HomeMy WebLinkAboutHEARTHFIRE PUD - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2003-11-03PARK OIL &- GAS. INC.
4415 SHORES DRIVE METAIRIE. LOUISIANA 10006
March 25, 1988
City of Fort Collins
Community Development Department
300 La Porte
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
Attention: Debbie Debesh
Re: Richards Lake Parcel "A"
Dear Ms. Debesh:
PHONE: 504I454.1090
Reference is made to the captioned application which is
scheduled for hearing on April 25, 1988. This letter of protest
is written regarding the referenced PUD application.
Park Oil & Gas, Inc. ("Park") is a mineral owner with
respect to Section 30, Township 8 North, Rance 68 West, Latimer
County, Colorado (the "lands") which will be affected by the
application. The lands are covered by a Surface Use Agreement
dated August. 3, 1978, between Russ iomerov (Park Oil a Gas,
Inc. Is predecessor in interest) and Mr. Hoffman's predecessor,
F.A. Gillespie, which Agreement was subsequently ratified by
Pomerov and Hoffman. Furthermore, a Unit Agreement was approved
b-., the Oil and Gas Commission on February 17, 1979, under which
the Working Interest Owners have the riche to use so much of the
surface of the land within the unit area as may be reasonably
necessary for the unit operations. To the extent that the
application includes lands.covered by these agreements. the
application is deficient in that it totally fails to recognize
Park's rights and interests.
An argument can be made, however, that Park is not bound by
either the Gillespie or the Hoffman Agreement since Pomeroy may
not have been bound by these Agreements. The deeds originally
severing the minerals expressly provided for the surface use by
the mineral owners. Even in the absence of such language, a
mineral owner has the right to use such portion of the surface as
is reasonably necessary for development of the minerals. Since
Pomeroy already had the right to use the surface estate,
Gillespie had no right to object to such use when Pomeroy applied
for drilling permits. Gillespie did no- own all minerals,
therefore, Gillespie may not have had the right to restrict
development of other people's minerals and the agreements in
question which purport to do that are restraints of trade and
1 understand that the Richard's Lake Master Plan may also be reactivated. Whiting again would like
to be involved in the process. Please inform me of the status of both of these projects, and mail a
set of documents to me at Whiting's Denver office.
Very truly yours,
Richard E. Fromm
Operations Mgr.- West
rccrccT YPL%. WPC
MARCH, LILEY & OLIVE, P.0
ARTHUR t,. MARCH. JR. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
LUCIA A LILLY 110 E OAK STREET
J. BRADFORD MARCH FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524-2880 ARTHUR E. MARCH
SIEWART W. OLIVE 1970) 482-4322 1908-1981
Fax f9701482-5719 —
November 19, 2001
Cam McNair
Frigineering
281 N. College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Re: Hcarthfire Filing I Development Agreement Amendment
I)car Cani:
In an earlier telephone conference with you, I stated our client's desire to finalize the
Amended Development Agreement for Filing I as soon as possible and not to get caught up in the
C1)0'1'/Larimcr('ountydiscussions. You told me that ifIcould provide You withacredible rationale
fora proposed paymentamount for Highway I /Douglas Road intersection improvements.. you would
consider finalizing the amendment.
We are in the process of preparing such a rationale and will submit it to you as soon as we
have obtained all of the additional information we need for its preparation.
We have also received from you the new draft of the amendment. We have some issues and
qucstionS in connection with the new language in that document, and will be responding in writing
to those matters in the near future.
Please call me with any questions.
Sincerely,
MARCH, LILE Y & OLIVE, P.C.
g !:
yi i
-'Luci4,A. Liley
LAL/Unm
cc: Tom Kennedy
APP OVED
By: ! ate: ll z 6 7 eA
City of Fort Collins
MEMORANDUM No Engineering Department
TO: Cam McNair, City Engineerl��plOt
TI IRU: Dave Stringer, Development Review Managuz�,
FROM: Sheri Wamhoff, CE 11 /�X-t,O
DATE: November 20, 2001
RE: Variance Request for Douglas Road associated with Hearthfire PUD, 2"d Filing
Request to reduce the right turn lane length requirement for the right turn lane
from Douglas Road onto Hearthfire Way.
In accordance with Section 8.2.6 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards and in
accordance with the comments from Traffic Operations the required right turn length is 405 feet
(200 foot bay taper and 205 foot frill width lane).
A variance request has been made to reduce the right turn lane length to 240 feet (90 foot bay
taper and 150 foot full width lane). In accordance with the traffic study done by Matt Delich
dated January 4, 2001 the intersection does not meet warrants that would require a right turn
lane.
Ward Stanford of Traffic Operations has reviewed this variance request and has given me his
verbal support of the variance request, therefore I recommend approval of this variance request.
If you have any questions, please call me at x7140. �—
Attachments
Transportation Services
Engineering Department
November 21, 2001
Mr. Michael Oberlander, PE
North Star Design, Inc.
700 Automation Drive, Unit 1
Windsor, Co 80550
RE: Douglas Road Plans associated with Hearthfire PUD I" Filing - variance request to
reduce the required right turn lane length.
Dear Michael,
This letter is in response to the variance request dated October 19, 2001 for the variance
request to reduce right turn lane length for the right turn lane being provided on Douglas
Road at Hearthfire Way.
The variance request is granted to reduce the right turn lane length to a total length of 240
feet (90 foot bay taper and 150 foot full width lane) for the right turn lane being provided
on Douglas Road at Hearthfire Way.
This variance request does not set a precedence or change the application of our design
standards in other situations. If you have any questions, please contact Sheri Wamhoff at
221-6750.
Sincerely,
Sheri Wamhoff, PE
cc: file
281 North College Avenue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6605 • FAX (970) 221-6378
www.fcgovcom
Transportation Services
:;, _run, Department
November 26, 2001
Lucia Lilev
Attorney At Law
110 E. Oak Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524-2880
RE Hearthfire Filing 1 Development Agreement Amendment
Dear Lucia:
Thank you for your letter of November 191h. It is my understanding from Mark Peterson
(County Engineer) that his consultant has completed a preliminary analysis and cost estimate
for the SFM at Dou las Road intersection. After some follow-up work by the consultants, it
appears that the County, and CDOT will be able to provide a rational allocation of intersection
improvement costs in the near future. I explained this to Tom Kennedy when he stopped by to
see me a couple weeks ago.
We, too, are anxious to complete the Hearthfire Filing 1 Development Agreement Amendment
as soon as possible. We look forward to receiving your comments on our draft.
Feel free to call me if you have any questions.
SIn-er�ly,
Cam McNlir
City Engineer
Cc: Sheri Wamhoff
..I c ". .A "1Lc 0 9o_n=ri0 _''�'� � ,n.;� .,Si?
MARCH, LILEY & OLIVE, P.0
ARTHUR E. MARCH, JR.
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
LUCIA A. LILEY
110 E OAK STREET
J. BRADFORD MARCH
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524-2890 ARTHUR E. MARCH
STEWART W. OLIVE
f9701482-4322 1908-1981
Fax (970) 482-5719
December 12, 2001
Cam McNair
City Frigincer
281 N. College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Re: Hearthfire PUD, 1" Filing/Amendment Agreement No. 2
Contribution to SH i/Douglas Road intersection improvements
Dcar Cam:
I have received your letter of November 26" where you infer that you will be relying on the
County and ('DO'] to come up with a rational allocation for the SII I/Douglas Road intersection
improvement costs. You will recall our earlier conversations where I have slated the Developer's
objection to an allocation that does not factor in the following: the intersection improvements were
a need that existed prior to the I Iearthfire approval; only a few of Hearthfire's trips go through the
intersection: Hearthfire is the source of only a fraction of the intersection's total traffic; and
1 Icarthlirc. Inc. is making a considerable contribution to the street system in the area by improving
North County Road 13 and Douglas Road, and by paying fees toward the Northeast Area Overlay
Project. Furthermore, the 1" Filing is an approved project, over which the County has no
.jurisdiction.
We are continuing to compile information to support a reasonable contribution to the
intersection improvements and hope to get that to you in the very near future.
Please call me with any questions.
Sincerely,
MARCH, LILEY & OLf V E,,P.C.
A. Liley
LAL/jpk
cc: I learthfire, Inc.
LkPJMER
COUNTY
January 4, 2002
Diversified Management & Development, Inc.
PO Box 3396
Englewood, CO 80155-3396
Attn: James C. Dunn
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Post Office Box 1190
Fort Collins. Colorado 80522-1190
(970)498-5700
FAX (970) 498-7986
e-mail: petersmr@co.larimer.co.us
Re: Douglas Road (CR 54)/Highway I Intersection Improvements Cost Estimate
Dear Mr. Dunn:
The Colorado Department of Transportation and their consultant, PBS&J, have prepared a preliminary cost
estimate to make necessary improvements to the Douglas Road (CR 54)/ State Highway 1 intersection. CLOT
surveyors collected field data to describe the existing intersection geometry. PBS&J then developed conceptual
ciesiLms for intersection improvement alternatives.
Alternative I — incremental shoulder widening to incorporate the southbound right from SH 1 onto Douglas
Road, left turn lanes on SH 1 and concrete curbing along the southwest comer of the intersection to help
address some of the safety concerns. Alternative I represents what CDOT would anticipate contributing
towards completion of improvements at this intersection. The cost to construct this alternative equals about
-
S56.000.
Alternative 3 — improvements identified for Alternative 1B, turn lane improvements needed on the east and
west legs of Douglas Road as well A a t orthbound right turn lane from SH 1 onto Douglas Road. The cost to
complete Alternative 3 totals about S323,000. The majority of these costs are associated with the eastern leg
of CR 54 because there are slope easements to be acquired and a fairly major irrigation crossing structure
needs to be extended in conjunction with the construction of the turn lanes on this portion of Douglas Road.
The differential cost to complete the improvements between the baseline condition (Alternative 1B) and the fully
improved condition (Alternative 3) is approximately S267,000. Larimer County has approximately S38,400 in
previously collected street fees that could be allocated towards improvements at this intersection. These Larimer
County funds were collected in conjunction with the Eagle Lake development and other developments located
west of SH 1. This leaves a balance of about S229,000 that is needed to fully fund the improvements at the
intersection.
During previous meetings, CDOT has indicated to us that if the funding needed to construct the local
improvements (turn lanes on Douglas Road, right turn lane from SH 1 onto Douglas Road) can be contributed to
this project, they will take responsibility for further design and construction of the necessary improvements.
We are also including the sumary report prepared for CDOT by PBS&J that describes their analysis of the
conditions at the intersectimon.
e,ilage�dunn letter re cdor eenm= for douglas 01-04-02.doc
Mr. James C. Dunn
January 4, 2002
Page 2.
Traffic conditions at -this intersection have been an impediment to our ability to support further development
along Douglas Road east of State Highway 1. This information from CDOT better identities the cost of the
needed improvements. Using this information as a basis for developing a workable cost sharing between CDOT,
Larimer County. the City of Fort Collins, the Hearthfire developer, and your proposed Hawthorne Village
development, should remove this impediment to your development.
I should receive the latest versions of the conceptual designs for the intersection from CDOT's 6onsultant next
week and will forward copies to you at that time.
Sincerely,
6�'- L �-
Mark R. Peterson, P.E.
County Engineer
Cam McNair — City of Fort Collins Engineering Department
Larry Haas — CDOT Region 4
Marc Engemoen — Larimer County Public Works
Mart Lafferty — Iatimer County Planning Department
-,r. daer,develoomem rev iem�hawmo me villaee:do" Ie Rerre cdot esumme for dou¢ias 01-04-OLdoe
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Post Office Box 1190
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190
(970) 498-5700
FAX (970) 498-7986
e-mail: mpeterson@larimer.org
January 7, 2002
City of Fort Collins
281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Attn: Cam McNair, City Engineer
Re: Douglas Road (CR 54)/Highway 1 Intersection Improvements Cost Estimate
Dear Cam
The Colorado Department of Transportation and their consultant, PBS&J, have prepared a preliminary cost
estimate to make necessary improvements to the Douglas Road (CR 54)/ State Highway I intersection. CDOT
surveyors collected Field data to describe the existing intersection geometry. PBS&J then initially developed
conceptual designs for four intersection improvement alternatives as follows:
• Alternative I A — restriping of existing roadway to incorporate a southbound right from Sfi I onto Douglas
Road
• Alternative I B — incremental shoulder widening to incorporate the southbound right, left turn lanes on SH I
and concrete curbing along the southwest corner of the intersection to help address some of the safety
concerns
• Alternative 2 — improvements identified for Alternative I B as well as turn lane improvements needed on the
east and west legs of Douglas Road
• Alternative 3 — making the improvements identified for Alternative 2 as well as a northbound right turn Zane
from SH I onto Douglas Road
During their investigation, CDO'F concluded that the existing structures located at the southeast corner of this
intersection would not have to be purchased to construct the right turn lane included in Alternative 3. Since this is
the only difference between Alternatives 2 and 3 and previous traffic studies and correspondence from the City of
Fort Collins to the Hearthfire developer pointed to the need for this turn lane, Alternative 2 was not considered in
further detail by CDOI . From the standpoint of cost estimating, they developed construction cost estimates for
Alternatives I B and 3. Alternative I B represents what CDOT would anticipate contributing towards completion
of improvements at this intersection. The cost to construct this alternative equals about $56,000.
The cost to complete Alternative 3 that includes the improvements represented in Alternative 1 B as well as the
turn lanes on Douglas Road and the right turn from SH I onto Douglas Road totals about $323,000. The majority
of these costs are associated with the eastern leg of CR 54 because there are slope casements to be acquired and a
fairly major irrigation crossing structure needs to be extended in conjunction with the construction of the turn
lanes on this portion of Douglas Road. The differential cost to complete the improvements between the baseline
condition (Alternative 1 B) and the fully improved condition (Alternative 3) is approximately $267,000. I,arimer
County has approximately $38,400 in previously collected street fees that could be allocated towards
improvements at this intersection. This leaves a balance of about $229,000 that is needed to fully fund the
improvements at the intersection.
cAlonipAmcnw, lots, a douglvs rood - s1, 1 01-03-02.doc
Mr. Cam McNair
January 3, 2002
Page 2.
We would like to get together with you to discuss where this leaves us with regard to potential contributions from
the Hearth ire and proposed Hawthorne Village developments. If it looks like there is a possibility of identifying
funding sources for the improvements, it would probably be beneficial to set up a meeting with CDOT.
During previous meetings, CDOT has indicated to us that if the funding needed to construct the local
improvements (turn lanes on Douglas Road, right turn lane from SH I onto Douglas Road) can be contributed to
this project, they will take responsibility for further design and construction of the necessary improvements.
Please give me a call when you have had a chance to look this over and we can set up a time to get together.
Sincerely,
Mark R. Peterson, P.E.
County Engineer
c: Larry Haas, Colorado Department of Transportation
Marc Engemoen, Latimer County Public Works
c Atenq,Amcnnir Iona m dougla, mad - sh 1 01-03-02 doe Pago 2 of
February 8, 2002
Project No: 1552-01-96
Sheri Wamhoff
City of Fort Collins Engineering Department
P.O. Box 580
Ft. Collins, Colorado 80524
Re: Tract .1, Hearthfire P.U.D. First Filing; Ft. Collins, Colorado
Community .Building Minor Amendment
Dear Sheri,
We are formally requesting an easement vacation for those portions of Tract J, Flearthfire P.U.D.
First Filing to define the building envelopes required for the Community Building, swimming
pool and covered picnic shelter noted on the approved Site Plan for Hearthfrre P.U.D. First Filing
by Jim Sell Design. We are also requesting the review and approval of the revised Tract J,
Fleaithtire P.U.D. First Filing revised Utility Plan and Grading Plan in order to complete the
Community Building Minor Amendment that was previously submitted by M Torgerson
Architects and approved by the Planning Department.
Attached are the easement vacation exhibits and the revised Grading Plan and Utility Plan for the
Ilearthfire P.U.D. First Filing Community Building Minor Amendment (Tract J, Hearthfrre
P.U.D. First Filing).
Please note that the parking lot access points were coordinated and installed with initial
Flearthtire P_U_D. First Filing infrastructure. Therefore, there will be no curb, gutter and walk
removal and reconstruction requirements. The curbcut for the driveway on the north side of Tract
J noted on the original approved plans was not installed. Therefore, there will be no curb, gutter
and walk removal and reconstruction at that location.
We recently noted your November 7, 2001 written comment concerning the parking lot setback
From Barn Swallow Drive. Attached is a copy of those written comments for immediate
reference_ We have asked MTA to review this item and modify the site plan accordingly. We
were under the impression that this Minor Amendment was theoretically approved in 1998, prior
to adoption of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards adopted January 2, 2001 _ Is the
parking space setback really applicable in this case?
We have visited with both the ELCO Water District and the Boxelder Sanitation District.
The existing water and sewer services shown on the "tract J Master Utility Plan are accurate. The
two water services will remain in tact. One is currently being used as an irrigation service and is
currently metered_ The other will be used for the Community Building.
There were also two (2) sewer services installed. One of the services will need to be abandoned.
the Boxelder Sanitation District has advised that the service at the manhole be abandoned so
that street cuts are not required_ A construction note directive and a Boxelder Sanitation District
approval block has been provided on the Tract J Utility Plan.
4830 S Collcgc, Suitc 12 Fr Collins, CO 80525 (970) 226-5331 Pax (970) 282-031 I Nvww.shcarcnginccring.com
aLL4i1SC 'i. =yy7
Jir
:Oro _n5 --O :0redo J31).724
ENGINEERING DEPT, NOTE:
THIS REPRESENTS THE BEST
QUALITY IMAGE POSSIBLE TAKEN
FROM VERY POOR QUALITY
ORIGINALS
`i ?:._•�7
1.4 711 r,.. tp ,'711� _ r'. � ..,ir
OL -.li, !a TJ_ea Se llo`_ ae a=- �07�' _= a ."'t;._
O- ^Ort (.Ot.4 ns da—eri 7 tt'
Qli. ors ;On Cern_in? c: a1n. "'1 zn-
C nC, an Orin on O= the :as_c o= `7C S? _ _ 1L5 3-",? 5e _..
C 'ais
�. tho!i.^.is letter Was wr_; ._:en ov t:i e .rev'_.o'is Owner
OC Cne mineral in-erestan^ c„nr''_ _ ti1IIr roc?_!en _.lies,
ref:lalns iuSt as facruaI since y.,e same sur.ace ln:' ;.ilnera
i_1Cere3ts are ';Le.;riOn
f On 15 as S 15tS :o!. _._ vp1L e1: f0 'ts rn 11rICa US T. an
%11e crnnect lnn nelween -rle d_ t__.i i_= LaI1Q LL.sB Q'_BS^..0 ris v011
a,F011 have other c!le�.._or concern.5 ,-Ol1 Lee: ..
TO answer. 171ease (Jo nOT. (leSi_'Te 'CO OC!173CT IDe.
Hesnect=uiLv,
&J &4
Robert Dale Waiters
Project No: 1552-01-96 February S, 2002
Re: Tract J, Iearthfire P.U.D. First Filing; Ft. Collins, Colorado
Conununity 111ildina Minor Amendment
The I learthfire P.U.D. First Filing drainage intent has not changed.
If you have any questions or require additional information concerning the Hearthfire P.U.D.
First Piling Comippnity Building Minor Amendment, please call at (970) 226-5334.
E
BWS / dh
attachments
cc_ Tom Kennedy; (learthfire, Inc.
Bill Yunker; Clarion Mortgage Capital
Tom Dugan; PineCrest Development Company LLC
Mika] Torgerson; NITA
John Walz; Builder
ELCO Water District
Boxelder Sanitation District
Page 2
MARCH, LILLY & OLIVE P.0
LUCIA A. LILEY
ATTORNEYS AND '"OUNSELOHS AT LAW
ARTHUR E MARCH
J. 9RAUFOm MARCH
110 E. qAK STREET_ SATE 200
1908-1961
SIEWART W. OLWF
FORT CDAINS, COLORA00 HECK 2880
ARTHUR E. MAR01 JR.
07D 482-4322
RNM 2001
ax M/W 4SX509
February IA 2002
Cam McNair
City 1?nginecr HAND DELIVERED
281 N. College Avenue
Dort Collins, CO 80521
Rc: I learthfire PUD, 1 i1 Filing/Amendment Agreement No. 2
Contribution to SH ldkuglas Read intersection improvements
I)car Cam:
I?nclosed is another draft of the Amendment Agreement No. 2 into which we have
ncorpor�ted a Few minor revisions fol you rzcicw. Please note, Wat in order to expedite resokaion
of the issues and execution of the Amendment, the Developer agrees to obtain all easements
ncccssai r [or construction of the Douglas Road Improvements as you have proposed. Also, we note
that you have removed the stetcutcntfrorn P uaflraph FVAL regaraing the Second Filing's per lotlet-,
Ar the Northeast Arca Overlay Project. V"e assume drat is because you intend to include a similar
provi,ion in the Development Agrecrrcnt For the Second Filing. This is acceptable, however, we
would iil:c you to a;nfinn in writing that the Second i ding s per lot fee will be based upon the same
set orcost estimates.
Finally, the Devcloper proposes to pay a total of 530.000 to the County for the SII I Wriglas
Road intersection impr wn-icnts under Paragraph Q& on Page 4. This amount is intended to fi Q
satisfy the City s reyucst Ior Contribution to rite intersection improvement costs for the entire
I Ie ukhre development. both First and Second Filings. We believe this to be rcasornaitic since Ile
contribution is tied to the Douglas Road Improvements, which are the Developer's orf-sit: gtc,.t
improvement obligation For the c hire nrojcet. If the City would prefer to have the DCvclnper poly
the total sure paid in t, ,o instaihuents. one -with cacti tiiing, the Developer v,ould ah,rce provided,
h(wcvcr, that we have )'our commitment in th_t the local amount will not be increased.
II fie amount of the Developer's propno od contribuLon to the SI FIDouglas Road intersection
improvements is based upon the following factors:
There have been no changes 4T the nature, density or intensity of the Hcarthfire
PUD that warrant additional obligations for off -site street improvements. The
i icartlafirc PIJD Prclinrinnry encoma �t_sing the entire 11eaTthlirc dcadopment. Y',as
apprnved by the City in i994 hosed on the traffic inapaea orlhLe entire developmcut
and negotiations amonc [he (ity. Wriny and lll;v�l;yrer. the Ficarthfire's off -site
street improvcnienrohFigat 1Lsle redetermin�d(ovcrinvimprovemen to Dough;
Road troll] licartlifire Wm n°art Ibs ppro<;mai:cly 1.25 miles to 5111) and the
obligation to constru,-t o,as tied to the First Filing.
Cam McNair
February 14,2002
Page 2
The original set of required improvements transitioned to the existing SHf/Douglas
Road intersection, however, it was determined that improvements to the actual
intersection were not the responsibility of this development. Although build out of
the First Filing and approval of the Second Filing Final have taken a number ofyears,
thcr has been no increase in the number of dwelling units that would increase the
amount of traffic generated by the project and the conclusions of the original traffic
studies are still valid. 'I he City subsequently agreed to have the Douglas Road
Improvements go from I Iearthf ire Way cast to the CR 1 1 intersection. This change
did not affect the traffic impact of the development on the SHI/Douglas Road
intersection.
Intersection improvements were warranted prior to Hearthfireand Hearthfire
will only contribute a fraction of the total intersection traffic at full buildout.
fhe Developer's traffic consultant, Matt Delich, has analyzed the SI I I /Douglas Road
intersection and devised a methodology for sharing costs to improve the intersection,
a copy of which is attached. Based on actual traffic counts for 2000 and projected
traffic for 2006.. Mr. Delich concludes that: (i) existing traffic (2000), prior to any
si gni f icanl contribution by Hearthfire, warranted improvement of the intersection; (ii)
in the short range future (2006). the background traffic will contribute over 90°/) of
the total intersection traffic; and (iii) Hearthfire will only contribute 5.5`%of the total
intersection traffic in the short range future.. even assuming full buildout of both the
FirstandSecondFilings. BasedonMr.Delich'smethodology,and particularly given
the fact that these improvements were not a condition of development approval, we
believe that the absolute maximum amount that could possibly be argued as having
a reasonable or rational nexus to I Iearthfire's impact, would be 5.5% of the cost of
the necessary improvements.
• Larimer County has no jurisdiction over the extentof Hearthfire's off -site street
improvement obligations. Although the Developer is willing to make a negotiated
contribution to this County intersection in addition to what the City has determined
to be the project's off -site obligations, (learthfire cannot be required to make up for
County projects that have made only minimal contributions (Terry Cove, Point
fownhomes and La -le Lakc) or no contribution (Douglas Farms Exemption). nor is
I learthfire subject to the County's adequate public facilities requirements, as arc
other pending County projects which will impact the intersection (Iawthorne Village
Conservation Development). Lvcn the Board of County Commissioners recognized
the different legal position of Hearthfire during discussion of the Hawthorne Village
Conservation Development, acknowledging that it was an approved City project
which had not been required to make improvements to the intersection and over
which the Board had no jurisdiction.
• Hearthfire is already making significant contributions to the area street system.
In addition to paying engineering costs for the original and current versions of the
Douglas Road improvements (S 120,000 and $60,000. respectively) and an estimated
Cam McNair
February 14, 2002
Page 3
$175.000 to the City for construction of the Douglas Road Improvements, the
Developer is also making improvements to North County Road 13 (approximately
$131,000), constructing a connection to the Richard's Lake PUD (approximately
$22,000). and contributing an csti mated $30,000 towards the Northeast Area Overlay
Project on a per lot basis collected with building permit fees.
Larimer County's Alternative 3 improvements exceed what is necessary. I have
provided Matt Delich with a copy of the County correspondence to the Hawthorne
Village developer, which you had recently provided to Tom Kennedy. In the event
that the County elects the more comprehensive set of improvements (Alternative 3).
we Would object to any calculation of Hearthfire's contribution based on this
alternative's estimated costof$323,000. First of all, Mr. Delich does not believe that
the left turn lanes on the east and west legs of Douglas Road are necessary for safe
and acceptable operation of the intersection. In fact, even CDOT's consultant, PBS
& .I, only recommends installation of these turn lanes in the future as a way of
extending an acceptable level of service after 2006. Furthermore, according to
County Engineer, Mark Peterson, a major part of Alternative 3's estimated cost is for
extension of the irrigation crossing structure over Douglas Road and for obtaining
slope casements along Douglas Road, all of which is only necessary for construction
of' the ICft turn lanes, which our consultant does not believe are necessary.
In conclusion. I stress that the Developer's proposed contribution is considerably higher than
even the percentage of Hearthfire's impact on the intersection applied to the highest cost estimates
(5.5'%, x $ 323,000 = $17,765). In light of all of the above factors, we request your concurrence with
a $30,000 cash contribution to the SH I/Douglas Road intersection improvements.
Please contact me as soon as possible with your response, so that we may proceed with
finalization of the Amendment Agreement No. 2.
Sincerely,
MARCH, LIL-EY & OLIVE P.C.
A. Li
I.N./jpk
Enclosure
cc: I learthfire, Inc.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
•
COMMITTED TO EXCELLENCE
February 25, 2002
City of Fort Collins
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Arm- Mr. Cam McNair, City Engineer
Re: SH 1/Douglas Road Intersection Improvements
Dear Cam:
Post Office Box 1190
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190
(970)498-5700
FAX (970) 498-7986
e-mail: mpeterson@larimer.org
We have reviewed the materials that you provided concerning the Hearthfire development and their proposed
contribution towards improvements at the SH I/Douglas Road intersection. The materials that you provided
included a letter from Ms. Lucia Liley dated February 14, 2002, a memorandum from Matt Delich dated January
28, 2002 describing a proposed cost sharing methodology, and a proposed copy of the Hearthfire PUD, 1" Filing
Amendment Agreement No. 2.
In her letter, Ms. Liley notes the original traffic study for the development identified the need for off -site
improvements on Douglas Road to the west rather than to the east. She also states a determination was made that
improvements to the intersection were not the responsibility of this development. The County has consistently
disagreed with the City's position that improvements to the east are an acceptable substitute for improvements to
the west and with the determination that this development has no responsibility for improvements to the
SH1/Douglas Road intersection. It appears unlikely the City will reconsider these positions, so we will focus our
comments on the developers' proposal to contribute $30,006 for intersection improvements.
Going back to the original traffic study for this development, the short range site generated traffic (peak hour)
would double the number of westbound left turns and northbound right turning movements compared to the
average of the recent 2000 data (Figure 2 in Matt Delich's memo of January 28, 2002). This is the same
conclusion that was shown in the original 1996 traffic study when comparing actual peak hour data to projected
peak -hour site generated traffic. It is very difficult to understand how this could equate to having responsibility
for a share of only 5.5 % of the required turn lane improvement costs at the intersection. The highest
improvement costs are associated with the east leg of the SH I/Douglas Road intersection and are proportionately
attributable to the Hearthfire development. Although the SH I/Douglas Road intersection will apparently meet
the minimum urban LOS standard (LOS D) without east and westbound turn lanes under the short term (2006), it
will be at LOS F without such lanes in the long-term. The Hearthfire traffic will be a major contributor to the
short- and long-term LOS functioning of this intersection. Eric Bracke, City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineer
reviewed the various traffic studies in the area of Douglas Road and SH 1 and made recommendations concerning
geometric improvement requirements. He concluded that the westbound left turn lane and the northbound right
turn lane "could be placed on the developer of Hearthfire".
Matt Delich has taken an unusual approach to the determination of the contribution of area developments
(including Hearthfire) to the required intersection improvements. He has simply aggregated morning and evening
peak -hour counts, calculated an average and then computed the Hearthfire share of the improvement cost as a
percentage of total traffic through the intersection. This approach totally ignores the specific contribution of the
developments to the requirements for turn lanes. For example, if we had an intersection where there were no
c Uemptr cnair letter re sh 1-douglas 1-25-02. doc
Mr. Cam McNair
February 25, 2002
Page 2.
existing turning movements taking place and a development came in that created turning movements and the need
for a turn lane, Mr. Delich's approach would consider the development's contribution to be proportionate to the
percentage of traffic relative to the entire volume through the intersection. The intent of this approach is clearly to
transfer responsibility for development -related impacts from the developer to the general public.
Of the long-term needs, the average peak hour turning movements generated by Hearthfire will represent about
27% (27 of 99) of the total westbound left turns and about 29% (30 of 105) of the northbound right turns at this
intersection. If we look at the cost needed to make the Alternative 3 improvements of $323,000 and subtract the
$56,000 that CDOT would cover to make the necessary improvements to SH 1, the remaining "local" requirement
is $267,000. If we proportion Hearthfire's contribution to these needed improvements relative to the traffic that
they are generating that will use these improvements (and this approach is definitely to their benefit as compared
to attributing costs to each "leg" of the intersection), then a more realistic contribution would be $72,000 (27% of
$267,000).
Ms. Liley correctly observes that this is a City of Fort Collins development and Larimer County has no
jurisdiction over what is required and/or negotiated between the Hearthfire developer and the City with respect to
off -site improvements. The City has asked the County to review and comment on this matter, but we clearly
understand it is up to you to determine what conditions you will impose on the Hearthfire developer and how the
funding that you are collecting from them will be used to make off -site improvements. Again, the County has
been consistent in its position that improvements to the east on Douglas Road should not be a substitute for
improvements to the west, and that Hearthfire should be responsible for a significant contribution to the cost of
turn lanes at the SH1/Douglas Road intersection.
We believe it is unlikely that the new paving of Douglas Road and CR 11 to the east and south and the new
widened bike lanes will "attract" drivers in that direction rather than towards the SH I/Douglas Road intersection.
We also believe that if the City accepts Hearthfire's proposal to contribute only $30,000 to the cost of intersection
improvements, turn lanes will only be constructed when the intersection becomes a high priority for limited public
funds.
Cam, it appears the positions of the parties in this matter have not changed over the many months we have been
discussing this. There is no point in prolonging the matter. Please simply advise us what the City's final decision
with regard to Hearthfire is so that the County carl decide what actions to take with respect to interim
improvements at the intersection and with respect to conditions of approval for County developments in this area.
Sincerely,
Mark R. Peterson, P.E.
County Engineer
c:Uemp4mcnair le cr m rh I-dwgla %25-02.doc Page 2 ar2
Shen Wamhoff - Douglas Road @ SH-1 Page 1
From:
Cam McNair
To:
Mark Peterson
Date:
Mon, Mar 11, 2002 10:53 AM
Subject:
Douglas Road @ SH-1
Mark,
After a couple of meetings with Tom Kennedy, one of the principals and the spokesperson for the
Hearthfire development, we have reached agreement on the extent of Hearthfire's contribution to the
Douglas Rd @ SH-1 intersection.
Hearthfire agrees to pay a total of $66,750.00 toward the necessary improvements to the intersection.
That figure represents 25% of the estimated $267,000.00 local share for the improvements. A review of
the traffic studies for Hearthfire indicates that this development's impacts, especially on the westbound
left -turns and northbound right -turns, can be interpreted as roughly proportional to 25% of the impacts to
the Douglas Road approaches to the intersection, over the long-term future.
The Hearthfire development agreements will be amended to reflect this settlement. The $66,750 will be
paid as follows: $35,000 in a lump -sum payment to the County within 30 days after execution of the
Hearthfire 1st Filing development agreement amendment, and the additional $31,750 paid as a surcharge
to the remaining 87 building permits in Hearthfire's 1st and 2nd Filings (or $365 per building permit). The
$31,750 will be collected by the City and forwarded to the County when requested for funding of the
intersection improvements project. An inflation factor will be applied for those building permits that are
issued more than a year from now.
This contribution will be in addition to Hearthfire's other off -site improvements to Douglas Road, County
Road-11, Mountain Vista Drive, and Timberline Road north of International Boulevard. It will also be in
addition to payment of the normal City Street Oversizing fees and County Regional Road impact fees.
Let me know if you have any questions on this.
Cam
CC: Dave Stringer; Gary Diede; Matt Baker, Sheri Wa...
Sheri Wamhoff - douglas road Page 1
From: Sheri Wamhoff
To: Matt Baker
Date: Mon, Apr 1, 2002 11:50 AM
Subject: douglas road
Matt
I am putting a copy of the wetland mitigation plan for Douglas road into your box. I wanted to get copies of
this to you to make sure that the estimate for the Douglas road improvements of $381,386.98 is adequate
to cover the cost of the mitigation needed.
Please let me know as soon as possible if this number needs to be adjusted as this amendment will
probably be finalized this week.
I also need to get from you a copy of the "Interim Improvements for County Roads 9E and 1 V and dated
February 11, 2002 which is to be attached to the amendment agreement.
Thanks for the help. Sheri
CC: Cam McNair
Transportation Services
Engineering Department
I
Citv of Fort Collins
Mr. Harry Roberts
914 Elgin Court
Fort Collins, Co. 80524
RE: Drive approach at 1403 Waxwing Lane
Dear Mr. Roberts,
After receiving your drive approach application I visited the project site at 1403
Waxwing Lane with the City's Chief Engineering Inspector Lance Newlin. After
evaluating your proposal and looking at the project site the City does not agree
with your assessment of just removing the curb head and installing fillets at the
curb. At a minimum the sidewalk section will need to be removed and replaced
with a driveway to provide access to your garage, provided the assess ramp
condition is not altered. Lance suggests that when the dirt has been completely
removed from the sidewalk and the ramp portion at the street side, you call him
at 221-6605. Lance will then again visit the site and assist you with what will be
an acceptable drive approach and access ramp combination within the public
right -of- way.
I have enclosed your drive approach application and the accompanying sketch
drawings. When you are ready to contact and meet with Lance please bring
these items with you.
Sincerely,— —
David Stringer ,J
Development review Manager
Cc: Lance Newlin, Chief Engineering Inspector
r.omw • ;'.C.3oxi80 - rort(-Alirls,CC80KI-0580 • 970) 1-no£)5 • AX,97 1�21 „373
.vww..c ov.com
PERMIT NUMBER:
Engineering Department DR[ Application Date:
281 North College Ave. EXPIRATION: 30 DAYS FROM DAT F APPROVAL
ioi�. Fort Collins, CO 80524 Non -Refundable Fee: °O a heck #
�d I . Irf
Phone. (970) 221-6605 Fax (970) 221-6378 Acct #101-000000-322901 2 . o
PERMIT FOR DRIVE APPROACH IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
(Minimum of 48 HOURS required for City Engineer's approval)
APPLICANT NAME e —t rL1 C "PC, PHONE 5 yy
COMPANY
ADDRESS. Y
CITY/STATE/ZIP
SUB -CONTRACTOR NAME: 7'• ,C� PHONE
Construction Work Performed by Property Owner Licensed Concrete Contractor
Is the Contractor licensed and bonded with the City to do work in the public right-of-way % YES NO
Property Owner's Name
Project Address.
Existing Curb and GuU
— —Hollywood
__Rollover/Driveover
Vertical
Commercial
Residential
Install New Drive Approach
Widen Existing Drive Approach
Repair an Existing Driveway or
Drive Approach Without Alterations
_TInstall New Driveway
Close Existing Driveway
Arterial Street
_Residential Street
Collector Street
State Highway
Other
`TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN SUBMITTED: YES NO ,
(NOTE. If curb cut is on College Avenue, State Highway, arterial street, or collector street, a Traffic Control Plan mu;
e submitted
and approved by the Traffic Engineer poor to the City Engineer's approval).
'*WILL TREES, SHRUBS OR OTHER VEGETATION BE DISTURBED: YES NO
(NOTE: If yes, a separate permit must be obtained from the City Forester at no additional charge).
J 5 Driveway up to I5' in width(s)
Additional footage in excess of 15' an additional charge of $.30 per foot
Vehicular access to/from a State Highway*
I'OTAL FEET
AMOUNT DUE
4 $ 5.00
( S .30 _
@ $25.00
$ rN
* Nonvithsmnding the foregoing, if anv driveway is proposed to be constructed providing vehicular access to or from a State Highway,
the permit fee for such driveway shall he S25.00 regardless of width or use of the driveway.
AppIcatu agrees to provide the Depanment of Engineering with an active or continuous surety bond in the amount of $10.000, issued by a suret%
cmnpany authorized to do business in the State of Colorado. upon application. If the property owner pertorms the work, a concrete license and
bond is not required (sec Ilse hack side of this form for certain provisions of the City Code that are or may be applicable to this permit).
Applicant has read the hunt and back of this permit and agrees to abide be theCity of Fort Collins Standard Plans and Specifications and to such
special conditions, restrictions, and regulations as may by imposed by [hrhJirgctor of Engineering. Applicant agrees to telephone the Engineering
Inspection Recorder at 221-6009. 24 IIOl1I�RIOR to any core/nsuan m thYupµblic right of -way. Inspections are required before and after
cnncreic is poured
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURL. DATE: —
CITY ENGINEER APPROVAL:
DA IT
'--RI N C ollcec Avenue. 22 I-6605
*CITY TRAFFIC FNGINEER APPROVAL. __----,-----DATE:
?35 Mathews tit '-31-6608
**CffYFO RL', HIR.APPROVAL: - __ _ SATE
413 S 13nant281 N. College,'21-6640
White - 'ungtneennq Pink - Customer Yellow - Inspection Gold - Revenue
FROM WHITING PETROLEUM
10.26.1995 16:51 P.02
October 26, 1995
Mr. Jim Sell
117 E. Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
WHITING
Nmor
Re: Information gathered for October 27th Meeting
Your Heffinan Planned Unit Development
Section 30-TSN-R68W Latimer County, Colorado
Dear Mr. Sell:
Per our phone conversation on October 24th this letter includes information which Whiting wants
to discuss at our subject meeting. Dale Walters gathered most of the background data, I made a few
phone calls and looked through the State Oil and Gas Commission regulations.
Whiting's concerns are that high density development of the land will:
1. Be unsafe unless safety measures and adequate setbacks are maintained between oilfield
equipment and buildings, roads, and other occupied areas.
2. Interfere with oilfield operation due to limited access and well pad sizes and inability to secure
permits due to current and future Commission spacing regulations.
3. Lead to perennial conflict between the future homeowners and the oil company concerning noise,
traffic, dirt, spills, odor, visual impairment, etc. In addition, excavation in streets or yards may be
required to repair or install piping or for earthen pits. The purchasers of your homes will probably
not realize the consequences of living in an oilfield when they buy; later, they will blame the oil
company for the land use conflicts; by then the development will be complete and the developers
long gone.
Our inquiries about mobile well service equipment has turned up the following information:
1, Typical well service rigs have a mast height of up to 107' above ground surface. They weigh up
to 120,0009 (52,000 4 on the front wheels and 68,0004 on the rear). Their highway length with mast
retracted is about 55', width is a little under 10% and height is just under 15'. Guy cables would need
to be anchored in a 127' by 127' square centered on the well,
NMn MG PETROLEUM CORPORATION
MILE HIGH CEMMFL 1700 BROADWAY, SURE 2WO. DENVER, COLORADO 80280.2301 (3 M 837.1861 FAX (303) 8614023
4804 REPUBLIC TOWERS II, 30 N. Sr. PAUL ST,, DALLAS, TX TSE01 (214) 741-1860 FAX (214) 220-3840
An TES INDU=M Company
fv
q'
Q o
�,.Sb ob,LS S
0
I' q .5001
0
/^ y
������ �C!��� u�;n�j `'� rl�_
,�
I.
C�/[�/ � �
�t� C ��/
� � � /, � �
`d- i--�r J2r !'J � � y
�> / � /
/ Z �/ (/� - i�.�.
l !;�/ljf 11�2 r J � LL/ -.7/ Cie i.,✓'[�. l L j/Cr e=�G�,�C��/'\ �i
r�CQ C':'l �:'�c.� �l�'v!�
,� �
�� g�
ARTHUR E. MARC", JR
RAMSEY D. MYATT
ROBERT W. GRANTER JR
RICHARD S. GAST
LUCIA A. LILEY
J. BRADFORD MARCH
LINDA 5. MILLER
JEFFREY J. JOHNSON
MARCH & MYATT, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
110 EAST OAK STREET
PORT COLLINS. COLORADO 80n24-2880
(070)482-4322
TELECOPIER (970) 482-303B
August 5, 1996
ARTHUR E. MARCH
1909-1981
MAILING ADDRESS:
P.O. BOX A69
FORT COLLINS, CO 80522-0A69
Mr. Gary Diede
Engineering Department
City of Fort Collins VIA HAND DELIVERY
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
RE: Hearthfire PUD/Request for Variance from
Street Design Criteria
Dear Gary:
As has been discussed with City staff on several occasions,
the developer of Hearthfire PUD is requesting a variance from the
City's Street Design Criteria (the "Criteria"), approved in July
1986 and on file in the City's engineering office.
Section 1.02.01 of the Criteria permits a variance from its
regulations under certain circumstances.
"As with any design criteria, occasions may arise
where the minimum standards are either inappropriate or
cannot be justified economically. In these cases a
variance to these criteria shall be considered. Written
request for each variance should be directed to the City
Engineer."
on behalf of the developer, I am requesting a variance from
Section 1.02.05 of the Criteria related to Street Lighting
Standards. The request is to reduce the required number of street
lights to two lights at the intersection locations indicated on the
attached Exhibit "A". The basis for the request is that it would
be inappropriate to fully comply with City lighting standards in an
area that is essentially surrounded by existing large -lot, rural
County development which has no street lighting of any kind.
A density variance for Hearthfire PUD has been requested which
would reduce the required density from 3.0 dwelling units per acre
Mr. Gary Diede
August 5, 1996
Page 2
to 1.4, permitting much larger lots which would be more compatible
with the neighborhood and more suitable to the unique conditions of
the site and its surrounding rural environment (see attached
Exhibit "B" - Justification for Density Variance).
A street lighting variance is justifiable for largely the same
reasons as those for the density variance: It is simply
inappropriate to require full urban standards in a largely rural
area with the: unique conditions detailed in Exhibit "B". The
project sits on a somewhat higher elevation than surrounding
properties, especially where the largest lots are planned, a
situation that worsens the problem of City street lights in the
project --they will be very visible to neighbors. Street lights at
the required intervals would have a negative visual impact in this
rural setting. The County residents in this area consider City
street lights to be very undesirable. These residents fully
support and encourage the granting of this street lighting
variance.
A traffic study has been done showing minimal traffic and
acceptable levels of operations on streets within the project. The
plan provides for a significant network of pedestrian/equestrian
trails through the site.
r In connection with the granting of this variance, the
developer is willing to offer the following conditions:
(1) A full written disclosure of the street lighting variance
to all purchasers of lots within the Hearthfire PUD;
(2) Covenant provisions ensuring that all future owners are
aware of the lighting variance and requiring that in the
event the owners successfully petition the City for
additional street lighting the cost must be borne by the
homeowners, association; rr is m d5 G y
M v.c l, �
f ,� n«.�✓4 a Sz , c ,
(3) The street lighting will be noted on the PUD Site Plan so
that any changes will require an amendment to the PUD,
thereby ensuring that neighbors will have an opportunity
J to be heard on the issue; and
A (4) The Covenants will require that each residence has a
Sett'
1 d ✓ lighted street address, visible from the nearest street.
I will be out of the office until August 12th. If you have
h questions regarding the requested location of the street lights
shown on Exhibit "A" or any other questions, please call the
project planner, Jim Sell, at 484-1921. I will call you after I
get back regarding the status of this request. - --
G'Y� I� a• � �rPlu.
P i
Mr. Gary Diede
August 5, 1996
Page 3
Thank you for your continuing cooperation.
Sincerely,
LAL/glr
Attachments
cc: Bill Yunker
Jim Sell
No Text
o Its F
{III t� Illiliu, It � i , I lij i�lm lli� � s
�i-
��
iml {! itpi l,iii �,! ll I !I I' �°qq 9SII III HIIHim ! I
j II{ 11Il�jj t l
li`s°pliIEfIlIliI°t It
°fI��IljIlEIEii�'IRltlI,t
$m °9
° a �
lip
Jg SIT
IN
i+
m
N
V
ill;II°.. HEARTHFIRE P.U.D.
(• : g c s PRELIMINARY SITE AND LAP DS"PE PLAN
W
V
i
Ft. Collins, Colorado
eF�al
EXHIBIT
I nnn
JUSTIFICATION FOR DENSITY VARIANCE FOR HEARTHFIRE
The applicant is requesting a variance from Chart A-1.12,
Attachment A to Section 29-526 of the City Code requiring that the
overall average residential density, on a gross -acreage basis, be
3.0 dwelling units per acre. The requested variance is for a gross
acreage overall density of 1.4 dwellings units per acre, for a
total of 147 residential units on this 105-acre parcel.
Section 29-526K of the City Code permits the Planning and
Zoning Board to grant variances from the provisions of the LDGS if
the applicant can demonstrate one of four grounds for the variance.
The plan for Hearthfire PUD, as submitted with the density variance
request, meets; the following tests, either of which is sufficient
for the granting of a variance:
(1) That by reason of exceptional topographical, soil or
other subsurface conditions or other conditions peculiar
to the site, undue hardship would be caused to a
subdivider by the strict application of any provisions of
this; section;
(2) That: the plan as submitted is equal to or better than
such plan incorporating the provision for which a
variance is requested.
Conditions Peculiar to the Site
There are a number of conditions of the site and its
surrounding area which support the granting of a density variance,
particularly when the conditions are considered as a whole.
The project is adjacent to the northern boundary of both the
City limits and the City's Urban Growth Area. It is essentially a
"finger" of land reaching into an entirely rural area, being
surrounded on three sides by established County development, much
of which consists of large County acreages of a distinctly rural
character. This fact is well illustrated in the attached aerial
photo which has superimposed a computer -generated image of the
project into the area (see attached Exhibit "A"). Given the site
configuration and the nature and character of the surrounding uses
on three sides, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to
accommodate urban density development on the site and have it be
considered compatible with the large surrounding neighborhood of a
very different density and character.
This problem is made even more difficult by existing
conditions on the site as well as constraints imposed by off -site
conditions. There are three wetland areas, two on -site and one
immediately adjacent to the project. All of these will be
preserved as important wetland linkages to the larger ecosystem.
The project is also adjacent to Richard's Lake. Sensitivity to,
and preservation of, these natural areas dictate a different
treatment and density than with a parcel without these features.
It should be noted that the net developable area of the project at
the density proposed is 1.9 dwelling units per acre rather than 1.4
dwelling unit" per acre calculated on a gross -acreage basis.
In addition to the wetlands and the lake, oil and gas wells
exist both on and off site, a condition believed to be unique to
this northern area of the City and its Urban Growth Area. While
oil and gas wells operate safely and compatibly with residential
development in many areas of Colorado and throughout the United
States, density is clearly a significant factor in being able to
develop a project because there are many site constraints
associated with the operation of oil and gas wells. These include
sufficient setbacks from the wells, adequate berming and buffering
to protect the residential uses from the impacts of the wells and
preservation of access roads and utilities for the operation of the
oil and gas wells. It is obviously much more difficult to
compatibly accommodate urban density development when this
condition is present.
Finally, there is a significant amount of equestrian activity
around the site. This use is much better accommodated with lesser
density and correspondingly less traffic, noise and other impacts
from urban development. The revised plan with reduced density has
allowed the incorporation of this equestrian use throughout the
project by providing pedestrian/equestrian trails and connections.
Taking into account the combined effect of all of the noted
existing conditions, a density variance would not only seem
justified but preferable to a strict adherence to an urban density
policy which would place twice the number of proposed units in an
area not well• -suited to that level of density.
Equal to or Better Than
Neighborhood compatibility of the project has been the major
issue: How to make a project with 3.0 dwelling units per acre fit
onto a site and into a larger neighborhood with all of the
conditions noted above. The key compatibility issue has been
density. A density reduced to the level proposed permits a better
plan which is sensitive to, and compatible with, existing
conditions of the site and the neighborhood. The neighborhood
fully supports the requested density variance and believes it to be
the only way that a project could be compatible with the unique
combination of features of this northern area.
The proposed plan is also better because it provides a very
necessary transition between all of the lower density, rural County
uses and the Richards Lake PUD, a proposed City development to the
south of the site (see Exhibit "A"). The Richards Lake project has
2
an approved ODP with urban density development. The largest lots
within this development are to the north, adjacent to Hearthf ire
PUD. Hearthfire PUD is perfectly situated to provide comparably -
sized urban -type lots in the southern portion of its development
and then transition into the northern portion with large estate -
type lots which are more compatible with the larger County acreages
to the north, east and west. This type of transitioning would seem
to address recent comments made by several Planning and Zoning
Board members and City Council members concerning the need for a
"softer" edge on some of the City's boundaries.
With the requested variance, the project would also seem to be
conceptually :supported by the City's newly -adopted Structure Plan
(see attached Exhibit "B") which has denoted much of the northern
Urban Growth Area, including this site, as "Urban Estate" while
placing the area to the south, which includes Richards Lake PUD,
into "Low DensitV Mixed -Use Residential".
Finally, Larimer County, into which this site largely
intrudes, has reviewed the revised plan with reduced density and is
in favor of it.
01
FROM WHITING PETROLEUM
10.26.1995 16:52 P.03
2. Drilling rigs reach about 145' above ground surface. They take 20+ truck loads to deliver. Trucks
have a maximum loaded weight of 120,000#, 20' width, 17' height, and 60' turning radius.
Additionally the derrick is 140' long and could hit obstructions beyond the truck turning radius. The
location size for spotting a drilling rig, digging a reserve pit, and allowing for trucks to erect the rig
and to turn around and deliver supplies is about 300' by 300'.
3. Many different types of vehicles are required to maintain and repair the existing oilfield
equipment. A truck & lowboy float loaded with a bulldozer can weigh 140,000# and be 4' long.
Maximum vehicle height would be 40' for a truck with an extended stinger or 16' for a 500 Bbl
portable frac tank. The frac tank is 12' wide; other trucks can be up to 10' wide.
Looking through the State Commission's safety regulations (section 600) I note the following:
1. Wellbores should be located the greater of i50' or 1.5 times the height of the derrick from any
occupied building, public road, major above ground utility line, or railroad. (For a 145' drilling rig
this distance would be 218 ; for a 107' se: ✓ice rig it would'oe 160'.)
2. Weilbores shall be at least 150' from a surface property line. Director car. grant a wavier.
3. In a designated high density area:
A. The wellhead should be at least 350' from an occupied or permitted building.
B. Production tanks shall be at least 350' from buildings.
4. Tanks and feed vessels shall be at least 200' from residences, normally occupied buildings, or well
defined normally occupied outside areas.
5. AlI wells within 150' of residences, normally occupied buildings, or well defined normally
occupied outside areas must be equipped with a fail safe automatic control valve that will shut in the
well if the pressure suddenly rises or drops.
6. All Bumps, pits, and producing facilities shall be adequately fenced to prevent access by
unauthorized persons when the equipment is easily accessible to the public and poses a physical or
health hazard.
A quick look at the development map you just supplied me shows the following items of concern:
I.There annear to be discrepancies in the locations of the involved oil wells on your map. Weil #30-
2 may be located in he center of your proposed "Big Sandy Way" street. We should conf= where
the wells, the tank battery, and other oilfield equipment actually are on your development maps.
Also, these items should be clearly labeled.
2. The locations of wells #30-2 and 30-14 are not compatible with your plan even if your plotted
well location is correct. The 150' radii would include the entire width of "Big Sandy Way" and
major portions of lots 70,71,72, 126; 127, and 123. The 21 8'radii would also include major portions
of lots 69, 73, 125, 129 and corners of tract "C" (future multi -family) and lot 75. The 350' radii
would include the above plus most or all of lots 68, 74, 124, 130, up to an acre of tract "C", and
probably one or two acres of tract "A" (public natural area).
3. A 218' radius around well #30-1 would include almost half of lot 90 and comers of lots 89 and
92; it would also extend halfway across "North Pointe Drive," the south access road into the
development. A 350' radius would include the complete width of the road and most or all of lots
89, 90, 91, and 92.
4. The 350' radii around wells #30-11 and 30-13 would include all of tract "G" (open space) and
about half of lot 102.
FROM WHITING PETROLEUM 10. 26. 1995 16!52 P•04
5. A 200' radius from the oil storage tanks may or may not include "Autumn Hills Lane" depending
on where the tanks are actually located. A 350' circle would include the road and major portions or
all of at least duplex lots 22, 23, 38, and 39.
6. Your development plan shows a lot of landscaping to the west of our tank battery. As shown on
your map this appears not to give us access to our buildings and crude oil storage tanks. We have
our oil trucked off in large semi -truck tankers.
7. Your plan blocks all direct road access which we currently have from our office, tank battery, and
water injection plant to the southern portion of our oil field.
S. Your plan shows a 100' circle around well 430-2 in parts of lots 71 and 72. It is not clear what
this circle designates.
9. It does not appear that the road widths and sharp comers would allow for oilfield equipment
access to wells 130-2 and 30-14.
I think that there am many significant problems with your development plan and that it is unrealistic
to think these can be worked out in time for the late November final clearance from the City
Planning Department that you mentioned in our earlier conversations. We were brought into the
planning process at the last minute; the above comments are very preliminary, and we need more
time to eyamine and discuss your plans because this project will have a major long term impact on
our business. Additionally, we have aver, complex surface use agreement which surely is important
to this development; I think the interpretation and implementation of this agreement should be
resolved among the parties before planning proceeds any further.
Very truly yours,
Richard E. Fromm
Operations Mgr: `Vest
cc: Steve Olt- City of Fort Collins Planning Dept.
Tricia Beaver- Colorado 0&Cr Cons. Commission
roexoeruoz.wen
October 27, 1995
Steve Olt, Project Planner
City of Ft. Collins, Planning
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Dear Steve,
Thank you for your time and effort yesterday. Our discussion led to the conclusion that
nmltiplc access points will help disperse traffic throughout the existing neighborhoods. This
approach may not he feasihlc in [he immediate future, however, since we did not take into
account that the intervening property to die east, Richard's Lake PUD, was recently purchased
by a Denver developer who has told us that he does not know where this access should be
incated un ibis properrv. He is wining, however. to allow all access casement for enhereency
use until he has developed more detailed plans.
In consideration of this situation. we respectfully request your support for primary access to
the Hoffman PUD from the %ke,t o❑ County Road 13. We understand that this will increase
traffic oil County Road 1-, as well as the arterial route atom-, Douglas Road and Highway t,
and that there is a concern regarding air quality degradation o❑ Abbotsford and Inverness
which are currendv County 'ravel roads. As we discussed. the apparent consensus of the
existing neighborhood is 4. ,cave these roads gravcl to discourage through traffic. The
developers are prepared to do this or follow your recommendations to construct a 24 Toot wide
asphalt mat with a detached `;ike trail -7 7 7
We understand that the intersection of Abbotsford and Gregory Road will require some
corrective pruning of v-e^_erntio❑ in order to improve sight distances. and that Kerrie Ashbeck
will he reviewing the hnpnrvemen[ requirements for Douglas Road ;uhd will be contaaina us
with this information.
lu view of the fact that the County Road 13 access, as described above, meers all applicable
traffic design consideiations, our analysis will he limited to this route. The eventual
developnhent of the R::chard', Lake PUD will automatically take into account any traffic
Influence ui the cast contributed by the Hoffman PUD.
Plc,.: contact [vino Dciicih or myseif as soon as pussibie with any'nfomation regarding these
issues.
Sincerely,
JIM SELL DESIGN INC-
n
i
�James L. Sell
President
JLS/kms
e_ Rex Burns, Latimer County Engineering
Eric Bracke, City of Ft. Collins Transportation Dept.
Kcrrie Ashbeck, City of Ft Collins Planning Dept.
,D Sell Des St-
Main g0524
CAW POOCS,PROIGers1623eMAFF[nlii(f
(30ig �ep$fif�
`ug4-iW
(303)
October 30, 1995
To Whom It May Comm]:
The Ad owing is a list of qw persons who attended Ow meeting held on Friday October 27,
1995 at 10:30 ant_ Thc purpose of the meeting was ut tli,vcuss the nil mud gas issues relawd
to the Holtman P -Ii.D-
John R. Ilazleu
V1 hitin¢ Prtrn!eum
-01-437-1661
Robert D. Walters
Whiriug Petroieum
970-493-3453
970-484-0164
Dave Shclto❑
Oil & Gas Couuuissum
303-894 2100
303-894-2109
Richard PwIlun
Whiling Peunleum
303-337-1661
303-861-4023
Mike Ilothnau
1-Ilul Owner
970-225-0793
R"Aw Prct¢low
RE Broker
970-484 3026
970-493 -2674
Bill Yuuker
Developer
301-229-9468
970-223-6311
Craig Ilash
Developer
970-226-0673
Mida Beaver
Oil 6c Gas Commission
303-894-2100
303-894-2109
-'Rohm Reade
Oil & Gas Commission
303-894-2100
303-894-2109
Glen Tulk
Merrick & Company
305 751-0741
303-751-2581
Steve Wagner
Memuk & Company
303-751-0741
303 151 2581
Jim Sell
Jim Sell Design Inc.
970-484-1921
970-484-2443
Thank you fix taking time out of your busy >chedule to mwml IN meeting.
Siuccrely,
JIM SELL DESIGN INC.
James L. Sell
Project Nd:mger
ILSAnis
JSell DOar,ug
� q�clviectue - p�arn
Ob
FECdj is'lo',oloracio
(303)484-1921
WHITING
V
October 31, 1995
Mr. Jim Sell
Jim Sell Design, Inc.
117 E. Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins. Colorado 30524
Re: Minutes of October 27. 1995 Meeting
Hoffman PUD
Dear Mr. Sell:
Below are my minutes for the subject meeting (I have added some comments in parentheses):
1. Whiting and Sell to work together in designing a proper work area for the -30-3 and 30- I4 wells.
(Whiting is now preparing some diagrams to define the minimum area required.)
2. Whiting and Sell to work together to provide access for heavy equipment across tract "A" and to
locate a pad in tract "A" in case a well needs to be redrilled.
3. Sell will designate a separate corridor for oil utilities such as pipelines. This corridor will be 25'
wide where possible with a 12' minimum.
4. Sell .v 1l allow for road access onto subdivision streets from Whiting's field office for pick-up
trucks and cars and room in the tank battery landscaping so that Whiting will retain access to the
front door of their shop building. (Whiting may wish to install a gate and/or signs on this access
road to prohibit entry by PUD traffic to the tank battery.)
5. Whiting and Sell need to agree on how to handle abandonment of old oilfield buried pipelines.
6. Whiting will compile data on submersible pump economics and provide this information to Sell.
(Since ;30-2 is the most critical well, I plan to make the analysis specifically for it.)
7. Whiting and Sell need to decide on whether/how to relocate the lake water source line and pump
house and whether existing pipelines which service the southernmost wells are compatible with
development plans and can be left in place. Whiting will annotate their pipeline map in this area to
make it as accurate as possible and provide a copy to Sell.
WHITING PETROLEUM CORPORATION
MILE HIGH CENTER, 1700 BROADWAY. SUITE 2300, DENVER, COLORADO W290-2301 (303) 837-1661 FAX (303) 8614023
4804 REPUBLIC TOWERS II, 325 N. ST. PAUL ST., DALLAS, TX 75201 (214) 741-1650 FAX (214) 2203840
An IES INDUSTRIES Company
8. Sell ( or developer) will provide a disclosure statement to prospective homeowners to advise them
of the presence of the underlying oilfield.
9. Sell will draft a letter for Whiting to send to the City Planning Department before the next
scheduled November 20th meeting to evidence that Sell and Whiting are working together and are
in General agreement on plans to make surface development compatible with oil production.
10. Sell's estimate of project timing is as follows:
A. Hearing before Planning Department- November 20, 1995
B. Submittal of final plan- December 26, 1995
C. Final approval by City- Late February 1996. At this point plans will be final form and not
subject to change.
D. Obtain development agreements- One to six months
E. Start construction work- Late spring to summer 1996
I have attached a copy of your attendance list to the other parties to whom I'm mailing these minutes.
Dale and I are working on items '11,6. and 7 and hope to have some data to you by the end of nest
week. Please call me if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
�--
Richard E. Fromm
Operations Mar.- West
attachment
cc: Steve Olt- City of Fort Collins Planning Dept.
Tricia Beaver- Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Comm.
Mike Hoffman
ref.HOFPOD3. W PD
STATE 01-
+ ^^COLORACO
♦ GA �
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
C \RTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Roy Romer. Governor
1120 Lincoln St., Suite 801
Denver. CC 80203
Phone:(303)894-2100
F4,X:(303)894-2109
1 1 /7/95
Mr. Steve Olt
Current Planning
City of Ft. Collins Planning Dept.
281 N. College Ave
Ft. Collins, CO 80524
Dear Mr. Olt:
Dave Shelton, Tricia Beaver and I met with the group on the attached list on Friday,
October 27, 1995. We were disappointed you were not in the meeting also, and hope to
have another opportunity to meet with you in the future. We wanted to relay to you a
description of the oil and gas industry, an explanation our agency's role, and the issues we
have encountered recently concerning new housing development near and in oil and gas fields
around the state, including Weld and Boulder Counties.
To summarize the meeting, both the developer and the oil company presented their
needs and concerns. By the end of the meeting, most of the agenda items were resolved,
except for a coupe which they agreed to continue negotiating. Apparently, you will receive
a letter of intent to resolve these differences, in preparation for the November hearing. The
Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) provided clarification of rules,
answered regulatory questions, provided alternatives for compromises and suggested possible
solutions.
The COGCC sends an urgent message that city/county planners should insist that
developers meet with oil and gas companies early in the land development process to head
off potential problems. If the city/county planners need more background or current
information on the oil and gas industry, the companies or regulations, they may contact the
COGCC.
The problem of greatest impact comes when the developer forges ahead with the local
government's approval, the new residents move in, and six months later, begin complaining
of noise, odors, visual impairment, water contamination, truck traffic, and so on. In the worst
cases, the residents may resort to legal action against all parties. The COGCC often receives
these calls, at a point where solutions are difficult, costly and often unresolvable.
Oil and gas -related issues that planners should be aware of:
- The mineral rights include the use of a reasonable amount of surface land to produce
the oil and gas (the minerals have dominance over the surface).
- The oil and gas industry is regulated by the COGCC, a state agency within the
Department of Natural Resources, and local regulations, where adopted.
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES. James S. Lochhead. Executive Director
COGCC COMMISSION Caroline eiackwell• Allan Heinle- Bruce Johnso - Logan MacMlllian• Mike Matheson Claudia Rahn.• Marla Williams
COGCC STAFF Richard T Clipping. Du.ctor• Brian J MaCxe. Deputy Director- Morris Bell. Manager of Engineering
P3I9eia C. Beaver. Manager Environmental 3 Commission ALI Maman Peacock. Manager of Information
€ AF1 i. W11, L G •S. I'. __
Cit-; of For C011in5
March 25, 1986
Page 2
are, therefore, void under federal law (Sherman Act) and under
corresponding state law. 7- could also be argued that Gillespie
merely agreed to do that which he was already legally obligated
to do; namely allow Pomerov to use the surface, and there was no
consideration for Pomeroy's agreement to restrict his surface
usage. Although there rs no Colorado case on this particular
issue, there has been litication in a number of jurisdictions on
the cuestion, with varrinc outcomes. In the case of Phillips
Pet of um Co. v, Cargill, 340 S.W.2d 877 (Tex.Civ.App. - Amarillo
1960), the court held that a surface use agreement was
unenforceable for lack of consideration since the mina -al lease
already had the right to use so much of the surface as was
necessary f_or mineral development. Spa also, Black Gold
Petroleu;* Cc. V. Eil1, 188 Okla. 329, 108 P.26 784 (1940);
MartensY. Pn='-ia ` llc:4nc Co•, 668 S.W.2d 889 (Tex.Civ.App.-
Houston 1984); M,am'_ Pet-oleum Co. v Neal, 333 S.W.2d 876
(Tex.Civ.App. - E1 Paso _960) All these cases come to the same
conclusion.
Irrespective of the above -mentioned agreements, Park, as the
owner of the mineral estates in the above -referenced properties,
has such rights of _neress, egress, exploration and surface usage
as are reasonably necessa ry for the exploitation of its mineral
interests. Frankfort Oil Co v Abrams, 159 Colo. 535, 413 P.2d
190 (1966); ,ZOCkv Moun a= Fuel Cn. v li`lin, 148 Colo. 415, 366
P.2d 577 (1962). In addition, Park has specific rights under the
Unit Agreement and the Aucust 3, 1978 agreement, including rights
for surface _locations for five (5) wells, installation of surface
equi_ment and easements for access to and from well sites. To
the extent t:aat the application fails to recognize such rights,
the application is deficient.
Under Colorado law, until the surface and mineral estates
have been severed, ownership of the surface estate carries with
it ownership of the underlying minerals. Radke v. Union Pacific,
138 Colo. 189, 334 P.2d 1077 (1958). Once severed, the mineral
estate is the dominate estate. This means that the owner of the
mineral estate has such rights of ingress, egress, exploration
and surface usage in the surface estate as are reasonably
necessary to the successful exploitation of the mineral estate.
An easement on and across the surface estate for all such
purposes is implied without express language. Rocky Mountain
Fuel Co.V. Beflin, 148 Colo. 415, 366 P.2d 577 (1961); Frankfort
Oil Co. v. Abrams, 159 Colo. 535, 413 P.2d 190 (1966).
The severing of the mineral estate, therefore, by deed or by
lease, creates a separate estate in real property, the mineral
estate, in fee simple. Mitchell v• Esvinosa, 125 Colo. 267, 243
P.2d 412 (1952) . If severed by lease or if severed by deed and
then leased, the leasehold estate carries with it the same rights
- Modification of the well locations, the "spacing", the drilling of new wells, and
movement of existing oil and gas wells may not be possible, either due to legal or
economic reasons.
- The COGCC regulations include rules on safety, setbacks from existing buildings,
spills and cleanup requirements, and final reclamation of abandoned well sites.
- The legislative authority of the COGCC is to promote the industry and protect health,
safety and welfare.
- The COGCC has field staff to rapidly respond to urgent situations, and environmental
staff to ensure proper cleanups, encouragement of pollution prevention, and
investigation of claims of environmental damage. The Environmental Response Fund
is available to investigate and remediate environmental damages where no operator
may be found to be financially responsible.
-The COGCC has monthly hearings before a board of commissioners, where contested
matters may be heard, decisions made, and fines levied where needed, including
matters brought by citizens.
- Surface damage agreements are private agreements negotiated between surface
owners and oil and gas companies, and are not a requirement by law. These
agreeements are entered into in good faith by the parties and conflicts are settled only
before civil courts.
-The COGCC notifies counties of new wells by faxing copies of Applications for Permit
to Drill (APDs) to the Local Governmental Designee (LGD). For Larimer County, the
LGD is Jerry White, Land Use Administrator, Larimer County Planning Dept., in Fort
Collins.
The COGCC offers the following ideas to smoothly accomodate multiple surface uses:
Developers should create adequate access for current and future use of equipment,
- Real estate agents should disclose the existence of any mineral lease and the
existence of or potential for oil and gas operations to the buyers.
- Mineral owners that sell their surface rights to developers should consider providing
part of the royalties from oil and gas sales to buyers (discouraging severance of mineral
estate from surface estate),
- Developers should become familiar with oil and gas operations,
- Real estate brokers and buyers should be aware of the minimal risk of endangerment
of human health and the environment from the oil and gas operations,
dna(i.wp 2
- Local governments, developers, real estate agents and buyers should be aware of the
the process for bringing problems with the oil and gas operations to the COGCC,
- Local governments should consider establishing safety requirments when issuing PUD
or other building permits or when modifying zoning codes with regard to setbacks and
easements around existing and future oil and gas wells and equipment to prevent
encroachment on the oil and gas operations that results in unsafe conditions for
residents and others.
The COGCC is confident that both land development and oil and gas production can
and should co -exist safely and economically, through reasonable trade-offs made by all parties
to accomodate most concerns in each situation, ultimately demonstrated by satisfied
homeowners. Please contact Tricia Beaver at x115 or Robin Reade at x112 if you need
further information or assistance.
Sincerely,
Robin L. Reade
Environmental Protection
cc: Tricia Beaver, Environmental and Commission Affairs Manager
Rich Griebling, Director
Whiting Petroleum (John Hazlett, Dale Walters and Rich Fromm)
n
M.111. w' 3
WHITING
V
November 16, 1995
Mr. Jim Sell
Jim Sell Design. Inc.
117 E. Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 3051-4
Re: Hoffman P.11.D. Planning Items
Flowline Locations and 30 ? Well Pad
Dear Mr. Sell:
This letter is written to follow-up on items = 1 and 7 in the minutes of our October 27th meeting.
Per item 47. Dale has marked the route of Whiting s oineiines which service our southernmost wells
with yellow wood stakes. Dale and I thought it would be best for you or :your representative to see
the actual location on the wound because of the potential errors in going from our unsurveyed mans.
I understand that you viewed the pineiine routes on November 14th. Dale is available for additional
questions and a walkover if necessary; he tells me that his stakes are accurate to about a foot.
Dale and I have made numerous plats to figure out possible layouts for the 30-2 and 30-14 well pad
area; this is item 71 on our meeting minutes. Enclosed are some of our sketches. Please give me
our thoughts. and let me know of any other arrangements you think might be more compatible with
your development plans; I have some paper cutouts that I can rearrange on a grid. I intend to show
the best arrangements we produce to the Oil & Gas Commission for their input; for this I will need
to include details such as location of streets and homes. The following items should be considered
in our location planning:
1. Anchors for workover rigs need to be located in a four spot pattern around each well. To
be safe the upwind (northwest) anchors should be at least 90' from the well; the other anchors
should be at least 70' from the well. These anchors have large steel evelets sticking out of
ground surface for attachment of steel cable guy lines to the top of the workover rigs. We
can countersink the anchor eyelets below ground level and enclose them in a box which
includes a movable access hatch flush with ground surface. We will need to have unimpeded
access to the anchors on the rig side for a large truck in order to conduct periodic safety pull
tests. The locations of the anchors or guys is indicated on the attached sketches; some of the
pad sites include most of the anchors within their boundaries and some don't; also, some of
WHITING PETROLEUM CORPORATION
MILE HIGH CENTER, 1700 BROADWAY, SUITE 2300, DENVER, COLORADO 80290-2301 (303) 837-1661 FAX (303) 861-4023
4804 REPLBUC TOWERS II, 325 N. ST. PAUL ST., DALLAS, TX 75201 (214) 741-1650 FAX (21<) 220-3940
An IFS INDUSTRIES Company
the guv locations fall off the edge of the enclosed sketches. I'm not sure how your road
layout will look, but if the anchors are across a road, that road would have to be closed while
a rig was working.
2. I'm not sure how many access points Whiting would have to the pad. All of the enclosed
sketches eso_pt for "E-1" should require only one access. Multiple access points may allow
us to minimize the pad area.
3. In these pad sketches Dale and I intended the entire pad area would be used for equipment
driving and parking. The landscaping would be outside.
q. Some of the pad designs have wells in the center and some closer to the sides. We are not
sure just -where you plan to locate roads and homes so we're not sure what impact location
of wells within the pad area will have on safety setback distances.
5. Dale and I are accustomed to think about rectangular pads. I think you are considering a
circle girded by a road. In most cases comers on our drawings can be rounded off.
Very truly yours,
Richard E. Fromm
Operations -142r.- West
attachments
cc: Steve Olt- City of Fort Collins Planning Dept.
Tricia Beaver- Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Comm.
retHOFPUD4. WPD
T i
L7 26-96 1 :17 FM s014 S l-WIS F02/02
WI � �11 Q
post Of lca Box 978, Avon, Colorado 81620
July 26, 1996 Tel: (970) 949.4120 Fax: (970) 949-9339
305 Madison, Denver, Colorado 80206
Tel. (303)322-4119 Fax.(303) 322-4320
101 Duncan Mi8 Road, Suite 400,
non Mills, Ontario, Canada M3B 122
Tel: (416) 449-1318 Fax:(416) 449-8541
Mr. Steve Olt
City of Fort Collins
planning Department
281 N. College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
Re: Hearthfire P.U.D.
Dear Mr. Olt:
This letter is to confirm that our company is the owner of the property to the east of the
Hearthfun P.U.D. known as Richard's Lake F.U.D. It is our intent to work with the owners
of Hearthfire to provide any required utility easements required to service their project,
assuming it does not adversely affect the proposed development of Richard's Lake P.U.D., and
provided the owners of Hearthfire work with us to provide any required utility easements
required to service our project, assuming it does not adversely affect the proposed development
of Hearthfire P.U.D.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to give me at call at (303) 322-4119.
Sincerely,
ee—
Art Kleinstein
AK:SWA:pcs
cc:
Jim Sell Design, Inc. -
pm. 3a587
l(L-2C-96 F3i II:'-' All 39= ?96 9f01 F. 2
'-ROM:LARIMER CTY ENGINEERI' TO: 9702246111 Al— 2, 1996 3:03PM #169 P.02
Post Office Box I Igo.....,
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190
(970)498-5700
FAX (970) 498-7986
August 2, 1996
Ms. Kerry Ashbeck
City of Fort Collins Planning Department
- P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
Re_ County Road 13 adjacent to Hearthfrre Development
Dear Kerrie;
This letter is written in response to questions raised regarding the County's requirement for the paving of _
County Road 13 adjacent to the proposed Hearthfire Land Development (the Project). This development would
consist of some 145 lots to the property at the southeast corner of County Road 13 and Douglas Road. Property
owners in the vicinity have objected to the paving of County Road 13, since they feel that paving the road would
increase the amount of traffic from the proposed development which uses the road, and because paving the road
would diminish the rural character of the area. it is my understanding that the current configuration of the
Hearthfire Development would provide for an access from the development onto Douglas Road. There would be
no access onto County Road 13, although the road lies adjacent to the Project. It is also my understanding that a
future connection is planned which would provide direct access from the east side of the Project onto County
Road 11. This connection does not exist at this time, and the right of way supporting it is not in place. A
condition is proposed which would require that the County Road 11 connection be physically constructed and in
place before any building permits in excess of 90 are issued for the Project.
I have stet with the developers of the Project, their engineers and attorneys, yourself, as well as representatives
of the property owners' association which opposes paving the road. I have also visited the site and walked
County Road 13. The City Engineering and Planning Departments, in reviewing this Project, have requested
that this office state its requirements for the improvement of County Road 13.
I laving reviewed the traffic impact report for the proposed development and met with the various parties as
detailed above, it is my opinion that construction of the Project as proposed will have a considerable impact on
County Road 13. 1 believe that the developer of the Project should be asked to mitigate those impacts to the
extent they are attributable to that development. In visiting and walking along the road, I observed that the
current condition of the road is structurally adequate for the existing traffic, and dust production even on a hot
summer day did not exceed acceptable levels. I also observed, however, that the road is probably geometrically
deficient in width even for the small amounts of traffic it now carries, given the fact that lire traffic markings
show that vehicles are sharing the center portion of the road.
Theteforc, I offer the following;
1. Certain safety improvements are needed along County Road 13 and particularly at it intersections with
Douglas Road and Gregory Road. Thesc improvements include signing, tree trimming to secure adequate and
proper sight distance, striping and some minor shoulder work. I believe that these improvements are needed and
'ROM:LARIMER CTY ENGINEERI' TO: 9702246111 Al- 2, 1996 3:04PM 9169 P.03
should be accomplished by the developer of the Project before any traffic is added to County Road 13 (and thus
before any houses in the proposed development are occupied).
2. I feel that asphalt mat paving is the only certain way of addressing the longterm impacts of additional
traffic on rural County roads. I therefore feel that County Road 13 will ultimately need to be asphalt mat paved,
and that as engineers advising decisionmakers we would be remiss if we did not provide for the eventual paving
of County Road 13. The developers of the proposed Project should be asked to provide funding for the eventual
asphalt mat pavement of County Road 13 from its intersection with Douglas Road as far south as its intersection
with Gregory Road. Based on my observations at the site, I do not believe that the paving is necessary at the
current time, since the road is structurally adequate, and dust levels are acceptable.
4. The developers of the Project should pay for the entire cost of paving County Road 13 where it lies
ndjacenl to the Project, and some proportional share of the cost of paving County Road 13 between the south
end of the Project and the intersection of County Road 13 with Gregory Road. The proportionate share would be
determined based on ultimate traffic projections for 90 lots and anticipated development which might occur
alongside County Road 13 from the south end of the project to the intersection of County Road 13 with Gregory
Road.
5. 1 would find it acceptable for fees in lieu of the paving as described above to be paid at the time of
building permit issuance for each of the 90 lots which will be built upon prior to the construction of the County
Road 1 1 connection. The monies would be placed into a fund to be held by the City or County (depending on
who has maintenance responsibilities) to be used for the eventual paving of County Road 13.
6. 1 would suggest that the ultimate section to be constructed for County Road 13 would consist of the
following: an 8 foot gravel shoulder on the west side, a center section of 24 feet in width (which would
eventually be paved) and a 2 foot gravel shoulder on the east side. A shallow roadside ditch would be constructed
on each side to accommodate stormwater runoff from the road surface. The current width of the traveled way
measures at 25 feet from grade break to grade break. I foresee no need for significant changes in the vertical
alignment of the road surface. The developer would be asked to physically construct the section described
above, absent the asphalt mat pavement, concurrently with the development of the first 90 units in the Project.
7. There is a need for certain auxiliary lane improvements to the Highway 1 Douglas intersection, I feel
that the developer of the Project should be asked to contribute equitably toward the construction of the those
improvements.
If the developers of the Project are willing and able to agree to the improvements and fees I have detailed above,
1 would recommend that the City Engineer waive the requirement contained in City Code for widening Douglas
Road from the entrance to the project west to its intersection with State Highway 1. 1 believe that providing for
the eventual improvement of County Road 13 as I have outlined will provide sufficient transportation facilities
to meet the needs of the Project without additional work on Douglas Road.
Please feel free to call me at 498-5721 if you have any questions on this matter.
Sincerely,
Rex A. Burns,
Larimer County Engineering Department
cc: Lucia Liley, Attorney
Matt Dclich, Traffic Engineer
Commu y Planning and Environmental rvices
Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
August 5, 1996
Jim Sell
Jim Sell Design
117 East Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins, CO. 80524
Dear Jim,
Copies of comments on the revised Hearthfire PUD, Preliminary documents that were
submitted to the City on July 19, 1996, have been received from the following City
departments and outside reviewing agencies and are being forwarded to you under this
letter:
* Boxelder Sanitation District
* East Larimer County Water District
with attached copy of a recorded Deed
with attached redlined utility plans
* Natural Resources Division
* Water Conservation (Water Department)
with attached information sheet
* Public Service Company
These comments are in addition to comments forwarded to you on Friday, August 2,
1996, from the following City department and outside reviewing agencies:
* Engineering - Pavement
* Zoning Department
* Building Inspection Department
* Police Department
* POUdre Fire Authority
* Environmental Planner (Brian Woodruff)
* Light & Power Department
* Post Office
* Park Planner
* Streets Department
There are still unanswered concerns about the off -site street improvements (possibly
necessitating variances) associated with this development, the overall density of this
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 58o • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750
FAX (970) 221-637 8 • MD (970) 224-6002
development relative to current City policies, and the relationship of some lots to the
existing, operating oil well. Project Notes 8 and 9 on the Site & Landscape Plan would
indicate that Lots 73, 107, 108, and 110 have areas outside of the minimum 150,
separation distance that are buildable and that a building permit can be issued on Lot
109 when the 150' setback restriction is removed". The buildable areas are
questionable and what all triggers the setback restriction to be removed?
At this point in time Larimer County has concerns about a single point of access into
this developmen'. Both the City and County want information on how many lots can be
built and occupied before a second point of access is provided.
This completes the review comments at this time. Additional comments may be
forthcoming as the various departments and reviewing agencies continue to review this
request. Please be aware of the following dates and deadlines to assure your ability to
stay on schedule for the August 26, 1996 Planning and Zoning Board hearing:
Plan revisions are due no later than the end of the day of Wednesday, August 7,
1996. Please contact me for the number of folded revisions required for each
document.
PMT's (photo reduction of site Plan, Landscape Plan, Building Elevations to 8.5"
x 11"), rendering (one each colored full-size Site or Landscape Plan and Building
Elevations), and 8 folded copies of the final full-size Site Plan, Landscape Plan,
and Building elevations revisions ( for the Planning and Zoning Board members
packets) are due on August 19, 1996.
Please contact me at 221-6750 if you have questions or concerns related to these
comments. I would like to schedule a meeting with you as soon as possible, if
necessary, to discuss these comments.
Si cerely,
I e Olt
Project Planner
xc: Kerrie Ashbeck
Stormwater Utility
Transportation
Natural Resources
Project File
September3, 1996
Mr. Gary Diede
Group Leader
Transportation, Operations and Projects
City of Fort Collins
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
RE: Hearthfire P.U.D. street lighting
Dear Gary:
As you know there havebeen numerous meetings pertaining to this issue. In general the
surrounding neighbors are concerned about fugitive light from the Hearthfire
development. In order to respond to this concern the applicant is requesting a variance to
the existing street lighting standards. If a variance is granted he intends to develop a
street lighting plan that will address the important safety as well as neighborhood
compatibility issues.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
James L. Sell
JIM SELL DESIGN INC
cc Steve Olt
Jim Wilk SOI� Desl�
a
;Jp
F-lF,L 0II. L CAS. I%11..
Citv of Fort Collins
March 25, 198E
Page 3
in the mineral estate which the lessor owned prior to the lease,
namely, the right to explore for and develop the minerals and the
rich-, to use so mucn of the surface as is reasonably necessary in
connection with exploitation of the minerals. The fact that an
oil and gas lease has been granted does not change the rule that
the surface estate is subservient to the mineral estate. The
granting of an oil and gas lease merely changes the party who may
enforce the minera_ owner's rights in the surface estate.
The execution of a unit agreement, such as the Fort Collins
Field Muddy Unit Agreement, again, does nor change this basic
legal relationship between the surface owner and the mineral
owner. By enterinc into the Unit Agreement, the owners of
interest in the mineral estate are merely agreeing to Pool their
respective richts to produce oil and liquid hydrocarbons from the
Muddv formation underlying the Unit Area with the result that
they agree that the,, will each share in production from that
formation within the unit area in accordance with acreed
proportions, and they wil'- each bear the cost of such production,
again in accordance with agreed proportions. The rovalty owners
execute the unit Acreement because they are likewise pooling
their rovalty interest and they must likewise agree to the
proportion in which they will participate in production from the
unit area. Under the Unit Agreement the riches which each
mineral owner has in the particular surface estate in the lands
in which he owns his mineral interest automatically become rights
which all mineral owners may benefit from. Although the Unit
Agreement is not in and of itself a conveyance of title, it does
result in a mutual 'transfer of rights and obligations, each
mineral owner to the other. After execution of the Unit
Acreement, each mineral owner may transfer his rights under the
unit Acreement and his interest in the lands covered thereby,
each such transfer to be subject to Unit Agreement. inde-d,
the Unit Agreement specifically provides that the agreement shall
constitute a covenant running with the land (Section 21.2).
The PUD application is further deficient under the Fort
Collins Land Development Guidance System, Section 118-83(E)(1)
because the land involved is not the subject of an application
filed jointly by the owners of all the property to be included.
Park is an owner of the above -referenced property and did not
join in the PUD application. This deficiency alone is sufficient
to preclude the approval of the PUD application.
Finally, the application is deficient due to its failure to
include a detailed description of how conflicts between land uses
are being avoided or mitigated. Section 118-83(G)(3)(a)[4][f].
Such conflicts clearly exist in this case where the surface owner
is proceeding in derogation of Park's rights.
co
L0
0
co
O
0
a
a
O
O
LLJ
Li
7
W
L=
C0
0
0
LO
m
September
5,
1996
co
O
n
m
Ms.
Kerrie Ashbeck, P.E.
X
a
Fort
Collins
Planning Department
e_
P.O.
Box 580
Fort
Collins.
CO 80522
0
N
m
CD
co
0
0)
rn
w
z
0
a
Z
cc
W
W
Z
Z
W
Z
0
a
0
0
a
Z
Cc
LL
LL
Q
Q
Dear Kerrie:
File: 9643LET1
This letter pertains to the request for a variance from the
"Design Criteria and Standards for Streets'' for the access
collector street to the Hearthfire PL'D. This street is
proposed to intersect with Douglas Road approximately 1200
feet east of CR13. There are two horizontal curves that., have
centerline radii of 400 feet and 500 feet. There w411 be
stop signs at the ends of this road segment. This road is
classified as a collector street without parking. The posted
speed limit will be 30-35 mph.
The standard centerline radius for a collector street, from
the cited reference, is 610 feet. The design speed is 40 mph
for this radius. Using the smaller radius (400'), the
calculated speed is 31 mph with zero superelevation and 35 mph
with minimum (0.04) supereievation. These calculated speeds,
coupled with the stop sign control at. the ends of the street,
leads to the conclusion that the variance to the 610 foot
centerline radius should be approved. The smaller proposed
radii will not create a hazardous condition.
if you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely
Matthew S. Delich, P.E. f'
November 25, 1996
Project No: 1552-01-96
Kerrie Ashbeck
City of Fort Collins Engineering Department
P.O. Box 580
Ft. Collins, Colorado 80524
Re: Hearthfire P.U.D., First Filing; Ft. Collins, Colorado
Variance Requests
Dear Kerrie,
This is just a note to confirm our discussion with you concerning our intent to request several
variances from City Street standards. As we discussed, although we have identified several of
those items, we decided it would be logical to request all variances at one time, should further
items be discovered during the review process. The following items are those which we
currently know do not meet City standards and for which we will be requesting variances.
* variance for "roundabout"
There are no current City standards for "roundabouts". Our understanding is that the City is
developing standards for "roundabouts", though these are not yet completed, or adopted.
* variance for street minimum tangents for local intersections
There are several locations where the minimum centerline tangent at local intersections do
not meet current City standards. Refer to Barn Swallow Circle for immediate reference.
* variance for vertical 2 % grade for 50' from right-of-way at intersection
Several locations do not allow for this standard to be met due to existing grade conditions
and the horizontal layout of the street system. This condition will usually not be met on the
south portion of the site for North -South streets where there is more dramatic relief.
Please note that although the flowline profiles for Hearthfire Way at Douglas Road, slightly
exceed 2%, the actual centerline profile was first defined at 2% in order to finalize the
towline profiles. Therefore, a variance request will not be requested at this location.
* variance for minimum centerline radius for a collector
As you recall, the proposed new alignment of Hearthfire Way did not allow for meeting the
minimum collector radius standard. The proposed alignment was presented to you by Tom
Dugan of Jim Sell Design.
* Crosspans at a collector
We have noted two (2) 12' wide crosspans at the intersection of Hearthfire Drive and
Richard's Lake Drive. We attempted installation of a storm sewer. However, due to existing
and proposed grade conditions at this intersection, and it's relativity to the existing grade of
the central wetland area, a storm sewer system could not be achieved.
4836 S. College, Suite 12 Ft. Collins, CO 80525 (970) 226-5334 FAX (970) 282-031 1
PAGE 2
November 25, 1996
Project No: 1552-01-96
Re: Hearthfire P.U.D., First Filing; Ft. Collins, Colorado
You will also notice that we hesitated to incorporate the Collector Street striping plans after our
discussion concerning the intersection of Hearthfire Way and Douglas Road. An island has been
introduced at the intersection. In our earlier phone conversations, you mentioned a possible
requirement for a left turn lane from Hearthfire Way to Douglas Road. The island may be a
variance request item since we actually transitioned and increased the Collector right-of-way to
accotntnodate the proposed island. We will complete and submit the striping plan after direction
has been provided concerning treatment of the intersection. The intersection striping is the main
item of concern related to striping since the rest of the striping plan simply indicates the travel
and bike lanes for a collector with "No Parking".
We will incorporate these items in a formal variance request according to City variance request
requirements, with any other item which we identify, or which you identify during the review
process.
If you have any questions or comments, please call me at 226-5334.
Sincerely, -
Brian W. Shear
Shear Engineering Corporation
BWS / nib
cc: Bill Yunker; Richards Lake Development Company
Craig Hash; Richards Lake Development Company
Tom Dugan; Jim Sell Design
November 25, 1996
Project No: 1552-01-96
Kerrie Ashbeck
City of Fort Collins Engineering Department
P.O. Box 580
Ft. Collins, Colorado 80524
Re: Hearthfire P.U.D., First Filing; Ft. Collins, Colorado
Street Construction Schedule Intent
Dear Kerrie,
This letter is simply a preliminary discussion of our intent concerning offsite street
improvements related to Hearthfire P.U.D., First Filing as you requested. The offsite streets in
question include the following:
* Douglas Road
* County Road 13
* Connection to County Road 11 (including Currently designated Richard's Lake Drive /
Richard's Lake Way)
Douglas Road will be discussed last, since the actual schedule of the construction of Douglas
Road will be somewhat dependent on further discussion, decisions on actual improvements
required and ultimate City requirements.
COUNTY ROAD 13
County Road 13 is not immediately adjacent to the First Filing portion of Hearthfire P.U.D.
Therefore it will no: be constructed with Hearthfire P.U.D., First Filing. County Road 13 will be
designed to City standards as required, based on previous submittal comments and constructed
with a future Filing of Hearthfire P.U.D.
CONNECTION TO COUNTY ROAD 11 Including Richard's Lake Drive_
Richard's Lake Drive is the main collector drive and is the northernmost connection to Richard's
Lake P.U.D. Tlie street name may ultimately change depending on approval of the street name
during the review process. The connection was called Hearthfire Way at Preliminary P.U.D.
stage of Hearthfire. Please refer to the attached exhibit.
The intent of Richards Lake Development Company, is to have Richards Lake Drive and
additional Richard's Lake P.U.D. street connection (Richard's Lake Way) improvements to
County Road 11 completed prior to the 91st building permit for Hearthfire P.U.D. Please refer
to the preliminary plat of Richard's Lake P.U.D. If the Richard's Lake P.U.D. connection is not
made with the Richard's Lake P.U.D. prior to the 91st building permit request for Heartlfire
P.U.D., the responsibility to provide the connection to County Road 11 will be that of Richards
Lake Development Company. Of coarse, reimbursement agreements would apply for the cost to
install this connection.
The connection to County Road 11 was an item agreed to with the neighborhood by Richards
Lake Development Company through a separate memorandum of understanding with the
neighborhood.
4836 S. College, Suite 12 Ft. Collins, CO 80525 (970) 226-5334 FAX (970) 282-0311
PAGE 2
November 25, 1996
Project No: 1552-01-96
Re: Hearthfire P.U.D., First Filing; Ft. Collins, Colorado
DOUGLAS ROAD
As we recently discussed, the timing for the Douglas Road improvements requires further
discussion. Our opirdon is that the Douglas Road Improvement completion is a City Code
requirement which does not specifically dictate timing of the improvements. One section of the
code does indicate that "the timing of the construction would be as specified in the development
agreement for such property". Since the timing of the improvements is not triggered by the
direct results of the traffic study, we would request that the requirement for the completion of
Douglas Road be based on a set number of building permits, similar to the completion of the
connection to County Road 11. Since there is a significant cost associated with the Douglas
Road improvements, and since there is little chance for cost sharing or reimbursement for these
improvements, we would hope that the requirement to complete Douglas Road would be based
on the release of more than 90 building permits, especially if the initial cost burden to make the
proposed connection to County Road 11 becomes the responsibility of Richards Lake
Development Company.
We will discuss further intentions concerning schedule of offsite street improvements during the
review, comment and response process.
If you have any questions or comments, please call me at 226-5334.
Sincerel ,
Brian W. Shear
Shear Engineering Corporation
BWS/mb
cc: Bill Yunker; Richards Lake Development Company
Craig Hash; Richards Lake Development Company
Tom Dugan; Jim Sell Design
Lucia Liley; March and Myatt, P.C.
ARTHUR E. MARCH, JR.
RAMSEY D. MYATT
ROBERT W, BRANDES. JR.
RICHARD 5. GAST
LUCIA A. LILEY
J. BRAOFORO MARCH
LINBA B. MILLER
JEFFREY J. JOHNSON
MATTHEW J. DOUGLAS
MARCH & MYATT, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
110 EAST OAK STREET
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524-2880
1970)482-4322
TELECOPIER 1970I 482-3038
December 19, 1996
Paul Eckman, Esq.
City Attorney's Office
City of Fort Collins
300 Laporte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
RE: Hearthfire PUD Road Annexations
Dear Paul:
ARTHUR E. MARCH
1909-19BI
MAILING ADDRESS,
P.O, BOX 469
FORT COLLINS. CO 80522-0469
FrC iN?I.
DEC I nl
c l,j tiit f t +_ ; ,r _;y
VIA HAND DELIVERY
The final documents for Hearthfire PUD have now been filed
with the City, and this matter is tentatively scheduled for the
January Planning and Zoning Board meeting.
This letter is to confirm our earlier discussion regarding the
procedure for annexation of Hearthfire Way and a portion of County
Road 13. As: you may recall, Hearthfire PUD is adjacent to a
portion of County Road 13, which is a Larimer County public road.
Hearthfire W21y is currently undeveloped property located in the
County which will be improved by the developer as a public street,
providing access from Hearthfire PUD to Douglas Road.
We agreed to attempt to get an annexation petition signed by
Larimer County for the annexation of that portion of County Road 13
adjacent to Hearthfire PUD. I have spoken with Rex Burns in County
Engineering, and he has confirmed that the County is in favor of
this annexation. I am preparing the petition and map which Rex
will review and then forward to the Board of County Commissioners
for execution. We will submit the signed petition to the Planning
Department, and the City is then free to annex it whenever it
chooses.
As agreed, I am also preparing an annexation petition and map
for Hearthfire Way which will need to be annexed in concurrent
segments because of the one -sixth contiguity requirement. It makes
no sense to annex this property for a future local street to
service the development unless Hearthfire PUD is given final
approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. Since this property is
under an option contract and will not be purchased by the developer
until after Planning and Zoning Board final approval, the developer
will sign, but not date, the petition. I will provide your office
Paul Eckman Esq.
December 19, 1996
Page 2
with a letter accompanying the petition stating that the City has
permission to (late the petition after final approval and closing on
the property. I will also prepare a dedication deed for this off -
site property, conveying it to the City for use as a public street.
I will use the same procedure for this document as that for the
annexation petition.
If you have any questions or wish to add anything to the
above -described process, please let me know as soon as possible.
Thanks for your help.
Sincerely,
MARCH & MYATT, P.C.
Y t,
—Lucia A. Liley
l
LAL/glr
cc: Bill Yunker
Craig Hash
Tom Dugan
Brian Shear
ARTMUR E MARCH.JR
RAMSEY O M1.TT
ROBERT W BRAN -ES. JR.
RIC MARO S GAST
LUCIA A LILEY
B RAOIORO MARCH
LINDA 5. MI LCR
JEFFREYJ JOHNSON
MATTHEWJ DOUGLAS
MARCH & _NfYATT. P.C.
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
HID EAST OAK STREET
FORT COLLI1-S. COLORADO 90524-2660
19101<82-A322
TELECOPIER 19701 482-3038
December 31, 1996
Paul Eckman, Esq.
City Attorney's Office
City of Fort Collins
300 Laporte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
RE: Hearthfire PUD Road Annexations
Dear Paul:
ARTMUR E MARCH
909-I.B.
MAILING AODRE55
v0 BO%a69
FORT COLLINS. CO 80522-0A59
VIA HAND DELIVERY
As a follow-up to my earlier letter to you concerning annexing
County Road 13 and Hearthfire Way, I have since had some additional
conversations with County staff about these annexations which I
need to relate to you.
Rex Burns has asked me to prepare an annexation petition for
County Road 13 for signature by the Board of County Commissioners.
He will obtain that signature, and I will submit the signed
petition to the City Planning Department to hold until after final
approval as we discussed.
In connection with the annexation of Hearthfire Way, Rob
Helmick (a County Planner who had not been involved with my earlier
discussions w`.th Rex and Jeannine Haag) would like the developer to
submit an amended exemption application to take care of any
potential subdivision issue since Hearthfire Way bisects a 37-acre
tract of land. As a condition of the exemption request, he wants
a commitment from the developer that the 37-acre bisected parcel
will be developed for no more than one principal use. This has
already been agreed to between the developer and the neighborhood,
so this request is not a change. I will prepare the exemption
request, have it signed by the developer along with the annexation
documents for Hearthfire Way and submit all of the signed documents
to the City Planning Department to be handled as discussed in my
earlier letter.
Paul Eckman, Esq.
December 31, 1996
Page 2
Please let me know if you have any questions. Otherwise, I
will proceed as indicated in this and my earlier letter to you.
Sincerely,
MARCH & MYATT, P.C.
By: � I"�
Lucia A. Liley
LAL/glr
cc: Bill Yunker
Craig Hash
Tom Dugan
Brian Shear
\-Kerrie Ashbeck
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DISTRICT
TRI-LAKES PROJECT OFFICE, 9307 STATE HWY 121
LITTLETON, COLORADO 80123-6901
nFiY TO January 13, 1997
ATTENTION OF
Mr. Craig Hash
Richard's Lake_ Development
5319 Paradise Lane
Ft. Collins, Colorado 80526
Dear Mr. Hash:
We have: reviewed your request for Department of the Army
authorization to impact 1.25 acres of wetlands and 2.15 acres of waters
of the United States in conjunction with the construction of Hearthfire
Housing Development project. The project is located in Section 30,
Township 8 North, Range 68 West, Larimer County, Colorado.
Based on the information you provided, this office has determined
that your work. within Colorado can be authorized by the Department of the
Army Nationwide Permit found at 33 CFR Part 330 Appendix A, (B)(26).
Enclosed is a fact sheet which fully describes this Nationwide Permit and
lists the General and Section 404 only conditions which must be adhered
to for this authorization to remain valid.
In addition to the attached conditions, the following special
conditions must also be met in order for this permit verification to be
valid.
1. That 1.875 acres of wetlands will be mitigated on site and in
kind and function as the existing wetlands. These wetlands will be
constructed in conjunction with the existing wetland impacts.
2. That the mitigated wetlands will be placed out of the existing
wetlands, currently located within the construction site, and that
additional wetlands will not be impacted during the construction of the
mitigation area.
3. That the island will not exceed 0.5 acres above the ordinary high
water mark and the bank slopes of the island will be no less than 3v:1h.
4. That the water source required to support and sustain the wetland
mitigation areas will be perpetual for this project. The applicant will
provide the Corps of Engineers an acceptable water supply plan prior to
starting work on this project.
5. That native seed mix will be used for soil stabilization
throughout the project site.
6. The applicant will design and construct adequate vegetation
filter strips to aid in the control and prevention of sediments and
chemicals from entering Richards Lake.
7. That annual monitoring reports will be provided to the Tri-Lakes
Project Office no later than 31 November of each year beginning in 1998.
These reports will include, but not limited to, the following
information:
- name of the project, permit number, and county where the project
Primed on ® ne,cled Paper
1
PARE 011- & GAS. INC.
City of Fort Collins
March 25, 1988
Page 4
As I advised you in our recent meeting, Park has made over
the last couple of years, numerous proposals to the surface owner
which would eliminate conflicts between land uses. All of these
proposals have been rejected and the surface owner has yet to
propose to Park any alternatives.
By this letter, Park protests the above -referenced PDD
application and requests that it be denied or tabled until
conflicts dealing with land uses are settled.
Very truly yours,
PARR OIL & AS,-INC.
Pf'v
Arthur L. Vermillion
Vice President
ALV/kez
is located;
- a discussion of the successes, failures, and problems;
- percent of ground surface area that is vegetated, percent of
vegetated area that contains wetlands species, list of prevalent
plant species;
- maps and/or drawings as needed for illustration; and
- photographs of mitigation area (to be taken from the same location
each year and submitted with each report).
8. The applicant will conduct a Sniranthes diluvialis survey for the
north portion of the project. This survey will be provided to the US
Fish and Wildlife Service for review and comment. This survey will be
conducted prior to starting work.
Although an Individual Department of the Army permit will not be
required for the project, this does not eliminate the requirement that
you obtain any, other applicable federal, tribal, state, and local permits
as required. Please note that deviations from the original plans and
specifications of your project could require additional authorization
from this office.
You are advised that this verification of this nationwide permit
authorization is valid through January 21, 1998.
If your have any questions, contact Mr. Rex Fletcher of this office
at 303-979-4120. Please reference Nationwide Permit action ID 199580615
and Larimer County.
Sincerely,
Timo y Ca ey
Proje anage
Enclosure
Copies Furnished:
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Colorado Division of Wildlife
Environmental Protection Agency
Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment
Fact Sheet #26
33 CFR Section 330.6 Nationwide Permits
(b) Authorized Activities:
(26) Headwaters and Isolated Waters Discharees. Discharges of dredged or fill material
into headwaters and isolated waters provided:
a. The discharge does not cause the loss of more than 10 acres of waters of the United States;
b. The permittee notifies the district engineer if the discharge would cause the loss of waters of the
United States greater than one acre in accordance with the "Notification" general condition. For discharges
in special aquatic sites, including wetlands, the notification must also include a delineation of affected special
aquatic sites, including wetlands. (Also see 33 CFR 330.1(e)); and
a 'Ilse discharge, including all attendant features, both temporary and permanent, is part of a single
and complete project.
For the purposes of this nationwide permit, the acreage of loss of waters of the United States includes
the filled area plus waters of the United States that are adversely affected by flooding, excavation or drainage
as a result of the project. The ten -acre and one -acre limits of NWP 26 are absolute, and cannot be increased
by any mitigation plan offered by the applicant or required by the DE.
Subdivisions: For any real estate subdivision created or subdivided after October 5, 1984, a notification
pursuant to subsection (b) of this nationwide permit is required for any discharge which would cause the
aggregate total loss of waters of the United States for the entire subdivision to exceed one (1) acre. Any
discharge in any real estate subdivision which would cause the aggregate total loss of waters of the United
States in the subdivision to exceed ten (10) acres is not authorized by this nationwide permit; unless the DE
exempts a particular subdivision or parcel by making a written determination that: (1) the individual and
cumulative adverse environmental effects would be minimal and the property owner had, after October 5,
1984, but prior to January 21, 1992, committed substantial resources in reliance on NWP 26 with regard to
a subdivision, in circumstances where it would be inequitable to frustrate his investment -backed expectations,
or (2) that the individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects would be minimal, high quality
wetlands would not be adversely affected, and there would be an overall benefit to the aquatic environment.
Once the exemption is established for a subdivision, subsequent lot development be individual property
owners may proceed. using NWP 26. For purposes of NWP 26, the term "real estate subdivision' shall be
interpreted to include circumstances where a landowner or developer divides a tract of land into smaller
parcels for the purpose of selling, conveying, transferring, leasing, or developing said parcels. This would
include the entire area of a residential, commercial or other real estate subdivision, including all parcels and
parts thereof. (Section 404)
Structural Discharge. Discharges of material such as concrete, sand, rock, etc. into tightly sealed forms or
cells where the material will be used as a structural member for standard pile supported structures, such as
piers and docks; and for linear projects, such as bridges, transmission line footings, and walkways. The
NWP does not authorize filled structural members that would support areas and other such structures.
Housepads or other building pads are also not included in this nationwide permit. The structure itself may
require a section 10 permit if located in navigable waters of the United States. (Section 404)
(c) General Conditions: The following general conditions, where applicable, must be complied with
for the Nationwide Permit authorization to remain valid:
(1) Navieation. No activity may cause more than a minimal adverse effect on navigation.
SECTION 404 ONLY CONDITIONS
In addition to the General Conditions, the following conditions apply only to activities that involve
the discharge of dredged or fill material and must be followed in order for authorization by the nationwide
permits to be valid:
(1) Water Supply Intakes. No discharge of dredged or fill material may occur in the proximity of
a public water supply intake except where the discharge is for repair of the public water supply intake
structures or adjacent bank stabilization.
(2) Shellfishi production. No discharge of dredged or fill material may occur in areas of concentrated
shellfish production, unless the discharge is directly related to a shellfish harvesting activity authorized by
nationwide permit 4,
(3) Suitable material. No discharge of dredged or fill material may consist of unsuitable material
(e.g., trash, debris, car bodies, etc.) and material discharged must be free from toxic pollutants in toxic
amounts.
(4) Mitigation. Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States must be
minimized or avoided to the maximum extent practicable at the project site (i.e. on -site), unless the district
engineer has approved a compensation mitigation plan for the specific regulated activity.
(5) Spawning areas. Discharges in spawning areas during spawning seasons must be avoided to the
maximum extent practicable.
(6) Obstruction of high flows. To the maximum extent practicable, discharges must not permanently
restrict or impede the passage of normal or expected high flows or cause the relocation of the water (unless
the primary purpose of the fill is to impound waters).
O Adverse impacts from impoundments. If the discharge creates an impoundment of water,
adverse impacts on the aquatic system caused by the accelerated passage of water and/or the restriction of
its flow shall be minimized to the maYintum extent practicable.
(8) Waterfowl breeding areas. Discharges into breeding areas for migratory waterfowl must be
avoided to the maximum extent practicable.
(9) Removal of temporary fills. Any temporary fills must be removed i their entirety and the
affected areas returned to their preexisting elevation.
January 16, 1997
Mr. Rex Fletcher
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS, Omaha District
9307 State Highway 121
Littleton CO 801:3-6901
RE: Ilearlhfire Housing Project
Nationwide Permit I.D. Number 199580615
in Larimer County, Colorado
Dear Mr. Fletcher:
In response to the letter of January 13, 1997, from Mr. Timothy T. Carey please
note the following:
Under Item H4 of the special conditions "That the water source required
to support and sustain the wetland mitigation areas will be perpetual for
this project,": The developer understands that water rights will be required
to be purchased for the mitigated wetlands to provide the required water
source. In relationship to the island to be constructed in the "waters of the
U.S.," this proposed island is not located in the wetlands but within an
existing pond. Because this pond is fed by groundwater, it is the devel-
oper's opinion that an additional water source is not needed; and therefore,
is requesting that the construction of the island be permitted prior to
supplying the required water source for the mitigated wetland areas.
2. The native seed mix, as referenced under Item N5 is as follows:
Native S
Western Wheatgrass, Bartan
BlueBunch Wheatgrass, Secar
Slender Wheat, Primar (Revenue)
Blue Gratmna, Lovington
Sheep Fescue, Covar (Bighorn)
Switchgrass, Blackwell
Please review this information and let us know if the construction on the island can proceed.
Should you have any additional comments, please feel free to give me a call: 970.484.1921.
Sincerely,
1 M SELL IGN' Inc.
mas an
TJD:Isf
cc; Ted aos raig (lash
Hearthfire Corres.
' S,Jni1iC
SllD
1;�
117EMautlain A,� 80524
(3n394 l
)1921
MSWUoc111mnM1Orc\I621.1\lanuary 16. 1"7
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
77, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DISTRICT
TRI-LAKES PROJECT OFFICE, 9307 STATE HWY 121
LI TTLETON, COLORADO 80123-6901
REPI Y TO
-_— ATTENTION OF
February 5, 1997
1,�gg1
�F� 1 Mr. Thomas J. Dugan
Jim Sell Design Inc.
117 East Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
RE: Ilearthfire IIousing Project, Nationwide Permit 26, Corps Tile #199580615
Dear Mr. Dugan:
Reference is made to your request to proceed with construction of the island within the
existing pond prior to supplying the required water source information for the mitigated wetland
areas. Based on the reasons provided, that the pond is fed by groundwater and an additional
water source is not needed, the construction of the pond may proceed at this time without
supplying the water source information.
Please note that allowing the construction of the island does not authorize any impacts
to wetlands in or around the pond. Be advised that special condition 4 still applies for other
aspects of the project, and all other conditions that apply to this project must be followed for this
authorization to remain valid.
If there are any questions concerning this matter, please call Mr. Rex Fletcher at (303)
979-4120, and reference Corps file #199580615.
Sincerely,
Project
Printed on ® Recycled Paper
T'ranspc, .ition Services
Engineering Department
City of Fort Collins
February 25, 1997
Jim Sell Design
Tom Dugan
117 E. Mountain ,Avenue
Ft. Collins, CO 80524
Dear Tom:
1;r v-
Last week, I met with Mike Herzig, Matt Baker, and Sheri Wamhoff of the Engineering
Department to discuss the City's requirements for the timing of off -site improvements.
We discussed the City's general Code requirements and standard practice in
interpreting and applying the Code. Hearthfire P.U.D. and the Registry Ridge P.U.D.
were included in the discussion as current development proposals which must meet the
off -site improvement requirements of the City.
As you know, the Code requires all development to have access to an improved arterial
street or an arterial street funded for improvement or the developer must improve the
impacted off -site :streets to a minimum of 36 feet in width back to the nearest improved
arterial (Code Section 29-678). Improvements adjacent to a developing property are
required at the time of development while improvements such as auxiliary lanes are
often triggered during the buildout of the development when the impact is created. Off -
sites are required at the time of development (prior to the issuance of the first building
permit) per the Code section referenced above.
The City will accept a letter of credit for 150% of the total cost of the off -site
improvements at the time of the first building permit to guarantee completion of the off -
sites. However, the off -site improvements must be completed prior to issuance of more
than 25% of the building permits in the development (or prior to issuing more than 25%
of the building permits in Phase 1 if the development is phased). Also, as stated in
previous Staff comments on the Hearthfire P.U.D. project, the off -site improvements are
not eligible for any street oversizing reimbursement.
The development agreement for the Hearthfire P.U.D., 1st Filing will include language
to stipulate the requirements described above. Please call me at 221-6750 with any
questions.
281 North College Avenue • PO. Box 580 • Port Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6605
Sincerely,
Kerrie Ashbeck
Civil Engineer II
cc: File
Matt Baker, S.I.D. Coordinator
Brian Shear, Shear Engineering
Transportation Services 6*r44pI M p
Engineering Department
D Q28`!(I✓
City of Fort Collins
February 25, 1997
Jim Sell Design
Tom Dugan
117 E. Mountain Avenue
Ft. Collins, CO 80524
Dear Tom:
Last week, I met with Mike Herzig, Matt Baker, and Sheri Wamhoff of the Engineering
Department to discuss the City's requirements for the timing of off -site improvements.
We discussed the City's general Code requirements and standard practice in
interpreting and applying the Code. Hearthfire P.U.D. and the Registry Ridge P.U.D.
were included in the discussion as current development proposals which must meet the
off -site improvement requirements of the City.
As you know, the Code requires all development to have access to an improved arterial
street or an arterial street funded for improvement or the developer must improve the
impacted off -site streets to a minimum of 36 feet in width back to the nearest improved
arterial (Code Section 29-678). Improvements adjacent to a developing property are
required at the time of development while improvements such as auxiliary lanes are
often triggered during the buildout of the development when the impact is created. Off -
sites are required at the time of development (prior to the issuance of the first building
permit) per the Code section referenced above.
The City will accept a letter of credit for 150% of the total cost of the off -site
improvements at the time of the first building permit to guarantee completion of the off -
sites. However, the off -site improvements must be completed prior to issuance of more
than 25% of the building permits in the development (or prior to issuing more than 25%
of the building permits in Phase 1 if the development is phased). Also, as stated in
previous Staff comments on the Hearthfire P.U.D. project, the off -site improvements are
not eligible for any street oversizing reimbursement.
The development agreement for the Hearthfire P.U.D., 1st Filing will include language
to stipulate the requirements described above. Please call me at 221-6750 with any
questions.
Sincerely,
Kerrie Ashbeck, P.E.
Civil Engineer II
cc: File
Matt Baker, S.I.D. Coordinator
Brian Shear, Shear Engineering
From: Gary Diede
To: kreavis
Date: 3/21/97 4:55pm
Subject: Hearthfire Improvements
Kathleen , I want to let you know that Mike, Ward and I met with Lucia and
Bill Yonker, developer for Hearthfire today at their request. Bill apparently
has a financial problem with this project and asked if he could delay the
Douglas Road improvements. He said this project was planned as a 1 year and
$150,000, but has taken 3 years and $350,000 on his end. His request was to
add the bike lanes on Douglas Road after he had built all 91 lot in phase one.
Here is what I agreed to do -- Since Douglas Road is on the edge of the UGA
and it can hand:Le the auto impacts, I think we can live with the existing
narrow bike lanes for a while. He will escrow 150% of the estimated costs to
widen Douglas Road and would have to make the Douglas Road improvements when
the first of the following 2 items is reached: at the 92 building permit in
both phases one and two (they have a total of 140 units) or within 18 months
from when his plat is recorded (expected in June 1997). He expects that his
first building permit will be in August 1997 so there will be minimal impact
on Douglas in 1997. We will have one summer (1998) where there would be
limited bike lanes for this development. There is a slim possibility that the
Richard's Lake PUD to the east will build the collector, Morningstar Way,
before this deadline which will provide bike access to County Road 11.
We normally don't like to extend permits out before the offsite work is done,
but I felt that we could do this much to help him out.
Let me know if you have any comments.
Gary
CC: rphillips,tfrazier,mherzig,.`wstanford, Bedminster
June 19, 1995
Planning and Zoning Board Members
City of Fort Collins, Planning Department
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Dear Board Members:
Richards -Lake PUD is an 81.61 acre Planned Unit Development located
at the southeast corner of Douglas Road and County Road 13. The
preliminary site plan includes 67.55 acres of the 81.61 total acres and will
consist of a mix of residential housing types and sizes. Large lots and a
landscape buffers are located adjacent to the existing county development
on the east and west. The south facing hillside east of the Comity Road
13 entrance has been designed to accommodate a neo-traditional
neighborhood of small single family units on approximately 50'xl 10' lots.
These units will have detached garages with apartments above, access will
be off a rear alley. All of the lots in this neighborhood are oriented for
maximum solar gain.
The apartments will allow lower income homeowners to off -set their
mortgage payments with rental income. The small yards and proximity
to the Country Club will also appeal to older homeowners as well. In this
situation the apartments may become guest quarters or a studio.
The ODP includes and additional mixture of patio homes and/or
townhomes. These are proposed in a later phase. The remainder of the
single family units will be conventional.
The development concept provides some unique features. After meeting
with the City of Fort Collins Natural Resource representatives it was
determined that it would be desirable to assemble environmentally
sensitive lands adjacent to Richard's Lake and Long Pond for public use.
This plan proposes to acquire and dedicate approximately 57 acres for that
purpose. Their is a public parking lot proposed that would provide
pedestrian access from Blue Herron Way, north of the public natural area.
In order to provide additional recreational opportunities for the residence
a surface access lease is being proposed for Richard's Lake.
This project would utilize school and commercial facilities planned for the
184 acre Richard's Lake Master Plan to the south.
Sell Des i ni11<.
1�ardscaPe A�uiecturo planning GraPri�
r
117 E Nlons Gourado ll Ave 80521
Fort Gd 1921
(303)484.
NS N Op TyP
United States Department of the Interior
� P
O
� a
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
�gACM 9 a0a
Ecological services
Colorado Field Office
P.O. Box 25496
Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado 80225-0207
ES/CO: ES/Species/Plants/
Spiranthes diluvialis/ MAR I 11991
Survey Reports
Mail Stop 65412
Theodore R. Boss
TR Boss Environmental and Biological Consulting
308 Milky Way
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
Dear Mr. Boss:
Based on the authority conferred to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) by the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 ft Kq.), the Service reviewed the Spiranthes diluvialis (Ute
Ladies' -tresses orchid) survey report prepared by you for the Richards Lake Development Company's
(Heathtire P.U.D.) proposed housing development in Larimer County, Colorado. As indicated in your letter,
the project is located on the north shore of Richards Lake in Fort Collins, Colorado (Township 8 North, Range
68 West, Northwest tk of Section 30).
The southern portion of the proposed development site was surveyed for the orchid in 1995. This survey was
conducted on the northern portion which was not part of the project in 1995. The Service finds the survey
acceptable and agrees that suitable habitat for S. diluvialis is not present within the area surveyed. Therefore,
the Service concurs with the determination that the proposed project should not adversely affect the continued
existence of this orchid.
We appreciate your submitting the report to our office for review and comment and your coordination with
our staff. If the Service can he of further assistance, please contact Jan McKee at (303) 275-2370.
Sincerely,
40yCarlson
Colorado Field Supervisor
cc: U.S. Army COE; Littleton, CO (Attn: Rex Fletcher)
Reading File
Project File
Reference: IPM•T&E\ORCHID\ 1997\sDTRB0325. W PF
April 2, 1997
Mr. Rex Fletcher/ Department of the Army
CORPS OF ENGINEERS/ OMAHA DISTRICT
9307 State Highway 121
Littleton CO 80123-6901
RE: HearthGre P.U.D., Nationwide Permit 26,
Corps File #199580615; Larimer County, Colorado.
Dear Mr. Fletcher:
As per the letter from Mr. Timothy T. Carey of January 13, 1997, regardinf
above referenced Nationwide Permit No. 26: Condition Number 8 required:
"The applicant will conduct a spirmuhes diluvialis survey for the north
portion of the project. This survey will be provided to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service for review and comment. This survey will be conducted
prior to starting work."
Mr. Theodore R. Boss of TR Boss Enviromnental and Biological Consulting had
prepared this study and submitted to Ms. Jan McKee of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service on February 12, 1997.
Ms. McKee has reviewed this study and has stated: "The Service finds the survey
acceptable and agrees that suitable habitat for s. diluvialis is not present within the
area surveyed." I have enclosed a letter from Mr. LeRoy W. Carlson of the U.S.
Department of the Interior which confirms the study is acceptable.
I believe this satisfies the requirements of the Corps for condition Number 8, but
should you have any questions or require additional information, please give me a
call at 970.484.1921.
Sincerely,
JIM SELL D IGN Inc.
'I iotna I ga�Project Manager
end.
cc: Hearthfire N8
117 F , cokx 80524
Fat 48Af11921
03)
C:UVW Vleanhfire\1611.1\April 2,'97
June 16, 1997
Project No: 1552-01-96
Water Supply and Storage Company
Attn: Tom Moore
2319 East Mulberry
Ft. Collins, Colorado 80522
Re: Hearthfire P.U.D., First Filing; Ft. Collins, Colorado
Dear Tom,
Please provide approval signature on the approval block provided on the Hearthfire P.U.D. First
Filing final utility plan Cover Sheet. A pen is provided. When the cover sheet is signed, please
call us and let us know when it is ready to pick up. We appreciate your consideration.
I would also like to note that we are in the process of preparing final utility plans for Hearthfire
Y.U.D., Second Filing. These plans will also be provided for your review and will be provided
with an approval block for Water Supply and Storage Company.
If you have any questions or comments, please call us at (970) 226-5334.
Brian W. Shear
Shear Engineering Corporation
BW S / mb
cc: Bill Yunker; Richards Lake Development Company
Craig Hash; Richards Lake Development Company
Ward Stanford; City of Fort Collins Engineering
Steve Olt; City of Fort Collins Planning
Tom Dugan; .Jim Sell Design
4836 S. Collcgc, Suite 12 Ft. Collins, CO 80525 (970) 226-5334 FAX (970) 282-0311
So P.16 '97 0:19
FRX P. 1
September 15, 1997
Project No: 1552-01.96
Post-IY Fax Note 7671
Date
Peal"►
IT* IhIK6 COCE,/
Fran SHCA4 CNN
CO.x)BPC
C,7y FF tal rn tr '
Co.
Phoa6 A
Mono 6
Fax# jai -3 8
Fax# a-Ba-0311
Water Supply and Storage Company
Attn: Tom Moore
2319 East Mulberry
P.O. Box 1584
Ft. Collins, Colorado 80527
Re: Hearthtlre P.U.D., First Filing., Ft. ColHas, Colorado
Dear Tom,
This is just a note to let you know what items and issues will still require your attention as it
relates to iicarthfire P.U.D. First Filing. These items will need to be addressed prior to October
1, 1997,
* FINAL PLAT
The Water Supply and Stora�e Company approval block on the final plat needs to be signed,
The plat mylars will be provided immediately upon completion. There will be two (2) cover
sheets to sign. The appropriate pen will be provided. Please recall that the following
approval stateffient was provided on the Cover Sheet of the final plat:
IRRIGATION COMPANY APPROVAL
The undersigned an behalf of THE WATER SUPPLY AND
STORAGE cONTANY, the owner of Richards Lake, does hereby
agree to accept all runoff front Hcarthfirc P.U.D. in a patternsimilar to
(historic flows which entered this irrigation reservoir.
President . Date
* DRAINAGE EASEMENTS
The City's Stormwater Utility is requiring specific drainage easements at each point
discharge location front Hearthfirc P.U.D. First Filing to Richard's Lake. There are three (3)
total easements defined due to storm sewer point discharge locations. These easements will
need to he signed and notarized. We will handle the attorney certificate requirements. All
easements are attached for review, signature and notarization. Please call when all easements
ate signed so we may pick them up as soon as possible.
* DOUGLAS ROAD EASEMENTS
The slope easement on the north side of Douglas Road.at the supply canal just east of
Highway 1 will need to be signed. The easement is for the proposed Douglas Road
improvements. A copy of the letter which you signed indicating your intent to dedicate this
eascitieer is attached for immediate reference. We will handle the attorney certificate
requirements.
4836 S. College, Suite 12 Ft, CDllins, Co 80525 (970) 2268334 FAX (970) 282-0311
Sep.16 '97 6:20 FRX P. 2
PAGE 2
September 15, 1997
Project No: 1552-01-96
Re: Hearthfire R,V.D.,
First Filing; Ft. Collins, Colorado
If you have any questions or comments, please call us at (970) 482-3433.
Sincerely,
Brian W. Shear
Shear Engineering Corporation
BWS / mb
cc! Mike Coley; City of Fort Collins Engineering
Bill Yunker; Richards Lake Development Company
Craig Hash; lUchatds Lake Development Company
Lucia Liley; March & Myatt, P.C.
Tom Dugan
Tun Sell Design
Frederick Land Surveying
PineCrest Planning and Design
Landscape Architecture, Land Planning and Construction Management
4225 Westshore Way ♦ Fort Collins, CO 80525
(970)226-1655 Fax(970)226-1635
September 25, 1997
Mr. Rob Wilkerson
City of Fort Collins Natural Resources Department
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-0580
RE: Hearthfire PUD, First Filing
Cost Estimate for Wetlands Mitigation Plantings
Dear Rob:
Based upon our conservation regarding the wetlands mitigation at Hearthfire, I have estimated the cost of
replanting the wetlands if our proposed method of replacing the existing wetlands topsoil on the mitigated areas
fails. The total cost estimate is based upon the plantings in the mitigated wetlands at the Dry Creek Mobile
Home Park of $9,720.00 on a total of 1.17 acres for a cost of $8,307.69 per acre. The Hearthfire development
will mitigate 1.875 acres as per the Army Corps Permit dated January 13, 1997 at a total estimated cost of
$15,576.92.
Please use this amount for the security amount in the preparation of the Development Agreement.
If you should have any questions, feel free to give me a call.
inccrely,
om Dugan l
ec Rill Yunker, Craig Hash, Lucia Liley, Mike Coley, Brian Shear
I leanhfire I Dev. Coor.
ARTHUR E. MARCH, JR.
RAMSEY D. MYAn
ROBERT W. BRANDES, JR.
RICHARD S- GAST
LUCIA A. ULFV
J. BRADFORD MARCH
LINDA S. MILLER
JEFFREY J. JOHNSON
MATTHEW J. DOUGLAS
MARCH & MYATT, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
110 EAST OAK STREET
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524-2880
(910) 482-4322
TELECOPIER (970) 482-3038
September 29, 1997
Mr. Michael Coley
Engineering Department
City of Fort Collins
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
ARTHUR E. MARCH
1508-1881
MAILING ADDRESS:
P.O. BOX 488
FORT COLLINS, CO 80522 M
yJ- `iAgu ^L'LT`v'ER.
Re: Hearthfire PUD, First Filing, Final - #31-95D
Request for Variance from Street Design Criteria
Dear Michael:
As has been discussed with City staff on several occasions,
the developer of Hearthfire PUD is requesting a variance from three
sections of the City's Design and Construction Criteria, Standards
and Specifications for Streets, Sidewalks, Alleys and Other Public
Ways (the "Criteria"), approved in July 1996 and on file in the
City's engineering office.
Section 1.02.01 of the Criteria permits a variance from its
regulations under certain circumstances.
"As with any design criteria, occasions may arise
where the minimum standards are either inappropriate or
cannot be justified economically. In these cases a
variance to these criteria shall be considered. Written
request for each variance should be directed to t-he City
Engineer."
As you may recall, the design and layout of the Hearthfire PUD
is the result of a lengthy planning process which has involved a
controversial Planning and Zoning Board denial, an appeal to City
Council, an unusual developer/neighborhood alliance, extensive
negotiation and plan revisions, a joint request for remand and,
finally, unanimous Planning and Zoning Board approvals with a
variance to the minimum density requirements. Having gone through
numerous plan iterations in the process, Hearthfire PUD now
provides, through lower density and nontraditional site design, a
compatible transition to the surrounding rural development while
preserving existing topography, wetlands, ecosystem linkages and
view corridors; accommodating functioning oil and gas wells; and
Mr. Michael Coley
September 29, 1997
Page 2
creating neighborhood connections for cyclists, pedestrians and
equestrians. Hearthfire PUD is truly tailored for this unique
transition area.
Although the Hearthfire PUD plan successfully achieves many of
the City's planning objectives and addresses the neighborhood's
concerns, there are three (3) technical street design standards
which cannot be met at all locations and are not appropriate for
this unique design. The need for variances was, in fact,
anticipated by the developer during the revision process and the
concept was favorably received by City Staff. on behalf of the
developer, therefore, I request a variance from the following three
( ) requirements of the Criteria:
1.02.03.04 Minimum Tangent Length for Horizontal Alignment
The east leg of the intersection of Hearthfire Drive and Barn
Swallow Circle and the east leg of the intersection of Waxwing Lane
and Barn Swallow Circle do not meet the required minimum tangent
for intersections according to the Criteria. Strict compliance
with the standard at these two locations would negatively affect
the efficient design of the higher density areas at the interior of
the project and may necessitate a realignment of the primary access
to the project (Hearthfire Drive) and a future connection to
Richard's Lake PUD (Waxwing Lane). The developer believes,
however, that the design proposed will work safely and efficiently
given the anticipated traffic speeds on the streets.
1.02.03.05 Amproach Grades
The existing topography and the horizontal layout of the
interior street system result in vertical grades of greater than 2%
within 50 feet of the intersections of Barn Swallow Circle and
Hearthfire Drive (south leg) , uarr. Swallow Drive and Hearthf it e
Drive (south of the roundabout), and Bald Eagle Court and
Hearthfire Drive, and Green Wing Court and Hearthfire Drive. In
order to achieve approach grades which meet this standard,
developer would have to do extensive grading work, which is
contrary to goal of maintaining the property's natural
characteristics to the greatest extent possible.
1.02.03.12 Cross Pans
The developer attempted to design a below grade storm sewer
drainage line to convey storm drainage flows across the
intersection of Hearthfire Drive and Morningstar Way. However, due
to existing and proposed grade conditions at the intersection, a
Mr. Michael Coley
September 29, 1997
Page 3
below grade drainage line in this location would also be below the
surface level of the wetland, causing the wetland to drain instead
of collect storm water flows. To avoid wetland damage and/or cut
and fill work, to change the grade, the Developer proposes to
install one 20-foot cross pan at the intersection to move storm
drainage flows. Although cross pans are not technically permitted
on a collector street under this section of the Criteria, the
developer believes that the cross pan provides a reasonable
alternative to endangering the wetland or further disturbing the
natural grade.
Finally, the developer proposes to construct a roundabout at
the intersection of Hearthfire Drive and Barn Swallow Drive to
serve as a neighborhood gathering place and to slow traffic speeds.
Because there are no standards in the Criteria to regulate the
design of a roundabout, we request that a variance be granted to
allow such construction. A complete design will be submitted for
the City's review.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
MARCH & MYATT, P.C.
Y r
By; i /
Lucia JA. Liley'
LAL/jpk
HEARTHFIRE INC.
11941 WEST 48TH AVENUE
WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80033
December 15, 1997
Michael Coley
Engineering Department
City of Fort Collins
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
RE: Hearthfire Way
Dear Mr. Coley:
I am the Vice President of Hearthfire, Inc. which is the owner of the
property that is described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and will be
called Hearthfire Way. I hereby grant permission for the City of Fort
Collins to use this street for public use as a permanent right-of-way for
public street purposes. A Deed of Dedication for right-of-way of this
street will be recorded at a later date in order to dedicate, transfer and
convey this permanent right-of-way for public street purposes to the City.
Sincerely,
HEARTHF1RE, INC. n
By: Lt) V
r
Enclosures
ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
The primary access will initially be from County Road 13 on the west with a future access
planned from the south when the existing Richard's Lake Master plan is developed. The south
entrance will eventually become the most direct route to the core of the City.
Access to Serramonte Highlands is not proposed at the wishes of the neighborhood and the
County Engineer since those roads are owned and maintained by that neighborhood.
Pedestrian circulation is accommodated by sidewalks on all streets and through the central public
open space and greenbelts.
LAND USE POLICIES PLAN
Policy 11 "Lands of agricultural importance should be... excluded..."
Policy 12 "Urban density... three or more units to the acre"
Policy 14 "Urban development standards..."
Policy 15 "...development policies... extension of services" (site is adjacent to an
existing arterial street; Douglas Road. All utilities are near or on the site
and it is surrounded by existing County development on three sides.)
Policy 39 "...Promote improved traffic,... to areas north of the city."
Policy 40 ...Promote the utilization of existing vacant land in the northeast by
offering incentives..."
Policy 41 ...encourage residential development in the northeast,..".
Policy 75 ...mix of housing densities."
Policy 76 ...low and moderate income housing."
Policy 88 "...prohibit development which interferes with public access to open space
areas."
Policy 92 "Adequate public access to the City's lakes..."
Thank you for your considerations, and we look forward to your comments.
Sincerely
JIM SELL DESIGN INC.
\James L. Sell
Principal
JLS/kms
City of Fort Collins
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Eckman
FROM: Sheri Wamhoff jil(-
DATE: July 27, 1999
RE: Hearthfire PUD, I" Filing Development Agreement
Attached is a proposed amendment, drafted by Lucia Liley, to the Hearthfire PUD, I't Filing
development agreement for your review and comment. A copy of the development agreement,
the proposed amendment agreement and some supporting documentation are provided for your
reference. Please review the amendment agreement and let me know if you have any comments
or changes to it. The following are my comments:
v 1. The amendment needs to indicate that it is the 151 amendment.
/ 2. For suggested paragraph II.D.4. - don't we still need what is in the existing agreement.
This identifies why they need to provided the escrow of funds and what improvements are to be
constructed. The portion regarding providing the new letter of credit seems appropriate to add,
but it seems the existing paragraphs should remain.
3. It seems that suggested paragraph II.D.5 and existing paragraph II.D.5 say the same
thing. If so, why replace?
4. Couldn't proposed paragraphs II.D.6 and II.D.10 be combined into one, as they both
speak to when the Douglas Road improvements should be done.
If you have any questions, please call me at x7140.
:Attachments
July 28, 1999
Project No. 1552-01-96
Sheri Wamhoff
City of Fort Collins Engineering Department
P.O. Box 580
Ft, Collins, Colorado 80524
Re: Douglas Road Improvements; Hearthfire P.U.D., First Filing
Larimer County (Ft. Collins), Colorado
Dear Sheri,
This letter serves as the summary of the revisions made to the plans for the Douglas Road
Improvements since our last submittal.
We will be forwarding copies of this letter and the revised plans to Larimer County Engineering
and the Elco Water District (East Larimer County Water District).
We have contacted the Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins Foresters to let them know
that this project is being submitted. We have provided plans for you to distribute to Tim
Buchanan along with the other reviewers We will also provide the Larimer County Forester,
Dave Lentz, a set of plans.
General Items
• Douglas Road plans have previously been reviewed for our initial submittal that was made on
May 13, 1997. Four (4) sets of plans were submitted to Ward Stanford at the time. All
previous Douglas Road plan redlined sets that were transmitted to us are being returned with
this re -submittal (3 sets).
• Because Douglas Road has a design and review history, we are providing past
correspondence and documentation in order to allow current review participants access to
those past discussions. The following correspondence incorporates previous Douglas Road
discussion and is attached for immediate reference:
Correspondence by:
Entity
Correspondence to:
Correspondence date
Brian W. Shear, P.E.
Shear Engineering
Kerrie Ashbeck
November 25, 1996
Kerrie Ashbeck
City Engineering
Steve Olt
December 22, 1996
Brian W. Shear, P.E.
Shear Engineering
Kerrie Ashbeck
January 8, 1997
Brian W. Shear, P.E.
Shear Engineering
Kerrie Ashbeck
January 17, 1997
Kerrie Ashbeck
City Engineering
Jim Sell Design
February 25, 1997
Please note that Mike Coley was the latest City Engineering representative to review the
Douglas Road plans.
4836 S. College, Suite 12 Ft. Collins, CO 80525 (970) 226-5334 FAX (970) 282-0311
PAGE 2
July 28, 1999
Project No. 1552-01-96
Re: Douglas Road Improvements; Hearthfire P.U.D., First Filing
Larimer County (Ft. Collins), Colorado
• The design of Douglas Road was based on conditions of the Planning and Zoning Board.
Conditions and design specifications were addressed in conformance with the specific
requirements set forth by the Planning and Zoning Board. We would request that the
reviewers of these plans understand historic conditions and requirements as they review these
plans. We would be happy to provide these conditions and requirements which are
incorporated into previous City staff reports associated with Hearthfire P.U.D. if requested
by the reviewing staff.
• Notes have been added to the plan and profile sheets concerning specific minor details such
as mailbox relocation requirements, driveway grading requirements and tree removal
requirements. These items were not included with the initial 1997 submittal
-
• We understand that coordination with the City and the County will be required with this
project. This could be best accomplished by a joint pre -construction meeting. Note that
standard County General Notes are incorporated on the Cover Sheet.
We have responded to the comments from the various departments as follows:
Engineering - Mike Coley
• We have contacted Terracon in order to obtain some recommendations concerning
stabilization for the slopes that are in excess of 4:1 along Douglas Road. These
recommendations will be added to the general notes and to the cross section sheets prior to
approval.
• The road improvements are essentially an overlay. This does not provide for meeting the
allowable grade break criteria.
• The vertical curve at the eastern end of the improvements has been revised to maximize the
site distance from the intersection of Hearthfire Way and meet City vertical curve and site
distance design criteria.
• We have noted on the plans which trees required removal or relocation. We have also noted
that all relocation be coordinated with the Larimer County Forester and the respective
homeowners.
• Two 12' wide travel lanes are provided along with two 6' bike paths with this project. Two
(2') foot gravel shoulders are also provided. The ultimate section noted on the plan will be
constructed in the future by others. This street typical section is in strict conformance with
City of Fort Collins requirements concerning road improvements to the next available arterial
(refer to letter by Kerrie Ashbeck dated February 25, 1997).
PAGE 3
July 28, 1999
Project No. 1552-01-96
Re: Douglas Road Improvements; Hearthfire P.U.D., First Filing
Larimer County (Ft. Collins), Colorado
Engineering - Mike Coley
• Redline comments on the plans have also been addressed.
Stormwater - Matt Fater
• Silt fence has been added at the toe of slope on both sides of the road. Silt fence is shown on
the grading plan. A detail is provided on the last cross section sheet. This will be the limit of
the temporary erosion control measures during construction. We feel that there is no need for
any further calculations or a report. There is a note on the grading plans indicating that the
silt fence be installed prior to the commencement of the dirtwork. This is the limit of
scheduling.
• Driveway culverts affected by the road widening will be relocated. Notes for each driveway
are included on the plan and profile sheets. A general note on the cover sheet instructs the
contractor to maintain existing flow patterns when driveway culverts are relocated.
• The existing drainage conditions north of Douglas Road do not require a new culvert to pass
the flows into Hearthfire P.U.D. This is not a low point and much of the upstream flows are
intercepted by the irrigation ditch. The existing culvert is adequate.
• We have contacted Terracon in order to obtain some recommendations concerning slope
stabilization for the slopes in excess of 4:1 along Douglas Road. These recommendations will
be added to the general notes and to the cross section sheets prior to approval.
• Redline comments on the plans have also been addressed.
Traffic/ Transportation - Matt Baker
• Striping plans have been modified to reflect the changes redlined on the previous submittal.
This concludes our response to review comments concerning the construction plans for the
Douglas Road Improvements.
PAGE 4
July 28, 1998
Project No. 1552-01-96
Re: Douglas Road Improvements; Hearthfire P.U.D., First Filing
Larimer County (Ft. Collins), Colorado
If you have further questions or comments, or if you require additional information, feel free to
contact us at (970) 226-5334.
Sincerely,
Mark Oberschmidt
Shear Engineering Corporation
Attachments
;Review. d
Aq-
Brian W. Shear, P.E.
Shear Engineering Corporation
cc: Tom Kennedy, Hearthfire, Inc.
Cam McNair; City of Fort Collins Engineering
Steve Olt; City of Fort Collins Planning
Lucia Liley, March and Myatt, P.C.
Janelle Kechter; March and Myatt, P.C.
Tom Dugan; Pinecrest Planning and Design
Rex Burns; Larimer County Engineering
Dave Lentz; Larimer County Forestry
Tim Buchanan; City of Fort Collins Forestry
Basil Hamdan, City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility
Matt Baker; City of Fort Collins Engineering
Rick Mattingly; ELCO Water District
AUG-10-99 TUE 06!49 PH AUF' 2ND FLOOR FAX NO. 303 49' 710 P. 01
City of Ft. Collins
Atten: Cam McNair
On August 601 , I met with Ben Connell and William Welch concerning the patching
and top lift on 11carthfire's Phase I streets. The city of Ft. Collins was called during
that meeting. Connell felt confident that the patching would be completed within
two weeks and the final lift within a month,
We are very pleased to recently complete the curb repair and terracon testing of the
street.
We respectfully request that you remove the hold on Hearthfire's building permits,
Since ly,
o D. Kennedy
Partner
1AP41 W. 4e Ave, Whcat FWS-� Ce 80033 303-345-2003
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Post Office Box 1190
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190
(970)498-5700
FAX (970) 498-7986
August 20, 1999
Sheri Wamhoff
City of Fort Collins - Engineering
281 N. College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80522
RE: Douglas Road Improvements — Associated with Hearthfire P.U.D.
Dear Sheri,
Thank you for meeting with us regarding the latest revisions to the Douglas Road Improvement Plans. We have
visited the site and have completed reviewing the plans, previous comments and correspondence letters associated
with this project. In addition to the following comments, we are also providing redline comments on the attached
plans.
I . Per the Latimer County Standards, the gravel drives off of Douglas Road must tie in to the proposed edge of
asphalt with 20' minimum radius curves. As a minimum, the drives must have an asphalt surface to the Right
of Way line.
2. General Note Number 17 states that the reconstructed drives will be tied into existing grades with a 2% slope
for 25' and a 10% maximum slope thereafter. The Plans need to show how the existing drives will tie in to
the proposed edge of road with detailed cross sections or with spot elevations and slopes on the grading plan.
Also on the plans, delineate the grading limits for the drives.
3. Construction easements will be required at the drives if the grading limits extend outside of the existing Right
of Way.
4. In cases where the grading at the drives extends beyond the Right of Way line and onto private land, privately
owned items may require relocation. The developer will be responsible for the relocation costs.
5. It is our understanding that, with the last submittal, the proposed grading along the north edge of Douglas
Road necessitated easement acquisition from some of the neighboring property owners. Please provide this
office with recorded copies of any easements previously acquired with this project.
6. It appears from the cross sections that the capacity of the drainage ditch on the north side of Douglas Road is
being diminished. Please have the applicant provide calculations confirming that the capacity of the new
ditch will be capable of carrying the historic flows.
Another acceptable option that we would consider is if the ditch is reconstructed to the same dimensions as it
is now. This may also require the acquisition of additional drainage easements.
7. The cross sections show the borrow ditch encroaching past the Right of Way. Drainage easements will need
to be acquired.
hAdevrevAplanehk\eiticsVfcollin.Wouglas road irap.doe
o. V previous comments from our office, improvements to the Highway land Douglas Road intersection were
discussed. While we do not feel that this development should be responsible for all of the improvements, we
do think that they may have responsibility for some of the improvements. An updated Traffic Impact Study is
requested to address these responsibilities. The two sections of the intersection the developer may be
responsible for are: a right turn lane on Highway I for north bound traffic onto east bound Douglas Road and
possibly right and/or left turn lanes on the east leg of Douglas Road for west bound traffic.
I,arimcr County has some money dedicated to making improvements at this intersection so we would be
willing to accept payment in lieu of the improvements. It would help if we could see the Traffic Impact Study
for this intersection'ro determine our position as to what level of involvement that we feel this development is
responsible for.
9. Before we can approve the plans, we will need to see information on the proposed stabilization procedures for
the 2:1 side slopes. We request that none of the side slopes exceed 2:1. Prior to our approval, a geotechnical
engineer should recommend the slope stabilization procedures.
10. The plans indicate that runoff from a portion of the undeveloped area north of Douglas Road will collect at a
low point in the north borrow ditch, near Douglas Road station 24+00. What are the drainage intentions in
this area? Is there an existing culvert under Douglas Road?
11, Call out proposed curb return radiuses at the Douglas Road and Highway 1 intersection.
12. Please show a Type 1I1 Barricade where the sidewalk terminates at the Douglas Road and County Road 13
intersection and at the Douglas Road and Hearthfire Way intersection.
13. With bicycle safety in mind, our staff recommends that a "Bike Lane Ends " sign be placed sign just before
the Douglas Road and Hearthfire Way intersection.
14. Please reference the attached redlines for additional comments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the plans. I apologize if any of the comments have already
been discussed and resolved prior to my involvement with the review. If there are any questions regarding the
above comments or the attached redlines, please give me a call at 498-5727.
Sincerely,
Traci Downs
c: Marc Oberschmidt, Shear Engineering Corporation
file
h\devrev\planchk\cllles\Icollins\dmiglas road fmp.doc Page 2 of 2
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Post Office Box 1190
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190
(970)498-5700
FAX (970)498-7986
June 21, 2000
Sheri Wamhoff
City of Fort Collins - Engineering
291 N. College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80522
RE: Douglas Road Improvements — Associated with Hearthfire P.U.D.
Dear Sheri,
We have completed reviewing the geotechnical report and the revised plans that were recently submitted. We
have the following comments:
L Our department strongly recommends that the developer hold a neighborhood meeting as soon as possible to
inform any interested people of the construction plans. A group of concerned residents met with the Board of
County Commissioners on 6/20/00 to express their concerns that they have not been given information
regarding this project and the possible impacts to their properties. We would expect that adjacent property
owners will soon be notified of the impacts that this project will have on their property. These impacts
include re -grading of the drives and borrow ditches, as well as the relocation of fences, light poles, mail
boxes, etc. We will expect that the developer/contractor will respond to any complaints during the
construction of the project in a timely manner.
2. An access permit will be required prior to any work in the county right-of-way. Prior to the issuance of the
access permit, the applicant must submit evidence, such as meeting minutes, that a neighborhood meeting has
been held and the adjacent property owners have been notified of the impacts to their property.
3. A typical detail for the drives off of Douglas Road should be included in the plans. The detail needs to
include the dimensions and paving limits of the drives. As a reminder Larimer County requires 20' minimum
radius curves.
4. It appears that grading is required outside of the right -of way at station 53+00. Construction easements are
required when the grading limits will extend outside of the existing right-of-way.
5. The southern right-of-way line is not shown on the cross -sections for stations 66+00 through 68+00.
6. Several of the cross -sections show the capacity of the existing borrow ditches adjacent to Douglas Road being
diminished. We are assuming that the design engineer for this project has analyzed these sections and found
that the re -configured ditches will still have adequate capacity for the proposed flows. However, we would
like a letter from the design engineer confirming this.
7. Several of the cross-section show the borrow ditches encroaching past the Right of Way. However, the
borrow ditches in these areas are shown to be within slope easements. Since the slope easements appear to be
functioning as drainage easements as well, our department would like clarification on whether the description
of the slope easements includes their alternate function as drainage easements.
8. Based on the concerns raised by some of the residences along Douglas Road to the Board of County
Commissioners on 6/20/00, we are concerned that the slope easements that are shown on the plans have not
yet been acquired. Before we approve the plans, we will need a letter or some form of documentation from
the developer that states that the easements have been acquired.
9. The profile for station 51+10 on sheet 17 appears to be missing the existing pipe.
hmad imp 2 doe
10. Note 14 on sheet 3 refers to sheet 14, however, it appears that sheet 16 should be referenced instead.
11. Driveway section 66+95 appears to have two abrupt transitions in order to tie-in to the existing grade.
Perhaps the grading limits could extend beyond the ROW for a smoother transition?
I I Section station 12+27 on sheet 16 shows that the existing headwall is to be extended. Does the headwall need
to be extended horizontally as well as vertically to accommodate the required fill in this area? A detail
specifying how the headwall is to be built should be included in the plans.
13. Please reference the attached redlines for additional comments.
"['hank you again for the opportunity to comment on the plans. If there are any questions regarding the above
comments or the attached redlines, please give me a call at 498-5727.
Sincerely,
Traci Downs
c: Marc Oberschmidt, Shear Engineering Corporation
file
h devrevAplanchkVcitiesVfeollinsVdonglas road imp2.doc Paget oft
A Commitment to Progress
LARIMER COUNTY COLORADO
July 6, 1995
Mike Ludwig
City of Fort Collins
Planning
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
RE: Richard's Lake PUD
Dear Mr. Ludwig:
Engineering Department
(970) 498-5700
FAX (970) 498-7986
Post Office Box 1190
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190
Engineering Services Manager
Elaine W. Spencer
I have reviewed the development proposal and traffic impact report for the Richard's Lake PUD and have the
following comments regarding the impact of this development on roads maintained by Latimer County which
currently provide the only access to this property.
"Elie Traffic Impact Analysis estimates that 40% of the 2400 trips generated by this development will go
south. All of the trips to the south will use Inverness and Abbotsford Roads to either Richard's Lake Road or
Gregory Road. Both of these roads are gravel and the additional traffic will require that the roads be paved.
The traffic continuing south will continue along Abbotsford Road to Gregory Road, south on Gregory to
Country Club and then south on Lemay to areas within the city adding 710+ trips to this route. Following are
the concerns I have with adding traffic to this route.
• The traffic impact study does not address the impact of traffic from this development on the
intersection of Gregory/Lemay/Country Club Road.
The intersection of Abbotsford and Gregory is a T-intersection with poor sight distance for vehicles
on Abbotsford turning either right or left onto Gregory.
These roads are all narrow with no provision for bicycles or pedestrians. We already receive
numerous complaints about speeding on Gregory Road; congestion at the school with busses,
pedestrians, bicycles and cars; increased traffic on Lemay south of Country Club, etc. The traffic
added by this development will exacerbate these existing problems since the street infrastructure in
this area simply is not adequate to handle this additional traffic.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please call me at 498-5714 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Elaine W. Spencer
Engineering Services Manager
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
John Clarke Janet Duvall Jim Disney
District I District 11 District III
July 05, 2000 Ce�ao e,.k r} �.'LS
II
To: Cam McN r, City Engineer��
From: Sheri Wamhoff, Development Review Engineer
i..til� Q l I
Re: Douglas Road Improvements associated with Hearthfire 1'` Filing
�
Attached are the comments received on the last round of review for your a ��
information. A comment sheet was not received, but redlined plans were
also received from Elco. Plans were sent to US Cable a couple of weeks
after they were sent out, they called and requested them after hearing from
another utility that they were sent out for review, and we have not yet
received any comments back from them. All redlined plans and comment
� S t55 tw.t
sheets received were forwarded onto the developers engineer on Friday June
30, 2000. `I` %AA Wto
�L..-
L�w.��r-:5 W 110
If we receive any comments from US Cable they will be sent onto the w�
developers engineer upon receipt.
f r
I zb{ ez '- ^
C�IX� v'
/I!H/I7r C007PAAIY PhD•VC
�LIS�. cFF- fi/c L rzou<Y-c��TA.J }(omr5 'f72—O/_6c7
C1� coax-
14�
�ANce ew(,,
Rr`ck4 .�P E VA -L (30vr y Oya -_13a, Mee q'JO _ ��, 4/ O07
�usn--
fj- St,� �frrk�Tvs mac.
Corey Se lt-e- Pa(A(. _Nl_r5/ -21_S —2zyy_
L�,v>✓i�� i3,e � .✓.✓ �u-c.�a�,.f,,,��C f�<��7�F�.��i_ yo 7 9�fL
Glen efr
&WW 5 -FJ, -- 2ziI7-6 o t r
Prl
�l 3
August 3, 2000
Project No: 1552-01-96
Donnie Dustin
City of Ft. Collins Stormwater Utility
P.O. Box 580
Ft. Collins, Colorado 80524
Re: Douglas Road Improvements — Side Slope Variance Request
Dear Donnie,
This letter represents a request for a variance the side slopes along side the proposed Douglas
Road Improvements that are steeper than 4:1.
We are requesting the variance for the following reasons.
❑ The existing side slopes along Douglas Road currently do not meet the 4:1 standard.
Refer to the cross sections provided with the Construction Drawings for the Douglas
Road Improvements.
❑ Slope stabilization recommendations have been provided by Terracon in a slope
stabilization evaluation report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Report Douglas Road
Improvements East of Highway 1, North of Hearthfire Estates", Terracon Project No.
200005090, report dated May 15, 2000.
We trust that this request will be accepted and the plans approved accordingly. Please call me at
(970) 226-5334 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Mark Oberschmidt
Shear Engineering Corporation
MEO/mo
cc: Tom Kennedy; Hearthfire, Inc.
Steve Olt, City Planning
Tom Dugan, PineCrest Planning and Design
4836 S. College, Suite 12 Ft, Collins, CO 80525 (970) 226-5334 Fax (970) 282-0311 wNN�vshearenginecring.com
NUIUM
COMMITTED TO EXCELLENCE
August 8, 2000
Sheri Wamhoff
City of Fort Collins — Engineering Department
281 N. College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80522
RE: Douglas Road Improvements
Dear Sheri,
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Post Office Box 1190
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190
(970)498-5700
FAX (970)498-7986
I have reviewed the revised plans and drainage report that Brian Shear submitted to me in the meeting held at
your office last week regarding the Douglas Road Improvements. He has responded to all of our comments that
were presented to you in the memo dated June 21, 2000. Although we have commented below on the issues that
are still in progress, we do not have any major concerns with the submittal at this time.
• The developer intends to send an informational letter to the affected property owners in the next few weeks.
In conjunction with the letters, we also request that the developer place signs near the limits of construction
that state the proposed project and contact name/number. The list of affected property owners that was
submitted to our office shows several people who have out of town addresses. Therefore, it is possible that
some of these properties may be rental properties and the current residents may not receive the letter if it is
sent to the out of town owner. The signs would be beneficial for this situation and will serve as another
notification for any other residents who may not receive the letter. The signs should be installed in the near
future to get as many questions and concerns addressed as soon as possible. We recommend that the signs be
installed by August 31, 2000.
• As stated in the previous memos, evidence must be submitted to our office that verifies that the affected
property owners have been adequately notified. If letters will be sent out and signs placed, a copy of the
letter and notification of the date the signs were placed will be sufficient. This needs to be submitted prior to
our issuance of the access/utility permit.
• The applicant understands that the plan approvals are dependent on easement acquisition and therefore,
slope/drainage/construction easements are in the process of being acquired by the applicant. We will not
approve the plans until a signed `Grant of Easement' in Larimer County format is submitted. We believe the
applicant understands this and has already obtained the proper forms from our department.
• We understand that the details for the improvements to the Water Supply and Storage headwall are being
worked out with the associated groups. We would like to review the design once it has been completed.
• On sheet 6, the intersection detail should reference sheet 15 instead of sheet 13.
\\cngl Nvoll\data\devrev\planchk\cities\fcollins\dougl as road imp 3.doc
Please keep in mind that all of the above comments need to be completed before we can approve the final plans.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the plans for this project. If there are any questions regarding
the above comments, please give me a call at 498-5727.
Since,
�Gc4-t �F1L�y>
Traci Downs
c: Shear Engineering Corporation (Attn: Brian Shear), 4836 S. College -Suite 12, Fort Collins, CO 80525
file
\\eagl_fs\vol I \data\devrev\planchk\cilies\fcollins\douglas road imp 3.doe Page 2 of 2
September 12, 2000
City of Ft. Collins
Cam McNair, Jr.
City Engineer
PO Box 580
Ft. Collins, Co 80522-0580
Dear Cam:
We appreciate the meetings we have had with you regarding Hearthfire's immediate problem of
obtaining additional easement for Douglas Road and we are encouraged with the support you and
your staff have provided. We are painfully aware of our inability to proceed within the projected
timeframc, but we have had no other option but to rely on an outside engineering firm that is very
overworked (the present market standard). There is no question that the final blame and
responsibility lies with us, not the city. Some progress has been made with the four homeowners
that we arc negotiating with daily, but they have full knowledge that no new building permits will
be issued until the matter is resolved. The harder we push, the slower they respond.
Going forward, we have met at length with Shear Engineering and we are in contact with them
every day. The last remaining issue of a headwall and sewer pipe extension has been completed,
but due to the September 13"' moratorium, the final submittal will not be delivered to the city until
Thursday, September 14".
If the city would consider going to the 60 permit level upon completion of the Douglas Road plans
with the interim release of 12 permits, the most obvious advantage the present easement owner have
would be removed. A, move in this direction combined with our need to review other road
improvement options affords us the best prospect of obtaining the four easements by September
30"'. If we are unable to obtain the easements by September 30", Hearthfire will be willing to put
forth an additional letter of credit for their procurement while simultaneously reviewing all other
road options with the city. To pay the present extortionist amounts would set a detrimental
precedent for all future city and county projects.
The time factor has one added dimension on a good note. If we can resolve all issues by September
30`h, Connell Resources have indicated they will have work crews available by October I" to begin
construction. The city's cooperation is gravely needed, but in no way does this diminish
Hearthfrfe's responsibility to fulfill the intent of the development agreement.
Si cercly
T m D. Kennedy
resident
Transportation Services
Engjncering Department
Citv of Fort Collins
September 14, 2000
Mr. Tom D. Kennedy
President
Hearthfire, Inc.
11941 West 48°i Avenue
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
RE: Douglas Road Improvements
Dear Mr. Kennedy:
This letter is in response to your letter dated September 12, 2000, and the documentation you
have provided concerning the status of the Douglas Road design plans and associated easements.
Based on this information, I am convinced that you are proceeding with adequate diligence to
complete the design of the Douglas Road Improvements and to acquire the necessary easements.
Therefore, I am willing to release twelve (12) more building permits at this time. This will bring
the total number of permits allowed on Hearthfire 1s` Filing to forty-five (45). No more permits
will be allowed until the plans are signed by all reviewing agencies and until all necessary
easements are recorded.
As soon as the Douglas Road plans are finally approved and signed, the provisions of the
Development Agreement will once again be enforced as written. i do not want to again be
placed in the position of having your clients pressuring me to compromise the conditions of the
Development Agreement that Hearthfire entered into with the City. I expect that you will in the
future properly disclose to your buyers the terms of the Development Agreement as it relates to
their ability to obtain building permits.
The 12 permits wN be issued on a first -come -first -served basis. You may have your buyers
contact our Chief Construction Inspector, Lance Newlin, if they have questions.
Sincerely,
au/��44�f_
Cam McNair, PE
City Engineer
cc: Gary Diede
Lucia Liley
�i II, ',� zi�.u� " J,r F� n • �o tCoilin" & _ S07 -O7f?O • 1470) FAX (9:0) "1-o378
,c�c.�.d.Fort-_oilinsco.us
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Post Office Box 1190
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190
(970)498-5700
FAX (970) 498-7986
October 12, 2000
Sheri Wamhoff
City of Fort Collins — Engineering Department
281 N. College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80522
RE: Douglas Road Improvements
Dear Sheri,
I have reviewed the revised plans and I do not have any major concerns with the submittal at this time. However,
as stated in previous comments, the following items will need to be addressed prior to our approval of the plans
and issuance of an access/utility permit:
• It has been our understanding that the developer intends to send an informational letter to the affected
property owners. Prior to our issuance of the access/utility permit, we will require that the developer submit a
copy of the letter to our office.
• In conjunction with the letters, we also request that the developer place signs near the limits of construction
that state the proposed project and contact name/number. The signs will serve as another notification for any
other residents who may not receive the letter. The signs should be installed in the near future to get as many
questions and concerns addressed as soon as possible. We would appreciate it if the developer would notify
us once the signs have been installed.
• The applicant undersl:ands that the plan approvals are dependent on easement acquisition and therefore,
slope/drainage/construction easements are in the process of being acquired by the applicant.
• We understand that the details for the improvements to the Water Supply and Storage headwall are being
worked out with the associated groups. We have reviewed the design and do not have any comments. We
are assuming that the City's Stormwater Department is also reviewing this design.
If there are any questions regarding the above comments, please give me a call at 498-5727.
Sincerely,
Traci Downs
c: Shear Engineering Corporation (Attn: Brian Shear), 4836 S. College -Suite 12, Fort Collins, CO 80525
file
h:\devrev\planchk\cities\fcollins\douglas road imp 4.doc
Transportation Services
Engineering Department
City of Fort Collins
October 26, 2000
Mr. Tom Kennedy
First Colorado Group of Companies
11941 West 48a' Avenue
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
RE: Hearthfire PUD and Douglas Road
Dear Mr. Kennedy:
Upon review of the current traffic analysis by Matt Delich, dated October 12, 2000, the
City of Fort Collins Transportation Services has determined that it would be feasible for
Hearthfire PUD, 1" Filing, to design and construct its required interim improvements to
Douglas Road from the Hearthfire Way entry east to CR I Iin lieu of providing
improvements to the west to State Highway 1.
The following tasks would need to be completed in order to accomplish this change in
direction of the off -site improvements:
1. Larimer County will need to agree to the change in the direction of the off -site
improvements.
2. The applicant will still be required to contribute money as previously agreed
for the intersection improvements at State Highway 1 and Douglas Road,
since a significant portion of your development's traffic will still choose that
route.
3. The applicant will need to contribute funds to the improvement of CR 11,
Mountain Vista Drive, and Timberline Road as other developments in the
area have done. This will need to be done at the time of approval of the plans.
Contact Matt Baker at 221-6605 to obtain an estimate of this amount.
4. Improvements shall include widening as necessary at Hearthfire Way and
Douglas Road and Douglas Road and CR 11 to accommodate the necessary
turning movements (i.e., left turn and right turrilanes and appropriate
transitions as required).
5. Provide a complete set of utility plans to be approved by the City and the
County for the proposed improvements. These will be reviewed through the
normal process and shall be reviewed and approved by all pertinent entities
and/ or utilities.
6. All easements necessary to accomplish the improvements will need to be
obtained and submitted prior to the approval of the plans.
�Io; to Collw, !'C, Bos -FU • =or, CAli_ ,, CO • 1970)-21-6605 • FAX (970) 221 �,378
.cwIv.Ci. rrt-_all ins.eo.us
Page 2
Hearthfrre and Douglas Road
October 26, 2000
The applicant shall send out a notice to the neighborhood and all affected and
adjacent property owners about the change in improvements to be done. A
copy of said notice shall also be sent to the City and the County for
information.
The applicant shall hold a neighborhood meeting at such time it is deemed
necessary by the City or the County.
If you have any questions regarding this please contact me at (970) 221 — 6605.
Sincerely,
MW]c---d
Cam McNair, PE
City Engineer
cc: Gary Diede, Director of Transportation Operations
Lucia Liley, March and Liley
Mark Peterson, Larimer County Engineer
Steve Olt, Current Planning
Matt Baker, Engineering
Ward Stanford, Traffic Operations
Kathleen Reavis, Transportation Planning
File
City of Fort Collins
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Commr. y Planning and Environmental
Natural Resources Department
M E M O R A N D U M
July 26, 1995
Steve Olt, City Planner
Brian Woodruff, Environmental Planner
Unpaved road access to Hoffman PUD
rvices W 111111111 61
At your suggestion, I looked up state regulations regarding control
of fugitive dust emissions from unpaved roads. The relevant
material is found in Air Quality Control Commission Regulation 1
(emission control regulation for particulates ... for the State of
Colorado), Section III (particulates), Subsection D (fugitive
particulate emissions). My summary of the relevant portion of the
regulation follows.
If vehicle traffic exceeds 200 vehicles per day, then the
owner or operator responsible for construction or maintenance
has to submit a "fugitive dust control plan" to the Air
Pollution Control Division for its approval. The plan must
include dust control measures to minimize emissions resulting
from the use of the roadway. Control measures "may include
but are not necessarily limited to, watering, chemical
stabilization, road carpeting, paving, suggested speed
reductions, and other methods or techniques approved by the
Division."
I gather that Hoffman PUD would add about 1000 vehicles per day on
the unpaved access roads to the south, and therefore the County, as
owner/operator, would have to submit a fugitive dust control for
those roads. According to Elaine Spenser's letter of July 6, the
County thinks the additional traffic requires that the access roads
be paved. The ultimate resolution of the matter depends upon what
the County proposes, and what the Air Pollution Control Division
accepts, as a suitable fugitive dust control plan.
IV 1;.r,7,0 • !"It C�nl�.iz-<. (CUfl'0)22_-0,A0 • (970)221-0600 • IAA\(I)-
September 1, 2000
Project No' 1557r01-96
Cam McNair
City of Fort Collins Engineering Department
P.O. Box 590
Ft, Collins, Colorado 80524
Re: Doaglaa Road Improvements
HearthAre P.U.D„ First Filing; Ft. Collins (La►rimer County), Colorado
Dear Cam,
We have been working diligently with the Sheamans as it relates to easement acquisition
requests for the proposed slope and drainage easements related to the Douglas Road
Improvemenu I had called Mrs- Sheaman, who expressed interest in getting together to discuss
the plans.
The Sheaman had requested that stakes be placed at the proposed edge of pavement, at their
property line and at the proposed easement line so that they could relate the proposed
improvements to their existing conditions. Then they would be able to meet us and discuss the
effects on their property. I coordinated all specifics of the requested staking between Mrs.
Sheaman and Frederick Land Surveying. Issues included timing and livestock. Main
communication efforts were done on August 2nd. Stakes were provided by Frederick Land
Surveying on Thursday, August 3rd.
I had tried several times to coordinate a meeting with the Sheaman after the stakes were placed.
The Sheamans were involved with the Larimer County Fair, so could not meet immediately after
stakes were placed. In my August 2nd conversation with Mrs. Sheaman, she indicated that they
would not be available to meet until after the 13th.
On Thursday, August 17, 2000, Bill Yunker and myself met with Mr. And Mrs. Sheaman at their
residence on Douglas Road. We brought the letter of intent to dedicate an easement, hoping that,
at a minimum, we could get a signature on that document. Mr. Sheaman presented several
concerns as they relate to fence relocations and livestock issues- Generally, the meeting was
fairly productive The Sheaman provided additional information that was useful for plan
revisions. The Sheamans appeared to better understand the actual scope of the project. Toe of
slope locations, relocation items, etc. They stressed their interest in being communicated with
regarding all construction schedules so they can coordinate their livestock management and
fence installations which Mr. Sheaman made extremely clear, he wished to handle personally.
Monetary issues were not discussed at this time Bill Yunker did indicate that he needed to
discuss financial arrangements at some time. Mr. Sheaman said they would discuss the issue
further, but not till they involved an attorney. After requesting a signature on the "intent'
document, Mr. Sheaman said he would review and get back to us after visiting with his attorney.
4836 S. College, Suite 12 Ft. Collins, CO 80525 (970) 226-5334 Fax (970) 282.0311 w-shearengineering.com
PAGE 2
September 1, 2000
Project No: 1552-01-96
Re: Douglas Road Improvements
Rearthfire P.IJ.D., First Filing; Ft. Collins (Larimer County), Colorado
I had not heard anything further until Thursday, August 31St. Mr. Yunker called and indicated
that the Sheaman's were requesting a certain value per square foot for the dedication of the
easement. Mr. Yunker continues to discuss this issue with the Sheamans, as I understand it.
All minor revisions required by City comments made on the attached comment sheets, have now
been accommodated. Except Sheri's comment concerning easements. All minor revisions
required by County comments, have now been accommodated. We are currently completing the
final details of the Water Supply and Storage pipe extension and headwall improvement_
If you have any questions, please call at (970) 226-5334
Sincerely, /�, A ,
Brian W. Shear, P.E. '
Shear Engineering Corporation
BWS/mo
cc: Tom Kennedy; Hearthfire, Inc.
RAMSLY p. MYA'11
IL013'1', w. BIR VN'UIL4, 1R.
KK I IARD S ( SAS I
.ILPPRIiY L.IOIINSON
)ANVIL C- MUI'I'LY
Cam McNair, Jr., City Engineer
City of Fort Collins
Engineering Department
281 N. College Avenue
P. O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
MYATT BRANDES & GAST
PROFESSIONAL CORPOItAT10N
ATTOIiNEVS ANU COUNSFLORS AT I AW
C LOCK'FOWEK SQUARE
323 Sou H COLLEGE AN ENUF, St I I'I, I
FORT ('011INS, C OLORADO 90524-2845
September 11, 2000
Re: Lot 31, Hearthfire PUD, First Filing
Our File No.: 12-002
Dear Cam:
'TELEPHONE (970)482-4846
FACSIMILE (970)482-3038
L MAIL: Jlohnson m C1inet-m111
This letter follows up on our telephone conversation of September 7, 2000. Our office
represents Joe and Shelley Bogus who are under contract to purchase their new home on Lot 31,
Hcarthf irc PUD, with a closing date of January 31, 2001.
As we discussed, Joe and Shelley are contractually obligated to close on the sale of their
current residence on September 27, 2000. They agreed to sell their existing home with the
understanding that their new residence would be available by January 31, 2001. Please keep my
office informed on the status of the building permit for Lot 31.
In addition, Joe and Shelley would appreciate the City's consideration in releasing abuilding
permit on Lot 31. We respectfully submit that the benefit to the City by refusing to issue a building
permit for Lot 31 is secondaryto the hardship placed on Joe and Shelley who are unfortunate victims
of a lew2thy development process. Your consideration is appreciated. 1 am available for anv
questions or comments.
By:
JJJ/tb
PC: Joe and Shelley Bogus
Very truly yours,
MYATT BRANDES & GAST PC
I'1WI'('JJJA13,.,('wn MCN,., Ltier 9) 110 ,d
From:
Sheri Wamhoff
To:
Cam McNair
Date:
Wed, Mar 28, 2001 8:24 AM
Subject:
status douglas rd
Cam
I met with them last week (fri) and gave them the comments I had received.
I have received comments from:
Traffic Op
Transportation Planning
AT&T Broadband
Light and Power
PSCo
and myself (my comments are attached)
Departments I have not yet received comments from
Stormwater
ELCO
Larimer County
OWest
US Cable
Matt Baker
Stormwater is running behind - I assume I will get something from them before to long.
I sent a message to Traci at the county to ask if she had an idea of when she might have a chance to
look at the plans. I got a response back after I had met with the Hearthfire folks that she was running a
month behind, but would try to look at it over the weekend. I haven't heard from her so I assume that
she didn't.
We did discuss what next. They needed to get some more survey information and were then going to
work on the changes that needed to be made so it sounded like it would probably be at least 3 weeks
before a resubmittal.
I suggested that they contact Traci at the County and if it was going to be a while before she was going to
get to the plans that instead of waiting that they proceed with updating the plans and see if they could
substitute a new updated set with her for review and keep its spot.
Hope that helps let me know if you have any questions.
Sheri
CC: Matt Baker
Douglas Road interim improvements from Hearthfire Way to CRI1 March 23, 2001
I . Need to add a note to the plans regarding resetting of any fences and mailboxes. Suggested language —
The relocation and/or resetting of mailboxes shall be coordinated with the US Post Office
and the property owners.
Any relocation or resetting of fences shall be coordinated with the property owners.
Fences shall be placed on or behind the row line when ever possible.
2. Add INTERIM into the title on the plans.
3. Where the overlay is tying into existing pavement will need to mill out the existing pavement in order
to tic in. Indicate the limits of this mill. At the end the overlay will probably need to extend beyond
the bridge, as it may not be possible to mill the section on the bridge.
4. Will need to cut the edge of pavement and patch the edge if the overlay is extending less than 3 feet
beyond the existing edge of asphalt. Less than 3 feet and good base will not be provided and cracking
and separation can occur. Show this on die plan view and on the typical cross section.
5. Need to provide, elevations for the Hearthfire land Douglas Road intersection. How does this tie in?
What are limits of pavement removal, if any.
G. Missing the proposed ground line on sheet 2, also appear to be missing vertical curve information on
this sheet also.
7. Indicating a 4-inch overlay. Where has this design come from? Has it been approved and by who?
May be best to modify, note to say: Proposed ground with 4 inch overlay actual overlay design to be
based on final soils report.
8. Need to show, the profile across the intersection.
9. Have some slopes that are greater than 3:1. Need a slope stabilization study for these sections and
need notes on the plans indicating the need to follow such a guideline.
10. The taper west of Hearthfire Way, is to short. For a speed limit of 45 mph a shifting taper over 12 feet
needs to be 270 feet.
11. Provide information on what the slope is for the pavement to lie the driveways into the overlay on the
details. Also provide elevations at the Douglas Road and CRI l intersection. Is lite crown going
through the intersection? Show the crown transitions.
12. Typical section — show the cut and reconstruction needed for overlaying the edges. Is a 1-foot gravel
shoulder adequate?
LARIMEI
COUNTY
April 17, 2001
Sheri Wamhoff
City of Fort Collins - Engineering
281 N. College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80522
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
RE: Douglas Road Improvements - From Hearthfire Way to County Road 11
Dear Sheri,
Post Office Box 1190
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190
(970)498-5700
FAX (970) 498-7986
We have reviewed the submitted information and have the following comments. There are also redline
comments on the attached plans.
I . Per the Larimer County Standards, the gravel drives off of Douglas Road must tie in to the proposed edge of
asphalt with 20' minimum radius curves. As a minimum, the drives must have an asphalt surface to the Right
of Way line.
2. tit previous comments from our office, improvements to the Highway 1/Douglas Road intersection were
discussed. For whatever reason, this intersection was not considered in the original traffic impact study for
the I leartlikic Wav Development. From information that we received from the City's Engineering
Department, it appears that turn lanes are warranted at this intersection under developed conditions. We are
continuing to have discussions with the City and ('DOT concerning improvements at this intersection. While
we do not Feel that this development should be responsible for all of the improvements, we do think that they
may have responsibility for some of the improvements. The two sections of the intersection the developer
may he responsible for are: a right turn lane on Highway l for north bound traffic onto east bound Douglas
Road and possibly right and/or left turn lanes on the east teg of Douglas Road for west bound traffic.
We are meeting with Cam McNair and Eric Bracke on Wednesday, April 18t' to discuss this further. Since
an overall set of improvements is needed for all four legs of the intersection, we would be willing to consider
payment in lieu of the improvements.
3. Our department strongly recommends that the developer hold a neighborhood meeting as soon as possible to
inform any interested people of the construction plans and the possible impacts to adjacent properties. We
would expect that adjacent property owners would soon be notified of the impacts that this project will have
on their property. These impacts include re -grading of the drives and borrow ditches, as well as the
relocation offences, light poles, mail boxes, etc. We will expect that the developer/contractor will respond
to any complaints during the construction of the project in a timely manner.
4. In addition to the neighborhood meeting, we also strongly recommend that the developer send an
informational letter io the affected property owners several weeks prior to construction. In conjunction with
the letters, we also request that the developer place signs near the limits of construction that state the
proposed project and contact name/number. The signs would serve as another notification for any residents
who may not receive the letter. The signs should be installed in the near future to get as many questions and
concerns addressed as soon as possible. Evidence must be submitted to our office that verifies that the
affected property owners have been adequately notified. If letters will be sent out and signs placed, a copy of
aigl i, II I,,,,,,, Ilk a sVfc, Ili d ,,,W mad imm c, I I. ioc
the letter and notification of the date the signs were placed will be sufficient. This needs to be submitted
prior to our issuance of the access/utility permit.
S. Please reference the attached redlines for additional comments.
I apologize in the delay in sending you my comments on the Douglas Road Improvements Plans. Thank you for
the opportunity to commant on the plans and if there are any questions regarding the above comments or the
attached redlines, please give me a call at 498-5701.
Sincerely,
Traci Downs
c: North Star Design, 1194 West Ash Street -Suite B, Windsor CO 80550 (Plans included)
file
n,l k,)[lsrtxid inip-hearthfim ro, l 1. doe
DEPARTNIEI'T OF THE AFWY
CORPS OF ENIk5D;EEP.S, OfvL4rIA DISTRICT
Dniv-\,FR {EGULAT_ OR'i OFFICE, 9307 S. PLATTE CA-N-'i'ON R-Oz j
L,=ETON, COLORADO SO 128-6901
August 31, 2001
Ms. Darcy .4. Tiglas
5015 Swauarons Drive
Loycland, CO 80537
RE: Isolated Raters Evaluation, Hearthfae Derelopmemt. Douglas Road Intersection with Road 11
Improvements; :No. 8 [7"utlet from Elder Reservoir"" —
Corps File No. 200180609
Dear Ms. Tiglas:
We have reviewedthe above -mentioned project on behalf of Clarion Mortgage Capital for Dcparnnent of
die ,1rnry {D,"-,) zuthor *ation. :"!te properTy'ts :�ca:ed ut Cie N % o' S2chon 3v sttd -ha S !%z o SCCtior. 19,
Township S No:dL, Range 68'h"st, Lzrn.er Co-nty. Colorado.
Based upon the ruling by the Supreme Ccim vi the matter of Solid Waste Agemv of Northern Cool:
u tvyl'.S..4rmv C s of cngi�eers, \o. 99.1I', 8 (Ianuary 9, 200 i ), the DA's regulatory authority over
isolated, non -navigable, in*tra3,ate ryai-rs has bemr eliminated if the sol: nexus to interstate con•,rne.ce was use of
the waters'oy migratory birds. It is apparcat iLtdcr the ruling above trat the DA does not have the authotit}' to
regulate work in the No. 8 Cutlet Dit-,a indicated Layout request. No permit or other auihcrzauon by the DA is
required for work in this ditch.
Although. a DA. pertrut will not be required for work at this site, this does not eliminate the requirement
that you obtai-i any ether appl-.cable Fcdcral. state, tribal or local permits as required. Please note that deviations
;Toni the original plans and specifications of your project could require other authorizatiors 1?om this office.
If you ba rc any qucstimt concerri= this verification, please call Mr. Terry NIcl:ee at (303)979-4120
and reference File Nei, 200180609:
Sa/ee_rel/y,
4 .
Tim y T. arey
Chief. E. Regul ffiee
tm
OCT-02-20C1 7'JE 06.21 PM CLARION
FAX NO, 197C2266884 P. O1/02
September 14. 2001
Mr, 13ill Yunkcr
Clarion Mortgage Capital
2627 Redwing Dr,, U360-H
hurt Collins, Colorado 80526
14g-vt
DARCY A. TIGLAS
5015 Swainsona Drive iz+'va
Loveland, Colorado 80537
970-635-9183
HE: Response From U.S. Army Corps of lugincers for a Road Improvement Project for
Hearthfire Development
Dear Mr. Yunkcr:
Enclosed please find the Isolated Waters Determination by the U.S. Aim Corns of F..ngineers
(CO)) dated August 31, 2001. This letter indicates that the COE has decided not to take
jurisdiction oven the No. 8 Outict from Pldcr Reservoir just north of Douglas Road near its
intersection with Road 11. 11rus, your project of road imrrovements can proceed without any
additiouai hcderal permits or requirements. This letter should satisfy the City of port Collius
request for determined jurisdiction.
Thank you for the opportunity to assist you in this project. If you have any qumons, or require
additional information, please fed free to call me at 970-635-9183.
Sincerely, 1
Darcy A. figlas
DAT/dat
North Star
.fta design, inc..__
October 19, 2001
Ms. Sheri Wamhoff
City of Fort Collins Engineering
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, Colorado 50522-0580
Re: Request for Variance - Douglas Road adjacent to Hearthfire Way
Proj: 148-01
Dear Sheri:
The following is a request for variance from Section 8.2.6 - Exclusive Right Turn Lanes in the
"Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, March 2001". This variance is for the proposed
right turn lane length on eastbound Douglas Road to southbound Hearthfire Way.
The City has requested this right turn lane through the development review process. A
resubmittal of the plans was made on October 17, 2001. This plan shows a right turn lane with a
total length of 405' (200' bay taper and 205' full width lane). The length as shown in the
resubmittal is from Figure 8-05 of the above Standard.
In a memorandum from Matt Delich dated January 4, 2001 (attached), the auxiliary lane
requirements for this intersection were reviewed and it was concluded that warrants are not met
for any auxiliary lanes at this intersection. It is requested that the right turn Zane length be
shortened to 240' (90' bay taper and 150' full width lane) for the following reasons:
• The turn lane is not warranted per the memorandum from Matt Delich. Provisions for a right
turn lane of any length exceeds the Standard. The function of the intersection will not be
compromised with the approval of this Variance.
• The entire roadway project is an interim improvement and will be rebuilt to full width in the
next several years. Approval of this variance would provide for less widening (and
construction costs) at the present time.
A sketch of the proposed right turn lane is attached. Upon approval of this variance, the
construction plans will be modified. This change to the construction plans would be made with
the mylar submittal of the plans.
This variance from the above Standard will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and
welfare. The proposed reduction in turn lane length will reduce maintenance costs because of the
reduction in pavement area.
Please call me with any questions or additional information that you may need for the approval of
this variance.
Sincerely, ,
Michael Oberlander, PE, LSI
North Star Design, Inc.
700 Automation Drive, Unit I Windsor, Colorado 80550
970.686.6939 Phone • 970-686-1188 Fax
WHITING
r
August 8, 1995
Mr. Steven Olt
City of Fort Collins Planning Department
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins. Colorado 80524
Re: Inclusion in Planning Process
Hoffman and Richard's Lake P.U.D.'s
Dear Mr. Olt:
Whiting Petroleum Corporation operates the Fort Collins oil field which underlies the subject two
P.U.D.'s. We want to be involved in the planning process.
I have received portions of the Hoffman P.U.D. application from concerned neighbors. Cursory
inspection of a drawing labeled as the "Final Plan" indicates the following land use conflicts:
1. Whiting operates an oil tank battery, which includes four 500 barrel oil tanks. (Total storage
capacity equals 84.000 gallons.) The drawing does not show the tanks; it appears they are in a
landscaped area between the wetland and the proposed duplexes. I can't tell from the drawing what
the separation from buildings will be, but it doesn't look like enough. State Oil and Gas
Con,ervation Commission rules specify a minimum of 200 feet. (i think this distance is also the
NFP.� standard.) In high density areas the Commission regulations specify 350 feet.
2. There is a two well pad directly on lots 471 and 72. Additionally, it looks like the map specifies
a 100 foot radius around wells. The State regulations specify a minimum of 150 feet from occupied
building S, public roads, and utility lines. In high density areas the standard is 350 feet from
buildings.
3. Some of our wells may not be accessible via the proposed streets.
WHITING PETROLEUM CORPORATION
MILE HIGH CENTER, 1700 BROADWAY, SUITE 2300, DENVER, COLORADO 80290-2301 (303) 837-1661 FAX (303) 861-4023
4804 REPUBLIC TOWERS II, 325 N. ST. PAUL ST., DALLAS, TX 75201 (214) 741-1650 FAX (214) 220-3940
An IES INDUSTRIES Company
October 10, 2001
To: Paul Eckamn
Cam McNair
Matt Baker
Prom: Sheri Wamhoff
Re: Hearthfire PUD, 1" Filing Amendment Agreement 92
Due to change a change in the direction that off -site improvements are going to be done for the Hearthfire
PUD, I" Filing project and specific reference to those in the Development Agreement an Amendment to
the Hearthfire PUD, I" Filing Development Agreement needs to be made. We received a proposed
Development Agreement Amendment #2 document from Lucia Liley. Cam, Matt and myself meet to
discuss this docmment and had several changes that needed to be made. Thus I have drafted a new
Amendment # 2.
Please review the document that I have prepared. 1 have included for your reference the document
proposed by Lucia Lileys office, the original Development Agreement and the Amendment # l to this
agreement.
There are a few blanks that need to be filled in on this document. Cam and Matt you need to provide me
with these numbers. They will be inserted prior to signature of the document.
Exhibit B is also not part of the document at this time. Matt Baker is in the process of finishing that
document, again it will be included prior to signature.
Let me know if you have any questions.
OCT 22 '01 12:05
204 P01i02
Diversified Management &
Pt 0. Box 3396
Ehglewood, Colorado 80155-3396
303 300-0908
303 300-0914 Fax
October 22, 2001
Mr. Tom Kennedy
First Colorado Group of Companies
11941 West48' Ave.
Wheatridge, CO 80033
1E_ Hearthfrre Development Agreements
Dear Mr. Kennedy:
Inc.
Enclosed is a copy of a letter from Kerry and Debra Sheaman, dated October 14, 2001, authorizing me to make
contact with you regarding off -site improvements required for your Hearthfire development. Mr. and Mrs. Sheaman
desire to reconsider your earlier offer for slope and construction easements. As ,you will recall, their property
comprises more than two thousand feet of road frontage on the north side of Douglas Road. The Sheamans hope, as
do I as the developer to the property immediately east of the Sheamans and for which a slope easement has already
been secured and granted for your benefit that you are interested in discussing how you can perform your
agreements without paying the unrealistic demands for easement acquisitions along Douglas Road-
1 look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Diversified Management & Development, Inc.
James C. Dunn
President
Enclosure
Cc: Cam McNair, City of Fort Collins Engineering Department w/enct
Mark Peterson, Larimer County Engineering w/encl
OCT 22 '01 12:05
204 P02/02
400 East Douglas Road
Fort Collins, CO 80524
(970)493-7346
October 14, 2001
To whom it may concern;
This letter will introduce Chris Dunn, Diversified Management & Development, Inc., who is
attempting to develop the property immediately to the east of ours. We have explained to Mr.
Dunn the history of our dealings with the developers of the Hearthfire subdivision. Traffic on
Douglas Road in front of our home has increased dramatically since the Hearthfire project started.
Traffic from the soccer Fields further east has also added to the problem.
Contact by representatives of the Hearthfire project regarding their obligation to make
improvements to Douglas Road have been unproductive. Rather than hiring lawyers to bring this
problem to a fair solution, at this time, we have asked Mr. Dunn to voice his concerns and ours to
the developers of Hearthfire, the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County so that the critical
improvements might be made. We are willing to provide easements on our property for these
improvements for an appropriate sum. Mr. Dunn doe not have the authority to conclude any
negotiations on our behalf but he has our full authority and support to explain our position and
concerns.
Sind Cyr \Ckd
amdfi Ker Shy e3m315
Debbie She ry
Diversified Management & Development, Inc.
P. 0. Box 3395 --
EnJewood, Colorado 80155-3396
303 300-0908
303 300-0914 Fax
November 6, 2001
Cam .McNair. PE, City Engineer
City of Fort Collins
2s I North College Ave.
P. 0. Box 580
Port Collins, CO 8052-0580
RE: Hearthtire PUD and Douglas Road
Dear Cam:
Concerning subject maser and for your inunediate reference, enclosed is a copy of your October 16.'_000
correspondence to Tom Keunedv. Since changes in the terms of the originai Development A oreement will
dramatically affect this nrm, most of the propery owners on Douglas Road and public safety in general, I will
appreciate any light you may offer regarding the following:
I. Has Larimer Countv agreed to the change in direction of the improvements? If so, might t have a copy
of the agreement?
?. Exactly how much is Hearthtire to contribute for intersection improvements at CR54/SHI? Who will
hold the contribution?
3. Has the neighborhood and all affected and adjacent property owners been notified about the change in
improvements to be done? Has a copy of said notice been sent to the City and the County? If so. might
I have a copy of tile notice and a certification of to whom it was sent?
4. Has either the City or the County deemed that a neighborhood meeting be held?
Relating to off -site improvements but not covered in your letter, can You tell Inc to what extent improvements to
CR 13 the City is requiring Hearthtire to perform? And the timelines?
Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Sincerely
Diversified Management & Development. Inc.
-�i
;1J*amesC. Dunn
President
Enclosure
i
)ortation Services r,
En:zine,ering Department
'-itv of Fort Collins
November 9, 2001
Mr. James C. Dunn
Diversified Management & Development, Inc.
P. O. Box 3396
Englewood, CO 80155-3396
RE: Hearthfire PCD and Douglas Road
Dear Mr. Dunn:
-. t �..'_411 L, - . - . .
M
In response to the questions in your November 61h letter (copy attached), I offer the following:
I. There is no written agreement with Larimer County concerning the change in direction of the
improvements on Douglas Road. The County Engineer and Public Works Director are well aware of
the change, as thev were copied on my October 26. 2000, letter. Plus we have had several
conversations with them about this matter. The County's primary concern is with the Douglas Road
at SH-1 intersection. It is my impression that as long as the appropriate contributions to the
improvements at this intersection are made by Hearthfire and other developments in the area, then the
County is not especially interested in which direction the bike lanes are added to Douglas Road.
2. The exact amount of the Hearthfire contribution to the intersection improvements at Douglas
Roacl'a;SH-1 has not been established. The County and CDOT are working with a consulting
engineering firm to determine the necessary modifications to the intersection and the costs of such
modifications. Tnev will then make a determination concerning apportioning those costs among the
developments and agencies responsible. The Hearthfire developer is awaiting that decision, just as
you are.
3_ The neighborhood notifications have not occurred yet. This requirement is being reiterated in the
amendment to Hearthfire's development agreement with the Citv, which is being prepared right now.
4. Again, the neighborhood meeting is still a requirement.
Improvements to CR-13 will be required as part of the second filing of the Hearthfire development.
Those improvements will include paving CR-13 from Douglas Road to Inverness, with installation of
curb, gutter and side,.valk on the east side only, I have no idea what the timing of that will be — the
developer still has to go through a Planning hearing and then get all final designs completed.
Feel free to contact me again if you have further questions.
Sincerch,,
to
Cam McNair, PE
City Engineer
cc : Mark Peterson
Tom Kennedy
Gan, Diede
Lucia Lilev
_., ��I!'.'.. �.I�_..�a�,rn "-..ir, ,il ,. iin; � n __ _�rl •-.';�11-^1 ,ail:i �'�i0)= .,,,.
at%tc._i: o%.,OM
Diversified Management & Development, Inc.
P. O. Box 3396
Fnplcwnod, Colorado 80155-3396
303 300-0908
303 300-0914 Fax
November 6. 2001
Cam McNair. IT, City I:nt!incer
City of Fort Collins
281 North College Ave.
P- O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
RI[: I lcarthfire PUD and Douglas Road
Dear Cam:
Conccrnim� subject malter and for your immediate reference, enclosed is it copy of your October 262000
con-espondencc to Ton, Kennedy. Since chan�,es in the Iernts of the m iuinal Development Agreement will
clrantatically oftcct this firm. most of the pope 1%owners on DouUlas Road and public safety in general. I will
apprccimc ;my light you ntav offer regarding the following:
I _ MIS IS Lorimer County agreed to th, change in direction of the improvements? If so, might I have a copy
of the agreement?
2, kxactIv hox% much is Hcarthfire to contribute for intersection improvements at CR54/SHI? Who will
hold the contribution?
Has the neighborhood and all afli eted and adjacent property owners been nolilicd about the change in
inprovements to be done'? Has a copy of said notice been sent to the Cit_v zinc] the County? It so, might
I have a copy of the notice and a ertificilion of to whom it was sent?
-1. I l is either the City or the County deemed that a neighborhood meeting be held?
Malin,- to oll=site improvements but riot covered in your letter, can you lull me to what extent improvements to
CR 13 the City is requiring I Icm7hfire to net for iV And the timelines"
Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Sincerely
Divcrsit-ted Management& Development. Inc.
Jontcs C- Dunn
President
Hnclosurc
ortation Services
cngineerin,g Department
lity (3I F Oi't CO�I.I 1S
October 26, 2000
Mr. Tom Kennedy
First Colorado Group of Companies
11941 West 48`h Avenue
Wheat Ridge, CO 30033
RE: Hearthfire PUD and Douglas Road
Dear Mr. Kennedy:
Upon review ofthe current traffic analysis by Matt Delich, dated October 12, 2000, the
City of Fort Collins Transportation Services has determined that it would be feasible for
Hearthfire PUD, 1" Filing, to design and construct its required interim improvements to
Douglas Road from the Hearthfire Wav entry east to CR l lin lieu ofproviding
improvements to the west to State Highway i.
The following tasks would need to be completed in order to accomplish this change in
direction of the off -site improvements:
1. Larimer County will need to agree to the change in the direction of the off -site
improvements.
2. The applicant will still be required to contribute money as previously agreed
for the intersection improvements at State Highway 1 and Douglas Road,
since a significant portion of your development's traffic will still choose that
route.
3. The applicant . ill need to contribute Inds to the improvement of CR 1I,
Mountain Vista Drive, and Timberline Road as other developments in -the
area have done. This will need to be done at the time of approval of the plans.
Contact Matt Baker at 221-6605 to obtain an estimate of this amount.
4. Improvements shall include widening as necessary at Hearthfire Way and
Douglas Road and Douglas Road and CR 11 to accommodate the necessary
turning movements (i.e., left turn and right turnianes and appropriate
transitions as required).
5. Provide a complete set of utility plans to be approved by the City and the
County for the proposed improvements. These will be reviewed throu<ah the
normal'process and shail be reviewed and approved by ail pertinent entities
and/ or utilities.
6. All easements necessary to accomplish the improvements will need to be
obtained and submitted prior to the approval of the plans.
Page 2
Hearth f re mid Douglas Road
October 26, 2006
7. The applicant shall send out a notice to the neighborhood and all affected and
adjacent property owners about the change in improvements to be done. A
copy of said notice shall also be sent to the City anal the County for
information.
S. The applicant shall 'hold a neighborhood meeting at such time it is deemed
necessary by the City or the County.
If you have any questions regarding this please contact me at (970) 221 — 6605.
Sincerely,
U-�
Cam McNair, PE
City Engineer
cc: Gary Diede, Director of Transportation Operations
Lucia Liley, March and Liley
Mark Peterson, Larimer County Engineer
Steve Olt, Current Planning
Matt Baker, Engineering
Ward Stanford, Traffic Operations
Kathleen Reavis, Transportation Planning
File
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
COMMITTED TO EXCELLENCE
November 15. 2001
Sheri Wamhoff
City of Fort Collins - Engineering
281 N. College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Post Office Box 1190
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190
(970)498-5700
FAX (970) 498-7986
RE: Douglas Road Improvements —From Hearthfire Way to County Road I I(Third Set of Comments)
Dear Sheri,
I have reviewed the revised plans and did not find any new issues or concerns with them. However, I still have
the have the following comments that have not yet been addressed:
I . The plan approval is dependent on easement acquisition and therefore, slope easements need to be acquired
by the applicant. We will not approve the plans until all appropriate signed `Grants of Easements' in Latimer
County format are submitted.
2. The irrigation company will need to review and approve the plans prior to our final approval.
3. Several of the cross sections show the capacity of the existing borrow ditches adjacent to Douglas Road
being diminished. We are assuming that the design engineer for this project has analyzed these sections and
found that the re -configured ditches will still have adequate capacity for the proposed flows. However, we
would like a letter from the design engineer confirming this.
4. The details surrounding the necessary improvements to the Highway 1/Douglas Road intersection are still a
concern of ours Further discussion is needed to work out the details concerning improvements at this
intersection. We feel that the developer should be responsible for the right turn lane on Highway 1 for north
bound traffic onto east bound Douglas Road and possibly a right and/or Left turn lanes on the east leg of
Douglas Road for west bound traffic. We would be willing to consider payment in lieu of the improvements,
however, the appropriate costs still need to be determined. This issue should be worked out prior to our final
approval.
5. Our department will require that the developer hold a neighborhood meeting to inform any interested people
of the construction plans and the possible impacts to adjacent properties. These impacts include re -grading
of the drives and borrow ditches, as well as the relocation of fences, light poles, mail boxes, etc. A letter or
some means of verification must be submitted to our office that verifies that the affected property owners
have been adequately notified. In addition to the neighborhood meeting, we also strongly recommend that
the developer send an informational letter to the affected property owners several weeks prior to
construction. In conjunction with the letters, we also request that the developer place signs near the limits of
construction that state the proposed project and contact name/number. The signs would serve as another
notification for any residents who may not receive the letter.
engl N ...I I datat&e , ,p1a hk,cii re collinsldo,lns road intp-hearlh(tre to er 11 (3)_doe
( Kir department did not receive copies of the slope stability report and the geotcchnical Report for this project.
Could you please forward a copy of these reports to us for our files. Thank you for the opportunity to comment
on the plans. It there are any questions regarding the above comments please give me a call at 498-5701.
Sincerely,
Traci Downs
c: North Star Design, 1194 West Ash Street -Suite B, Windsor CO 80550 (Plans included)
file
ng 1 1, ill d,la de, J{ I I, ci , teollinsVdouglas road iny,-hearthfire to er I 1 (3).doe