Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDIXON CREEK PUD - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2003-07-31STATEMENT OF PLANNING OBJECTIVES Attached are the Planning Objectives originally submitted with the Dixon Creek PUD on January 5, 1981. Although development of the project has been delayed by economic factors the goals and objectives described then are still basically applicable. The changing marketplace, costs of development, and the characteristics of other housing products offered today have led to the amendment to the Dixon Creek now being proposed.The specific elements of the amendment are as follow: - Rezoning. The zoning placed on the property at the time of annexation was done without the benifit of the Land Development Guidance System. In the absence of that tool, a density limit of eight dwelling units per acre was a condition of the rp, Planned Residential zone. It is now more appropriate, and consistant with City Policy to determine density through the LDGS. The Rezoning request, then, is to remove the condition placed on the original zoning designation. - Townhome Areas. The townhome units have been better defined and the number of different building types has been simplified, while still offering variety and vis- ual interest. - Condominium Areas. The redesigned building types used in these areas increase the number of units proposed, but actually reduce the building coverage. The build- ings are predominately two stories in height with some two and one half story and loft elements. - Density. The above elements are combined on the amended plan at a proposed density of 8.6 d.u./ac. Development is now anticipated to begin in 1984 and continue through completion in 1990. 4844220 Ext. 728 I1 Y Of f O1?1 COI LINS ENGINEERING DIVISION November 4, 1981 Mr. William W. Campton County Engineer Larimer County P.O. Box 1190 Fort Collins, Colorado Re: Dixon Creek, P.U.D. - Overland Trail Dear Bill: Thank you for taking time from your busy schedule to review the utility drawings on the subject project as they affect your preliminary plan for the extension of Overland Trail south of Drake Read. Our Streets and Traffic Division is projecting Overland Trail as a major arterial in this area and the Dixon Creek P.U.D. shows sixty (60) feet of right -of —ray east of the west line of the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 28, T7N, R69W, in ccmpliance with our Master Street Plan (as adopted by Ft. Collins City Council on March 17, 1981). Our problem with the developers utility plan is the vertical alignment of Overland Trail as proposed by the developer as compared to your preliminary design. His present design would require approximately five (5) feet of cut and would require you to do extensive excavation when you extend Overland Trail (O.T.) southward. We believe the problem can be compromised to the advantage of all parties by re- aligning (horizontal' ) the extension of O.T. to follow the eastern side of the ridge west line of the northwest section cquamile which runs southeasterly from the sterly by approximately one -quarter e but, would change your preliminary alignment ea as we discussed, would involve less excavation, provide exposure to the morning sunshine, provide a more workable intersection with.County Road 38E (from a traffic standpoint) and allow a better approach to the ridge line south of 38E. We would feel more comfortable in asking the developer of Dixon Creek to provide a horizontal curve southeast to align with a proposed ridgeline approach if you could get the commissioners to agree to a proposed preliminary alignment along these lines, as we discussed. We are enclosing a ir6ap indicating these routes to assist you in your Proposal to the commissioners. Please advise us if we can be of further service. sincerely, C c � - r �G Ma ce E. Rupel, . �L-S- Assistant City Engineer - Development cc: Curt Smith Bob Lee Lloyd McLaughlin e Ave S in t r �o °v r �n - J E w� q u o `I >�T u .� 'go vi (��_ S Y Pecan St �P�ot� St C U r Ze�tn. Y Cotswad Ct o i 10 C,i +Merino Ct o: v Cr o �p ..a Neil Dr r .a o Panama Ct c c v+ A V desdole Ct >. �° o � G� �� Oc�o�h q � m E ipeJe stone Dr. Sci G s�'�' C. � Dr Ct r. Cr V a on►pos orders U v 1 M o v o yC L C v o o� 0 1 8�ue ross Dr. �Gi o v o t j Blue( r ss Dr. c c�cP Ct 0 r al o O C Lodi � `jc Ct. = o U o Ct � 1 � 1 i 1 Hull St fol H line Dr. � u c o K innison J Moffet Drive .... M.� • \ ` N 9�rrn 1 � 9� o Primrose �n ev nshire Dr. o c C D1 re Qt �p/�rteY i Nees iie 1 AP- r S71N4 PO-Opoxed on Powell Dolton Dr. _ PI. Wes 0 Westf ield Dr PI. t / � county Road Spring Crook Dom n' I l 4;v ew), r O �♦d e Rd- ogle o GV ' I / W Link Rd. LARIMER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Courtlyn W Hotchkiss District 1 221-7001 Nona Thayer District II 221-7002 James D Lloyd District III 221-7003 Mr. Maurice Rupe 1 City of Fort Collins Engineering Department P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado November 30, 1981 80522 RE: OVERLAND TRAIL EXTENSION SOUTH OF DRAKE Dear Mauri : P.O. Box 1190, Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 `PQ�M ER r pU�l` 221/7733-FC 669/4840-LV Engineering Department, Wm. W. Campton, County Engineer reviewed the routing of Overland Trail south of Drake Road with staff members at our last meeting and have the following comments: 1. The southeast -southwest route as is shown on the Fort Collins street plan has its merits and will be considered in future subdivisions in the county. 2. The route along the section line accommodates more land owners and future developments and will not be dropped from the county plan. 3. It is recommended the development at Drake and Overland Trail extended be approved with the street plan profile as shown. If the section line route is taken, a slight change in the grade line may be necessary where it curves to the southwest on the subdivision plat. Very truly yours, )iM )� William W. Campton County Engineer WWC/1k Enclosure - Sketch Plan cc: G. Rex Smith, Director of Public Works Elaine W. Spencer, Assistant County Engineer No Text / '�' RECEIVED DEC 16 1981 Planning Department Mr. Gary Ross Chairman, Planning and Zoning Board City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Dear Mr. Ross; December 14, 1981 2837 South Overland Trail Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 This letter is written with reference to the Dixon Creek PUD which is proposed to be located in the Northwest corner, of Section 28, Range 7, Township 69 West of the 6th P.M. We understand that a subdivision plat for this development will be considered by the Board on December 21, 1981. We are the owners of property in Section 29 which accesses from the corner of Drake Road and Overland Trail. The east boundary of our property is the west boundary of Section 28. We wish to make the following comments about the Dixon Creek proposal: 1. We feel that as a part of this development, at the time it or the appropriate phase of it develops, the southward extension of Overland Trail should be built at least as far as the south boundary line of the developed property. 2. From discussions with both the City and County staff, it appears that there issome question as to the vertical alignment of the extension, as it would be affected by the horizontal alignment of Overland Trail at such time as it is extended further south to intersect with Horsetooth Road. The City staff has proposed an alignment which would curve to the east away from thEt section line boundary. We feel strongly that the eventual alignment of Overland Trail extended south should follow the section line boundary in a straight southerly direction. This consistent with preliminary planning by the Larimer County Engineer, and the long established principle that County roads be built on section lines. To use the curved alignment would leave a "no mans land" between the street and areas to the west. A straight alignment would also provide access to thE! new golf course without the purchase of additional expensive right of way. 3. In the event that a decision on this matter is not made in connection with this development proposal, we feel that a public hearing Mr. Gary Ross, Page Two should be held to consider the alignment of Overland Trail extended so that property owners viewpoints can be fully considered before a decision is made on this matter. Finally, w& wish to state that while we do not object to the development proposal, we are concerned with its impact on the surrounding area as outlined above. We will appreciate your and consideration of the concerns expressed above. Thank you. Sincerely, Loren W. Burns cc: James D. Lloyd, Chairman, Larimer County Commissioners G. Rex Smith, Larimer County Director of Public Works p Alm- IIY Of I OIll ( Of I INS P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Ph(303) 484-4220 Ext. 728 ENGINEERING DIVISION December 23, 1-981 Eldon Ward ZVFK Architects 218 W. Mountain Ft. Collins, CO Dear Eldon: We have reviewed your request for variances to our City engineering in your letter of December 21, 1981. The result of our review is as follows: Request 1. We do approve of this request since they were shown on the preliminary plans. Request 2. We are approving the variance from our 200' centerline to centerline requirement as we feel a change of this nature would be of extreme cost and we feel that some attempt was made to correct this problem. We would like to inform you of our new policies concerning variances in which the site plans shall state that City standards have been met except for all listed variances. If you have any additional questions, please contact me on extension 735. Sincerely, Josh Richardson Civil Engineer II ZVFK architects/planners a professional corporation 218 west mountain avenue fort collins, co 80521 usa telephone 303 493-4105 December 21, 1981 Maurie Ruple City of Fort Collins Engineering Division P. 0. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80521 Dear Maurie, Through discussions with City staff members, I've learned that we must technically request variances for Dixon Creek in the following areas: 1. 28' Streets. Zendt Court, Dumire Court, Seccomb Court, Clemma Court, Brumbauch Drive, Lucinda Court, and Skimmerhorn Court are all designed, as approved on the preliminary plan, as 28' streets on a 40' right-of-way with sidewalk on one side. The streets are off -centered in the R.O.W. so the grassed area between the back of the walk, or the back of the curb on the side without walk, and the easement will be equal. 2. 200T ' Spacing Between Drives. The center of the southerly drive into condominium area #1 is 183.9' from the center of the cut for the small central parking area; the easterly drive into townhome area #4 is 194' from the center of Yorkshire Street; and Clemma Court is 180' from Yorkshire Street. The first condition above results from our feeling that it was most important to keep the main drives into condominium area #1 200' from Drake and Skimmerhorn, respectively, and that the small cnetral parking lot (containing only 18 spaces) will not contribute substancial traffic to Pasquinel. The second condition described is necessary to achieve the set -backs, tandum parking spaces and fire access to that part of townhome area #4. Clemma Court is positioned so that Lots 69,70, & 76 can be usable Lots with solar orientation. If you need any further information, please call. Sincerely, Eldon Ward cc: Dan Jenson, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Lloyd McLaughlin M&I consulting engineers 4710 South College Ave. • Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 Telephone (303) 226-2323 #1385-014 January 14, 1982 Mr. Josh Richardson City of Fort Collins Engineering Division P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: Drainage Analysis - Dixon Reservoir Dear Josh: This letter is in response to your comments concerning the state of Dixon Reservoir during a major storm. We have completed a drainage analysis of all basins contributing flow to the reservoir. Assump- tions used in the analysis are as follows: 1. Drainage Basins Nos. 67, 29, 39 and 89 all contribute flow to Dixon Reservoir (Figure 1; Report on Storm Drainage Facilities for Fort Collins, Colorado; Black & Veatch, 1971). Runoff from No. 67 flows directly to the reservoir via overland flow while runoff from Nos. 29, 39 and 89 reach the reservoir via the Dixon Canal. It is doubt- ful that all flow originating in basins Nos. 29, 39 and 89 will reach Dixon Reservoir because of the limited capacity of the 24 inch culvert running under County Road 42-C which feeds the reservoir. It is likely that during the 100 year storm the canal will overtop its bank enabling runoff to drain into the area north of County Road 42-C. However, for this analysis, we assumed the worst case situatiorL, that is, all runoff from the four basins entering Dixon Reservoir. 2. Capacity of the Reservoir was calculated by the methods set forth in the DE�nver Regional Council of Governments' Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual (Vol. 2). A normal water surface elevation of 5196.8 was obtained from the City of Fort Collins topo maps of the area (SE, Sec. 20; East lz Sec. 29). The maximum elevation the water sur- face would reach before the reservoir would overflow was determined to be 5199.0. Areas bounded by the contours were sized using a planimetE�r. . The runoff rE'sulting from a 100 year storm was fond to be 408 cfs. A storm 3 hours; in duration would generate 4.41 (10 ) cu. ft. of water which would have to be confined in Dixon Reservoir. Available storage in the reservoir was calculated to be 4.71 (10 ) cu. ft. This would leave 300,000 cu. ft. of additional storage available in the reservoir before overflow would occur. Mr. Josh Richardson January 14, 1982 Page Two If you have any further questions on this matter, please call me. Very truly yours, M & I, Inc. Micheal R. Lawson MRL/kd PLANNING OBJECTIVES DIXON CREEK P.U.D. has been planned with some fundamental goals which are unusual for typical development projects in Fort Collins. It is the belief of d. Jensen Enterprises, Inc. that future development of residential projects is at the threshold of substantial change. These changes are strongly influenced by economic factors effecting both the initial cost and ongoing cost of owning and operating a home. Central to the development objectives of Dixon Creek, therefore, is the optimum use of solar energy. Technology for utilizing solar energy is becoming cost effective as our community faces almost certain es- calating prices for the conventional energy sources of natural gas and electricity. The key to optimizing a land development project for solar energy usage, either active or passive, is through careful protection of solar access to the south wall of dwelling structures. Dixon Creek has an integrated approach. The detached patio home products have all been site planned to optimize solar access to both roof top and south wall areas. The multi -family products are more flexibly oriented in response to natural site conditions such as topography, views and proximity to natural amenities such as Dixon Creek itself. Remote centers for heating and hot water are being considered for the multi -family products thereby overcoming the need for rigid southern orientation of these structures. MARCH, MYATT, KORB, CARROLL & BRANDES ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW ROBERTSON BUILDING 110 EAST OAK STREET ARTHUR E. MARCH, JR. ARTHUR E. MARCH RAMSEY D.MYATT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 1909-1981 MARK L. KORB (303)482-4322 MAILING ADDRESS: JOSEPH T. CARROLL,JR. P. O. BOX 469 ROBERT W. BRANDES, JR. RICHARD S GAST January 22, 1982 �rFORT COLLINS,CO 80522 �* E I V E D JAN 2 r Mr. W. Paul Eckman Assistant City Attorney CITY A-rTORNgY City of Fort Collins 300 Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Re: Development Agreement City - C-J Associates Dear Paul: I have reviewed the proposed Development Agreement which was prepared by the City Attorney's office for C-J Associates. They are extremely anxious to move forward on this as quickly as possible in order to meet the deadline for the next council meeting. I was not able to discuss this with you on Thursday. I had hoped to discuss it with you and then prepare another draft of the agreement for your review. However, I will just comment on the areas of concern which we have and hope that you can then redraft it to respond to these concerns. The development contemplates more than 400 residences. I believe the agreement is drawn for a standard subdivision that does not contemplate the phasing that this one will have. In order to avoid hardship upon the developer, the agreement will need to be changed in a few areas in order to reflect the phasing of development. For example, in paragraph 1B, I am :pure it is not the City's intention to require installation of all utilities mentioned therein for the entire subdivision prior to any building permit being issued, and likewise in paragraphs lE and 2C. Each of these paragraphs should make it clear that the development would only be required 'nor the phase of construction being developed. As you know, my clients have been negotiating with the City for months attempting to arrive at an agreeable sanitary sewer payback agreement. Paragraph 1D does not accurately reflect that the parties have not yet reached that agreement. Mr. W. Paul Eckman Page 2 January 22, 1982 Mention should be made of that fact in both paragraphs 1D and 2B. The language in paragraph 1C should be made somewhat more specific. We need to know exactly which utilities may be required to provide to other areas, whether oversizing will be required and who will be required to pay for such oversizing. We would like to see some guidelines installed in paragraph 3D in order to avoid what appears to be total discretion in the hands of a City construction inspector. For a development the size of the one contemplated, 200,000 square feet seems to be a small area (less than five acres). There are differing references to Exhibit A, which should be clarified. For example, I believe the reference under paragraph 2B to Exhibit A is to an exhibit other than the existing Exhibit A. Since there has not been an agreement reached for the sewer lines and no location has been determined for Manhole No. 1, we would like to have language inserted to the effect that if the agreement has not been reached prior to initiation of development, the developer could use a lift station until other development occurs. I will be out of my office all day today, but you should feel free to discuss this matter directly with Dan Jensen. I will be happy to discuss it with you further upon my return on Monday. Thank you for your cooperation in this regard. Very truly yours, MARCH, MYATT, KORB, CARROLL & BRANDES By Ramsey D. (%7att RDM:cm cc: Mr. Dan R. Jensen CITY OF FORT COLLINS P.O. BOX 580FORS' COLLINS COLORADO 80522 PH (303) 484-4220 F WATER AND SEWER UTILITIES, February 1, 1982 Mr. Lloyd McLaughlin M & I Consulting Engineers 4710 South College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80526 Re: Dixon Creek P.U.D. Dear Mr. McLaughlin: Preliminary investigations indicate projected peak flows from Dixon Creek P.U.D. would overload the sanitary sewers in Brown Farm which have been proposed as outfall sewers for the Dixon Creek development. In considera- tion of these facts, the Water and Sewer Department could not allow Dixon Creek P.U.D. to be sewered by a lift station emptying into the manhole at the southern end of Mantet Court. Please contact the Water and Sewer Department to explore alternatives for sewering Dixon Creek P.U.D. Sincerely, Webb Jones Systems Engineer WJ/my cc: Mauri Rupel DV_ ARTHUR E. MARCH, JR. RAMSEY D. MYATT MARK L. KORB JOSEPH T. CARROLL,JR. ROBERT W. BRANDES, JR. RICHARD S. GAST MARCH, MYATT, KORB, CARROLL & BRANDES ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW ROBERTSON BUILDING 110 EAST OAK STREET FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 (303)482-4322 February 10, 1982 Mr. W. Paul Eckman Assistant City Attorney City of Fort Collins 300 Laporte .Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Re: Development Agreement City - C-J Associates Dear Paul: ARTHUR E. MARCH 1909-1981 MAILING ADDRESS: P. O. BOX 469 FORT COLLINS, CO 80522 Thank you for your letter of January 26, 1982 which I have now reviewed with my clients. With the explanations set forth in your letter, we are close to accepting your proposed terms. There are, however, a few items which we hope can still be mod- ified to make the agreement acceptable to us. The first item is a very small change in paragraph lE appearing on page 3. We would like to change the language appearing after the comma on line 3 to read as follows: "including the individual lot service lines leading in and from the main to the property lines of the lots being built upon". We believe this more appropriately expresses the intentions of both parties. Paul, the wording in paragraph 1G is simply not acceptable. As I mentioned to you on the telephone, the developer would be perfectly willing to accept the liability which this paragraph places upon him if he were given unfettered control of the engineering. However, the City engineers have continually required changes and established criteria for the storm sewer facilities. As long as the City continues to interject their requirements into these facilities, I do not believe they can, by contract or otherwise, divest themselves of the liability associated with their requirements. To do so would leave the developer in a totally untenable position. He would not be able to look to his own engineers for their professional liability and he would be prevented, by contract, from looking to the City. I think the liability, if any, will simply fall where the responsibility for the decisions has come from. Mr. W. Paul Eckman Page 2 February 10, 1982 Therefore, we suggest the language in this paragraph be changed to read as follows: "The City Engineer and Developer's engineers have coordinated their efforts to see that all storm sewer facilities shall be so designed and constructed as to protect- the downstream properties and to adequately serve the property to be developed as well as other lands as may be required. It is the intention of the parties hereto to prevent the discharge of storm drainage or seepage waters from the development in a manner or quantity different from that which was historically discharged". The last change would be the insertion into paragraph 2B of the language which you attached as an exhibit to your letter of January 26, 1982. I would appreciate your review and response to these requests at your earliest convenience, since we are apparently running out of time to get this matter on the next agenda. Very truly yours, MARCH, MYATT, KORB, CARROLL & BRANDES By �- — Ra sey D. My t RDM: cm cc: Mr. Dan R. Jensen C-J Associates CITY OI MRI OI LINS P.O. BOX SfiO. FORT COLLINS. COLORADO80S22 PH (303) 4844220 CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE February 12, 1982 Mr. Ramsey D. Myatt Attorney at Law 110 East Oak Fort Collins, CO 80521 Dear Ramsey: Thank you for spending time to discuss the development agreement of the City and C.J. Associates with me. I have prepared some alternative language for paragraph 1(E) on page 3. Pursuant to our telephone conversation, I gave this matter some more thought and I do think that we are on the same track in regard to the goals of the City in connection with this paragraph. Please review my language and comment as you think appropriate. I have also amended paragraph G to clarify that any indemnification of the developer is only to the extent that such discharge occurs as a result of the errors and omissions of the developer or its engineers. Finally, I have included the requested lanuguage in paragraph 2 (B) at the bottom of page 4. Co6d'ally, W. Ya4uEckman Assistant City Attorney WPE:sh EXT. 700 J1Y 51 I (T (.OI IfINS P.O. BOX 580, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522 PH (303) 484 4220 VATER AND SEWER UTILITIES MEMORANDUM To: File From: Webb Jones, Systems Engineer Date: April 15, 1982 Re: Dixon Creek P.U.D. The developer of Dixon Creek P.U.D. has proposed sewering his property with a lift station that would pump to a manhole located in the Brown Farm 7th Filing. In examining downstream sewers that would carry flow from Dixon Creek, I have found potential problem areas. The bottleneck in the Brown Farm sewers exists on Stuart Street, just west of Taft Hill Road. That particular stretch of sewer currently serves 200 single family units in Brown Farm, and will eventually sewer 259 additional single family units platted in Brown Farm 7th Filing. The sewer in Stuart Street has capacity to serve approximately 550 total dwelling units, including the 200 which currently exist, and the 259 units planned in Brown Farm 7th. There are approximately 38 acres immediately west of Brown Farm 7th which will eventually flow to the sewers through Brown Farm. The owner of the Drive -In which covers 20 of those acres recently inquired about water and sewer facilities in the vicinity, apparently with development thoughts in mind. wj M E M O R A N D U M DATE: August 4, 1982 TO: File FROM: Webb Jones, Systems Engineer RE: Dixon Creek P.U.D. The Dixon Creek P.U.D. is a residential development planned on 58.71 acres immediately sough of Drake Road, and immediately east of Overland Trail. D. Jensen Enterprises, owner of the property, plans to develop Dixon Creek at a gross density of: 6.9 units per acre, or a total of 407 dwelling units. D. Jensen Enterprises initially proposed sewering Dixon Creek P.U.D. with a gravity sewer connecting to an existing sewer line at Drake Road where it crosses Spring Creek, then extending west along Spring Creek and Dixon Creek. The developer drafted agreements seeking City participation in the construction of what became known as the Dixon Creek Trunk Sewer, but was unable to reach an agreement with the City to share in the sewers estimated cost of $221,000. The developer's engineer examined the possibility of installing a lift station to sewer Dixon Creek P.U.D. until a gravity sewer was extended and made more accessible to the property. Analysis of the gravity sewers which the Dixon Creek lift station would discharge to revealed that there was not enough capacity in those lines to carry additional flows from Dixon Creek P.U.D., thus the only way to provide sewer service to this property appears to be through construction of the Dixon Creek Trunk Sewer originally proposed by the developer. At the last meeting between D. Jensen Enterprises and City personnel, the developer indicated he would be willing to contribute an amount equal to the cost of the lift station (approximately $85,000), provided the City would contribute the balance of the sewers $221,000 cost. As it normally would on a project of this type, the City agreed to contribute the following: Description Oversi: zing from 8" to 15" Taft Hill Road Crossing Extension through Georgetown P.U.D., an existing subdivision receiving no benefit Estimated Cost 540,956.00 9,748.00 25.296.00 TOTAL $76,000.00 Dixon Creek P.U.D. August 4, 1982 Page 2 Based upon estimated costs developed by the engineer for D. Jensen Enterprises, there appears to be a difference of approximately $60,000 between what the developer and City are willing to contribute towards construction of the Dixon Creek Trunk Sewer. Construction of the Dixon Creek Trunk Sewer would benefit both D. Jensen Enterprises and the City of Fort Collins. To prevent scattered development and the divergence in services it causes, the City requires that new development occur contiguous to existing developed areas. D. Jensen Enterprises is one of the few developers trying to promote new residential development in the southwest portion of Fort Collins. While other developers continue plans for further stretching the City and its services to the southeast, Jensen is trying to promote development closer to the City's Service Centers and adjacent to existing development. Completion of the Drake Crossing Shopping Center at Drake Road and Taft Hill Road will likely increase development activity in that area; this additional development will obviously increase the need for the Dixon Creek Trunk Sewer. Extension of a trunk sewer along Dixon Creek would make sewer service available to all properties within the Urban Growth Area between Drake and Horsetooth Roads. The Dixon Creek Trunk Sewer would encourage desirable development along Drake Road and Dixon Creek without requiring that each property install a costly, problem prone lift station and force main that would be abandoned once a trunk sewer was extended by downstream developers. Design and construction of the Dixon Creek Trunk Sewer entirely through the basin it is to serve is the most cost effective approach to sewering all benefited properties. The cost of the sewer will undoubtedly decrease as the size of the project increases, particularly in these economic times when contractors are so competitive in bidding larger projects. Easements can currently be obtained through large farm plots that are valued less than residential properties which may be platted along Dixon Creek in the near future. According to Dave McCloskey, Larimer County Sanitarian, several septic systems along Dixon Creek have failed in the past two years. One septic system continuously causing problems is located at 2707 South Taft Hill Road; the leach field for that particular system is apparently located within several feet of Dixon Creek. Periodically, the leach field will become saturated causing sewage to surface and flow directly into Dixon Creek. With problems like these existing along the route of the Dixon Creek Trunk Sewer, it is expected that several homes would immediately connect to the sewer, resulting in repayment of a portion of the sewer and effectively eliminating contamination of Dixon Creek and Spring Creek. Dixon Creek P.U..D. August 4, 1982 Page 3 Encouraging diverse residential development throughout Fort Collins has always been and should continue to be a priority of the City. ne types of attractive, affordable residential dwelling units proposed by D. Jensen Enterprises in Dixon Creek P.U.D. are currently unavailable in southwest Fort Collins. With the City's assistance, sewer service can be provided to Dixon Creek and surrounding properties, hopefully triggering additional development beneficial to Fort Collins residents. Design Criteria used for solar planning of Dixon Creek include: 1. Topography: Slope Directions - South and Southeast Per Cent Slopes - 1% to 31h 2. Latitude: 40.60 North 3. Sun Positions: December 21st - 9:00 a.m. 140 Altitude, 420 Azimuth Noon 26.60 Altitude, 3:00 p.m. 14o Altitude, 420 Azimuth 4. Solar Access: Maximize south wall solar access for patio home product. 6. Anticipated Systems (Solar and Energy Conserving) Passive - Direct Gain - Glazing, maximize on south, minimize on north Greenhouses Thermal Mass Earth Sheltered Lower Levels Landscape Controls to minimize shading on southern exposures Cross Ventilation Vestibules Primary Living Areas on south side, Secondary Living Area on north side of buildings. Active - Domestic Hot Water - Roof Top Collectors Solar Boosted Remote Centers for unit heating - since the active system is not directly attached to the buildings the system can be adapted to anticipated technological improvements. � ��t �a►_t-- � f +�,1�!F���, �y�� Y � ..R '��'��5� 3tpy ,' r d�,,;,$ `� •` a� ggiv' -` at'1ag M' I�+:i.�!➢Jr1i.Yyd: l :,�-1 y. i, s.�Y ri _.�;t +,., t;tal� R �5. ,.-.$. _ r .. ,'A . :�. i. PBOX5,to FORT COIL COLORADC)80t 221 „3t»220 OFFICE OF THE CITY" NAANAGER MEMORANDUMS DATE: September 9, 1983 r TO: Roger Kr-mpel, Director of Public Works & Water Utilities 1- John Hu i ,j en, City Attorney ,Curt (- Mauri Smit ector Rupel ector of Planning Development and Development Center ` 7TT_e"Smith, ,D.4 Director of ati ons - Water FROM: John E. Arnold, City M ina RE: Myatt Letter on Dan Jensen Attached is a copy of a letter from Ramsey D. Myatt concerning Dan Jensen's development along Dixon Creek. This letter details a problem in how we're dealing with the developer, outlines a request for a judgment as to fair treatment, and suggests that the City Council get involved in making the decision. As a consequece, I need some significant staff work prepared for my review and perhaps for the review of the City Council. This staff work needs to include the detailed communications between Mr. Jensen and his agents and the City staff and amongst City staff. Cover memos ex- plaining the differences in the points of view of staff and developer need to be included. The materials need to be prepared no later than September 19 for a review meeting on September 20. If the issue truly cannot be resolved adminis- tratively and, as Mr. Myatt is suggesting for Mr. Jensen, those materials would then be forwarded on to the City Council for a work session review on September 27. Please coordinate with Jim Meitl for preparation of a report for Council work session. JEA:dr Attachment CIT 1 I�� `, �,nX -,,) T T 1 LI ('CLORADC) OFFICE OF THE CI 1 ,%IANAG-[ R September 9, 1983 Ramsey D. Myatt 110 East Oak Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Re: Dan Jensen Problem Dear Mr. Myatt: I received your letter concerning the above referenced and have asked the staff to give me a look at the materials that will enable me to judge the issues which you raise. I would hope that we can judge those administra- tively and resolve the issues at that level. If we cannot, then I will schedule a work session with the City Council for September 27 wherein Council can review the situation. I hope this has not inconvenienced you unduly. I certainly want resolution soon on an issue that you've had to deal with for a couple of years. That's not our normal standard and so I hope we can respond quickly this time. s very truly, Jb# Arnold, Ci tXi Manager JEA:dr cc: Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Cl E3()\ RT LLl%ti COLORADO PM51? OFFICE OF THE CITY NIA NACER M E M O R A N D U M DATE: September 9, 1983 TO: The Honorable Mayor and M mb rs of City Council A FROM: John E. Arnold, Ci ty ' a RE: Myatt Letter on Dan Jensen' Attached is a copy of a memo that I've sent to the staff concerning the above problem. I will either resolve the problem or schedule it for a work session on September 27. At this time maybe it is necessary because there is undoubtedly is a lot of background information on the subject and it would need to be prepared in some Kind of a coherent whole for submission to the City Council. But in that preparation we may find that there is a solution that would obviate the necessity to bring it to Council. If so we will report to you. If not, we will schedule it for the September 27 City Council meeting. Please give me a call if you have any questions or suggestions. JEA:dr Attachment _rV 7�. Tm ;T" $3- i C f , �, 1 tea t CI I) f iRI ( C)I I I,�� P 1 I1OY ;Ffl FCIR i C'OLLINS COLOR 1)0 tt0522 a�a�aa��e:sanases�mse�r�c OH ICE OF 1 HE CITY MANAGER M E M O R A N D U M DATE: September 9, 1983 TO: Roger Krempel, Director of Public Works & 1;4ater Utilities John Nuisjen, City Attorney Curt Smith, Director of Planning and Development Hauri Rupel,Director Development Center Mike Smith, Director of ations - Water FROM: John E. Arnold, City Mana RE: Myatt Letter on Dan Jensen Attached is a copy of a letter from Ramsey D. Myatt concerning Dan Jensen's development along Dixon Creek. This letter details a problem in how we're dealing with the developer, outlines a request for a judgment as to fair treatment, and suggests that the City Council get involved in making the decision. As a consequece, I need some significant staff work prepared for my review and perhaps for the review of the City Council. This staff work needs to include the detailed communications between Mr. Jensen and his agents and the City staff and amongst City staff. Cover memos ex- plaining the differences in the points of view of staff and developer need to be included. The materials need to be prepared no later than September 19 for a review meeting on September 20. If the issue truly cannot be resolved adminis- tratively and, as Mr. Myatt is suggesting for Mr. Jensen, those materials would then be forwarded on to the City Council for a work session review on September 27. Please coordinate with Jim Meitl for preparation of a report for Council work session. JEA:dr Attachment ARTHIU'R E. MARCH, JR. RAMSE' D h'IATT MARK L. KO Rt' JOSEPH T. i..r.ROLL,JR. ROBERT 11 i. =AN L:E S.JR. RICHARD 5 -_AST LUCIA A. LILEY HAND DELIVEREL MARCH. MYATT, KORB, CARROLL & BRANDES ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW ROBERTSON BUILDING IIO EAST OAK STREET FORT COLLINS. COLORADO 80524 303 432-4322 August 29, 1983 Mr. E. John Arnold City Manager City of Fort Collins Post Office Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Dear Mr. Arnold: ARTHUR E- MARCH 909-19BI MAILING ADDRESS P O. BOX 469 FORT CCLLINS, CO 80522 rA �e3 0 19 r1 J3 CITY MANAGER Our office represents Dan Jensen, a Fort Collins developer. I have enclosed letters to the Mavor and to the individual Council Members and herewith provide a copy to you. This letter is self- explanatory and I will therefore not repeat the content in this letter. Mr. Jensen has exhausted the possibilities of resolving this dispute through administrative channels. We continue to be- lieve that :sir. Jensen's position has merit, and therefore request that you allow us the opportunity to present it to Council for their ultimate determination. I would appreciate it if you would advise me of the time and date when we may expect to be heard. Thank you for your con- sideration of this request. Very truly yours, MARCH, MYATT, KORB, CARROLL & BRANDES By: _ Ramsey D. M ett RDM : t.nw cc: Mr. Dan Jensen Enclosures MARCH. MYATT, KORB, CARROLL & BRANDES ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW ROBERTSON BUILDING 110 EAST OAK STREET ARTHUR E MARCH,JR. FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 RAMSEY DMYAT7 MARK L. KORB 303482-4322 JOSEPH T. CARROLL,JR. ROBERT W- E RANDES, JR. RICHARD 5- GAST LUCIA A. LILEY August 29, 1983 HAND DELIVERED The Honorable John B. Knezovich Mayor of the City of Fort Collins Councilwoman Barbara Rutstein Councilman Ed Stoner Councilman Kelly Ohlson Councilman William Elliot Councilman John Clarke Councilman Gerry Horak Post Office Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Dear Mayor Knezovich and Council Members: ARTHUR E. MARCH 1909-19B1 MAILING ADDRESS P. O. BOX 469 FORT COLLINS, CO BOS22 Our office represents Dan Jensen, a local developer involved with Dixon Creek Planned Unit Development. This letter concerns I is attempt to arrive at an agreement with the City for the installation of sanitary sewer services to the project. The pro- ject has become known as The Dixon Creek Trunk Sewer. The Dixon Creek Planned Unit Development consists of 58.71 acres located on the south side of Drake Road at Overland Trail. Jensen has proposed to develop a combination of patio homes, single family homes, condominiums and townhomes for a total of 407 homes. The gross density is projected to be 6.9 units per acre. Jensen began engineering studies for the sewer service in February, 1980. Preliminary designs and probable construction costs were developed, and in January, 1981, Jensen, his attorney and professional engineer began meeting with the City staff for the purpose of: establishing guidelines for a development agreement and a utility agreement for the installation of the sewer service. Mr. John B. Knezovich, Mayor August 29, 198:3 Page 2 These agreements were prepared under the guidance of the City staff. The agreements were submitted to the City staff for review in the late spring of 1981. The general terms proposed in the sewer agreement outlined a total cost of $260,000.00. The City was to acquire and pay for all utility easements as a cost of the project. The City was to bear all costs of the bore required under Taft Hill Road, the cost of extending the service through Georgetown (an existing subdivision receiving no benefits) and pay all oversizing. These are costs normally borne by the City. Jensen was to pay 25% of the costs of installing an eight inch sewer main, but: in no event less than $40,000.00. The City was to pay the balance of the construction costs with standard pay -back agreements for the benefit of both Jensen and the City. It is important to note that these terms were suggested by City staff. Negotiations with the City were commenced at such time in order to allow for an adequate time to meet all conditions for utility services being resolved prior to the Planning Commission's review. The final plat of the Dixon Creek Planned Unit Develop- ment was approved by the City's Planning & Zoning Commission on February 22, 1982. After submission of the proposed agreement to the City, there was a considerable delay after which we received suggestions from staff for modifications to the agreement. Thus began a cycle which, unfortunately, has repeated itself continually since early 1981. Each time a revised agreement was proposed to the City, it was in accordance with suggestions from staff. On more than one occasion we received a revised agreement which had been prepared by staff. There proposals were usually executed as presented and returned to staff for obtaining the requisit signatures on behalf of the City. During the course of negotiations, a lift station was con- sidered, costed out, proposed, discussed and ultimately rejected. Such a system was acceptable from the standpoint of construction costs, operation and maintenance; however, it was determined by Mr. jonn B. Knezovicn, elayor August 29, 1983 Page 3 staff that the existing system in the drown Farm area would be overloaded by the proposal. There h-ave been no contentions concerning some of the points, such as Jensen's responsibility to bear some of the installation costs. The City has also agreed to be responsible for some of the costs, sucn as the oversizing, the Taft Hill bore and the exten- sion through Georgetown. It is the balance of the construction c,-;ts of approximately $60,000.00 which remains unresolved. As mentioned above, Jensen's contribution was initially sug- gested to be $40,000.00 or approximately 15% of the estimated con- struction cost. During discussions with the staff in the spring of 1982, during the time a lift station was being discussed, it was suggested by staff that if Jensen increased his contribution to the a,nount estimated for installation of a temporary lift sta- tion, tnen the City would consider his proposal. The estimated cost of the lift station was $85,000,00. Therefore, a proposal was draftea and presented to the City whereby Jensen would contri- bute the sum of s85,000.00. Since the overall estimated cost of the project ha6 decreased to $221,000.00, Jensen's contribution, percentage -wise, rose from 15% to 39%. Jensen pressed for an im- mediate decision in order to take advantage of the lower construc- tion costs whicn nad peen brought about by the depressed economy. The proposal was presented to and widely discussed among City staff. While Jensen pressed for an answer, the months continued to roll by. Each inquiry by Jensen brought a different excuse for the continuing delays. There is no doubt that some of the excuses were legitimate. For example, a shortage of staff was a prime reason given for the continuing delays. The proposal was reviewed by the City Attorneys, Planning & Development, utility engineers and ultimately it was decided that it was a policy decision to be nr. Jonn B. Knezovich, mayor August 29, 1983 Page 4 referred to Council. A response finally came, not from Council but from Mr. Roger E. Krempel on January 28, 1983. The response was that the City administration had considered and could not recommend to City Council Jensen's request. Mr. Krempel pointed out that the City would not participate beyond the norinal partici- pation set forth in Section 112-74 E(5) which involves oversizing and Section 112-74 E(6) which covers pay -back. Following Mr. Krempel's letter of January 28, 1983, negotiations were renewed resulting in a series of proposed addendums or amendments to the Development Agreement which had been finalized on February 24, 1982. Each time such a proposal was received by Jensen, the terms and conditions became more onerous to him. The last such proposal required Jensen to acquire and pay for all easements for instal- lation and maintenance of the sewer main. The City proposed no assistance beyond oversizing, the Georgetown PUD extension, the Taft Hill Road bore and standard pay -back provisions. During the protracted period of negotiations, Jensen has in- curred holding costs for Dixon Creek PUD in excess of $400,000.00. Hindsiyht clearly tells us that he would have been wise to have simply installed the sewer system at his own expense. The problem is and has, until recently, been that Jensen has simply prepared proposals along_ the outlined suggested by staff and accepted pro- posals drafted by staff. Tnere had been no clear disagreement un- til receipt of Mr. Krempel's letter of January 28, 1983, but mere- ly a need to continually modify the proposal in order to accom,-no- date staff's requirements. The issues seem to revolve around two questions. First, would the City, as a whole, benefit from the installation o:E the Dixon Creek Trunk Sewer, and secondly, has the City dealt fairly with Jensen? The answer to the first question can be answered with a re- sounding yes, but are the benefits to the City as a whole substan- tial enough to suggest that the City should assist in the instal- lation costs? :when this determination has been made in the past, Mr. John B. Knezovich, Mayor August 29, 1983 Page 5 as on the Warren Lake Trunk Line, the City has not hesitated to participate. Some of the benefits which would flow to the City as a whole are outlined.as follows: A. LOCATION. The City requires that new development occur contiguous to existing developed areas. Most developers are attracted to the fringes of the City for various reasons. Accordingly, development continues at a rapid pace to the south and southeast of Fort Collins. Jensen has been one of the few developers to concentrate on closer in areas and, in particular, in the southwest portion of the City. Some of the developments in which he has participated include Cedarwood (just north of West Propsect between Taft Hill and Uverland Trail), Cedar Village, Silver Plume Estates, Silver Plume Condominiums and The Gables at Silver Plume, all of which lie south of Drake Road between Taft Hill Road and Shields. Dixon Creek PUD, like the other subdivisions with which Mr. Jensen has been associated, are obvious "fill in" subdivisions which promote development closer to the City's utilities and existing develop- ment. Dixon Creek lies just to the west of the new Drake Crossing Shopping Center- at Drake Road and Taft Hill Road. We believe the opening of this shopping center will generate further development in the area increasing the need for the proposed Dixon Creek Trunk Sewer. B. ENCOURAGE DESIRABLE GROWTH. The Dixon Creek Trunk Sewer would allow sewer service to be available to all properties within the Urban Growth Area between Drake and Horsetooth Roads. C. ECONOMICS. i. The cost/benefit of a sewer line is directly related to population and density. Dixon Creek PUD is proposed at a den- sity of 06.9 units per acre. ii. If development occurs along Drake Road or Dixon Creek without the trunk line, costly lift stations and force mains will be required. The Dixon Creek Trunk Line will be extended, of Another basic planning objective for Dixon Creek includes capitalizing on the natural characteristics of the site. The land conntours, the natural creek, the significant stand of cottonwood, russian olive and willows trees, and existing natural drainage ways have been considered. The landscape program for Dixon Creek will attempt to orchestrate dual objectives. First, plant material location must be sensitive to solar access planning. Species selection, especially of larger size trees will consider ultimate height, canopy, leaf season and density of branches. Landscape controls will be proposed, especially for the patio home area. The second landscape objective is to promote and enhance "natural plant materials" as well as draught tolerant species. Given Dixon Creek's f location adjacent to the foothills, which are to remain in a natural state, the project is being planned in harmony with this area. Finally, as with other past and current projects i.e. Silverplume, d. Jensen Enterprises is concerned with the architectural character of Dixon Creek. The goal is to create housing products which are not unconventional in apperance as a result of solar application. It is anticipated that Dixon Creek will undertake initial construction during 1981 and will continue through 1985. mr. John B. Knezovich, Mayor August 29, 1983 Page 6 a certainty, when further development occurs. When it is in- stalled, the high maintenance temporary systems will be abandoned creating an obvious and needless duplication of expenses. D. IMPROVE EXISTING CONDITIONS IN DIXON CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN. Several :peptic systems along Dixon Creek have repeatedly failed in the past few years. Failure of such systems can and has led to sewage flowing directly into Dixon Creek. Installation of Dixon Creek Trunk Line would allow those homes the opportunity to immediately connect to sewer and eliminate the existing problems. Has the City been fair in its dealings with Jensen? The answer is obvious --no. If the City had just advised Jensen of its final position initially, he could have responded appropriately. However, Jensen has simply been reacting to the City's changing criteria for over two years. A conflict between Jensen and the City appeared to be the last possibility. Basically, Jensen has been agreeing with the City for over two years, until he was ulti- mately told that his proposals, developed either by staff or through staff guidance, was unacceptable. Jensen now requests that Council take a close look -at the many benefits which the City, as a whole would receive as a conse- quence of the extension of Dixon Creek Trunk Line. Council should also snake its own determination as to whether or not Jensen has been dealt with fairly. We believe a view of these matters will lead to the conclusion that the Dixon Creek Trunk Line should be installed with Jensen contributing $85,000.00, the City providing the oalance of the financial requirements to install the trunk, subject to a normal pay -back. We would like to receive a deter- mination of this ;natter as quickly as possible. Respectfully submitted, MARCH, MYATT, KORB, CARROLL & BRANDES By: amsey D. q att RDA: cat January 9, 1984 City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Board Members; O O urban design 419 canyon avenue, suite 300 fort collins, colorado 80521 (303) 221-0731 As a part of the staff review of the proposed amendment of the Dixon Creek PUD, we have learned that a technical variance to Criteria "d" on the Density Chart in the Land Development Guidance System must be requested. Criteria "d" deals with the density credit given a site because of its proximity to a reserved neighborhood park, community park, or community facility. When the presently approved plans for Dixon Creek were being reviewed (prior to the LDGS), the Pineridge Golf Course property was designated as a golf course, therefore qualifying as a community facility. Conversations with the Parks Department have indicated that a site off the southeast corner of Dixon Creek will likely be designated as a neighborhood park when more of section 28 is annexed. The designated Spring Creek Trail / Open Space system runs between the site and the potential neighborhood park, and a portion of the (Parks Department requested) connection between the Spring Creek Trail and the Foothills Trail is a part of the Dixon Creek site plan. All these open space areas are within 3500 feet of all the dwelling units proposed with this plan (see attached map). At this time however the City Staff does not feel that the Dixon Creek site technically meets the requirements of density criteria "d" for the following reasons: - Development of the Pineridge property as a golf course has been delayed and may never happen due to the private development of a public golf course in southeast Fort Collins, and the expense to the City of developing the Pineridge site. - The neighborhood park site, while extremely probable, has not been officially designated on the City's Park Master Plan. - There is some doubt as to whether or not the Spring Creek Trail can be called a "community facility". O O - The system should recognize that certain policies and criteria are of more or less importance than others .. - Both the public and the development industry can benefit from a more predictable and flexible regulatory process. The amended plan, like the presently approved plan, for Dixon Creek would provide a unique neighborhood environment for Fort Collins. Great pains have been taken to be respectful of the existing land forms, significant existing trees, planned provision of indigenous and draught tolerant plant materials, and our local heritage. This project also represents a step toward balancing the. predominate trend of development, especially larger, well planned developments, occuring in the southeast quadrant of Fort Collins; while the literal interpretation of criteria "d", in this case, encourages growth in the southeast over this location. d. Jensen Enterprises has consistantly built high quality living environments in southwest Fort Collins, and has worked in good faith toward creation of another exceptional project at Dixon Creek. To be unable to achieve a reasonable density after the commitment: and substantial costs incurred because of a technical interpretation of changing open space categories would be not only a severe hardship on the developer, but a most unfortunate loss for the community as a whole. It is requested that this variance be granted in compliance with the variance criteria defined in the LDGS, as strict application of the criteria as interpreted by staff would result in exceptional. difficulties and an undue hardship upon the property owner, and the variance may clearly be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the purpose of the Land Development Guidance System. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Eldon Ward cc Dan Jensen MARCH, MYATT, KORB, CARROLL & BRANDES ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW ROBERTSON BUILDING 110 EAST OAK STREET ARTHUR E. MARCH ARTHUR E. MARCH, JR. FORT COLLINS, COLORADO BOS24 1909-1961 RAMSEY D. MYATT MARK L. KORB (303) 482-4322 MAILING ADDRESS JOSEPH T. CARROLL, JR. ROBERT W. BRANDES, JR. 20, 1984 P.O. BOX 469 RICHARD S. GAST January FORT COLLINS, CO 80522 LUCIA A. LILEY J.BRADFORD MARCH Mr. W. Paul Eckman, Esq. Assistant City Attorney City of Fort Collins 300 West LaPorte Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 RE: Development Agreement City - CJ Associates Dear Paul: I have reviewed the latest draft of the Development Agreement which was prepared by the City Attorney's Office for C-J Associates. It is my understanding from talking with my clients and their, engineer, Mr. Lloyd G. McLaughlin, that the City will require C-J to overlay Drake Road from Dixon Creek, P.U.D. to Taft Hill Road. There is a provision under Paragraph 2.1D. by which the City agrees to repay the developer for oversizing Drake Road; however, since this work may not be accomplished for quite some time, I feel it is important to have more specific language. We would suggest language that specifically states the City will repay the developer in full for all offsite street improvements. With this one minor clarification, I believe the Development Agreement will be acceptable. Very truly yours, MARCH, MYATT, KORB, CARROLL & BRANDES By: e 1Q. Ramsey D. att RDM : rd n cc: Mr. Dan R. Jensen C-J Associates, Joint Venture P.O. Box IL007 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 1 A N 2 0 1994 CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION October 24, 1985 Dan R. Jensen, President Jensen Homes P.O. Box 1007 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 RE: DIXON CREEK PUD AMENDMENT (CASE #144-80B) - SIX MONTH EXTENSION Dear Mr. Jensen: Staff has further reviewed the above referenced matter and will allow a six month extension (to July 23, 1986) with the condition that an, amended development agreement be signe w Bch would require the revisions stated in my letter to your dated September 27, 1985 to be made prior to construction of the project. Bonnie Tripoli will be working with the City Attorney's office to develop the amended agreement and will contact you when it is available for your review and signature. If I may be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, CrI J(7�Y y Steve Ryder City Planner CC: Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator r-�r�rrI �nhnc ni-r ni A K I ni i K I C nl\/I Cln ni M&I consulting engineers 4710 South College Ave. Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 Telephone (303) 226-2323 d. Jensen M & I No. 1385-002 January 30, 1981 Bob Smith Engineering Dept. City of Ft. Collins P.O. Box 5080 Ft. Collins, CO 80522 RE: Dixon Creek Preliminary Storm Drainage Dear Bob: We have reviewed the Spring Creek Major Drainageway Plan by Gingery Associates Inc. dated August 1980. From the findings of this report it appears that Dixon Reservoir Area contributes only minimal flows to the offsite basins of the Dixon Creek P.U.D. in the event of the 100 yr, storm. Based on this conclusion the findings of the Prelim- inary Storm Drainage Study completed by M & I, Inc. in January 1981, still are valid. Very truly yours, M & I, INC. Stan A. Myers SAM/scb ZVFK architects/planners t�c�-yZ Cam! a professional corporation 218 west mountain avenue fort collins, co 80521 usa telephone 303 493-4105 February 2, 1981 22 Dave Griffith Western Area Power Administration P.O. Box 2650 Fort Collisn, Colorado 80522 Dear Dave: As per my discussion with Dave Gaul of your office last week, I am writing concerning a project we are planning at the southeast corner of Drake Road and Overland Trail. The City of Fort Collins and Larimer County are interested in extending Overland Trail South of Drake Road. The proposed 120' right-of-way as proposed on our plan would continue to be centered on the section line adjacent to our planned development. The relationship between your exist- ing oowerline, 75' easement, and Overland Trail extended is detailed on the attached cross section. We would appreciate your comments. Sincerely, C Eldon Ward cc: Dan Jensen Lloyd McLaughlin - M & I Sherry Clark - City Planning Mauri Rupel - City Engineering EW/ed � � N W CO V 0 .- W c Z Q E- C17- � Q Q F_ w W 0 CC W CD (j) (n O U W -� a F- v in Al ix ix ui __ C o z z cc v Q Oo� a 0Vd F- y Z W W J � _U 3J f� 0081 Tt-O as N U_ 00 2v � T t T C4 T T d i ifl Ll —tam 10 ZVFK arch itectslplanners a professional corporation 218 west mountain avenue fort collins, cc. 80521 usa telephone 303 493-4105 March 12, 1981 Josh Richardson City of Fort Collins Engineering Division P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Dear Josh: As you know, we are asking for several variances to the proposed new engineering standards and guidelines. I am enclosing drawings showing our preliminary streets and center line designs. At this time we do not anticipate our final plans to have more than slight deviation from the preliminary. As I understand the new standards the variances we need deal with are the following streets: 1. Dixon Creek Road from the crossing of Dixon Creek to Drake Road has a design speed of 33.5 mph (360 center line radii and a 120' tanaent between curves. This variance is requested to accomodate the City's request that this street align with the collector across Drake, to allow the street to cross Dixon Creek at a critical point, and to create a developable tract between the streets. 2. Zendt Court, Domire Court, Seccomb Court, Clemma Court, and Skim- merhorn Court are proposed as 28' streets on 40' Rights -of --Way with walks on only one side of the street. Although Brumbaugh is not a cull -de -sac, it serves no more lots than many of the above listed cul's. 3. The center to center offset of Brumbaugh and Pasquinel is 180'. This is done to help assure solar access to lots 55-63. If you need further information, or if it is desirable for me to present these requests to the variance committee, please contact me. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Eldon Ward cc: Dan Jensen Lloyd McLaughlin 484-4220 Ext. 723 ENGINEERING SERVICES March 25, 1981 ZVFK Architects/Planners 218 West Mountain AVenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Dear Eldon: We have reviewed your request for variances to our Engineering standards and guidelines. We feel that a design speed of 33.5 mph and reducing the tangent distance to 120 feet on Dixon Creek Road is reasonable due to the existing location of Yorkshire Street to the north and the configuration of Dixon Creek. We find that Zendt Court, DLunire Court, Secccumb Court, Clemma Court and Skinrv-rhorn Court meet our criteria for 28' street. We feel that the sidewalks on one side of the 28' streets is reasonable but state that the sidewalk is required to be on the same side as on -street perking. We would require that this sidewalk be installed adjacent to the recreational area on Secccmb Court. The sidewalk deletion is approved from the Public Works Department only and may be overruled by other City departments. The last request was to reduce the centerline to centerline distance between Brumbaugh Drive and P-isquinel Drive due to solar access. We feel that a developer should take into account the City standards when designing a new project. If you need further information please contact me at extension 735. Sinc ly osh Richardson Engineering Servies 0 cc: Bob Lee -Rick Ensdorff Sherry Albertson -Clark Mauri Repel Roy Bingman