Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHUNTINGTON HILLS PUD SIXTH - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2005-03-21Transportation Services i pt:.mccring Department Citv of Fort Collins May 30, 1997 Lester Litton Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. 2301 Research Boulevard, Suite 104 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Re: Pavement Design - Huntington Hills 6th Filing Mr. Litton: Please be advised the current standards require samples to be taken after grading is completed and the subgrade is rough cut. In addition, bores shall be taken at horizontal spacings not to exceed 500 feet, or a minimum of one sample location per street. The boring location diagram provided in the Subsurface Exploration Report does not correspond to the street layout identified on the final plat. Please find attached a copy of the Subgrade Investigation and Pavement Design Check List. Please include these items in future Final Soils Report Submittals. The traffic data you requested for pavement design is provided below for Huntington Hills 6th Filing. Fossil Creek Parkway EDLA 50 Auburn Drive EDLA 5 Saturn Drive EDLA 25 Keswick Court EDLA 5 Huntington Hills Drive EDLA 20 Dunraven Drive EDLA 5 Waverly Drive EDLA 5 Bentley Street EDLA 5 Yarnell Court EDLA 5 Sincerely,, Keith Meyer Project Engineer �h; �; (-, d',-,c ;1� rnuc ('Q. B:,• SSO • i"01'I C oll+n,, C 0 805'�' 0-�O • 07)1 221-660 JREngineering, Ltd. 4912 South College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 (970) 282-4335 • FAX (970) 282-4340 November 27, 1996 Mr, Mike Herzig City of Fort Collins - Engineering Department Development Review Division 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 4935 North 30th Street Colorado Springs, Colorado 80919 (719) 593-2593 • FAX ('719) 528-6613 6110 Greenwood Plaza Blvd. Englewood, Colorado 80111 (303) 740-9393 • FAX (303) 721-9019 Re: Huntington Hills PUD Filing No. 6 - Driveway Access Easements Variance Revision 2 Dear Mike: In letters dated September 19, 1996, and October 25, 1996, we asked you to consider a Request for Variance for the elimination of the requirement for driveway access easements for the lots along Fossil Creek Parkway in Huntington Hills PUD Filing No. 6. It was our understanding that these easements were created in order to limit the access points onto Fossil Creek Parkway (a collector street), with the result being the creation of single, double wide driveways to be shared by adjoining lots. It was also our understanding that a potential side benefit of the double wide driveway would be to give the option to the homeowner of utilizing the full width for maneuvering (and to potentially prevent backing up onto Fossil Creek Parkway). In a follow-up telephone conversation with you, you stated that this item had been agreed to originally with Filing 4 in order to allow for the narrower cross section on Fossil Creek Parkway (eliminating the on -street parking), with the developer to provide either shared driveways or an off- street loop. (For Filing 4, the shared driveway concept was chosen.) You also stated that the locations of the driveway easements as shown on our previous plans should be looked at for possible revisions. I then asked you for some locations where these had been utilized in Fort Collins and you listed the following: (See below for further discussion on these locations.) a. Clarendon Hills - Loop Drive b. Quail Hollow - Shared Driveways C. Huntington Hills PUD Filing No. 4 - Shared Driveways In a meeting on October 30, 1996 (with Ward Stanford, you, and me), we discussed this issue further and you stated that the variance was denied due to the fact that the City's primary concern was to provide parking for the lots since the narrow section of Fossil Creek Parkway did not allow for any on -street parking. One of the solutions you proposed was to do some "turnouts" and widen the ��� Recycled section of Fossil Creek Parkway in this area to provide on -street parking for these lots. You stated that you felt that this widening would fall under street over -sizing and the developer would not have to pay for the additional street width. Our discussion ended at that point as I stated that I would have to get back to the developer, Marc Palkowitsh. When I talked to Marc Palkowitsh, he informed me that the setback along Fossil Creek Parkway had been set at 35 feet as a result of the lots fronting on this street. (The setback distance will be shown on the plat for this site.) This setback distance will allow for the cars to be parked in the driveways Itwo deep (for the potential of four cars per driveway). Therefore, we feel that this adequately addresses the City's concern that for the loss of parking as a result of the narrower street. As we stated in our previous letters, we have reviewed a significant amount of information relating to this issue. As a result of this information (presented above and below), it is our opinion that, although there may be some benefit in limiting the number of access points, the creation of double wide (shared) driveways along Fossil Creek Parkway is not necessary for additional parking and they t raise the following issues and, create problems (hardships): /.r.f f .�1 �,�.� l . �,i The poste speed limit (25 MPH), adequate site distance, and appearance (narrower than -- normal collector street with houses and landscaping) lend themselves to the fact that this street will have more of a residential feel, with the intent of "calming" the traffic. In addition. these locations are not close to connections to arterials as in Clarendon Hills and Quail Ilollow. 2. From our observation, it is not likely that the property owners will, on a consistent basis, be able to utilize portions of their neighbors driveways for maneuvering. This is primarily due to the fact that many people store cars, boats, and other items in there driveways as well as installing basketball structures, etc. 1 3. By forcing the driveways to be adjacent on two neighboring lots, this will force one of the driveways to be set on the low side of its lot and the adjacent driveway to be set on the high side of its lot. This creates a grading problem as the finished floor elevations are typically set from the highest (uphill) property corner, which would result in the driveways starting at the same point at the street but meeting significantly different garage elevations. In order to lessen the impact on the grading, it is likely that the finished floor on the uphill lot will need be placed lower than desired and the finished floor on the downhill lot higher than desired. 4. By placing the driveways adjacent to each other, there will be no place to outfall the side yard swales required by Stormwater. 5. From a safety standpoint, several potential home owners -- all of whom have elected not to purchase any of these lots -- have raised a very real concern that double wide driveways give %�- children, especially small children, an opportunity to cross onto and play on a neighbors driveway with a false sense of security and safety. Mr. Mike Herzig November 27, 1996 Page 3 6. Based on the current plat, there are a total of 14 lots that front on Fossil Creek Parkway in Filing 6. Of these, there are a total of six (6)�4ble wide driveway access easements. In other words, by eliminating this requirement( ,--I- other (6) additional driveway access would be created onto Fossil Creek Parkway. L - Upon a field visit to each of the aforementioned locations we offer the following a. Clarendon Hills - Loop Drive This concept would not work for Filing 6 as the existing terrain results in walkout basements for the affected lots. In addition, we do not believe that this would address the issue of parking as it is not clear as to what parking restrictions may be required to go along with this configuration. In addition, this loop drive seemed to be required due to the location of the lots off Clarendon Hills Dive on a curved section of the street, adjacent to the connection of this street (and subdivision) to Shields Street.- b- Quail Hollow - Shared Driveways Again, these driveways were on one of the main entrances to this subdivision adjacent to Drake Road. It appears that, for some of the lots, an attempt was made to create a swale between the two driveways. For one of these locations, this created a cold joint at the bottom of the swalc. For another location, a section of split rail fence was placed in the "flow line" of the swalc (perhaps to address the concern of children crossing into the neighbors driveway). In general, it appeared that the drainage and safety issues presented above could not be adequately addressed. C. Huntington Hills PUD Filing No. 4 - Shared Driveways As of today, there are a few houses constructed in the area where the shared driveways are required. I lowever, in no case have houses been constructed adjacent to each other and the shared driveway actually constructed. In looking at these driveways in the field, the primary concern at this stage is getting the drainage to work properly because of the driveway configuration and the adjacent landscaping. And, as the adjacent driveways will be built at a later date, the result will be a cold joint where the drainage generally flows to the street (side yard swales required by Stormwater). The end product will result in a "sea of concrete', creating increased runoff (more impervious area) and a visually undesirable - - -- — --- "strectscapmg" for this section of the project. Finally, based on the total amount of concrete being placed, the safes issue for children will be very much present due to the creation of the "invisible line" between where their driveway ends and the neighbors begins. Mr. Mike Herzig November 27, 1996 Page 4 Your prompt attention regarding this information is greatly appreciated. I will call you early next week to determine if it will be necessary to meet to discuss this item (preferably, by the middle of next week, if required or desired). If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call ne at (970) 282-4335. Thank your. Sincerely, JR Engineering, Ltd. itr; 29110 David W. Klockeman, P.E. *$`+�L Project Manager cc: Marc Palkowitsh, Huntington Hills LLC Dick Kellogg, JR Engineering, Ltd. f , /ya 1 " 1 �r Li ✓ 4el JREEno'ieering, Ltd. 4812 South College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 (970) 282-4335 • FAX (970) 282-4340 October 25, 1996 Mr, Mike Herzig City of Fort Collins - Engineering Department Development Review Division 4935 North 30th Street Colorado Springs, Colorado 80919 (719) 593-2593 • FAX (719) 528-6613 6110 Greenwood Plaza Blvd. Englewood, Colorado 80111 (303) 740-9393 • FAX (303) 721-9019 r( } 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522' F , y Re: Huntington Hills PUD Filing No. 6 - Driveway Access Easements Variance - Revised Dear Mike: In a letter dated September 19, 1996, we asked you to consider a Request for Variance for the elimination of the requirement for driveway access easements for the lots along Fossil Creek Parkway in Huntington Hills PUD Filing No. 6. At that time, it was our understanding that these easements were created in order to limit the access points onto Fossil Creek Parkway (a collector street), with the result being the creation of single, double wide driveways to be shared by adjoining lots. It was also our understanding that a potential side benefit of the double wide driveway would be to give the option to the homeowner of utilizing the full width for maneuvering (and to potentially prevent backing up onto Fossil Creek Parkway) Ina follow-up telephone conversation with you, you stated this item had been agreed to originally with Filing 4 in order to allow for the narrower cross section on Fossil Creek Parkway (eliminating the on -street parking), with the developer to provide either shared driveways or an oft -street loop, (For Filing 4, the shared driveway concept was chosen.) You also stated that the locations of the driveway easements as shown on our previous plans should be looked at for possible revisions. 1 then asked you for some locations where these had been utilized in Fort Collins and you listed the following_ (See below for further discussion on these locations.) a. Clarendon Hills - Loop Drive b. Quail Hollow - Shared Driveways c- Huntington Hills PUD Filing No. 4 - Shared Driveways As a result of our review of this information, and the information we had presented in our previous letter, we still feel that, although there may be some benefit in limiting the number of access points, the creation of double wide (shared) driveways creates the following issues and problems (hardships): The posted speed limit (25 MPH), adequate site distance, and appearance (narrower than normal collector street with houses and landscaping) lend themselves to the fact that this ��� Recycled Mr. Mike Herzig October 25, 1996 Page 2 street will have more of a residential feel, with the intent of "calming' the traffic. In addition, these locations are not close to connections to arterials as in Clarendon Hills and Quail Hollow. 2. From our observation, it is not likely that the property owners will, on a consistent basis, be able to utilize portions of their neighbors driveways for maneuvering. This is primarily due to the fact that many people store cars, boats, and other items in there driveways as well as installing basketball structures, etc. 3_ By forcing the driveways to be adjacent on two neighboring lots, this will force one of the driveways to be set on the low side of its lot and the adjacent driveway to be set on the high side of its lot. This creates a grading problem as the finished floor elevations are typically set from the highest (uphill) property corner, which would result in the driveways starting at the same point at the street but meeting significantly different garage elevations. In order to f lessen the impact on the grading, it is likely that the finished floor on the uphill lot will need Y be placed lower than desired and the finished floor on the downhill lot higher than desired. 4. By placing the driveways adjacent to each other, there will be no place to outfall the side yard swales required by Stormwater. 5_ From a safety standpoint, several potential home owners -- all of whom have elected not to purchase any of these lots -- have raised a very real concern that double wide driveways give children, especially small children, an opportunity to cross onto and play on a neighbors driveway with a false sense of security and safety. i 6_ Based on the current plat, there are a total of 14 lots that front on Fossil Creek Parkway in Filing 6. Of these, there are a total of six (6) double wide driveway access easements. In other words, by eliminating this requirement, only six (6) additional driveway access would be created onto Fossil Creek Parkway. Upon a field visit to each of the aforementioned locations, we offer the following: a. Clarendon Hills - Loop Drive This concept would not work for Filing 6 as the existing terrain results in walkout basements for the affected lots. In addition, we do not believe that this would address the issue of parking as it is not clear as to what parking restrictions may be required to go along with this configuration_ In addition, this loop drive seemed to be required due to the location of the lots off Clarendon Hills Dive on a curved section of the street, adjacent to the connection of this street (and subdivision) to Shields Street. Mr. Mike Herzig October 25, 1996 Page 3 b. Quail Hollow - Shared Driveways Again, these driveways were on one of the main entrances to this subdivision adjacent to Drake Road. It appears that, for some of the lots, an attempt was made to create a swale between the two driveways. For one of these locations, this created a cold joint at the bottom of the Swale. For another location, a section of split rail fence was placed in the "flow line" of the Swale (perhaps to address the concern of children crossing into the neighbors driveway)- In general, it appeared that the drainage and safety issues presented above could not be adequately addressed. C. Huntington Hills PUD Filing No. 4 - Shared Driveways As of today, there are a few houses constructed in the area where the shared driveways are required. However, in no case have houses been constructed adjacent to each other and the shared driveway actually constructed. In looking at these driveways in the field, the primary concern at this stage is getting the drainage to work properly because of the driveway configuration and the adjacent landscaping. And, as the adjacent driveways will be built at a later date, the result will be a cold joint where the drainage generally flows to the street (side yard swales required by Stormwater). The end product will result in a "sea of concrete", creating increased runoff (more impervious area) and a visually undesirable "streetscaping" for this section of the project. Finally, based on the total amount of concrete being placed, the safety issue for children will be very much present due to the creation of the "invisible line" between where their driveway ends and the neighbors begins. Your prompt attention regarding this information is greatly appreciated. I will call you early next week to determine if it will be necessary to meet to discuss this item (preferably, by the middle of next week, if required or desired). If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call ne at (970) 282-4335. Thank you. Sincerely, JR Engineering, L �Wl David W Klockem Project Manager cc: Marc Palkowitsh, Huntington Hills LLC Dick Kellogg, JR Engineering, Ltd. SEP-19-1996 10: 16 JP ENG I KEEP R!G P. 02'C3 JREnginee ng, Ltd. 4912 South College Avenue Port CoWris, Colorado 80525 (970) ::82A335 • FAX (970) 282-4340 September 19, 1996 Mr. Mike Herzig City of Fort Collins - Engineering Department Development Review Division 281 North College: Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 4935 North 30th Street Colorado Springs, Colorado 80919 (719) 593-2593 • FAX (719) 528.6613 6110 Greenwood Playa Blvd. Englewood, Colorado 80111 (303) 740-9393 • FAX (303) 721-9019 Re: Huntington Hills PUD Filing No. 6 - Driveway Access Easements Dear Mike: VIA FAX Please consider this as the Request for Variance for the elimination of the requirement for driveway access easements for the lots along Fossil Creek Parkway in Huntington Hills PUD Filing No. 6. It is our understanding that these easements were created in order to limit the access points onto Fossil Creek Parkway (a collector street), with the result being the creation of single, double wide driveways to be shared by adpining lots. It is also our understanding that a potential side benefit of the double wide driveway would be to give the option to the homeowner of utilizing the frill width for maneuvering Land to potentially prevent backing up onto Fossil Creek Parkway). After a review of this information from an engineering standpoint, we have determined that, although there may be some benefit in limiting the number of access points, creation of double wide driveways creates the following issues and problems (hardships): The posted speed limit (25 MPH), adequate site distance, and appearance (narrower than normal collector street with houses and landscaping) lend themselves to the fact that this street will have more of a residential feel, with the intent of "calmine" the traffic. 2. From our observation, it is not likely that the property owners will, on a consistent basis_ be able to utilize portions of their neighbors driveways for maneuvering. This is primarily due to the fact that many people store cars, boats, and other items in there driveways as well as installing basketball structures, etc. 3. By forcing the driveways to be adjacent on two neighboring lots, this will force one of the driveways to be set on the low side of its lot and the adjacent driveway to be set on the high side of its lot. This creates a grading problem as the finished floor elevations are typically set from the highest (uphill) property comer, which would result in the driveways starting at the same point at the street but meeting significantly different garage elevations. In order to lessen the impact on the grading, it is likely that the finished floor on the uphill lot will need be placed lower than desired and the finished floor on the downhill lot higher than �� Recycled SEP-19-1996 10:10 JP ENG[TJEEPING P.03-63 Mr. Mike Herzig September 19, 1996 Page 2 desired. 4. By placing the driveways adjacent to each other, there will be no place to outtall the side yard swales required by Stormwater. 5. From a safety standpoint, several potential home owners -- all of whom have elected not to purchase any of these lots -- have raised a very real concern that double wide driveways give children, especially small children, an opportunity to cross onto and play on a neighbors driveway with a false sense of security and safety. 6. Based on the current plat, there are a total of 14 lots that front on Fossil Creek Parkway in Filing 6. Of these, there are a total of six (6) double wide driveway access easements. In other words, by eliminating this requirement, only six (6) additional driveway access would be created onto Fossil Creek Parkway. Your prompt attention regarding this information is greatly appreciated. I will call later today or tomorrow (Friday) to determine if it wi`.1 be necessary to meet to discuss this item (preferably, the first part of next week, if required or desired). If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call neat (970) 282-4335. Thank you. Sincerely, JR Engineering, Lt David W. Klocke= Project Manager cc: Marc Palkowitsh, Huntington Hills LLC Dick Kellogg, lR Engineering, Ltd. TOTAL P.O3 2.08 SUBGRADE INVESTIGATION AND PAVEMENT DESIGN CHECK LIST Soil Consultant: Earth Engineering Subdivision: Huntington Hills 6th Job No.: 1972032 PRELIMINARY SOILS REPORT YES NO COMMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Drainage Pattern (Floodplains, streams, etc.) 3. Site Conditions (Depth to bedrock, site layout, irrigation channels or ditches within 500 feet of site, etc.) 4. Preliminary Boring Logs with Date 5. Traffic Study (Separate Document) 6. Groundwater Evaluation (Time of year, irrigation season, depth, etc.) 7. Evaluation for Hydrologic Study (Subdmins) FINAL SOILS REPORT YES NO COMMENTS 1. VicinityMap X On file 2. Drawing With Location of Final Borings and Associated Boring Logs (After subgrade is rough cut) X Doesn't correspond to final plat street locations 3. Final Plat with Street: Names X On file 4. Drawing With Estimated Extent of Soil Types X 5. Pavement Alternatives X 6. Soil Classifications X 7. Atterberg Limits & % Passing No. 200 Sieve X 8. Swell/Consolidation Tests X 9. Composite Samples (Grouped at 500 Foot (152.4 m) maximum intervals) X Huntington Hills, Keswick, Yarncll, Bentley 10. Borrow Source Identification X 11. R-Value (Dry Density, moisture content, & expansion pressure for each sample, Exudation Pressure, R-Value curve) X 12. EDLA and Other Pertinent Data as Required X 13. Design Coefficient Used For Asphalt, Base Course, Etc. X 14. Design Calculations Shown For All Phases of Soil Report X 15. Special Problems (Expansion, frost, soluble sulfates, drainage, shallow bedrock, heave, groundwater, etc.) X Final Soils Report Approved and Accepted By: Date: NOTE: This checklist is a list of minimum requirements, however, more information may be necessary for certain projects. It is designed to he used as an outline only, and in no way arc the requirements limited to the items on this list. Detailed information for each item is included in the body of this policy. Transportation Services Engineering Department City of Fort Collins October 28, 1999 Bob Campbell, Andover Development Group John Knapp, Andover Development Group Stan Myers, Sear -Brown Engineering Bill Neal Gary Nordic, Nordic Construction Marc Palkowitsh Shar Shadowen, TST Engineering Re: Developer responsibilities To all interested parties As you are all aware, there are many complex issues regarding the responsibilities for improvements to the area surrounding the Huntington Hills 7 Filing and Miramont Valley. The following is a synopsis of the City's understanding on improvements for the area which include Mail Creek Lane, Fossil Creek Parkway, as well as the bike/pedestrian connection in lieu of the Highcastle Drive road connection. Fossil Creek Parkway The City will administer the Fossil Creek Parkway upgrade project from the intersection of Mail Creek Lane out to College Avenue. The Andover Group will contribute an amount yet to be determined by the City for this portion of the roadway. The portion of Fossil Creek Parkway, adjacent to the Huntington Hills 7t' Filing and south of Mail Creek Lane, will be the responsibility of Huntington Hills. This includes the bridge over Fossil Creek Parkway. The City will contribute in oversizing these improvement costs. Mail Creek Lane Andover has agreed to upgrade the road surface to a 20-year design life from the southern boundary of the Werner School to the intersection with Fossil Creek Parkway. In turn, Bill Neal and Gary Nordic have agreed to fund the construction of 10 foot of sidewalk and curb & gutter on the east side of Mail Creek Lane for the length that the roadway fronts Miramont Valley (approximately 300 feet in length.) Andover Group will be responsible for the remainder portion of sidewalk and curb and gutter, south of Miramont's property to Fossil Creek Parkway. 281 North College Avenue • PO. Boy 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6605 Bicycle/Pedestrian Trail between Miramont Valley and Huntington Hills 7`h Bill Neal and Gary Nordic have agreed to construct improvements for the bike/ped trail from Roma Valley Drive, south to connect to the bridge over Mail Creek. The area internal to Miramont Valley, which is currently right-of-way for the former Highcastle Drive, will not be vacated and the City's Parks Department will be maintaining the existing width as right-of-way. Andover is responsible for the bike/ped trail from their site north, including the bridge over Mail Creek Lane. Any agreement between developers on cost sharing of this bridge is a third party agreement that the City is not aware of. I hope this helps clarify the latest discussion on the two projects. Design work should be coordinated between the two projects to ensure that the off -site obligations noted for each project are shown with their respective utility plans. In each case, both projects need to show 500 feet of road design past their obligations (including sidewalk, curb & gutter) along Mail Creek Lane. (TST Engineering shall show the design of sidewalk, curb & gutter continuing to the Werner School, and Sear Brown Engineering shall show the design of sidewalk, curb & gutter continuing to Fossil Creek Parkway.) The utility plans for both projects will not be approved without showing these designs. Please inform me of any concerns you might have. Sincerely, "Il v� W— Cam McNair, P.E. City Engineer cc: Gary Diede Bob Blanchard Matt Baker Transportation Services Engineering Department City of Fort Collins October 8, 1999 Barry Long, Fossil Creek Meadows HOA President P.O. Box 270216 Fort Collins, CO 80527 Dear Mr. Long, As you know, there have been quite a few changes occurring around your neighborhood with the Miramont and Huntington Hills development projects. The intent of this letter is twofold: first, to inform the residents of Fossil Creek Meadows of recent developments with the Huntington I fills 70' Filing and Miramont Valley projects, and second, to explain the City's desire to acquire a portion of your open space for the purpose of bringing Roma Valley Drive out to Mail Creek Lane. Invariably, change can cause feelings of uneasiness. Indeed, we are aware that your subdivision is well established and can understand any feelings of concern over the changes being brought about by the development of your new neighbors, Miramont Valley and Huntington Hills 7`h. We would like to assure you that the City has been proactive in addressing the concerns of this area and are working; attentively to ensure that the two projects are developed prudently. We feel confident that the full build -out of this area will result in a harmonious, safe environment that will benefit everyone, existing and new neighbors alike. Perhaps I can provide a little information on the present history of your two neighbors to show how we have gotten to where we are today. I am sure you are well aware of most of the events. The Preliminary Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) for the Huntington Hills 7« Filing was approved on April 1, 1999 subject to the successful amendment of the City's Master Street Plan to conform to the Huntington Hills 7`h Filing Preliminary P.U.D. This amendment required a new street connection network that allows the Mail Creek Lane/Roma Valley Drive connection in lieu of the Highcastle Drive connection over Mail Creek. On May 18, 1999, the City Council approved this Master Street Plan Amendment. On September 16, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Board approved the Final P.U.D. The Miramont Valley P.U.D. received final approval in 1996, with the Development Agreement approved on September 30, 1996. The project has been proceeding knowing that the option was left open of having the Roma Valley Drive connection out to Mail Creek Lane, in lieu of the Highcastle Drive vehicular connection to the south. With the approval of the Huntington Hills 7°i Filing and the approval of the amendment to the Master Street Plan, the development will now be making the Roma Valley Drive out to Mail Creek Lane connection. The City believes 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6605 that this connection is needed, as the City firmly contends that connectivity between neighborhoods is important During this past year we have attempted to keep you and your neighborhood aware of the changes occurring and have welcomed your input. On November 9, 1998 and February 3, 1999 neighborhood meetings were held to discuss the Huntington Hills 7d' Filing. On May 3`d, a meeting at TST Engineering with yourself, the City, and the developer for Huntington Hills 7d' was held to discuss how to improve Fossil Creek Parkway to City Standards while mitigating the impact on the existing community. On September 29, a meeting with yourself and the City was held to discuss the present situation. Most recently, City Planner Ted Shepard and Development Review Engineer Marc Virata, met a week ago with homeowner Mr. Joel Lurkins to explain what will be occurring around him. As originally discussed at the May 3rd meeting at TST Engineering, Fossil Creek Parkway will be built with curb and gutter on the outside edge of the roadway width. The roadway will have a 12' travel lane and 8' bike lane in each direction. The existing median configuration will be left in place. In addition, a 5' attached sidewalk will be built on the north side. On the south side, a regional trail will serve as the pedestrian system and a raised crosswalk with a pedestrian light will be installed across Fossil Creek Parkway at the intersection with Mail Creek Lane. These improvements were done with the interest of creating a safe route for children to travel to and from the Werner School as part of the "Safe Route to School Program" as well as attempting to minimally impact the existing residences. All of the work will be contained within the existing 80' public right-of-way. The City will be administering the construction of Fossil Creek Parkway from Mail Creek Lane out to College Avenue. The remainder portion of Fossil Creek Parkway, including the bridge to connect the roadway to the southern leg, will be constructed by the Developer for Huntington Hills 71h Filing. Mail Creek Lane, from Fossil Creek Parkway to the Werner School, will be built with curb and gutter and a 10' sidewalk on the east side. The pavement for Mail Creek Lane will be improved to a 20-year design life. This is an off -site connectivity requirement of the Developer for the Huntington Hills 71h Filing; however, the developer for Miramont Valley has agreed to share in the responsibility of these improvements in recent discussion between the Developers and the City. With both Fossil Creek Parkway and Mail Creek Lane, the City will be taking over the maintenance with the construction of these roads at the time the streets are improved and accepted by the City. With the configuration of Fossil Creek Parkway from College Avenue to Mail Creek Lane, the City will manage the project construction and will be responsible for maintenance from that point forward. For Mail Creek Lane and Fossil Creek Parkway adjacent to the Huntington Hills 71s Filing, the Developer for Huntington Hills 71s Filing will be required to maintain these roadways for a two-year period and guarantee errors or omissions in the design and/or construction of the roadways for a five-year period upon completion of these roadways. Your homeowners association will no longer be responsible for these roadways. Although the City's Boards have approved the Huntington Hills 7d' Filing, several steps must be negotiated before any project construction can begin. The utility plans and the Development Agreement have not been finalized and approved by the City, however, we anticipate these being finalized within the next month. The Developer is obligated to have the portion of Fossil Creek Parkway adjacent to his site as well as the bridge over Fossil Creek and the off -site improvements to Mail Creek Lane, constructed and completed prior to any Certificates of Occupancy being issued for the project. In addition, the Developer will be obligated to contribute a monetary amount to the City for the cost sharing of improvements to Fossil Creek Parkway from Mail Creek Lane to College Avenue. As the City will administer this, the timetable of construction will not be tied to the Huntington Hills 7"development. However, we anticipate the completion of this portion of Fossil Creek Parkway to have a similar timetable with completion of the project. Mr. Long as you are aware after our discussion on September 29th, there is a portion of land that is required to bring Roma Valley Drive out to Mail Creek Lane that is owned by your Homeowners Association. This section of land totals 76 square feet and the City is prepared to pay fair market value for the land in question. The City's Land Office Manager, Ron Mills has been in talks with the lawyer for your HOA and we hope to have the acquisition process coordinated'n the next few weeks. City Staff would have no objection in recommending to City Council that a "friendly condemnation" approach be used for acquiring the needed right-of-way if your Attorney and Board of Directors so request. We would also hope to have the support of the majority of the association's homeowners. We realize that this may be a sensitive issue for many and are sympathetic to any concerns your neighborhood may have. I hope we can all work together on getting the final pieces of the puzzle to fit. If you have any concerns, please don't hesitate to contact myself or Marc Virata, the development review engineer for the two projects. Again, with improved roadways, improved bicycle and pedestrian circulation, and connections that bring neighborhoods together, I am quite optimistic that the end result will be a neighborhood that everyone can be proud of. Sincerely, 0°uqC-LI Cam McNair, P.E. City Engineer cc: Gary Diede Ron Mills Bob Blanchard tingto Hunit P29-05-07A Hills, MEMORANDUM DATE: February 17, 1999 TO: Rick Richter FROM: Marcus Palkowitsh SUBJ: Huntington Hills — Filing 6, Phase 6 — Inspection Fee Rick, Thank you for meeting with John Minatta and myself and for all the information you provided to us regarding the inspection fees and performance and warranty bond requirements for the development of new projects within the City of Fort Collins. Attached is a schedule we prepared that calculates the amount of fees due for the construction of Phase 6 in Filing 6 of I luntington Hills. Based on the assumption that we have calculated these fees correctly, the total inspection fees for this project would be $8,291. The agreement we reached at the conclusion of our meeting was that we would split these fees with the City. Enclosed is our check in the amount of $4,145 representing 50'% of the inspection fees attributable to this project. Also enclosed is a schedule of the cost of the stormwater inlet, the streets including curb, gutter, sidewalk, sub -base and asphalt that will installed in this phase of the project. Our total costs for these improvements will be $122,081. Quantities for determining the amount of the warranty bond that will be required at the completion of construction were derived from the quantity takeoff from the construction plans and the contract we have with Don Kehn Construction Co. for construction of the improvements. We will present the rcquircd warranty bond to the City to cover the improvements installed upon completion of construction. If you have any questions regarding our calculation of the fees, or if you find any required corrections, please contact John Minatta, our project manager or myself. John's telephone number is (970) 204-4070 and I can be reached at (970) 495-0880. Again, thank you for your assistance. areas Palkowitsh Enclosures cc: Cam McNair Lance Newlin John Minatta 650 S,wi, CR. Gfm+, Sw�+eY35 penver Co 8"02'f6 (.303)399-9804 far (303)399-3631 Sheet2 Huntington Hills Filing 6, Phase 6 IMPROVEMENT DESCRIPTION f3_N INSPECTION FOR FEE $ 683 SanitarySewer 8" PVC 1138 LF $60+ $.6t x(lf-1001 Water 8" PVC 1 1586 LF $60+ $ 60x(If-1001 $ 952 Storm sewer 14' Inlet 1 EA $90 EA $ 90 Concrete Rollover curb 3080 LF $60+ $.80x If-50If) $ 2,484 gutter, walk HCR 1 fillet with HCR 2 EA Crosspan 1 EA 300 sy $90 $ 90 $ 2,574 8" ABC SY $ 1,616 3" HBP 15388 1266 SY I$90+($.30x(sy-300sy)) $90+($.30x(sy-300sy)) $ 380 4" HBP 5388 SY $90+{$.30x(sy-300sy)) $ 1,616 Phase 6: Total Fees $ 8,291 One Half Cost $ 4,145 Page 1