Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLIND PROPERTY - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2004-08-16TIMOTHY J. DOW, MBA, 1D PATRICIA T. DOW, CPA, JD, LLM• MAYO SOMMER-MEYER, PC'* OF COUNSEL •ALSO ADMITTED TO PRACTICE LAW W NEBR KA ^ALSO ADMITTED TO PRACTICE LAW PI WYOX G THE DOW LAW FIRM, LLC ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW P.O. BOX 1578 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522-1578 (970)498-9900 Via Hand Delivery Bob Barkeen City of Fort Collins Current Planning 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 FAX: (970)498-9966 E-MAIL: dow@doWlaWfh-nLwm November 12, 2002 Re: Project #39-94B Lind Property PDP — Type II (LUC) Our Client: Windsor Reservoir & Canal Company Dear Mr. Barkeen: N 7 CLOCK TOWER SQUARE 323 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 2312 CAREY AVENUE CHEYENNE, WYOMING 82001 (307)634-1541 I represent the Windsor Reservoir & Canal Company. We are the owners and users of the very large ditch which generally runs along the easterly portion of this project, often known as the "No. 8 Outfall Ditch." I have reviewed this submission with your Project Comment Sheet of October 16, 2002. I have also reviewed the items under Storm Drainage at page 3 of the Response to Conceptual Review Comments. On behalf of our client, we comment further as follows: 1. Storm Drainage / Retention We have not seen the drainage report, so we have no idea what is proposed in this regard. A critical concern is that the retention be of sufficient quantity to hold water for a period of time between 4 and 8 hours prior to discharging into the irrigation ditch, and then at a control rate. This is necessary to give us the opportunity, to shut down the ditch in the event that it is flowing at capacity at the time of a storm. 2. Access / Crossings The ditch company needs an access of at least 25 feet running along the east side of the ditch. Because of the size and steepness of this ditch, this access will need to be carefully planned and worked into the future stabilization or reduction in the slope. Considering the steepness of the ditch and the fact that there is continual falloff, even a 25-foot wide right-of-way right now might not be adequate because if heavy equipment were operated that close to the edge, it would likely fall into the ditch. MAR-28-2003 FRI 11:08 AM FORT COLLINS UTILITIES FAX NO. 970 221 6619 P. 02/04 some hundred and thirty years never really bothering anyone. The developers come to us — we don't go to them'. Bob, I will leave it up to your discretion as to what distribution you wish to make of this Ictter as I'm sure that some of your staff would be interested. As always, I invite the opportunity to discuss these matters in further detail so maybe we can schedule a luncheon appointment sometime in the near future. Yours very truly, MS/Imh pe: Donn Engel P.C. MAR-28-2003 FRI 11 08 AM FORT COLLINS UTILITIES FAX NO. 970 221 6619 P. 03/04 TIMOTHY J. DOW. MHA, 1D PATMCIA'I. D0W. CP.A, JD, LLM- MAYO 5ONIMERMEYER, PC** OFCOUNSEL •nL> nnr.n'rtfn ro Pr ML env n8e41us8n ..,«o.On�m�,a vnnrncv, .w w wrowNc Yvonne Seaman THE Dow LAW FIRM, LLC ATTOKNHYI AND COUNNELORS AT LAW P.O. BOX 1578 FORT COI.I.INS. COLORADO 90522-1578 (970)498•8900 Land Acquisition & Planning Director Centex Homes 9250 E, Costilla Ave., #200 Greenwood Village, CO 80112 1'AX' (970)498-9966 E-MAIL'. Mw:(atowlawfinn corn March 25, 2003 Re: Our client: Windsor Reservoir and Canal Company (WRCC) Project #39-94B Lind Property PDP-Type 2 (LUC) Dear Yvonne: k 7 CLOCK TOWER SQUARE 323 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLI.INS, COLORADO 80524 231J CAREY AVENUE CHEYENNE. W YOMING 82001 (307) 6M-1541 My enclosed comment letter to the City of Fort Collins concerning your Phase I on the Lind Property as it relates to our ditch is self explanatory. However, I would like to pass on some thoughts and concerns that I have based on the information available so far that will probably impact your development plan as you proceed to other phases. I have now been through the comprehensive (meaning one inch thick) drainage plan for Phase I which contains a lot of very good information as it probably relates to the whole project. I have also been through some 73 sheets of drawings supplied to me on the project. Incidentally, there are some pond outlet details indicated on sheet CS903. This sheet was not included in the set and although it's not of focus yet it will be in the future. I firmly believe that a development project needs to be planned and approved globally to the extent possible. Of course, my focus is on the impact on our ditches and irrigation facilities. I know what is going to ultimately happen with your project because you are going to want to dump developed stormwater from Phase I along with the other phases into the ditch. however, to make it easy and get Phase I approved it doesn't appear that you have dealt with or choose to deal with a comprehensive global site plan so were just going to retain the water on Phase I which doesn't create any problem for the ditch and maybe otherwise. However, as other phases are developed then the impact on the ditch needs to be dealt with. At that point certain commitments and decisions have been made which greatly reduce the flexibility and the ability of the developer to do those things that we feel are required to allow the ditch to handle their development. In this light everyone is often put under a great deal of pressure to give and compromise because many things cannot be undone or redone and most human MAR-2B-2003 FRI 11:09 AM FORT COLLINS UTILITIES FAX NO, 970 221 6619 P. 04/04 beings have a certain amount of instinct to try to "Work it out and keep everyone happy" — I don't when it comes to my client's ditches and reservoirs. so, this letter is primarily a "heads up." The "preliminary stormwater release rates" supplied to me by Troy Campbell a few months ago indicate that the preliminary plan is to dump 25.6 CFS into the Number 8 outlet ditch. This is not acceptable. I appreciate that these numbers come from all sorts of engineering magic to come up with the runoff from the storage storms. The reality is that these numbers seldom represent the true situation. A developer has great incentive to keep the numbers as big as possible for strictly economic reasons. I believe we have had the discussion to the effect that it's very interesting that as these ditches have for a hundred years meandered through the farm lands storms have resulted in little, if any, overtopping of the ditches. They were receiving the "historic storm flows" when the grounds discharged into the ditches are developed with each of them dumping this same theoretical historic storm flow into the ditch they begin to overtop. Why has history changed? One extremely important factor relative to what are real storm flows (also meaning historic) is to look at the use of the lands for the decades in the past. Your development has been cultivated since I can remember which starts about 1956. Cultivated ground is a whole different animal that uncultivated natural ("God made") ground as it deals with stormwater. Cultivated (and particularly row crop) fields make a substantial difference in terms of stormwater retention. Each little furrow holds a whole bunch of water which percolates into the soil, evaporates, or flows at a much slower rate into the ditch because it's not gathered up and dumped at a single point. An example of what I consider to be good planning as it concerns my clients is what is being done with the Maple Hill subdivision to the south of yours. That project had the entire site plan developed at one time covering the whole project which is approximately the same size as yours. Through cooperative efforts with a developer who genuinely cares about the ongoing welfare of my client's irrigation facilities, we have worked out a plan which will discharge approximately 10 CFS into our ditch which we believe is a flow we can live with as the contribution from that project at such time as all or most of the ground surrounding the ditch is developed. There is another area that you should be sensitive to. My understand is basically the City of Fort Collins wants to have some form of crossing these ditches approximately every 660 feet. This is either a connector street, pedestrian bridge, or something of that sort. That number of crossings across our ditch is not acceptable. Yours very truly, MAYO SOMMERMEYER, P.C. Mayo Sommermeyer MS/lmh PC: Donn Engel Troy Campbell, The Sear Brown Group Robert Smith, Stormwater planning! Utilities Department, City of Fort Collins RECEIVED TIMOTI IY J. DOW, MBA,1D PATRICIA T. DOW, CPA, JD, LLM" MAYO SOMMERMEYER, PC" OFCOUNSEI. • ALSO ADAaTILU 10I-I T11E I.A W IN NFaRII- "AI SO ANMIITEN TO PRACIICE LA W IN WI OMING THE DOW LAW FIRM, LLC ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW P.O. BOX 1578 FORT COI LINS, COLORADO 80522-1578 (970)498-9900 Steve Olt City of Fort Collins Current Planning 281 North College Fort Collins, CO 80524 FAX (970)498-9966 E-MAIL dowCr dmdawfimi com March 25, 2003 Re: Project #39-9413 Lind Property PDP-Type 2 (LUC) Our client: Windsor Reservoir and Canal Company Dear Mr. Olt: CURRENT PLANNING 9 7 CLOCK TOWER SQUARE 323 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 2312 CAREY AVENUE CHEYENNE, WYOMING 82001 (307) 634-1541 This will be in response to your submission of February 12a' which concerns a portion of the overall project consisting of approximately 45 acres in the southwest corner. This portion of the project does not abut our client's ditch, although it will influence storm water discharges into the ditch. I believe that comments made in response to Mr. Barkeen's submittal of October 161h by my letter of November 12, 2002 adequately addressed the stormwater issues. Therefore, we did not respond to this submission by the requested date of March 5u' feeling that we had already covered the bases. However, I simply do want to emphasize that the Ditch Company has not entered into any agreement with this developer concerning the burden that its developed storm water runoff will have on our irrigation ditch system. We are relying on the representation made by the developer in its project development plan drainage and erosion control study for Lind Property Phase I dated October 15, 2002 wherein it is represented on page six that "At this time, stormwater released from the detention pond is not allowed due to the Master Plan Update not being complete." Yours very truly, MAY( e MS/Imh PC: Troy Campbell, The Sear Brown Group Yvonne Seaman, Centex Homes Terence C. Hoaglund, ASLA, Vignette Studios Kenneth Lind, Esq. Donn Engel, Executive Secretary, Windsor Reservoir and Canal Company MA MAR.28'2CO3 17:16 3C37929811 ROM : BOXELDER CENTEXHOMES FAX NO. : 9704960701 #1756 P.002/002 Mar. 28 2M 12:42PM P2 28 March 2M Ma rvenno Shaman Land Ac"c ition Planter Centex Homes 9250 East Cost!%Ave. #M Greenwood vl 4w, Co set 12 RE: Lind Property, Filing I Der Ms. Seaman: Boxelder Sanitation Dirtier has reviewed the constriction plans for the development or the Lind Property, Filing I and is aware of the proposed realignment of the 13" sanitary, sewer collector line on the property. The district is in agreement with the proposed realignment upon the following conditions Realignment aCtIVIU s of the aCOVe sanitary sewer collector line shall be done in accordance with district standwds and specifications, AcwW field activities by the develoWs mzoontractas 10 accomplish the realignment vAll be subod to district oversight: Abandoned segment of original sanitary sewer line will either be removed and the area reclaimed to district standards and specifications, or If the line is teft in place. it shall be Slleit with concrete. The ramedfafion of the area of the original alignment is the sole responsibility of the Lind Property deveMpment agent(s). The reloaded sanitary sewer line will be aligned within dedicated right -of -wry "lured the Lind Property. Firing I, and the dtatrict will vacate the existing Sanitary sewer easement with the final plat of the subdivLslon. This vacation will be MwmplLahed by a separate doMment following the acceptance of the realigned san'dary sewer. If you have arty questions regaltling this matter. please Call. Sincerely, Ravindra M. Srivastava General Manager cc: Troy Campbell. Sear-Browm 70. Box 1519 - 2217 Aireszy AVM. N3 . Fort Collins, Colorado IAr oar o. Phone (970) 498-0604 0 Fax (970) 473.0701 & EmeU bsdOvein¢t.eom APR.-JB'?003 14:30 30374P9811 CENTEY.HO"4ES #ZZs2 P.)O2/005 K & M Company P.O. Box 2206 Ft. Collins, CO 80522 March 31, 2003 Susan Joy City of Fort Collins 215 Nonh Mason Street Ft Collins, CO 80524 RE: Land Property: Dear Susan Joy, As the Managing Partner of K & M Company I have reviewed Centex Homes proposed realignment of the Baker Lateral. We have no problems with the change of alignment. K & M will be previewing the construction plans as the project proceeds. The irrigation line will be in a separate easement outside the County Road 11 right -of way. Construction of the new irrigation line may not occur during the irrigation season Centex homes assures me that They will coordinate with me on the timing of the construction of the new line and demolition of the old line Sincerely, Thomas K. Moore 970-482-8082 ZQ/Zo ?Wcd Nmwrn Nmn" 968E-ZBb-BL6 £Z:PT soez/tE/£e 04/01/03 TUE 13:12 9 002 GEORGE H. OTTENHOFF KENNETH P. LIND KIM R. LAWRENCE P. ANDREW JONES RICHARD T. LIPUMA KELLV J. CUSTER LIND, LAWRENCE & OTTENHOFF, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE LAW OUILOING 1011 ELEVENTH AVENUE P.O. BOX 326 GREELEY, COLORADO e0632 April 1, 2003 City of Fort Collins Engineering Department - Development Review 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Attention: Susan Joy Via fax: (970) 221-6378 Re: Lind -Allen Property and Centex Homes Dear Ms. Joy: TELEPHONE (e7p1353.2323 (970) 366a160 TELECOPIER (970)366.1111 Centex Homes, which has purchased approximately44.945 acresfrom the Lind and Allen families, which property is generally located in the Southwest One Quarter (SW1/,) of Section Tweinty-nine (29), Township Eight (8) North, Range 68 West of the 6' P.M., City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, has requested that we advise you whether or not the property owners will grant to Centex Homes a temporary easement for purposes of land improvements, roadways, utilities and other on -site land developments upon property still owned by the Lind and Allen families which adjoins the property purchased by Centex Homes. This request is specifically authorized pursuant to a Contract dated August 11, 2000 as entered into between Centex Homes and the Lind and Allen families. Accordingly, the Lind and Allen families will grant to Centex Homes a temporary easement upon property owned by the Lind and Allen families and adjoining the Centex Homes land in the above described section for purposes of constructing and installing land improvements, roadways, utility improvements, and all on -site land development improvementsforthe Centex parcel, including, the rightto excavate and/or stockpile dirt, facilitate grading of the property, install utilities and other improvements required by Centex for development of their parcel of property. It is our understanding based upon engineering drawings provided to the undersigned that this temporary easement will include an area of land not exceeding 2.8 acres. 04/01/03 TUE 13:12 FAX fa 003 City of Fort Collins Engineering Department - Development Review April 1, 2003 Page 2 If you have any questions or concerns related to this response, please contact the undersigned. VAN truIV VOUrs, & OTTENHOFF LLP KFL/cg pc: Centex Homes (via fax 303-792-9811) Jack Vahrenwald (via fax 970A82-5175 Jayone Allen 04/08/03 13:13 FAX 970 482 6368 THE SEAR -BROWN GROUP U 003 F.PvA. O� VOO-4AU jo: iv3 te,2a9 VTMIU9956 7TMdniY J. DOW. M9A.10 PATRICIA T, DOW. CPA, JD. LLM' MAYO SOMPAMMEYM PC:" OPCOUN= • �Ve�v.moN2M[11myY IP ••MJ0�0RT'1lOAll{K716UF p.,N.IR.v CENTEXHCMES DOW i.AW FIRli Tn pow LAw FMK LLC ATTCMI�J AM COUNSEL= AT I.AW PA. M 1375 Etb1T COLLTKCOL011AW WS22-1711 P7a)b""a FAR; VM4"4 66 VAIAnz 4."@4 -,M.00� April 3, 2003 Yla FacsPndk (303) 792-9811 Yvonne Seaman Laud Acquisition & Plunr ing Director Cerltelt Homes 9250 L. C03611a Ave., 9200 Ofeenwood Villagr., CO 80112 F2045 P.002100: M7 eLoMT*W%A SQUAM1F V3 SOUTH CMLMS AYENUE PORT 004LINS, COLOPAM Y Z+ Ire: Windsor Reservoir and Canal CompaM Planning / Centex homes Dear Yvonne: 2512 GAFF AVVM CHRVZNNF WYCWI r40i (M)63 1541 This will be further to our telephone conference of April 2, 2003, generally dealing with the subject matter of your letter of that some date faxed to me. Let me elear a few things up. I believe the City of Fort Collins storm water people ere doing just fine? 1 am not at all frustrated with the master storm water plan or how it is coming along. Certainly we have concerns and there are parts of it we think are great and parts of that concem us. It is still in the planning stages and we are working together on these various issues from time to time, In a perfect world, it would be great to have the masts plan finalized and My implemented on to ground before a shovel of dirt was uunCICL Haweva, dds is not reality, So what we are Ming to do is involve the ditch compeny in some compromises that will allow a reasonable and modest amotmt of development in the drainage area that a$ccu our ditch whi)e all this comes together. Thus, we are willing To take a small quantity of water into the ditch from a certain amount of development as hopeAmy more development and the availability of the storm water runaA'system converge. We enjoy a good worldag relationship with the storm water people in OM city government and vre've worked hard to share a vision. I particularly commend Bob, Glen and Basil in this regard, not to exclude others. The City'3 Task 13 doing good land ase planurng and devclopr ual would be a whole lot easier if our ditches didn't c)CM On the other hand, land use and development bring little if anything to the irrigation companies, so we would like not to have to deal with it either. So, consequently we are working together with a high degree of sensitivity to each other's needs - Z DO' Of concern is the number of crossings for vehicle and/or pedestrian traffic and the interconnect to future neighborhoods. This portion of the ditch is owned by WRCC. We are concerned with the number of crossings unreasonably interfering with and impairing our ability to travel and inspect this ditch on a regular basis as well as to operate equipment along the ditch to maintain it. It is very difficult to operate a backhoe under a bridge! Any approaches, curbs and railings dealing with. the approaches to any bridge crossing need to be designed such that they do not interfere with the ability to operate vehicles and equipment along the edge of the ditch. Thus, we would like to be prospectively informed of the proposed design criteria for these structures and their immediate surrounding area. Yours very truly, MAYO SOMME E R, Mayo Somme yer N MS/hb PC: Donn Engel, WRCC Kenneth Lind Yvonne Seaman, Centex Homes P.C. o4 wo3 13:13 FAX 970 482 8368 THE SEAR -BROWN GROUP U 004 Apn,O �'2o03 oe:21 3037929811 CENTEXHOMES .av iv:uv rn.t nru494SHae DOA I.AW FIRM :#2045 P.003/004 The basic thesis of my rccent round of correspondeaee was that those thbW really need to be looked at globally. My client can have no "legal" objection to your Phase I retention ,pond, as it doesn't affbd our ditch at all. However, looking at this subdivision that you propose as a whole and where we think it probably needs to go in terms of dealing with storm, water, the ?base I is of concern as what's done these may relate to the overall effect of the other pbases and ultimately the completed project on the ditch. I had no intention one way or another as to the reaction of the City as that's their business and discharge of their governmcntal responsibility. and frankly we've kind of gotten everybody's attention right now so we are looking at this in a bigger way. Our ditch can and will (with appropriate agreements and compensation) take a portion of your storm water. We will take what we can handle. My objective is to assist in the most sensible planning ponible, which I believe involves taking a modest amount of water, believing that this is something that we can live with until the overall master plan is developed and implemented. At that time I would expect that a larger quantity of water can be handled by the new and better system, However, I don't really know that so I have to agree to that which we can live with forever if that's what we arc left with. I believe that the City of Fort Collins does want to proceed with sensible planning in the area and we would like to be a team member is that regard, so we will take some of the storm water into our existing facility to the extent that our existing facility can physically handle it One of the reasons that we are asking that a particular development only contribute a fairly modest amount of water to the ditch is tbat there's only so much capacity and I see a need to spread that capacity out over as many developers as possibly until more capacity is available. Frankly, beyond what I! anticipam we are willing to take from your subdivision in its entirety, I am very reluctant to agree to any additional storm water flows. Even though my atromey-client focus is strictly to the protection of my client's physuml facilities and their operation for the benefit of the agricultural girareholdcm I do have an expanded interest, :saving resided in this city for 38 years and having bad myprofessica here for 34 of them. To retain all of the storm water rmoff from the entire proposed deve$gMr t just isn't good planning; aed I would be surprised if that would be approved. ReteD6on ponds in my opinion are a poor solution. They can result in deep, stagnant water vAich not only poses a danger to neighborhoods but typically araclis bad and grows nuIX Reuo ion ponds are a poor use of lard because it's hard for them to have multiple uses. Because I ey may well have water in them a large part of the time, it's difficult to develop them into attractive grassy areas with walling trails and other amenities, which detention facilities may not prevent because the water isn't going to be there too long. What we would like to have is a commitment fiom you w to the maximum amount of storm water runoff that you will ask to discharge info our existing ditch facility from the wbole approximate 175 acme development I think this understanding can be very productive as it may a$bcr haw yca design and eppmach even Phase I where you intend to retain ail the water. Our primary concern is rate and that's the major item that your people need for siting. We certainly bove water quality concerns, but are not tembly concerned about overall water quantity as long as all of a sudden somebody isn't collecting storm waters from all sorts of other properties and funneling them through their system even with a small rate of discharge! ? 0o: 04/08/03 13:14 FAX 970 482 6368 THE SEAR -BROWN GROUP Z 005 Ap R. 0412003 09: 22 3037929911_----... CENTEXHOMES _ aivn a.Rn r1FVM1 #2045 p.004/004 Would youu be willing to consider a commitment that the maximum rate of discharge from storm water accumulations that you will ask from the entire subdivision into our Mdsring ditch facilities wUl not exceed 10 CFS. You will, of coarse, agree to join in, connect or participate in any upgraded or revised drainage system developed is accordance by the City's master plan or by any govcmmental asenry itself, at such time as it is appropriate. That is of some concern to cue but probably of more concern to the City and I'm sure that issue will be adequately covered in their development agreement Please confer with your engineers and your other people and give some consideration as to whether or not you can commit at this time to a maximum rate inflow from Storm water collections from your subdivision at the rate of 10 CFS and we will talk further. I look forward to our meeting that we've scheduled April 24, 2003 at 2:00 pm at my office bare in Fort Collins. If you plan on having anyone else at this meeting other than yourself, please drop me a note and Iet me know who will be on the guest list or you can call my legal assistant, Tens, and let her know. Very truly yours, bra cc: Robert Smith, Storm Water Planning/Mlitics Dept., City of Fort Collins (via facsimile) Doan Engel (via facsimile) MEMORANDUM OD r� 0 CC)m TO: Yvonne Seaman, Centex Homes o Jim Allen -Morley, The Sear -Brown Group o m 'Terence Hoaglund, Vignette ;>tudios Q (D City of Fort Collins ° U CY) FROM: MaLL Ueli ch o X LL DATE: June 25, 2003 z a � SUBJECT: The Lind Property Dcv e7 opment, Filing 1 Transportation 0 TnIpact SLudy Addendum - Response to staff comments (File: 0212ME02) w ] o N ¢ 0 m ca 'Phis memorandum responds to comment number 12£3, created by w o Susan Joy on 5/30/03, where she requested roundabout analyses at the a rn various intersections u:;inq the long range traffic forecasts. No I lonq range traffic analyses were provided in this T1S per the ,coping z ul L meetinq with Eric Bracke, since the long range analyses were provided C7 in Lhe "Centex Homes OUP TIS," 3/01 The ;coping sheet is provided N O- in Appendix A of the "Lind ProperLy Development, Filinq I r` a Transportation Impact: Study," February 2003. Therefore, a long range a roundabout analysis could notbe performed. Conversations with L;ric Bracke irnlicated that a future TIS for subsequent_ fiJ_irigs of Lhe Lind Property should include a long range analysis Component. This will i n�:7 ude the necessary roundabout analyses of the subject i ntersecLions using the long range traffic forecasts. W (L z RX W z U_ a z J w W o 0 a r 0 7 z ` z ¢ 5 F- W oa U L r LL LL � a ¢ 5Q L TIN1011IY J_ DOW. MBA. JU PA IRIC IA I DOW, CPA, JD. LLN1" NIAYO SONIN1[RNIEYI.R, PC"' OFCOUNSIL • A SSOV)%1TITO TO PR ACTICL LAW IN NEBRASKA •A 50 \VNIITO D TO PRA("(ICS LAW IN W , ON11N(, THE Dow LAw FIRM, LLC ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW P.O. BON Ii-S FOR I' COLLINS, COLORADO 80522-1578 (970)498-9900 Via Hand Delivery Bob Barkeen City of Fort Collins Current Planning 281 N. College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 FAX (970)498-9966 E-MAIL'. do(c idol(au hrntcom July 16,2003 x 7 CLOCK TOWER SQUARE 323 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 2312 CAREY AVENUE CHEYF.NNE, WYOM INC 92001 (307)634-1541 Re: Project 439-94B Lind Property PDP Final Compliance — Type I (LUC) Our Clients: Windsor Reservoir & Canal Company Larimer & Weld Irrigation Company Dear Mr. Barkeen: I have reviewed your Revision Comment Sheet submission dated June 26, 2003. I appreciate this is Filing 1 and the total storm water management for the whole project may not yet be developed. We have worked closely with the developer from time to time concerning storm water management and discharge. I cannot tell from the referenced submission whether any storm water from Filing 1 is planned to be discharged into our clients ditch. There have been some discussions about retaining all of the developed storm water in Filing 1 and as other filings are developed toward completion of the whole project, a storm water system would be developed which will detain and discharge into the ditch at a modest rate. I have previously corresponded with Storm Water concerning retention issues, which may or may not be relevant when we're looking just at Filing I. but I thought you should be aware of that. The issue here is that I cannot tell from the submission whether the developer plans to discharge any portion of the developed storm water into the ditch in conjunction with just Filing 1. If the developer is going to retain all of the water, then we have no further comment other than what has already been mentioned. If the developer is planning on discharging any water into the ditch at this point, it should be noted that there is no agreement in place allowing the discharge of any developed storm water into our ditch. Respectfully submitted, MAY Ob1MERMEY C. WfaySomme r MS/jra cc: Yvonne Seaman Donn Engel Susan Joy - Lind Property: Comments/Request for Meeting Page 1 From: <BL.EICHERJW@aol.com> To: <sjoy@fcgov.com> Date: 9/2 2/03 10:03AM Subject: Lind Property: Comments/Request for Meeting Dear Ms. Joy: This is a follow-up to our discussion on Friday, September 19, 2003, where I expressed my very strong concerns on the timing in the Lind Property Development Plan for the ultimate road on NCR 11. In particular, you explained that the ultimate street improvements to County Road 11 (see Page 11, Paragraph 6) may be delayed untilFiling 4 which would not result until the issuance of about 600 building permits. I also requested a meeting on this issue with Ted Shepard and Dave Stringer which you have now arranged for 3:00 pm this coming Wednesday. We believe that we need to meet with the appropriate City representatives to ensure that we understand their latest planning on how the issuance of building permits for the Richards Lake, Maple Hill, and Lind Property developments will affect timing of our frontage road. I will contact our other neighborhood representatives, Kirvin Knox and Nick Yobaggy, to verify that the proposed meeting time on Wednesday with Dave and Matt will work for them. Also, Kirvin, Nick, and I would definitely want Cam McNair at this meeting if at all possible. In our letter of January 30, 2003, we documented our meeting on January 29, 2003, with Ted Shepard, Cam McNair, Matt Baker, and Craig Farver. We noted that the in previous agreements with our neighborhood, the relocation of NCR 11 and the frontage road were tied into the isssuance of 200 permits. At that time you indicated that the issuance of 200 permits might still be the trigger for these actions, but there will also be other factors affecting the timing. We look forward to an update on your current status on these factors. Since 1996, our neighborhood has consistently noted the need for a frontage road for our homes on NCR 11 between Country Club Road and Richards Lake Road which would provide limited access to the ultimate road which would be built to the east. As development has affected us, we have repeatedly noted the adverse effects on our neighborhood integrity, quality of life, safety, and home values which have resulted from the greatly increased traffic on NCR 11. We want to continue to work cooperatively with the City and other affected parties to achieve a reasonable, fair, and equitable plan to obtain this frontage road in a timely manner. Please contact me on 407-0531 if I can answer any questions or provide further assistance. Sincerely, Joseph W. Bleicher For Neighbors in the Country Club Heights Subdivision CC: <cmcnair@fcgov.com>, <tshepard@fcgov.com>, <bbarkeen@fcgov.com> Susan Joy - Correction to Message on Meeting Page 1 From: <BL.EICHERJW@aol.com> To: <sjoy@fcgov.com> Date: 9/22/03 10:37AM Subject: Correction to Message on Meeting Dear Ms. Joy: Per our discussion on my message of 9/22/2003 10:01:02 AM Mountain Standard Time, my last sentence of the first paragragh should have been: " I also requested a meeting with Dave Stringer and Matt Baker which you have now arranged for 3:00 pm this coming Wednesday." This is consistent with the second sentence in the second paragraph of this message. I had wanted to cc both Ted Shepard and Bob Barkeen since they had worked with us on the Maple Hill and Lind Property developments respectively (Ted had also attended the January 29, 2003, meeting as noted in my third paragraph). I apologize for inadvertently indicating in my first message that we had requested you to arrange for Ted to attend this meeting -- this was not done and his presence is not necessary. Thank you for your assistance in arranging for Cam to attend this meeting. Sincerely, Joseph W. Bleicher For the Country Club Heights Subdivision CC: <cmcnair@fcgov.com>, <tshepard@fcgov.com>, <bbarkeen@fcgov.com> Transportation Services Engineering Department r'r, Collins Joseph W. Bleacher 2509 North County Road 11 Fort Collins, Co. 80524 October 21, 2003 RE: County Road 11 realignment Dear Mr. Bleicher For your reference I am sending this letter to clearly establish in writing the City's position as it relates to the future realignment of County Road 11 adjacent to the Maple Hill and Lind properties. As was discussed in our meeting on September 24, 2003 between City staff members Susan Joy, Matt Baker, Cam McNair, myself, you and your two of your neighbors Steve Stansfield and Kervin Knox. In this meeting the City stressed on several occasions that the CR-11 ultimate widening and realignment would not occur until the traffic impacts warrant the construction. The City has agreed to determine the existing traffic volumes and monitor the amount of increase in traffic as one of the tools in the determination of when the ultimate roadway improvement will be built. As you are aware this construction work will be managed by the City's Street Oversizing Program witl- funding provided by the City and the developers, including each development's proportionate share of the pedestrian underpass which will serve the future regional trail system being built by the City's Parks and Recreation Department. Currently, the City has received monies from adjacent developments to construct an interim roadway improvement scheduled for the spring of next year. This improvement will consist of an asphalt pavement overlay to a width of 36 feet, painted stripping for two twelve -foot vehicle travel lanes and two six-foot bicycle pedestrian lanes. The City has executed Development Agreements (copies enclosed) with Maple Hill and Lind developers which indicate the number of building permits that the City will release prior to these developments establishing escrow accounts with the City for the County Road 11 improvements. These agreements also discuss the construction traffic routes as the developments proceed to build out. In addition. the City will reinforce these designated construction traffic routes as a condition of the Development Construction Permits. I understand that it is your desire to have the ultimate County Road 11 improvements constructed immediately. However, as stewards of the public rights -of -way and tax payers' dollars, the City does not construct roadway improvements prior to their need. Please be assured that the City will construct these roadway improvements in the future, at such time as the construct is warranted. Sincerely, David Stringer Development Review Manager Cc: Cam McNair Susan Joy Matt Baker 71MOTHY 1. DOW. MHA.1D PATRICIA T. DOW. CPA. ID. LLM' MAYO SOMMERMEYER, PC"' OFCOUNSEL • AW nuwmn rorucn¢uw mw,nRnYRA ••.w'...,..rtrco ry rwncn¢ uw m wronmio THE Dow LAw FMt, LLC ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW P.O. 90x Is73 FORT COI,LINS, COLORADO 80522.157R (970)498-9900 FAX: (970)4911-9966 EMAIL: dow(16dMtQWr1116C0M March 1, 2004 Yvonne Seaman, Land Acquisition & Planning Director Centex Homes 9250 E. Costilla Ave., #200 Greenwood Village, CO 80112 Re: Lind. Property / Centex Homes Stormwater Drainage Dear Yvonne: N 7 CLOCK TOWER SQUARE 323 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 60524 2312 CAREY AVENUE CHEYENNE, WYOMNG 92001 (307)634.1541 The purpose of this letter is to document and confirm that the project that you are in the process of developing will be entitled to discharge certain developed stormwater runoff into the No. 8 Outlet Canal, which is operated by our client, Windsor Reservoir & Canal Company. Your project is generally described as the "Lind Property" and lies in a triangle bordered on the west by County Road 11, on the south by County Road 52 and along the easterly and northern side by the No. 8 Outlet Canal, which runs generally in a southeasterly direction from County Road l l to County Road 52. This will confirm that this project will be entitled to discharge developed stormwater runoff into the No. 8 Outlet Canal at a flow rate not to exceed 10 CFS. This will require appropriate detention within the project to limit the maximum discharge into the canal at the 10 CFS rate. The 10 CFS will be discharged into the canal through two separate structures, one near County Road 52 and the other to the north. These two structures can divide the 10 CFS flow as your engineering people consider appropriate. You will be responsible for the design of the structures and any protection such as rip -rap or structures that slow or diffuse the flow to avoid erosion or damage to the canal. The design of these structures and associated facilities will need to be approved by our engineer and superintendent. You will also be responsible for any ongoing maintenance to the structures, which will ultimately become; the responsibility of the HOA. d d 1S/60!91 t00� G dvd(lrl! 6S?WOH X311V30 W00' FISCHER, BROWN & GUNN, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Canvon Office Ward H. Fischer (1929 - 1996) William H. Brown 318 Canyon Avenue, Suite 100 William C. Gunn EIGHTH FLOOR - FIRST TOWER Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 215 WEST OAK STREET Phone: 970-407-1070 Fax: 970-498-0769 Wiliam R- Fscher PO BOX Q Margaret A. (Meg) Brown FORT COISA•IS, COLORADO 80522 Email Address Daniel IL Brown fbg@fbM�.com PHONE 970-407-9000 FAX 970-407-1055 Margaret A. Althoff February 7, 2003 Troy Campbell Sear -Brown Group 209 S. Meldrum Fort Collins, CO 80521 Re: Ditch/pipeline located near the west section line within Section 32, T8N, R68W of the 6a' P.M. (located east of Long Pond). Dear Mr.Campbell: This office represents the Poudre School District. As you know, the Poudre School District has the right to use the existing ditch/pipeline which runs generally in a north/south direction and is located near the west section line within Section 32, Township 8 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. The ditch/pipeline is located near the east shoulder of County Road 11 and parallels that road. The ditch/pipeline is or may be used to run irrigation water. I am informed that on August 21, 2002,.representatives of Sear -Brown Group, TST, Centex Homes, and Gillespie Farms met with representatives of the Poudre School District and others who have a right to use the ditch/pipeline. I am further informed that at that time you or one of your clients were considering relocating or modifying the ditch/pipeline. Poudre School District representatives assumed that you would be c aai: plans of the proposed modification to them for review, but to date, they have not received any plans. What is the status of your proposed project? Please inform Mr. Peter Hall, Director of Facilities, as to the status of the proposed project and send any draft plans to him at 2407 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521, (970)-490-3425. As you are no doubt aware, the Poudre School District has not consented to any modification or relocation of the ditch/pipeline, and the Poudre School District will not allow the ditch/pipeline to be relocated or modified unless consent is given by the Poudre School District. Thank you. cc: Pete Hall Sincerely William R. Fischer As soon as these structures are designed and approved as mentioned above, we will put together a formal, final agreement and upon its execution, you will pay the consideration, which has been determined by vote of our Board of Directors to be $20,000. As you know, these drainage fees tend to increase over the years for all companies and our company is no different. Even though the discharge fee is now set at $2,000 per CFS, this can be changed by Director action. In order to ensure that the cost of your entitlement is not increased, you may want to pay the $20,000 now, I hope that this letter, which is written at the direction and with the express authority of the Board of Directors of the Windsor Reservoir & Canal Company, is satisfactory to assist your ongoing planning needs. MS/jrr cc: Donn Engel E d b6E9lGOZE9'ON/60 91'1S/Ol 9l V007 aUW(7�1) 86c6ZE0£)S3WOH X31N'_0 WOai stantec.com Transmittal Stantec Consulting Inc. 209 South Meldrum Street Fort Collins CO 80521-2603 Tel: (970) 482-5922 Fax: (970) 482-6368 Rantec To: Susan Joy From: John Gooch Office: City Fort Collins Engineering ❑ For Your Information Date: June 28, 2005 ❑ For Your Approval File: Lind Filing 1 0 For Your Review ❑ As Requested Reference: Lind Filing 1 Inlet Revisions: Susan, The revisions to the utility plans provided are for changes to Inlets 5 & 9 for Lind Filing 1. The inlets were changed from combination inlets to Type "R" Inlets to accommodate the special manholes. The combination inlets were protruding into the special manhole bases, and utilizing Type "R" Inlets would allow the clearances needed. I have attached the memo from conversation in the field and also in speaking with Basil Harridan and Jeff Baldwin. Basil and Jeff were fine with changing the inlets from combination inlets to Type "R" inlets, and I have provided Basil with the calculations he requested. I have attached the letter that I sent to Basil for your record. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, STANTEC CONSULTING INC. 1 //) -J,L C,,,4 John Gooch Project Engineer Tel: 970-482-5922 Fax: 970-482-6368 igooch@stantec.com Attachment: cc.File stantec.com Memo $tantec To: Rodney Muller From: John Gooch Centex Homes File: Lind Filing 1 Date: June 27, 2005 Reference: Inlet Revisions for Lind 1 Per phone discussions between Brian (American Infrastructure Inlet Guy), Mike Massey & John Gooch (Stantec) on Friday, June 24, 2005, it was confirmed that the following constitutes the proposed inlet for Lind Filing 1: Inlet 1- 15' Combination Inlet Inlet 2- 10' Type R Inlet Inlet 3- 15' Combination Inlet Inlet 4- 10' Type R Inlet Inlet 5- 20' Type R Inlet Inlet 6- 10' Combination Inlet Inlet 7- 10' Combination Inlet Inlet 8- 10' Type R Inlet Inlet 9- 20' Type R Inlet Inlet 10- 10' Combination Inlet Inlet 11- 10' Combination Inlet Inlet 12- 5' Type R Inlet John Gooch also called Basil Hamdan and confirmed that inlets 5 & 9 would no longer be combination inlets, and would be 20' Type R inlets to accommodate the special manholes. Basil said the inlets could be constructed as long as Jeff Baldwin (City Fort Collins Inspector) was aware and okay with the change, and that Stantec submit revisions for the inlet changes. Stantec will submit revisions on June 28, 2005. STANTEC CONSULTING INC. John Gooch Project Engineer jgooch aastantec.com CC: Jon Friesem, Elizabeth Brogan, Basil Hamdan stantec.com Transmittal Stantec Consulting Inc. 209 South Meldrum Street Fort Collins CO 80521-2603 Tel: (970) 482-5922 Fax: (970) 482-6368 $tdnteC To: Basil Hamdan From: John Gooch Office: Stormwater ❑ For Your Information Date: June 28, 2005 ❑ For Your Approval File: Lind Filing 1 Q For Your Review ❑ As Requested Reference: Lind Filing 1 Inlet Revisions: Basil, The following calculations are for Inlets 5 & 9 for Lind Filing 1. The inlets were changed from combination inlets to Type "R" Inlets to accommodate the special manholes. The combination inlets were protruding into the special manhole bases, and utilizing Type "R" Inlets would allow the clearances needed. I reran the UDlnlet calculations for Inlets 5 & 9 and have attached the results, and also a memo/letter from the conversations in the field, as well as with you. I have submitted revisions of the utility plans to engineering, so you should see them shortly. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, STANTEC CONSULTING INC. J:st4— Ui� John Gooch Project Engineer Tel: 970-482-5922 Fax: 970-482-6368 jgooch@stantec.com Attachment: cc. File Street ID = T—� Top of Curb or W___—_—_Tx Allowable Depth Ts----j li y S d1 ----1 a Design Discharge in the Gutter Gutter Width Gutter Depression Street Transverse Slope Street Longitudinal Slope W" tming lit Manning's Roughness er Cross Slope er Spread Width ar Depth without Gutter Depression ar Depth with a Gutter Depression ar Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7) ad for Side Flow on the Street ad for Gutter Flow along Gutter Slope Rate Carried by Width T, Rate Carried by Width IT, - W) er Flow Flow large above Depressed Section (Eq. ST-1 or ST-3) large within Depressed Section (Q - Q,) Rate relent Slope for the Street Area Velocity product Vvan,ing 01; f,%:a:tni;ar,'s n vAue does oat moat the FF4f3C:;,4 recnr:�rnendr:ri rri[erE<3. Sw = T= y= d= E. = T= _ T, _ QTs = QT,W Q,wer = Q. _ Q, Qw QT = Se = A: _ V, _ VsD = Street Crown i I I i i cfs R/ft Rift ft/ft ft inches inches ft It cis cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs fuft sq ft fps ft'/s Inlet #5revised6-25-05.xls, Street Hy 6/29/2005, 7:59 AM Project = Inlet ID = WP Lu WP gn Discharge on the Street (from Street Hy) Q. _ th of a Unit Inlet L� _ Width for Depression Pan WP- ting Factor for a Single Unit C° _ it of Curb Opening in Inches H = of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = e Coefficient (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Cd = Coefficient (see USDCM Figure ST-5) C - w- r Depth for the Design Condition yd =, )er of Curb Opening Inlets No =' a Weir al Length of Curb Opening Inlet )acity as a Weir without Clogging gging Coefficient for Multiple Units gging Factor for Multiple Units )acity as a Weir with Clogging an Orifice )acity as an Orifice without Clogging )acity as an Orifice with Clogging Percentage for this Inlet = Q. / %= w Direction cfs ft it inches inches L = 20 00 it cis Coef= Clog Q _ .. _ _ $3 4cfs Q°, = 0I 8`. cfs Q. = 3$.1' cfs cfs Note: Unless additional ponding depth or spilling over the curb is acceptable, a capture percentage of less than 100% in a sump may indicate the need for additional inlet units. w 4L,1 k- s 20' Type lxie Inlet #5revised6-25-05.xls, Curb-S 6/29/2005, 7:59 AM er Cross Slope Sw= .r Spread Width T = 18.85: Ift !r Depth without Gutter Depression Y 45i inches r Depth with a Gutter Depression d 16.5 inches rr Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA H EC-22 method (Eq. ST-7) E, 0-33 ad for Side Flow on the Street T, 11.6.06 It ad for Gutter Flow along Gutter Slope T. I I 5,26 ft Rate Carried by Width T, Or, = 21.34 cfs Rate Carried by Width (T, - W) QT,W - ON !r Flow Q,,, = I5381 cfs Flow % = *m cfs iarge above Depressed Section (Eq. ST-1 or ST-3) Q, = cfs iarge within Depressed Section (Q - Qj cfs Rate QT CfS Went Slope for the Street S. = Rift Area A. = d. 3.72. sq f t Velocity 8M fps product VsD 2 UA ft Is Waming 01; PVsikie doo,� not meet the USFX-Sl ,Mona, Inlet #grevised6-25-05,xls, Street Hy 6/29/2005, 8:00 AM Project = Inlet ID = WP Lu wP H Gutter Iva Pan wate r Flow Direction sign Information (Input) sign Discharge on the Street (from Street Hy) Q° = 30.6cfs igth of a Unit Inlet L, = 5.00 ft Is Width for Depression Pan W° _ ' 3.00 It )gging Factor for a Single Unit C° _ 0 0& ight of Curb Opening in Inches H = 6 00 inches gle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 63.7 degrees fice Coefficient (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Cd = 0.67 ?ir Coefficient (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Cw 3 00 der Depth for the Design Condition Yd = 9,60 inches mber of Curb Opening Inlets No =1 4i a Weir Total Length of Curb Opening Inlet L = 20.00 ft Capacity as a Weir without Clogging Q, , _ 54.51 cfs Clogging Coefficient for Multiple Units Coef = 1.33 Clogging Factor for Multiple Units Clog = 0.03 Capacity as a Weir with Clogging $3.4:'cfs ........3. As an Orifice Capacity as an Orifice without Clogging Q°, = 40,8' cfs Capacity as an Orifice with Clogging Q„ = 39.7_. cfs Capacity for Design with Clogging Q, 39711 cfs Capture Percentage for this Inlet = Q, / Q. = C% igli;0>3' Note: Unless additional ponding depth or spilling over the curb is acceptable, a capture percentage of less than 100% in a sump may indicate the need for additional inlet units. Inlet #9revised6-25-05.xls, Curb-S 6/29/2005, 6:00 AM February 18, 20M Mr. Peter Hall Director of Facilities Poudre School District 2407 Laporte Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80521 Re: Maple Hill — Irrigation Lateral Relocations Project No.: 0953-003 Dear Peter, This letter is responding to a February 7. 2003 letter from Mr. William R. Fischer, Fischer, Brown and Gunn, P.C., regarding the Baker Irrigation Lateral. TST, Inc. represents the Gillespie Farm Development Company that is developing the Maple Hill project located south of CR52, east of NCR 11, west of the No. 8 outlet ditch and north of the Poudre School District/Forbes property. TST, Inc. has been working with the City of Fort Collins In preparing and finalizing the "Utility, Plans for Maple Hill., Currently the City of Fort Collins does not allow private Irrigation conveyance systems within a public road fight-d-way (ROW). Due to the fad that TST, Inc. is designing the public improvements for NCR 11 and the Baker Irrigation Lateral is within this existing ROW, the City is requiring the relocation of said fine. Enclosed is sheets 70A and 70B of the Maple Hill Construction plans for your review. TST, Inc will be tying Into the relocated line at CR52, designed by Sear Brown and the existing fine at the southem end of the proposed Maple Hill site. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Respectfully, TST, Inc. Consult Engineers � lth . Sheaffer, P.E. KGSIamb Enclosures CC: Mr. William Fischer Mr. Tom Dougherty TST, INC. 749 WAa.en Way -asu ugD Fen CowfA4 CO $0525 Consulting Engineers (970) 2264567 Mao (303) 695-9103 (970) 2264204 Em Fmtll le[o%Etsdnc.com ,,.,,v.t3tho n, Ward H. Fischer (1929 - 1996) William H. Brown William C. Gunn William R. Fischer Margaret A. (Meg) Brown Daniel K. Brown Margaret A. Althoff FISCHER, BROWN & GUNN, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW EIGHTH FLOOR FIRST TOWER 215 WEST OAK STREET PO BOX Q FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522 PHONE 970-407-9000 FAX 970-407-1055 February 24, 2003 Dave Stringer City of Fort Collins Engineering Department PO Box 580 Fort Collins. CO 80522 Re: Gillespie Farms Property Lind Property Dear Mr. Stringer: FEB2=20�? 318 Canyon Avenue, Suite 100 Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Phone: 970-407-1070 Fax: 970-498-0769 Email Address fbgC fbgpc.com As I mentioned to you, this office represents the Poudre School District. Pursuant to our telephone conversation this morning, enclosed please find a copy of a letter from me to Troy Campbell dated February 7, 2003 which states the position of the School District pertaining to a ditch/pipeline near the west section line within Section 32. Township 8 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. Also enclosed is a copy of a letter to Peter Hall from Keith Sheaffer dated February 18, 2003. Sincerely, William R. Tischer Enc. Cc: Peter Hall CENTEX HOMES 9250 E. Costilla Ave., #200 Greenwood Village, CO 80112 Phone: 303-792-9810 Fax: 303-792-9811 March 13, 2003 Susan Joy City of Fort Collins 215 North Mason Street Fort Collins, CO 80524-4408 Dear Susan, Centex Homes, owner of a portion, and purchaser of a portion of the property legally described on Exhibit "A" and Maple Hills Development, Tom Dougherty and Mike Sollenberger owners of that certain property legally described on E=xhibit "B" have entered into this letter of understanding to provide that, in the event County Road 52 is ready for construction prior to one, or both of the anticipated developments receiving FDP approval and Final Plat approval and recordation, upon request, the party(ies) will grant a grading easement to the City of Fort Collins (or to the other party if such request is proper), to allow the development of the portion of County 52 as required by the approved development plans. Centex Homes Maple Hill Development Yvonne Seaman Land Acquisition and Planning Director M�S�EAR- B�ROWN March 13, 2003 Susan Joy Engineering Department City of Fort Collins 281 N. College Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Lind Property, Filing I Alternative Compliance request Dear Susan, 209 South Meldrum Fort Collins,0080521 970,482.5922 phone 970.482.6368 fax www,searbrown.com We are writing on behalf of Centex Homes, to request alternative compliance with the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) for the spacing of streets along CR I & 52 for the Lind Property, Filing I layout. 1) 3.6.3 Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards, Subsections C and D —This alternative compliance request specifically addresses spacing of street intersections with arterial streets, specifically connections to arterial streets be provided at a maximum spacing of 660 feet. This Filing I PDP proposes alternative compliance to the spacing requirements for various sections as outlined below: a) Spacing of street connections along County Road 11; • Lind Property, Filing I proposes two street connections to County Road 11, Mainsail Drive and Brightwater Drive, at a spacing of approximately 800 feet. These streets align with the existing streets to the west of County Road 11, which predetermined the street spacing within this development. ']'his site plan does provide an additional pedestrian connection at Clipper Way. With this connection, the 660 foot spacing is preserved for pedestrians. b) Spacing of street connections along County Road 52; • Lind Property, Filing I proposes two street connections to County Road 52, Forecastle Drive and Bar Harbor Drive, at a spacing of approximately 820 feet. These streets align with proposed streets to the south of County Road 52 in the proposed Maple Hill development. The alignment of Bar Harbor Drive actually falls on the quarter mile spacing at 1,320 feet, however, Forecastle Drive is located 490 feet from County Road 11, causing the greater distance between Bar harbor and Forecastle. • To alleviate this, two additional pedestrian connections arc provided to County Road 52. One is a pedestrian underpass between County Road I I and Forecastle Drive. The other is located between Forecastle and Bar I (arbor at Fairwater Drive. With these pedestrian connections, the 660 foot spacing is preserved and exceeded for pedestrians. The proposed spacing of street connections for the Lind Property, Filing I along CR I I & 52 will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, based on safe driving speeds. Thank you for your careful consideration of this request for alternative compliance, and please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Scar-Bror 'I roy Campbell Sear -Brown Bret Cummock I .IOnS'014O03Vdocsalt cuniphance 0 i-13-0; doc March 13, 2003 Susan Joy City of Fort Collins 215 North Mason Street Fort Collins, CO 80524-4408 Dear Susani Centex Homes, owner of a portion and purchaser of a portion of the property legally described on Fxhibit ■A," and Maple Hills Dovelopment, Tom Dougherty, and Mike Sollenbergar, owners of that certain property legally described on Exhibit "Bill have entered into this letter of underotanding to provide that, in the event County Road 52 is ready for construction prior to one, or both of the anticipated developments receiving rDp approval and Final plat approval and recordation, upon request, the party(ies) will grant a grading easement to the City of Port Collins (or to the other Party if such request is proper), to allow the development of the portion of County Road 52 as required by the approved development Plans. Centex games Maple Hill DeVelopmebt f M 'd £OLMOOL6 'ON 03 Z00/700'd T9ZZ# ua sn:nn ❑ni cnn;l_on_vvu SHNOHYRIN92 TT66NLEOE 89:9T E00Z,80'xalar MAR-28-2003 FRI 11:08 AM FORT COLLINS UTILITIES FAX NO, 970 221 6619 P. 01/04 Post -It` Fax Note 7671 TIMOTHY 1 DOW, MBA. 1D PArRICIA'1. DOW. CPA. )D. LLM- MAYO SOMMERM1IEYER, PC" OFCOUNSEL •w�so won nvn onsrnf6l+w iR wvOrn c Ti F Dow LAw ATTORNE.I'S AND CODNI P.O. Dox 1579 FORT COLLINS. COLORADO R0522-1538 (970)396-9900 FAX 19)0).198-9966 F-!NAIL' diw,4hiowlnwfinn. rom March 25, 2003 Robert Smith stotmwater Planning / Utilities Department City of Port Collins 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 L n 7 CLOCK'IUWER SQUARE 32.1 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS- COLORADO 90524 Re: Our client: Windsor Reservoir and Canal Company (WRCC) Project #39-94B Lind Property PAP -Type 2 (LUC) Dear Bob: 2312 CARFY AVENUE CHEYENNE. W YOMING 82D01 (307) 634-1541 The enclosed correspondence to the developer of the Lind Property is self explanatory. I believe the reality of the problem that I am pointing out is very obvious. These developers need to develop their whole site as it applies to at least the impact on our ditches and facilities on a global basis. This doing it piecemeal only puts off the necessity of their dealing with a difficult situation until later. I appreciate that the developer's objective is to maximize profit and walk away with as much money as they can after they've scorched the Earth and left a roofed city. Very few really have any genuine interest or care in the welfare and ongoing operational realities of the Irrigation Companies. There are some notable exceptions like Stan Everett, Tom Daugherty and Mike Solcnberg and probably some others who I apologize for neglecting. What so often happens with these segmented developments is that we get hit with the "creep up" effect. They've got a large portion of their subdivision done, huge investments in the project and now they're down to having to deal with the Ditch to now unload on us that which they've been able to hold and avoid dealing with. Then we have a problem that is not acceptable and we are really the bad guys because we are holding up this wonderful development and are always classified as "totally unreasonable." Your department understands all of this and remains a pleasure to deal with. We never hear anything from the Planning Department. I sometimes think they wish we just didn't exist. It's really nice tD have some friends in the City who are sensitive to the Ditch Companies and make a genuine effort to work with us so we are not unnecessarily burdened or harmed. These ditches have been quietly flowing water through our countryside to irrigate farms for food for