The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMAPLE HILL - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2004-08-16Transportation Services Administration City of Fort Collins NM February 15, 2002 FEB �tjl � �fr TST Inc., Consulting Enginee`rs---� 4' Fraizer Walsh 748 Whalers Way Fort Collins, CO 80525 Re: Interim street ,improvements at Vine and Lemay The intent of this letter is to address your concerns with the January 25 letter you received from Dave Stringer regarding the proposed interim street improvements at Vine and Lemay. In that letter, Mr. Stringer indicated that the City could not provide any such assurances without receiving full PDP application submittals for the projects in question. The City is now in the process of developing a policy regarding how reservation of intersection capacity should be addressed at various stages of the development review process. Please see the copy of Tom Vosburg's memo to the Council Growth Management Committee dated February 5, 2002, regarding this proposed policy. This proposed policy include the following key points: • Level of Service (LOS) and Adequate Public Facilities (APF) issues should be identified at the Overall Development Plan (ODP) stage of review, but intersection capacity should not be reserved until a Project Development Plan (PDP) level Transportation Impact Study (TIS) has been reviewed and certified by the City Traffic Engineer. Once a PDP level TIS has been accepted, the conclusions of that analysis should guide the PDP and Final Plan review of the project. In order to allow LOS and APE issues to be resolved prior to developers committing significant resources to full PDP submittal engineering, the City's development review process should allow the option of having a "stand alone" PDP TIS being reviewed and certified by the City Traffic Engineer independent of a full PDP submittal. Such "stand alone" PDP TISs should reserve capacity only for a fixed time period (now proposed as one year) within which a full PDP submittal must be received before the reservation would lapse and any reserved capacity would be released to other projects. Staff recognizes that given the emergent nature of these issues, the direction given to your clients was somewhat inconsistent with the provisions now reflected in this proposed policy. 215 North Mason • First Floor • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 224-6058 • FAX (970) 221-6239 TST, INC. Consulting Enlaineers OPINION OF MOST PROBABLE COST Client: Gillespie Farm Development Company Project: Maple Hill -Phase 3 Job No. 0953-003 Rev. Date: 11-19-02 By: L.M.L. No. Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total Comments Sti, inr L.S. S7.500.00 County Road 52 Subtotal $0.00 7 County Road I Venical Curb & Gutter (In -Fall) L.F. $20.00 50,00 Verical Curb & Gutter (Out -Fall) L.F. $20.00 S0.00 Sub'rade Pre - (Curb &Gutter) L.F. $1.50 SO.00 Pavement-Artenal (6' Base & 0" As hall) S.Y. $23-00 $0,00 See Note I Subenadc ['rep -(Pavement) S.Y. $1.50 SOM SubnadePre -(Sidewalk) S.Y. $ISO $0.00 Sidewalk detached 6' wide LF- S 1750 Sort) 10' Cross Pan 0 E.A. $2,000.00 S0.00 Striping L.S. S7,500.00 50.00 Cou.Lv Road 11 Subtotal S0.00 8 County Road II -Frontage Road Vertical Curb & Gutter (In -Falb 0 L.F. $20.00 50.00 Vertical Curb & Gutter Out -Fall) 0 L.E. $20.00 $0.00 Sub¢rade Pre - Curb&Gutter) 0 L.F. $1.50 50.00 Asphalt Rcmoval 0 S.Y. 523,00 $0-00 Sub nade Fre - (Pavement) 0 S.Y. $1,50 50.00 Subgmde l'rc -(Sidewalk) 0 L.F. $ISO 50.00 Sidewalk -detached 6' wide 0 LF- 51750 $0-00 Saw Cut Existing As,halt Edge 0 L.F. $1 00 SO.00 Stir ing 0 L.S. $7,500.00 $0.00 CounLy Road 11-Fronta a Road Subtotal $0.00 9 EARTHWORK' Strip & Replace Topsoil C.Y. 1 $2.50 1 $0.00 Cut 22851 C.Y. 1 $1.00 1 $22,851.00 Fill 62696 C.Y. 1 $1,75 1 S109,718,00 Off Site Import Structural Fill C.Y. $5-00 Som Earrbwork Subtotal $132,569.00 10 EROSION CONTROL Gravel Inlet Filters 12 1 EA, 1 $300.00 1 $3,600,00 Silt Fence L.F. 1 $2.50 1 $0.00 Straw Bale Barrier EA 1 $200.00 1 $0,00 Reseeding AC. $800.00 $0,00 Erosion Control Subtotal $3,600.00 SUBTOTAL RECAP WATER - ONSITE STORY( SEWER SANITARY SEWER PUBLIC STREETS - ONSITE COUNTY ROAD 52 COUNTY ROAD I I COUNTY ROAD Il-Frontage Road EARTHWORK EROSION CONTROL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SURVEYING CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL Contingency (10 G,) S151,991.00 $207,846.00 S335,970.00 $627,596.22 S0.00 $0.00 SO.00 $132,569.00 $3,600.00 S43,643.60 S37,642.86 $1,459,572.22 $145,957.22 Page 4 of 5 Gillespie Farm Development Company 220 East Mulberry Fort Collins, CO 80524 970-215-9761 June 7. 2006 Sheri Wamhoff, PE, Development Review Manager City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Maple Hill Development Agreement amendment Dear Sheri, Gillespie Farm Development Company hereby requests that we be allowed to amend the Maple Hill Development Agreement to develop the North half of Maple Hill without completing infrastructure improvements required on the South half of Maple Hill (South of the centerline of Maple Hill Drive) pursuant to our current Phase Change and associated Development Agreement amendment. Generally those referenced infrastructure improvements include the construction of Maple Hill Drive from CRl 1 to Thoreau Drive along with associated underground pipe installations, storm water connections, sewer and water connections and certain other requirements. Thank you for your consideration of this request and please call if you have questions. Sincerely, Mike Sollenberger, President Services Engineering Department City of Fort Collins June 12, 2006 Mike Salllenberger Gillespie Farm Development Company 220 East Mulberry Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Maple Hill Development Agreement amendment Dear Mike, The requested change to the development agreement can not be made based on the current layout and phasing of the development. Maple hill Drive in its entirety along with all utilities and services located within the right-of-way boundaries need to be installed in order for any and all the phases of Maple Hill north of Maple Hill Drive to be constructed. This roadway will provide adequate access (public and emergency services) and many of the utilities within this street are needed in order to serve the lots north of Maple Hill Drive. Please contact me at 221-6605 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Sheri Wamhoff, PE Development Review Manager 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 a (970) 221-6605 • FAX (970) 221-6378 www.fcgov.com- Services Engineering Department City of Fort Collins August 14, 2001 Mr. Thomas Dougherty 220 East Mulberry Fort Collins, Co. 80524 RE: Gullespie Farm — Number 8 outlet, Eaton ditch Dear Tom: The intent of this letter is to clarify the City's desire as it relates to the vehicular structures across the number 8 outlet of the Eaton ditch adjacent to the eastern portion of the Gullespie Farm development project. As we discussed, there is uncertainty of what development may occur on the Anheuser Busch property immediately east of the Gullipie Farm project. Because of this uncertainty, the City does not want the construction of any vehicular structures (interior to the site) over the outlet ditch to be built at the time of the Gullespie Farm development. However, we will ask that the developer provide the City with some preliminary design work such as proposed height, span bridge and/or culvert size, road alignments and grades. As we work through the Gullespie Farm PDP we will address the requirements related to these structures and develop language to be placed into the Development Agreement for the Gullespie Farm project. In order, to satisfy the City's Land Use Code requirements, the most viable option is to escrow monies for the cost of construction of these structures. These funds will be escrowed to the city by the Gullespie Farm developer and held for a period not to exceed 7 years. If at such time, the seven years has lapsed and no development has occurred or is planned to occur on the eastside of the ditch the monies held in escrow will be released to the Gullespie developer. Once the escrow has been released the Gullespie Farm development will have no further obligation to the City for the cost of the structure improvements. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6605 MEMORANDUM Date: October 17, 2001 To: Ted Shepard From: Linda Ripley, VF Ripley Associates Subject: Gillespie Farm October 12, 2001- Meeting Minutes In Attendance: Ted Shepard Dave Stringer Eric Bracke Mike Sollenberger Tom Dougherty Frazier Walsh Matt Delich Linda Ripley Ted, Our design team was very pleased with last Friday's meeting. This memo is our attempt at documenting the issues discussed and the decisions reached at the meeting. We will assume that you concur with these meeting minutes if we do not receive a reply to the contrary. 1. Access on to County Road 11 at 660-foot intervals. The project design team asked if staff could be supportive of eliminating two access points north and south of the center main entrance because of design difficulties having to do with grading and neighborhood compatibility issues. City staff had no objection to this stacking depth. Staff outlined the procedure for requesting alternative compliance, but indicated they would prefer to see the connections made. Eric Bracke indicated that stacking for one car at these intersections would be sufficient, given the traffic counts presented by Matt Dehch in the meeting. 2. Collector Street Classifications The City's Master Street Plan indicates four collectors in this quarter section. The design team questioned the need for four collectors given the projected traffic volumes. Matt Delich presented information regarding daily traffic forecasts for each of the proposed collectors. After reviewing Matt's data, City staff agreed that the two internal collectors streets really serve more as connectors and suggested proposing the change in classification to Mark Jackson in Transportation Planning, If Mark agrees with the analysis he could take the proposed amendment of the Master Street Plan forward to the Planning and Zoning Board for recommendation and to City Council for approval as a City initiated amendment. It was agreed that the street along the south boundary is appropriately defined as a collector street, however, with the forecasted volumes indicated, parking would be allowed on the eastern two thirds of its length. Similarly the street along the eastern boundary is appropriately classified as a collector street, however, traffic volumes indicate that parking would be allowed along its' entire length. 3. Collector Street Alignments The alignment of the internal north/south connector street was discussed. The design team suggested that if the street could be aligned directly north/south, it would ease serious design constraints and make it easier to create a lotting plan consistent with City standards. The City's Master Street Plan shows the curved alignment presumably to coincide with the western boundary of the Poudre School District's property to the south, Staff agreed that a change in the alignment was appropriate. It was unclear whether or not the alignment was something that warranted an amendment to the Master Street Plan. Changing the alignment would create a need to amend the Gillespie Farm ODP, however, Ted indicated that this amendment could be handled administratively and urn concurrently with the PDP approval process. The design team also suggested moving the collector that runs parallel with the eastern property line along the ditch to the east approximately 100 feet to allow double loading of the street. Staff had no objection to this change. 4. Trail Alignment There is a proposed City bike/ped trail that runs diagonally through the Gillespie Farm property. The proposed alignment roughly parallels an existing water line. The design team asked staff if it was acceptable and /or preferable to have the trail cross several streets versus eliminating some street connections in order to maintain open space for the trail to go through Staff agreed this situation represented a conflict in City policy goals and agreed that we should seek a response from Transportation Planning (Mark Jackson) and Parks and Recreation (Craig Foreman). W=. GWl Transportation Services Transportation Planning City of Fort Collins Linda Ripley VF Ripley & Associates 410 West Mountain Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80521 November 1, 2001 U M Dear I>_Ri�fey: Mark A. Jackson, AICP City of Fort Collins Transportation Planning PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO. 80522-0580 Transportation Planning Staff met with members of the City's Transportation, Parks Planning, Advance and Current Planning development review staff to discuss issues raised by the applicant at the October 18s' meeting. In response to your inquiries and request for direction regarding transportation issues related to the Gillespie Farm PDP: Downgrade two key roadways from Collector to Connector with on street bike lanes Forecast model results support the findings of Matt Delich. 2020 forecast volumes on the links in question did not show average daily volumes warranting a Collector -level facility. Recent Transportation Impact Studies from proximate development projects show similar results in their peak hour volume forecasts. Transportation Planning is prepared to support downgrading the north south Collector and the middle east -west Collector roadways to a Connector -level facility with on -street bike lanes. Amendments to the Master Street Plan will need to be made concurrent with your project approval process. This includes not only Planning & Zoning Board Approval but Council approval as well. 2. Straighten the relative alignment of the north -south roadway in question The City Traffic Engineer has stated that he would accept an offset T intersection created as a result of straightening the alignment of the center north south roadway in the Gillespie development site. Traffic forecast modeling shows acceptable levels of average daily traffic even with the offset. Transportation Planning has other concerns however. Straightening this alignment will cause an offset roadway alignment, posing safety issues particularly for bicyclists. Given that the site directly south of Gillespie is a potential school site, there could be significant amounts of bicycle and pedestrian traffic in this area in the future. The alignment currently shown on the Master Street Plan was designed to accommodate the future school site and avoid many of these issues. While Traffic Engineering may agree to this proposed realignment, Transportation Planning does not support the realignment of 21.9 North Mason • First Floor • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 2.2A-6058 • FAX (970) 221-6239 NnU-RR-?RR1 Rq:3R 98: P.01 NOV-08-01 09:20A the north south roadway, creating a T intersection. Regardless of the applicant's design decision, they are required to follow City design standards that maximize safety for motor vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. 3. Move Collector roadway on eastern site boundary approximately 100' to the west Transportation Planning has no issue with this proposed change from a Master Street Plan perspective. The MSP alignments are conceptual and this change follows the spirit of the MSP. Please coordinate this alignment change with the Lind development project to the north. Transportation Development Review Staff asks that the Gillespie PDP taper this alignment back to the east as it moves southward so as to avoid future potential offsets with roads planned for the property south of your site. 4. Conflict with trail crossings of internal roadways Transportation, Parks Planning, Current and Advance Planning Staff met to discuss this issue. Staff agreed that the applicant needs to design the regional trail/parkway corridor through the site consistent with the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan (adopted element of City Plan). At -grade street crossings should be minimized or avoided. A creative overall site plan design should design the parkway first, and then look at street and lot layout and other elements. Staff anticipates only 2 at -grade street crossings where the connector streets intersect. Local streets can incorporate loop ways and cull -de -sacs or other alignments to avoid crossing the parkway. The trail should take advantage of the proposed neighborhood park and stormwater detention areas to maximize the off-street parkway. Surface drainage from the overall site should be directed to this greenway leading to the detention area. Staff agrees that a minimum width for the trail/landscape parkway should be 30 feet, preferable 50 or greater. Attached is a copy of your site plan with staff comments. 5. Number of connections across the ditch to the east Transportation Development Review Staff was in agreement that there should be at minimum three roadway connections across the ditch to the east; north, center and south of the site. In addition, two separate bike/pedestrian crossings need to made across the ditch at appropriate 660' spacing intervals. This modification is similar to agreements reached with other projects such as Lind and Harvest Park. Funds may be escrowed for these connections. If the applicant does not wish to provide these connections, it will be necessary to go before the Planning & Zoning Board to request a modification. Transportation Staff will not support such a request. _.. -- ---. .... qaz P.02 Nov-08-01 O9:21A Thank you again for taking the time to meet with me and present and discuss these issues. Please feel free to contact me at (970) 416-2029 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Mark A. Jackson, Al City of Fort Collins Transportation Planning Cc: Ted Shepard, Current Planning Dave Stringer, Engineering Development Review Randy Hensley, Transportation Planning Manager Services Administration City of Fort Collins February 15, 2002 TST Inc., Consulting Fraizer Walsh 748 Whalers Way Fort Collins, CO 80525 Re: Interim street improvements at Vine and Lemay The intent of this letter is to address your concerns with the January 25 letter you received from Dave Stringer regarding the proposed interim street improvements at Vine and Lemay. In that letter, Mr. Stringer indicated that the City could not provide any such assurances without receiving full PDP application submittals for the projects in question. The City is now in the process of developing a policy regarding how reservation of intersection capacity should be addressed at various stages of the development review process. Please see the copy of Tom Vosburg's memo to the Council Growth Management Committee dated February 5, 2002, regarding this proposed policy. This proposed policy include the following key points: • Level of Service (LOS) and Adequate Public Facilities (APF) issues should be identified at the Overall Development Plan (ODP) stage of review, but intersection capacity should not be reserved until a Project Development Plan (PDP) level Transportation Impact Study (TIS) has been reviewed and certified by the City Traffic Engineer. • Once a PDP level TIS has been accepted, the conclusions of that analysis should guide the PDP and Final Plan review of the project. • In order to allow LOS and APF issues to be resolved prior to developers committing significant resources to full PDP submittal engineering, the City's development review process should allow the option of having a "stand alone" PDP TIS being reviewed and certified by the City Traffic Engineer independent of a full PDP submittal. Such "stand alone" PDP TISs should reserve capacity only for a fixed time period (now proposed as one year) within which a full PDP submittal must be received before the reservation would lapse and any reserved capacity would be released to other projects. Staff recognizes that given the emergent nature of these issues, the direction given to your clients was somewhat inconsistent with the provisions now reflected in this proposed policy. 215 North Mason • First Floor • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 6 (970) 224-6058 • FAX (970) 221-6239 We have reviewed the history of discussions between your clients and City staff regarding these issues. It is clear that staff intended the OPD TIS to define what improvements would be required to resolve APF issues for the Gillespie and Lind projects without requiring costly PDP submittal development work. However, at the time of our discussions, the concept of a "stand- alone" PDP level TIS had not been considered, and staff expected that the Lind OPD TIS would "reserve" capacity for the two projects. Based on this review, the City has determined that it is fair and appropriate for the City to regard the Lind ODP TIS as the equivalent of a "certified, stand alone" PDP TIS for the purposes of determining compliance with the City's APF standards at Vine and Lemay, regardless of whether or not the proposed policy is adopted. Based on this understanding, the City can make the following commitments: 1. The City has evaluated the survey and preliminary design work you have submitted relating to these interim turn lanes and concluded that while additional design work will be required prior to approving the plans for construction, it is clear that it is feasible to construct acceptable interim turn lanes at the location, and as a result, the assumptions regarding these lanes in the Lind TIS are valid. 2. PDP approval of either project (Lind or Gillespie) will be dependent on these interim lanes being constructed at some point in the project's phasing. The specific timing to these improvements and the number of permits permitted in each project prior to the improvements being constructed will be defined in each project's development agreement. 3. Although the City's proposed policy does not contemplate "reserving" intersection capacity at the ODP stage of development, staff recognizes that the discussions between staff and your clients clearly implied that such capacity would be reserved with the ODP approval. As a result, staff will honor that commitment and will "reserve" the capacity assumptions contained in the Lind ODP TIS and related supplemental analysis for both the Lind ODP and Gillespie Farms projects. 4. Previous discussions between staff and your clients were silent regarding the expected time frame within which development of the projects would occur, and thus, intersection capacity would be reserved. City staff had the impression that development of both projects was expected to proceed directly after project approval. If and when the City adopts an intersection capacity reservation policy that includes time -limit and lapse provisions, we will apply those time limits to your projects beginning on the first effective day of that new policy. The draft policy proposes a one year time limit on reservation of capacity by a "stand alone" PDP TIS, and staff now expects this policy to be adopted by Council on June 4, 2002 and to go into effect on June 28", 2002. 5. Reservation of the policy in this manner will have the following effects: TST, INC. Consulting Engineers Client: Gillespie Farm Development Company Project: Maple Hill -Phase 4 TiNo. Item Quantity Road 53 Subtotal 7 County Road I I 3 County Road II -Frontage Subtotal 9 EARTHWORK' Earth work Subtotal 10 EROSION CONTROL SUBTOTAL RECAP WATER - ONSITE STORM SEWER SANITARYSEWER PUBLIC STREETS - ONSITE COUNTY ROAD 52 COUNTY ROAD 11 COUNTY ROAD II -Frontage Road EARTHWORK EROSION CONTROL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SURVEYING CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL Contingency (10%o) OPINION OF MOST PROBABLE COST Job No. 0953-003 Date: 11-19-02 Rev. By: L.M.L. Unit Cost Total Comments S136,769. 75 00 $133,947.00 S35,206.00 $133,613.00 $475,792.53 S12,553.50 $0.00 $0.00 S136,769.75 52,700.00 543,643.60 $37,642.86 $930,581.83 $93,058.18 Page 4 of 4 This reservation of capacity will apply requirements for the Vine and Lemay only to the evaluation of compliance with City's APF intersection. Please be aware that this does not relieve the Lind project from addressing the other LOS problems identified at other intersections, nor does it relieve either project from the possible requirement to submit an updated PDP TIS to address any other issues related to the projects' full PDP submittal. All future development applications that have a significant impact on the Vine and Lemay intersection will need to include both the traffic generation assumptions and the interim turn lane assumptions in their analysis, regardless of whether or not your projects or the interim lane have been constructed. As a result, any such future development application can not propose building these lanes as a remedy for any intersection capacity problems their development may face. I hope that this letter provides a clear statement of the City's commitments and that is also provides the assurances that your clients are seeking regarding the adequacy of these proposed improvements to satisfy the City's APF requirements. Sincerely, "'teary Dude Transportation Operations Director cc: Tom Dougherty Mike Sollenberger Yvonne Seamen Eric Bracke Dave Stringer Ron Philips Greg Byme Cameron Gloss Randy Hensley W. Paul Eckman Tom Vosburg Cam McNair Joseph W. Bleicher 2509 N. County Road 11 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Phone: (970) 407-0531 August 5, 2002 Mr. Bob Barkeen City Planner Current Planning Department City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Dear Mr. Barkeen: Thank you for the opportunity for my neighbors and me in the Country Club Heights Subdivision to provide the Current Planning Department with our comments on the development proposal known as the Lind Project Development Plan. Our neighborhood dates back to 1965 and is made up of over 40 single- family homes. Nick Yobbagy, Kirvin Knox and I have developed these comments in our role as representatives in working with the developers and local government representatives on neighborhood concerns. Our high interest in the Lind Plan was shown by the excellent turnout of neighbors who provided many comments at your neighborhood information meeting on July 31, 2002. We greatly appreciate the efforts of the Current Planning Department to obtain neighborhood input on this proposal, and we look forward to your support in addressing our strong neighborhood concerns. First, and of greatest importance in our neighborhood, we are concerned that we obtain a frontage road along NCR 11. This is consistent with the earlier agreement (discussions date back to 1997) between our neighborhood and the developer of the Richard's Lake Development. The frontage road, which could have a landscaped berm and/or wall, would provide existing homes with limited, consolidated access to NCR 11 rather than having to back directly out onto the road. Further, the frontage road would provide a physical barrier which would help maintain the quality of life in our neighborhood by mitigating road noise which has already resulted from the greatly increased traffic on NCR 11. We have also worked in the past two years with the developer of the Gillespie Farm Development on obtaining a frontage road along NCR 11. This developer has already submitted to the City a proposed plan for a 125-foot right-of-way for NCR 11 which contains a frontage road. It is essential that the infrastructure of the proposed Lind Development to the north not conflict with this proposed plan for NCR 11 by the Gillespie Farm Development which is to the south. We were very pleased that the Lind Plan, which was presented by Centex Homes at the neighborhood information meeting, does appear to accommodate the frontage road. We need your support in ensuring the earliest possible implementation of the proposed NCR I 1 improvements, especially the frontage road. A reasonable timetable for these improvements needs to be Mr. Bob Barkeen August 5, 2002 Page 2 established. To clarify earlier discussions, we need to obtain a finalized written commitment of e involved parties from the City and the developers. Furthermore, we need your support in ensuring that th the Richard's Lake Project, the Gillespie Farms Project, and the Lind Project each contribute a fair amount Of the funding needed to do the NCR 11 improvements in our neighborhood. Safety on NCR 11 also remains a major concern which needs to be promptly addressed. In December 2000 there was a tragic accident at the intersection of NCR 11 and Country Club Road that resulted in two deaths. We've recently received Larimer County assistance in double -striping NCR 11 for a no - passing zone and obtaining more speed limit signs, but speeding and reckless driving remain a very serious neighborhood concern. There is very strong neighborhood support for a reduction in the current speed limit and effective traffic enforcement by the City and/or County. Second, there needs to be an improved process for access to the north as future development takes place in this area. Effectively, we are bringing the city to the country; the City of Fort Collins must provide the needed infrastructure for the north prior to its development. Absent adequate infrastructure to the north, we are only funneling all the construction and residential traffic from developments in our neighborhood onto NCR 11. With the limited existing access routes into the city, this will also add significant additional traffic on Country Club Road We believe it is unacceptable to build the Lind Project absent needed improvements to CR 52 which would make it a viable alternative route for construction and residential traffic. Although the Lind Project would pave the portion of CR 52 fronting its development, the road would not be used since the eastern portion to NCR 9 would remain a dirt road. Much of the overall traffic for the northeast now flows on Lemay Avenue -- this route already has severe limitations. We believe it is now timely to extend Timberline Road to the north of Mountain Vista Road (CR 50) to provide additional alternative access to the north for future developments. We further believe there needs to be adequate flexibility in the street oversizing program to meet the concerns and needs of existing neighborhoods in the north as future development takes place. In summary, we request your assistance in setting up a meeting with the City Council where we can discuss this key issue of improved access to the north in more detail. Third, we are concerned with issues related to city and county jurisdiction and responsibilities when you have an existing county development being directly affected by a city development. We would appreciate your assistance in achieving agreement between city and county representatives on their responsibilities in meeting specific neighborhood needs, such as street repairs and traffic enforcement. We also need assistance in identifying the appropriate city and county contact points for issues and problems which arise. Fourth, we are concerned with issues related to monitoring and enforcing developer compliance with agreements made with the neighborhood, as well as city and county requirements related to construction We have already experienced problems in the area of fugitive dust control by Richard's Lake Mr. Bob Barkeen August 5, 2002 Page 3 Development (KB Homes), which caused severe hardship for our neighborhood. (We also did not have a contact point in city or county government to report this problem) We also need help in achieving traffic enforcement of construction traffic and developer compliance with agreements designed to minimize neighborhood disruption (e.g., limiting construction traffic on certain streets). If our neighborhood is unable to resolve such issues with the developer, we would like the City to take action, such as not issuing future permits, or suspending existing permits, until these problems are resolved. Finally, we are concerned with maintaining the integrity and compatibility of our neighborhood. A major step would be maximizing the compatibility of lot sizes in the Lind Development with the single-family lot sizes in our Country Club Heights Subdivision which consists of NCR 11 and Richard's Lake Road. This has been done already with lot sizes in the ongoing Richard's Lake Development, and we have raised this issue also with the Gillespie Farm Development. We are pleased that the initial phase (which is closest to our neighborhood) of the Lind Plan will consist of single-family homes which would be consistent with the single-family character of our neighborhood. We seek the support ofthe Current Planning Department in any actions that would assist the developer's flexibility in addressing our concerns in maintaining the integrity and compatibility of our neighborhood. We appreciate the opportunity to provide the Current Planning Department with our comments on the proposed Lind Project Development Plan. We strongly believe our concerns must be addressed prior to future actions on the Lind Plan or other developments to the north which affect our neighborhood. We look forward to future opportunities to provide additional input during the City of Fort Collins development review process. Please contact me at (970) 407-0531 for further explanations of our comments or to arrange follow-on meetings with neighborhood representatives. Sincerely, Joseph W. Bleicher For Neighbors in the Country Club Heights Subdivision cc: Ms. Yvonne Seaman, Centex Homes Mayor Ray Martinez, City of Fort Collins Mr. Glenn Gibson, Chair of the Larimer County Commissioners OCT-24-2002 14:45 URUGHTFRYE/VF RIPLEYTS Mr. Ted Shepard Current Planning — City of Fort Collins PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Re: Gillespie Farm Alternative Compliance Request Project No.: 0953-003 Dear Ted, 970 224 1662 P.02iO3 September 19, 2002 This letter is in regard to three (3) Alternative Compliance Requests associated with the Minor Amendments to Gillespie Farm ODP which have been submitted concurrently by VF Ripley Associates. Provided that the Engineering Department approves these requests, the specific design detail Will be submitted with the Project Development Plan (PDP). Gillespie Farm is located within the City of Fort Collins in Section 32, T8N, R68W of the i" 6'h PM, Larimer County. The site is bounded on the North by County Road 52, the West by County Road 11, the South by existing agricultural land and the East by the Larimer/Weld County #8 ditch and Anheuser Busch. r- Alternative Compliance Request Number One: To eliminate one vehicular access proposed to cross the Larimer and Weld No. 8 Outlet Ditch approximately 660 feet north of the proposed Collector Street bordering the south property line of the ODP. The elimination of this access point reduces the impact to the existing Larimer/Weld No. 8 ditch both in terms of construction impacts and future use. Potential sediment infiltration into this conveyance facility is avoided. Although, this creates a reduction in access, this development has provided adequate vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle connections to the adjacent property. It is our opinion, that the elimination of this single access point across a sensitive area, will not adversely impact the intent of the connectivity standard. Alternative Compliance Request Number Two: Request is to allow the proposed vehicular crossing of the Larimer and Weld No. 8 Outlet Ditch, located approximately 660 feet south of County Road 52 to become a bicycle/pedestrian connection only, TST9 INC. 749 Whalers Way • Building D Fort Collins, CO 811$25 Consulting Engineers (970) 226.0557 Metro (30.'t) 595.9103 Fax Email info6tstinc. cam www.teiine.eom OCT-24-2002 14:45 UAUGHTFRYE/UF RIPLEYTS 970 224 1662 P.03iO3 TXI, INC. r. A pedestrian/bicyde access only, will minimize the Impacts to Larimer/Weld No. 8 Outlet Ditch, while encouraging the use of non -vehicular modes of transportation. Without this vehicular access, traffic within the development can be distributed without exceeding Level of Service standards. Furthermore, we do not believe that the direct connectivity of this development . to future, potential development to the east, Is substantially compromised by this change. Alternative Compliance Request Number Three: To allow the western most point of connection along the northern property line, to be located further west approximately 550 feet from County Road 11, This will coincide with the Lind Property street location and still allow adequate planning flexibility for Gillespie Fans. The distance from this access and the access point in the middle of the property will be approximately 830 feet. This minor shift in alignment alleviates major conflicts with the existing East Lsdmer County Water District (ELCO) water distribution line and proposed trail connection. The intent of Section 3.6.3'Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards" as stated in the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, July 2002 Is still maintained. VF Ripley Associates has submitted Minor Amendment requests along with this letter. We believe that the. Minor Amendment requests together with these Alternative r Compliance Requests incorporate City staff recommendations and create a viable development project. We look forward to staff s review and approval of the three Alternatives Compliance Requests. If you need any additional information or have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to call our office. Respectfully, TST, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS Keith G. Sheaffer, P.E. KDS/sjk cc: Mr. Mike Sollenberger Mr. Tom Dougherty Ms. Linda Ripley r^� TOTAL P.03 L'J November 15, 2002 Mr. Cam McNair City of Fort Collins Engineering P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Re: Gillespie Farm Development CR11 Frontage Road Resident Requests Project No.: 0953-003 Dear Cam, This letter addresses the requests of the representatives of the existing fifteen (15) homeowners on the configuration, access, and alignment of the proposed North County Road 11 (NCR11) private drive. The affected homes are located north of Country Club Road, south of the Richard's Lake development, east of the Fort Collins Country Club golf course and west of the proposed Gillespie Farm project. The concept of the private drive for the existing homeowners originated during the approval process of the Richard's Lake Development. This private drive will provide the existing homeowners with limited, consolidated access to NCR 11 without having to back directly out to an arterial road. Further, the private drive with a landscaped berm and/or wall/privacy fence, as appropriate, would provide a private drive barrier between the existing homes and the arterial road. TST, Inc. met with Joe Bleicher (2509 NCR 11, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80524), the neighborhood representative, about their wishes associated with the preliminary design of the NCR11 private drive and the main alignment of NCR11. After an initial review by neighborhood representatives, the representatives will approve this submittal. We appreciate your time and effort associated with this matter. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter, please feel free to contact our office. In addition, the homeowners are willing to meet directly with you to discuss their specific concerns. Respectfully, TST, I ENGINEERS August 5, 2002 Letter to City from Neighborhood Cc: Gillespie Farm Development Company Mr. Matt Baker Ms. Sheri Wamhoff TST INC. 748 Whalers Way - Building D Fort Collins, CO 80525 Consulting Engineers (970) 226-0557 Metro, (303) 595-9103 Fax (970) 226-0204 Email infoOtstinc.com www.tstine.com November 18, 2002 Mr. Mike Hertzig City of Fort Collins Engineering P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Re: NCR f 1 Variance Request Project No.: 0953-003 Dear Mike, This letter is regarding the one (1) variance request identified during our Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) for North County Road II (NCR 11) submittal within the "Utility Plans for Maple Hill" Per Section 1.9.4, "Variance and Appeals Process" of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Sections (LCVASS), the following information outlines the variance that the City stated they would support for the NCR 11 and Maple Hill project. NCR 11 has been classified as a 2-lane arterial street. A variance to standards 7.4.1.A.4 (curves with small deflection angles (10" or less)) is requested for the two (2) horizontal centerline curves between stations 16+00 and 24+00 of the proposed alignment for NCR 11. Table 7-5, Centerline Arc Lengths, states that the minimum centerline arc length for an arterial street is 400-feet. The proposed design has the southern centerline arc of 100.63-feet (difference of 299.73-feet), and the northerly centerline arc of 340.36-feet (difference of 59.64-feet). Per our meeting with Mr. Matt Baker, City of Fort Collins, on October 16, 2002, he agreed that due to the existing road way alignment, existing homes and the physical constraints prohibited a design that meets the minimum centerline arc lengths. It was agreed upon, that the horizontal centerline are lengths would be maximized while still maintaining the minimum radius and tangent lengths between the curves (see attached October 17, 2002 letter. This variance of minimum centerline arc lengths will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. All construction of NCR 11 will meet and/or exceed the City of Fort Collins construction standards, therefore, not reducing design life or causing additional maintenance costs to the city. The proposed design will advance the public purpose by improving this existing road to the current design standards set forth in the LCUASS manual. We appreciate the review and approval of this variance. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter, please feel free to contact our office. Respectfully, TST, IncConsulting Engineers Keith %Z110heaffer, P.E. KGSIamb Enclosures re: Gillespie Farm Development Company TST INC. 748 Whalers Way - Building D Fort Collins, CO 80525 Consulting Engineers (970) 226-0557 Metro (303) 595-9103 Fax (970) 226-0204 Email info@tstinc.com www.tstine.com r. <<c t. i me. ruuunr. I'1 sn i'J tJINC> WS�EA-ROWN r.rrvciior November 18, 2002 Sheri Wamhoff City of Fort Collins Engineering Department 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: County Road 52 Variance Request Dear Sheri: 209 South Meldrum Fort Collins, CO 80527 970.482.5922 phone 970.482.6368 fax www.sear6rown.com We are writing this variance request on behalf of Centex Homes to request variance from the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) Figure 7-17 Vertical Curve Lengths — Crest for the following element of the County Road 52 final design: Vertical curve length: For the centerline design of CR 52 from Station 8+75 — Station 11+25, a 250' vertical curve is proposed and shown on the PDP documents for the County Road 52 Improvements. A 360' vertical curve is required according to Figure 7-17 (AASHTO 1990) and a minimum vertical curve length of 187' is required according to 2001 AASHTO standards. The proposed curve does not meet 1990 AASHTO standards, however, it does meet 2001 AASHTO standards and therefore is not a health and safety hazard. This curve is located at the intersection of CR 11 & 52 and the design is limited by existing conditions with the roadway and utilities. The variance is requested in order to avoid excessive fill requirements on County Road 52. Additionally, the fill for the roadway impacts the cover requirements over the existing ELCO waterline. We look forward to your favorable review of this request. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, SEAR -BROWN Troy Campbell L:U0BS\614-003\does\CR 52 variance request 11-18-02.dm December 18, 2002 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Post Office Box 1190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190 (970) 498-5700 FAX (970) 498-7986 RECEIVED Ted Shepard City of Fort Collins Current Planning Department CURREN? PLANNING 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: Project #29-OOA Maple Hill PDP — Larimer County Road 1 I proposed improvements Dear Ted, We have reviewed the portion of the plan set for the above referenced project that pertains to proposed changes to Larimer County Road (LCR) 11 between Country Club Road (LCR 50E) and Richard's Lake Rd (LCR 52) that was sent to our office on December 11, 2002. From what we have learned of the proposed improvements, we are very concerned about the maintenance of the residual portion of LCR 11. There are several important questions that need to be addressed prior to the approval of the project. The County residents that live on the west side of LCR 11 have contacted us with concerns about what will happen to their access once the improvements are made, and more specifically, who will maintain the access. According to the plans, and from talking with Dave Stringer, it is my understanding that the plan is to remove all but 20 feet of the existing LCR 11. The remaining 20 feet of pavement will act as a "frontage road" for the residents. The frontage road will connect to the new LCR 11 by means of two accesses. One access is approximately 200 feet north of Country Club Rd and the other access is approximately 200 feet south of Richard's Lake Rd. The creation of a frontage road like this that may have to be maintained by the County and located adjacent to an urban arterial roadway (maintained by the City), is not consistent with the vision of the growth management area. Since these residents currently enjoy access from a publicly maintained road, the City will need to accept responsibility for maintaining this roadway following the changes. Maintenance should not be the responsibility of either the County or the residents adjacent to the roadway. I could find very little information on the plans that show how the connections between the proposed frontage road and the new LCR I 1 alignment will be constructed. It appears from the cross sections at station 28+00 and 50+50, which are the closest stations to the two connections shown, that there is 3 to 4 feet in vertical difference between the existing LCR 1 I profile and the proposed LCR 11 profile. It also appears that there is only about 25 feet horizontally from the easterly edge of the proposed frontage road to the flowline of the new LCR 11 alignment. If this is accurate, the grades from the existing road to the new road are going to be between 12% and 15%, which is too steep for any access to a public road, especially an arterial. It is my understanding from talking with Dave Stringer that the full improvements that are shown on these plans are not scheduled but that some interim improvements are planned for the 2003 construction season. We would be interested in seeing the plans for the interim improvements. I received a phone call from a resident who is concerned that the interim improvements may only focus on the road itself and not do anything to address drainage issues and might possibly cause more drainage problems. fAtnis6city a collies - cr 1 Ldoc Poo. QUITCLAIM DSSD—TLo Out W.,t Prlutloi and BtWenoq Co., L'olonJo eprlup. Colo• able Teed, .Word, this ........ �r....l. ............ of ...........in the year of our V"t1 ylr/ f Lord pn Adual d nine hundred and. VZ —1. ..between .. ........... .. ........................ �v✓torz fZ n s1 _........._.. _........._._....-._...................... ... ........................................................... A Of the County of �'�-C_/l/ ._. _. Rio State of Colorado, of the first part, and... �j _......_.__..._ .. -....................... ..................... ........_............................. - .... ._ /, _._ .... ..._.... -- ..- ---.... ------------ of the County nf...�i.� ti�'�S-vL ... _.-.. .. .....and State of Colorado, of -- _ the second art, Witneoeetb, That the said part..-y---- of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of TGe -------------DOLTaRs, to the said par't_.61 o/ the first part in hand paid by the said part.F'....uf the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby cmrfessr4l//ind oclenowledged, ha,,P/_rernlsed, released, sold, conveyed and QUIT-CL✓1IMED, and by these/presents do.Wremise, release, sell, convey and QUIT-CL.9LW unto the said partof the second part, assisres, forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the said part - of the first pal ha.lrl_. in and to the following described.._ situate, lying and being in the Coun/y af. t��Cu.Cit..-.. . and State of Colorado, to -wit: ....... --.................. ---------- _.__---.--------- --------- az/ .. --------------------------------------------------- ------------_I ...... _ ---------------------------------_------- ---------. _.._ ---........ .__ _ ---------- GO 11)rIVC RIO to 11)01b Ibe Sa111e, Together with all and singular the appurtenances and privileges therernrto belon!dag or in anywise thereunto appertaining, and all the estate, right, title, interest'and claim whatsoever of the said part-f/._of the first part, either r:n law or equity, to the only proper use, berzefil and behoof a of the said part._ t f of the second part," r.'�-'�1Minraa assigns, forever. y�J 1111 WHOIC6e Whereof, The said part_, y_of the first part haAl.lhereunto set _CI Go... hand.._and seal._ the day and year first above writtoa. SIa::ED, SEALED AND DELIVERED IN FRESENOL• OF ..__...✓---�_. �.aC.c. r.-c�� a•�.iL�7-� yam...- eLAL. � ' o .................. . ... . . .----------- _ ___...... B6AL. ) Ted Shepard December 18, 2002 Page 2 Another general issue we would like to address with the City is the maintenance of roads in this area. With all the development and annexation that has occurred there are County subdivisions on the west side of LCR 11 that are almost surrounded by the City limits. There is even one instance that I'm aware of that where a new City development shares an existing County subdivision road (Richard's Lake Rd). We would like to meet with the City to discuss the overall maintenance of roads in this area. The final issue that we would like to address with the City is the process for coordination and information sharing on issues like this that affect existing County roads and residents. When proposed development improvements involve major modifications to a mainline County Road and affect existing County residents, we would expect to be informed by City staff of these matters. We find it rather disconcerting to find out about these situations via calls from residents. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the plans. If you have any questions or need additional information you can reach me at 498-5730. r Rusty McDaniel, P.E. Assistant County Engineer cc: Mark Peterson, Larimer County Engineer Dale Miller, Latimer County Road & Bridge Director Dave Stringer, City of Fort Collins Engineering Department Elmisckity ft collies - cr 1 I.doc TIMOTHY J. DOW, MBA, JD PATRICIA T. DOW, CPA, JD, LLM- MAYO SOMMERMEYER, PC"" OF COUNSEL • nuoADIATT9D ro »wcnauw mia®usrz,5 rrp,�p �,,�y-�pG TD PMC[ICE LpW m W VOAmIG 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 Ted Shepard City of Fort Collins Current Planning 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 FAX: (970) 498-9966 E-MAIL dow®dowlawfirmcom January 27, 2003 Re: Project #29-OOA Maple Hill PDP — Type I (LUC) Our Client: Windsor Reservoir & Canal Company Dear Mr. Shepard: # 7 CLOCK TOWER SQUARE 323 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 2312 CAREY AVENUE CHEYENNE, WYOMING 82001 (307)634-1541 The Windsor Reservoir & Canal Company (WRCC) is the owner of the ditch that generally runs along the easterly boundary of the referenced project, sometimes known as the No. 8 Outfall. On behalf of WRCC, I have reviewed the submission as submitted by you with your Comment Sheet dated January 15, 2003. The drawings and data submitted did not address the stonmwater issues of importance to our client. I was able to work directly with the engineer and obtain the appropriate drawings and other technical information needed such as the sub - basin information. I would like to complement Keith Sheaffer and his team at TST, Inc. Consulting Engineers for an excellent job in providing the information that we need to make a comfortable decision concerning the impact of development on our ditch. If all developers and their engineers were willing to work as closely as these people have with us, the end product would be much better, well-defined and more certain, and everyone's comfort level would be significantly enhanced! I have reviewed drawings 69 of 130 and 56 of 130 on Job #953-003, revision date 11/18/02. I have also reviewed drawings 3-7 of 7 on the same project with the same revision date. Detailed design and full analysis data was also submitted, particular attention is directed to the NeoUDS results summary project description: ST-1, being page 1 of 3 — sub -basin information. The sub -basin information peak flow shows that 10 cfs will burden the ditch. WRCC hereby approves the drawings as referenced above as to their design and general configuration as it impacts our ditch. We also approve and agree to accept a stormwater developed inflow of 10 cfs into the ditch as referenced above. This arrangement will need to be reduced to a formal agreement reflecting a few details concerning timing of the project, coordination with the ditch company and the consideration to be paid by the developer at a later date. From a planning standpoint, if you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to get ahold of me. Yours very truly, M%MAAYO SOMME YER, P.C. 1 ayo Sommenn yer MS/hb PC: Tom Dougherty Keith Sheaffer Donn Engel From: Mark Jackson To: Dave Stringer Date: 1/29/03 3:45PM Subject: Re: Maple Hill comments Correct. They are definitely on the hook for both the sidewalk and the trail. MJ >>> Dave Stringer 01/29/03 03:44PM >>> Mark, I got a call from Sear/Brown wanting to eliminate the street sidewalk along Cty Road 52 because of the trail walkway at the underpass. My guess is NO since the people who don't necessarily want to access the trail would need the street sidewalk. Is this correct? I need to get back with them ASAP. Also, We need to have a meeting with you, Planning and Craig Foreman about the underpass height. Sear/Brown claims Craig told them that it didn't need to be higher, yet I know you have been telling them to build it according to the City's design guidelines. Can you give me times and I'll try to get the meeting set up. Thanks Dave CC: Tom Reiff From: Dave Stringer _ To: jim allen-morley Date: 1/29/03 3:57PM Subject: County Road 52 sidewalk (x 14 Jim, / C I'm sending this e-mail since I've been out sick and don't have much of a voice yet. Troy called and asked if the street sidewalk adjacent to the under pass on Cty Road 52 could be eliminated because of the trail system. The short answer is no. The street sidewalk is needed for those pedestrians who do not want to access the trail. They need the walk as a conveyance for them . Dave Ward H. Fischer (1929 - 1996) William H. Brown William C. Gunn William R. Father Margaret A. (Meg) Brown Daniel K Brown Margaret A. Althoff Troy Campbell Sear -Brown Group 209 S. Meldrum Fort Collins, CO 80521 FISCHER, BROWN & GUNN, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW EIGHTHFLOOR • FIRSTTOWER 215 WEST OAK STREET PO BOX Q FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522 PHONE 970407-9000 FAX 970-407-1055 February 7, 2003 Cancan Office 318 Cauyon Avenue, Suite 100 Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Phone:970407-1070 Fa : 970-498-0769 Email Address fbg0fbgpc.00m Re: Ditch/pipeline located near the west section line within Section 32, T8N, R68W of the 6'1i 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 6 h 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 sending 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. Sincerely William R. Fischer cc: Pete Hall 01 y N2YbUZU4 TSTINC PAGE 02 F! February 18, 2003 Mr. Peter Hall Director of Facilities Poudre School District 2407 Laporte Ave. Fort Collins, CO 60521 Re: Maple HIP — 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 prey located south of CR52, east of NCR 11, west of the No. 8 outlet ditch and north of the Poudre School Dlstrlct(Forbes properly. TST, Inc. has been working with the City of Fort Collins In preparing and finaiLrkV the "Utility Plans for Maple Hill." Currently the City of Fort Collins does not allow private Irrigation conveyance systems within a public road right-of-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 line. Enclosed is sheets 70A and TOB of the Maple Hill Construction plans for your review. TST, Inc. will be tying Into the relocated line at C1152, designed by Sear Broom and the wdsting Inc at the souftm end of the proposed Maple HIP site. 0 you have any questions, please feel free to give me a cal. Respectfully, TST, Inc. ConsulU Engineers th . Sheaffer, P.E. KGS/amb Enclosures CC: Mr. William Fischer Mr. Tom Dougherty TST, INC. 748V/haknW.r-3W1dh%n Furl CWUhN CO SOW Consulting Englmus ") 226116F7 MK*o (303) M-9103 RnmU lefogadw-com www.fttWc..oem 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.0 ATTORNEYS AT LAW EIGHTH FLOOR FIRSTTOWER 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: FEB 2 ;5 2003 318 Canyon Avenue, Suite 100 Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Phone: 970-407-1070 Fax: 970-498-0769 Email Address fbg@tbgpc.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. William R. Fischer Enc. Cc: Peter Hall ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Post Office Box 1190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190 (970) 498-5700 FAX (970) 498-7986 February 24, 2003 Dave Stringer City of Fort Collins Engineering Department 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: Project 429-OOA Maple Hill PDP — Latimer County Road 11 proposed improvements. Second review. Dave, I have reviewed the revised County Road 11 plans dated 2/4/03. Without going into great detail, I continue to have the same concerns that I expressed in my previous letter. While additional information has been added to the plans showing the frontage road and its connection to the future CR I 1 realignment, I still feel that there is not enough information to determine how the connections are going to be constructed. The additional information that has been added still indicates a fairly steep grade (8%) between the frontage road and CR 11. Like you and I discussed on the phone the other day a 3% to 4% grade seems like it would be the maximum grade you'd want accessing an arterial. I appreciate that you are continuing to work with the residents along CR 11. They have stayed in touch with us and I know that they are very interested in what happens with the road in front of their homes. It is my understanding from meeting with Cam a couple of weeks ago and from talking with Joe Bleicher, that the goal is to get the utility work done in the frontage road prior to the asphalt overlay being placed this year in order to avoid future cuts in the road. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the plans. If you have any questions or need additional information you can reach me at 498-5730. Sincerely, Rusty McDaniel, P.E. Assistant County Engineer cc: Mark Peterson, Latimer County Engineer Dale Miller, Latimer County Road & Bridge Director 61emplcily ft collins - m I I sewnd mvim.doc MAR-28-2003 FRI 11:08 AM FORT COLLINS UTILITIES FAX NO, 970 221 6619 P. 03/04 THE DOW LAW FIRM, LLC ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW TIMOTHY J. DOW. MaA, 1D P.O. BOX 1572 0 7 CLOCK TOWER SQUARE PATRICIA T. DOW, CPA Jn, LLM' FORT COI.I.INS, COLORADO 90522-1572 123 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE (970) 498-WO FORT COLLINS, COLORADO $0324 MAYO SOMMERMEYER, PC'* FAX; (970)a01-9966 2312CAREY AVENUE OF COUNSEL EMAIL dvw@dvw1r*f=.ro CHEYENNC. WYOMINO M2001 •ALY0.1ptYflE ^ALW AONRISDMMl0J1AA[11CY, .IAW IN WOYW{i IAW41NF2MSNA (307)634•1541 March 25, 2003 Yvonne Seaman Land Acquisition & Planning Director Centex Homes 9250 E. Costilla Ave., #200 Greenwood Village, CO 80112 Re: Our client: Windsor Reservoir and Canal Company (WRCC) Project #39-94B Lind Property PDP-Type 2 (LUC) Dear Yvonne: 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 0 , 131 g.�45 STATE OF COLORADO, Iat. COUNTY O State aforesaid, do hereby certify tlra / A C� `I and for said County, .. ................................. ............................ ...... prnorw Lty known eu >ne to be the person .whose name. ------- ------subaor' ed to the fare(oin4 Deed, appestat before me this day .� -..... as and in yenon, and neknowled�ed EhnE._.....L2 i.._..__. eieaed, seated and delivered the said instrument of wrllinp as_.. ✓% p0untary act for the uses and purposes therein set forth. ---,da tills.......... . l Z. .........._.. y - Given under ney and arul � - - . D. 1901.... ... 190....... J: ' my cpmntuswn elpires.-___.-.- Qurr-CLAIM DEED. To .......... .... __...---- ------ .......................... STATE,RF COLORADO, )) F sa. County I hereby certify that this Deed was filed for Record on the..___ --------------- ---- day of r r n .,: , ..-.,4. D. 190...... at ..:...-_._.I--- o'ctodc_Sl..-.-.Af., in my ofjwe, and duly recorded in Book,--- ✓-(------ _._. 1 Pat ..4�..:..mac.—_____._......---- _----- , Oe➢ufY. Niles. � .... ..._ _.... �. •rn. W, W.I.a rrruune.ue srurmu.rY co., coo. eYnev., Cob 1J i MAR-28-2003 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 Planting / Utilities Department, City of Fort Collins RECEIVED TIMOTHY J. DOW, MBA, JD PATRICIA T. DOW, CPA, JD, LLM" MAYO SOMMERMEYER, PC** OF COUNSEL ' M30AU�ATI MP MaIwwNMBa A ••Also Am unm Mpu nauwmw mma THE DOW LAW FIRM, LLC ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW P.O. BOX 1578 FORT COLLINS, 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: dm@dowla,,firm.com March 25, 2003 Re: Project #39-94B Lind Property PDP-Type 2 (LUC) Our client: Windsor Reservoir and Canal Company Dear Mr. Olt: CURRENT PLANNING N 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 comer. 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 16`h 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 5t' 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( /0 N�ayo MS/lmh 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 Fraser Walsh, P.E. TST Engineering 748 Whalers Way Building D Fort Collins, Co. 80525 April 2, 2003 Re: Maple Hill Development — LCUASS variance requests Dear Mr. Walsh, The intent of this letter is to inform you and your clients that the City Engineering Department is in full agreement with the variance requests to the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. We support the Variance to LCUASS Section 7.4.1, 12.2.2 and 7.4 General Design Elements, Table 7-3 Access Management. The variance request to the Land Use Code 3.6 (H) 1 &2 is actually a Alternative Compliance request that will be processed through the Hearing Officer at the time of the hearing. Again the City Engineering Department supports the request, subject to PDP approval. However, Please be informed that the approval of these variance requests by the City is subject to the approval of the Project Development Plan as a Type I Review, by the Hearing Officer as assigned by the Current Planning Department. Sincerely, David Stringer CC: Ted Shepard Aa,. r_ -5+ ✓' #AI er Joseph W. Bleicher 2509 N. County Road 11 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Phone: (970) 407-0531 April 7, 2003 Ms. Linda Michow Hearing Officer City of Fort Collins Dear Ms. Michow: �jW710 -_3 ,,Z�1_l uk Our neighborhood, the Country Club Heights Subdivision, appreciates the opportunity to Provide written comments on the development proposal referred to as Maple Hill P.D.P. #29-OOA. We want to again communicate our concerns, obtain current status of ongoing efforts, identify contact points, express our desire to participate in the decision making process, and request that we be informed of changes which affect our neighborhood. The proposed Maple Hill development is directly to the east of our neighborhood of 34 single-family homes on large lots that back onto Fort Collins Country Club from their locations on Country Club Road, NCR 11, and Richard's Lake Road. Our neighborhood dates back to 1965 when NCR 11 was a dirt road with very little traffic, and the sites for the Richard's Lake PUD (up to 682 units) to our north, the Maple Hill PDP (up to 667 units) to our east, and the Lind PDP (up to 775 units) to our northeast were all farmland. As development in the north has brought the city to the country, we have tried to work cooperatively to preserve neighborhood integrity, quality of life, safety, and home values. We are especially appreciative of the efforts of the developers of Maple Hill and the representatives of the City of Fort Collins who have worked with us on these goals. We want to continue to work with the city and county governments, the developers, and other affected parties to achieve a reasonable, fair, and equitable plan to obtain a frontage road and other actions which will mitigate the adverse effects of these developments. Of greatest importance to our neighborhood is obtaining the earliest possible implementation of a frontage road along NCR 11, an effort that we began in 1996 with the developer of the Richard's Lake PUD. This frontage road would provide existing homes with limited, consolidated access to NCR 11 rather than backing directly out onto the road. Further, the frontage road with a separation area from the relocated NCR 11 would help mitigate the effects of the greatly increased traffic from ongoing residential Page 2 developments which has an adverse effect on both our property values and quality of neighborhood life. We would appreciate any updates on actions related to the frontage road which were discussed at the January 29, 2003, meeting between neighborhood and city representatives. At that time, there was ongoing design and planning work for the eventual relocation of NCR 11 to the east. Further, this effort involved coordination between the developers of the Maple Hill PDP directly to our east and the Lind PDP to our northeast. Are there any new updates to the status of these actions? At the meeting, we noted that in a previous agreement with our neighborhood, the relocation of NCR 11 to the east and the frontage road were tied into the issuance of 200 building permits. Our understanding was that issuance of 200 permits might still be the trigger for these actions, but there would also be other factors affecting the timing. There were plans to negotiate with the developers on timeframes for certain actions based on issuance of an agreed upon number of building permits. Also, timing of the road relocation and frontage road would be influenced by the construction, in the vicinity of Richard's Lake Road, of pedestrian underpasses under the relocated NCR 11 and CR 52. As we noted at the meeting, we would like to ensure that we have an opportunity to provide neighborhood input on the timing, which greatly affects us, of the relocation of NCR 11 and the frontage road. Are there any new updates to the status of these actions? At the meeting, we were told that because of the current poor structural condition of NCR 11, a street oversizing was planned in early spring or early summer. This oversizing would not be in lieu of or affect the plans for the eventual relocation of NCR 1 I to the east as discussed above. The street oversizing would involve an overlay of existing pavement as well as an increase in overall width to 36-feet for two 12-foot travel lanes and 6-foot bike lanes on each side. The centerline of the road would remain the same, but there will be expansion in width in both the east and west sides for bike lanes. For most of our homes, this will require some shortening of driveway lengths and removal/relocation of landscaping /landscaping materials. Further, our understanding was that the street oversizing would include some new turn lanes on NCR 11 by the intersection of Richard's Lake Road and the intersection of Country Club Road. Also, the oversizing would result in a shift of the road to the east at the Country Club intersection which will result in improved sight lines at this dangerous intersection. (In December 2000, a tragic accident at this intersection resulted in two deaths.) Are there any new updates to the status of the design actions? Based on the meeting, we understood that once the new NCR 11 is relocated to the east, our frontage road could be the 20-foot wide western portion of the oversized road (the 16-foot eastern portion would be part of the bermed separation from the new road.) . We raised concerns that the oversizing addresses the serious drainage problems on NCR 11 Page 3 which result in large ponds of water collecting in front of some of our homes and driveways as well as in the depressions caused by wear in the road. We believed that the road needed to be engineered for adequate downstream drainage to prevent damage to both it and the future NCR 11. We also wanted to evaluate including, on a cost -sharing basis, rollover curbs and driveway approaches along the western side of the road . To minimize tearing up the oversized road, we also discussed the coordination of the oversizing with other improvements such as relocating the overhead electrical utilities underground (or any applicable site preparation for installation at a later date). Also, we believed that if any additional fire hydrants are to be installed on the west side of NCR 11, this should definitely take place prior to the oversizing. (In a brief follow-on meeting that took place on February 23, 2003, we again raised these concerns and offered our assistance to work closely with the superintendent of this project in coordinating with our neighborhood.) We would like to again state our desire to do everything we can, to the extent practicable in conjunction with the road widening, to coordinate these improvements so as to minimize future road damage and disruption. Could we get an update on these actions? We also discussed our concerns with the differential in height between the existing NCR 11 and the proposed relocated NCR 11 which would vary between 2-4 feet lower. We were looking to have sufficient additional beaming to help mitigate tire and other vehicle noise as well as vehicle lights. We also wanted to evaluate the use of privacy fences and/or walls to help mitigate the adverse effects of the increased traffic we are already experiencing and which will be greatly increased by the Maple Hill and Lind developments. We also discussed homeowner responsibility for the maintenance of both the frontage road and the 26-foot wide separation area. This is a new requirement for us; as residents, Latimer County now provides us with road maintenance, snowplowing, and cutting of the grassy area along the eastern side of NCR 11. Our neighborhood's March 7, 1997, Memorandum of Understanding with the developer of Richard's Lake stated " ...the Developer and Neighbors agree to negotiate in good faith, along with the City and County to establish the specifics of engineering, maintenance (i.e., landscaping, snowplowing), and the financial obligations of the section of roadway from Richard's Lake Road south to Country Club Road." With only 17 homeowners fronting along NCR 11, we seem to be bearing an unusually heavy burden compared to the large number of new homeowners in the three new developments in our area. Are there any ways for us to get a more equitable treatment; have you instances of existing homeowners who have dealt with such a situation? Also, there are three proposed Maple Hill entrances that are perpendicular to our existing homes. The homes closest to these entrances will be subject to significant engine and other vehicle noise from acceleration and braking and lights from exiting vehicles will Page 4 shine directly into these homes. There will be lessened but similar effects on the homes opposite the intersections of Richard's Lake Road and Country Club Road. We would like to explore any actions such as landscaping that could be done to help mitigate these problems. Can you provide us with any insight on how these problems were handled in other existing neighborhoods affected by new development? Finally, we would like to work closely with all parties to cooperatively resolve any construction related problems which affect our neighborhood. Prior to start of actual site work and construction, we would like to identify contact points for the different parties (neighborhood, developer, and local government) in the event that problems arise. Also, we would greatly appreciate any reasonable actions which could be taken to help minimize construction traffic in our neighborhood. Currently, all such traffic flows down NCRl1; are there any plans to require alternative routes for construction traffic? Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments. Nick Yobbagy, Kirvin Knox, and I will continue to act as representatives in working with the developers and local government representatives on neighborhood concerns. Please feel free to contact me on (970) 407-0531 for further explanations of our comments. Sincerely, Joseph W. Bleicher For Neighbors in the Country Club Heights Subdivision cc: Mr. Ted Shepard Mr. Cam McNair VMr. Dave Stringer Mr. Matt Baker Mr. Craig Farver Mr. Tom Dougherty: Tom Dougherty Construction Ms. Yvonne Seaman: Centex Homes Mr. Thomas Bender: Chair of the Larimer County Commissioners 'VOL, .S7 ,;'a7 r Joseph W. Bleicher 2509 N. County Road 11 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Phone: (970) 407-0531 May 7, 2003 Mr. Ted Shepard Chief Planner Current Planning Department City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Dear Ted: Kirvin Knox, Steve Stansfield, and I appreciated the opportunity to meet yesterday with you and Dave Stringer to discuss our concerns about actions we should take following the hearing decision which didn't appear to address the concerns we had raised in our letter of April 7, 2003. We thought that neighborhood failure to appeal this decision could be taken as tacit approval or acquiescence to whatever happens. Based on our discussion, we will not pursue the appeal process but will use the working group proposal as a basis for timely and reasonable resolution of our concerns. We have modified the language in this proposal as we had discussed at the meeting. Please review this revised version and let me know if you want any changes. If the proposal is acceptable, please feel free to distribute it to the appropriate parties in the City Planning Staff and City Engineering Staff. If you would prefer that I arrange for representatives from the Neighborhood Resource Office and from Larimer County, please let me know. We also discussed our desire to review the latest designs for both the frontage road and the interim road. Dave agreed to call us in for the review of the frontage road design once it comes in from TST. We would appreciate it if Matt Baker would arrange for a similar review of the interim road design to help ensure that this project goes smoothly. We also discussed the need for us to have a trigger for implementation of the frontage road. Our neighborhood suffers all the adverse effects of the increased traffic on NCR l 1 and this will grow worse as the Maple Hill and Lind Project developments get underway. We want to have written commitments so our homeowners can feel they can remain in the neighborhood and make improvements to their homes rather than feel they should be selling their homes because of uncertainty about the future. Page 2 The trigger in our agreement with the developer of Richard's Lake was that the improvements to NCR 11, including the frontage road, would take place prior to the issuance of the 201" building permit. We discussed whether the appropriate place for such a commitment would be the developer agreements, and Dave said he would check whether the City could let us look at these agreements. We expressed our belief that now with three developments affecting us, early implementation is even more critical. We also discussed steps that might be taken to mitigate construction traffic along NCR 11. We believe that if CR 52 was paved between NCR 1 I and NCR 9, this could serve as an effective route for construction traffic for the Lind Project. Dave thought that there might also be some other treatment of the this dirt road which might make it suitable for construction traffic. We want to see this treatment or other alternatives evaluated; we strongly believe NCR 11 should not serve as a construction route for the Lind Project until after the frontage road is completed. Finally, we explained that we wanted to explore the use of privacy fencing and/or walls in the 6-foot height range. We believe such privacy fences and/or walls on the eastern edge of the 20-foot frontage road (not on the 26-foot wide separation area) would help tie our neighborhood together with an attractive, integrated appearance. Even with berming and landscaping assistance from the City, we believe that privacy fences and/or walls may still be essential to help mitigate the adverse visual effects of the increased traffic which is projected to be over 16,000 vehicles per day. We also explained that the irregular locations and configurations of our driveways would render ineffective other methods of mitigating the effects of lights from exiting vehicles shining into our homes. Assuming our revised working group proposal is acceptable, we would like to begin these meetings for resolution of our concerns after we have had an opportunity to review the latest designs for the frontage road and the interim road. Please let me know of any actions you want me to take. We look forward to working with you in the future. Sincerely, Joseph W. Bleicher For Neighbors in the Country Club Subdivision Enclosure: Revised Working Group Proposal ✓ cc: Mr. Dave Stringer LAND SURVEY MONUMENT RECORD Dwomaenl 01 ✓twwray dseeow+ Drvd of Ro&k M Av ftron4twr I Bed h rroseN skLOW 3Nw/on .. 1Ddo ftolowy. Save 1 D.m r. CO ac" Prom, r")A0W-rrn ra 003104-rM Vitro Clw)soa-rraa REPORT ONE MONUMENT ONLY ON THIS FOAM — REPRODUCTPDN OF THIS FORM IS AUTHORIZED All Items to be filled In Dy the Load SwaeYOF usklo PERMANENT BLACK LETTERUKr and Ones which can be reproduced 1. TYPE OF MONUMENT. 0 SECTION CORNER m OUARTER CORNER O BENCH MARK 0 OTHER_ 2. DESCRIPTION OF MONU IRINT FOUND: N/A 3. DESCRIPTION OF MONUAAEINT ESTABLISHED BY YOU TO PERPETUATE THE LOCATION OF THIS POINT SET 2-1/2" DIAMETER ALUMINUM CAP ON 30e LONG #8 REPAR SET 0.5' I9EL0W SURFACE OF THE GROUND 4. SKETCH SHOWING RELATIVE LOCATION OF MONUMENT, ACCESSORIES AND REFERENCE POINTS STATING WHETHER FOUND OR SET, SHOW SUPPORTING AND/OR CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE WHERE APPLICABLE' CROSS CHISLEO ON . OF CONIC, HEADWALL SET 2-1/2" DIA. ALLINI IN CAP ON A 16 REBAR u ' of REG. FOR PEAND P9.$ P7.5 430I =9 1/4 + S32 11999 Stamping on Cap a. Date of Mkt work to e4141101104 natxe or releA11"" menumoM 2/t/99 L DON alanlrnahl Mae aeN as IWftL N/A 1r{M�nsn n, •�fj COLS." r;EG. FOR PE AND PL5 a6CilV><9 AT 0"= Or TEX COUNTY CLUX — Coty" av* neoad b 0e old by fI£9JL �Mwombs, oaoprWeT e� prwudMrdie COUNTY ROAD 152 5. FORM NML THROUGH LARIMER COUNTY SURVEY SHINER ON NORTHSIDE POWER POLE CERTFTCATION We Is to cep rt /bat I was In rosDealbN .harps of Me survey" work deurbed In INS record Old thO ea the wet of my knowledge the NromwNon press) O Wslo is nw and carted. Nome (1151"all Print): PHL P 1. ROBINSON! FYm Nmsaw Stewart & A"OdItt e. he -- FM Addrea. 103 S. Mtld&= SL, Fort C 1 km. CO 8021 Phan. {9T0} 482-9331 LOCATION DIAGRAM I" e I Mlle ♦ e Location of Moament Slowfurse0ore lhr000h $eal T. ac 29 T 8 N. 68 1 M P.m. COUNW LARNER 1NDZX REY NUMBER — F To ee vwe only Ter saaun sts leeetad ea eeeatr dew Fer.Ae'w Layout #14 5/7/2003 PROPOSAL FOR WORKING GROUP EFFORT - We currently don't have a good sense of how our concerns are being addressed and what will happen to us as a neighborhood - With the approaching start of both the Maple Hill and Lind Project developments, we need to achieve timely and reasonable resolution of these concerns - If neighborhood efforts on the frontage road and related issues don't come to Tuition, we will experience severe adverse effects on neighborhood integrity, quality of life, safety, and home values which will destroy the character of our neighborhood o we estimate the negative effect on home values for the 17 homes fronting NCR 11 to be $75,000-$100,000 per home (total of $1,275,000-$1,700,000) this represents a 25 percent decrease in home value due to quality of life and safety issues from the effects of greatly increased traffic, construction noise/debris/dust, structural vibration and damage from heavy construction traffic, and both vehicle lights shining directly into homes and vehicle noise from acceleration and braking at new intersections perpendicular to existing homes - other neighborhood homes on both Country Club Road and Richard's Lake Road which do not front directly onto NCR 11 would also be adversely affected to a lesser extent further, the Fort Collins Country Club, with over 500 local members, would also be adversely affected - We want to make sure we know what will be happening and to develop reasonable milestones and triggers for future actions which affect us - We want to obtain written commitments so that our homeowners can feel they can remain in the neighborhood and make improvements to their homes rather than feel they should be selling their homes because of uncertainty about the future - We believe that timely and reasonable resolution of our concerns can be achieved in a cooperative manner at the lowest possible levels by neighborhood representatives participating in a working group with representation from the: o Neighborhood Resource Office to help us better express neighborhood concerns and to negotiate with the other participants o City Engineering Staff to include Cam McNair and appropriate staff o City Planning Staff to include Cameron Gloss and appropriate staff o Latimer County Representatives to assist in coordination of county/city issues - We want to work cooperatively with all parties to achieve reasonable, fair, and equitable resolution of issues so as to preserve neighborhood integrity, quality of life, safety, and home values - We are willing to evaluate reasonable alternative approaches which will enable us to achieve these goals and want the other parties in this effort to do the same - We want to participate in the decision making process on issues affecting us, to be informed of changes affecting us, and to be updated periodically on the status of ongoing efforts - We recognize that due to ongoing actions every issue and concern may not be resolved at this time but we should be able to achieve greater closure and come to agreements in principle that serve as the basis for future actions - As future development takes place in the north, we hope our efforts can serve as a model for future neighborhood/developer/government cooperation as the city comes to the country DA V e st--: � I w Joseph W. Bleicher 2509 N. County Road 11 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Phone (970) 407-0531 May 8, 2003 ., S P" Y Mr. Cameron Gloss Hearing Officer Q J City of Fort CollinsI�n�, 281 North College Avenue C� {� , V " Dear Mr. Gloss: Our neighborhood, the Country Club Heights Subdivision, appreciates the opportunity to provide written comments on the development proposal referred to as Lind Project Development Plan. As development in the north has brought the city to the country, we have tried to work cooperatively to preserve neighborhood integrity, quality of life, safety, and home values. The Lind Project development is directly to the northeast of our neighborhood of 34 single-family homes on large lots that back onto Fort Collins Country Club from their locations on Country Club Road, NCR 11, and Richard's Lake Road. We are greatly affected by the ongoing Richard's Lake PUD (up to 682 units) to our north, the Maple Hill PDP (up to 667 units) to our east, and the Lind Project (up to 775 units). If our efforts on the frontage road and related issues don't come to fruition, we will experience severe adverse effects that will destroy the character of our neighborhood. We estimate the negative effect on home values for the 17 homes fronting NCR 11 to be $75,000-$100,000 per home (total of $1,275,000-$1,700,000) which represents a 25 percent decrease in home value. This is due to quality of life and safety issues from the effects of greatly increased traffic, construction noise/debris/dust, structural vibration and damage from heavy construction traffic, and both vehicle lights shining directly into homes and vehicle noise from acceleration and braking at new intersections perpendicular to existing homes. Further, other neighborhood homes on both Country Club Road and Richard's Lake Road which do not front directly onto NCR 11 would also be adversely affected to a lesser extent as would the Fort Collins Country Club, with over 500 local members. We earlier commented on the Lind Project in our letter of August 5, 2002, to the City of Fort Collins. We raised neighborhood concerns related to the frontage road for NCR 11, safety/traffic enforcement, infrastructure, city and county jurisdiction, and Page 2 monitoring and enforcing developer compliance related to construction. These are still ongoing neighborhood concerns which need timely and reasonable resolution with the approaching start of both the Lind Project and Maple Hill developments. Because of the interrelationship between both Maple Hill and the Lind Project on our neighborhood (e.g., traffic flow past our homes), you will note similar concerns were raised in our April 7, 2003, letter on Maple Hill. We want to again communicate our concerns, obtain current status of ongoing efforts, express our desire to participate in the decision making process, and request that we be informed of changes which affect our neighborhood. FRONTAGE ROAD Of greatest importance to our neighborhood is obtaining the earliest possible implementation of a frontage road along NCR 11, an effort that we began in 1996 with the developer of the Richard's Lake PUD. This frontage road would provide existing homes with limited, consolidated access to NCR 1 I rather than backing directly out onto the road. Further, the frontage road with a separation area from the relocated NCR I I would help mitigate the noise and visual effects of the greatly increased traffic from ongoing residential developments which have had an adverse effect on both the property values and quality of life in our neighborhood. In our August 5, 2002, letter we stated:" We need your support in ensuring the earliest possible implementation of the proposed NCR 11 improvements, especially the frontage road. A reasonable timeframe for these improvements needs to be established. To clarify earlier discussions, we need to obtain a finalized written commitment of the involved parties from the City and the developers. Furthermore, we need your support in ensuring that the Richard's Lake Project, the Gillespie Farms Project, and the Lind Project each contribute a fair amount of the funding needed to do the NCR 11 improvements in our neighborhood." This frontage road is essential for neighborhood integrity, quality of life, safety, and home values. Uncertainty about or unreasonable delays to implement the frontage road in a timely manner will be devastating to our neighborhood since we bear all the adverse effects rather than the developers or the City. The trigger in our agreement with the Richard's Lake developer was that improvements to NCR 11, including the frontage road, were to take place prior to the issuance of 201" building permit. We now have two other developments starting soon which will further increase the adverse effects on our neighborhood. We need some kind of trigger or milestone Page 3 based on permits and/or time rather than leaving this open-ended'as to when it would take place. We need some written commitment ( perhaps through developer agreements) so our homeowners feel they can remaining the neighborhood and make improvements to their homes rather than feel they should be selling their homes because of uncertainty. STREET OVERSIZING Our concerns on this project were discussed in detail in our April 7, 2003, letter on the Maple Hill development. We would appreciate any cooperation and assistance that the Lind Project developer can provide both to the City and our neighborhood during this project. PRIVACY FENCE AND/OR WALL -We are already experiencing the adverse noise and visual effects of the increased traffic from the Richard's Lake development; these adverse effects will be greatly increased by the Lind Project and Maple Hill developments. As a result of these three developments, traffic along NCR 11 in our neighborhood is projected to eventually be over 16,000 vehicles per day. We are looking for the City to ensure adequate berming to help mitigate tire and other vehicle noise and also help mitigate some of the visual effects of traffic. We are also looking for the City to provide landscaping which will further help mitigate tire and other vehicle noise and also further help mitigate some of the visual effects of traffic. Even with this berming and landscaping, we believe a privacy fence and/or wall in the 6-foot height range may still be essential to help mitigate the adverse visual effects of the increased traffic. We envision that the privacy fence and/or wall would be on the eastern edge of the 20-foot frontage road and not be on the 26-foot wide separation area between the frontage road and the relocated NCR IL The privacy fence and/or wall would help tie our neighborhood together with an attractive, integrated appearance. Further, it would provide visual blocking of most traffic and help minimize the problems with lights from the exiting vehicles shining into our homes. (We think the irregular locations and configurations of our driveways would render ineffective other methods of mitigating the effects of lights from exiting vehicles shining into our homes.) The privacy fence and/or wall would be 16 feet from the roadside edge of the parkway sidewalk and its appearance would be enhanced by landscaping. We've Page 4 noted that the design of the Maple Hill development has fencing to the rear of the duplex units directly across from our homes on NCR 11. MAINTENANCE OF FRONTAGE ROAD AND 26-FOOT WIDE SEPARATION AREA We want to ensure that any responsibility for the maintenance of the frontage road and the 26-foor wide separation area would be fair and equitable rather than place an unfair burden on us. As residents, Larimer County now provides us with road maintenance, snowplowing, and cutting of the grassy area along the eastern side of NCR 11. Our neighborhood's March 7, 1997, Memorandum of Understanding with the developer of Richard's Lake states: "..-the Developer and Neighbors agree to negotiate in good faith, along with the City and County to establish the specifics of engineering, maintenance ( i.e., landscaping, snowplowing), and the financial obligations of the section of roadway from Richard's Lake Road south to Country Club Road." We want to undertake negotiations to resolve these issues using this guidance. We would like to note that only 17 homes ( with less than 40 total residents ) front along NCR 11. The parkway area is considerably isolated from us and represents a large area of land compared to the common situation where it might be a few feet of grass between the owner's sidewalk and the street. Further, the traffic projected for this highly visible arterial street is over 16,000 vehicles per day. We think our percent of use/benefit of the parkway would be very small compared to the large number of users from the neighborhood ( most of whom would be from the three new developments ) and from outside the neighborhood. We do want to assume a fair and reasonable share of maintenance; are there instances you can provide of other existing homeowners who have dealt with a similar situation? MITIGATION OF CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC We believe that reasonable actions must be taken to help minimize construction traffic in our neighborhood. All such traffic now flows down NCR 11. We believe that if CR 52 was paved between NCR 1 I and NCR 9, this could serve as an effective route for construction traffic for the Lind Project. City engineering staff thought there might be some other treatment for this dirt road which might make it suitable for construction traffic. We want to see this treatment or other alternatives Page 5 evaluated; we strongly believe NCR 11 should not serve as a construction route for the Lind Project until after the frontage road is completed. SPEEDING/TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT Safety on NCR i l remains a major neighborhood concern. Speeding and reckless driving are problems not just for neighborhood residents but also for the large number of cyclists, runners, and walkers from outside the neighborhood who use NCR 1 on a daily basis. Heavy construction vehicles such as concrete trucks and dump trucks require more time to stop and are more likely to cause serious injury to these users. There is very strong neighborhood support for the reduction of speed limits along NCR 11. At a minimum, we would like to see reduced speed limits in the areas of the entrances for construction traffic ( this could be limited only to actual construction hours). We would also like to see an agreement reached by law enforcement agencies (city/county/highway patrol ) as to who will be responsible for enforcement of speeding and reckless driving violations on this portion of NCR 11. Finally, we would like to see vigorous enforcement of speeding and reckless driving violations by the responsible law enforcement agency. CONTACT POINTS Finally, we would like to work closely with all parties to cooperatively resolve any construction related problems which affect our neighborhood. Prior to start of actual site work and construction, we would like to identify contact points for the different parties (neighborhood, developer, and local government) in the event that problems arise. Nick Yobbagy, Kirvin Knox, and I will continue to act as representatives in working with the developers and local government representatives on neighborhood concerns. In closing, we plan to continue to work cooperatively with all parties to preserve neighborhood integrity, quality of life, safety, and home values. We are especially appreciative of the efforts of the developer of the Lind Project and the representatives of the City of Fort Collins who have worked with us on these goals. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments. Please feel free to contact me on (970) 407-0531 for further explanations of our comments. Page 6 Sincerely, Joseph W. Bleicher For Neighbors in the Country Club Heights Subdivision Enclosures: August 5, 2002, letter to City on Lind Project Development Plan April 7, 2003, letter to City on Maple Hill Hearing cc: Mr. Ted Shepard Mr. Cam McNair Mr. Dave Stringer Mr. Matt Baker Mr. Craig Farver Mr. Tom Dougherty: Ms. Yvonne Seaman: Tom Dougherty Construction Centex Homes Mayor Ray Martinez, City of Fort Collins Mr. Thomas Bender: Chair of the Larimer County Commissioners From: Dave Stringer To: Allen -Morley, Jim Date: 5/28103 10:21AM Subject: Re: County Road 52 Crossing Jim, I apologize for not getting with you sooner. Also thanks for the e-mail reminder. County Road 52 at the number 8 is difficult to design at this time without knowing what will happen in the future. I'm certainly willing to look at what you are proposing by dropping the design 100 feet short of the section line. However, the pavement transitions from Thoreau Drive on Lind and Maple Hill to meet the existing county road will need to be designed in accordance with our standards and to the speeds as posted. It appears to me that the Maple Hill side will be difficult to maintain safe transitions for the interim. In addition, each developer will be required to escrow with the City their local street portion of this section of County Road 52. 1 need this info. quickly since I'm currently working with Maple Hill on their D.A. Dave >>> "Allen -Morley, Jim"<Jim.Allen-Morley@searbrown.com> 05/28/03 08:44AM >>> Dave, Sorry to keep bothering you. I assume you are very busy so I thought email may work better because you don't have to catch me on the phone which I know is hard. Centex, Lind Property, County Road 52. We all have been wondering how to solve this. The timing does not feel right to build a very expensive structure that may or may not meet the City of Fort Collins Master Plan. So on looking at this, The Section corner is about 30 feet west of the pipe crossing, Which is where the curb and gutter is required to be built to. I wanted to suggest that we pull the road build out back about 100 feet from the crossing so when the decision is made on the no. 8 ditch crosssing that as little damage to the road is done as possible with the construction. Just an Idea to get us past wasting resources on something that we won't be able to know for a while. Thanks Jim CC: Susan Joy Dave Strin er - Re: Ma le Hill sidewalk Pa e 1 From: Craig Foreman To: Dave Stringer Date: 5/29/03 2:OOPM Subject: Re: Maple Hill sidewalk Dave: I believe your talking about the section of trail that would lead down to the underpass of County Road #52. If so, that's the main trail and we want to keep at 10' wide. We place the signs with the name of the trail and no motorized vehicles allowed at the junction to the street. Pretty standard for us. If we have problems we can install agate that allows for people passage and not cars. Let me know if you need anything else. Craig >>> Dave Stringer 05/29/03 11:16AM >>> Craig, There has been a concern raised regrading the width of the sidewalk along county rd 52 that also serves as the trail connection along the northern boundary of Maple Hill. The issue of the width is 10 feet versus 8 feet. The concern is that vehicles will drive on the trail/sidewalk because it's ten feet in width and can be mistaken for a vehicle access. Can the width be reduced to 8 feet which may make it look more like a sidewalk/trail and not a driveway or access way? Thanks for your input on this issue Dave CO{.ORADO LAND SURVEY MONUMENT RECORDIR t7apaTmrar a/ Rsywercry Aom*4" MAY 3.0 1995 ��j Bsord of RwlrfroEo.+ do- Proraalons7 fa�a ears mI Pro/rarA»d w+d sor» ...' r redo 0ev0dwan $Me 1,r2 a rZ., M- dUsOa ir0�0. ST. $0. QF RE6 PAanr (JW)W4-77W r'oa (jW)dYi-m0 v/rDn (J W)M4- Tao fOR PE AND PU - REpts1L{�: ONG Ai0NI141EN7 ONL`Y� N jl}f15 Ot2At `R£PitODUC71ou THIS FORM t$ gtITHORI7 All dcrna�to 6a�f11(e��1n by_1haiLortcr S\ir"r"[yMdr afnQP£RM�l1EW1rBC�iG/f,L€Tli71t/1G and. lfuea ,whtchcon?be�epro4uccd i. TYPE OF MONUMENT: )eSEC'RON CORNER ❑ QUARTER CORNER 0 BENCH MARK 0 OTHER 2, DESCRIPTION OF MONUMENT FOUND: „ „ 2"7voq. K✓r7w✓m CFI IN fkvv4E Ba'Y, r,,,Zz-CA Sa eLEY c.pa r=ooN� PJPn�oklniA,E�y a.Y1 B40F4 .✓ ys�vgts s✓rtf9cd� 3. DESCRIPTION OF MONUMENT ESTABLISHED BY YOU TO PERPETUATE THE LOCATION OF THIS POINT: New/sil .s.¢j FD&+ .n 5?49"P.PA1C1%7S Ns SslvedV r3AF4o4u. 4. SKETCH SHOWING RELATIVE LOCATION OF MONUMENT, ACCESSORIES AND REFERENCE POINTS STATING WHETHER FOUND OR SET. SHOW SUPPORTING AND/OR CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE WERE APi}UCABLE: J&vm.CAP W r^oWfB T>66 tZAArcc $a CeuNTY fLoAs> tt S 2. w. _ N,7A j21L/1+12AS tAL'E eoAS> y Gy-:gvr,'G ` iZo9A t-v✓'�Q payCAF �, \ 3 0 a o d Tj3N 'R6Aui Vim? S: sae f S t9 S 3! 532 \''Cs 4SoZ Stamping on Cap 6. Cate of Field Work-IL��Zo�� —"--(Do snot M In)---- �tp r ALMY 3 0 Cc1W. Si. c.... 4- hER. FORPE�IN! I BECENED AT OFFICR OF 7M COONTC CLEIUC DATL' te1.N tow [tle6 br IeM Itdscsne. Nnmlur ihA11NItG1]J'11 t119 }�yy mMr inI•'1[rw:e ib„YJ1R :KKK Me YeiWIM '� a l�or X11 NArt � Pi.B57�. CA'Y 'S7'6wptT�:lSsaG_ Sn2S✓ �a Fbfrd) rJgrt l4M1? $o77t•4 G�1A '�- Faarra FaVBt% N6AA N,dlt `rarA DiS e- CERTIFICATION This Is to e�erit_f�' chat I r !n Tesponswe, charge of the surveying warkaesorlbed in this record and that to the best of my knowledge the InformoUon preaanted herein Is true and ooraecl Name (please Print): Firm Nome: ��-lYAar�r✓ EAZ ii/EarR r��TA. '. Firm Addnix J4Zo 11VM4X .ST. �nc,crvwb t!� Phone: 3v3, 23 -a/S LOCATION DIAGRAM I*-. I Mile 0- Locotion of Monument S)gnotur4/004 through Seal AbC 7. SAC 3o TAX Jt '59 W , 6 M. CDUNT7 Ln__grn9J D?DZX REP NUMBER -� sr& SEC T -R- p.M. COUNTY TNDMC REP NUMBER •• To bo oss4 "v tar anoowwonts 10"Wa .a soaaty Lon 0. 005 Transportation Services Engineering Department Joseph W. Bleicher 2509 North County Road 11 Fort Collins, Co. 80524 May 29, 2003 RE: Maple Hill Draft Development Agreement Dear Mr. Bleicher, For your information I have enclosed the first draft of the Development Agreement for the Maple Hill development project being proposed on the east side of County Road 11 from Country Club north to Couth Road 52. Please share this with your neighborhood group and if you have comments or questions concerning this draft feel free to contact me. However, please keep in mind, this is a legal document between the City and the Developer and any suggestions, additions and/or other requirements the neighborhood group may wish to incorporate into the agreement must be approved by the City and the Developer. Again, if you have comments or questions please call me at 221-6605. Sincerely, - Ciavid Stringer Development Review Supervisor Cc: Tom Dougherty Ted Shepard 81 North Coilege avenue • P0. Sox 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) ?..1-o605 • FAX (970) 221-6378 •.vww.icgov.mm OS Mr. Dave Stringer City of Fort Collins Engineering Department 281 N. College Ave. PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Re: Maple Hill Country Club grading variance request Project No.: 0953-004 Dear Dave, June 18, 2003 This letter is regarding our conversation and agreement concerning the Maple Hill Country Club road grading variance request. Due to site constraints associated with the existing property owner and limited ROW associated with Country Club Road, Maple Hill will tie the road grading for said road at 3:1 slopes instead of the minimum of 4:1. The 3:1 grading will occur at the most westerly intersection of Country Club Road and NCR11. This will be a temporary (interim) condition. Once the property to the south develops the grading and remaining portion of Country Club Road will be constructed to the City of Fort Collins current standards. The grading of the side slopes will be constructed by the developer to current construction standards and will not result in any additional capital costs to the city. The side slopes will not create any safety, welfare or public health issues, nor will it reduce the design life of the public streets. The allowance of the variance will create a better road tie-in to the existing south property. During the interim time frame there will be extremely minor maintenance changes due to the increased side slopes. We appreciate your review and approval of said variance. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to give our office a call. Respectfully, :ERS TST, INC. 748 Whalers Way - Building D Consulting Engineers Fort Collins, CO 80525 (970)226-0557 Metro (303) 595-9103 Fax(970) 226-0204 Emailinf4i@(stinc.com www.tstine.com Dave Stdn er -,Maple Hill Neighborhood Park Pacie 1 From: Craig Foreman To: Bill Whirty; Bob Loeven; Ingrid Decker; Kathleen Benedict; Paul Yarbrough; Ralph Campano Date: 8/13/03 4:37 PM Subject: Maple Hill Neighborhood Park Hi; Since I know we don't have enough to do, and we need a challenge from time to time. Here is a new one. Tom Dougherty and Mike Sollenerger are developing the Maple Hill Project that is located in northeast Fort Collins. We are planning to purchase a 7.16 acre neighborhood park. Tom and Mike would like to get the park to at least have grass until we develop in 2010. So here are the details; 1. 1 told Mike and Tom that the City has no ability (staff or financial) to do work on the park until 2010. 2. We would need an agreement for them to develop and maintain (all at their cost) until we take over the park. We would not be able to reimburse any maintenance costs. 33hey would like to have us collect area parkland fees and repay them for the development costs. We would need to make sure the work is to our standard so we don't incur any additional costs in 2010. They will need to follow our park standards for irrigation systems, seed, grading, etc. They indicated they would. 4. We would need to work with their L.A. firm to get a grading plan that works in the interim and doesn't cause us too much additional cost in the future for final plan work. Tom or Mike will be talking with Ingrid, Bob and my staff on each topic. Their schedule is to start construction on the development later this year. I get the impression, they would be into the park by early nerd year. Previous attempts at this developer build have not worked due to the costs. With just the land/grass option they may be able to make the financing work. However, they may have to get water rights, etc. for the park! We may all need to meet sometime once each of the areas has some shape and disucss. All for now. Craig CC: Dave Stringer, Marty Heffernan; Ted Shepard From: Susan Joy To: Dave Stringer Date: 10/13/03 9:32AM Subject: Meeting Notes I didn't take "meeting minutes" for that meeting, but I do have notes. Here they are... The driveway improvements for the property owners along the west side of CR11 will occur with the realignment and ultimate improvements for CR11. The Lind and Maple Hill developer's portion of the driveway improvements are being collected over the first 100 building permits of each development. The city's portion of those driveway improvements are not presently funded but will be funded by the time the ultimate improvements go in. The CR11 underpass is critical to the timing of the realignment of CR11. It is funded by the Parks Department and we do not know at this time when Parks will have the money to build it. Another factor in the timing of CR11's ultimate improvements is the overall economy - how fast the houses sell will dictate how quickly the traffic counts go up in that area. The interim improvements will serve the area for a number of years until the traffic counts become high enough to warrant the full improvements for CR11. It is Street Oversizing's preference to wait until the Forbe's property develops and then do the entire stretch from Douglas Road to Mountain Vista as one project. This brings the overall cost of the project down and saves the City money. CR52 will be improved to the east with Lind and Maple Hill developments. The construction traffic is being addressed in both the Lind and Maple Hill Development Agreements by specifying haul routes other than CR11 to minimize the impact to the residents and reduce the wear and tear on the existing road surface. The city agreed to determine the existing traffic volumes for CR11 and then use those numbers to approximate how many building permits will be issued prior to the ultimate road improvements. Transportation Services Engineering Department Joseph W. Bleicher 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 with 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. _81':,,orthC..Alege�wenue ?'.C.3ox580 ^ Fort Cu ins,CC805' -0580 • i970)'11-0005 • FAX (970)231-o378 vww1cgov.com 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. incerely, David Stringer Development Review Manager Cc: Cam McNair Susan Joy Matt Baker Alternative Compliances and Variances • Letter from TST dated September 19, 2002 concerning the Minor Amendments to Overall Development Plan (ODP). • Alternative Compliance for Solar Access, Orientation, Shading (VF Ripley Associates) The Alternative Compliance was submitted to the Current Planning Department on October 24, 2003. The request was supported by Current planning on an email dated December 23,2002. See attached copies. Two primary reasons for not being able to meet the standard are stated in the request letter. Due to the need to meet these primary requirements on the site layout the 65% solar lot standard required by the Land Use Code could not be achieved. A variance to standard 4 (Curves with Small Deflection Angles (10' or less) of section A (Horizontal Alignment) of Section 7.4.1(Alignment) of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards is requested for the two horizontal center line curves between stations 16+00 and 24+00 of the proposed alignment of County Road 11. As described in a letter to Matt Baker dated 10/17/2002, the existing conditions, existing homes, prohibit a design that meets the minimum curve lengths. The curves have been designed to be the maximum possible length while still maintaining the minimum tangent length between them. • A variance to Standard 12.2.2 of the LCUASS, which states that storm sewers need a minimum of 2-feet of cover to base coarse. ST-5 and ST-5B at the intersection of Maple Hill Drive and Thoreau Drive will have stabilization fabric placed per the City of Fort Collins. • A variance to Section 3.6(H), 1 & 2, of the Land Use Code, and Section 7.4 General Design Elements, Table 7-3, Access Management, which states that connecting streets to a 2-lane arterial be separated by no less than 460 feet and no more than 660 feet. The request and areas impacted are further outlined in a letter to Mike Herzig from Matthew Delich dated xx xx, 2003. Dave Stanger - Re: Maple'Hill - CR 11 Obli ations Page 1, From: Dave Stringer j �� eO To: Bdlenz@aol.com Subject: Re: Maple Hill - CR 11 Obligations '-- Brad, As discussed in the attached e-mail the County Road 11 obligation as stated is correct. Once these criteria have been met the developer has fulfilled his obligation for County Road 11 improvements. Dave Stringer Development Review Manager >>> <Bdlenz@aol.com> 03/25/04 01:30PM >>> Date: March 25, 2004 To: Dave Stringer Development Review Supervisor City of Fort Collins Dear Mr. Stringer, This correspondence is being sent to document the understanding of J2 Development/Management and the City of Fort Collins regarding the developer's obligations for County Road 11 improvements related to the Maple Hill Subdivision Development Agreement. As we discussed and agreed yesterday, the Maple Hill Project is obligated to: 1) provide $225,141.44 to the City Street Oversizing Fund; this sum is inclusive of the Maple Hill project obligation for the construction of the local street portion of the CR 11 improvements along the western project boundary 2) pay a proportionate share (not to exceed 1/3) of the "driveway consolidation improvements" for the existing residences on the west side of CR 11 from Richards Lake Road to Country Club Road. These requirements represent the entirety of the contributions/obligations defined in the Development Agreement for County Road 11 improvements. Thank you again for your time yesterday. I look forward to working with you to make Maple Hill a successful project for all parties involved. Please respond to this email at your earliest opportunity acknowledging your receipt and agreement. Regards, Brad Brad Lenz J2DEVELOPMENT/MANAGEMENT Operations Manager 303-356-0531 CC: JayBrandstatter@aol.com; tomd@jymis.com COLORADO LAND SURVEY MONUMENT RECORD Dparatwo of PorAvery Agwist dbaro or Reaia a* - Nr ProNrrkoe' atdMerre eed YnNra+t are/ Lard $6," re 15W ftoeirdy. await /71aC BMwr, [V /arl0[ PAone pzxw-rm /at r3akw-rw w/TDO rd4 We -"SO REPORT ONE MONVMENT ONLY ON THIS FORM - REPRODUCTION OF THIS FORM IS AUTWA11W All Items to be thled In by the Land Surv"W oaring PERAWAENT RCACK LfT7ER1W and fines tNch can be reproduced 1. TYPE OF MONLAAENT: 0 SECTION CORNER 1@ QUARTER CORNER 0 BENCH MARK 0 QTIER— Z_ DESCRIPTION OF MONUMENT FOUW. FOUND 1 1/2" DWl X 20" LONG IRON PIN MATH 2 1//8" X 3 1/8" SQUME HEAD AND SMALL I EATION IN CENTER STAMPED 4/4. 3 DESCRIPTION OF MONUMENT ESTABLISHED BY YOU TO PERPETUATE THE LOCATION OF THIS POINT: $ET 2 1/2- OW ALUMUM CAP ON 3/4" 01A. X W' LONG RMAP. CAP IS ABOUT 0..V ASIM THE GROUND. 4. SKETCH SHOWING RELATIVE LOCATION OF MONUMENT, ACCESSORIES AND REFERENCE POINTS STATING WHETHER FOUND OR SET, SHOW SUPPOMG AND/OR CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE WHERE APPLICABLE: NOTE: ALL REFERENCES ARE 1" C$11. BRASS TAOS STAMPED PLS 75" WITH FOR$' CWNTRY CW8 ROAD Slam" on Cap c. Date of fMW vark to esiblION restore or rehOliatafe monument 2/i2/99 a Date maneenM aware ueooOf control tl/A too sot /N Inh -- FORPE ANO PlS aarmym AT O"I(Z or T= COONTr CU= ODUMTr Roeom to be Woo by InOrx RMenree NumMr daufj2ft nun t are epprep.tete TeemNe, Rer" rM swill" D. 8, ON A #5 REBhR. ALUMWUI4 CAP A116 0 3 1999 ' rojiPFEAWKS CERTIFICATION This to to corilty that I am in ropoasbie charge of the serraylrq work dncrUd in this record and that to the best at my knowledge, the Information presentod berate Is true and eerreet. Namt (Please PrMnk FRANKLIN O. UWAKE Firm Name: Stewart $ Amoktee. Ina Firm Addma: 103 S. Meldrum St- Fart C ism, CO 60521 phew (970) 482-9331 _ LOCATION DIAGRAM 1 e e I Mile + + N + + / .. 1 / e • Location of Monument sionature/Dats Ibrough Seal 7. ,a,.1. 32 T B N. R 68 1N. � 6TH r.I[. COUNTY.._ LARIMER INDEX REF "WISH °—r ft"8. SEC T R P.M. COUNTY WPEX REF NUMJBXR .. Te to u"d oatr for mo summ looted o ddaaty ila,e R.Vlcf Dw Ml�t a2M COLORADO LAND SURVEY MONUMENT RECORD _ . ,T, 80,OF REG. O1eP✓`rlrrenl oI ilry.ilalury hyenrlaa FQRFF. AND PLS (lo@rd of RrV iYt Vat ion for Praeesslcmal F.ngtnaars and Prole%-W-14l Land $1)r1aYvi'9 i9blo flromd"Av. Illu, tlnnver, ELI Ro?,p2 Vhonl 0u3l 1394-77e6 a rae 13031 7J9a-ft90 a IOU 4303) ev4-d9ndXo;;a IIFPtlfll IltdF WIN11WHI ONLY ON tNtS F0I3114 - RFPROntJC1 lON OF MIS FORM 15 AW I11i11LEU All heat In tte 7i11111 w 14l lilt I.>.nl Sa.Mvarilr gcing tF{fIAfCNt f3LlC1! LE{TFAFNB •Hui l0eli whictl rail Iw repl'vdueen t I,I'( Ill" M<)Iq)MENI I I'll°1;1IIAI I1111tiIJI X 01WIlfn CURNVP I.J 4ICIAll MARK tJ lAtiE17 LIF l:nll'Itim or MUN{1MEt3T FNltllq T. UFSCI115'I Ilea III: PAIIII)KNi I IATl{ ISNeU W1 11A) III Pf RPFIUAIF I11E iHCAIIIIN ❑F mts, Pn INT, a ,V,[Hil I7.14AQIN,: ITI,A11':F Lilt_A110H IJf MtJNI14FWI. AktrESSURIES AI311 r3FFETIUAY PUINIS STAIEW wiic IIF1I rlARdl7 till SF1. :71UA ;I1PF'17nrt7Rj ArtU/Un 1;11141RAUICrf}OY EVJ(lFhCF WIEW APPt.ICABLE: -7 L)f7k�fitl HIIC, i y I Y C:131 P F, yl E � 1'f ,�,.� �',�� j�,Rllilflrl Ct{L917t3 t,f,)lp{C4�OY d yylRltrE 1N��( N.T.S. L iDz�/ S. mirtFICAIION phis t9 tP Certlle tank 1 ea% Ui reepoultoll Cherie4r the surveying rorkbeWA scOin this morel and that to the ofnY knbrindye thr Infornatian pre9ented heroinis tru4 lint}CorrerlHane 1Ple4se PrilLtl Utivi0 M. Poescht Fir1a Near y7•Larlustar Surve 1n Inc. Firm Adures2_ 132Y North Lincoln Avenue SL amp ing On I'ap a bete ai 11erU " tP r I. ICI I U Yrere nr hen..p111eet4 rWnuelht',_. —41. 2_ . b i7rten:Mlla l vnv.1a44.aa Lentral:_ G- Ill, Ml Mt 1.0 r E'PTEt 0 12000 . ST. BO.0FREO.R PE kNo PO II(CLIVLU At I,rTICIi ur lit f•111NrY CLERK By Mcer4 1e Da tiea eq {nd4' Mrert!'St-7!a^1' �N!r3c!Ylr• teen}Iiy11111f1scbl lY. under enarear late le+aM1{n. fl q . end wrr ldian. Love)ancL CO 80537 Phnilf-1970) 667-3294 LOCAT WPA UTAG1-'-' 1` . I Mile q N ZI_ i^ Lmal lull oI Willmmt Gi9nalu/IV reC�/�Uate ttw'ough Saal �Z 7. 5FC_1- _r,A'/ :N.0. SG=11. M. 1�UUNI7' t- _ fW4e.lf- 1NIJrx I9Er Ni1M0cA (::;-_ COUN17' NEF NIJWErl +• to ba abed olds ter namrNuts Iboba an cr ty It -I, Rev. 117(00 Transportation Services Engineering Department City of Fort Collins August 14, 2001 Mr. Thomas Dougherty 220 East Mulberry Fort Collins, Co. 80524 RE: Gullespie Farm — Number 8 outlet, Eaton ditch Dear Tom: The intent of this letter is to clarify the City's desire as it relates to the vehicular structures across the number 8 outlet of the Eaton ditch adjacent to the eastern portion of the Gullespie Farm development project. As we discussed, there is uncertainty of what development may occur on the Anheuser Busch property immediately east of the Gullipie Farm project. Because of this uncertainty, the City does not want the construction of any vehicular structures (interior to the site) over the outlet ditch to be built at the time of the Gullespie Farm development. However, we will ask that the developer provide the City with some preliminary design work such as proposed height, span bridge and/or culvert size, road alignments and grades. As we work through the Gullespie Farm PDP we will address the requirements related to these structures and develop language to be placed into the Development Agreement for the Gullespie Farm project. In order, to satisfy the City's Land Use Code requirements, the most viable option is to escrow monies for the cost of construction of these structures. These funds will be escrowed to the city by the Gullespie Farm developer and held for a period not to exceed 7 years. If at such time, the seven years has lapsed and no development has occurred or is planned to occur on the eastside of the ditch the monies held in escrow will be released to the Gullespie developer. Once the escrow has been released the Gullespie Farm development will have no further obligation to the City for the cost of the structure improvements. 281 North College A-enue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6605 MEMORANDUM Date: October 17, 2001 To: Ted Shepard From: Linda Ripley, VF Ripley Associates Subject: Gillespie Farm October 12, 2001 - Meeting Minutes In Attendance. Ted Shepard Dave Stringer Eric Bracke Mike Sollenberger Tom Dougherty Frazier Walsh Matt Del icb Linda Ripley Ted, Our design team was very pleased with last Friday's meeting. This memo is our attempt at documenting the issues discussed and the decisions reached at the meeting. We will assume that you concur with these meeting minutes if we do not receive a reply to the contrary. 1. Access on to County Road 11 at 660-foot intervals. The project design team asked if staff could be supportive of eliminating two access points north and south of the center retain entrance because of design difficulties having to do with grading and neighborhood compatibility issues. City staff had no objection to this stacking depth. Staff outlined the procedure for requesting alternative compliance, but indicated they would prefer to see the connections made. Eric Bracke indicated that stacking for one car at these intersections would be sufficient, given the traffic counts presented by Matt Delich in the meeting. 2. Collector Street Classifications The City's Master Street Plan indicates four collectors in this quarter section. The design teams questioned the need for four collectors given the projected traffic volumes. Mall Delich presented information regarding daily traffic forecasts for each of the proposed collectors. After reviewing Matt's data, City staff agreed that the two internal collectors streets really serve more as connectors and suggested proposing the change in classification We have reviewed the history of discussions between your clients and City staff regarding these issues. It is clear that staff intended the OPD TIS to define what improvements would be required to resolve AFT issues for the Gillespie and Lind projects without requiring costly PDP submittal development work. However, at the time of our discussions, the concept of a "stand- alone" PDP level TIS had not been considered, and staff expected that the Lind OPD TIS would "reserve" capacity for the two projects. Based on this review, the City has determined that it is fair and appropriate for the City to regard the Lind ODP TIS as the equivalent of a "certified, stand alone" PDP TIS for the purposes of determining compliance with the City's APF standards at Vine and Lemay, regardless of whether or not the proposed policy is adopted. Based on this understanding, the City can make the following commitments: 1. The City has evaluated the survey and preliminary design work you have submitted relating to these interim twin lanes and concluded that while additional design work will be required prior to approving the plans for construction, it is clear that it is feasible to construct acceptable interim turn lanes at the location, and as a result, the assumptions regarding these lanes in the Lind TIS are valid. 2. PDP approval of either project (Lind or Gillespie) will be dependent on these interim lanes being constructed at some point in the project's phasing. The specific timing to these improvements and the number of permits permitted in each project prior to the improvements being constructed will be defined in each project's development agreement. Although the City's proposed policy does not contemplate "reserving" intersection capacity at the ODP stage of development, staff recognizes that the discussions between staff and your clients clearly implied that such capacity would be reserved with the ODP approval. As a result, staff will honor that commitment and will "reserve" the capacity assumptions contained in the Lind ODP TIS and related supplemental analysis for both the Lind ODP and Gillespie Farms projects. Previous discussions between staff and your clients were silent regarding the expected time frame within which development of the projects would occur, and thus, intersection capacity would be reserved. City staff had the impression that development of both projects was expected to proceed directly after project approval. If and when the City adopts an intersection capacity reservation policy that includes time -limit and lapse provisions, we will apply those time limits to your projects beginning on the first effective day of that new policy. The draft policy proposes a one year time limit on reservation of capacity by a "stand alone" PDP TIS, and staff now expects this policy to be adopted by Council on June 4, 2002 and to go :into effect on June 28, 2002. 5. Reservation of the policy in this manner will have the following effects: to Mark Jackson in Transportation Planning. If Mark agrees with the analysis he could take the proposed amendment of the Master Street Plan forward to the Planning and Zoning Board for recommendation and to City Council for approval as a City initiated amendment. It was agreed that the street along the south boundary is appropriately defined as a collector street, however, with the forecasted volumes indicated, parking would be allowed on the eastern two thirds of its length. Similarly the street along the eastern boundary is appropriately classified as a collector surcel, however, traffic volumes indicate that parking would be allowed along its' entire length. 3. Collector Street Alignments The alignment of the internal north/south connector street was discussed. The design team suggested that if the street could be aligned directly north/south, it would ease serious design constraints and make it easier to create a lotting plan consistent with City standards. The City's Master Street Plan shows the curved alignment presumably to coincide with the western boundary of the Poudre School District's property to the south. Staff agreed that a change in the alignment was appropriate. It was unclear whether or not the alignment was something that warranted an amendment to the Master Street Plan. Changing the alignment would create a need to amend the Gillespie Farm ODP, however, Ted indicated that this amendment could be handled administratively and ran concurrently with the PDP approval process. The design team also suggested moving the collector that runs parallel with the eastern properly line along the ditch to the cast approximately 100 feet to allow double loading of the street. Staff had no objection to this change. 4. Trail Alignment There is a proposed City bike/ped trail that runs diagonally through the Gillespie Fain property. The proposed alignment roughly parallels an existing waterline. The design team asked staff if it was acceptable and /or preferable to have the trail cross several streets versus eliminating some street connections in order to maintain open space for the trail to go through. Staff agreed this situation represented a conflict in City policy goals and agreed that we should seek a response from Transportation Planning (Mark Jackson) and Parks and Recreation (Craig Foreman). IVUV-Vo-Vi VJ. LVry Transportation Services Transportation Planning City of Fort Collins Linda Ripley VF Ripley & Associates 410 West Mountain Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80521 November 1, 2001 U oA Dear I�v S�Rt�i[ey: Mark A. Jackson, AICP City of Fort Collins Transportation Planning PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO. 80522-0580 Transportation Plarming Staff met with members of the City's Transportation, Parks Planning, Advance and Current Planning development review staff to discuss issues raised by the applicant at the October 18a' meeting. In response to your inquiries and request for direction regarding transportation issues related to the Gillespie Farm PDP: 1. Downgrade two key roadways from Collector to Connector with on street bike lanes Forecast model results support the findings of Matt Delich. 2020 forecast volumes on the links in question did not show average daily volumes warranting a Collector -level facility. Recent Transportation Impact Studies from proximate development projects show similar results in their peak hour volume forecasts. Transportation Planning is prepared to support downgrading the north south Collector and the middle east -west Collector roadways to a Connector -level facility with on -street bike lanes. Amendments to the Master Street Plan will need to be made concurrent with your project approval process. This includes not only Planning & Zoning Board Approval but Council approval as well. 2. Straighten the relative alignment of the north -south roadway in question The City Traffc Engineer has stated that he would accept an offset T intersection created as a result of straightening the alignment of the center north south roadway in the Gillespie development site. Traffic forecast modeling shows acceptable levels of average daily traffic even with the offset. Transportation Planning has other concerns however. Straightening this alignment will cause an offset roadway alignment, posing safety issues particularly for bicyclists. Given that the site directly south of Gillespie is a potential school site, there could be significant amounts of bicycle and pedestrian traffic in this area in the future. The alignment currently shown on the Master Street Plan was designed to accommodate the future school site and avoid many of these issues. While Traffic Engineering may agree to this proposed realignment, Transportation Planning does not support the realignment of 215 North Mayon • First Floor • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 22A-6058 • FAX (970) 221-6239 Nnu-nR-�Dnni n9:7n 98% P.at NOV-08-01 09:20A the north south roadway, creating a T intersection. Regardless of the applicant's design decision, they are required to follow City design standards that maximize safety for motor vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. 3. Move Collector roadway on eastern site boundary approximately 100' to the west Transportation Planning has no issue with this proposed change from a Master Street Plan perspective. The MSP alignments are conceptual and this change follows the spirit of the MSP. Please coordinate this alignment change with the Lind development project to the north. Transportation Development Review Staff asks that the Gillespie PDP taper this alignment back to the east as it moves southward so as to avoid future potential offsets with roads planned for the property south of your site. 4. Conflict with trail crossings of internal roadways Transportation, Parks Planning, Current and Advance Planning Staff met to discuss this issue. Staff agreed that the applicant needs to design the regional trail/parkway corridor through the site consistent with the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan (adopted element of City Plan). At -grade street crossings should be minimized or avoided. A creative overall site plan design should design the parkway first, and then look at street and lot layout and other elements. Staff anticipates only 2 at -grade street crossings where the connector streets intersect. Local streets can incorporate loop ways and cull -de -sacs or other alignments to avoid crossing the parkway. The trail should take advantage of the proposed neighborhood park and storrnwater detention areas to maximize the off-street parkway. Surface drainage from the overall site should be directed to this greenway leading to the detention area. Staff agrees that a minimum width for the trail/landscape parkway should be 30 feet, preferable 50 or greater. Attached is a copy of your site plan with staff comments. 5. Number of connections across the ditch to the east Transportation Development Review Staff was in agreement that there should be at minimum three roadway connections across the ditch to the east; north, center and south of the site. In addition, two separate bike/pedestrian crossings need to made across the ditch at appropriate 660' spacing intervals. This modification is similar to agreements reached with other projects such as Lind and Harvest Park. Funds may be escrowed for these connections. If the applicant does not wish to provide these connections, it will be necessary to go before the Planning & Zoning Board to request a modification. Transportation Staff will not support such a request. 4az P.02 NOV-08-01 09:21A Thank you again for taking the time to meet with me and present and discuss these issues. Please feel free to contact me at (970) 416-2029 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Mark A. Jackson, AI City of Fort Collins Transportation Planning Cc: Ted Shepard, Current Planning Dave Stringer, Engineering Development Review Randy Hensley, Transportation Planning Manager SOLLENBERGER DOUGHERTY INVESTMENTS 220 EAST MULBERRY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 <% 1 November 16, 2001 Mr. Cameron Gloss Planning Director City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Dear Cameron, We have enclosed a sketch site plan of Gillespie Farm ODP for your and the Lead Team's review because we believe it will encourage all of us to consider more of the issues that create a quality City Plan project. This seems to be especially true with the current focus on transportation issues and the conflicts that arise. Our first request is that the north/south "connector" street be brought to a "straight" northisouth alignment. This realignment seems to greatly improve bike, pedestrian and vehicular connectivity by establishing multiple additional north/ south connectiions. One connection is in general alignment with the west boundary of the adjacent school property, thereby creating a straight -through north/south route. It is, additionally, more consistent with City Plan's fundamental focus towards a traditional grid. This creates a somewhat higher density, more green area, superior internal connectivity and fewer bike and pedestrian hazards. Our second request is that there be careful consideration of the establishment of connectivity to the east ( Anheuser Busch) with bridge crossings over the Windsor Reservoir Company #8 Outlet Irrigation ditch. This is a large ditch that requires nearly continuous maintenance and serves as a significant wild life corridor. At this time there are 5 crossings being suggested for our project and 6 more on the adjacent Lind Farm Project, for a total of 11 bridge crossings in just over 1 '/4 miles.. Relative to the rest of the city this seems excessive. -2- We are also quite concerned with how the Windsor Reservoir Company might respond to so many bridge crossings. And, in several recent conversations, Anheuser Bush staff personnel have indicated that there will be no development of this land, that it was originally obtained as a brewery plant buffer, and that they plan to use it as such. We believe a standard of one bridge every''/z mile over a barrier such as the "#8 Outlet" ditch is sufficient to establish connectivity, and preserve ditch company cooperation and wild life habitat. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. Very truly yours, Mike Sollenb� C: Ted Shepard I �� j�.. t /. i ._i._,.. -._. .. �;. _ a. �.`� ., .. �-�i g eK / ,OPv c 94.0awwo ��4u�z �lauuin5 Mr. Bob Barkeen July 29, 2002 Page 2 We need your support in ensuring the earliest possible implementation of the proposed NCR 11 improvements, especially the frontage road. To clarify earlier discussions, we need to obtain a finalized written commitment of the involved parties from the City and the developers. Further, we need your support in ensuring that the Richard's Lake Project, the Gillespie Farms Project, and the Lind Project each contribute a fair amount of the funding needed to do the NCR 11 improvements in our neighborhood. Second, we are concerned with construction related issues. The City must effectively monitor compliance of the Lind Development with requirements such as fugitive dust control. (Problems in this area by the Richard's Lake Development caused severe hardships for our neighborhood.) Also, there needs to be reasonable actions taken to help minimize construction traffic in our neighborhood. For example, paving of County Road 52 to the east of NCR 11 would provide a viable alternative route for construction traffic during the initial phase of the Lind Development. Third, we are concerned with maintaining the integrity and compatibility of our neighborhood. A major step would be, maximizing the compatibility of lot sizes in the Lind Development with the single-family lot sizes in our Country Club Heights Subdivision which are on NCR I I and Richards Lake Road. This has been done already with lot sizes in the ongoing Richard's Lake Development, and we have raised this issue also with the Gillespie Farm Development. We seek the support of the Current Planning Department in any actions that would assist the developer's flexibility in addressing our concerns in maintaining the integrity and compatibility of our neighborhood. We appreciate the opportunity to provide the Current Planning Department with our initial, written comments on the proposed Lind Project Development Plan. We also look forward to future opportunities to provide additional comments during the City of Fort Collins' development review process. Please contact me at (970) 407-0531 for further explanations of our comments or to arrange follow-on meetings with neighborhood representatives. Sincerely, Joseph W. Bleicher For Neighbors in the Country Club Heights Subdivision Joseph W. Bleicher 2509 N. County Road 11 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Phone: (970) 407-0531 August 5, 2002 Mr. Bob Barkeen City Planner Current Planning Department City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Dear Mr. Barkeen: Thank you for the opportunity for my neighbors and me in the Country Club Heights Subdivision to provide the Current Planning Department with our comments on the development proposal known as the Lind Project Development Plan. Our neighborhood dates back to 1965 and is made up of over 40 single- family homes. Nick Yobbagy, Kirvin Knox and I have developed these comments in our role as representatives in working with the developers and local government representatives on neighborhood concerns. Our high interest in the Lind Plan was shown by the excellent turnout of neighbors who provided many comments at your neighborhood information meeting on July 31, 2002. We greatly appreciate the efforts of the Current Planning Department to obtain neighborhood input on this proposal, and we look forward to your support in addressing our strong neighborhood concerns. First, and of greatest importance in our neighborhood, we are concerned that we obtain a frontage road along NCR 11. This is consistent with the earlier agreement (discussions date back to 1997) between our neighborhood and the developer of the Richard's Lake Development. The frontage road, which could have a landscaped berm and/or wall, would provide existing homes with limited, consolidated access to NCR 1 1 rather than having to back directly out onto the road. Further, the frontage road would provide a physical barrier which would help maintain the quality of life in our neighborhood by mitigating road noise which has already resulted from the greatly increased traffic on NCR 11. We have also worked in the past two years with the developer of the Gillespie Farm Development on obtaining a frontage road along NCR 11. This developer has already submitted to the City a proposed plan for a 125-foot right-of-way for NCR 11 which contains a frontage road. It is essential that the iniiastructure of the proposed Lind Development to the north not contiiet with this proposed plan for NCR 1 1 by the Gillespie Farm Development which is to the south. We were very pleased that the Lind Plan, which was presented by Centex Homes at the neighborhood information meeting, does appear to accommodate the frontage road. We need your support in ensuring the earliest possible implementation of the proposed NCR 11 improvements, especially the frontage road. A reasonable timetable for these improvements needs to be This reservation of capacity will apply only to the evaluation of compliance with City's APF requirements for the Vine and Lemay intersection. Please be aware that this does not relieve the Lind project from addressing the other LOS problems identified at other intersections, nor does it relieve either project from the possible requirement to submit an updated PDP TIS to address any other issues related to the projects' full PDP submittal. All future development applications that have a significant impact on the Vine and Lemay intersection will need to include both the traffic generation assumptions and the interim turn lane assumptions m their analysis, regardless of whether or not your projects or the interim lane have been constructed. As a result, any such future development application can not propose building these lanes as a remedy for any intersection capacity problems their development may face. I hope that this letter provides a clear statement of the City's commitments and that is also provides the assurances that your clients are seeking regarding the adequacy of these proposed improvements to satisfy the City's APF requirements. Sincerely, 'diary Di' d Transportation Operations Director cc: Tom Dougherty Mike Sollenberger Yvonne Seamen Eric Bracke Dave Stringer Ron Philips Greg Byrne Cameron Gloss Randy Hensley W. Paul Eckman Tom Vosburg Cam McNair Mr. Bob Barkeen August 5, 2002 Page 2 established. To clarify earlier discussions, we need to obtain a finalized written commitment of the involved parties from the City and the developers. Furthermore, we need your support in ensuring that the Richard's Lake Project, the Gillespie Farms Project, and the Lind Project each contribute a fair amount of the funding needed to do the NCR 11 improvements in our neighborhood. Safety on NCR 11 also remains a major concern which needs to be promptly addressed. In December 2000 there was a tragic: accident at the intersection of NCR I 1 and Country Club Road that resulted in two deaths. We've recently received Larimer County assistance in double -striping NCR 11 for a no - passing zone and obtaining more speed limit signs, but speeding and reckless driving remain a very serious neighborhood concern. There is very strong neighborhood support for a reduction in the current speed limit and effective traffic enforcement by the City and/or County. Second, there needs to be an improved process for access to the north as future development takes place in this area. Effectively, we are bringing the city to the country; the City of Fort Collins must provide the needed infrastructure for the north prior to its development. Absent adequate infrastructure to the north, we are only funneling all the construction and residential traffic from developments in our neighborhood onto NCR 11. With the limited existing access routes into the city, this will also add significant additional traffic on Country Club Road. We believe it is unacceptable to build the Lind Project absent needed improvements to CR 52 which would make it a viable alternative route for construction and residential traffic. Although the Lind Project would pave the portion of CR 52 fronting its development, the road would not be used since the eastern portion to NCR 9 would remain a dirt road. Much of the overall traffic for the northeast now flows on Lemay Avenue -- this route already has severe limitations. We believe it is now timely to extend Timberline Road to the north of Mountain Vista Road (CR 50) to provide additional alternative access to the north for future developments. We further believe there needs to be adequate flexibility in the street oversizing program to meet the concerns and needs of existing neighborhoods in the north as future development takes place. In summary, we request your assistance in setting up a meeting with the City Council where we can discuss this key issue of unproved access to the north in more detail. Third, we are concerned with issues related to city and county jurisdiction and responsibilities when you have an existing county development being directly affected by a city development. We would appreciate your assistance in achieving agreement between city and county representatives on their responsibilities in meeting specific neighborhood needs, such as street repairs and traffic enforcement. We also need assistance in identifying the appropriate city and county contact points for issues and problems which arise. Fourth, we are concerned with issues related to monitoring and enforcing developer compliance with agreements made with the neighborhood, as well as city and county requirements related to construction. We have already experienced problems in the area of fugitive dust control by Richard's Lake Mr. Bob Barkeen August 5, 2002 Page 3 Development (KB Homes), which caused severe hardship for our neighborhood. (We also did not have a contact point in city or county government to report this problem.) We also need help in achieving traffic enforcement of construction traffic and developer compliance with agreements designed to minimize neighborhood disruption (e.g., limiting construction traffic on certain streets). If our neighborhood is unable to resolve such issues with the developer, we would like the City to take action, such as not issuing future permits, or suspending existing permits, until these problems are resolved. Finally, we are concerned with maintaining the integrity and compatibility of our neighborhood. A major step would be maximizing the compatibility of lot sizes in the Lind Development with the single-family lot sizes in our Country Club Heights Subdivision which consists of NCR 11 and Richard's Lake Road. This has been done already with lot sizes in the ongoing Richard's Lake Development, and we have raised this issue also with the Gillespie Farm Development. We are pleased that the initial phase (which is closest to our neighborhood) o fthe Lind Plan will consist of single-family homes which would be consistent with the single-family character of our neighborhood. We seek the support of the Current Planning Department in any actions that would assist the developer's flexibility in addressing our concerns in maintaining the integrity and compatibility of our neighborhood. We appreciate the opportunity to provide the Current Planning Department with our comments on the proposed Lind Project Development Plan. We strongly believe our concerns must be addressed prior to future actions on the Lind Plan or other developments to the north which affect our neighborhood. We look forward to future opportunities to provide additional input during the City of Fort Collins development review process. Please contact me at (970) 407-0531 for further explanations of our comments or to arrange follow-on meetings with neighborhood representatives. Sincerely, Joseph W. Bleicher For Neighbors in the Country Club Heights Subdivision cc: Ms. Yvonne Seaman, Centex Homes Mayor Ray Martinez, City of Fort Collins Mr. Glenn Gibson, Chair of the Larimer County Commissioners OCT-24-2002 14:45 URUGHTFRYE/UF RIPLEYTS 970 224 1662 P.02iO3 September 19, 2002 Mr. Ted Shepard Current Planning -- City of Fort Collins PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Re: Gillespie Farm Alternative Compliance Request Project No.: 0953-003 Dear Ted, This letter is in regard to three (3) Alternative Compliance Requests associated with the Minor Amendments to Gillespie Farm ODP which have been submitted concurrently by VF RipleAssociates. Provided ineering requests, he specific design detail will h itDepartment besubmitted with the Project Development Plan (PDP). Gillespie Farm is located within the City of Fort Collins in Section 32, T8N. R68W of the �- 6th PM, Larimer County. The site is bounded on the North by County Road 52, the West by County Road 11, the South by existing agricultural land and the East by the Larimer/Weld County #8 ditch and Anheuser Busch. Alternative Compliance Request Number One: To eliminate one vehicular access proposed to cross the Larimer and Weld No. 8 Outlet Ditch approximately 660 feet north of the proposed Collector Street bordering the south property line of the ODP. The elimination of this access point reduces the impact to the existing Larimer/Weld No. 8 ditch both in terms of construction impacts and future use. Potential sediment infiltration into this conveyance facility is avoided. Although, this creates a reduction in access, this development has provided adequate vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle connections to the adjacent property. It is our opinion, that the elimination of this single access point across a sensitive area, will not adversely impact the intent of the connectivity standard. Alternative Compliance Request Number Two: Request is to allow the proposed vehicular crossing of the Larimer and Weld No. 8 Outlet Ditch, located approximately 660 feet south of County Road 52 to become a bicycle/pedestrian connection only. TST, INC. 749 Whalers Way • Building D Fort Collins, CO 811$25 Consulting Engineers (970) 226.0557 Metro (303) $1 Fax (970) 226It Email infocPtstinc.com N W.tstinesUm OCT-24-2002 14:45 OAUGHTFRYE/UF RIPLEYTS 970 224 1662 P.03iO3 TST, INC. r. A pedestrian/bicyde access only, will minimize the impacts to Larimer/Weld No. 8 Outlet Ditch, while encouraging the use of non -vehicular modes of transportation. Without this vehicular access, traffic within the development can be distributed without exceeding Level of Service standards. Furthermore, we do not believe that the direct connectivity of this development to future, potential development to the east, is substantially compromised by this change. Alternative Compliance Request Number Three: line, to be To allow the western most point of connection along the northern property located further west approximately 550 feet from County Road 11. This will coincide with the Lind Properly street location and still allow adequate planning flexibility for Gillespie Farm. The distance from this access and the access point in the middle of the property will be approximately 830 feet. This minor shift in alignment alleviates major conflicts with the existing East Larimer County Water District (ELCO) water distribution line and proposed trail connection. The intent of Section 3.6.3 'Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards" as stated in the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, July 2002 is still maintained. VF Ripley Associates has submitted Minor Amendment requests along with this letter. We believe that the, Minor Amendment requests together with these Alternative r Compliance Requests incorporate City staff recommendations and create a viable development project. We look forward to staffs review and approval of the three any Alternatives Compliance Requests. if you regarding this matter, please feel free to call our' formation or have any officeonal n Respectfully, TST, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS Keith G. Sheaffer, P.E. KDS/sjk cc: Mr. Mike Solienberger Mr. Tom Dougherty Ms. Linda Ripley TOTAL P.03 No Text No Text APPENDIX A m r r m I E c u c - >. o Z Q o o f E m o Q o o n o o 2 Z Z v U —Q m O Z m 0 N N E D E m O O m m O b O m q EE m L v mom `g $mum b o o S U •C NN nNa O dip 0000 m Q O m U m (off 00(7N C('I N Z N 0cl m C m b 2 c c c c c o m E E U J Ci (7N N Z a m 0� O cn Z N N p F • E $ c _ co 0 Z N r n o U E ID I Y m $ fA T� m 0 Hm In y m m� L m m m p m c N C O C m O W O C j e nS C� IT Cm O j0 " O L_mO�OONCOONCOOOCONmW m _ m c?O P �O \�O N mmmmmc]'—mmcn'—mmtl—mtn 'C m C Rio 0 off �no� rn 3tt�Nctl��vm��vtlmEv�� _ �$� mP.. Q o n ¢m 000c� 000c000c C $�$m m mmm-mm F4! �m �KA> v vmm>vm��tl>oEnm m?EEE C10m Y� 2 e 'o mo I.. o Im o la lo-mo m <r'u�0 Otl �O � � LN�QOONCOONCOOOC��m Op,�� O <�- <o 0 o mmmmtl�n-mmm-mm 0 ooc o po ��n. c' o >vm��vmm>e�K� mE@mc U a� nm r ON NO O @T0 En @<ec t• O.pt - m O o m m _PEE-. LL v_ m m N m m`c ^mmdo m Er S m c mUU m m c m >� � m mmm nm LOle C d (]t'cmm�_ mcLL t maw m� m m fi�o`ac ma m ' E! HE E E aa:E cm m'ccm- ? cmu c nc `mm m -m m�fln" W �tnmin�Ey EEmaEEE oEm r mcii iim $ mn�.m,�mm$ c _ cc om�Lm� �m mm� m cem c3 c m�3m moaS� cmF��LL'- m p E J APPENDIX B COUNTY ROAD 52 Joseph W. Bleicher 2509 N. County Road 11 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Phone (970) 407-0531 July 29, 2002 Mr. Bob Barkeen City Planner Current Planning Department City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Dear Mr. Barkeen: Thank you for the opportunity for my neighbors and me in the Country Club Heights Subdivision to provide the Current Planning Department with our initial written comments on the development proposal known as the Lind Project Development Plan. Our neighborhood dates back to 1965 and is made up of over 40 single family homes. Nick Yobaggy, Kirvut Knox, and I have developed these comments in our role as representatives in working with the developers on neighborhood concems. We also plan to speak on these concerns in more detail at your upcoming neighborhood information meeting on July 31, 2002. We greatly appreciate the efforts of the Current Planning Department to obtain neighborhood input on this proposal, and we look forward to your support in addressing our strong neighborhood concerns. First, and of greatest importance to our neighborhood, we are concerned that we gain your support on obtaining a frontage road along NCR 11. This is consistent with the earfier agreement (discussions date back to 1997) between our neighborhood and the developer of the Richard's Lake Development. The frontage road, which could have a landscaped berm and/or wall, would provide existing homes with limited, consolidated access to NCR 11 rather than having to back directly out onto the road. Further, the frontage road provides a physical barrier which would help maintain the quality of life in our neighborhood by mitigating road noise which has already resulted from the greatly increased traffic on NCR 11. Safety on NCR 1 1 also remains a major concem which needs to be promptly addressed. In Decernber 2000 there was a tragic accident at the intersection ofNCR I 1 and Country Club Road that resulted in two deaths. We've recently received Larimer County assistance in double striping NCR l l for a no -passing zone and obtaining more speed limit signs, but speeding and reckless driving remain a very serious neighborhood concern. We have also worked in the past two years with the developer of the Gillespie Farm Development on obtaining a frontage road along NCR 11. This developer has already submitted to the City a proposed plan for a 125-foot right-of-way for NCR I I which contains a frontage road. It is essential that the infrastructure of the proposed Lind Development to the north not conflict with this proposed plan for NCR I 1 by the Gillespie Farm Development which is to the south. November 15, 2002 Mr. Cam McNair City of Fort Collins Engineering P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Re: Gillespie Farm Development CR1 f Frontage Road Resident Requests Project No.: 0953-003 Dear Cam, This letter addresses the requests of the representatives of the existing fifteen (15) homeowners on the configuration, access, and alignment of the proposed North County Road 11 (NCR11) private drive. The affected homes are located north of Country Club Road, south of the Richard's Lake development, east of the Fort Collins Country Club golf course and west of the proposed Gillespie Farm project. The concept of the private drive for the existing homeowners originated during the approval process of the Richard's Lake Development. This private drive will provide the existing homeowners with limited, consolidated access to NCR 11 without having to back directly out to an arterial road. Further, the private drive with a landscaped berm and/or wall/privacy fence, as appropriate, would provide a private drive barrier between the existing homes and the arterial road. TST, Inc. met with Joe Bleicher (2509 NCR 11, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80524), the neighborhood representative, about their wishes associated with the preliminary design of the NCR11 private drive and the main alignment of NCR11. After an initial review by neighborhood representatives, the representatives will approve this submittal. We appreciate your time and effort associated with this matter. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter, please feel free to contact our office. In addition, the homeowners are willing to meet directly with you to discuss their specific concerns. Respectfully, TST, ING.GONSULTING ENGINEERS Keith G.$heaffer, PE Enclosure: August 5, 2002 Letter to City from Neighborhood Cc: Gillespie Farm Development Company Mr. Matt Baker Ms. Sheri Warnhoff TST, INC. 748whalers Way - BuildingD Fort Collins, CO 80525 Consulting Engineers (970) 226-0557 Metro (303) 595-9103 Fax (970) 226-0204 Email infoMstinc.com www.tstinc.com November 18, 2002 Mr. Mike Hertzig City of Fort Collins Engineering P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Re: NCR 11 Variance Request Project No.: 0953-003 Dear Mike, This letter is regarding the one (1) variance request identified during our Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) for North County Road II (NCR 11) submittal within the "Utility Plans for Maple Hill" Per Section 1.9.4, "Variance and Appeals Process' of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Sections (LCVASS), the following information outlines the variance that the City stated they would support for the NCR 11 and Maple Hill project. NCR 11 has been classified as a 2-lane arterial street. A variance to standards 7.4.1.A.4 (curves with small deflection angles (10" or less)) is requested for the two (2) horizontal centerline curves between stations 16+00 and 24+00 of the proposed alignment for NCR 11. Table 7-5, Centerline Arc Lengths, states that the minimum centerline arc length for an arterial street is 400-feet. The proposed design has the southern centerline arc of 100.63-feet (difference of 299.73-feet), and the northerly centerline: arc of 340.36-feet (difference of 59.64-feet). Per our meeting with Mr. Matt Baker, City of Fort Collins, on October 16, 2002, he agreed that due to the existing road way alignment, existing homes and the physical constraints prohibited a design that meets the minimum centerline arc lengths. It was agreed upon, that the horizontal centerline are lengths would be maximized while still maintaining the minimum radius and tangent lengths between the curvets (see attached October 17, 2002 letter. This variance of minimum centerline arc lengths will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. All construction of NCR 11 will meet and/or exceed the City of Fort Collins construction standards, therefore, not reducing design life or causing additional maintenance costs to the city. The proposed design will advance the public purpose by improving this existing road to the current design standards set forth in the LCUASS manual. We appreciate the review and approval of this variance. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter, please feel free to contact our office. Respectfully, TST, Inc. Consulting Engineers Keith heaffer, P.E. KGS/amb Enclosures re: Gillespie Farm Development Company TST, INC. 748 Whalers way - Building n Fort Collins, (.'0 80525 Consulting Engineers (970) 226-0557 Won, (303) 595-9103 Fax (971) 226-0204 Email info@lstinc.com n'n'w.lslinc.co n I' SEAR•BRO)N November 18, 2002 Sheri Wamhoff City of Fort Collins Engineering Department 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: County Road 52 Variance Request Dear Sheri: 2095outh Meld rum Fort Collins,CO 80521 970482.5922 phone 970.482.6368 fax wwwsearb rown.com We are writing this variance request on behalf of Centex Homes to request variance from the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) Figure 7-17 Vertical Curve Lengths — Crest for the following clement of the County Road 52 final design: Vertical curve length: For the centerline design of CR 52 from Station 8+75 — Station 11+25, a 250' vertical curve is proposed and shown on the PDP documents for the County Road 52 Improvements. A 360' vertical curve is required according to Figure 7-17 (AASHTO 1990) and a minimum vertical curve length of 187' is required according to 2001 AASHTO standards. The proposed curve does not meet 1990 AASHTO standards, however, it does meet 2001 AASHTO standards and therefore is not a health and safety hazard. This curve is located at the intersection of CR 11 & 52 and the design is limited by existing conditions with the roadway and utilities. The variance is requested in order to avoid excessive fill requirements on County Road 52. Additionally, the fill for the roadway impacts the cover requirements over the existing ELCO waterline. We look forward to your favorable review of this request. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, SEAR -BROWN Troy Campbell LiJ0BSV614-003\docsVCR 52 eariatic e request I 1-18-02.doc November 19, 2002 Ted Shepard Fort Collins Current Planning Department 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Statement of Planning Objectives for Maple Hill (Gillespie Farm) Project Development Plan Dear Ted, Maple Hill is a 154.79 acre property located at the southeast corner of County Road 11 and County Road 52. Land uses surrounding the site consist of an existing county residential housing development to the west adjacent to County Road 11, and a Poudre School District site to the south. Undeveloped agricultural land borders the site on the north and east. The property is zoned LMN — Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District and is within the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. The site currently slopes from County Road 11 east towards the existing Larimer Weld No. 8 ditch on the east side of the property. The applicant proposes a mixed -use residential development consisting of 449 single-family units, 78 duplex units and a future parcel set aside for a multi -family development. The project also includes a public park and future neighborhood center. The neighborhood center will have a recreation complex plus one mixed- use dwelling unit as required under the Land Use Code for a neighborhood center in the LMN District. The overall housing density ranges from 5 to 8 dwelling units per net acre of residential land as required by the City's Land Use Code. Lots within the development will range from 4,580 square feet to 7,417 square feet with an average lot width of 50'. The primary detention area is located on the southeast portion of the site. The project will have four housing models as required under the Land Use Code. The architectural models consist of three distinctly unique single-family units and two duplex urits (see attached elevations). The units will have a combination of different architectural characteristics producing an attractive streetscape. A 30 foot wide access, trail and utility easement will cross the site in a diagonal direction from the northwest corner of the site to the southeast. The trail relates to the trail alignment identified in the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and the existing East Larimer County Water District (ELCO) water line easement. The majority of the trail is 10 feet wide and will narrow to 8 feet wide where the trail is combined with pedestrian sidewalks Four collector streets are proposed in accordance with the City's Master Street Plan. Two proposed collector streets cross the site from west to east and north to south. One proposed collector street runs along the east boundary and a second on the south boundary Local street connections are provided at 660 feet intervals. The Gillespie Farm Overall Development Plan was approved in June 2001. Three Alternative Compliance Requests have been submitted to the City on September 19, 2002 requesting three local street connection changes to the approved Overall Development Plan. An Alternative Compliance Request was also submitted on October 24, 2002 for the solar lot requirements under Section 3.2.3 of the City's Land Use Code Both requests are currently under review. Proposed utilities have been coordinated with all the relevant utility providers and City to ensure all required separation requirements are maintained. The location of utilities, proposed driveways and street trees and how they relate on a typical residential block for both the single-family and duplexes are shown on the civil engineer's detailed utility plans. All fencing adjacent to collector streets and within landscape buffer areas shall vary in alignment and will be accordance with the Land Use Code requirements. This is shown on the proposed fencing plan. No existing wetland or special wildlife habitats have been identified within the project site. Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Principles and Policies achieved by the proposed plain include: A. Land Use PRINCIPLE NIV-LU-1: The Mountain Vista Subarea will have a balance of residential, commercial, civic, and social facilities. The project will be a low -density mixed -use development with single family and multi -family homes. A proposed neighborhood center with a public park will provide community facilities within the neighborhood B. Transportation PRINCIPLE MV-T-1: Consistent with the Land Use Code, the transportation system within the sub area will have: Item2) connections to and across the arterial corridors, including pedestrian underpass in key locations, providing convenient access to and from the local networks that serve individual developments and buildings; Item 3) integrated local networks with direct, convenient interconnections between developments. The development will have four proposed collector streets in accordance with the City's Master Street Plan Two proposed collector streets cross the site from west to east and north to south. One proposed collector street runs along the east boundary and a second on the south boundary. These connections provide direct access to adjacent developments. A pedestrian / bike trail connection with underpass provides convenient access to the adjacent proposed development to the north Policy MV-T-2.6: Bike routes and pedestrian connections will be developed to link the Subarea to the Downtown and Poudre River Trail. These facilities will make logical and coordinated connections to the comprehensive city- wide bicycle, pedestrian, and transit systems. The bike / pedestrian trail will cross diagonally across the site. The trail is consistent with the Mountain Vista Subarea Parks Master Plan and will connect with trial systems outside of the project site City Plan Principles and Policies achieved by the proposed plan include: PRINCIPLE LU-4: More specific Sub area planning efforts will follow the adoption of these City Plan Priciples and Policies which tailor City Plan's city-wide perspective to individual neighborhood, districts, corridors, edges. Policy LU: 4.5: Priorty Subareas. The proposed development lies within the Mountain Subarea and complies with the Plan Principles and Policies contained in that document. PRINCIPLE CAD-1: Each addition to the street system will be designed with consideration to the visual character and experience of citizens who will use the street system and adjacent property. Together, the layout of the street network and streets themselves will contribute to the character, form and scale of the city. Policy CAD -- 1.2 Street Layout. Policy CAD- 1.3 Streetscape Design. The proposed collector streets comply with the City's Master Street Plan and will provide direct: access between County Roads 11 and 52. A public park and neighborhood center will be accessible from the proposed streets. PRICIPLE HSG-1: A variety of housing types and densities will be available throughout the urban area for all income levels. Policy HSG -1.1 Land Use Patterns. Policy HSG -- 1.2 Housing Supply. Policy HSG -- 1.4 Land for residential Development. The project will have a variety of single-family and multi -family housing types. Policy ENV-3.3 Water Demand Management Policy. The landscape plan for the project will utilize the following xeriscape principles Plant material with a low to moderate water requirements Limited turf areas Effective use of soil amendments An efficient irrigation system Appropriate maintenance PRINCIPLE AN-1: New neighborhoods will be integral parts of the broader community structure. Policy AN — 1.1 Relationships to Residential Districts. Policy AN — 1.2 Street Network. Policy an — 1.6 Pedestrian Network. The project provides well - connected street, bicycle and pedestrian trails and sidewalks within the site and vehicular and pedestrian connections to adjacent properties. Principle AN•2. A wide variety of open lands, such as small parks, squares, greens, Play fields, natural areas, gardens, greenways, and other outdoor spaces should be integrated into the neighborhoods. Policy an —2.1 Neighborhood Parks and Outdoor Spaces. Policy AN- 2.2 Ownership of Outdoor Spaces. A proposed neighborhood center and pubic park will be accessible from streets, the bike trail and pedestrian walks within the site and adjacent developments. All public open space areas are to be maintained by the City. The neighborhood center and detention area will be maintained by a Homeowner's Association. PRINCIPLE AN-4: Design policies for residential buildings are intended to emphasize creativity, diversity, individuality. The following design policies are based on the premise that truly creative design is responsive to its context and the expressed preferences of citizens, and contributes to a comfortable, interesting community. The proposed single-family, duplexes and multi -family residences will provide a variety of house models Building characteristics and materials will aim to be consistent throughout the site. PRINCIPLE L.MN — 1: Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods will have an overall minimum average density of five (5) dwelling units per acre, achieved with a mix of housing types. Policy LMN -- 1.2 Mix of Housing Types and Lot Sizes. The proposed project will have a variety of lot sizes and housing types including single-family and multi -family houses. PRINCIPLE LMN — 2: The size, layout and design of a Low Density Mixed — Use Neighborhood should make it conductive to walking, with all the dwellings sharing the street and sidewalk system and a neighborhood center. The proposed neighborhood center is located so it will be accessible within the development Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to working with you during the development review process. Sincerely, VF Ripley Associates Louise Herbert 1'ST, INC. OPINION or MOST I'RORAHIY ctrS r CUnslYlling En inccrs Dalr: (l-aa of pp - Jr;h No. 0.53-003 IlClicnl; Cille$ple Farm Development CRngxnny Rl,r. PraJvrc Mnplr 11111 - .--- —..^11 • I .. -✓•. r AR<)1UCR0bSINrs0VER 111EN'0 aOIIILEj111 r(11 .._ 1 rlI II ICJ n 9 N C 1 �. - _'II ^— QI ,1.n l C I tl „_._.—.�• 2 2(V N no 4 v O - l RJ _ 1A,29W", M+plc Ills Ur. rmW namXlg ^ultlp4cl by 50% M,, bw, nC 5lAlu Id anLdllal 41S,p,x5.0U ('R 52 road anvdny ..b"b'd by 20 N. aril p1- eiup W,615.00 Co„nby CIA R11. road cr"nvlaI malupliad bf x;i. cal $192,500, 00 11Rurr. RnndC-,1111R+'.rr,Grurnl fill 1'IU rRUES r RIAN DRI UGID OVLlI T11r NU 5 OU I (IIT I)I I 2 ---,— T lid a_ou a0 —.. $].aal lxl w d,111 V20AW1m SD,VI'dIDO S uLlonl $11,500,110 r„daurrbm UVIdge crolAng nudtlpnusl by $11°G cost aorldg Subb]l FIJIS00.90 Fwur/I'rdYa(Nnn UridFrt SuGrohd 1 NVATF Il II'nnw sol"al a SEWER .P.:err SuGrurnl ] pUn,le STREk:I'S- On sllc hrt M.11'I,F. I IM, DRIVE v l J Y< S J h l IL Iid1l d P01ir 51"'.- 01r.$d, 1, d✓AFLE 1111-L VVVC SId✓ond u I,URIAC STRRR'fS-pn s11c 1p CUUN'rRVCItInRO- - gyldp�,l�)ryrItiNc,vNlkh._rJu Jt �.-__ I =uo� eIn 1_•c+e ar M rQ .ynr�cR "cko na,?Ipj __.__ —. Pnblle Slrvpa - Uu 5'Irejor COIINJ'RY CLUB DR. .Su F"1"1 9JJWJOTAL RECAP rijuall 11OA11 CI10551NCS FL911RE rr.U1,P PIN CROSSlAG WATER - ONSI IE SEWER-ONSM,, PURLIC StbF,la5- blAYLE 11111. RR p.N81TE I'U nLIC 5I REETS -1-OU.N 1 RY CLpn "' ONSI'rE TO FAL EO/ZO 'd £OL6£6bOL6 'ON Xdd $11,625m; SJ,Sfn uo dU,u40.Ja ..- -•— J12. )aledn f I n2Alu Up lU Sp!I �10 $1l,dx.5.11d ys L".ILUO fl&IOOeII b'10d0UJ0 5102,995.80 Wd 60,Z1 03M £OOZ-E HAV TST, INC. Consulting Engineers OPINION OF MOST PROBABLE COST Client: Gillespie Farm Development Company Job No. 0953-003 Date: 11-19-02 Project: Maple Hill -Phase 5 Rev. By: L.M.L. No. Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total Comments Stri ine I L.S- $7,500,00 $0-00 County Road 52 Subtotal $104,171.11 7 County Road 11 Vertical Curb & Gutter In -Pall LE S20-00 $0.00 Vertical Curb & Guttcr ICut-Fall) L.F. $20.00 $0.00 SubnodePrc - (Curb &Gutter) L.F. $1,50 $0.00 Pavement -Arterial (6" Base & 6' Aa halt) S.Y. S23.00 S0.00 See Note I Suberade Prep - (Pavement) S.Y. $ISO S0-00 SubmmdePre - (Sidewalk2 S.Y. SI50 soroo Sidewalk -detached 6' wide L.F. 51750 $0.00 10' Crass Pan 0 E.A. $2.000.00 $001) Sur im' LS. $7.500,00 S0.00 County Road 11 Subtotal S0.00 8 County Road 11-Frontage Road Vertical Curb & Gutter In -Fall) 0 L.F- $20A0 50,00 Vertical Curb & Gutter Out -Fall) 0 L.F- $20.00 S0.00 a a Sclde Pre -(Curb&Gotten 0 L.F. $1.50 $0.00 As halt Removal 0 S.Y- $23.00 $0.00 Subumdc P,c - Pavement) 0 S.Y. 31.50 S0.00 Sub,•rade Prep -(.Sidewalk) 0 LF- SL50 S0-00 Sidewalk detached 6'wide 0 L.F. $17,50 $0,00 Saw Cut Es,,tine Asphalt Ede, 0 L.F. $1.00 S0.00 Stu ins, 0 L.S. $7500-00 Som County Road 11-Fronta a Road Subtotal S0.00 9 EARTHWORK' Strip & Replace To soil I C.Y. I $2.50 wor, Cut 15985 C.Y. $1.00 515.985.0U Fill 53361 1 C.Y. $1.75 1 $93,381.75 Off Site Import Structural Fill I C.Y. $5.00 1 $0.00 Earthwork Subtotal $109,366. 75 10 EROSION CONTROL Gravel Inlet Filters 4 EA. $300,00 $1,200.00 Silt Fence I L.F. $250 1 $0,00 Straw Bale Barrier 8 1 EA. $200-00 1 51,600A0 Reseecim¢ I AC, S800.00 1 50.00 Erosion Control Subtotal S2,800.00 SUBTOTAL RECAP WATER - ONSITE STORM SEWER SANITARY SEWER PUBLIC STREETS - ONSITE COUNTY ROAD 52 COUNTY ROAD I COUNTY ROAD 11-Frontage Road EARTHWORK EROSION CONTROL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SURVEYING CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL Contingency (10%) S140,939.00 $94,642.00 $139,451.00 $561,034.47 $104,171.11 $0.00 $0.00 $109,366.75 S2,800.00 S43,643.60 S37,642.86 S1,152,404.33 $115,240.43 Page 4 of 4 'IST, INC. Gillesrle Form Develtgplucnl Company j"& IRII __.. orlNloNor-Moyrrlxronlsl, OST .!` .IUU No- 0953003 DO, W43 uev. Ily� FV N/H 'd E0L6 ML6 'ON Xdd Wd 6Mt 03M HH-£I-9fld b n n 7 A y �l B F � o .ti 9 o T � b � o A N y O •r�-f �G �i LI = z o o o o o W 0 0 w H 0 w N v, � O O O O � � � O V n o ^' �? A N A `! W Ll� WC F z a T .T d O � � O Q p O � � J j rn � .y •C Y 1 SOT v C z w � o 0 0 � 00o t� O O �P 0 w O Q H O •.�.1 W 4� | ` \ ( ® � { $ a k [ t 2 $ \ r E ` ! ! g E \ ƒ c � \ / th $ ( \ \ e r ) tA } \ � f { § z Z Jo I a3ed samn.,as maiu18eu1,1. uoilomisuoo n, 6aamS apnpw MU asop ISOA alqugmd Iso"jo uoundo 'z Swop pawl ,qJ "01 uopaadsul paimlxv bun apnlaw um Ss,p IsoJ alqugmd JSaW to uolwdo ' I 9 LON -eaiouaiunuoa o ognl'luuatnw Io slsoa m uounmanll .101 nlq,Suodsaj lou s, LS.L 'ip,n9 n sn,(luo pmlddns pun Jso,)Jo uo,wdo un si s l.1 07'IS[`Y$ 01'08£S 00, I ORES 00'108`£S 7Y101190. MOLLOMUSIV03 (/,,01) buaBuguoO 'I V,60,6u [lS d.SOJ N0163LIN,LSNOJ N:d,MHS WNOLS 00 108 , 9 lvla70nS danlas uuo;S (TO 0594 00 59S 'J-1 of dJN loan !119 8ES,bZ 00 8i5 00'9LS JJN Inanc,llH Sb*GZ 00512g 00£9$ dJNlna❑ p17,�0£5.,61 00'OSLS 00'SL$ 1 dJN .,Zb 00ItL% 00'6M $1�s dJN .,LZ 0051DS 00 M I L)l I.tz 00'9lzj 00-9B LM �.IZ I)0'00$ 005ES I d,)il .SI omzls0ano palls amaia.laN - ,LJ:ON,LS TI OLJB'TIOJ 'SA,JvDol V NOd NOS INtld W OJ N'3M'NS W NOd.S sn..... ) Inlo.l. Iso,)pu(7 sPu(1 Jlquend wa11 ''IN S`.)m :41 £O-OZ-S N"(1 aN £00-£S60'o,,,� qo£ Illy aldew :aaafoad Xuedwo0 luawdol3e3(j waeg aldsa1pq :)uailJ LSO:) :1'I£IVfl021d .LSOL1 d0 NOINIdO Sdaaulj3uA Sullinsuo;J a�l �ZSZ ( § c m : w Q j � \ � \ 2 � � ( ID It, � \ \ \ � \ k / f / tz \ } \ ( \ j / / d ) { ) � ! ƒ ) r § Q \ \ \ % / ) / \ \ ) \ \ 7is: N M O y Q G o U � � N F o b 0 0 0 K1 0 0 0 0 z H ti 3 z a A OChi � Li OO � U C7 c a a w d o o o o d v c w o CJ z o a v a o w w � w U PLO Am I x N a E �i n r h mNp M s GL fL � G C O cN¢ cNe M M O U w E» vj v3 0 7 0 O O i. �n .-• y ,n w 0, y O on ,a a a+ C u v ti [r G ai m o O V �,J ' A � � � G w N 2 Vl M Wi N. U a I to IaAe9 nus66'Z9N 7ea0_1 00'09Cils Al ISNO'CH Nill a AHLNOOJ- S.l33alS ail na III, 09f LIS 31ISN0'No 11 II 33d V W - S183N.LS JIIHAd 00 05S'ss AI.ISNO- 1191"3s 00 5z,),l Is 3 LISNO - N31 V.0 oo ooi EIS DNISSONJ NVIN1S3U34 3NIllai o0'OOS Zols SO.NISSONJ UVON 3NIIAJIA av�aa Iv3.olaas or 091 Ivlof9nS N9 H[l YJ 3'ZNIIOJ e11'v0-111111'Il9nd ao 0> 5 00048' $l I 4'1S o,'), O0005s \s"I n 1s aloN mS OIt CU[PN4 I10 :.1$ l\5 L99 IIe�1�sV..9mZso9 9)u��PalloJ )o oyA-lunwonea Oo i Fss UB Os' .l S L99 Unawnnd i aid apuia9nS Oo 00C ZA OOOs dl 1301 opi,x,S payvmap-AlnnmpiS n9 i5 1$ ON ns A S 991 fN4�nlop-rylmsapisJ ald aPn�e4nS Op np;g ONO$ i"I OO£ Vapn�)N W�p) vd apm. qnS 'ONHAAJ A)ILNIIOJ�d]al!S n0-SL33NLS J1'lHlJd 9 or OWLIS lo)ol9nN 3A199 711139JVIT IdJeliS-0-1laans'I'Wd USS DOOM sl I i(u15 UU UOSs )" oo0 $ SI I °`IS IN 00 n111" 00 ZI S A S L99 3n9� N „9 asvU „91�mm0oyO oW_Itowanvd uo lls$ 19A As Lrn) (llnWaned aiy.�pm.yns Eoo 1n U01 �9 00 bs d'I oUC api.>+5 @�No4 P01u^sa4`IS uN Zf I Y oa os n S 991 t%y'mop-ylomopig) cvd apes qng uouol T$ OoLI$ dl 001 11nD'd 4nJ le"1�'.1 OOOP:$ (IS A Al 00i fopnp...... dopvsapg 3A1119'1'1111 A IJVI4IoJa11S IIO-S.IN"vINLS JI'Illfla 9 OODSS'SS IvlolgvN aamaN o 0111s 1 00 LLS Jl 051 JAd sl N8s13s t OOT9'119 Imo)gnN ae1v,N 00 SLC$ UO3ILlS Vd I s99/^sAID .ZI Ousd$ O1,100ZT$ V➢I 1 1n1 , bLx„dl j"I-,4 011 flSt i$ VH `old , n0 pnst)15 OU S[S Al OOf JAd„ZI N taLvAk i n0'005'(I S IololgnN a2'.' vw ...P" ainm d 1111'110s'C I'S Ie1014n5 al'P09*' Isoa V,,s ^Q MldUlm'- 9mssoso AIPH neplsapad 00 01 O'LZS II,.19^s .soopi.as oo'ono'oZ$ 0000o n.8 V3 apuq ueulsapa,{ s ntato„cos O0101OLS o00o5'{S )9 slnamngn apuq uculvpad IIJ.I.IO.C33JJI09 ON JILT. N3AO HOUINH NVINI.SAi III Ol.ad Z 00 005V I is (v1v19ng sNvlsmq Poo' almo_/ oo5Z'1'Sx$ IelolQnS 21n nqs Isn. %SZ F9 ya00!Ipw12ulsgma i'P, 9nO UIudo' 00'i79'sxs Innngns 9uuegs Isoo %, �0 p,cly1nm aulssma Peo+, NJ Oil '152'19$ IelolQnS IuVnys you %I)s , Vagtlglnm Iulssan yeoa a(I 11111 alduli 1101111$ LUi $ IB1u14, slzm to °'mZ OOOns`.01$ 000SCIs YI Zs ^^POxIiII)Z P, ^U noJ OIlO06ZO1$ 00 (IST IF A"I ZH I��+InJ xotl N *,OZ ti N_) °I""'M L�uo L01$ Op OSr. iK 8"I 2H Vo+InJst,IiZ IOu(I II O I.I1rIN IiAll (I J.33LO0 S'ON AII.L It SONISSONJ (I VON A1111L11A I yunueuo-) Pnol IsaJ lmll suo, FI-,W ,o .m.. oN h\!1 �fl aaN MIA aldoN :1*01d LO-f!Z-9 :alun COO-CS60 'ON 9of Xtaudum0 luawdOlana(j MJUA aldsaa10 :jii ISO.) AAHVII021d ,LSOIV AO NOINIdO S.IO2HISUg SHIJjnSuoJ ��I`LSL om 'som.omluoa u e,S3jojuil10 —d— mn 1! 'aom9 a se 6mo panddns pue ls'o7 to ummdp tie St s!yy £o'L01 `L9$ ISO,') .L03fOud D9'o01`9S (%00 AJN39NLLN00 N01.6JfINd.SN00 FL� 91,'066`ZS 9NIdIu,LS T 9NIN91S D6'I8fi'RDS 9NIN301h�'8 Atl3u3A0 OVOu 00'b£0'6S d3ud 3.LIS 96'066'Z9 )ulolgnS Eu)dul5 9 8u1u8(S 00091$ OL'0$ -A OOZ w!'IS'ale'1 .8 91, o0D 1$ 5t os 1"1 100 D .ul "IS xale],.9 000001g 00 OM V3 D SMOL\/Oil-1 O—NI pa--Pld 0000£$ Wools -VA f xogpepg me'ola}7 00'0SI$ 00N1$ 'Vd I w!S aleaolay 9NId1N.1.S 9NIONIS ib'7R WS ]u!a)gn5 uluap>M Aupanp puog 000OO Z$ 00'000ZS S'"1 I lom�o�myml 00099 £$ 00Z$ 11 OZ81 salemS apisyeod apm,ay 00'066LI$ SLI$ IASOSZ01 ell"10Ie[sV.Z 00'cgEOZ$ Oo'fZ$ -A S88 oseq„Zl/yegesr,.q vapinoySlleq sV.Z 08YZ£`I$ OS'Is A'S 588 mauuned aad'iff qnS L£gIS$ SL'14 A'J S6Z ,.ZI uopennax3 LL Z, I �£s SG I$ ' I I Zo8 1 anouiaN � qey sy . ugslxy ln� meS 9MN1301M T Atl'Iu3A00VON -Z 00WOU Iolol9nS daad dpS -0'I 8L9I 33Uadlp5 00000`D4 00000`D$ S"i 11 azgigopg 1 d3ud311S -I s'luounpo,) leloy Iso� pu[I s'IN[I fil9uen� mall -oN Sluawahoddwj uollaasdaluf •aAV 6ewa7 g1doN 19 •dQ aulA lsug :laafodd Slits :I,N £o0Z/80/50 S00-£S60'oN qor da2.laquaOoS mptk :1uapD .LS03 30 N011NMO S Laauloug *JN `ZS L TST, INC. Consulting EnQilleers OPINION OF MOST PROBABLE COST Client: Gillespie Farm Development Company Project: Maple Hill -Phase 6 Job No. 0953-003 Rev. Date: 11-19-02 By: LALL. No. Item Quantity units Unit Cost Total Comments Stri inc 1 L.S. $7,500.00 $7,500.00 County Road 52 Subtotal $128,993.11 7 County Road 11 Vertical Curb & Gutter In -Fall) L.F. $20.00 $0.00 Vertical Curb & Gutter Out -Fall L.F. $20.00 $0,00 Suberade Pre Curb & Gutter) L.F. S1.50 S0.00 Pavement.Ancnal (6' Base & 6" As halt) S.Y. $23,00 $0,00 See Note I Sub,Tade Pre -(Pavement) S.Y. $1.50 S0.00 Sabgrade Pre - Sidewalk) S.Y. $150 $0,00 Sidewalk -detached 6' wide L.F. $17,50 $0.00 1 or Cross Pan 0 E.A. S2,000.00 S0.00 Sliming L.S. $7,500,00 S0-00 County Road I Subtotal S0.00 8 County Road 11-Frontage Road Vertical Curb & Gmu,r (In -Fall) 0 L.F. $20.00 50.00 Ver i"I Curb & Gutter Out -Fall) 0 L.F. S20.00 $0.00 Sabnrade Pre - Curb & Gutter) 0 L.F. SL50 $0.00 As halt Removal 0 S.Y. S23.00 50.00 Sub,,Tude Pie -(Pavement) 0 5 V. $1,50 50.00 Saberade Pre. -(Sidewalk) 0 L.F. S1,50 $0.00 Sidewalk -detached 6'wide 0 L.F. $1750 WOO Sow Cut Exisnnn As halt Edge 0 L.F. S1,00 $0.00 Sripm,,, 0 L.S. S7,500.00 Moo County Road ll-£ronta 'e Road Subtotal S0.00 9 EARTHWORK' Stn2 & 1 C.Y.1 $2.50 Woo Cut 31548 1 CYYI SI.00 531,54&00 Fill 40193 1 CY-I S1,75 S70,337.75 OffSite, Import Structural Fill I CY. $5.00 S0.00 Earthwork Subtotal $101,885. 75 10 EROSION CONTROL Gravel Inlet Filters 6 EA. $300.00 $I,800.00 SiltF'ence I L.F. I S250 $0.00 Straw Bale Barter I EA. 1 S200.00 $OAO Re,edim= 23 AC, 1 S800.00 $18.400-00 Erosion Control Subtotal 320,200.00 SUBTOTAL RECAP WATER - ONSITE STORM SEWER SANITARY SE W ER PUBLIC STREETS - ONSITE COUNTY ROAD 52 COUNTY ROAD 11 COUNTY ROAD II -Frontage Road EARTH WORK EROSION CONTROL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SURVEYING CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL Contingency (10%) $115,220.50 $95,103.00 $121,525.00 S507,975.92 $128,993.11 $0.00 $0.00 $101,885.75 $20,200.00 $43,643.60 $37,642.86 $1,090,903.28 $109,090.33 Paye 4 of 4 , , , aftd SO'f6Z'48S O5'Of6'Zb8$ 981Z992£S 09'£49'cts 00'00SIS 00'086'6015 00'OS 00'OS DO'ob OcTLL'9Z£S 00'IZ9'95IS 00'98S'ZZIS 00'S99'SZIS ��^ol, ^..... °•—,, 'INioluDs IS03 N0I13fIH1SNO3 ONIA3AHIIS 1N3W39VNVN N0113CIH1SNOJ 'IOHINOJ NOISOH3 MHOMMLIM peuH a°neluoa3-11 ([VON ALNa0J I I OVOH A].N➢OJ ZS OVOH A1Nf100 311SN0 - S133H1S JIISAJ H3MHS AHVIINVS H3M3S moll 31ISN0 - H31VM dVD3'd 'IVIOISCIS 001009'16 lololgnSlowluo3 uolso,,7 000S 00'008b JV wp p,s d 060E 00'OOZS 'V3 ,awefl aing moils 00-0$ OSZ$ 'd'I aauad lits 00'005Is 00'OOES 'V3 c vail�d laryl lanw�j IOHINOJ NOISOH3 OI 00'086'601$ lololgnS H,omgNog 00'OS 00'SS 'A'J IIId pw, iS uo wl auS-ll0 00'969'SES 9L is 'A'J ZI IZZ MA 00'bSZ'LLS OU'I$ 'A'J bRZIL I^J 00'OS Oc ZS 'A'J pos of aoel aH 3' dujS zNH0A1HiHV3 6 00'09 lolo,gnS pvom a oluoid-ll Pooy djunol 00'OS 00'005'LS 'S'I 0 au' wS 00'Ob 00'is '3I 0 a p31I"4 sVm3m,S 0005 OS'LIS 'T] 0 apim,gpagme p-rJumnpls 000S OSIS 'J.-I 0 a,d apmgnS 0 os OS'IS ws 0 (tuawaA¢d) - d3loape�IgnS 00-0S 00£ZS 'A'S 0 Iunowad lloy sV OO OS OS' IS 4-1 0 (ial1n9 p gmJ) - dand aPvmgnS 000S 00-OZS .9.1 0 llledanp ,ann0 p qmJ 1" A A 00 0E 00-OZS 4.1 0 (lled--V) -I n J p qmJ lvivan POOH a�Ieluoud-1 I PEON ,ilun03 8 00'OS IoYo1q,,S 11 poo8 dlunoj 00'OS 00'000'ZS 'V.3 0 uedssmJ,OI 00 05 OSLIS 'd"I opim,q paprinp-81nm2pis 00'OS Ocis A'S (glemapiS - a,daptzgnS 000S OS'IS 'A'S (ivawannd - a,d aprLgnS I a1-N a^S OOOS 00'£ZS 'A (qey sV „93'a E „q) IauanV-luawanud 00'OS OS'Is �A'9 (,onnrl p q,nJ - dwdape,agnS 00'OS OOOZS 'd"I (Ilnd-1np,aun0 p qmJ InmuaA 00-0S 00'OZ$ Y I Olad-up lalm0 p qmJ InwnaA II PooH Ou no0 L 00'0$ lololgnS ZS pooM dquno.3 000S Dog LT 'S'l aW PIS swawwoJ Inio1 )SOD nup spup Kniuuno wail 'oy •'I•I,v'j :ng ZO-6I-I I :aICU -AaH £00-£560qop Z asugd-lllH aldvjQ :laafo.ld riuedwoO Iuawdolanaa waug aldsalpO :IuapO Isoi 3'I9VHOHd ZSOW Jo N:OA7d0 S]aaui�uj �luljjnSUoD WINIMN COMMITTED TO EXCELLENCE December 18, 2002 Ted Shepard City of Fort Collins Current Planning Department 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80522 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Post Office Box 1190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190 (970)498-5700 FAX (970) 498-7986 RECEIVED CURRENT PLANNING RE: Project #29-OOA Maple Hill PDP — Latimer County Road I 1 proposed improvements Dear Ted, We have reviewed the portion of the plan set for the above referenced project that pertains to proposed changes to Larimer County Road (LCR) I 1 between Country Club Road (LCR 50E) and Richard's Lake Rd (LCR 52) that was sent to our office on December 11, 2002. From what we have learned of the proposed improvements, we are very concerned about the maintenance of the residual portion of LCR 11. There are several important questions that need to be addressed prior to the approval of the project. The County residents that live on the west side of LCR 11 have contacted us with concerns about what will happen to their access once the improvements are made, and more specifically, who will maintain the access. According to the plans, and from talking with Dave Stringer, it is my understanding that the plan is to remove all but 20 feet of the existing LCR 11. The remaining 20 feet of pavement will act as a "frontage road" for the residents. The frontage road will connect to the new LCR I 1 by means of two accesses. One access is approximately 200 feet north of Country Club Rd and the other access is approximately 200 feet south of Richard's Lake Rd. The creation of a frontage road like this that may have to be maintained by the County and located adjacent to an urban arterial roadway (maintained by the City), is not consistent with the vision of the growth management area.. Since these residents currently enjoy access from a publicly maintained road, the City will need to accept responsibility for maintaining this roadway following the changes. Maintenance should not be the responsibility of either the County or the residents adjacent to the roadway. I could find very little im'ormation on the plans that show how the connections between the proposed frontage road and the new LCR 1 I alignment will be constructed. It appears from the cross sections at station 28+00 and 50+50, which are the closest stations to the two connections shown, that there is 3 to 4 feet in vertical difference between the existing LCR 11 profile and the proposed LCR 11 profile. It also appears that there is only about 25 feet horizontally from the easterly edge of the proposed frontage road to the flowline of the new LCR 11 alignment. If this is accurate, the grades from the existing road to the new road are going to be between 12% and 15%, which is too steep r."or any access to a public road, especially an arterial. It is my understanding from talking with Dave Stringer that the full improvements that are shown on these plans are not scheduled but that some interim improvements are planned for the 2003 construction season. We would be interested in seeing the plans for the interim improvements. I received a phone call from a resident who is concerned that the interim improvements may only focus on the road itself and not do anything to address drainage issues and might possibly cause more drainage problems. C\nisc\city R collins - cr I I.doc Ted Shepard December 18, 2002 Page 2 Another general issue we would like to address with the City is the maintenance of roads in this area. With all the development and annexation that has occurred there are County subdivisions on the west side of LCR 11 that are almost surrounded by the City limits. There is even one instance that I'm aware of that where a new City development shares an existing County subdivision road (Richard's Lake Rd). We would like to meet with the City to discuss the overall maintenance of roads in this area. The final issue that we would like to address with the City is the process for coordination and information sharing on issues like this that affect existing County roads and residents. When proposed development improvements involve major modifications to a mainline County Road and affect existing County residents, we would expect to be informed by City staff of these matters. We find it rather disconcerting to find out about these situations via calls from residents. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the plans. If you have any questions or need additional information you can reach me at 498-5730. Sincerely, Rusty McDaniel, P.E. Assistant County Engineer cc: Mark Peterson, Larirner County Engineer Dale Miller, Larimer County Road & Bridge Director Dave Stringer, City of Fort Collins Engineering Department f.\mist\city R collins - cr I Ldoc TIMOTHY J. DOW, MBA, JD PATRICIA T. DOW, CPA, JD, LLM' MAYO SOMMERMEYER, PC" OF COUNSEL • ALSO ADMITTM TO PRACTICE LAW M NEBRASKA ^'ALSO ADMITTED TO PRACTICE LAW M WYOMMG THE DOW LAW FIRM, LLC ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 11.0. BOX 1579 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522-1578 (970)498-9900 Via Hand Delivery Ted Shepard City of Fort Collins Current Planning 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 FAX: (970)498-9966 E-MAIL. dow@dowlawf1 m.com January 27, 2003 Re: Project #29-OOA Maple Hill PDP — Type I (LUC) Our Client: Windsor Reservoir & Canal Company Dear Mr. Shepard: # 7 CLOCK TOWER SQUARE 323 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 2312 CAREY AVENUE CHEYENNE, WYOMING 82001 (307)634-1541 The Windsor Reservoir & Canal Company (WRCC) is the owner of the ditch that generally runs along the easterly boundary of the referenced project, sometimes known as the No. 8 Outfall. On behalf of WRCC, I have reviewed the submission as submitted by you with your Comment Shect dated January 15, 2003. The drawings and data submitted did not address the stormwater issues of importance to our client. I was able to work directly with the engineer and obtain the appropriate drawings and other technical information needed such as the sub - basin information. I would like to complement Keith Sheaffer and his team at TST, Inc. Consulting Engineers for an excellent job in providing the information that we need to make a comfortable decision concerning the impact of development on our ditch. If all developers and their engineers were willing to work: as closely as these people have with us, the end product would be much better, well-defined and more certain, and everyone's comfort level would be significantly enhanced! I have reviewed drawings 69 of 130 and 56 of 130 on Job 9953-003, revision date 11/18/02. I have also reviewed drawings 3-7 of 7 on the same project with the same revision date. Detailed design and full analysis data was also submitted, particular attention is directed to the NeoUDS results summary project description: ST-1, being page 1 of 3 — sub -basin information. The sub -basin information peak flow shows that 10 cfs will burden the ditch. WRCC hereby approves the drawings as referenced above as to their design and general configuration as it impacts our ditch. We also approve and agree to accept a stormwater developed inflow of 10 cfs into the ditch as referenced above. This arrangement will need to be reduced to a formal agreement reflecting a few details concerning timing of the project, coordination with the ditch company and the consideration to be paid by the developer at a later date. From a planning standpoint, if you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to get ahold of me. Yours very truly, MAYO SOMM;yer ER, P.C. ///4/;afyOAJSom=merrmn MS/hb PC: Tom Dougherty Keith Sheaffer Donn Engel Dave Stringer - County Road 52 sidewalk Page From: Dave Stringer p To: jim alien-morley i Date: 1/29/03 3:57PM f.: Subject: County Road 52 sidewalk^ Jim, I'm sending this e-mail since I've been out sick and don't have much of a voice yet. Troy called and asked if the street sidewalk adjacent to the under pass on Cty Road 52 could be eliminated because of the trail system. The short answer is no. The street sidewalk is needed for those pedestrians who do not want to access the trail. They need the walk as a conveyance for them . Dave leave Stringer Re. Maple Hill comments Page 1 From: Mark Jackson To: Dave Stringer Date: 1/29103 3:45PM Subject: Re. Maple Hill comments Correct. They are definitely on the hook for both the sidewalk and the trail. >>> Dave Stringer 01 /29/03 03:44PM >>> Mark, I got a call from Sear/Brown wanting to eliminate the street sidewalk along Cty Road 52 because of the trail walkway at the underpass. My guess is NO since the people who don't necessarily want to access the trail would need the street sidewalk. Is this correct? I need to get back with them ASAP. Also, We need to have a meeting with you, Planning and Craig Foreman about the underpass height. Sear/Brown claims Craig told them that it didn't need to be higher, yet I know you have been telling them to build it according to the City's design guidelines. Can you give me times and I'll try to get the meeting set up. Thanks Dave CC: Tom Reiff Ward H. Fischer (1929 - 1996) William H. Brown William C. Gunn William R. Fischer Margaret A. (Meg) Brown Daniel K. Brown Margaret A. Althoff Troy Campbell Sear -Brown Group 209 S. Meldrum Fort Collins, CO 80521 FISCHER, BROWN & GUNN, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW EIGHTHFI.00R - FIRSTTOWER 215 WEST OAK STREET Po BOX Q FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522 PHONE 970-407-9000 FAX 970-407-1055 February 7, 2003 Canyon Office 318 Canyon Avenue, Suite 100 Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Phone: 970-407-1070 Fax: 970-498-0769 Email Address fbg@fbgpc.com Re: Ditch/pipeline located near the west section line within Section 32, T8N, R68W of the 6`h 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 6`s 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 sending 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 UZ/ lt1/ Zb17J 14: Zy 'tU22btlZl74 TSTINC PAGE 02 Mr. Peter Hall Director of Facilities Poudre School District 2407 Laporte Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80521 Re: Maple Hill — Irrigation Lateral Relocations Protect No.: 0953-003 February 18, 2003 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 Dlstrict(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 right-of-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 line. 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 line at the southern end of the proposed Maple Hill site. If you have any questions, please feel free to give Me a cal. Respectfully, TST, Inc. Consul6 Engineers ith . Sheaffer, P.E. KGSlamb Enclosures CC: Mr. William Fischer Mr. Tom Dougherty TST, INC. p� Coming,WRY00W��lrarneu Consulting Engineers ") 22641557 Fen (97e) 226 M Email le[o@zdnc.cmm wW 'tsIiO aom Dave Stringer - CR 11 and CR 52 Page 1 From: "Rusty McDaniel" <RMCDaniel@co.larimer.co.us> Date: 2/24/03 10A5AM Subject: CR 11 and CR 52 Hi Dave, I've attached my comments regarding the CR 11 plans. They basically just restate what you and I talked about on the phone a couple of weeks ago. I talked with Troy at Sear Brown about the plans they sent over for the work being planned on CR 52 in conjunction with Lind and Maple Hill develpments. He was able to answer most of my questions - most of them were in the plans - I just hadn't dug deep enough into the plan set. The only thing 1 did ask him to clarify on the plans was the roadside drainage on the east end where the road transitions from the new urban cross section back into the rural gravel county road section. He said he would take care of that. Otherwise, the only other thing I am still a little confused about is what is and isn't getting constructed with regards to the drainage/irrigation along the east property line where it crosses CR 52. 1 got the impression from Troy that the City's Stormwater folks are still working on that. If you have any questions please let me know. Thanks, Rusty TST, INC. Consulting Engineers Client: Gillespie Farm Development Company Project Maple Hill -Phase 7 No I Item I Quantity 7 County Road 11 OPINION OF MOST PROBABLE COST Job No. 0953-003 Date: 11-19-02 Rev. By: L.M.L. Unit Cost Total Comments County Road 11 Subtotal 3a.0a 8 County Road I I -Frontage Road Road Subtotal 9 EARTHWORK' Earthwork Subtotal 10 EROSION CONTROL SUBTOTAL RECAP WATER - ONSITE STORM SEWER SANITARY SEWER PUBLIC STREETS- ONSLrE COUNTY ROAD 52 COUNTY ROAD 11 COUNTY ROAD I I -Frontage Road EARTHWORK EROSION CONTROL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SURVEYING CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL Contingency (10%) S19,380.75 $0.00 S5,928.00 $0.00 S39,664.00 S0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $19,380.75 S0.00 $43,643.60 $37,642.86 $64,972.75 $6,497.28 Page 4 of 4 Ward 11_ Fiacher (1929 - 1996) William IF Brown William C_ Gunn William It. Fischer Margaret A. (Meg1 Brown Daniel K. Brown M:ngarcl A_ Ahlioll FISCHER, BROWN & GUNN, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW EIGHTH FLOOR FIRSTTOWER 215 WEST OAK STREET PO BOX Q FORT COLLINS. COLORADO 80522 PHONE 970-007-9000 FAX 970-407-1055 February 24, 2003 Dave Stringer City of Fort Collins Engineering Department 1,0 Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Re: Gillespie Farms Property Lind Property Dear Mr. Stringer: F E B 2 2003 'i.. CenYantJfLs3- 318 Canyon Avenue, Suite IIH) Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Phone: 970-007-1070 Fax 970-498-0769 Email Addre,, Ibg (,ibgpc.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 pertainine to a ditch/pipeline near the west section line within Section 32, Township 8 North. Rangc 68 West of the 6i1' P.M. Also enclosed is a copy of a letter to Pcter I [all from Keith Sheaffer dated February 18, 2003. Sincerely, William R. Fischer Fric. Cc: Peter Hall February 24, 2003 Dave Stringer City of Fort Collins Engineering Department 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80522 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Post Office Box 1190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190 (970) 498-5700 FAX (970) 498-7986 PV RE: Project 429-OOA Maple Hill PDP — Larimer County Road 11 proposed improvements. Second review. Dave, I have reviewed the revised County Road I 1 plans dated 2/4/03. Without going into great detail, I continue to have the same concerns that I expressed in my previous letter. While additional information has been added to the plans showing the frontage road and its connection to the future CR 11 realignment, I still feel that there is not enough information to determine how the connections are going to be constructed. The additional information that has been added still indicates a fairly steep grade (8%) between the frontage road and CR 11. Like you and I discussed on the phone the other day a 3% to 4% grade seems like it would be the maximum grade you'd want accessing an arterial. I appreciate that you are continuing to work with the residents along CR 11. They have stayed in touch with us and I know that they are very interested in what happens with the road in front of their homes. It is my understanding from meeting with Cam a couple of weeks ago and from talking with Joe Bleicher, that the goal is to get the utility work done in the frontage road prior to the asphalt overlay being placed this year in order to avoid future cuts in the road. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the plans. If you have any questions or need additional information you can reach me at 498-5730. Sincerely, Rusty McDaniel, P.E. Assistant County Engineer cc: Mark Peterson, Larimer County Engineer Dale Miller, Larimer County Road & Bridge Director c Vcor&ity It colGns - cr I I second review due March 2S, 2003 File: 019ULTO ao CO o Mr. DaVe f;tringcr, P.G. p I'orl. Co IIn:; h;ngineeri ng Department • 0 LD P.o. Hox S£f0 a CC voII cotlins, CO 80522-0530 rr m 0 J o O r— Dear Dave: c� • X a 'I'h i:; letter was prepared for the Gi llespic Farm ODP Co c� a ti r('quost variances to "Section 7.4 General Dosign Element;, Table w 7 Ac c.e_sS Manognment," a; contained in the I,,irimer County Urban O Nca Sl. reel Standards (LCUAS5) October 1, 2002. Spe(-i Cically, the variances pertain to unSignalized intersection spacing and w C) corner (-Ioarancc between dr i. ve_ways/all(,ys and :,treet cL ifit crion:; A copy of Table 7-i is provided in Appendix A. C)_ coo 'I'hc Gillespie Pann site plan is provided in Appendix B. ill O Z rn No driveways intersect with CR11 or CRS2 (both 7-Lane Li .II for is I ) The minimum into I e ct ion spacing along minor eL o artcr inl:; i:; 400 feet. The range of separation is 4 00- 660 feet. cv The re wi I I notbe raised medians along either CR11 or C'RSZ AI t r c\j iutoisectioil spacing exceeds 460 feet. There are two locations, N uric on ('kI I and one_ on C'RS2, where the 660 foot. separation is cxcoodcd_ on CR1i, the separation between the first in Le rsecti on South o1 CRSZ and CR52 is approx iaeate I 700 feet. On CRS2, they r;oparot ion between the 1_11-St and Second intersections cast_ of CR1I i.5 approximately 820 feet. Separation greater than 660 toot. require a modi ti cation of the Standard, not a variance. The (1[eater :;epa ra t. ion between intersections will not present_ oporati onal concerns. Nona of these locations wiII be dell r inient al to public health, welfare, and sofety. They wi11 .rL;o not have an unpact on I.he capi l ai/maintenance reCla i_r eni cat W 'Intl cost:;. zThey Gi1Le;pie harm has an east_/west collector street, and a °C north/:;out_h col.Iector_ street that bisect the site. In addition, Z w z thou is n north/south collector street near th(, east edge of the U 0 1t.e. Ah lt of tese arc desintas m. gaed inor cocoIlctorey s. Th z w minimum sop, [al..1 on between inter se, ction; for a fit inor collector i_I; W zz a 2'�0 1oet. There are four Iocation ,� long the centrat N / 5 acoll tor and two locations along the cast N/S c-o]lecror that are hor_ 2'M foot. These locations are labeled A, B, C, I), E, a 'Intl I. on Cho Sito plan shown in Appendix 13. FoIIr of these en z Icx-nl..con:; (A,11,E,1,1 are at ifit er:;ectioils that, are on the edg('; of t he :. i I c (t RS01? and CRS2) 1V1 the i nl er;ect i ons wi th CRSOFE and W the sc parat< of t—turn lane., are not re qu; red but may be a2f � �.trip(�cl as r,uch, i t that is the desire of the city. The long a ranyc (2022) tratl..ic 1orzcr;t:; at those four location; indicate LL le:;s tha❑ or equal to 12'; vchictes per hour i❑ one direction. At_ a conserv.it i v e peak hour factor of 0.4, the maximum ❑umber of vehicle:; in one direction in ono minute would be Civc. For analysis purposes, this is one vehicle every 20 seconds. The analysis indicates a delay of 10 seconds per approach vehicle, which is less thrin the arrival raLe. Therefore, it is concluded that the vehicle duenrs will not extend to the next adjacent int_crsection, which is a pp r-oxi mat ('I 200 feet from either C R S 2 or Country Club Road (ext('nded). It is theretor_e concluded that the variance regarding intersection spacing will not be detrimental to the pub]_ic health, welt.rre, and safety; nor wil_1 it have an impact- on the capital/maintenance requirements of the City. There are two other locations (13,C) along the central N/S coIIactsr where the separation is less, than 250 feet (R-190',C-220'). From the available site plan, this cannot be corrected without making street location changes on the east or west: sides of the N/S COI Itor. However, the intersection rpacing is large enough not, to souse operational concerns. The turning movements at the interior local street intersections will be lower than those at the perimeter iuler_:;ecl_ ion:; described in the previous paragraph. It is expected that at a conservative peak hour factor.- condition, the approach volumes: would be on the order of one vehicle every 30 seconds. At this arrival rate:, I_he probabili. ty 01. two or more vehicles being in tho samo area is very small. There is sufficient separation between 'Lill _Ora;(action:; so that conflicts would note likely occur. 'Therefore, it i.:; concluded that this spacing will. not be detrimentalto the public h<:aIt11, welfare, and safety; nor will it have an impact on the capital/main Lenance requirements of the City. From the available lotting plan for the Gillespie farm, there are dingle family lot:; along the minor collector streets. The typical lot w.i(it It i.s SO feet with some wider lots on corners. The corner cie,iranco for minor collector streets is 100 feet. There will be a few locations alonq the two N/S collector streets that will not meet_ this corner clearance. The lot widths are dictated by the density requirement- in "City Plan." It is only the end lots along the N/S minor r-ollectorr streets at the local street intersections that cannot meet the miniannn corner Clearance sl_andard. Single family detached dwelling units generate approximately 10 trip ends per day and one I rip end iit the respective peak hours. In the morning peak hour, the trip cud if-, an exit from a driveway. In the afternoon peak hour, the itr_ip end i.:; an entrance to a driveway. As was demonstrated in a previous rnernorandunr (10112101), daily traffic volumes on the two (-ol te:r'tor street..:; that bisect the Gillespie Farm ODP will be less than 1000 vehicles per day (vpd). Daily traffic volumes on the eastern minor collector street will range from 3300 to 1600 vpd. Daily tnrl I i.c volume,:; on the local streets will generally be less than 300 vpd. 'Traffic i_n Ilie peak hours on these streets wi1.1. be intermittent and iow. on tne bi:;ect -ing collector streets, the average gaps between veil cles wi.11 be greater than 20 seconds. The I) rot), 1.i ty of conl Ii(-ts; at/near these intersections will be minima I. Driveways should be Located as far away from all of the: subject intersections as pos::; i bl<'. it is not likely th,it_ there wi11 be more than a one vehicle queue at any of the subject intersections. Therefore, no driveway should be blocked by a vehicle on the street. As such, with reasonable driver prudence, the corner clearance variance is not detrimental the public health, welfare, and safety. 'there are a few locations at the intersections of the collector sttrcet.:: where lots are designed to be wider. Where the driveway will be located on the smaller dimensional side of those l_oLs, the driveways roust be located at the property line. This will meet the corner clearance criteria. Some e-,nd lots at- the intersections of two local sLreeLs are intended to have a duplex residential. product. IL is also desired that the driveways t_o this duplex product he from both local streets. lased upon review of available site plans, this will be possible while s;t,il_1 meeting the SO foot minimum corner clearance for a local re:;ident is l street. In conclusion, I believe that the variances to the intersection :sp.rcioq and ttr minimum corner clearance between driveways and street i n t e r_ s orc L i on s: Are not detrimental to the public health, welfare, and safety, Ilave' no impact orr the capital/maintenance requirements and costs. Thank you for your consideration of these variance requests. ;;i_nce r _ y, Matthew J. Dcli_ch, P.G. APPENDIX A Q_ ne W LY U J N U C _ N 7 Z N U W W F N 7 0 7_ O Q 7 tU U N WU O UJ v W h W C � o N U U) N r N C7 r APPENDIX B COUNTY ROAD 52 w� I I I. Fa MAR-28-2003 FRI 11:08 AM FORT COLLINS UTILITIES FAX NO. 970 221 6619 P. 03/04 THE Dow LAW FIRM, LLC ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW P.O. BOX I S79 e 7 CLOCK TOWER SQUARE TIMOTHY I. DOW. MHA, 11) FORT COI.LINS. COLORADO 90522-1579 323 SOUTH COLLEGE. AVENUE PATRICIA'E DO W, CPA, Jr?, LLM' (970) 498A900 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 MAYO SOMMERMEYER PC** FAX: (970)498-9966 2313 CAREY AVENUE OFCOUNSEL E-MAIL' daw@&*I2WfirM.c01t CHEYENNC. WYOMING 92001 (307) 634-154I • ALYO AM.ttRtD to PRI.[niti Lnw miNFBR/SI[A ^ALw.u+crrm io rucnC/. i+w 1M WYOe1W4 March 25, 2003 Yvonne Seaman Land Acquisition & Planning Director Centex Homes 9250 E. Costilla Ave., #200 Greenwood Village, CO 80112 Re: Our Client: Windsor Reservoir and Canal Company (WRCC) Project #39-94B Lind ]Property PDP-Type 2 (LUC) Dear Yvonne: 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 1 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 TST, INC. Consuliill2 EnEineers OPINION OF MOST PROBABLE COST Client: Gillespie Farm Development Company Project: Maple Hill -Phase 8 Job No. 0953-003 Rev. Date: 6-25-03 By: K.G.S. No, Item Quantity Units Unit Cos[ Total Comments I EROSION CONTROL Gravel Inlet Filters 0I EA, I S300. 0 I S000 Silt Fence 0 I L.F. 1 $2.501 $0.00 Straw Bale Barrier 1 0 1 EA. S200.00 1 $0.00 Itcscedin¢ I I I AC. S800.00 S800.00 Erosion Control Subtotal $800.00 CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL $800.00 This is an opinion ofCost and Supplied only as a guide. I"F is not responsible for fluctuation in costs of material, labor or unforeseen contingencies. Page I of l MAR-28-2003 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. T 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 T 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 Sonunermeyer MS/lmh PC; Donn Engel Troy Campbell, The Sear Brown Group Robert Smith, Stormwater Planning / Utilities Department, City of Fort Collins RECEIVED TIMOTHY J. DOW, MBA, 1D PATRICIA T. DOW, CPA, JD, LLM' MAYO SOMMERMEYER, PC' OF COUNSEL •ALSO MMI DTO PRACTICE LAW IN NEBrtASKA ••ALSOA MI DTO PKAMI LAW IN WI'OMING THE Dow Law FIRM, LLC ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW P.O. BOX 1578 FORT COLLINS. COLORADO 80522-1578 (970)499-9900 Steve Olt City of Fort Collins Current Planning 281 North College Fort Collins, CO 80524 FAX: (970)498-9966 E-MAIL: downdcwlalvfirm.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 # 7 CLOCK TOWER SQUARE 323 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 2312 CAREY AVENUE CHEYENNE, WYOMING 92001 (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 5a' 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, MAYC /0� iVlayo 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 Fraser Walsh, P.E. TST Engineering 748 Whalers Way Building D Fort Collins, Co. 80525 April 2, 2003 Re: Maple Hill Development — LCUASS variance requests Dear Mr. Walsh, The intent of this letter is to inform you and your clients that the City Engineering Department is in full agreement with the variance requests to the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. We support the Variance to LCUASS Section 7.4.1, 12.2.2 and 7.4 General Design Elements, Table 7-3 Access Management. The variance request to the Land Use Code 3.6 (H) 1 &2 is actually a Alternative Compliance request that will be processed through the Hearing Officer at the time of the hearing. Again the City Engineering Department supports the request, subject to PDP approval. However, Please be informed that the approval of these variance requests by the City is subject to the approval of the Project Development Plan as a Type I Review, by the! Hearing Officer as assigned by the Current Planning Department. Sincerely, David Stringer CC: Ted Shepard 7/c Joseph W. Bleicher 2509 N. County Road 11 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Phone : (970) 407-0531 April 7, 2003 Ms. Linda Michow Hearing Officer City of Fort Collins Dear Ms. Michow: Our neighborhood, the Country Club Heights Subdivision, appreciates the opportunity to provide written comments on the development proposal referred to as Maple Hill P.D.P. #29-OOA. We want to again communicate our concerns, obtain current status of ongoing efforts, identify contact points, express our desire to participate in the decision making process, and request that we be informed of changes which affect our neighborhood. The proposed Maple Hill development is directly to the east of our neighborhood of 34 single-family homes on large lots that back onto Fort Collins Country Club from their locations on Country Club Road, NCR 11, and Richard's Lake Road. Our neighborhood dates back to 1965 when NCR 1 l was a dirt road with very little traffic, and the sites for the Richard's Lake PUD (up to 682 units) to our north, the Maple Hill PDP (up to 667 units) to our east, and the Lind PDP (up to 775 units) to our northeast were all farmland. As development in the north has brought the city to the country, we have tried to work cooperatively to preserve neighborhood integrity, quality of life, safety, and home values. We are especially appreciative of the efforts of the developers of Maple Hill and the representatives of the City of Fort Collins who have worked with us on these goals. We want to continue to work with the city and county governments, the developers, and other affected parties 'to achieve a reasonable, fair, and equitable plan to obtain a frontage road and other actions which will mitigate the adverse effects of these developments. Of greatest importance to our neighborhood is obtaining the earliest possible implementation of a fronta.ge road along NCR 11, an effort that we began in 1996 with the developer of the Richard's Lake PUD. This frontage road would provide existing homes with limited, consolidated access to NCR I I rather than backing directly out onto the road. Further, the frontage road with a separation area from the relocated NCR 11 would help mitigate the effects of the greatly increased traffic from ongoing residential Page 2 developments which has an adverse effect on both our property values and quality of neighborhood life. We would appreciate any updates on actions related to the frontage road which were discussed at the January 29, 2003, meeting between neighborhood and city representatives. At that time, there was ongoing design and planning work for the eventual relocation of NCR 11 to the east. Further, this effort involved coordination between the developers of the Maple Hill PDP directly to our east and the Lind PDP to our northeast. Are there any new updates to the status of these actions? At the meeting, we noted that in a previous agreement with our neighborhood, the relocation of NCR 1 1 to the east and the frontage road were tied into the issuance of 200 building permits. Our understanding was that issuance of 200 permits might still be the trigger for these actions, but there would also be other factors affecting the timing. There were plans to negotiate with the developers on timeframes for certain actions based on issuance of an agreed upon number of building permits. Also, timing of the road relocation and frontage road would be influenced by the construction, in the vicinity of Richard's Lake Road, of pedestrian underpasses under the relocated NCR 11 and CR 52. As we noted at t:he meeting, we would like to ensure that we have an opportunity to provide neighborhood input on the timing, which greatly affects us, of the relocation of NCR I I and the frontage road. Are there any new updates to the status of these actions? At the meeting, we were told that because of the current poor structural condition of NCR 11, a street oversizing was planned in early spring or early summer. This oversizing would not be in lieu of or affect the plans for the eventual relocation of NCR I 1 to the east as discussed above. The street oversizing would involve an overlay of existing pavement as welt as an increase in overall width to 36-feet for two 12-foot travel lanes and 6-foot bike lanes on each side. The centerline of the road would remain the same, but there will be expansion in width in both the east and west sides for bike lanes. For most of our homes, this will require some shortening of driveway lengths and removal/relocation of landscaping /landscaping materials. Further, our understanding was that the street oversizing would include some new turn lanes on NCR I I by the intersection of Richard's Lake Road and the intersection of Country Club Road. Also, the oversizing would result in a shift of the road to the east at the Country Club intersection which will result in improved sight lines at this dangerous intersection. (In December 2000, a tragic accident at this intersection resulted in two deaths.) Are there any new updates to the status of the design actions? Based on the meeting, we understood that once the new NCR I I is relocated to the east, our frontage road could be the 20-foot wide western portion of the oversized road (the 16-foot eastern portion would be part of the bermed separation from the new road.) . We raised concerns that the oversizing addresses the serious drainage problems on NCR 1 I Page 3 which result in large ponds of water collecting in front of some of our homes and driveways as well as in the depressions caused by wear in the road. We believed that the road needed to be engineered for adequate downstream drainage to prevent damage to both it and the future NCR 11. We also wanted to evaluate including, on a cost -sharing basis, rollover curbs and driveway approaches along the western side of the road . To minimize tearing up the oversized road, we also discussed the coordination of the oversizing with other improvements such as relocating the overhead electrical utilities underground (or any applicable site preparation for installation at a later date). Also, we believed that if any additional fire hydrants are to be installed on the west side of NCR 11, this should definitely take place prior to the oversizing. (In a brief follow-on meeting that took place on February 23, 2003, we again raised these concerns and offered our assistance to work closely with the superintendent of this project in coordinating with our neighborhood.) We would like to again state our desire to do everything we can, to the extent practicable in conjunction with the road widening, to coordinate these improvements so as to minimize future road damage and disruption. Could we get an update on these actions? We also discussed our concerns with the differential in height between the existing NCR I I and the proposed relocated NCR 11 which would vary between 2-4 feet lower. We were looking to have sufficient additional berming to help mitigate tire and other vehicle noise as well as vehicle lights. We also wanted to evaluate the use of privacy fences and/or walls to help mitigate the adverse effects of the increased traffic we are already experiencing and which will be greatly increased by the Maple Hill and Lind developments. We also discussed homeowner responsibility for the maintenance of both the frontage road and the 26-foot wide separation area. This is a new requirement for us; as residents, Larimer County now provides us with road maintenance, snowplowing, and cutting of the grassy area along the eastern side of NCR 11. Our neighborhood's March 7, 1997, Memorandum of Understanding with the developer of Richard's Lake stated " ...the Developer and TJeighbors agree to negotiate in good faith, along with the City and County to establish the specifics of engineering, maintenance (i.e., landscaping, snowplowing), and the Financial obligations of the section of roadway from Richard's Lake Road south to Country Club Road." With only 17 homeowners fronting along NCR 11, we seem to be bearing an unusually heavy burden compared to the large number of new homeowners in the three new developments in our area. Are there any ways for us to get a more equitable treatment; have you instances of existing homeowners who have dealt with such a situation? Also, there are three proposed Maple Hill entrances that are perpendicular to our existing homes. The homes closest to these entrances will be subject to significant engine and other vehicle noiise from acceleration and braking and lights from exiting vehicles will Page 4 shine directly into these homes. There will be lessened but similar effects on the homes opposite the intersections of Richard's Lake Road and Country Club Road. We would like to explore any actions such as landscaping that could be done to help mitigate these problems. Can you provide us with any insight on how these problems were handled in other existing neighborhoods affected by new development? Finally, we would like to work closely with all parties to cooperatively resolve any construction related problems which affect our neighborhood. Prior to start of actual site work and construction, we would like to identify contact points for the different parties (neighborhood, developer, and local govemment) in the event that problems arise. Also, we would greatly appreciate any reasonable actions which could be taken to help minimize construction traffic in our neighborhood. Currently, all such traffic flows down NCR I 1; are there any plans to require alternative routes for construction traffic? Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments. Nick Yobbagy, Kirvin Knox, and 1 will continue to act as representatives in working with the developers and local government representatives on neighborhood concerns. Please feel free to contact me on (970) 407-0531 for further explanations of our comments. Sincerely, 1; Joseph W. Bleicher For Neighbors in the Country Club Heights Subdivision cc: Mr. Ted Shepard Mr. Cam McNair %/Mr. Dave Stringer Mr. Matt Baker Mr. Craig Farver Mr. Tom Dougherty: Ms. Yvonne Seaman: Tom Dougherty Construction Centex Homes Mr. Thomas Bender: Chair of the Larimer County Commissioners Dave Stringer -Lind Property TIS Page 1 From: Eric Bracke To: Dave Stringer, Susan Joy Date: 4/8/03 8:26AM Subject: Lind Property TIS A supplemental TIS regarding roundabout analyses has been submitted. The four intersections are 1. Timberline/Mountain Vista 2, Mountain Vista/CR9 3. CR11//Country Club 4. CR11/CR52 They all appear to be good candidates but I would be required to do more analysis and design. Since they are in the County, for the most part, do you all want to pursue this can of worms? My comments are on the DMS (don't fall out of your chairs - yes Ward and I are finally hooked up to the system) Eric CC: Ward Stanford Page 1 i Dave Stringer - Re Maple Hill - From: Tom Reiff To: Dave Stringer; Mark Jackson Date: 4/21 /03 12:24PM Subject: Re: Maple Hill Dave, I can't think of anything to add. But I was wondering when were the trail underpasses being built? Are they part of the first filing? second? TR >>> Dave Stringer 04/21/03 11:03AM >>> Tom and Mark, I'm getting ready to finish out the Development Agreement for Maple Hill and was wondering if there is anything you would want in the Special Conditions section. I have included language thet they need to escrow monies for the ped and vehicle bridges across the number 8. Dave MW TST- INC, Consulting Engineers OPINION OF MOST PROBABLE COST Client: Gillespie Farm Development Company Job No. 0953-003 Date: 11-19-02 Project: Maple Hill -Phase 1 Rev. By: L.M.L. No. Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total Comments County Road 52 Subtotal $0.00 7 County Road 11 Vertical Curb& Gutter(In-Fall)5050 L.F. $20,00 $101,000.00 Vertical Curb& Gutter(Ow-Full) L.F. 520,00 $0.00 Suborede ll,, - (('urb & Gutmr) 5050 L.F. 51.50 $7.575.00 Pavement -Arterial (6" Base & 6" Asphalt) 25236 S.Y. $23.00 S580.430.56 See Note I Subgrade Pre-IPavemcnq 25236 S.Y. $1.50 $37,854,17 Sulm,,de Pre -(Sidewalk) 29772 S.Y. $1,50 S44,658.00 Sidewalk -detached 6' wide 4962 L.F. $17.50 $86,835,00 10' Cross Pun 2 EA. 52,000.00 $4,000,00 Sty ina I L.S. S7,500-00 $7,500,00 County Road 11 Subtotal $869,852. 72 S County Road I I -Frontage Road Vertical Curb & Gutter (In -Fall) 0 L.F. $20.00 30.00 Vertical Carl, & Gutter (Jut -Fall 0 L.F. $20,00 S0.00 Saloaade Pre -(Curb & Gutter) 0 L.F. $L50 $0.00 Asphalt Removal 3296 SY $23,00 S75,808.00 Sub,,ade Pre - Pavement 0 S.Y. $1.50 $0.00 Sabtnade Pre -(Sidewalk) 0 L.F . $1,50 $0.00 Sidewalk detached 6wide 0 L.F. S17.50 $0.00 Saw Cut EsisOmt Asphalt Edge 2472 L.F. SI-00 82,47200 Stri ine 0 L.S. $7,500,00 S0.00 County Road 11-Fronta a Road Subtotal S78,280.00 9 EARTHWORK' Strip & Rc lace-Fu soil 1 124864 1 C.Y. $2.50 $312,160-00 Cut 177443 1 C.Y.li $1.00 $177,443.00 Fill 69141 1 C-Y. 1 $1.75 5120,996.75 OB Site Import Structural Fill C.P. $5,00 $0.00 Fartbwork Subtotal $610,599.75 10 EROSION CONTROL Gravel Inlet Filters 6 EA. I $300.00 1 $1,800.00 Silt Fence 5170 L.F. $2.50 1 $12,925.00 Straw Bale Barrier 7 EA. $200.00 1 $1,400.00 Reseeding AC ssourt 1 30,00 Erosion Control Subtotal SI6,125.00 SUBTOTAL RECAP WATER - ONSITE $210,605.00 STORM SEWER $187,604.00 SANITARY SEWER $343,447.00 PUBLIC STREETS - ONSITE S997,154.08 COUNTY ROAD 52 S0.00 COUNTY ROAD 11 $869,852.72 COUNTY ROAD I1-Frontage Road $78,280.00 EARTHWORK S610599.75 EROSION CONTROL $16,125.00 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT S43,643.60 SURVEYING $37,642.86 CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL $3,313,667.56 Contingency (10%) $331,366.76 Pay, 4 of 4 DAv� S7 ri.�'er Joseph W. Bleicher 2509 N. County Road 11 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Phone : (970) 407-0531 May 7, 2003 Mr. Ted Shepard Chief Planner Current Planning, Department City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Dear Ted: Kirvin Knox, Steve Stansfield, and 1 appreciated the opportunity to meet yesterday with you and Dave Stringer to discuss our concerns about actions we should take following the hearing decision which didn't appear to address the concerns we had raised in our letter of April 7, 2003. We thought that neighborhood failure to appeal this decision could be taken as tacit approval or acquiescence to whatever happens. Based on our discussion, we will not pursue the appeal process but will use the working group proposal as a basis for timely and reasonable resolution of our concerns. We have modified the language in this proposal as we had discussed at the meeting. Please review this revised version and let me know if you want any changes. If the proposal is acceptable, please feel free to distribute it to the appropriate parties in the City Planning Staff and City Engineering Staff. If you would prefer that I arrange for representatives from the Neighborhood Resource Office and from Larimer County, please let me know. We also discussed our desire to review the latest designs for both the frontage road and the interim road. Dave agreed to call us in for the review of the frontage road design once it comes in from TST. We would appreciate it if Matt Baker would arrange for a similar review of the interim road design to help ensure that this project goes smoothly. We also discussed the need for us to have a trigger for implementation of the frontage road. Our neighborhood suffers all the adverse effects of the increased traffic on NCR t I and this will grow worse as the Maple Hill and Lind Project developments get underway. We want to have written commitments so our homeowners can feel they can remain in the neighborhood and make improvements to their homes rather than feel they should be selling their homes because of uncertainty about the future. Page 2 The trigger in our agreement with the developer of Richard's Lake was that the improvements to NCR 11, including the frontage road, would take place prior to the issuance of the 201" building permit. We discussed whether the appropriate place for such a commitment would be the developer agreements, and Dave said he would check whether the City could let us look at these agreements. We expressed our belief that now with three developments affecting us, early implementation is even more critical. We also discussed steps that might be taken to mitigate construction traffic along NCR 11. We believe that if CR 52 was paved between NCR 11 and NCR 9, this could serve as an effective route for construction traffic for the Lind Project. Dave thought that there might also be some other treatment of the this dirt road which might make it suitable for construction traffic. We want to see this treatment or other alternatives evaluated; we strongly believe NCR I 1 should not serve as a construction route for the Lind Project until after the frontage road is completed. Finally, we explained that we wanted to explore the use of privacy fencing and/or walls in the 6-foot height range. We believe such privacy fences and/or walls on the eastern edge of the 20-foot frontage road (not on the 26-foot wide separation area) would help tie our neighborhood together with an attractive, integrated appearance. Even with berming and landscaping assistance from the City, we believe that privacy fences and/or walls may still be essential to help mitigate the adverse visual effects of the increased traffic which is projected to be over 16,000 vehicles per day. We also explained that the irregular locations and configurations of our driveways would render ineffective other methods of mitigating the effects of lights from exiting vehicles shining into our homes. Assuming our revised working group proposal is acceptable, we would like to begin these meetings for resolution of our concerns after we have had an opportunity to review the latest designs for the frontage road and the interim road. Please let me know of any actions you want me to take. We look forward to working with you in the future. Sincerely, Joseph W. Bleicher For Neighbors in. the Country Club Subdivision Enclosure: Revised Working Group Proposal ✓ cc: Mr. Dave Stringer HARDEN, HASS, HAAG & HALLBERG, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW NINTH FLOOR, FIRST TOWER BUILDING, P.O. BOX 1606, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522 TELEPHONE (970) 482-7777 FAX (970) 482-8084 George H. Hass Jeannine S. Haag - Linda K. Connors - Sean C. McGill David P. Ayraud William G. Ressue Of Counsel Ralph B. Harden V. Rodney Hallberg June 22, 2004 Bill Franzen Poudre School District -Operations 2407 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 Re: Road Dedication Dear Bill: I have discussed this matter with the city attorney. He has confirmed that since this road is a collector, and not an arterial, PSD can change the alignment to avoid the well. If you want to pursue this option, you will need to act promptly since the property owner to the north may take steps to plan and construct infrastructure in reliance on the present alignment. The city will not participate in the cost of building the road or in the cost of moving the well if the alignment is not changed. If PSD decides not to change the alignment, and the rop y owner to the north intends to build and use the road prior to the time PSD requires it, ost of moving the well would be considered part of the cost of road construction, just like a bridge or other natural obstacle might be. In this case also, I suggest you promptly notify the other property owner so he is aware of the additional cost. Please let me know if you have any additional questions - Sincerely George H. Hass JUN 3 0 2004 June 25,2004 I :I�TRI�t-TMt t"I Dave Stringer y City of Fort Collins Engineering Department PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Re: Country Club Road Extension Maple Hill -Irrigation Lateral Relocation Dear Dave, This letter is to confirm a conversation I had with Fraser Walsh, of TST Engineering, on June 25, 2004, regarding the extension of Country Club Road to the east of NCR 11, and the construction of the Baker Irrigation Lateral. The district is requesting renewed correspondence in the following: The continuation of Country Club Road to the east creates a conflict with the district's existing irrigation wells on its Mountain Vista property. Please refer to the attached letter from George Haas, attorney for the district. TST has indicated that construction of the road has currently ceased; all concerned parties prior to future development of the road will need further dialogue. Plans indicate that one of the wells and the pump house fall within the proposed right of way, and a course of direction will have to be mutually agreed upon. The construction of the Baker Irrigation Lateral will have to show means of conveyance and measurement to the district's property, and other properties to the south. The original distribution box contained a measuring weir, and appropriate gates to direct the water where required. Current plans apparently do not account for this distribution, but do show termination on the district property. Please coordinate with TST and the developers, and provide the district with plans for this means of distribution. Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have. Respectfully, / / !& `�"f Pete Hall Director of Facilities Poudre School District Fort Collins, CO 80521 (970)490-3425 CC. Bill Franzen Jerry Garretson� 3C��Ui 2407 LaPorte Avenue • Fort Collins, CO 80521-2297 • (970) 482-7420 www.psd-k L2. to. us �Kahe Moore - Mime.822 Page 1 Received: from joel.ci.fort-collins.co.us by gwmail.fcgov.com; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 07:24:45 -0600 Received: from nokia0l (nokial.ci.fortcollins.co.us [10.97.2.98]) byjoel.ci.fort-collins.co.us with SMTP (8.9.3 (PHNE_24419)/8.7.1) id HAA17571 for <kamoore@fcgov.com>; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 07:24:44 -0600 (MDT) Received: from ([192.168.47.204]) by nokia0l; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 07:21:32 -0600 (MDT) Received: from tstsvr.tstinc.com(199.117.35.2) by antispam.fcgov.com via csmap id b902lle4 d986 1ld8 95aa 003D4824a5e6_23881, Mon, 19 Jul 2004 07:22:46 -0600 (MDT) X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content -class: urn: content -classes: message MIME -Version: 1.0 Content -Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content -Transfer -Encoding: quoted -printable Subject: RE: Maple Hill Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 07:25:58 -0600 Message-ID:<7AF1A35AC85E4646809E075A778027DA04CE1F@tstsvr.tstinc.local> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-T N E F-Correlator: Thread -Topic: Maple Hill Thread -Index: AcRrcWrwVICEyOPLRJ66gjhjt4mvngClOfYg From: "Fraser Walsh" <fwalsh@tstinc.com> To: "Katie Moore" <kamoore@fcgov.com> Kaite, Thanks for the email, sorry to drop this on you without any discussion. We have met with the school district (Pete), and they are amenable to delaying discussion about moving the pump house and well until such time that the bridge/road is constructed across the ditch. I understand that having these structures in the ROW is not ideal, and would like to talk with you about our options. With regards to the measuring weir and concrete Swale, we have proposed to Basil an 18" connection to the school district that parallels ST-10 on the north side of Country Club Road, and then crosses south to the northwest corner of their property. Again, both Basil and Pete are agreeable with the design. I hope you had a good weekend. I'll call this morning THANKS AGAIN! Fraser -----Original Message ----- From: Katie Moore [mailto:kamoore@fcgov.com] Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 2:12 PM To: Fraser Walsh Subject: Re: Maple Hill Fraser, I think we need a little more information, and probably a meeting with the school district, before we can come to a conclusion on this. Is the Katie Moore - Mime.822 Page 21 existing pump house pumping water from a well or from what? If it is a well, is the well within the ROW? The letter I received from PSD a few weeks ago indicated that a well and the pump house were in the ROW. Where does the water go from the pumphouse? If there is a well in the ROW, I'll need to check with the City Attorney regarding the legalities/problems with that. The road may need to be realigned so that the well/pumphouse are not in the ROW, new ROW would need to be dedicated for the realignment, and vacation of existing ROW would need Council approval to be finalized. Or the pumphouse and well might need to be relocated. If the road is to stay where it is shown, the pump house will need to be moved at one time or another. Where would it be relocated to? What other work would need to be done with that relocation? How much will easements for that cost? If it is decided in the end to keep the road in its current alignment, and only require the construction of curb, gutter, and pavement on the north side of the road, then we would need to do the following: -Amend the D.A. to reflect this new agreement -The City would need to receive cash (contribution in aid), not escrow, for the remaining pavement, curb, gutter, and sidewalk to be constructed, as well as money for the relocation of the pump house, any easements needed, and any work associated with the relocation of the pump house (new laterals? new pipe?). The letter 1 received from PSD also discussed a problem with the Baker Irrigation Lateral. Pete Hall writes " fhe construction of the Baker Irrigation Lateral will have to show means of conveyance and measurement to the district's property, and other properties to the south. The original distribution box contained a measuring weir, and appropriate gates to direct the water where required. Current plans apprently do not account for this distribution, but do show termination on the district property." Has any progress been made on this issue? Please feel free to contact me at this email or at 221-6605. Sincerely, Katie Moore Katie Moore Development Review Engineer (EI) City of Fort Collins (970)221-6605 >>> "Fraser Walsh" <fwalsh@tstinc.com> 07/16/D4 10:00AM >>> Hi Katie, I hope you are having a good Friday. We bumped into an issue at Maple Hill that I wanted to talk with you about. There is an existing pump house that was originally thought to be an old shack within the ROW of the future Country Club Road. It is on School District Property, at the very east end of Country Club just before the Ditch. We talked with Dave Stringer a few weeks ago about Katie Moore - Mime.822 Page 3 not installing the curb and gutter or the asphalt for that portion of the road at this time, and escrowing money to provide for the future construction cost of the road. I've attached an exhibit to better describe what we are talking about. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks <<overall exhibit pump house (1).pdf>> Fraser Walsh, P.E. / i / Wa / s COS V5_ I � I In O I � I I I � I I FE cn O I v I I � Z ►N I I I I I I � I II h I V I I h 0 <W� mm*o N3 z�-L)o� m�N� tnaUo _ O u 0 n Gillespie Farm Development Company 220 East Mulberry Fort Collins, CO 80524 970-215-9761 June 7. 2006 Sheri Wamhoff, PE, Development Review Manager City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Maple Hill Development Agreement amendment Dear Sheri, Gillespie Farm Development Company hereby requests that we be allowed to amend the Maple Hill Development Agreement to develop the North half of Maple Hill without completing infrastructure improvements required on the South half of Maple Hill (South of the centerline of Maple Hill Drive) pursuant to our current Phase Change and associated Development Agreement amendment. Generally those referenced infrastructure improvements include the construction of Maple Hill Drive from CRl 1 to Thoreau Drive along with associated underground pipe installations, storm water connections, sewer and water connections and certain other requirements. Thank you for your consideration of this request and please call if you have questions. Sincerely, Mike Sollenberger, President Services Engineering Department City of Fort Collins June 12, 2006 Mike Salllenberger Gillespie Farm Development Company 220 East Mulberry Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Maple Hill Development Agreement amendment Dear Mike, The requested change to the development agreement can not be made based on the current layout and phasing of the development. Maple hill Drive in its entirety along with all utilities and services located within the right-of-way boundaries need to be installed in order for any and all the phases of Maple Hill north of Maple Hill Drive to be constructed. This roadway will provide adequate access (public and emergency services) and many of the utilities within this street are needed in order to serve the lots north of Maple Hill Drive. Please contact me at 221-6605 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Sheri Wamhoff, PE Development Review Manager 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 a (970) 221-6605 • FAX (970) 221-6378 www.fcgov.com-