Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLIND PROPERTY - PDP - 39-94B - DECISION - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISIONPage 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 11 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 Leieal 2rdq kee- Members of the Planning Commission and the City Council for the City of Fort Collins May 6, 2003 Page 4 taken by the government without just compensation because of government regulations which disallowed the development by the companies of their mineral rights.3 5. The Anadarko Entities Have Entered into Many Agreements with Developers With Respect to the Disposition of the Minerals at the Time that the Developer Proposes to Develop the Surface Estate, and the Public Interest is Served by the Parties Entering into Such an Agreement. The Anadarko entities have extensive mineral interests throughout Colorado where the surface estate and the mineral estate have been severed. The Anadarko entities have worked with many parties who wish to develop the surface estate in order to assure the compatible development of the surface and the minerals or to effect some other disposition of the minerals. The Anadarko entities wish to work with the Applicant in the same manner that they have worked with other developers. The Anadarko entities object to the Application, however, until such time as they reach an agreement with the Applicant with respect to their oil and gas interests and request that the City make any approval of a final plat for the Property conditioned upon an agreement between the Applicant and the Anadarko entities. Very truly yours, KRUG & SOBEL, LLC Molly Sommerville MS/sa cc: Donna Powers, Esq. Don Ballard Chuck Traxler Yvonne Seaman/ Centex Homes 3See for example Whitney Benefits, Inc. v. United States, 18 CI.Ct. 394 (1989), corrected, 20 CI.Ct. 324 (1990), aff d., 926 F.2d 1169 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied 112 S.Ct. 406 (1991); United Nuclear Corporation v. United States, 17 CI.Ct. 768, affd., 912 F.2d 1432 (1990). Members of the Planning Commission and the City Council for the City of Fort Collins May 6, 2003 Page 3 3. Government Action Which Allows Surface Development in a Manner Which Precludes Mineral Development May Impair the Vested Property and Contractual Rights of the Mineral Interest Owner. Colorado case law provides that the mineral owner has the right of reasonable access to and use of the surface estate to extract minerals and that the surface owner and mineral owner must exercise their rights in a manner consistent with one another.' Actions by a government entity which may have the effect of reversing this basic tenet of Colorado property law and thereby deprive the mineral interest owner of its vested property and contractual rights may violate federal and state constitutional provisions. Union Pacific Railroad Company gave a deed to Nels Johnson dated July 29, 1905 and recorded October 3, 1905 in Book 150, Page 49 in which the Railroad reserved the minerals for the Property. The Railroad granted the minerals to Union Pacific Land Resources Corporation by quitclaim deed dated April 1, 1971 and recorded on April 14, 1971 in Book 1458, Page 456. Applicant had record notice at the time it acquired its interests in the Property that the minerals were severed from the surface estate and that it received less than the entire interest in the Property. 4. An Action by the City to Approve the Application May Amount to a Regulatory Taking within the Meaning of the State and United States Constitutions. Action by the City to approve an application for surface development may constitute a regulatory taking, especially where the operator is deprived of all economically viable use of land or his investment -backed expectations to develop his property.2 The United States Claims Court and the Federal Circuit Courts have awarded compensation or affirmed decisions to award compensation to energy and mining companies based upon claims by the companies that their mineral properties had been 'See Frankfort Oil Company v. Abrams, 413 P.2d 190 (Colo. 1966) and Gerrity Oil & Gas Corporation v. Magness, 946 P.2d 913 (Colo. 1977). 2See for example, Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003,.112 S.Ct. 2886, 120 L.Ed. 2d 798 (1992). Members of the Planning Commission and the City Council for the City of Fort Collins May 6, 2003 Page 2 Anadarko Land and Anadarko E&P wish to give notice to the City of the mineral interests they own under the Property and to make the City aware that any subsequent approval by the City of an application for a final plat may make the oil and gas resources that underlie the Property undevelopable. Anadarko Land and Anadarko E&P object to the approval by the City of a final plat for the Property unless and until an agreement on surface use is reached between the Anadarko entities and the Applicant with respect to oil and gas. The following are comments in support of this Notice and Objection: 1. The Oil and Gas Resources Owned by the Anadarko Entities. The oil and gas interests for the Property are the subject of an exploration agreement between a predecessor company to Anadarko E&P and United States Exploration, Inc. Current rules and regulations of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission ("COGCC") would allow four drillsites in each quarter section, one in the center of each quarter quarter section. COGCC reports reflect that there are at least nine producing oil or gas wells in the adjacent Section 30. 2. There Is Clear Statutory Authority and Direction for the City to Take into Account the Rights of Mineral Interest Owners in Its Consideration of Land Use Applications. The State of Colorado recognizes the important rights of mineral owners and lessees in C.R.S. § 30-28-133(10) which states and acknowledges that both the mineral estate and the surface estate are interests in land and that the two interests are "separate and distinct." The subsection specifically recognizes that the owners of subsurface mineral interests and their lessees have "the same rights and privileges as surface owners." Further, C.R.S. § 24-65.5-101, et seq., requires that applicants for development approvals give notice to mineral estate owners of hearings to be held before local jurisdictions for applications for development and further requires that the developer certify that he has given the required notice as a condition to the approval of the application by the local jurisdiction. XKRUG & SOBEL, LLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW Molly Sommerville, Esq. msommerville@krug-sobel.com May 6, 2003 Via Telefax and Federal Express Members of the Planning Commission and the City Council for the City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Post Office Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80552-0580 1700 Broadway, Suite 508 Denver, Colorado 80290 Telephone:303-831-8450 Facsimile: 303-831-8482 E-mail: law@krug-sobel.com NOTICE OF OIL AND GAS INTERESTS OWNED BY ANADARKO LAND CORP. AND ANADARKO E&P COMPANY LP AND OBJECTION Re: Lind Project Development Plan/ Centex Homes Township 8 North, Range 68 West Section 29: W/2 (approximate 45 acre parcel) City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado Ladies and Gentlemen: This law firm represents Anadarko Land Corp. ("Anadarko Land"), formerly known as RME Land Corp. and Union Pacific Land Resources Corporation, and Anadarko E&P Company LP ("Anadarko E&P"), formerly known as RME Petroleum Company and Union Pacific Resources Company, with respect to the application that has been filed with the City of Fort Collins ("City") for the approval of the Lind Project Development Plan ("Application') for property that covers approximately 45 acres in the SWA of Section 29, Township 8 North, Range 68 West, Larimer County ("Property"). The Anadarko entities own all of the minerals that underlie the Property. 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 NCR11; 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 Mr. Dave Stringer Mr. Matt Baker Mr. Craig Farver Mr. Tom Dougherty: Ms. Yvonne Seaman: Mr. Thomas Bender: Tom Dougherty Construction Centex Homes Chair of the Larimer County Commissioners 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 roadneeded.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 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 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 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 11 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 Joseph W. Bleicher 2509 N. County Road 11 Fort'Cbtins; 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 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 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 11Lnimi�P 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 ofour 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 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 Fars 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 ofthe 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 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 confect 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 11 improvements, especially the frontage road. A reasonable timetable for these improvements needs to be 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: Tom Dougherty Construction Ms. Yvonne Seaman: Centex Homes Mayor Ray Martinez, City of Fort Collins Mr. Thomas Bender: Chair of the Larimer County Commissioners 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 11 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 NCR11 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 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 11. 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 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 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 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 Joseph W. Bleicher 2509 N. County Road 11 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Phone (970) 407-0531 May 8, 2003 Mr. Cameron Gloss Hearing Officer City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Dear Mr. Gloss: RECEIVED CURRENT PLANNING 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 $75,0004100,000 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 Lind PDP Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision May 8, 2003 Page 6 of 6 related -impacts and arrive at project phasing and design that will benefit both parties. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS A. The Lind Project Development Plan is subject to administrative review and the requirements of the Land Use Code (LUC). B. The Lind Project Development Plan complies with all applicable district standards of Section 4.4 of the Land Use Code, (LMN) Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood zone district. C. The Lind Project Development Plan complies with all applicable General Development Standards contained in Article 3 of the Land Use Code. DECISION The Lind Project Development Plan #93-94B, is hereby approved by the Hearing Officer subject to the following condition: 1. The Applicant shall execute a final Surface Use Agreement with Andarko Entities for all portions of the property within the west half of Section 29 prior to approval of future phases of development governed by the Lind ODP. 2. The Applicant shall provide a detailed construction traffic management plan, Identifying haul routes to be used during the course of construction, in a form satisfactory to the City Engineer, as part of the Development Agreement. Dated this 21 st day of May 2003, per authority granted by Sections 1.4.9(E) and 2.1 of the Land Use Code. ameron Glos Current Plann' g Director Lind PDP Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision May 8, 2003 Page 5 of 6 Urban Development Contiguity Requirements The Staff Report outlines the Project's compliance with Section 3.7.2 of the LUC concerning contiguity to existing urban development and there was no evidence introduced at the hearing to contradict the Staff Report. Adequate Public Facilities Section 3.7.3 of the LUC is intended to ensure that public facilities and services needed to support the development are available concurrently with the impacts of such development. Some area residents expressed concern that construction vehicles associated with the Project would utilize streets within the adjacent neighborhood, creating adverse impacts. In a letter submitted into the record, and with testimony at the hearing, it was suggested that construction traffic be limited to CR 52 and that NCR 11 not serve as a construction route. While there may be insufficient grounds to prohibit the use of construction vehicles on well -maintained public streets, residents have expressed legitimate concerns with respect to some of the existing streets providing access to the site. The City's Engineering Department has acknowledged that some of the surrounding streets are presently inadequate to accommodate heavy equipment, based on existing pavement conditions. The Hearing Officer finds that a condition of approval requiring the identification of construction "haul routes" would be necessary to satisfy the City's Adequate Public Facility requirements. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, and this condition placed on the Project, the Project complies with Section 3.7.3 of the LUC. Other issues raised by area residents fall outside the provisions of Articles 3 and 4 of the LUC. Specific requests were made to require the earliest possible construction of NCR 11 and also the enforcement of speeding and reckless operation violations. Although the Hearing Officer finds that many of the concerns raised are insightful and might potentially improve the acceptance of the Project by the neighboring landowners, the Project must be judged under the existing applicable regulations of the Fort Collins Land Use Code. The regulations provide sufficient specificity to determine that the Applicant and Owner have designed the PDP in conformance with the applicable regulations. There is no authority for the Hearing Officer to mandate that the Applicant or Owner exceed the minimum requirements of the Land Use Code in designing the development. Although not part of this approval, the Hearing Officer urges the Applicant and neighboring property owners to work closely together to reduce construction Lind PDP Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision May 8, 2003 Page 4 of 6 Landscaping and Tree Protection. The staff report outlines the Project's compliance with Section 3.2.1 concerning landscaping and tree protection and there was no evidence introduced at the hearing to contradict the Staff Report. Appeals were made to the Hearing Officer to consider the impacts upon the quality of life that might arise due to the existence of greater vehicular traffic on NCR 11. Specifically, citizens requested that berming, landscaping and a privacy fence or wall be located along the roadway to help mitigate visual effects and vehicle noise. The Applicant's testimony at the hearing reflects that the Project has complied with the City's standards with respect to landscape design. Parking and Access. The staff report outlines the Project's compliance with Section 3.2.2 concerning access, circulation and parking. The Project provides residential off-street parking spaces exceeding the number required under the LUC. Site Lighting The Hearing Officer finds that the Project is in conformance with the site lighting standards specified in Section 3.2.4. The Project does not propose exterior lighting, with the exception of porch lights and other accessory lighting. Building and Project Compatibility Section 3.5.1 of the LUC requires that new developments be compatible with the established character of the area. Pursuant to this section, the proposed single family housing, of one- to two-story heights, is compatible with neighboring single family development. Residential Building Standards The staff report outlines the Project's conformance with Section 3.5.2 concerning the design of residential buildings. Specifically, the Project will comply with the "garage door' standards found in the LUC. Master Street Plan The Hearing Officer finds that the Project is in substantial compliance with the City's adopted Master Plan. Transportation Level of Service Requirements Section 3.6 of the LUC imposes standards for all modes of transportation. The Staff Report indicates that the Project is in compliance with Section 3.6.4 of the LUC. Lind PDP Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision May 8, 2003 Page 3 of 6 FACTS AND FINDINGS 1. Site Context/Background Information The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: LMN — undeveloped S: LMN — single family residential E: LMN — undeveloped W: LMN — single family residential The property was annexed in 1984 as part of the Country Club North First Annexation. 2. .Compliance with Article 4 and the LMN — Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood District Standards: The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable requirements of Article 4 and the LMN zone district. The Staff Report summarizes the PDP's compliance with these standards and no specific evidence was presented to contradict or otherwise refute the compliance with Article 4 or the LMN District Standards. In particular, the single-family residential use is permitted within the LMN zone district subject to an administrative review. Further, the project provides more than the minimum average net residential density of 5.0 units/acre. See Section 4.4(D)(1) of the LUC. According to the staff report, the Project is also in conformance with Section 4.4(D)(2), standards relating to the mix of housing types, Section 4.14(D)(3) that requires at least 90% of the units to be located within 3/4 mile and including central feature or gathering place, Section 4.4 (D)(7) that requires all residential units to be within 1/3 mile of a neighborhood park, Section 4.4 (E)(1) requiring a street network with blocks that are less than 12 acres in area and no more than 700 feet in length, and Section 4.4(E)(3) calling for a maximum building height of 2'h stories. There was no direct testimony or evidence presented at the public hearing to contradict the Project's compliance with these standards. 3. Compliance with Article 3 of the Land Use Code — General Development Standards The project development plan complies with all applicable sections of Article 3 of the LUC as explained below. Lind PDP Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision May 8, 2003 Page 2 of 6 The Hearing Officer, presiding pursuant to the Fort Collins Land Use Code, opened the hearing at approximately 4:15 on May 8, 2003 in Conference Room A at 281 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. HEARING TESTIMONY, WRITTEN COMMENTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE: The Hearing Officer accepted during the hearing the following evidence: (1) Planning Department Staff Report; (2) application, plans, maps and other supporting documents submitted by the applicant and the applicant's representatives to the City of Fort Collins; and (3) a tape recording of public testimony provided during the hearing. The LUC, the City's Comprehensive Plan (City Plan), and the formally promulgated policies of the City are all considered part of the evidence considered by the Hearing Officer. The following is a list of those who attended the meeting: From the City: Bob Barkeen, City Planner Susan Joy, Development Review Engineer From the Applicant: Terrance Hoaglund, Vignette Studios Yvonne Seaman, Centex Homes Jim Allen -Morley, Sear Brown From the Public: Joseph W. Bleicher, 2509 N. County Road 11 Nick Yobbagy, 2005 Richards Lake Road Molly Sommerville, Esq, Krug & Sobel, LLC Attorneys Tom Dougherty Written Comments: Letter from Joseph W. Bleicker to Cameron Gloss dated May 8, 2003 Letter from Molly Sommerville to the Planning Commission/City Council dated May 6, 2003 Oil and Gas Lease between Centex Homes and Andarko Land Corp./ Andarko E & P Company LP City of Fort Collins Commu..Aty Planning and Environmental ervices Current Planning CITY OF FORT COLLINS ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER TYPE I ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DATE PROJECT NAME: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: OWNER: HEARING OFFICER: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: May 8, 2003 Lind Project Development Plan Vignette Studios 144 Mason Street, Suite 2 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Lind, Lawrence and Ottenhoff LLP 1011 Eleventh Avenue Greeley, CO 80632 Cameron Gloss Current Planning Director The Applicant has submitted a Project Development Plan (referred to herein as the "Project" or the "PDP") proposing 180 single family residential units on 45 acres located at the northeast corner of North County Road (NCR)l 1 and County Road (CR) 52. This is the first phase of the Lind Overall Development Plan. The project includes 105 street -accessed single family lots, ranging in size form 5,200 sq. ft. to 7,200 sq. ft., and alley -loaded lots ranging in size from 3,800 sq. ft. to 4, 800 sq. ft. The project includes a one -acre private park, and a connection to the City's proposed regional recreation trail. SUMMARY OF HEARING OFFICER DECISION: Approval ZONING DISTRICT: LMN — Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approved, with conditions NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer established no controversy or facts to refute that the hearing was properly posted, legal notices mailed and notice published. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020