Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFRONT RANGE BAPTIST CHURCH MINOR SUB - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2003-11-28r Engineering Consultants 1.h rno,",.I /hr S' ,, hox-" croup 209 S. Meldrum Fort Collins. Colorado 80521 970/482-5922 December 17, 1996 Mr. Basil Harridan City of Fort Collins Utility Services, Stormwater 235 Matthews Street Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: Front Range Baptist Church Access Drive Dear Basil: STORE, WATER RFrrIVED REC 1 " 19% The Front Range Baptist Church, located approximately at the corner of Harmony Road and Boardwalk Drive is proposing to construct a shared access drive to their site from Boardwalk Drive at the bequest of an access easement granted to them by LGT Real Estate and by Bank One. This access drive will be approximately 27.00' wide. The plans accompanying this memo do not call for curb and gutter on either side of the drive, but the Utility Plans for Bank One at Harmony Market P.U.D., which is a project proposed to share this access drive, indicate curb and gutter to be built on the north side of the drive. Front Range Baptist Church's intention is to construct one asphalt lift first; the remaining aspects of the drive will be finished out as LGT Real Estate and Bank One (bordering the access drive to the north and south) develop their respective properties. At this point, curb and gutter will only be constructed at the street intersection. The stormwater from this access drive, consisting of approximately 0.14 ac (6405 sq. ft) of impervious area, will run off onto the Bank One and LGT Real Estate properties. In the future, when curb and gutter is installed, some stormwater will flow from this access drive into Boardwalk Drive, and down to the existing Detention Pond at the corner of Boardwalk Drive and Lemay Avenue. Since Bank One and the LGT property will be required to detain their stormwater flows onsite, most of the runoff from this street, in the future, will be conveyed in curb culverts off the street and into the on -site detention ponds for those sites. See Utility Plans for Bank One at Harmony Market P.U.D. for a detailed design of stormwater flows from the access drive into the Bank One property. The LGT property will be bound to similar grading, due to the configuration of the access drive. There is a small culvert being proposed at the west end of the access drive, on the Front Range Baptist Church site. This culvert has been proposed so as not to interrupt flows in the swale section G-G as proposed in the Utility Plans for Bank One at Harmony Market P.U.D. A simple UDSEWER Denver 303, 458-5526 From: Dan De Laughter To: chadw@pinnacleconsultinggroupinc.com Date: 5/4/2006 1:33:14 PM Subject: Front Range Baptist Church Chad, I haven't been able to get a hold of you lately, but I wanted to let you know that I did receive your revision of the Development Agreement and accompanying letter. There are a few things that I think we need to discuss in some more detail regarding this project and the Development Agreements in general. Regarding this project, I'm not sure where you had heard that it is not considered a development, but by our review standards and the process that we follow, this does constitute development, and all associated development related requirements apply. The reason that this project was not required to dedicate Right of Way is because it was not being platted, not because it is not development. Regarding the Development Agreement, I noticed quite a few fairly significant revisions and deletions to what we had worked out previously. In order to better process the changes through Engineering and the City Attorney's Office, we will need a copy of the original DA with the revisions shown on it. I can tell you that certain of these changes are not likely to be supported by staff or approved by our Attorney, but we can certainly meet and go through the issues if you would like to. Please give me a call if you have any questions. Until then, I will hold off on further review until I receive an original copy showing the proposed revisions. Let me know if you need another copy of the original document. Sincerely, Dan DeLaughter Civil Engineer City of Fort Collins Engineering (970)-221-6605 ddelaughter@fcgov.com CC: Wamhoff, Sheri Special District Management Accounting & Administration April 24, 2006 Engineering Development Review City of Fort Collins Attn: Sheri Wamhoff and Dan Delotter PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Re: Front Range Baptist Church and Academy Dear Mrs Sheri Wamhoff and Mr Dan Delotter, Front Range Baptist Church and Academy are in the process of building an addition to the existing building on the land currently owned by the Church. The Church, as directed by the City is completing a type I1 Development review process. The Front Range Baptist Church and associated consultants have supplied the documentation requested by the City for the Development Review process, with the exception of the Development Agreement. This project as you know is not a development as referenced in the Development Agreement. The church will not be subdividing their land and will not be constructing public improvements to be dedicated to the City. Due to the uniqueness of this project as a development, the Front Range Baptist Church and Academy Building Committee has made adjustments to the Development Agreement. This will enable the Development Agreement to accurately apply to this project. Please review the attached Development Agreement and contact myself with any questions or concerns. Thank you for your continued assistance with the expansion of Front Range Baptist Church and Academy. spectfully, Chad Walker Pinnacle Consulting Group Inc. Cc: Front Range Building Comiteee Pastor Jeff Redlin Jamison Coppola Jerry Sumner Attorney at Law Gary Gerrard Donnell Paul Eileen Bayens 5110 Granite Street, Suite C Loveland, CO 80538 Phone: (970) 669-3611 Fax: (970) 669-3612 From: Dan DeLaughter To: sam.eliason@nolte.com Date: 3/28/2006 1:29:13 PM Subject: FRB easements Sam, just so you're aware, the check for $750 for the easements will be processed with the city, since it covers the city time required to process the easements, whether they get approved or not. I just wanted to give you a heads up in case the church sees that the checks are cashed. We will still hold off on filing with the county, and that check will not be sent until the easements are recorded. Thanks, -Dan From: Dan DeLaughter To: sam.eliason@nolte.com Date: 3/1/2006 3:39:10 pM Subject: Fwd: Re: Sidewalk Estimate Sam, just so you know, we'll be using $3.30/s.f. for the sidewalk estimate. Not much different than what you had, but that's what street oversizing charges for their work, so it's a good value- it'll probably be done by them at some point anyway. -Dan From: Dan DeLaughter To: sam.eliason@nolte.com Date: 1/19/2006 8:30:01 AM Subject: Front Range Baptist Church Sam, Thanks for the update yesterday. Regarding the time frame for the final compliance submittal, the applicant has 3 years from the initial approval to get an approved final plan, so obviously you'd want to factor in some additional time for our review. After that, another 3 years are allowed to reach a substantial level of completion, which includes all engineering improvements. You can find these sections of the Code in the Land Use Code 2.2.11 (Lapse). I hope th_s helps, -Dan From: Eric Bracke To: Dan De Laughter; Kathleen Bracke; Kurt Ravenschlag; Sheri Wamhoff; Ted Shepard Date: 11/1/2005 4:58:07 PM Subject: RE: Front Range Baptist Church Access Perhaps I can shed some light on this issue and we can avoid a meeting that is surely bound to go nowhere. This is just a draft and please fee free to comment/edit then I will send it to everyone on the original email distribution concerning this meeting. Try to let me know by Wednesday morning. Thanks Eric This issue is a result of me thinking that a future RI/RO access was part of the Harmony Road Access Control Plan. This actually first arose during a TIS scoping meeting for the Baptist Church. Later, I discovered I was mistaken and the plan actually called for the access to be closed in the long-range future and the church access would be taken from Boardwalk. This is likely to occur when Harmony Road goes to 6 lanes with a raised median. A good assumption in time frames is greater than 20 years. The church has several options: 1. They can keep the access as an emergency access only in the long range future, or 2. They can apply for an amendment to the Harmony Road Access Control Plan. If they choose to go the route of Option 2, they need to show that the RI/RO option can operate safely - not conflict with the EB right turns at Boardwalk, as well as transition to the EB left turn at Boardwalk safely. Additionally, they will need to show that they can meet our standards for accel-decel lanes at the access. I do not believe the City would be willing to consider a variance to accel-decel lengths. As it stands now, the Access Control Plan is the guiding document irregardless of the fact that I was incorrect in my initial assumption. Additionally, there is some beleif that I can automatically trump the Access Control Plan. This is not true and an amendment to the plan will require a City Council action. >>> "Joe Carter" <joe@cityscapeud.com> 11/01/05 02:5 All A little reminder.... We have a meeting schedule November 3rd at 215 N. Mason Avenue to discuss the F access onto Harmony Road. Most of you have confirme with questions. Thank you. Joe CarterLandscape Archi Design3555 Stanford Road, Ste. 105Fort Collins, CO 8 (970) 226-4196 faxjoe@cityscapeud.com http://www.cit -----Original Message ----- From: Joe Carter [mailto:jce@cityscapeud.com]On Beha Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 10:14 AM To: 'ddelaughter@fcgov.com'; 'swamhoff@fcgov.com'; ' 'ebracke@fcgov.com'; 'kravenschlag@fcgov.com'; 'tshe M Delich (E-mail)'; 'Pastor Jeff Redlin'; 'Gary Gerrard'; Chris Whitted; 'Eliason, Sam' Subject: Front Range Baptist Church Access All - Representatives from Front Range Baptist Church and members of their consultant team would like to meet with City staff regarding the issue of long-term access from their site to Harmony Road. I have spoken to Kurt Ravenschlag and we have set a meeting time of 2:OOpm Thursday November 3rd at the Transportation Planning office. The office is located at 215 N. Mason Avenue, first floor. Please let me know if this date and time work for you. We realize that it will probably be impossible for all of you to attend. Thank you and please reply to me via email. Thank you. Joe CarterLandscape Architect Cityscape Urban Design3555 Stanford Road, Ste. 105Fort Collins, CO 80525 (970)226-4074 phone (970) 226-4196 faxjce@cityscapeud.com http://www.cityscapeud.com/ From: Eric Bracke To: joe@cityscapeud.com,TSHEPARD@fcgov.com,SWAMHOFF@fcgov.com,DDeLau ghter@fcgov.com,KRavenschlag@fcgov.com,KBRACKE@fcgov.com,sam.eliason@nolte.com ,Chris@cityscapeud.com,gmgerrard@frii.com,mdelich@frii.com,jredlin@frcntrangeb aptist.org Date: 11/2/2005 8:51:35 AM Subject: RE: Front Range Baptist Church Access I apologize for not being able to attend the meeting on Thursday. I am involved in a Transportation Service Area meeting that is scheduled between 1:00-5:00 on Thursday. However, perhaps I can shed some light on this issue and all of you can avoid a meeting. This issue is a result of me thinking that a future RI/RO access was part of the Harmony Road Access Control Plan. I should have checked first, but I didn't. This actually first arose during a TIS seeping meeting for the Baptist Church. Later, I discovered I was mistaken and the plan actually called for the access to be closed in the long-range future and the church access would be taken from Boardwalk. This is likely to occur when Harmony Road goes to 6 lanes with a raised median. A good assumption in time frames is greater than 20 years. In the mean time, the Church can be assured that the access as it exists today will remain for quite some time. The church has several options: 1. They can keep the access as an emergency access only in the long range future, which I don't think will be opposed by anyone on City staff, or 2. They can apply for an amendment to the Harmony Road Access Control Plan. This can be done either now or years from now when the City decides to widen Harmony Road. If they choose to go the route of Option 2, they need to show that the RI/RO option can operate safely, i.e. not conflict with the EB right turns at Boardwalk, as well as transition to the EB left turn at Boardwalk safely. Additionally, they will need to show that they can meet our standards for accel-decel lanes at the access. I do not believe the City would be willing to consider much of a variance to accel-decel lengths. As it stands now, the Access Control Plan is the guiding document irregardless of the fact that I was incorrect in my initial assumption regarding the future status of the access. Additionally, there is some belief that I can automatically trump the Access Control Plan. This is not true and an amendment to the plan will require a City Council action. Hopefully, this clears up some of the misunderstanding. Kind Regards, Eric L. Bracke, P.E., P.T.O.E. City Traffic Engineer F,oi�I t\%�" January 27, 2006 Mr. Don Bachman Fort Collins City Engineer 281 North College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Re: Front Range Baptist Church Dear Mr. Bachman: r RECEIVED i FEB 0 12006 625 E. Harmony Road • Fort Collins, Co 80525 • (970) 223-5757 Jeff Redlin. Pastor Thank you for your letter of January 23, 2006. I appreciate your quick response. I have reviewed your letter along with the various Code sections to which you site. My initial reaction is that the project at Front Range Baptist Church does not directly fall under any of the provisions that have been reviewed. Please see the discussion below. Your letter directs us to Section 3.3.1(C)(1) of the Fort Collins Land Use Code. "An applicant shall be required to dedicate rights -of -way for public streets, drainage easements and utility easements as needed to serve the area being platted. In cases where any part of an existing road is in the tract being subdivided, the applicant shall dedicate such additional right-of- way as may be necessary to increase such roadway to the minimum width required under this Land Use Code for such street." I call your attention to 1.4.9 Rules of Construction for Text of the Fort Collins Land Use Code. (A) Generally. All provisions, terms, phrases and expressions contained in the Land Use Code shall be so construed in order that the intent and meaning of the Council may be fully carried out. Terms used in the Land Use Code, unless otherwise specifically provided, shall have the meanings prescribed by the statutes of this state for the same terms. The Colorado Statutes provide the following definition: C.R.S. § 38-51-102(15) "Platted subdivision" means a group of lots, tracts, or parcels of land created by recording a map which meets the requirements of 38-51-106 and which shows the boundaries of such lots, tracts, or parcels and the original parcel from which they were created. The Front Range project does not involve any platting or subdividing. We are simply adding an additional building to our facilities. To define what we are doing as a platted subdivision goes beyond even the most generous interpretation of the word or the statute. fL(Y {(k �CIYZ wU lwe You also refer to Section 3.6.1(C) "Compliance with Access Control Plans. The State Highway Access Control Code and/or any specific access control plan adopted according to that code shall determine the location of all intersections (whether of public streets or private drives or other access ways) with state highways. All development plans that are adjacent to a state or federal highway shall provide the access design facilities, including supporting circulation facilities, identified within any applicable adopted access control plans, when such facilities are needed because of the development plan. In addition, all development plans that are adjacent to any street for which an access control plan has been adopted by the city shall provide the access design facilities, including supporting circulation facilities, identified within such access control plan, when such facilities are needed because of the development plan." I call your attention to the phrase needed because of the development plan. As we discussed, the facility is not changing its use and the impact of the new building on the highway will be minimal. 'These easements are not needed because of the development plan. While the Larimer County Urban Area Standards may require certain easements, sidewalks, and bike lanes, these requirements don't apply to our project. 3.6.2(A) "Streets on a project development plan or subdivision plat shall conform to the Master Street Plan where applicable." We clearly have no streets on our property and are not intending to add any. These rules appear to be written with new subdivisions and businesses in mind. Should the City be interested in purchasing these easements, Front Range Baptist Church would consider providing them for fair market value and assurance that any future expansion would still provide for access to our property from Harmony Road. The final Code section addressed in your letter is City Code 24-95. (a) The construction of the local portion of a public street is hereby declared to be the obligation of the owner of the adjacent property at the time such property is developed or redeveloped. The timing of the construction shall be as specified in the development agreement for such property or, if not specified, it shall be required at the time of issuance of the first building permit upon such property. (b) The local portion of such street shall include, without limitation, the construction of curb, gutter, pavement and sidewalk. All such construction shall conform to the "Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards" as adopted by the City Council by ordinance or resolution. (c) If the city has constructed such local portion of a public street adjacent to undeveloped property or property that may be redeveloped, the city may require, at or before the time of issuance of any building permit for new development or change of use, that the owner of such adjacent property repay to the city its cost in acquiring the necessary right-of-way and constructing such local portion of such street. The amount of reimbursement to be paid to the city under this paragraph shall be no less than the original cost of the right-of-way and improvements plus any mutually agreed upon amount to reflect the effects of inflation, if any. These adjustments may be based on the construction cost index for Denver, Colorado, as published monthly by the Engineering News Record. The original cost of the right-of-way and improvements shall mean the cost of right-of-way acquisition, financing, engineering, construction and any other costs actually incurred by the city which are directly attributable to the improvements. analysis has been attached to this memorandum to verify the sizing of this culvert. According to a channel analysis, based on the geometry provided for Section G-G in the Bank One plans, at a depth of 0.65', flows in the channel would be 7.55 cfs. Using this flow, and an 18" concrete pipe, the UDSEWER analysis shows that the flows will pass without overtopping the access drive. Please respond with comments to this design as you would typically do for a submittal to the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Department. Sincerely, RBD, INC. erry bot Project eer cc: Pastor Ken Stephens, Front Range Baptist Church Gary Gerrard, Gerrard Excavating H\USFRkivil\proje=\rrbaptst\dmginemo.002 Our property has been used as a church and school for many years. It is not being developed or redeveloped and therefore does not fall under 24-95. If fact, the only time that this statute would appear to come into play is if the church were to sell the property to another entity and the City had made any improvements to the road. Neither of these is the case. I want to thank you for your professionalism and quick response to my questions. While I don't have much experience in dealing with the FC City Code or Land Use Code my initial review of these provisions indicates there is a lot of latitude to be found within the wording. Perhaps a meeting with you, Paul Eckman, and myself would go a long way in reaching an acceptable solution. Sincerel ��yLur=er Chairman Board of Deacons Front Range Baptist Church RECEIV!'p AUG 0 2uo6 FRONT RANGE BAPTIST ACADEMY August 3, 2006 Mr. Gary Diede City of Fort Collins, Engineering Department PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Mr. Diede, As you know Front Range Baptist Church and Academy is currently seeking approval to build a multipurpose building on our property located at 625 E. Harmony Road. We have steadily progressed through the approval process with good help from staff members in the Planning and Engineering Departments. However, in the last few months, it seems that there has been some confusion, at least on our part, and possibly some miscommunication regarding what is necessary to secure our final approval. Recently, we have come to understand that delays in the process may be connected to the public improvements associated with the project. We would like to schedule a meeting to receive clarification regarding these public improvements and the proposed development agreement. Please contact me at your earliest convenience in order to schedule a time to meet with you and the interested parties. We are eager to move this project along and look forward to finding a workable solution so that we may commence with our building. Sincerely, W J ison Co ola Administrator JC/jc cc: Dan DeLaughter Ted Shepard Jeff Redlin Donnell Paul Building Committee File 625 E. Harmony Road • Fort Collins, CO • 80525 • 970.223.2173 • Fax970.223.5826 From: Dan DeLaughter To: Eckman, Paul Date: 8/9/2006 3:46:16 PM Subject: Front Range Baptist Church Paul, We met with Pastor Jeff Redlin and Jamison Coppola today to discuss some remaining issues on the Development Agreement for the Front Range Baptist Church. I think that everyone is on the same page now as far as why the Development Agreement is required, but they would like to know if there are any alternatives to a typical Development Agreement, whereby public improvements would still be guarateed for the required amount of time, and other necessary provisions (fire access, construction sequence issues, etc.) would be met. I think the majority of the language they are now concerned with is the general language, and the fact that the DA is tied to the property in perpetuity. If you can think of another type of agreement where we could get the same level of assurance on city requirements while possibly removing some of the cookie cutter general language, I think we would be agreeable to it, although it seems to me that would have been considered long ago if it was an option. If the Development Agreement is necessary, they were hoping that we could revisit it and potentially remove some of the language that they feel does not apply. I did mention that we had tried that process once, and that we didn't allow too many of their proposed changes. Jeff or Gary, please feel free to add to this if I missed anything in summing up our meeting. Thanks, -Dan CC: Diede, Gary; jredlin@frontrangebaptist.org From: Dan DeLaughter To: Eckman, Paul Date: 7/25/2006 10:52:11 AM Subject: FRB DA Paul, below is the City code language that applies to the access removal issue. As long as you don't think we'd be in violation of 24-72 or 24-74, I think we can go ahead and remove the repayment section in the DA language. I wouldn't necessarily say anything about the city paying for it, but just remove the whole sentence. I think we could do this, since the first section is on reconstruction (not removal) and the second section is on removal, but does not discuss who pays. A second option would be to leave the language, but add another "within the city's legal rights" type disclaimer like you did with some of the other language. Either way will work for us. Thanks, -Dan Sec. 24-72. Notice to reconstruct curbs or driveways. The City Engineer may order the reconstruction, alteration or repair of driveways and curbs presently constructed or constructed under the terms of this Article, where it is determined that such is an impediment to the free movement of vehicles upon the streets or the uneconomic distribution of parking space at the curb of the aforementioned streets or a hazard to the travel or safety of pedestrians. Such notice to reconstruct, alter or repair shall be given by registered or certified mail to the owner of the premises involved who shall commence such reconstruction, alteration or repair within thirty (30) days. If the owner fails to commence construction, the City may make such reconstruction, alteration or repair, billing the costs to the owner, who shall be obligated therefor. (Code 1972, § 95-52; Ord. No. 222, 1998, § 3, 12-15-98) Sec. 24-74. Authority to order removal of driveways. The City Engineer, when directed by the City Council, shall have the authority to order the removal of any driveway if such removal would be in the best interest of traffic movement or safety for pedestrians or vehicles. (Code 1972, § 95-54; Ord. No. 222, 1998, § 3, 12-15-98) From: Sheri Wamhoff To: Dan DeLaughter; WPaul Eckman Date: 6/19/2006 4:30:35 PM Subject: Re: Fwd: Front Range Baptist Church - DND Here are the copies of the ordinances for acceptance of Harmony Rd from CDOT. I have also attached a copy of the "Implementation" section from the access control plan. The existing access does not violate the plan. As indicated the plan represents long range improvements that will be implemented over time as traffic and safety needs arise. The long range plan for this access is it will close. We are not requiring that it be closed at this time, because at this time it still functions safely. At such time as it no longer functions safely and/or is necessary to close it due to improvements that are needed that would impact the access point it will be closed. This is what we were trying to get to with the language - that the access as shown on these plans is an interim access point only and will be closed at some time in the future. Hope this information helps. Sheri >>> Dan DeLaughter 6/19/2006 1:41:38 PM >>> FYI... I will get together what I can, but I'll probably need a little help down the line crafting my response. Thanks, -Dan >>> Paul Eckman (Patty Clarkin) 6/19/2006 12:18:05 PM >>> I just received a fax transmission of a letter dated June 16, 2006, from Doug Konkel to me. We need to chase down some answers to Konkel's questions. Ted, please have a look at the May 26, 2006, letter from Jamison Coppola to Doug Konkel setting out a new theory as to the calculation of primary and secondary uses. Please comment to me as soon as possible on that new theory. Do you concur with Mr. Konkel that that new theory is correct and that therefore, the entire process was unnecessary? Dan, I am unaware of an "Indemnity Agreement". This is the first time that Konkel has mentioned it. He alleges that it asks the church to indemnify the City against its own liability. I don't know of any indemnity in the development agreement itself that asks a developer to indemnify the City against City liability. Konkel again makes reference to the "Indemnity Agreement" requiring the church to agree that the current access is temporary. He argues that the access is permanent. I don't have a copy of the development agreement handy, but I have a feeling that Konkel's "imdemnity agreement" is the same thing as our "development agreement". Could you provide me with a copy of that provision in the development agreement (if it is in the development agreement) that requires the church to agree that the access is temporary? Dan, could you also provide me with the information Konkel requested in his penultimate paragraph? When did the CDOT abandonment of Harmony Road occur? Could you provide me with a copy of document by which the City assumed control of Harmony Road access following the abandonment? Konkel asks if the existing access violates the current access control plan. What do you think? If it does access the existing plan, how? Your prompt responses to these questions is greatly appreciated. A copy of Konkel's letter is attached. Paul Transportation Services Engineering Department City of 7,J- CAHns May 18, 2006 Mr. Chad Walker, PE Pinnacle Consulting Group, Inc. 5110 Granite Street, Suite C Loveland CO, 80538 RE: Front Range Baptist Church Development Agreement To whom it may concern, This letter is in response to the proposed revisions from the Front Range Baptist Church Building Committee to the Development Agreement between the Front Range Baptist Church and the City of Fort Collins. The suggested changes have been reviewed by City staff in the Engineering and Stormwater Departments, and in the City Attorney's Office. Please refer to the attached itemized response table and the corresponding Development Agreement draft for clarification of the City's view on each proposed change. An updated draft, reflecting the changes that were accepted is also attached for your review. I would also like to offer you some explanation on the items that we do not feel are acceptable changes so that we may help you to come to a better understanding of the City's standards that are reflected in the Development Agreement language. As a general rule, we do not change any of the standard language in Sections 1 and 3 of the Development Agreement. If a component of this standard language is not applicable to your project, it should not impact your development, but we prefer to leave these Sections intact, because there could be changes to the plans at a future time through revisions or a minor or major amendment process, and the Development Agreement still needs to cover all possibilities. In addition to this, many sections that are proposed to be deleted actually do apply to this project, because there will be utility service stubs, pavement, and curb and gutter installed with this project. Several of the proposed changes relate to the maintenance and repair guarantee requirements. These requirements come directly from the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC) Section 3.3.2, and apply to projects with any public improvements. Your stormwater culvert improvements, drive access, and curb and gutter on the driveway out to the street, as well as any replacement along Harmony Rd. are all considered public improvements. RD. boX 530 -Fort L ouiris, Cu 3C5-0580 ( 0Z? , ;OS r- ; " 'c; 35c: y,,Tww.?^_inv.^Dal 61 ;C of Fort c ,I nS Services Enoi-veering Department This requires us to leave the maintenance and repair language intact. Indemnification statements may not be removed. Please contact Paul Eckman (416-2476) in the City Attorney's Office if you have any questions on this. Development Agreements must carry over if a property is sold or transferred. Any modification to that requirement was not accepted. The paragraph that discusses the interim driveway could not be accepted as written. Developments must comply with all standards in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS), as well as the Land Use Code, both of which require that Access Control plans be followed. Please refer to Section 9.1.1 (D) of the LCUASS. In order to modify this standard, a variance request would be required, and would not be supported by staff. With any development, the standards must be followed, and the Development Agreement is where we can ensure that our standards will be met in the future as well. While we are not requiring the access to be closed at this time, it is within the scope of a Development Agreement to require cooperation with the closure at a later date, when it is deemed necessary. Therefore, it may be done without the developer's consent and without compensation. Also, fire access at this location is not necessarily guaranteed indefinitely. There may be an opportunity in the future for a better emergency access location, and at that point, the access could be closed entirely. The above items hopefully touch on the main issues, and we can discuss any items in more detail as necessary. Please be aware however, that major changes to the standard Development Agreement are not made easily or quickly. I'm hopeful that we can work out the remaining issues with this Agreement, and please do not hesitate to contact me (221- 6605) or ddelaughterLa fceov.com if you have any additional questions. Sincerely, Dan DeLaughter cc: file Doug Konkel 1J, o J FaiColuiris, Cfl�W22 Jo3C �9,0)2�l -3 ww�r r kgovcom