tank, on-site remediation lasted almost six months with constant daily grinding noise as impacted soil piles
were treated. Based on documented historic releases at the tank battery and other facilities associated with the Ft
Collins Oil Field, a significant potential exists for such releases at the proposed Country Club Reserve property.
The June 2017 fatal house explosion in Firestone, Colorado was caused by an odorless vapor intrusion from a nearby
well. Following this tragedy, the COGCC required all owner/operators to identify, locate, and provide information
regarding subsurface flow lines beneath their facilities.
In the late 1970s, the former operator of the Ft Collins Battery adjoining my property installed flow lines traversing the
eastern portion of my residence yard. I watched them install these lines; a slight surface swale can still be seen at
their location. Last year, after the Firestone tragedy, I talked with the operator of the Prospect Energy facility adjoining
my property regarding these flow lines. I was informed that they were unaware of any flow lines beneath my
property.
Based on the operator’s lack of knowledge regarding flow lines installed at my property in the late 1970s, how can
the developer of the proposed Country Club Reserve have any confidence that all the flow lines beneath that
property have been identified, when some of them were likely installed in 1926 in association with the
Messerschmitt Well? P&Z and the City should require further information regarding flow line issues when there
may be potential for another Firestone tragedy at this proposed development?
2.0 OPEN SPACE
It is my understanding that the developer will be given open space credit for setbacks associated with the well sites.
How is it that these setbacks provide usable/valuable open space? They provide no value for recreation, wildlife, view
shed, or other open space values. They only provide some protection from impacts to human health and the
environment from the oil production facilities. I don’t see why the developer is awarded open space credit for the
setbacks.
ITEM 5, PUBLIC COMMENT, R. BLINDERMAN
3 of 5
Supplemental Documents, Pg. 17
R Blinderman
Environmental Consultants, Inc
3.0 CONTIGUITY
I contend that the proposed Country Club Reserve project significantly lacks contiguity with adjoining/surrounding
properties. The following properties surround the proposed project:
To the east of Turnberry Rd, which adjoins the east boundary of the proposed development, the turf farm
occupies almost the entire section extending one mile east to N Giddings Rd and extending one mile south of
Douglas Rd to County Rd 52. It is my understanding that a conservation easement is in place on the turf farm
that extends into perpetuity and allows for a total of nine residences on the approximate 600 acres.
North of Douglas Rd extending north of the proposed development are agricultural acreages with orchards, hay
fields, horses and cattle.
South of the proposed development are large residential acreages within the Seramonte Development many of
which are horse properties.
West of the proposed development are the six large residential acreages that adjoin Juanita Ln; several are
horse and mule facilities.
It is my opinion that this project should be denied based on its complete lack of contiguity with surrounding
properties.
4.0 CONNECTIVITY
I realize that there is a check box requiring connectivity for the proposed project. The developer has partially
accomplished this on their plan by providing a pedestrian path intersecting with Juanita Lane. I am certain that none
of the residents on Juanita Ln. desire this. Juanita Ln. is a county road; Larimer County provides no services such as
plowing snow or road maintenance. The residents provide these services.
What this connectivity will accomplish is trespassing of the rural horse properties by the projects city residents, most
of whom have no idea of the dangers and inconveniences associated with their presence either on or closely adjacent
to the horse properties. This planned connectivity to the rural horse properties on Juanita Ln is a great inconvenience
and potential liability to these long-time residents of their properties.
It is my opinion that if the project is approved, the planned connectivity to Juanita Ln should be denied.
5.0 TRAFFIC
Development of the proposed site with 160 units will generate a large number of day trips; I have not seen the traffic
study. What I do know is how long it takes and the danger involved when accessing or crossing Hwy 1 from Douglas
Rd from approximately 7 am to 9 am. There have been numerous accidents at this intersection over the years. Cars
have actually penetrated the house at the southeast corner, flipped and entered the yard at the southwest corner
(owner built a concrete wall fence, which a car went through several years ago) and car wrecks have entered the yard
at the northeast corner. Adding more day trips on Douglas Rd from the proposed development will only exacerbate
this situation.
Additionally, the Maple Hill and adjoining development have caused a dangerous gridlock situation at the corner of
Turnberry and Country Club Roads. Please observe that intersection between 5pm and 6pm; traffic is backed up
around the corner from the Country Club itself. Drivers become impatient trying to access or cross Turnberry and take
dangerous chances. There have been numerous accidents at this intersection with a fatal motorcycle accident last
year. Please assess how adding the day trips from a proposed 160 unit residential development will impact this
already dangerous intersection.
ITEM 5, PUBLIC COMMENT, R. BLINDERMAN
4 of 5
Supplemental Documents, Pg. 18
R Blinderman
Environmental Consultants, Inc
5.0 CONCLUSIONS/OPINIONS
The proposed Country Club Reserve project significantly lacks contiguity with the rural, agricultural nature of the
surrounding properties and will lead to property use conflicts with the existing long term residents of these properties.
This project simply does not fit in with surrounding property uses.
The project will exacerbate already existing dangerous traffic issues associated with Douglas Rd/Hwy 1 and
Turnberry/Country Club Roads.
Numerous unidentified and/or uninvestigated issues associated with the on-site oil production facilities exist. These
issues have potentially significant impacts to human health and the environment as evidenced by the fatal explosion
in Firestone, Colorado and numerous bulk oil releases to soils and groundwater from nearby bulk tanks and flow lines
associated with the on-site oil facilities.
Based on the above issues and concerns previously referenced in this letter, it is my opinion that this project should be
denied.
ITEM 5, PUBLIC COMMENT, R. BLINDERMAN
5 of 5
Supplemental Documents, Pg. 19
CLARK LAND SURVEYING, INC.
1740 EAGLEBRIDGE BLVD, STE 140
PUEBLO, CO 81008
NATHANIEL J. MAESTAS, P.L.S.
(719) 582-1270
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1-A COORDINATES CODE COMPLIANCE UTILITY INFORMATION
ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE PERFORMED AND INSTALLED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING CODES AS
ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITES. NOTHING IN THESE PLANS
IS TO BE CONSTRUED TO PERMIT WORK NOT CONFORMING TO THE LATEST
EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE
(2012 EDITION)
3. ANSI/TIA/EIA-222-G
4. NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE (2014 EDITION,
COLORADO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE)
5. LOCAL BUILDING CODE
6. CITY/COUNTY ORDINANCES
CONTACT INFORMATION
PROJECT INFORMATION
SHEET INDEX
DRIVING DIRECTIONS
LOCATION MAP
FROM DENVER, CO TAKE I-25 NORTH FOR 62.7 MILES. TAKE EXIT 265 ONTO HARMONY ROAD, TURN WEST AND FOLLOW
FOR 1.5 MILES. TURN RIGHT ONTO ZIEGLER ROAD AND FOLLOW FOR 1 MILE. AT THE TRAFFIC CIRLCE, TAKE THE 3RD
EXIT ONTO EAST HORSETOOTH ROAD AND FOLLOW FOR 3.1 MILES TO SOUTHSIDE BAPTIST CHURCH. SITE LOCATION
WILL BE ON THE RIGHT.
620 HORSETOOTH ROAD
FORT COLLINS, CO 80526
(LARIMER COUNTY)
SITE NAME: CENTURY
(JULY 2018)
LATITUDE:
W 105° 05' 13.689"
N 40° 32' 19.442"
LONGITUDE:
*INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CLARK LAND SURVEYING,
INC. IN THE FORM OF A 1-A CERTIFICATION DATED MARCH
3, 2017.
SOUTHSIDE BAPTIST CHURCH
620 W HORSETOOTH ROAD
FORT COLLINS, CO 80526
CENTURY LINK
CUSTOMER SERVICE
(877) 496-8581
TBD
FORT COLLINS LIGHT & POWER
CUSTOMER SERVICE
(970) 221-6700
TBD
SHEET: DESCRIPTION: REV
H CENTURY
KES NMC
TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS
OFFICE: (303) 566-9914
THORNTON, CO 80229
500 E 84TH AVE, SUITE C-10
76097.67480
ZONING
ZONING
REVIEW
ZONING
ZONING
C 07-17-17
ZONING
D 10-12-17
ZONING
E 12-08-17
ZONING
F 04-17-18
G 06-18-18
H 07-02-18
PARCEL NUMBER: 97263-79-901
GROUND ELEVATION: 5061.8'
ATLAS ONE, LLC.
4450 ARAPAHOE AVE, SUITE 100
BOULDER, CO 80303
MIKE POWERS
(303)448-8896
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 1, SOUTHSIDE BAPTIST CHURCH MINOR
SUBDIVISION, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE
OF COLORADO
(NAD '83) *
(NAD '83) *
(NAVD '88) *
AREA OF CONSTRUCTION: 1600± SQ. FT. (LEASE AREA)
2. INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL
JURISDICTION: CITY OF FORT COLLINS PRESENT OCCUPANCY: SOUTHSIDE BAPTIST CHURCH
ITEM 4, ZONING REVIEW
Supplemental Documents, Pg. 3