HomeMy WebLinkAboutHEARTHFIRE PUD SECOND - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2003-11-06L
co
July 25, 1997
Brian Shear
Shear Engineering Corporation
4836 S. College, Suite 12
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Re: Hearthfire P.U.D., 2nd Filing, plan review
Dear Brian:
This letter is in response to the District's review of utility plans for the Hearthfire P.U.D., 2nd Filing.
I have reviewed the sanitary sewer portion of the design drawings and have found that you have again
developed a soundly designed sewer collection system. The only problem that I have found lies in the
indication on the drawings that several sewer service lines will be connected directly into collector
system manholes. The District does not permit the connection of service lines directly to manholes.
Service lines must be connected to the sewer collector lines at locations outside of manholes.
In the cases where regular service line connections via tap saddles on collector lines are not practical
downstream from the manholes, I would suggest that you consider extending short collector lines
upstream from the manholes to accommodate regular tap saddle connections. Such short extensions
might be approximately ten feet in length and closed at the upstream ends with plugs. In any event,
provided this minor problem with connections in manholes is resolved, 1 will sign approval for the
District's Engineering review.
qs tiol:nv� ",a nave t�icru.G$erl nrovin�.�.z1v in rpoard to the 1 st Filina. the District can not grant final
approval for construction until a contract is in effect between the District and the Project Owner.
Please do not hesitate to call me at 407-8161 if there is anything I can do to help expedite the project.
Sincerely, ///
Michael T. Carr
District Engineer
P.O. Box 1518 - 2217 Airvray Ave. 03 • Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
Phone (970) 498-0604 • Fax (970) 498-0701
wp...&' 20I92!11
Transportation Services
Engineering Department
City of Fort Collins
December 5, 2000
Mr. Mark Oberschmidt
Shear Engineering Corporation
4836 S. college, Suite 12
Fort Collins, Co 80525
RE: Hearthfire PUD, Second Filing
Dear Mark,
This letter is in response to the variance request dated August 1, 2000 for a variance to the
minimum horizontal curve requirements in Table 2 for Batleur Lane.
The variance request is granted. A 225 foot curve can be used. Batleur Lane at Country
Road 13 shall be a, stop condition, therefore the vehicles approaching this intersection and
the curve shall be slowing down and the curve radii does not impact the sight distance of
the driver approaching the intersection. No sight distance easements are needed to
accommodate the sight distance requirements approaching, entering or exiting this curve.
The use of the reduced radius curve also allows the Batleur Lane and County Road 13
intersection to be located further north along County Road 13 than an intersection that
would exist with the minimum radius requirement being met. The intersection as located
meets corner sight distance and stopping sight distance requirements for the speed of the
road.
This variance request does not set a precedence or change the application of our design
standards in otheir situations. if you have any questions, please contact Sheri Wamhoff at
221-6750.
Sincerely,
Sheri Wamhoff, PE
cc: Steve Olt
file
281 Noah ('011Cgc Avonue • P0. Bov 580 • Port Collin,,, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6605 • PAX (970) 221-6378
www_ci.fort-colhris.co.us
MARCH & LILEY, P.0
ARTHUR E. MARCH, JR. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
LUCIA A LILEY 110 E. OAK STREET ARTHUR E MARCH
J. BRADFORD MARCH FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 28B0
908-1981
(W 01 482-4322
Fax (970) 482-5719
December 15, 2000
Paul Eckman
Deputy City Attorney
300 LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Sheri Wamhoff
City Engineering
281 N. College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Re: Hearthfire P.U.D., 2" Filing, Final, 431-95E
Dear Paul and Sheri:
In response to the latest resubmittal of the Hearthfire P.U.D., 2"d Filing, Final plan, the
Gnginecring Department made the following comment, which Hearthfire, Inc. asked us to
investigate:
The applicant and developer must address the piece of "old" road right-of-way
(ROW) going south from the road bend at Inverness Street and County Road 13.
['his ROW does affect the IIcarthfire PUD Second Filing property. Has the ROW
been vacated?
Sheri, you explained to me on voice mail that the City's GIS maps showed right-of-way in
this location and that you confirmed with a County Right -of -Way Agent that the right-of-way had
hcen dedicated by a Road Viewer's Report tiled at Rook R, Page 188 in the Clerk and Recorder's
office, and had never been vacated.
Our research of the "old" right-of-way indicates that the dedication of this section of right-of-
way is ineffective against Hearthfire, Inc. Therefore, it does not affect the Second Filing property nor
does it require vacation. We learned from both Jerry White and Charlie Johnson, Right -of -Way
Agents for Larimcr County, that Road Viewer's Reports are not indexed in the Clerk and Recorder's
grantor/grantee records. This was further confirmed by a review of the title insurance policy
covering 1 learthf ire's purchase of the property. Because the dedication was not properly recorded
and because o f the absence o f actual physical evidence of a road, there was no notice of the existence
of the right-of-way to Hearthfire, Inc., a good -faith subsequent purchaser. We believe these facts
lit squarely within the ruling of the Colorado Supreme Court in City of Lakewood v. Mavromatis,
817 P.2d 90 (Colo. 1991).
Paul Eckman and Sheri Wamhoff
December 15, 2000
Page 2
We are enclosing a copy of Hearthfire Inc.'s title insurance policy and a copy of the Supreme
Court case. Please review these documents and call me to discuss your opinion on this matter. If
you concur, we believe that the Engineering comment to the Second Piling plan should be removed.
Sincerely,
MARCH & LILEY, P.C.
By: l
'Lucia A. LileY i
LAL/jpk
Enclosures
PC: William Yunker, Hearthfire, Inc.
Tom Kennedy, Hearthfire, Inc.
Tom Dugan., PineCrest Planning & Design, L.L.C.
.Terry White, Larimer County Engineering
DEC-13-00 14:53 From:TITLE PLANT FT COLL 9T02265697 T-263 P 02 Job-090
TRANBNATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE
SCHEDULE A
AMount of In9urance: $ 1,5O9,715.64
Date of Policy= OCTOBER 22, 1997 at 7:00 A.M.
1. Name of Insured:
HEARTHFIRE. INC. a Colorado Corporation
Policy No.: 6433874
2_ The estate or interest in the land described herein and which is
covered by this Policy is: FEE SIMPLE
3. The estate or interest referred to herein is at Date of Policy vested
in:
HEARTHFIRE, INC. a Colorado Corporation
4. The land refeirred to in this Policy is described as follows:
I;SEE ATTACHED PAGE FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION)
DEC-13-00 14:54 Fran:TITLE PLANT FT COLL 9702265697 T-263 P 03 Job-090
TRANSNATION TITLE IN9I77ANCY COMPANY
policy No.: 6433874
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PARCEL I:
Colorado, being more
A tract : land located in the NW1/4 of Section 30, Township 8 worth,
Range 68 West of the 6th P. M•, Larimer County,
particularly described as follows:as
Considering otheaCIO
Nth line ot4of a
rth go
minutes00secondsEastand withion all3bearingsr ng
contained herein relative thereto:
Commencing at time NW corner of said Section 30, which is trie Tiet to Point of
Beginning, gg 00 on the North
sio dnfraetract pescribed szncwarranty Deed Orecorded tinaBookWesnt
513 at Page 569 of Larimer County Records;
thence along said West line, South 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East,
no
400-00 feet;
thence, along the South line of said Dead, North 90 degrees o0 minutes
econds East, 400.00 feet;
aid Deed, North 00 degrees 00 minutes
00
n 30i
seconds
a ass East, said 00 feeline,allo�tht90ndegreesr00 minutes 001secondso
thence, along the East line of sthe Noth line East,
ong
to
thence
398-41 feet; thence, leaving said North line, South 24 degrees 09 minutes 00 seconds
East, 452.03 feet;
thence, south 61 degrees 24 minutes 00 seconds East, 500.00 feet;
thence, South 37 degrees 37 minutes 00 seconds East, 500.00 feet;
-00 feet'
thence, South 13 degrees 16 minutes 00 seconds West, thence, South 70 degrees 44 minutes 00 seconds west, 200.00 feet;
520.00 feet
thence, North 71 degrees 36 minutes 00 seconds West 520.00 feet;
thence, North 60 degrees 11 minutes 00 seconds West, 300.60 feet;
thence, North 01 degrees 37 minutes 00 seconds West, 140.00 feet;
thence, North 55 degrees 51 minutes 80 seconds West, 1,140.00
o7
thence, along the West line of said Section 30, North 00 deg
minutes 3o seconds West, 140.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning,
EXCEPTING THEREFPOM the following -described parcel:
Commencing at the Nw corner of said Section 30, 450-0o feet to a point
thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 0o seconds East,
on the West aide of a tract described in Warranty Deed recorded in Book
513 at Page 569 of Larimer County Records;
thence along said West line, South 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East,
400.00 feet;
thence, along the South line of said Deed, North 90 degrees 00 minutes
00
seconds East, 400.00 feet; no minutes 00
thence, along the East line of ointpondtheoNorthOlinerofs
psaid Section 30,
seconds East, 4C10.00 feet to a
Page 2
DEC-1 3-00 14:54 Frum:TITLE PLANT FT COLL ST02265697 T-263 P 04/11 Job-090
TpjWSMTION TITLE INBUPWCE COMPANY
Policy No.: 6433874
SCS.RDULR A - continued
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
said point being the True Point of Beginning,
thence along said North line, North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East,
90.00 feat;
thence, leaving said North line, South 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds
Went, 600.00 feet;
thence, South 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West, 180.00 feet;
thence, North 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East, 200.00 feet;
es 00 seconds East,
thence, North 00 dego.00 feet;
thence North 90 grees 00 minutes 00 seconds East, 400.00 feet,
County of Larimer, State of Colorado.
together with the following described parcel:
South line of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 30,
68 West of the Sixth P. M., Larimer County,
of the Southeast corner thereof, and run thence
Begin at a point on the
Township 8 North, Range
Colorado, 290 feet West
West 1,130 feet;
thence North 37 degrees
thence North 27 degrees
thence South 76 degrees
thence South 58 d-egrees
thence South 18 degrees
thence South 40 degrees
thence South 15 degrees
Beginning.
48 minutes West 1,140 feet;
55 minutea East 530 feet;
44 minutes East 810 feet;
59 minutes East 570 feet;
27 minutes East 500 feet;
49 minutes East 300 feet;
01 minutes West 200 feet
County of Larimer, State of Colorado.
PARCEL II:
to the Point of
A tract of land situated in the
CWest
t 1/2 of section
imer30,ate of Colorado, 8North,
Range 68 West of the 6th P.M.,
begins at the South 1/4 corner of said Section 30 and run thence West
246.90 feet along the South line of the said West 1/2 to a point on the
Northeasterly line of County Road No. 52;
thence along said Northeasterly line, North 53 degrees 15 minutes 06
seconds West 949.33 feet topoint on the
70 dboundary
181minutesREastrds 508L oe,
thence along said boundary line,
feet and again North 69 degrees 05 minutes East 205.83 feet and again
North 41 degrees 24 minutes East 300.00 feet and again North 06 degrees 38
minutes west 300 fast and again North 45 degrees 30 minutes West 1000.00
feet and again North 46 degrees 05 minutes West 900.00 feet and again
North 29 degrees 32 minutes West 382.00 feet to a point on the North line
of the SW1/4 of said Section 30;
North 38 degrees 10 minutes
thence continuing along said boundary line,
West 163.31 feet and again North 59 degrees 28 minutes went 246.80 feet
page 3
DEC-1 3-00 14:54 From:TITLE PLANT FT COLL
9702265697 T-263 P.05/11 Job-090
TRANSNATION TITi.33 IN917RANCR COMPANY
Policy No.; 6433874
8CREDUL9 A - continued
LzGAL ASCRIPTION
and again North 29 degrees 09 minutae West 180.90 feet and again North 61
degrees 16 minutes Weat 402.35 feet to a point on the West line of the
NW1/4 of said Section 30;
thence along the West line North 00 degrees 10 minutes West 1887.30 feet
more or less to a Point which bears South 140.00 feet from the Northwest
corner of said Section 30;
thence along the Southerly line of the tract of land described in Book 392
at page 99 of the Larimer County records, South 55 degrees 51 minutes East
1140.00 feet and again South of degrees 37 minutes East 303.60 feet and
again South 60 degrees 11 minutes East 520.00 feet and again South 71
degrees 36 minutes East 520.00 feet and again North 70 degrees 44 minutes
East 200.00 feet and again North 13 degrees 16 minutes East 200.00 feet to
a point on the Southerly line of Cherrywood Acres;
thence along said Southerly line, South 28 degrees 30 minutes East 300.00
2
feet and again North 56 degrees 1minutes East 252,00 feet to a point or.
the East line of the said West 1/2;
thence South 00 degrees 01 minutes West 3914.20 feet along the said East
line to the Point of Beginning,
EXCEPT that portion platted as Parcel "A" of Richards Lake Subdivision,
ALSO 2XCRPT j
Beginning at a point which bears West 290.00 feet from the Center 1/4
corner of said Section 30 and run thence West 1130.00 feet;
thence North 37 degrees 48 minutes West 1140.00 feet;
thence North 27 degrees 55 minutes East 530.00 feet;
thence South 76 degrees 44 minutes East 810.00 feet;
thence South 58 degrees 59 minutes East 570.00 feet;
thence South 18 degrees 27 minutes East 500.00 feet;
thence South 40 degrees 49 minutes East 300.00 feet;
thence South 15 degrees 03 minutes 45 seconds West 194.86 feet to the
Point of Beginning,
ALSO EXCEPT;
A tract of land located in the NW1/4 of Section 30, Township 0 North,
Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., of Larimer County, Colorado, being more
particularly described as follows:
Considering the East line of the NW1/4 0£ the said Section 30 as bearing
South 00 degrees 00 minutes East and with all bearings contained herein
and relative thereto:
Tract "A" Commencing at the North 1/4 corner of the said Section 30;
thence, along the said East line, and the East line of Cherrywood Acres, a
Subdivision recorded with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder, South 00
degrees 00 minutes East 1366.0 feet to the Southeast corner of Tract 6 of
the said Subdivision and the True Point of Beginning of this tract of
land.
Page 4
)EC-1 3-00 14:55 Fron:TITLE PLANT FT COLL 9702265697 T-263 P 06/11 Jab-090
TRRNSNATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
Policy No.: 6433874
20MULE a - continued
LEGAL DBOCRIPTION
thence, continuing along the property line of the said Subdivision South
56 degrees 12 minutes West 252.0 feet;
thence, leaving the said Subdivision, South 34 degrees 12 minutes West
80.0 feet;
thence South 35 degrees 00 minutes East 155.0 feet;
thence North 69 degrees 41 minutes East 176.3 feet to a point on the
aforesaid East line;
thence, along the said line, North 00 degrees 00 minutes West 272.6 feet
to the True Point of Beginning.
ALSO EXCEPT;
A tract of land located in the NW1/4 of Section 30, Twnshipb8 North,
o more
Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., of Larimer County, g
particularly described as follows:
Considering the East line of the NW1/4 of the Said Section 3o as Deariiay
south 00 degrees 00 minutes East, and with all bearings contained herein
and relative thereto:
Tract ,Ell, a tract: of land which commences at a point on the Fast line of
the NW1/4 of the said Section 30, said point being 1638.6 feet South of
the North 1/4 corner;
thence, continuing along the said East line, South 00 degrees 00 minutes
East 1006.8 feet to the Center 1/4 corner of the said Section 30;
thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes East 15 feet;
thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes West 15 feet;
thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes West 15 feet to a point on the South
line of the NW1/4 of the said Section 30;
thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes West 1001.3 feet to a point which bears
South
of
6rh69degrees
degrees
minutes
51 minutes6Eastfeet
16from
feetthe
to he TRUEtPOINTeOF�ing,
thence Not
BEGINNING.
County of Larimer,, State of Colorado
ALSO EXCEPT;
A tract of land situate in the South 1/2 of section 30, Township a North,
Range 68 West, of the Sixth P.M. City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer,
State of Colorado, which, considering the South line of the Southeast 1/4
of said Section 30 as bearing South 89 degrees 56 minutes 43 seconds West,
and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto, begins at the
South 1/4 corner of said Section 30 and runs thence West 246.90 feet;
thence North 53 degrees 15 minutes 06 seconds West 112.02 feet;
thence North 403.07 feet to the boundary of Richards Lake;
thence along said boundary of Richards Lake North 41 degrees 24 minutes
East 300.00 feet, and again North 06 degrees 38 minutes West 300.00 feet,
and again North 45 degrees 30 minutes West 1000.00 feet;
thence North 21 degrees 00 minutes East 258.85 feet;
thence along the are of a non -tangent 480.00 foot radius curve to the left
a distance of 751.61 feet, the long chord of which bears North 53 degrees
Page 5
DEC-13-00 14:55 Froe:TITLE PLANT FT COLL 9702265697 T-263 P.07/11 Jab-090
T8ANWaTION TITLE INBIIRANCE CCUPANY
Policy No.: 6433874
BC =tlLR A - continued
LEGAL DROCRIPTION
21 minutes 31 seconds Bast 677.15 feet;
thence North 40 degrees 15 minutes East 365.00 feet;
thence East 15.00 feet;
thence North 89 degrees 50 minutes 20 seconds East 2445.05 feet parallel
with the North line of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 30;
thence South 00 degrees 06 minutes 13 seconds West 135.00 feet;
thence North 89 degrees 51 minutes 20 seconds East 200.00 feet to the East
line of said Southeast 1/4;
thence alon
saidto East line,
Scorner 0oEesaid sSection 06 u30a 13 seconds West
thence along the South line of said Southeast 1/4, South 89 degrees 56
minutes 43 seconds, West 2641.06 feet to the Point of Beginning -
County of Larimer, State of Colorado
Page 6
DEC-13-00 14:55 Fron:TITLE PLANT FT COLL
9TOZ26569T T-263 P 08/11 Jo6-090
T"HONATION TITLE INOURANCY CO"=V
Policy No.: 6433874
SCHEDULE B
This Policy does not insure against lose or damage by reason of the
following:
1, Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public
records.
2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records.
3, Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area,
encroachments, and any facto which a correct survey and inspection
of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the
public records.
4, Any lien, or right to a lienfar aervices, labor or material
heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by
the public records.
5. Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessments, charge or
lien imposed for water or sewer service, or for any other special
taxing dietrict.
date
d The 199622eneral taxes paid, according to tax
certificate
(EXCEPTIONS 6 Tlu OUGH 20 AFFECT PARCEL I)
6. Reservation of right. of proprietor of any penetrating vein or lode
to extract. his ore, 1n iT S. Patent recorded November 1, 1905 in
Book 133 at Page 304.
(As to Parcels I and 1I)
7. Right of way, whether in fee or easement only, for irrigation
ditch, granted to The Mountain Supply Ditch Company by F. C. Grable
by instrument recorded September 16, 1905 in Book 171 at Page 586,
in which the specific location of the easement is not defined.
in
8 fReservinallrom John Curr�ieitoo F. C. Grableand srecorded ervoir }July 31,ghts as ci9051RndDeed
k206
at Page 157.
9, Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations as
contained in Deed and Agreement by and between The Mountain Supply
Ditch Company
and George
McGibbon0 at and Ralph McGibbon recorded
Augus
71.
10. Oil and gas lease between E. A. Whitaker, Jr. and R. W. Fleming,
recorded
naain2456 at
Phand any
greemetsortereststherein orrightstereunder.
Page 7
ENuINEERING DEPARTMENT
Post Office Box 1190
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190
(970) 498-5700
FAX (970) 498-7986
August 8, 1997
City of Fort Collins/Leanne Harter
Re: Hearthfire PUD, 2nd Filing —Final
Dear Leanne,
I have reviewed this "final" submittal and would like to compliment the applicant and their subcontractors. The
materials submitted are high quality and appear to be well thought out and complete. There were a few concerns
from my review that I will mention:
1. It was noted that the Drainage Report mentions a 2' bottom width swale with 4:1 side slopes at the end of
Pondview Court. The contours on the Master Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan (Sheet 13) do not
indicate a channel there.
2. It seems that there is a need for some silt fence on the down hill side of Grosbeak Court (Sheet 12) along
Lots 1-4.
3. As far as I can tell, wie have not received a copy of the wetlands mitigation report by TR Boss. For this and
for future reference, we are requesting a copy for our review and use.
4. 1 happen to know that: the phone number in General Note 15 has been changed to (303) 692-3500.
5. The right-of-way shown connecting Bunting Court and County Road 13 is interesting. Is this for a future
connection or emergency use with this proposal?
6. The Traffic Impact Study and the plans indicate that there will be a 24' pavement mat and a sidewalk (east
side only) on County Road 13, and widening on Douglas Road, as a part of this project. I did not find a
typical section and / or plan -profile of these improvement in the plan set.
Again, it looks like the City has done a good job in getting the necessary information for a thorough review and
that the applicant has supplied a good design and quality information for review. Thank you for the opportunity
to comment. If there are questions about these comments, please phone me at 498-5701.
Sincerely,
Lonnie Sheldon
Civil Engineer I
cc: File
ii:\devrev\pla chk\cities\fcollins\hrth2fi.doc
DEC-13-00 14:56 Fram:TITLE PLANT FT COLL
970226569T T-263 P.09/11 Job-090
TRAN92MTIOX TITLE =gURMCR COMPAW
Policy No., 6433874
OMMULE B - continued
11. Oil and gas lease between E. A. Whitaker, Jr. and R. W. Fleming,
arecorded greementsllorst 11 interests3in Bok therein or73 at rightsage 104, td any
hereunder.
12. All grantors interest in all oil, gas and other mineral rights, as
reserved by E. A. Whitaker, Jr. in the Deed to Country Club of Fort
Collins,
recorded
nor rights
December ,1963 in thereundeBook 1232 at Page 346,
and any interest therei
13. Additional Right of Way for County Road No. 54, 20 feet in width as
shown on Exemption Plat recorded December 2, 1975 in Hook 1675 at
Page 421.
14. Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations as
contained in Easement Agreement and Damage Release by and between
rpark oil & ecorded Maya21,zna, and 1985 as Reception No.Jewett and
85023991oxman W. Jewett
L. N
is. Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations as
contained in Agreement and Release by and between Park Oil & Gas,
Inc., and Carolyn E. Jewett and Norman W. Jewett recorded May 21,
1985 as Reception No. 85023992.
16. Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations as
contained in Agreement and Release by and between Park Oil & Gas,
Inc., and Norman W. Jewett and Carolyn L. Jewett recorded June 6,
1985 as Reception No. 85027031.
17. Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations as
contained in Agreement and Release by and between Park Oil & Gas,
Inc., and Norman W. Jewett and Carolyn L. Jewett recorded June 6,
1985 as Reception No. 85027032.
is. Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations as
contained in Easement Agreement and Damage Release by and between
Park Oil & Gas, Inc., Norman W. Jewett and Carolyn L. Jewett
recorded August 6, 1985 as Reception No. 85038218.
19. Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations as
contained in Fort Collins Field Muddy Unit Agreement recorded
November 3, 1981 in Book 190.4
ag351 and Certificate of Unit
Enlargement recorded April 26,1997asReception No. 97O25549,
20. Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations as
contained in Letter by and between Norman W. Jewett and Carolyn L.
jewett Inc. recordedlMarcheroy and 7, 1985 asatrice Receptioneroy and Park Oil & Gas,
No. 85010835.
(EXCEPTIONS 21 THROUGH 30 AFFECT PARCEL II)
page 8
0EC-13-00 14:56 Froe:TITLE PLANT FT COLL 9702265697 T-263 P 10/11 Job-090
TRANSHATION TITLE INB4RANCY COMPANY
policy No.: 6433874
BCHBDCLE a - continued
21. Reservation of right of proprietor of any penetrating vein or lode
to extract his are, in U.S. Patent recorded May 11, 1904 in Book
113 at Page 265.
22. Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations as
contained in Contract by and between E.C. Richards, M.A.
Tenney,william Lindenmeir, R.Q. Tenny and Overland Pitch &
Reservoir Company recorded February 9, 1884 in Book 34 at Page 113_
23. Right of way for private road and carriage of water as contained in
tby and 1920 between in Bookc405natPage
Ew11taker, Jr.,
recorded February 19
24. Undivided 3/25 interest in and to all the oil and gas in and under
and that may be produced as conveyed to Jag 2 Babcock in Mineral
Deed recorded February 29, 1924 in Bock 487 at Page 285, and any
interest therein or rights thereunder.
25. Undivided 2/25 interest in and to all the oil and gas in and under
and that may be produced as conveyed to Jas E. Babcock in Mineral
Deed therein recorded February
ruary 29, 1924 in thereunder k 487 at Page 287, and any
interest
or
26. All interest in all oil and minerals and mineral rights as reserved
by Anna M. Blunck in a Deed recorded February 6, 1932 in Book 622
at Page 31:3, and any interest therein or rights thereunder.
27. Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations as
contained :in Agreement by and between Russell A. Pomeroy and
Beatrice C. Pomeroy and Max R. Hoffman recorded August 7, 1985 as
Reception No. 85038580.
28. Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations as
contained :in Surface Use Agreement by and between Park Oil and Gas,
Inc. and the Estate of Max R. Hoffman, deceased recorded March 3,
1989 as Reception No. 89009351.
29, Lack of a right of access from the land to any open public road,
street or '.highway.
NOTE: This exception is necessary because it does not appear
from the instruments in the office of the Clerk and
Recorder of the County in which subject property is
situated that any right of access exists to an open
public roadway.
30. Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations as
eld
containedcate 19977 asrReceptionrNo. 97o25549.
Page 9
DEC-13-00 14:56 Fran:TITLE PLANT FT COLL
9TO226569T T-263 P 11/11 Jab-090
TRANSNATION T2TLE INSURANCE COMPANY
Policy No.: 9433874
sc=uLE B - continued
31. Deed of Trust from HEAR THFIRE, INC., A COLORAD0 CORPORATION to the
Public Trustee of the County of Larimer for the use of COLORADO
BUSINESS BANK, N.A_ to secure $1,366,200.00 dated OCTOBER 17, 1997,
recorded OCTOBER 21, 1997 as Reception NO. 97069053,
NOTE- Assignment of RENTS recorded OCTOBER 21, 1997 as
Reception No. 97069054, given in connection with the
above Deed of Trust.
Page 10
o° ^..! $ .� v '� °' y a n g .% .r v c'�i G u .E 5^ v 9 sw `°_ i
So..��tS`� Ey$
y
-
>+,
-
>
L
�3 4eg�..
Q� � �' ° �0g r_ ° m � 5 Tuw., � > W � d 9 ` 'C C 9 N � C Y G L y ¢Y•- O
5io ' •°. b o u v i m = m i Q c w s m m m o V �`o r-
F � c � 9 v c a E '+ '.1 � _ � °' � 'a..o n m E 'S :� m o, Y 'm � m - A -G � 3 �^• � - ° _ � r
S 3
.e a Y � g >. '_ <�$ 5 5 '� c'i S� °. E$ C .� a b -� c .°. z o" m o 0 3 c s v° � 3- •� _
-
LP.3.5jo'!
�v .?:
�a�Y3r_��rt
c a
5"-• � o r s o vF A- 3
a Eta Pa ; o
a, �� $. � ❑ E q t � ... m o r c 5 a m v n .E n o a'� c
0.>' 9 Z U W �, ❑ a 3= q '� `m j c v Q c S .; = °'
yr $�9 y'-' ^.`1-S �U mca` � a aE❑33v5 nm9Y3y2W�
$ 3 w B.- 3 m e m `" n o$" o c$$ s C o °' o o c -m •d v= �` $
= i
:.l ov '-'���'E�""�nss o�.m E-%joimc° y a -3�.�o Eo'O ono✓ -
o•°�3m �'•� nE�cn `3 "y'Am Ew°° vv� aS� v.�$.^.
� 4'3 n �C3 a-CJd�'�� �...za Lo°ovEJ>'pi�cuw �.5 sEa°xa y'3.aT
j v% �0.�4 kq `m3C L°�msJ1C J1Z °`'SLG GN�O'° ym..q Tn Spy
E.
5
y L
-4 -y ° $. h 75 J B o 375
9
2' .9L8j j 2L E E �', _
aN
c$ ro;a
� a� -'. E 5 c C c_ v m'y ; 9 •e 3� c � °^ u
o, o E v
O O Z b 5 G y b
29
2L
g g L r3 3 5 6 A=
O oLw=C 7}T 923C Lrym 6—A �E'COP O� Lpu_ CL CPOUN Na V�� V°3LPa
.�Yj Y C. N q .LJ 9 O T C u°i J° C" y N F .� ✓ 'n ?< Y 5 O J i u u i s a.-- :• S
CV,
pp c E m > 3 m v 'i
W a3V vrJ $wyo
a �� $$�Jr'a<mioar °'.oti �os._`vV w"F'� v ccc niLmcc=c
c E' ` ` c `°d Y q y o x a
a.�E�
J 9 uTO A'A �iWYS E�'N G�TOE 3`75 �u70u
S b :E i m V O 6 �n 'J � d u L O 2 .11 .-. 6� .E .i V '✓ V� 9 3 1 C uYi tJ � 6 6 � P w._ ._ a
05`8�$v�o-ye
S Q,�a3c�; '�c E a'.'y mt c`S w5c 92'am �ca9 Wmgga'T_'3 npi= `° �3Ec9 x°
nv40Y•,°`, 3,��n��°co3 �.c'�oo °v o.. 2 uoc �a €.�''° __ Y3i°o�oU°offiT
odm—"'So I: �.c $vw ysv Ei =.E �°. �' �°`°'aa�8•¢o.��o o --y2 �3s m 3�t
S mm'c $ ii Q of Y.� oL 2.5 w m$5 3Jim v E c eo `n"
�$$'E;
a
a
�,�m T.
�m.�Em'$�m�meo_mB,Yw .9 E8i
o b y c 3 o a
Y. T'
°Eg4'AEGbmz
75
cv$ EdtE
o.p "OE `ai
o_
L_LL u05in
E o'
-
,9;vG=i..o3i0�E m3°mm S�n332 �c a
:a _c ii.6a
c7 m Nc *� ` c� E o-Oa>rJ5 " 0ZVuap E_
(v Va>'N.�>Cob3y s Ly Cu
Y °' � eo H o � r 3 m—my v v d' ., c• o .= a s c � F` ' ` o _
a L qq
o m
oe
E�i... €.i3 og �ogo�a.g .c 5c 53s�s� >g°.. oc3ysyaa
Ems= �2.�E a- i .ros gEKL
�3
5 Ps o.o ay.56 `x `o�<m r>m5 me..5 .. DOE E 2 E<,mn5a=9-m
.E . i+ I
a y m$ E i_ 'o c 2' �:; �.�i m cs rn v N o c 'n t �y C 3� c C� V$
G q .4 O td N S 9 K L U 3 6 T E T C L L
_ Ys gs t ° E
a<3.e m yt <S.•'.y88 Ea?i $. .a ,n �.� $c' 3'oF
�i ..0 3', �°• o o m m'c o.E PE °Cg ,; ` o - °
c,ca o� vyo
a m3g
r
= C°
72
O •r'] Y] m c O O Oi Y 60 V C d
2?
a�i gmm°k` 'SEE m�i°pc50 'E�Jrc
WE 4id LN
; E cQ g J N E r
m3��
m$d�
3� `9 =v co vme °mac �3� �59rtP9Km22�3°c� c
°nd•....°.a yE S„ !2=3�3dg. �` ?a ow EP �E ,� m_
? m'o
a
C
8
°am "aSPt E
<. m o"d^ = d v 5 w 3 °� 3 - o �' c ;^ T _ c 3 5
.. n E `5� 5 c �.° ; m f� ."'i c '� P c % � �.5 9 ,.. E ESE ?
Ei
c a o3.-. rJ' $ a�L .3 •, c o'-- E K 3 c�-$
-
,�E43
o c 3 ii E
D GL �'� 4dt��KC '1w^JLOVS]n Oj'J m0°'�T.�Eu �.Q GTuq 7wNb9 _ C
y 9 L ram" 5 �R 'w .9
v° 3 5.0 t
c,
n.�°y'm°a�nyam3go5Lb��.�y95 _Oi3ovwa>�3n'S'vso�"m`vmi-�y.d. �3EB
8 5
a^-
$m w .F• �3" mo K.+ 3odHC ovso° Eao m`o -E.E gGo
: P i `^ c .. ° 5.a $'o �6 .� Gom $• °^s
ms�o.'o yrJ
-2 m u $ o c
E.>7
cvTc3m$E�as
[.] CFC y S E60 G
o�
c e
E m3 .c� m L—y9m 5 a or 3 �5D 'v'`d'P v3-_ ..KIPS -nc 5ad
7S a P .. = u� c�'., � c3 ° 5 apL u'�'•., $ �' $� E,"
'� � S b u °� 9 � L� 2 m C t N O� O C 1J ii ° �' C� i -J 3: � 'SJ ° 2] � V C tC D O �•.. q V
m �_y T.>P
a 5 �' c_ wo P E "P m a E w m i m" y '� o w °z u °j .5-
>o
��.5 ro- ;5.,. �3c ��.�viES'3L� 73 Q9crosj?c.5��8d •.°�. L°p�cc'��.� ��9c^:
'c�SE3Eg E��o5 �+a Lc$°'S �� �� nm=-.ry $'c Pc cnp ••��S'L o9c�^y 'a �9 �9
c5rJvooyp sL��'SS.�a°�$' $. 2g Tv�d�
$ ���33,=1 �' �'3 ��.�0 Ec33y3'3 va, '� � g°' ywE c g,�og3$j y8�•�o�
t�°'a
tact °i eo 0 5 3: v' oawB o y�'�`t, 9' a- o ° $ 3g cEE^,z
n _ TV
.r$ca �.�"�$ v.$ 9PGg- >- L 9 E c �o » `o c E' 0 3 E v .7 c$ Z s o
"8t AE6 75z5t.ti
y. me a.gcw� •'">.`�°c a°�°v�.E ate? �rc°O 2 6Ac`6c
�Jo�3 Oeo t8n-`m2°g3''e°L'o n'vE�oc.a 3¢av�a ��ic o30_ 29-"ciao _
rg'r ;� �� 3'> am v Z'- c g v''3 3 a °" ° .. °-° ,; •.. �_ i' a, mM v=�. `Ly
�% 3 vm""��." t� av�'-•$v i'�� y»w-',3=?`.v y�'�.J E�`°L'' z-°m-° `o �'E$1,
y�°y� :�.y5•c. rj ��'c��r5y»55m°����.Ea�a, $!G .2�v. cg cg�ai9 r�3c�
r 3ao, ;,`°"
r� c
35i F3.'`o�=t'
c
25. c
nw �iq 9e
-
'n
a°
Fy. a5 Do a$'i
cg
_ 2a e_E��m �g ���.�Jcery Eo. So L'9wma$-'� �omamym °O1Jc 3 7q�Er8 y xx��,".
a.o m'�v °�_ 'i �•rv� a.g 5 y i �'c.c m E$
E S C g E E 5 E e gx o s0 c tow9z3iU
.mE Oo rFa9°jOwvv!!rrrpp �$$U°a. vs ysa °mQ°v$2v m9m�c
9 'Lva<a°'38',�T
S m
�75..5
o$�- Es Eti �$ tm.5 Ja 3 ami 'a� m E� 3v¢5ccg '- o i g -
t� y y '> �3 .vl ` L � u O. x `y °• m y 'rJ %� s
a ._ H d °w m y c A � L v o° 5� s eo c 3 'o•
3 As.s drovmg._A cmy y=c c.c .e mm3 m�•n vmi .^! me c
s cma � c. p'Cro5n5 '• jc v cc °� _ �°10 °.°y'$G
y `° 9 aVv s 'e
c-
m
(mil �'^�� ❑gd�.Y.�mc—agcZiJEn�gnc r...c c. .m, c'n��a9o�>vvc�ow 9w?m __
o_-
9 c� d 6 0 °C i 1 O n=? J . ] d H T 'O O� 6' 4 1 '� � a '•O V .� .�_ � 'Z. L m .+ d m 9 n _
:av �npoE3 j5"p v bvov� t6 `°�z `os F. oa-•cOiv Ev ".9 `- VU.�°� '-
•.�ja--
Fy. 13 mm t g
O
°• o.o o L� o - Aa n'S gg
.°.Q'Enc��itb3u ajvb �Faeo.a n�wy�v
�$
;�, o"i °c° $ y $•. :a n :a .v. F n 3 o N. ° a> o r c m 75
n � c •.. y @1 y d G t i �° ° � c c rJ y E�' 3 n$ '$ n c. m a o a'
OL O� O� n s G� A L V a� � 5 r% :" i N am° •Oj 'O L� n i` � q .� 0 ; � J
5
ot�€oocE
a°C'
$ �. U m .'� o n m E m C] L a4 c m> Fa. �e U m° a 3' ° 5 �9 m 9 a -
d E Q0. ,c c°1 ci 8 c w
WE
_. _—__ ._-__.___ TL�l _ .-._-_.. .... _. _....... �1. ay .. ,.-.�..�.... .n::mar.-.af. •�:-.: .r..-'
February 7, 2001
Project No. 1552-02-97
Sheri Wamhoff
City of Fort Collins Engineering Department
P.O. Box 580
Ft, Collins, Colorado 80524
Re: Variance Request for Hearthfire P.U.D., Second Filing; Ft. Collins, Colorado
Dear Sheri,
This letter represents a request for a variance for the centerline slope into the intersection of
Bateluer Lane and North County Road 13 as we discussed on Friday October 6, 2000. The
following aspects of the design do not meet with current city standards. The centerline slope of
the curve at the western end of the road is 2.51% as it enters the intersection. Current City
standards require a maximum slope of 2.0% for a distance of 50 feet. This is taken from the
section 1.02.03.05— Approach Grades from the City of Fort Collins July 1996 Design and
Construction Criteria Standards and Specifications for Streets, Sidewalks, Alleys and other
Public Ways- An intersection detail is attached to this letter for your convenience. A copy of this
detail is provided with the construction plans as well.
We are requesting the variance for the following reasons. The vertical alignment is designed to
fit within the limits of the horizontal curves located at the western end of Bateluer Court. This
was done to make it easier for construction staking. The proposed slope is only slightly higher
than the allowable maximum slope. In addition, the higher slope increases the eye level of the
drivers in the car slightly, which will allow a better sight distance to the 90' bend located south
of the intersection. The traffic volume on Bateleur Lane will be relatively low. In addition, the
posted speed limit will be 25 mph. A stop sign will be provided at the intersection of Bateleur
Lane and North County Road 13.
We trust that this request will be accepted and the plans approved accordingly. Please call me at
(970) 226-5334 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Mark Oberschmidt
Shear Engineering Corporation
MEO / mo
cc: Tom Kennedy; Hearthfire, Inc.
Steve Olt; City Planning
Cam McNair; City Engineering
Tom Dugan, PineCrest Planning and Design
4836 S. College, Suite 12 Ft. Collins, CO 80525 (970) 2265334 Fax (970) 282-0311 www.shearengineering.com
HEARTHF
PROJECT MEMO:
E P.U.D., SECOND FILING
To: Hearthfire P.FJ.D., Second Filing project team member
From: Brian W. Shear, P.E.
Date: 10/ 12/99
Shear Project No: 1552-02-97
Re: Project Elevation Datum
'there are three (3) different elevation datums associated with Hearthfire P.U.D. These are as
follows:
• Hearthfire P.U.D. main project datum utilized by Merrick with the overall Hearthfire survey.
This is the datum that we will want to maintain. The elevation shows up on Merrick's
Hearthfire P.U.D. Preliminary Grading Plan.
• The Douglas Road datum for Douglas Road by King Surveyors based on a NGS benchmark
located on Highway 1. The elevation shows up on King Surveying disk data and hard copy
printout of Douglas Road field data.
• City datum utilized by Shear and Frederick from City of Fort Collins documented
benchmarks.
Yet a fourth datum exists relative to Hearthfire P.U.D. The Richards Lake P.U.D. by
111tennountain Engineering. Based on Paul Myer's documented level loop, Intermountain's
datum does not meet either NGS or City datum. Based on a previous level loop by Frederick
Land Surveying, the Intermountain Engineering datum is 1.525' higher than City of Fort Collins
datum. This is not necessarily consistent with the known discrepancy in datum's between the
City of Fort Collins and USGS.
Based on the complete level loop provided by Paul Meyer (November 28, 1997), the following
has been determined.
• 3.38' must be added to City datum in order to match the current Hearthfire P.U.D. datum.
Therefore, 3.38' must be added to all current County Road 13 plan data which was based on
City datum. These revisions will be made now.
• 3.00' must be added to NGS datum in order to match the current Hearthfire P.U.D. datum.
Therefore, 3.00' must be added to the Douglas Road datum. Plans for Douglas Road will not
be adjusted for the datum change. However, a strongly worded note on the cover sheet will
be required to address the datum discrepancy.
• 1.84' must be added to Intermountain Engineering datum in order to match Richards Lake
P.FJ.D. to the current Hearthfire P.U.D. datum_ Therefore, 1.84' must be added to the
Richard's Lake P.U.D. elevations (or subtracted from the Hearthfire P.U.D. datum) in order
to coordinate Hearthfire P.U.D. with Richards Lake P.U.D.
cc: Pam Brubacher
Tom Kennedy, Hearthfire, Inc.
Bryan Short, Frederick Land Surveying
To Dugan, PineCrest Planning and Design
4836 S. Collcge, Suitc 12 Ft. Collins, CO 80525 (970) 226-5334 FAX (970) 282-0311
Cam McNair- Douglas Road ta> SH-1 Page 1
From:
Cam McNair
To:
Mark Peterson
Date:
3/11 /02 10:53AM
Subject:
Douglas Road @ SH-1
Mark,
After a couple of meetings with Tom Kennedy, one of the principals and the spokesperson for the
Hearthfire development, we have reached agreement on the extent of Hearthfire's contribution to the
Douglas Rd @ SH-1 intersection.
Hearthfire agrees to pay a total of $66,750.00 toward the necessary improvements to the intersection.
That figure represents 25% of the estimated $267,000.00 local share for the improvements. A review of
the traffic studies for Hearthfire indicates that this development's impacts, especially on the westbound
left -turns and northbound right-tums, can be interpreted as roughly proportional to 25% of the impacts to
the Douglas Road approaches to the intersection, over the long-term future.
The Hearthfire development agreements will be amended to reflect this settlement. The $66,750 will be
paid as follows: $35,000 in a lump -sum payment to the County within 30 days after execution of the
Hearthfire 1st Filing development agreement amendment, and the additional $31,750 paid as a
surcharge to the remaining 87 building permits in Hearthfire's 1st and 2nd Filings (or $365 per building
permit). The $31,750 will be collected by the City and forwarded to the County when requested for
funding of the intersection improvements project. An inflation factor will be applied for those building
permits that are issued more than a year from now.
This contribution will Ibe in addition to Hearthfire's other off -site improvements to Douglas Road, County
Road-11, Mountain Vista Drive, and Timberline Road north of International Boulevard. It will also be in
addition to payment of the normal City Street Oversizing fees and County Regional Road impact fees.
Let me know if you have any questions on this.
Cam
CC: Dave Stringer; Gary Diede; Matt Baker; Sheri Wamhoff
Sheri Wamhoff - Re: Hearthfire 2
Page 1 1
From: Sheri Wamhoff
To:"McDaniRD@co.larimer.co.us"@FC1.GWIA
Subject: Re: Hearthfire 2
Rusty
1. When is this scheduled for Planning and Zoning?
It has not been scheduled at this time. We will have at least one more round of review before it is even
considered fro hearing. So at the soonest it would be a couple of months, maybe more depending on
where there plans are at.
2. When would you need to get comments from us so that they could be included in your staff report?
Are you talking about the Douglas road improvements or Hearthfire 2nd? the Douglas Road portion of
work has no hearing - that is a set of plans that goes with the first filing under construction, so once those
plans are approved then they can and probably will need to start work in order to keep getting permits out
there. If you are speaking of hearthfire 2nd filing - I wouldn't expect to get comments until you have been
submitted something to review (plans), but you can provide me with County comments on the connection
out to CR13 at anytime. I will let you know when that is scheduled for hearing and when I would definetly
need comments by when I know.
3. What position are you all taking on the connection to County Road 13 (I'm pretty sure I know this
answer).
The citys position on this connection is that we want this connection to occur now rather than later.
Providing the ability for the connection was a condition placed by the Engineering department on the
preliminary hearing in order to support the project. So we do not feel it is an issue of whether the
connection occurs, but when. And the City is saying that we want this connection to occur now.
4. What, if any, improvements is the developer being required to do south of County Rd 13 (Abbotsford
and Inverness)?
Currently no improvements are being required by the developer. It is felt that the connection will provide a
minimal impact on the roads going south. They are satisfying there connection requirements by improving
Douglas Road out to Hwy 1. This provides there required connection to an improved arterial street and
this is the direction that the traffic study indicated that the majority of the traffic will be going.
5.The TIS that I have, dated July, 1996 shows 20%-25% of the traffic going south on CR 13. It has a note
attached to it saying that a significant portion of the traffic will go through the Richard's Lake development
to CR 11. Do you have a TIS that shows the change?
What change? I will have to look through the file and contact our traffic department to see what we have.
I will have to look into the file and see what I can find - I will try get back to you on that by monday.
Sheri
>>> "Rusty McDaniel" <McDaniRD@co.larimer.co.us> 06/06 5:19 PM >>>
Hi Sheri - I was hoping I could get some additional information from you regarding Hearthfire 2. We need
to go back to the County Commissioners to answer some questions for them and I was asked to find out
the following information:
1. When is this scheduled for Planning and Zoning?
2. When would you need to get comments from us so that they could be included in your staff report?
3. What position are you all taking on the connection to County Road 13 (I'm pretty sure I know this
answer).
4. What, if any, improvements is the developer being required to do south of County Rd 13 (Abbotsford
and Inverness)?
Sheri Wamhoff Re Hearthfire 2 Page 2
5.The TIS that I have, dated July, 1996 shows 20%-25% of the traffic going south on CR 13. It has a note
attached to it saying that a significant portion of the traffic will go through the Richard's Lake development
to CR 11. Do you have a TIS that shows the change?
I think that those are all of the questions - if there are others I'll let you know. Thanks for your help.
Rusty
FISCHER, BROWN AND GUNN, P.C.
215 West Oak Street, Eighth Floor
P.O. Box Q
Fort Collins. CO 80522
Telephone: (970) 407-9000
June 28. 2002
Steve Olt, Citv Planner
Current Planning Department
291 N. College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Re: Hearthfire PUD, Second Filing
Dear Steve:
Fax: (970) 407-1055
Our firm represents The Water Supply and Storage Company (the "Company"). Since about
October of 2000, the Company and I have been discussing and negotiating two agreements with
I learthtirc, Inc. ("Hcarthtire" ), one to allow discharge of storm water runoff from the Hearthfire
N D. Second Filing ("Second Filing") into Richards Lake, a reservoir owned by the Company, and
another to provide opportunities for fun ire access and water and sewer service to Company -owned
property adjacent to the Second Filing.
'I he issue of water quality is an increasingly difficult and complex issue for reservoir
companies and it is this issue which has taken a significant amount of time to understand in the
context of the Second Filing.
1 learthtire and its representatives have now met with the full Board of the Company on two
separate occasions and at the last meeting, the Board agreed on the basic water quality concepts
Which now need to be embodied in the final discharge agreement. We are all now in the process of
working together to finalize that language.
It is niy understanding that the City has not vet scheduled the Second Filing for a Planning
and Zoning Board hearing and that the only remaining issue is the discharge agreement. Given the
Steve Olt
June 29, 2002
Pagc 2
lengthy discussions which have taken place and the direction of the Board at its last meeting, the
Company believes that the exact language of the discharge agreement can be finalized prior to a
Planning and Zoning Board hearing on the Second Filing and is comfortable in having the City
proceed with scheduling of that hearing.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
FISCHER, BROWN AND GUNN, P.C.
o
By: �
lliant R. Fisc
PC: Paul Fckman, Deputy City Attorney
1 red Walker. The Water Supply and Storage Company
Lucia A. Litey, March, Liley & Olive, P.C.
MARCH, LILEY & OLIVE P.0
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
LUCIA A LILEV
110 E. OAK STREET, SUITE 200
ART19E MARCH
.I. HRAOFORD MARCH
FORT COLLINS. COLORADO 80824-2880
081981
ggTHUR E. MARCH, JR.
STEWART W. OLIVE
19201 482 4322
Retired 2001
Fex f97014823719
August 28, 2002
Sheri Wamhoff
City Engineering Department
281 N. College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
'I raci Downs
County Engineering Department
212 West Mountain Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Re: Hearthfire P.U.D., 2nd Filing, #31-95E
Dear Sheri and'fraci:
VIA HAND DELIVERY
VIA HAND DELIVERY
In the City's most recent set of Staff Project Review comments dated June 28. 2002,
Sheri and Wes Lamarque of the City's Stormwater Utility Department, commented that the
relocated outfall for the existing drainage pipe under N. County Road 13 ("NCR li") would
require that the developer obtain a drainage easement from the adjacent property owner. In
response, our firm and the developer's engineer, Shear Engineering, have investigated the matter
further and wish to advise you and the Latimer County Engineering Department of how this
issue is being resolved.
In order to complete the required improvements to NCR 13, the drainage pipe under NCR
I3 will be altered so that its outfall on the east side of NCR 13 will be located approximately
thirty feet (30') west of the existing point of outfall. The proposed outfall lies within a thirty-
foot (30') wide County road right-of-way dedicated to the public on the plat of Highland Place in
1905 (see the copies enclosed). Because there has never been a road constructed in this stretch of
County right-01' way, we contacted Jerry White, Latimer County Land Agent and Carol Evans,
Larimcr ('ounly Planning Department, to verify that the right-of-way was still in existence. Both
confirmed after researching their records that there is no evidence that the right-of-way had ever
been vacated by the Board of County Commissioners.
Sheri Wamhoff and Traci Downs
August 28, 2002
Pagc 2
We have also confirmed with Shear Engineering that the stormwater flows entering the
right-of-way through the drainage pipe will be returned to the historic flow pattern within the
right-of-way and prior to entering the adjacent property.
Furthermore, because the relocation of the drainage pipe outfall will not alter the
quantity, quality or rate of the historic flows across the adjacent property, it is not necessary to
obtain a drainage easement from the property owner. The developer will. however, contact the
property owner to advise them personally of the changes to be made near his property (c.g. road
improvements, drainage pipe extension and grading within the right-of-way to direct the
stormwater flows to their historic path).
We trust that this explanation is satisfactory to both the City and Comity, and that the
City's Staff Project Review comments relative to this issue can be deleted.
Sincerely,
MARCH, LILY & OLIVE P
A. Liley
LAI /jpk
enclosures
cc: Jerry White, Latimer County Engineering
Brian Shear, Shear Engineering Corporation
Tom Kennedy, Heartirfirc, Inc.
Thomas .I. Dugan, PineCrest Planning & Design, L.L.C.
I'.AWI'('U.AI AI Icarth I ircIFASLMGN,rS-2nd PILINGACorrespondenceAwainhorr-dowins. Itr.doc
Sheri Wamhoff - Re: Hearthfire and CR13
From: "Traci Downs" <tdowns@larimer.org>
To: FC'I.CFCPO(SWAMHOFF)
Date: 9/3/02 12:26PM
Subject: Re: Hearthfire and CR13
Sheri,
I did some research on this issue and spoke with Rusty also.
Apparently, the County has always been concerned with any increased
traffic onto SOLIHibound CR13 toward Gregory Road because this section of
road is still witl in the county and maintained by the county.
Additional trips would contribute to the increased deterioration of the
road, which would necessitate increased maintenance by the County. In
addition to the Counb/s maintenance concerns, we are also concerned
with the safety aspects of increasing trips onto this section of CR 13
since it has several very tight horizontal curves, a narrow bridge and
the intersection with Gregory does not appear to meet typical sight
distance standards Also, based on the above concerns and existing
conditions of the road, the County does not agree with the City Master
Street Plan ths,t indicates that this section of road will be classified
as a Minor Collector in the future.
Given the background information stated above, the position of the
County regarding the connection to CR 13 is that all of the concerns
stated above need to be adequately addressed as part of the preliminary
approval and final design of the connection to CR 13. Considering our
current standards and policies, our department would require all of the
internal roads of a subdivision in the GMA to be paved and meet the
requirements ,f the LCUASS. An exception to this standard may be for
emergency only access roads.
1 hope this addresses your questions and let me know if you have any
questions.
talk to you soon.
traci
>>> "Sheri Wamhoff' <SWAMHOFF@fcgov.com> 09/03/02 11:15AM >>>
Roxanne and Traci
Wasn't sure who I needed to talk to about this - so I will try you
both.
Some of this is just information, as you may get some calls or
questions on it, but I also do have a question on what the County
thinks.
Hearthfire PUD 2nd filing is going to be going to hearing on Sept 19 in
front of our Planning and Zoning Board. This has been a controversial
project with many County Residences. Concerns having mostly to do with
traffic. Traffic on douglas road and CR13. The preliminary approval
for this project (approved in sept 96) required a street connection out
to CR13, which we have required them to do. Of course the adj property
owners want this to be a future connection not something that happens
now The preliminary approval also had a condition that they would need
Page 1'
Sheri Wamhoff - Re: Hearthfire and CR13
to improve CR13 adjacent to the site with the final plan. They plans
show this improvement.
At the time this condition was placed on the project the County
recommenced that the roadway remain gravel. Since that was in 1996 and
things may have changed I was wanting to know what the Countys thoughts
on paving this section of road are. Per the plans they will be placing
curb gutter and walk on the east side of CR13 from Douglas Rd south to
the curve in the road - where it becomes Inverness. This is also the
portion that will be paved. The west edge of pavement will remain as is
with the existing borrow ditch remaining.
If you need more information let me know - Rusty was pretty familiar
with this project at one time he may remember it.
The sooner I can get this info the better as the planners staff report
goes to the printer tomorrow (sorry for the short notice, but I just
received it for my review today) and I would like to make sure the info
in it is correct.
Thanks Sheri
CC: "Christie Coleman" <ccoleman@larimer.org>, "Roxann Hayes" <rhayes@larimer.org>
Page 2
Sheri Wamhoff Re Heathfire and CR13
From: "Traci Downs" <tdowns@larimer.org>
To: FC1 CFCPO(SWAMHOFF)
Date: 9/4/02 12:59PM
Subject: Re: Hearthfire and CR13
I just dent know why we would have said gravel at the time unless it was
only going to be for emergency access. Is this road going to be a main
road in and out of 2nd filing? I thought that 2nd F was not final
approved or built yet? So if this is true, why is there already a
gravel road within a right-of-way? I cant seem to find a copy of these
plans for 2nd I of Hearthfire? III keep looking so i can better answer
your question on the gravel. I am thinking that it should be paved
unless it will only be used for emerg vehicles and will be blocked.
>>> "Sheri Wamhoff' <SWAMHOFF@fcgov.com> 09/03/02 01:54PM >>>
Traci
Thanks for the info - you haven't specifically stated that you want it
to remain gravel so .. This was the statement that was in the 1996
staff report for 'nearing, should we keep this statement or does it need
to be changed
"The road is currently a gravel road and the right-of-way is in the
Urban Growth Area. Larimer County has reommended that the roadway
remain gravel at this time and that see widening be done to the
shoulders in addition to collecting funds from the Developer to be used
for future paving_"
Just to note and for your information the proposed cross section for
CM 3 with this proejct is 28 feet from west edge of pavement to the
flowline of the clutter on the east side. So the width of the existing
road will not be increased by much. A variance was granted to reduce
the width of the road that they were required to build, so they do not
have to add any pavement beyond the existing west edge. I don't know
whether bike lanes will be striped on one side or both. But the 28 foot
would fit the two 12 ft travel lanes and an 8 ft bike lane.
I'll keep you informed of this project.
Sheri
>>> "Traci Downs" <tdowns@larimerorg> 09/03/02 12:25PM >>>
Sheri,
I did some research on this issue and spoke with Rusty also.
Apparently, the County has always been concerned with any increased
traffic onto southbound CR13 toward Gregory Road because this section
of
road is still within the county and maintained by the county.
Additional trips would contribute to the increased deterioration of
the
road, which would necessitate increased maintenance by the County. In
addition to the Countys maintenance concerns, we are also concerned
with the safety aspects of increasing trips onto this section of CR 13
since it has several very tight horizontal curves, a narrow bridge and
the intersection with Gregory does not appear to meet typical sight
Page 1 ',
TO: Gary Diede, Director of Transportation Operations
Transportation Services, City of Fort Collins
FROM: The NorthEast Neighborhood Coalition (NENC)
SUBJECT: Hearthfire PUD street Connection to County Road 13
DATE: May 16, 2000
Some years ago, we approached the City of Fort Collins with concerns regarding the Hearthfire
PUD, a City subdivision surrounded by County residences of 2 to 20 acres. The original project
design was for the main Hearthfire entrance to be located at the comer of CORd13 and Inverness.
This created great concern in our neighborhood, as "cut through" traffic on CoRd13, Inverness,
Abbotsford, Richards Lake and Gregory Road was already a problem. These roads are mainly
small, gravel County roads which were never designed to carry large traffic volumes. There are
dangerous, sharp curves, restricted line -of -sights, areas with poor drainage, and two bridges over
irrigation drainages/canals. These roads have been the frequent scene of numerous accidents.
After prolonged negotiations with the Hearthfire developer and the City we reached agreement on
our request to relocate the main Hearthfire entrance to Douglas Road, and the subdivision was
approved. In addition, the developer agreed to certain improvements to Douglas Road and the
intersection of Douglas Rd and Colo State HWY 1. An emergency access was created at the
intersection of CORdl3 and Invemess to satisfy the City requirement of two access points for the
development. In addition, another Hearthfire access through the proposed Richards Lake PUD to
the cast served to satisfy this City requirement. Since then, we have felt that this particular traffic
problem was satisfactorily resolved.
Unfortunately, a week ago we teamed that the City of Fort Collins has requested the Hearthfire
developer to make a street connection to CoRd13. Once more, we are faced with the prospect of an
estimated 2376 vehicle trips/day using our neighborhood roads as a "cut through". Our
understanding is that the City feels this street connection is necessary to provide "connectivity". A
number of our members were regular participants at virtually every opportunity for public input
during the formation of City Plan. We feel that we are knowledgeable concerning this concept of
..connectivity", and believe it to be valid in an urban setting. However, we feel that the attempt to
methodically apply this concept to every subdivision indicates a lack of concem/knowledge about
the particular, unique characteristics of our neighborhood and a disregard for flexibility. This
attitude may be further complicated by the unfamiliarity of the present City staff with the significant
events which occurred during the approval process of the Hearthfire PUD. Our neighborhood has
no employment, shopping, recreation or public services with which Hearthfire residents might
"connect". We welcome and are happy to have the present trail access from Hearthfire to --connect'
bikes, pedestrians and equestrians to our neighborhood. But, no neighborhood needs more motorists
passing through it.
Another consideration concerning the perceived need for "connectivity" is that it is very doubtful
that our area (the Highland Place Subdivision) will ever become "urbanized". Despite our location
Sheri Wamhoff - Re: Hem thfire and CR13
..............
Page 2
distance standards. Also, based on the above concerns and existing
conditions of the road, the County does not agree with the City Master
Street Plan thet indicates that this section of road will be
classified
as a Minor Collector in the future.
Given the background information stated above, the position of the
County regarding the connection to CR 13 is that all of the concerns
stated above need to be adequately addressed as part of the
preliminary
approval and final design of the connection to CR 13. Considering our
current standards and policies, our department would require all of
the
internal roads of a subdivision in the GMA to be paved and meet the
requirements of the LCUASS. An exception to this standard may be for
emergency only access roads.
I hope this addresses your questions and let me know if you have any
questions.
talk to you soon.
traci
>>> "Sheri Wamhoff<SWAMHOFF@fcgov.com> 09/03/02 11:15AM >>>
Roxanne and Traci
Wasn't sure who I needed to talk to about this - so I will try you
both.
Some of this is just information, as you may get some calls or
questions on it. but I also do have a question on what the County
thinks.
Hearthfire PUD 2nd filing is going to be going to hearing on Sept 19
in
front of our Planning and Zoning Board. This has been a controversial
project with many County Residences. Concerns having mostly to do
with
traffic. Traffic on douglas road and CR13. The preliminary approval
for this project (approved in sept 96) required a street connection
out
to CR13, which we have required them to do. Of course the adj
property
owners want this to be a future connection not something that happens
now. The preliminary approval also had a condition that they would
need
to improve CR13 adjacent to the site with the final plan. They plans
show this improvement.
At the time this condition was placed on the project the County
recommenced that the roadway remain gravel. Since that was in 1996
and
things may have changed I was wanting to know what the Countys
thoughts
on paving this section of road are. Per the plans they will be
placing
Sheri Wamhoff - Re: Hearthfire and CR13 Page 3
curb gutter and walk on the east side of CR13 from Douglas Rd south to
the curve in the road - where it becomes Inverness. This is also the
portion that will be paved. The west edge of pavement will remain as
is
with the existing borrow ditch remaining.
If you need more information let me know - Rusty was pretty familiar
with this project at one time he may remember it.
The sooner I can get this info the better as the planners staff report
goes to the printer tomorrow (sorry for the short notice, but I just
received it for my review today) and I would like to make sure the
info
in it is correct.
Thanks Sheri
MARCH. LILEY & OLIVE P.0
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW ART1111 E MA.RCI
_1CA A LILLV 110E. JAKST4HT. SJCE _oa _. t9ae-193,
1 3R10FORh M1SC1 =ORT LOLLNS. 80'_ORACO 90521-83C ARTHLR L MARCH. JR
STEWART '.V i:L—E 97O1182 432= I.,"d20o.
in 9TC482 5i19
September 10. 2002
Traci Downs
County Fngineering Department
t'_ 'A est Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins. CO 805'_I
Rc: Hearthtire P.L.D.. '_2"' Filing. 431-95E
Dear Traci:
This letter is in follow up to my August 28. 2003 letter to you and Sheri Wamhoff.
Based ou the existence of public right-of=wey dedicated on the Highland Place plat and
confirmed by representatives of the Countv's Engineering and Planning Departments, and
based upon engineering data provided by the Shcar Engineering Corporation. it is my opinion
that the location of the drainage pipe outfall and conveyance of the historic stormwater runoff
through the right-ot-way is legally permissible. In further support of this opinion. Shear
h:nginccrim� Corporation advises that the drainage pipe has been in place under NCRL3 (within
the right-of-v aN) for many }ears for the purpose of convening stormwater runoff'. and that its
new outtitll location within the right-of-way will not alter the quantity, quality or rate of the
stormwater runoff t1mxs that have historically flowed through this right-of-way.
It is common practice in Fort Collins. Loveland_ Latimer County and Weld County to
use road right-of-wav to accommodate and convey historic stormwater flows with the use of
drainage pipes. roadside swalcs and/or curb and ;utter. Since this right-oF-wav has historically
been used for this purpose_ and the historic flows remain unaltered, there is no legal reason not
to continue this use. Please contact me if you need further information. Thank you.
BN
LALikk
Sincerely.
Pc: Jerry White, Latimer County Engineering
Sheri Wamhoff, City Engineering Department
fom Kennedy, Hearthtire. Inc.
Brian Shear, Shcar Engineering Corporation
Sheri Wamhoff - Memo for Planning and Zoning Board Page 1
From:
<Bschmidtmag@cs.com>
To:
FC1.CFCPO(SOLT)
Date:
9/11/02 5:13AM
Subject:
Memo for Planning and Zoning Board
Steve, I was told that you would be able to forward this to P&Z members
before the Friday work :session. Let me know if I should be doing something
differently, Thanks, Brigitte
Dear Planning and Zoning Board members:
As you review the Hearthfire Second Filing project in this Friday's work
session I am hoping that you will be able to review information in response
to the questions listed below.
The unique nature of this project with the blending of ruraUurban lifestyles
and city/county policies within infrastructure constraints requires
innovative administration.
The Northeast Neighborhood Coalition representing the residents of the area
will be requesting that you consider holding road improvement dollars for
road improvements along County Road 13 in escrow until such time as the
entire stretch of road can be maintained in a safe fashion. We will supply
substantiating information for such a request at the September 19th meeting.
Questions?
At what point will Inverness Road will be annexed into the City?arpi
At what point will Inverness/Abbotsford Road be improved? w;'111 --k; a<v
Are there any development opportunities along Inverness, Richard's
Lake and Abbotsford to finance any improvements?
Will the City need to pay for these improvements? How —community choices,
possibly?
Has there been a recent traffic count on the Cty Rd 13/lnvemess/Abbotsford
route?
One of the County "triggers" for improvement past dust mitigation is 300/400
ADT.
What if that number is reached with no funding for improvements?
What improvements will be needed to the Gregory Rd/Abbotsford intersection?
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Brigitte Schmidt for the Northeast Neighborhood Coalition
',\� dzv o r 9.0o
T)�
uz\`7
b
mr,rCR£ST
September 24, 2002
Cameron Gloss
Current Planning Director
City of Fort Collins VIA HAND DELIVERY
281 N. College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Re: Hearthfire P.U.D., 2"a Filing, #31-95E
Dear Cameron:
Although Hearthfire, Inc., the developer of the Hearthfire P.U.D., 2"' Filing,
desires that this matter be heard by the Planning and Zoning Board ("Board") as soon as
possible, it does not believe that it will be possible to obtain all of the information
requested by the Board in time for the October 17, 2002 hearing.
I request, therefore, that the continuance of the Board's consideration of the
Hearthfire, P.U.D., 2"d Filing to October 17`f' be further continued to November 7, 2002.
It has been difficult to find a time when all of the affected parties are available, so
we are now in the process of trying to schedule a meeting early in the week of October
7"'. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Planning & Design LLC
By:
PC: Steve Olt, Staff Project Planner
Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney
Cam McNair, Director of City Engineering
Ward Stanford, City Engineering Department
Sheri Wamhoff, City Engineering Department
Matt Balser, City Street Oversizing
T'om Kennedy, Hearthfire, Inc.
Matt Del ich, Traffic Engineer
VA""ing & Desig» LLC
4225 Westshore Way Fort Collins, CO 80525
(970) 226-1655 • (970) 226-1635 fax
LCa
- Re: Just curious about
z:+-—oK�
From: Sheri Wamhoff
To: "tdowns@larimer.org".GWIA.FC1
Date: 9/27/02 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: Just curious about Hearthfire Hearing Outcome?
Hi Traci
Don't know when you sent this - we have not been able to receive or send email outside of the City for
several days, so you may have already gotten some info about this since Cam Mc Nair said he talked to
Mar6 last night.
Here is the answers to your questions.
o I would like to extend an invitation to the County to send a representative to attend the Planning an
✓I Zoning Board meeting (currently it looks like the hearing date will be Thursday Nov 7).
i \\\The county road drainage stuff did not come up. They actually didn't even talk about the drainage.
Lucias office has asked for a copy of the memo that Rusty gave me. I wanted to check with you before I
sent it so see if that was okay. I just didn't know how to treat it since the copy I have isn't addressed to
anybody and we don't know if it was actually sent out or not. I have looked thru our files and I don't have
a record of the letter.
i
To answer Marc questions:
In accordance with the amended development agreement for Hearthfire 1st filing the developer gave the
City money for the Douglas Road improvements. The City plans on g the interim Douglas Road
improvements at the same time that the interim improvement to CFI 13�between Mountain Vista and
Douglas Road are done. The plan is to do this next year. The Doug as Road plans that were approved
are for the improvements to go to the East.
The hearing. There were only two people from the neighborhood that spoke. Bridget Schmidt for the
northeast neighborhood coalition and Jewet. _
There was a lot of discussion about improvements in the area, what would be improved, what wouldn't be
improved, timing of the improvements, how the roads not identified as being improved with this
development would be improved. The board did not seem inclined to support the northeast
neighborhood coalitions request to delay the CR 13 improvements as they were very concerned about
the fact that the Douglas Road improvements had not yet been completed.
A motion for approval was made and that failed with a 4 to 2 vote.
They then talked about it a while and voted to continue the project and asked for additional information.
They want copies of all the previous traffic studies and that a new updated traffic study be done looking
at inverness, CR11, CR 13, Douglas Road, and Hwy 1. They also asked for more information on the
timing of the Douglas Road/ CR 11 interim improvements, how and when the remaining portion of
Douglas Rd and Inverness and Abbottsford would be improved. They also asked to have County input
on this project.
dI)
The Developer is required to contribute funds to the Hwy 1/ Douglas Road intersection. In accordance
with the amended development agreement the Developer agreed to make a lump sum payment of
$35,000 to Larimer County by May 4th of this year. They will also be paying an additional amount per
building permit that the City will collect and promptly deliver to the County where in accordance with our
agreement is to be pllaced in a reserve account and used solely for improvement to this intersection. If
you haven't received the $35,000 please let us know.
Improvements associated with this site at this point in time (realizing that the 2nd filing has not yet been
approved) are:
Douglas Road from Hearthfire Way to CR 11 interim 36 feet of pavement (This improvement was
required of the 1 st filing and will occur regardless of the outcome of the 2nd filing) (this improvement
does go a distance west beyond Hearthfire Way to accommodate the transitions for the left turn bay and
a right turn lane),
[—Cat Nair -
Just curious a
CR 13 from the south end at the intersection with inverness to Douglas Road - 30 feet of pavement
including curb, gutter and walk on the east side, this also includes some paving at the intersection of
Douglas Road and CR. 13.
Any improvements to Hwy 1 and Douglas Road would be per planed County or CDOT project.
Speaking of this intersection - what improvements are planned and what is the timing of that. The
Planning and Zoning Board asked about that and I didn't have the answer. We had looked at the 4
alternatives, but I do riot know what the final decision for this intersection was. Any information about the
plans and timing of inlersection improvements would be helpful.
Let me know if you have any other questions. Sheri
>>> "Traci Downs" <tdowns@larimer.org> 09/26/02 02:26PM >>>
Hi Sheri - I am sending this to our access and utility coordinator too
since he got a call from someone asking about this area i did not have
all the recent answers so ill ask a few for him too? :>
My question is - what ended up happening in that hearing with the
connection out to the CR? Were there LOTS of people there to complain?
Rusty said you stopped by to pick up the info. Did the county road
drainage stuff come LIP that Lucia was working on? Hope it went ok for
you!
Mares questions were...
Is the developer definitely making Douglas improvements to the east now
to the next CR 11?
Are they still required to contribute to Hwy 1./ Doug rd intersection
impvmnts?
SO does this mean that no improvements are happening between the
intersection and the site now?
Thanks for the update.
td
CC: "mlyons@larimer.org".GWIA.FC1; Cam McNair, Dave Stringer
From: "Marc Engemoen" <mengemoen@larimer.org>
To: "Mark Peterson" <mpeterson@larimer.org>
Date: 10/30/02 8:38AM
Subject: Re: Hearthfire PUD, 2nd Filing - CR13 Impacts
Cam,
I guess this is just one of those situations where the City and County
will have to agree to disagree. I continue to be dismayed that the
concerns expressed by residents on Abbotsford and Inverness are viewed
as too "minor" by the City to address.
Marc
>>> "Cam McNair" <CMCNAIR@fcgov.com> 10/29/02 05:19PM >>>
I asked our staff to comment on the County's most recent proposal for
attempting to minimize Hearthfire traffic on CR13/Inverness/Abbotsford.
This proposal would involve creating a one-way segment on CR13,
northbound only, from Bateleur Lane (future street within Hearthfire) to
Douglas Road. I thought it best to summarize our City staffs position
on this idea in writing.
City Transportation and PFA staffs are not in favor of this proposal,
and would recommend against it for the following reasons:
--- One-way streets need to work together in pairs. Also, without
a pair of streets, there is little chance that the one-way street will
be obeyed by the public (along with a good chance that there will be
little or no enforcement), and thereby creating a safety hazard.
--- Doing the one-way will probably prompt some motorists to
utilize Country Club Drive to get back to Lemay. We already know the
Country Club residents' sentiments about these projects, and their
concerns for increased traffic on Country Club. We think it will just
shift the debate, not resolve it.
--- Converting a roadway to a one-way street should be done for the
appropriate reasons, not due to one development and the minor traffic
caused by that development. There are other users of CR13 besides
Hearthfire residents. The traffic rthat currently uses this road are
county residents, many of Whom cross Douglas from County Road 13 to the
North, as well as those traveling west on Douglas and turning off onto
13/Abbortsford.
--- To close this road to two-way traffic would be a great
disservice to the residents living along this road, for access by
emegency services, and would most likely be violated by many of the
residents and others wanting to go south.
--- The one-way proposal would eliminate a number of secondary
points of access and force emergency vehicles to drive a long way around
to get into the neighborhood. Also, PFA doesn't like to go against
traffic. Charging down a one-way county road is not a good, safe
practice.
--- Having a one-way street to protect the neighborhood does not
F Cam iA Nair - Rei Hearthfire PUD, 2nd Filing - CR
seem like a good thing to do, and it would be very difficult to change
it back in the future.
We understand County staffs purpose in making this proposal is to
attempt to lessen the impacts of the development on the existing County
residents along CR13/'Inverness/Abbotsford. Mark Peterson's letter of
October 22, 2002, expresses those concerns very well.
We also recently entertained another suggestion - to escrow the funds
for making the improvements on CR13 and the connection of Bateleur Lane
to CR13. City staff believes that making this connection with the
development is important for providing connectivity and travel choices,
as well as for providing multiple access points for emergency services.
I realize that there are differing viewpoints and concerns between the
County and City staffs, with respect to the off -site improvements being
built and paid for by the Hearthfire development. Further discussions
will occur at the P&Z Work Session on Friday afternoon, November 1st,
probably at or after 1:15 PM. The formal hearing on the project is
scheduled for Monday evening, November 4th, after 6:30 PM.
Cam McNair, PE
City Engineer
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Phone:970-221-6605
Fax: 970-221-6378
E-mail: cmcnair@fcgov.com
CC: FCI.TRANS_SVC(GDIEDE),FC1.CFCPO(ebracke,cgloss)
Sheri W&mhoff - NENC response to road discussion Page 1
From: <Bschmidtmag@cs.com>
To:
FC 1. CFCPO(CMCNAI R), FC 1.GW IA("mpeterson@larimer.org","lal@frii.com","mengem
oen@larimer.org")
Date: 10131 /02 4:38 P M
Subject: NENC response to road discussion
Dear Mr. McNair,
I received a copy of your reply to Marc Engemeon's suggestion and wish to
respond to certain points. The County has been trying to work with the
residents to find a solution to this problem. One of our suggestions to the
County was to cul de sac Inverness Road on the east end. CR 13 could still
remain two way. As you pointed out there are pros and cons to any version of
this idea. The neighborhood's key point remains that there is no valid reason
to provide connectivity onto Inverness Road at this time.
1 would like to address some of your comments more directly.
My comments are highlighted by " following your specific comments.
- Doing the one-way will probably prompt some motorists to
utilize Country Club Drive to get back to Lemay. We already know the
Country Club residents' sentiments about these projects, and their
concerns for increased traffic on Country Club. We think it will just
shift the debate, not resolve it.
" Your comment to me in our phone conversation was that this connectivity
would only create an increase of about 2 cars per hour according to the
recent traffic study. I feel that this would hardly be noticed on Country
Club which is already a paved road and has no dust problems. So you must feel
the traffic will be substantially greater than 2 cars per hour if it will
cause residents of Country Club to complain. Obviously the complaints of the
citizens of Inverness and Abbottsford do not hold as much sway.
--- Converting a roadway to a one-way street should be done for the
appropriate reasons, not due to one development and the minor traffic
caused by that development. There are other users of CR13 besides
Hearthfire residents The traffic rthat currently uses this road are
county residents, many of Whom cross Douglas from County Road 13 to the
North, as well as those traveling west on Douglas and turning off onto
13/Abbortsford.
"Connectivity should be done for greater reasons than the convenience of
one development. County residents north of Douglas can stay on Douglas or go
east as you suppose many of the Hearthfire residents will do. Obviously if it
is not a convenient choice for residents north of Douglas, it will not be for
the residents of Hearthfire either, especially once the roads are connected.
-- The one-way proposal would eliminate a number of secondary
points of access and force emergency vehicles to drive a long way around
to get into the neighborhood
"' All emergency points of access to our neighborhood are from the south. The
fire station is on Country Club Road and the ambulance would most likely come
up Lemay. The emergency entrance to Hearthfire could be maintained. The
present narrow configuration of Inverness Rd with soft shoulders essentially
makes it a one way street for the purposes of school buses and fire trucks.
within the Urban Growi:h Area. we are aware that consideration has been given to removing our area
from the UGA. Apparently. much of the area would require a pump station to be served by public
sewer, relegating most residences here to the use of septic systems; and therefore excluding the area
from inclusion into the Fort Collins City limits. The result being that the character of our area will
likelv remain semi -rural with "horse property" as the most common real estate use, and a total
number of approximately 30+ residences. Obviously, there would be little benefit toanyone to
-connect" a City subdivision of 200+ residences to this semi -rural area. The Hearthfire residents
would gain little, and our neighborhood would suffer significant losses. In effect, the City would be
sanctioning the use of our neighborhood roads for "cut through" traffic.
It would seem that the best alternative for the Hearthfire PUD would be to route the majority of
vehicle traffic onto roads such as Douglas Road, State HWY 1, and CoRdl 1, which can be
improved to handle the expected traffic volume. In fact, this is presently the case. However, if the
Hearthfire street connection to CoRd 13, proposed by the City, is made, major re -design of the
existing roads would be needed to obtain a safe road capable of handling the proposed traffic
volume. We would like to stress that although the City has repeatedly proposed paving of our
neighborhood roads, we do not feet that this would be a solution. Instead, we believe that this would
only make these roads even more dangerous than they are now. If the City insists that this
connection must be made (for whatever reason) we would expect that it must be accompanied by
major re -design of these roads. A responsibility that the City must assume, not the County.
Years ago, the traffic issue was perhaps one of the most significant issues which galvanized this,
neighborhood; and resulted in a great deal of time and effort on the part of a number of residents to
educate ourselves and become more involved in a variety of City and County issues. This
involvement has grown and we are fully committed to continuing our participation in both City and
County affairs. We hope that you would give serious consideration to our concerns, and
demonstrate that City Plan can be flexible and truly acknowledge the special character of our
Countv subdivision as a part of the larger community.
For vour information, we have enclosed some copies of past letters from Larimer County,
expressing concerns about increased traffic generated by City subdivisions on County roads. In
addition, a quick survey of our neighborhood revealed that every resident contacted opposed the
proposed Hearthfire Pt street connection to CORdl3. Please feel free to contact us if you have
questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Kilkel
920 Inverness Rd
Ft. Collins, CO 80524
493-7958
Margaret Phillips
805 E. Ridgecrest Rd
Ft. Collins, CO 80524
224-4722
The NorthEast Neighborhood Coalition (NENC)
932 Inverness Rd
Ft. Collins, CO 80524
224-9418
Sheri Wamhoff - NENC response to road discussion
Page 2 I
We also recently entertained another suggestion - to escrow the funds
for making the improvements on CR13 and the connection of Bateleur Lane
to CR13. City staff believes that making this connection with the
development is important for providing connectivity and travel choices,
as well as for providing multiple access points for emergency services.
**As I mentioned above, there is an emergency access to Hearthfire now, there
is access from Douglas Road and will be from County Road 11 shortly. The
emergency access is available through Inverness at this time. I do not
believe the connectivity would increase emergency access since it will run
parallel to the existing emergency access. Again, the impact of travel
choices must be much greater than 2 per hour to cause the need for the
connectivity at this time.
**I feel the neighborhood frustration comes from the fact that (excuse the
expression) we feel you are talking out of both sides of your mouth on this
issue. First -don't worry, the traffic will be so minimal it will not create a
problem. But if we don't have this connectivity there will be many traffic
problems elsewhere. Our feeling is that if this connectivity is so important
to preserve traffic flow, it must be more than 2 cars an hour and it WILL
create problems on unimproved roads.
We certainly recognize: and respect that the City has its policies. However,
this is a fringe development in an area that may never develop to urban
standards There are existing roads with greater hope for future improvement
(Douglas and County Road 11) and it would be wiser to direct traffic and any
incoming funds from developers to these roadways. It might then be best to
take a more proactive stance for what will serve the entire area, not just
apply the policies that work in urban areas.
We do hope you will give the language of the original approval the credence
it deserves. .."a local street connection could be constructed in the future
when traffic volumes and surrounding development make it necessary to provide
neighborhood connectivity."
Allow the developer to obtain the right of way and do the connection at the
time it is truly needed and when the surrounding roads have been improved to
the point they can handle the increased traffic safely.
Thank you,
Brigitte Schmidt
NorthEast Neighborhood Coalition
CC: FC1,CFCPO(cgloss, ebracke),FC1.TRANS_SVC(GDIEDE)
Dave Stringer - NENC response to road discussion Page 1
From: <Bschmidtmag@cs.com>
To:
FC'1 CFCPO(CMCNAIR),FC1.GWIA("mpeterson@larimer.org","lal@frii.com","mengem
oen@larimer.org")
Date: 10/31/02 4:38PM
Subject: NENC response to road discussion
Dear Mr McNair,
I received a copy of your reply to Marc Engemeon's suggestion and wish to
respond to certain points. The County has been trying to work with the
residents to find a solution to this problem One of our suggestions to the
County was to cul de sac Inverness Road on the east end. CR 13 could still
remain two way. As you pointed out there are pros and cons to any version of
this idea The neighborhood's key point remains that there is no valid reason
to provide connectivity onto Inverness Road at this time.
I would like to address some of your comments more directly.
My comments are highlighted by ** following your specific comments.
- Doing the one-way will probably prompt some motorists to
utilize Country Club Drive to get back to Lemay. We already know the
Country Club residents' sentiments about these projects, and their
concerns for increased traffic on Country Club. We think it will just
shift the debate, not resolve it.
** Your comment to me in our phone conversation was that this connectivity
would only create an increase of about 2 cars per hour according to the
recent traffic study. I feel that this would hardly be noticed on Country
Club which is already a paved road and has no dust problems. So you must feel
the traffic will be substantially greater than 2 cars per hour if it will
cause residents of Country Club to complain. Obviously the complaints of the
citizens of Inverness and Abbottsford do not hold as much sway.
--- Converting a roadway to a one-way street should be done for the
appropriate reasons, not due to one development and the minor traffic
caused by that development. There are other users of CR13 besides
Hearthfire residents. The traffic rthat currently uses this road are
county residents, many of Whom cross Douglas from County Road 13 to the
North, as well as those traveling west on Douglas and turning off onto
13/Abbortsford
**Connectivity should be done for greater reasons than the convenience of
one development. County residents north of Douglas can stay on Douglas or go
east as you suppose many of the Hearthfire residents will do. Obviously if it
is not a convenient choice for residents north of Douglas, it will not be for
the residents of Hearthfire either, especially once the roads are connected.
--- The one-way proposal would eliminate a number of secondary
points of access and force emergency vehicles to drive a long way around
to get into the neighborhood
" All emergency points of access to our neighborhood are from the south. The
fire station is on Country Club Road and the ambulance would most likely come
up Lemay. The emergency entrance to Hearthfire could be maintained. The
oresent narrow configuration of Inverness Rd with soft shoulders essentially
makes it a one way street for the purposes of school buses and fire trucks.
Dave Stringer - NENC response to road discussion Page 2
We also recently entertained another suggestion - to escrow the funds
for making the improvements on CR13 and the connection of Bateleur Lane
to CR13 City staff believes that making this connection with the
development is important for providing connectivity and travel choices,
as well as for providing multiple access points for emergency services.
-As I mentioned above, there is an emergency access to Hearthfire now, there
is access from Douglas Road and will be from County Road 11 shortly. The
emergency access is available through Inverness at this time. I do not
believe the connectivity would increase emergency access since it will run
parallel to the existing emergency access. Again, the impact of travel
choices must be much greater than 2 per hour to cause the need for the
connectivity at this time.
"I feel the neighborhood frustration comes from the fact that (excuse the
expression) we feel you are talking out of both sides of your mouth on this
issue. First -don't worry, the traffic will be so minimal it will not create a
problem But if we don't have this connectivity there will be many traffic
problems elsewhere- Our feeling is that if this connectivity is so important
to preserve traffic flow, it must be more than 2 cars an hour and it WILL
create problems on unimproved roads.
We certainly recognize and respect that the City has its policies. However,
this is a fringe development in an area that may never develop to urban
standards. There are existing roads with greater hope for future improvement
(Douglas and County Road 11) and it would be wiser to direct traffic and any
incoming funds from developers to these roadways. It might then be best to
take a more proactive stance for what will serve the entire area, not just
apply the policies that work in urban areas.
We do hope you will give the language of the original approval the credence
it deserves. ..."a local street connection could be constructed in the future
when traffic volumes and surrounding development make it necessary to provide
neighborhood connec:tivity."
Allow the developer to obtain the right of way and do the connection at the
time it is truly needed and when the surrounding roads have been improved to
the point they can handle the increased traffic safely.
Thank you,
Brigitte Schmidt
North East Neighborhood Coalition
CC: FC1.CFCPO(cgloss,ebracke),FC1 TRANS_SVC(GDIEDE)
T'1NSCREST
February d, 2003
Mr. Steve Olt
Citv of Fort Collins Planning Department
P.O. Box 580
281 N. College Ave
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-0580
R17 Hearthlire P.U.D., 2nd Filing, Final, #31-95E
Dear Steve:
Enclosed please find two (2) copies of the revised Site and Landscape Plan for the Hearthftre
PUD, Second Filing. On this revised plan we have added the temporary cul-de-sac at the west
end of Bateleur Lane as requested by the Planning and 'Zoning Board at the hearing in which they
approved the project.
Steve, please review this information and give me a call if you feel the plan is ready for mylars
with the owners signatures. Also note that Shear Engineering Corp. has resubmitted the Final
Utility Plans to Sherri Wamhoff for her review and approval.
Should you have any questions, please give me a call at 226-1655
Sincerely,
►iineCresVPDlgning and Design LLC
Enc
cc. Tom Kennedy, Firl Yunker, Lucia Li Icy, Sherri Wamhun', Brian Shear, I learthfire 2 Submittal
Plat,ning S Design LLC
4225 Westshore Way Fort Collins. 00 80525
(970) 226-1655 • (970) 226-1635 fax
LILEY. ROGERS & MARTELL, LLC ■
ATTORNEYS AT L A W
RECEIVED
April 29, 2003
CURRENT PLANNING
Ms. Sheri Wamhoff
City Engineering Department HAND DELIVERED
281 N. College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Re: Hearthfire P.U.D. Second Filing
Request for Modification of Conditions
Dear Sheri:
On behalf of the owner and developer of the Hearthfire P.U.D. Second Filing, we
request that the condition of final approval requiring execution of the Development Agreement,
utility plans and final plans be modified to extend the time from May 15, 2003 to July 17, 2003.
The additional time is necessary to finalize plan revisions to construct a cul-de-sac at the end of
Bateleur Lane, construction phasing plans, the Development Agreement and additional changes
to the utility plans requested by the Stormwater Department and agreed to by the Developer.
Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you.
Sincerely,
LILEY, ROGERS & MARTELL, L.L.C.
By:
LAL/jpk
PC: Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney
Steve Olt, Project Planner
Brian Shear, Shear Engineering Corporation
Tom Kennedy, Hearthfire, Inc.
LUCIA A. LILEY • JAMES A. MARTELL • TODD W. ROGERS
THE PETER ANDERSON HOUSE • 300 SOUTH HOWES STREET • FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521
TELEPHONE. (970) 221-4455 • FAX (970) 221 -4242
Sher' Wamhoff - Hearthfire PUD Second Filing Development Agreement Page 1
From: "Janette P. Kechter'<jkechter@lileyrogersmartell.com>
To: "Paul Eckman" <WECKMAN@fcgov.com>, "Sheri Wamhoff' <swamhoff@fcgov.com>,
"Dave Stringer" <dstringer@fcgov.com>
Date: 5/13/03 2:16PM
Subject: Hearthfire PUD Second Filing Development Agreement
Good afternoon, Paul and Sheri.
Attached are our redlined revisions to the Development Agreement proposed by the City for the Hearthfire
PUD Second Filing. I would appreciate it if one of you would forward this draft to Basil Harridan, as I do
not have his email address. The reasons for our revisions are as follows:
1. Sec. II.C.1. (page 5) was revised to account for the plan to phase construction. We are aware that the
City typically only allows the issuance of 25% of the permits prior to completion of the improvements. If
applied to each phase separately, the Developer would only be able to pull 4 or 5 permits in Phase 1.
From a cash flow perspective, this is difficult. We would propose to complete the Phase 1 improvements
prior to the issuance of 25% of the permits overall, and then complete the Phase 2 and 3 improvements
prior to 25% of the permits in each respective phase.
2. Sec. II.D.4. and 5. (pages 8 and 9) were changed slightly to mirror the language of the Amendment to
the First Filing Development Agreement where these obligations were first imposed.
3. We have struck the new language in the approval condition in Sec. II.D.6. Although the Developer
agreed to construct the collector prior to the 91 st permit in the First and Second Filings, it did not agree to
construct before the 6th permit in the Second Filing, nor did the Planning and Zoning Board impose this as
a condition.
4. Sections II.D.7. through 9 (page 9-12) have been revised to specify that the sole purpose of the
contribution in aid is for the specified improvements, and to put an outside limit on the time the City can
hold the money. In the case of Turnstone Lane (Sec. II.D.9.), the funds are to be refunded not to the
Developer, but to The Water Supply and Storage Company. You will recall that the permanent storm
drainage easements from The Water Supply and Storage Company are the subject of pre-existing
agreements that took two years to negotiate. As a condition of granting the easements, the Developer
agreed to have the money deposited for Turnstone Lane refunded to The Water Supply and Storage
Company if the improvements were not built.
5. Section II. F.2. (page 13) was revised to take care of the possibility that the accessway would have to
be relocated. In such event, the Developer would have to abide by the same conditions and process that
were applicable to construction of the accessway for the First Filing.
6. The blanks in Sections II.G.1. and 2 (page 14 and 15) will be completed as soon as Doug Moore
approves the revised wetland mitigation plan submitted by the Developer's engineer. We understand that
Page
Sl et,Wamhoff - Hearthfire PUD Second Filing Development Agreement
2
there have been numerous meetings and that the parties are in agreement on the concept of the plan and
the language of these paragraphs. As soon as we know the revised acreages, we will let you know.
Please review our proposed changes and call with your comments. We look forward to being able to
resolve any outstanding issues prior to the Planning and Zoning Board hearing on Thursday evening to
prevent having to request a modification of conditions.
Liley, Rogers & Martell, LLC
300 South Howes Street
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
Telephone: (970) 221-4455
Facsimile: (970) 221 4242
THIS MESSAGE AND ATTACHMENTS ARE INTENDED ONLY FOR THE ADDRESSEE(S) AND MAY
CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THE
MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
INTENDED RECIPIENT, I DID NOT INTEND TO AND DO NOT WAIVE ANY PRIVILEGES OR THE
CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE MESSAGE AND ATTACHMENTS. IF YOU RECEIVE THIS
COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY ME IMMEDIATELY AND DELETE THE MESSAGE
AND ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR COMPUTER AND NETWORK, ANY DISSEMINATION OF THIS
COMMUNI-CATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. THANK YOU.
CC: "Tom Kennedy" <tk@americaloan.com>, "Tom Dugan" <tompinecrest@gwest.net>
P1N£CR£ST
May 15. 2003
Mr. Doug Moore
City of Fort Collins Natural Resources Dept.
P.O. Box 580
Ft. Collins, Colorado 90522
RE: Hearthfire PUD, Second Filing
Revised Wetlands Mitigation Plan
Dear Doug:
As we have discussed, enclosed please find one (1) copy of the revised wetlands
mitigation plan for the Hearthfire PUD, Second Filing. Based upon the wetland
disturbance created by the water quality pond..07 acres and the .15 acres located within
lots 27-32, for a total disturbance of .22 acres, .33 acres on new wetlands will be created
along the northwest portion of the existing large wetlands.
Doug, please review the plan and if you should have any questions, feel free to give me a
call at 566-4714.
Sincerely,
PineCrest Pla4kning & Design LLC
Manage
Enclosure
CC LOCI❑ Liley, Tom Kennedy. Brian Shear, Steve Ott, Sherri Wamhorf, Ilearthf re 2n' rile
P1aNNi"5 & DesigN LLC
4225 Westshore Way Fort Collins, CC 80525
(970) 226-1655 • (970) 226-1635 fax
141
%%W
• LILEY, ROGERS & MARTELL, LLC -
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
April 29, 2003
Ms. Sheri Wamhoff
City Engineering Department
281 N. College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Re: Hearthfire P.U.D. Second Filing
Request for Modification of Conditions
Dear Sheri:
RECEIVED
CURRENT PLANNING
HAND DELIVERED
On behalf of the owner and developer of the Hearthfire P.U.D. Second Filing, we
request that the condition of final approval requiring execution of the Development Agreement,
utility plans and final plans be modified to extend the time from May 15, 2003 to July 17, 2003.
The additional time is necessary to finalize plan revisions to construct a cul-de-sac at the end of
Bateleur Lane, construction phasing plans, the Development Agreement and additional changes
to the utility plans requested by the Stormwater Department and agreed to by the Developer.
Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you.
Sincerely,
LILEY, ROGERS & MARTELL, L.L.C.
By:
LAL/jpk
PC: Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney
Steve Olt, Project Planner
Brian Shear, Shear Engineering Corporation
Tom Kennedy, Hearthfire, Inc.
LUCIA A. LILEY • JAMES A. MARTELL N TODD W. ROGERS
THE PETER ANDERSON HOUSE • 300 SOUTH HOWES STREET • FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521
TELEPHONE: (970) 221-4455 • FAX (970) 221-4242
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 29, 2003
TO: Planning and Zoning Board Members
FROM: Dave Stringer, Development Engineering Manager
RE: STATUS OF PROJECTS ON THE LIST FOR MODIFICATION OF
FINAL APPROVAL
The following is a list of the 1 project currently on the agenda for a three-month
extension of the condition of final approval requiring completion of utility plans
and execution of a development agreement. A brief summary of the project
status follows the item.
Hearthfire PUD, Second Filinq
P & Z Approval: 11/04/02
After the conditional approval of this project by the Planning and Zoning Board
t the utility plans needed to be revised to show the delay in improvements of
taw County Road 13 and the improvements that are needed to block off Bateleur
Lane from through traffic in the interim. The Developer had also decided to
Phase the construction of the project. We have reviewed the plans and the
changes were made with only minor revisions remaining before the plans can be
signed off and approved. The Development Agreement has been drafted and is
currently under review by the various parties. Staff anticipates that the
Development Agreement, signing of the utility plans and filing of the plat will be
completed before the July 17th Planning and Zoning Board hearing.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Post Office Box 1190
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190
(970)498-5700
FAX (970)498-7986
June 22,2000
City of Fort Collins
Dear
The purpose of this letter is to convey the County's concerns about the second filing of the proposed Hearthfire
development located at the SE. corner of County Road 54 (Douglas Rd) and County Road 13. It is our
understanding that this project is currently in the City's review process and will be scheduled to go before the
City's planning and Zoning Board in the near future.
The concern that we have with the proposed development is the impact that it will have on the transportation
system in the area, more specifically the impact that it will have on Inverness Street and Abbotsford Road which
are extensions of County Road 13. The County classifies both of these roads as "Local" roads and we feel that
they are adequate to handle the relatively low volume of traffic that reside in the area. The City of Fort Collins
Master Street Plan classifies these roads as "2-lane Collectors". On paper we would agree that these roads could
Iunction as collector roads, but in reality major improvements would need to be made to these roads before they
could handle the traffic volumes associated with collector roads.
]'he roads arc currently surfaced with treated gravel, which the County considers to have the capacity to safely
carry Tess than 300 vehicles per clay (Section 8.1.5.C.I of the Larimer County Land Use Code). The latest traffic
counts that the County conducted on these roads was in 1998. At that time, the average daily traffic was between
160 vpd (south of Douglas Rd) and 275 vpd (north of Gregory Rd). This indicates that these roads are near the
County's paving threshold.
In addition, both of these roads have significant constraints that would prevent them from functioning safely as
collector roads. These include 90 degree bends in the road, sight distance problems, two bridge structures that
would need to be rehabilitated, and safety issues at the intersection of Abbotsford Rd and Gregory Rd.
The latest traffic study for the Hearthfire development that the County has on file, dated July, 1996, indicates that
approximately MIN, - 25%of the traffic generated by the development will travel on these roads. This equates to
over 350 new vehicle trips per day on these roads which, in itself, exceeds the paving threshold.
The 1996 traffic study also indicates that the traffic that is projected to use these roads would first have to exit the
I (earth fire development onto Douglas Rd, go west on Douglas Rd, and turn south onto County Rd 13. The City is
now proposing to create a direct access onto County Rd 13 from the second filing of the Hearthfire development.
It is our opinion that this will increase the number of vehicles turning south onto County Road 13.
City staff has indicated that some of this traffic that was projected to use County Rd 13 will, in the future, go east,
through the Richard's Lake development, and travel south on County Rd 11. We feel this may be true to some
extent but that there will still be significant impacts to Inverness and Abbotsford.
The County requests that if the City approves the development, in order for it to meet the Adequate Public
Facilities Policy of Larirner County, the approval should include the following conditions:
1. The developer is responsible for paving County Rd 13, Inverness St, and Abbotsford
hPk,v,, danchkkercrmiskit,,,4cA1,,,,Vk."bire 2,,d fihi,, doe
2. The developer either corrects the safety problems, which includes horizontal and vertical changes or construct
approved traffic calming improvements on County Road 13, Inverness, and Abbotsford.
3. If direct access onto County Rd 13 is approved, the developer be required to construct a raised median from
Douglas Rd past the access point to allow only a'/a turning movement at the access. This would prevent
vehicles from turning left from the access and going south on County Rd 13.
4. The developer is required to improve the intersection of Gregory Rd and Abbotsford.
5. The City agrees to maintain Inverness and Abbotsford from County Rd 13 to Gregory Rd.
Again, we are seriously concerned about the impacts the proposed Hearthfire development will have on nearby
County roads and County residents, and we urge you to address these concerns in your evaluation of the proposed
development.
It devrev pWnchk%refer alslcities eollinslheanhfire 211d filinb doe Page 2 d
City of Fort Collins
FUTIwaltM116lllul
TO: Cam McNair, City Engineer
THRU: Dave Stringer, Development Review Manager
FROM: Sheri Wamhoff, CE II
DATE: August 1, 2000
APPROVED
BY:I.,� ' `
City of Fort Collins
Engineering Depaittnent
RE: Variance Request for Hearthfire PUD, Second Filing for a reduced radius curve at the
intersection of Batleur Lane and County Road 13
The following variance request is for the use of a reduced radius curve at the intersection of
Batleur Lane and County Road 13. Per Table 2 of the Design and Construction Criteria,
Standards and Specifications for Streets, Sidewalks, Alleys and Other Public Ways the minimum
centerline curve radius for a local street is 240 feet. The current design provides for a 225 foot
curve.
I believe the variancc-should_be-granIed, The slightly reduced radius on this curve will still
provide for a safe design. Batleur Lane at Country Road 13 shall be a stop condition, therefore
the vehicles approaching this intersection and the curve shall be slowing down and the curve
radii does not impact the sight distance of the driver approaching the intersection. No sight
distance easements are needed to accommodate the sight distance requirements approaching,
entering or exiting this curve. The use of the reduced radius curve also allows the Batleur Lane
and County Road 11_; intersection to be located further north along County Road 13 than an
intersection that would exist with the minimum radius requirement being met. The intersection
as located meets corner sight distance and stopping sight distance requirements for the speed of
the road.
It should be noted, as indicated in the variance request that a variance is not needed for the
gent length being used. In accordance with section 1.02.03.04 "no tangent length is required
if the angle of departure is less than 10 degrees." As designed the tangent intersecting County
Road 13 is at a 90 degree angle (0 degrees of departure) and as indicated above and in the
variance request submitted the intersection as designed provides for safe sight distance and safe
traffic operation.
If you have any questions, please call me at 0140.
:Attachments
August 1, 2000
Project No: 1552-02-97
Sheri Wamhoff
City of Fort Collins Engineering Department
P.O. Box 580
Ft. Collins, Colorado 80524
Re: Variance Request for Hearthfire P.U.D., Second Filing; Ft. Collins, Colorado
Dear Sheri,
This letter represents a request for a variance for the horizontal road geometry at the intersection
of Bateluer Lane and North Countv Road 13 The following aspects of the design do not meet
with current city standards. The centerline radius of the curve at the western end of the road is
225 feet. Current City standards require a radius of 240 feet. The tangent length from the eastern
ROW of North County Road 13 is 17 feet. City standards require a tangent length of 100 feet
except when the angle of departure is less than 10 degrees (City of Fort Collins Design Street
Standards Section 11.02 03 .04, dated July 1996). In this case, Bateleur Lane intersects North
County Road 13 at a 90-degree angle.
We are requesting the variance for the following reasons. The traffic volume on Bateleur Lane
will be relatively low. In addition, the posted speed limit will be 25 mph. A stop sign will be
provided at the intersection of Bateleur Lane and North County Road 13. The proposed radius
also pushes the intersection further north than the required radius providing additional sight
distance to the 90' curve located south of the intersection on County Road 13. This additional
sight distance will provide for a safer intersection into County Road 13 from the subdivision.
We trust that this request will be accepted and the plans approved accordingly. Please call me at
(970) 226-5334 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Mark Oberschmidt
Shear Engineering Corporation
MEO / mo
cc: Tom Kennedy; Hearthfire, Inc.
Steve Olt; City Planning
Tom Dugan; PineCrest Planning and Design
iS36 S Collcge, Suitc 12 1Y. Collins. CO 80525 (9-0) 226-Sii-) Fax (9-0) 282-011 1 wxaw. shearengi ncering. coil]