HomeMy WebLinkAboutSIDEHILL - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2005-04-08Tim Blandford comments on Sharp poir
-- Page 1J
From:
Sheri Wamhoff
To:
Tim Blandford
Date:
7/21/00 3:10 PM
Subject:
comments on Sharp poin
Tim
Here are some notes on the sharp point extension.
At transportation coordination it was agreed that the road could have an angle point at the intersection. It
would be a three way controlled access so that the extension of the road would not have to follow our min
curve requirements.
Therefore it appears that the road should go through Tract A.
The extension should be designed as a collector with parking. This will allow for greater flexibility and the
ability to install islands for the railroad crossing devices if/as needed. The street will need to cross the
railroad tracks perpendicularly. May want to check with Mike Herzig on how close to 90 degrees this
needs to be.
In conjunction with the development of the adjacent property the road will need to be designed (including
the 500 feet off site) and built or it may be possible to delay the construction by the escrow of funds for the
construction of the street if they do not take access from it.
As a collector the applicant would receive street oversizing reimbursement for the oversized portion and
they can file for reimbursement from the property on the other side of the street. Odds are pretty slim that
they would get reimbursed for the portion adjacent to the natural area. But it appears that there is a
developable lot adjacent a portion of the roadway.
Sheri
Susan Joy - Re: Timberline Road Improvements Page 1
From: Dave Stringer
To: "joe@cityscapeud.com".GWIA60.FC1
Date: Thu, Feb 13, 2003 8:31 AM
Subject: Re: Timberline Road Improvements
The ballot issues are in early stages of discussions. No decisions yet. Therefore, as we have stated all
along, if the improvements are not on the ballot or the ballot fails the developers won't be able to receive a
final which means no development construction can occur until the APF is completed. Of course the
developers can decide to fund the improvements if they so choose.
Dave
>>> "Joe Carter" <joe@cityscapeud.com> 02/13/03 08:19AM >>>
Dave,
I don't know if you are the person I should ask regarding these
improvements. If not, could you please direct me to whom I should speak?
Thank you.
Could you please tell me the latest news on the Timberline Road
improvements? Has the council made a decision to place it on the ballot
this April?
Thank you.
Joe Carter
Landscape Architect
Cityscape Urban Design
3555 Stanford Road, Ste. 105
Fort Collins, CO 80525
(970)226-4074 phone
(970) 226-4196 fax
ioe(a)citvscaoeud.com
CC: Cam McNair
Susan Joy - RE: SideHill Issues Page 1
From: "John Beauparlant <jbeauparlant@jamescolorado.com>
To: "Cam McNair" <CMCNAIR@fcgov.com>
Date: 1 /9/04 9:30AM
Subject: RE: SideHill Issues
Cam et al
Thanks for the message. I am probably going to be calling several of
you in the next couple of days to address specific items, but I wanted
to take this opportunity to address your reply and also the information
we have forwarded to some of you earlier.
First of all ... Happy New Year! I hope we can kick it off well by
getting everything pertaining to Filing 1 of SideHill completed, and get
you the Timberline Road design fee, in the next couple of weeks. We
would like to be able to close on this project and get going on
construction as soon as possible. We think it will be a great project
for both us and the City.
And my thanks to Basil Harridan for working closely with Mike Brake to
resolve the offsite storm drainage issue!
So here are the remaining issues that need to be resolved:
The Filing 1 Development Agreement (DA) applies to the entire
218 25-acre parcel, which includes what are being called Outlets A and
B. The Filing 1 plat covers all of that property, so there is nothing
wrong with addressing issues pertaining to Outlots A and B in the
current DA. In fact, the DA already does so in a number of locations
(Sharpe Pointe Drive connection, Timberline Road local street share
pertaining to Outlot A, etc.). I understand that each future filing
will have its own DA pertaining to the property being platted at that
time, and the two future filings will be replats of Outlets A and B. So
there should not be anything to preclude us from addressing issues
related to Outlots A and B in the present DA.
The APF Improvements reimbursement issue. There are several reasons why
we would like to have some sort of proactive acknowledgment that the
City Council would be permitted (but certainly not obligated) to
reimburse us for the money we are fronting for these improvements. It
is important to note that the very best we (JamesCompany) will make out
is to be just $1 million out of pocket, even after all the
'reimbursement' through the SID (this is over $1,000 per dwelling unit).
There is no way the SID could possibly reimburse us for our own
assessment, of course, even though the current wording of Paragraph
I.D 7 indicates elsewise. And there certainly is no guarantee that the
SID will even be formed Given all of this, we would like to have some
acknowledgment that the City Council might want to give some
consideration to any and all potential reimbursement vehicles. Again,
we realize that there is no way the Council can be obligated.
One of the big problems we have had with the DA is that, every time we
receive a revised version of it, it includes yet another old utility or
yet -to -be -constructed utility line we have to help pay for or reimburse
the City for. The latest is the 24-inch waterline in Timberline, which
also requires that we pay inflation on this $68,256 for 15 years! This
Susan Joy - RE: SideHill Issues
Page 2
is absurd! Why does each successive version of the DA include more and
more cost -sharing obligations? Is there no "statute of limitations"
insofar as cost -sharing is concerned? Or, at least, is there no maximum
life of the improvement? If anything, the value of the 24-inch
waterline maybe should be depreciated as a capital item. It has been in
use for a long time without us ever having tied into it. And, once
again, please do understand that we are going to be paying a huge sum
for the Timberline/Prospect improvements, which would be paid for by the
City if there were any funds available. This is one of those
opportunities in the DA to acknowledge that fact with an eye toward
equity.
Mike Brake assures me that the existing sanitary sewer line in Drake
Road has a certain amount of existing capacity, and we should be
entitled to use it as we construct the new 42-inch line. Can we get an
audit of that existing line to determine how many more units it can
serve? To withhold all building permits until the line is constructed
is unfair, especially since the construction of this line was something
that was added in the last version of the DA. We realize the new line
has to be constructed, but the timing of doing so should not hold us up.
We will forward our share of the railroad crossing permit fee as soon as
the Development Agreement satisfactorily addresses all of the major
issues included in this email message.
The underdrain issue for Filings 2 & 3 is a major concern. We need to
have the assurance that we can provide underdrains for all of SideHill,
and the fact that we are so close to the Poudre River pretty much
necessitates a lift station to make the Filings 2 & 3 system work. JR
Engineering will be starting the design of the sanitary sewer and
underdrains soon, and we need to have some sort of assurance that the
drain system can and will function properly. Here is some proposed
wording to address this item:
"The City agrees to consider for approval all means and methods to allow
ground water discharge from the underdrain collection system proposed
for Outlets A and B, including a gravity outfall system and a mechanical
lift station."
The valley wall issue pertains to all three contemplated filings. The
grading and revegetation of this feature has been addressed in detail
through a special study that was completed by Cedar Creek Associates.
We would suggest the following language in the Development Agreement
"All valley wall mitigation measures have been addressed in the
"Revegetation Plan for the SideHill Project" prepared by Cedar Creek
Associates. No further mitigation measures beyond the grading and
revegetation called for in this study and included in the Filing 1 Final
Development Plan Documents will be required for Outlets A and B."
Paragraph II.D.5 does need to be revised to reflect the impossibility of
fronting the $100,000 design money long ago.
Cumberland Companies requested that the ownership of the Mansion Park
property immediately across Timberline from SideHill reflect the new
ownership. The new owner of this parcel is SC Group Investments, LLC.
This parcel will probably not be developed as "Mansion Park,: so you
Susan Joy - RE. SideHill Issues Page 3
might want to delete that reference.
Why is the inflation factor for the Sharp Point Drive crossing to
commence on September 2003? Shouldn't this be the date of the
Development Agreement?
Lastly, the ownership for Outlots A & B (what will become Filings 2 & 3)
will not be SideHill 2 LLC. We are not sure what the name of this
ownership entity will be at the moment, but will forward that
information as soon as it is available.
I will cal several of you early next week to see what can be done to
bring the Development Agreement to a condition that would permit us to
sign it We would surely like to be in that position in another week.
Thanks so much for all the work on this.
John Beauparlant
Entitlement Manager
JamesCompany
-----Original Message -----
From: Cam McNair (mailto:CMCNAIR@fcgov.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 8:32 AM
To: John Beauparlant
Cc: Cameron Gloss; Don Bachman, Doug Moore, Dave Stringer, Jim Hibbard;
John Stokes; Matt Baker, Roger Buffington, Ron Phillips, Susan Joy,
Steve Roy, Paul Eckman, Dan Wenzinger; jpostle@jamescolorado.com;
mbrake@jrengineering.com
Subject: Re. SideHill Issues
John,
Dan Wenzinger called me yesterday to discuss these issues from your
Dec 30 message, and others. I am having difficulty getting firm
answers on all points, so let me share what I do have and also what Dan
and I discussed yesterday. I will also copy this message to other staff
that has been working on some of these issues, so that they can provide
input or reaction as appropriate.
You received the latest version of the development agreement (DA) on
Tuesday That raised some more questions from your company concerning
utility reimbursements for two previous waterline projects on Timberline
and Drake. I believe you also had questions concerning the timing of
the requirement for the 42-in sanitary sewer. I need to refer you to
Roger Buffington or Jim Hibbard in Utility Services for answers to those
questions.
The "Valley Wall" issue is a Natural Resources Dept concern. I have
asked Current Planning and Natural Resources to provide a response to
your questions on that issue. However, unless the valley wall is
impacted in Filing One of the development project, it will not be
addressed in the Filing One DA.
Susan Joy - RE: SideHill Issues
Page 4
In fact, I do not feel that we can agree to any requests to add
commitments for future filings in the DA for Filing One. The separate
filings need to stand alone as independent projects, in terms of the
utilities and infrastructure design and development agreements. So the
questions about underdrains and the valley wall that are pertinent to
future filings will need to be handled in the plans and DAs for those
future filings. I believe we do have agreements in principle on most
design questions, but a lot more work will be necessary before those can
be solidified in approved plans and DAs. If you want to back up and
re -submit the entire project as a single filing, then all of these
design details can be solved and recorded in a single set of documents.
The actual construction work could still proceed in multiple phases of a
single filing.
Finally, I am also having difficulty on the request to include
additional language in the Filing One DA that would allow City Council
to reimburse the developer for APF improvements. I believe the City's
position on this, in accordance with our Land Use Code and its APF
provisions, is clearly stated in II.D.3 - 7 of the DA. I just don't see
how we can commit to more than this. But you are certainly welcome to
elevate that request to my superiors and/or to the City Attorney.
Unfortunately, it looks like sub -paragraph II.D.5. will need to be
changed again since the 30 days for payment of the $100,000 has now
passed.
John, I wish 1 could provide quick and positive answers to all of your
requests. As I told Dan yesterday, I think it is important to the City
for this project, and its associated public improvements, to proceed to
construction. I want to facilitate that effort, but many of these
issues fall outside of my sphere of influence. Let's both keep plugging
away until the job is finished.
Cam
>>> "John Beauparlant"<jbeau parlant@jamescolorado.com> 12/30/03
03:54PM >>>
Cam,
Dan Wenzinger and I just met with Jim Postle to discuss the future
SideHill filings and the issues we discussed at last week's meeting.
We
still have a certain amount of trepidation with respect to some of
these
issues, and we thought that perhaps they could be addressed in the
Filing 1 Development Agreement (DA) in such a way that we could rest
assured that the entire property, including Outlots A and B, can
ultimately be developed as contemplated.
In addition to our desire to include language that specifically
permits
the City Council to provide reimbursement payments for the APF
Susan Joy - RE SideHill Issues
Improvements through the SID and/or any other means available to the
City, there are two other pressing issues we would like to see
addressed
in the DA These are as follows:
The Valley Wall
We are concerned about the possibility that the City will require that
the Valley Wall be completely protected and preserved on the Johnson
property. If this should be the case, it would be impossible to
develop
the balance of the property in such a way as to be economically
feasible. Since we will be purchasing the Johnson property in its
entirety, we are totally relying upon the ability to develop Outlots A
B in accordance with the general layouts and density we have been
discussing for some time now I believe it would be possible to
address
this issue in the Developer Agreement by saying something to the
effect
that Filing 2 & 3 development will not be unnecessarily restricted by
Valley Wall concerns but that we (the Developer) will preserve the
integrity of the Valley Wall to the extent possible. I don't have any
better suggestion than that. I am still not exactly sure just what
this
Valley Wall really is.
Filings 2 & 3 Underdrains
Now that the stormwater issue has apparently been resolved (I spoke
with
Basil Harridan about this yesterday), and the Box Elder Ditch board has
agreed to permit Filing 1 underdrain flows into that ditch, we can
turn
our attention to Filings 2 & 3. The stormwater issue for Filings 2 &
3
has already been resolved, as those flows will be discharged into the
FCRID, in accordance with the approved Master Drainage Plan. The
underdrain issue, however, is not yet resolved. It is my
understanding
that the City would consider a lift station for the future development
areas. This appears to be the only sure way to get rid of the
underdrain flows, as running the underdrain pipe all the way out to
the
Poudre River through the McDowell property was never all that
appealing,
and the line could never daylight above the 100-year water surface
elevation anyhow. As I mentioned to Jim Hibbard, JamesCompany would
be
happy to capitalize a maintenance and repair fund for a lift station
in
order to provide assurance that it will be properly maintained. We
can
also write provisions into the covenants for the future filings that
Page 5
Susan Joy - RE: SideHill Issues
Page 6
would provide additional assurances. It is extremely important to
have
some sort of guarantee that the underdrains for the balance of the
property will be able to function properly, as groundwater is a
serious
concern there. We therefore ask that the Developer Agreement for
Filing
1 specifically authorize the use of a lift station for the Filings 2 &
3
underdrain system.
Basil has agreed to provide the new wording for the Filing 1
stormwater
improvement requirements, which are to consist of the construction of
spillway erosion protection on the Rigden Pond. It is my
understanding
that these improvements will have to be completed prior to the
issuance
of any Certificates of Occupancy for more than 25 percent of the units
in Filing 1. If you could forward a revised Development Agreement,
incorporating the new stormwater wording and addressing the above two
items, I believe we will be in a position to deliver your $100,000
check I hope we can get a revised DA to review early next week; I
will
also be in on Friday.
Please call or email if you have any comments or questions or need any
additional information. Thanks so much!
John Beauparlant, AICP
Entitlement Manager
JamesCompany
a Division of TOUSA HOMES INC.
2919 Valmont Road, Suite 204
Boulder, Colorado 80301
Voice: 303-443-6666
Fax 303-443-6777
<mailto:jbeauparlant@tousa.com> jeauparlant@tousa.com
CC: "Cameron Gloss" <cgloss@fcgov.com>, "Don Bachman" <DBachman@fcgov.com>,
"Doug Moore" <DMOORE@fcgov.com>, "Dave Stringer" <DSTRINGER@fcgov.com>, "Jim Hibbard"
Susan Joy - Sidehill DA Page 1
From: Paul Eckman (Mary Donaldson)
To: jbeauparlant@jamescolorado.com, Paul Eckman; Steve Roy; Susan Joy
Date: 1 / 15/04 11:58AM
Subject: Sidehill DA
We received a communication from John Beauparlant on January 13 listing some changes that need to
be made to the Sidehill Development Agreement. I have made an attempt at all of the changes except
those that he referenced in paragraphs II.A.2 and I.B.A.1Since those exact cost sharing details are yet to
be resolved by Roger Buffington and Jim Hibbard, I left the language as it is until we receive additional
details. I would appreciate your checking to see if the changes that I have made are acceptable, and
letting me know.
As to John Beauparlant's request for additional reimbursement languge, please see the comment in the
margain on page 11, paragraph 7.
Paul
CC: Basil Hamdan; Jim Hibbard, Roger Buffington
Susan Joy - Re. Young's Creek DA language
Page 1
From: Susan Hayes
To: Basil Hamdan: Susan Joy
Date: 1/16/04 2:58PM
Subject: Re: Young's Creek DA language
Thanks for the information, Susan. Given the long time frame I think we need to collect the review fee
right now, before we sign the mylars. The floodplain use permit and fee can wait. Do either of you have
the name and number of the Developer?
Thanks,
Susan Hayes
>>> Susan Joy 01/16/04 02:46PM >>>
What we'll do is put paragraph 10 as a condition in the DCP application and I won't let Cam sign off on the
DCP until they've met your requirements. Someone from your department will have to let me know by
email that they've taken care of this and that it's ok to sign off the DCP. Unfortunately there is no way to
track this electronically so we'll have to remember to do this manually.
However, the developer is not planning on going to construction for 2,3 or even 4 years from now until the
market is better. I'll put a note in the file and if you'll do the same, whoever does the DCP in the future will
know about it. Be sure to have someone from your department attend the DCP meeting for this project all
those years from now and hopefully it'll be caught. If nobody quits we should be alright! The trick is
flagging the file well enough so that a complete stranger will pick up on it.
>>> Basil Hamdan 01/16/04 01:20PM >>>
Yeah, the Development Construction Permit is the one you get issued prior
to any construction on site. As far as whether there is an electronic hold that we can use to make sure
that these requirements are met, I am not as familiar as Susan Joy from Engineering with that system I
will leave it up to her to let us know.
Thanks,
Basil
>>> Susan Hayes 01/16/04 11:41AM >>>
Basil,
Looks OK. I'm assuming the Development Construction Permit is issued at the start of any construction.
Is there an electronic system we can place a "hold" in to ensure these requirements are met?
Susan
>>> Basil Hamdan 01/16/04 10:56AM >>>
Susan (Hayes),
Please find attached my first brush at the stormwater portion of the Development Agrement language for
Youg's Creek, including the flodplain permit language you had requested.
Please review it and let me know if you want anything added/deleted or edited.
Thanks,
Basil
Susan Joy - Re: SideHill Filing 2 & 3 Trans Coord Meeting Page 1
From: Troy Jones
To: Joe Carter; Susan Joy
Date: 1/22/04 3:22PM
Subject: Re: SideHill Filing 2 & 3 Trans Coord Meeting
Joe,
We met and talked about Sidehill Filings 2 & 3 at Transportation Coordination today. We understand that
you and your clients would like the opportunity to plead your case to staff as to why some of the building
frontages, alley's and private drives should be the way you propose. The result of today's meeting was a
staff decision that rather than you and your clients meeting individually with each department to plead your
case, we would like to all be together when you attempt this. We would like to have a hands-on
worksession with staff, you, your engineers, and your clients to give you the opportunity to have all
concerned staff at the table when negotiations are being discussed. This is likely much more efficient
than talking individually to staff just to have the outcome change when a different department (that wasn't
at the table) weighs in on the decision. We would like to have this meeting just after our weekly staff
review meeting, mid -morning on Wednesday, February 4, 2003. As we get closer to that day, I'll have a
better idea of a precise time.
Troy
>>> "Joe Carter" <joe@cityscapeud.com> 01/22/04 02:12PM >>>
Susan,
What's the status of the SideHill transportation coordination meeting? I
hope you are not merely in intermission and waiting to go into round 4.
Please send us a copy of the comments when they become available.
Thank you
Joe Carter
Landscape Architect
Cityscape Urban Design
3555 Stanford Road, Ste. 105
Fort Collins, CO 80525
(970)226-4074 phone
(970) 226-4196 fax
joe(a)cityscapeud. com
http://www.cityscal)eud.com/
CC: Iwatkins@jrengineering.com
_ ANdERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
46
('ivil Water- Rcsources Environmental
1 FEB 1 3 2004 3 itf
February 12, 2004
Mr. Michael Brake
JR Engineering
2620 lust Prospect Rd., Suite 190
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Re: Sidehill Underdrain Outfall
(ACE Project No. COTJCOI)
Dear Mr. Brake:
The report "Analysis of a Ground Water Subdrain for the Sidehill Development", Anderson
('onsulting Engineers, Inc. [ACE], February 25. 2003 described an outfall system for the subdrain
within the proposed Sidehill development in Fort Collins Colorado. The subdrain outfall description
listed in the report saws planned using the best available information al the time, and was intended to
be used as an aid in the design process only. Hie subdrain outfall plan and profile shown in the
l'tility plans for Sidehill Filing One - JR Engineering, Inc.,-lanuary 7.2004 dil Ter tiom the outfall
conligurntion in the ACT report due to casement availability issues. However. the subdrain outfall
pipe shown on the Utility Plans still conforms to the recommendations set forth in the ACE report.
I f you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
ANDE�R,SSON CCONSU TING ENGINEERS, INC.
WCk e e -11
Mark K. Kcmpton, E.I_T.
Project Engineer
MKK/pjb
I�'()1'I NI( til I CO IA Inklmirain OutralI IAtdoc
772 Whalers Way, Suite 200- Fort Collins, CO. 80525
Phone. (970) 226-011_0 • Fax. (970) 226-0121 - wN�%N.acewateecom
Susan Joy - Right of way on Drake Road Page 1
From:
Dave Stringer
To:
dwyatt@wyattarch.com
Date:
3/13/03 3:03PM
Subject:
Right of way on Drake Road
Mr. Wyatt
Thank you for your e-mail dated 3/12/03 regarding the difficulties in obtaining right-of-way for the 3/4
access needed to serve your proposed project. I have taken your informal request to the City Engineer
regarding a variance to the design requirements for the 3/4 access. After much discussion, it has been
determined that the City will not support a variance to the design standard in order to accommodate the
3/4 access. Therefore, the additional right- of- way is required.
I understand your frustration in trying to find someone to talk with about getting the right-of-way situation
addressed. Following are a couple of contacts who may be able to help you in dealing with Mr. Pestle.
Kyle Arend of J.R.Engineering (970) 491-9888 , J.R. is currently working on the first phase of the Sidehill
development at the northeast corner of Drake and Timberline Roads.
Mr. Rob Thorshim of Engle Homes (303) 770-4646, they currently have some connection with Mr Postle
in the proposed Sidehill development project.
I don't know if either of these gentlemen will be able to assist you. However, it may be worth will to contact
them
Sincerely,
Dave Stringer
Development Review Supervisor
CC: Cam McNair: Steve Olt
06/21/2004 10:05 FAX 970 491 9984 JR ENGINEERING
Z 002
MEMORANDUM
Tot Robert Willis, FRS
From: Michael Brake, PE, FLS
Date: June 21, 2004
J•R ENGINEERING
A West ian CC-Pa^y
Subject: Sidehill Filing 1 Plan Clarification and Revisions
Rob, the following is a summary of the plan clarifications or updates that have transpired over the last
month. They include:
1.
2.
3-
4.
5.
1. Type R Inlet:
on sheet 62.
Type R Inlet Pipe Diameter table revision — sheet 62.
Sanitary Sewer Manhole #29 Invert Revision — sheet 15.
Sanitary Sewer Manhole #30 Invert Revision — sheet 18.
Sanitary Sewer minimum wye separation.
Sanitary Sewer Manhole coordinate correction — sheet 19
The following table replaces the pipe diameter table shown with the Type R detail
giTi
S_8„
2- SS Manhole #29: The following inverts replace the incorrect inverts shown on plan sheet 15.
3. SS Manhole 430: The following invert replaces the invert shown on plan sheet 18.
6(ro Grt "a AWsm W01--d
v CO80111
a
2620 Fast PIIPM P'WA Suite 190
Foa collets. CO 80525
Gt .wd ice: 970-491-9988 c Tux: 970-491-9984 7
303-740-9393 0 Fac 303-7219019
n
WJ
4110 Amo wciDln'c 17301 N. G,md ShM, Sudc 110
CDbodo SW»� CO 9M' n,00,y.F, . 72(L>8A853
I Y-593 Z593 oF, 719.pS1 613 720-872-9850 R�z:T_
06/21/2004 10:05 FAX 970 491 9984 JR ENGINEERING 0 003
— — — — — — — t sewer wye separation is 3
4, per Jeff Hill of Port Collins Utility Department the minimum sani ary
foot centerline to centerline.
5. Sanitary Sewer Manhole 951: The following are the corrected Manhole
n 0old Coordinates
shown o
lan shect 19. New Coordinates N16765.69
M14 4 N 16767:22
E 11095.85
�51 E J.1093.21
Cc: Steve Cicione, James CompanY
Susan Joy, City Of F rtollinsEngineering
.had Washbf urn,
File
and Corrections Mertlos\Plan Clarification
X:\3930000.all\3935000\Word\Memos\Plat1 Clarifications
Memo 6-21-04.doc
0
Ep?O(ha ➢PL=B 1�"�d
Gmcm�vod aP,
31)3-7M 93930Fu 103-21-9019
D
2620 Fs r' RP' �d, $uie 1911
u
Iz3011 CO 8024"1[e 110
Fw COIImcCO so 93 719-593-2593 nFa 719-46 _ '1�0-N72.9ASOo%ax.7�p.y7LA853
970<91.9M o Fm 970491-99YA
D
4310An+ SW�Dry
C,Aomdo spo nn Co 80907
(C3
Feb 18 03 12:58p
MATTHEW J DELICH 970 669 20G1 p.2
n.
LU
I'
C
MI R • C J*11$1
camp
TO: Jim Pestle,
The James Company
O
L
Joe Carter,
Cityscape Urban Design
o�
Eldon Ward,
Cityscape Urban Design
cn
cD
City of Port
Collins
O
rn
FROM: Matt Delich
i
X
u
DATE: February 18,
2003
SUBJECT: Sidehill Development (Johnson Farm) ODP - Street
c Lassification for Iowa Drive and Wind Row Drive
(File: 0260ME03)
CD
N
m
(0 In City staff comment #57, the classification of Iowa Drive
CD
p and Wind Row Drive were considered to be connector streets and would
rn
need to be designed in accordance with detail 7-OF in the "Larimer
C ount.y Urban Area Standards" MUMS). In Fort Collins, streets are
z classified based upo❑ a forecasted daily traffic volume at full
build --out of a given development. A residential local street should
0- have a volume of 1000 vehicles per day (vpd) or less. A. connector
:local street should have a volume of 1000 to 2500 vpd.
The classification of various streets within the Johnson Farm
Property is addressed on page 25 of the "Johnson Farm Property
Transportation Impact Study," July 2001. This was the TIS for the
ODP. It does state that there will be a short segment of Iowa Drive
that will exceed 1000 vpd, but these volumes will not extend
throughout its entire length. The CDP for this property had a higher
dwelling units count in the southwest area (served by Iowa Drive)
compared to the current plans. While the above statement continues
to be true, the forecasted volumes on Iowa Drive are .lower than those
shown in the CDP TIS. I have also added potential traffic that would
be associated with development of the Cargill Property, even though
there are no known development proposals for that property. The
O torecasted volume on Iowa Drive, ust east of Timberline Road is
z
¢ expected to be approximately 1200 vpd. However, this volume would
z decrease to less than 1000 vpd at the Wind Row Drive intersection.
Many streets throughout: the City will/do have higher volumes near the
z intersections with arterials. However, the higher volumes fall below
W the threshold after a few hundred feet from the arterial street_ In
o my judgment, Iowa Drive should be classified as a residenti_a a. local
a street-
0
Wind Pow Drive is a street that is interior to the Sidehill
a
z development. it does/will serve single family lots and some townhome
¢ parcels. Given the trip generation for the land uses adjacent to
H Win,-1 Row Drive and the potential for additional "cut through"
traffic, the traffic volume will be less than 1000 vpd. Therefore,
Wind Row Drive should be classified as a residential local street.
LL
Q
¢
co
Co
0
CC)
O
a
0
0
0
W
n:
J
W
LL
r
0
N
m
CO
6
r,
rn
z
0
181
7 Jli
Z
w
w
z
z
W
z
0
fs
February 25, 2003 File: 02601,T02
Mr. Dave Stringer, P.E.
Fort Collins Engineering Department
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box -�80
Fort ColLins, Co 80522-0580
Dear Dave:
The following is a requests for variance from "Table 7-3 -
Fort Collins Street Standards -Technical Design Criteria" in the
Lorimer CounL V Urban Area Street Standards, October 1, 2002
(LCUASS) 3pecifica11_v, it is concerning the drstance b,,tween
Inter sections along a local_ street (Hay Meadow Way). This Itzhle
cates that u
the minimum distance between intersections should
be 200 feet (on —centers). As shown in Figure 1 Lhere is an
rrycbrow that serves 4 lots on 11
the north side of lIay Meadow Way.
This eyebrow can be described as a loop driveway with the west
leq 11'0 feet Fast: of Iowa Drive and the east 1eq ?10 feet east of
Iowa Drive (on-ce_iCers) This loop driveway has been designed tc
have Lwo-way traffic. Staff has indicated thaL this evebrow i.
consldercd Lo be a loca- street. As I see it, Lhere are Lwo_
issues. The first issue is that I believe that the staff
interpretation that an eyebrow is a local street is not correct.
'I'h e.-cond issue is that if staff insists that the eyebrow is a
local. sLrect, the variance should be granted.
The first issue is with regard to the class ificaticn of the
eyebrow as a local_ street. Figure 7-9F in LCUASS indicates that
a local sLreeL she,]d carry 1000 vpd or less. The trip
genera±iou from the £oar lots on the eyebrow wi1.1 generate 38
daily trip ends, 3 morning peak hour trip ends, and 4 afLcr_noon
peak hour trip ends. Therefore, it is concluded that the eyebrow
will generate less that 1000 vpd. In Section 1.7 Definition of
Terms and Abbreviations in LCUASS, a High Volume Driveway is
defined as a "private access from a public roadway designed to
scrvj350 or more vehicle trips ends per day or 35 or more
VeA, le Lrlp ends per hour. -dn-_ consideration of this
uef ill it ion, Uhe eyebrow would notf even it Lhe definition of a
H lilh V<�liime Driveway. It can be concluded that the eyebrow could
t�e defined as a simple driveway will h serves more than one lot.
The only anomaly t-. that sems to exist_ is that the public right-
c-,f-way follows the shape of the eye row. I would suggest that
C ity sC_aff Consider Lite irn LerpreLation that the eyebrow is merely
a driveway and that the minimum 200 feet "paeatior. does not
� Ipply. lL would seem that corner clearance between driveways/
all eys and street intersections (50 feet mininium) is the
appropr iat,c criteria to apply in this case. Under this criteria,
the lr5tanc'e between th w_st leg of the ey hrow ]oop driveway
itei la silo .� rn 'I ,ble 7-? in and, therefore,
no variance is required.
?fAR i " 2003
If City staff. does not agree with my interpretation and
- conclusions regarding the classification of the eyebrow as a driveway,
�• the second issue pertains to the variance to the 200 feet minimum
separation (on -centers) between street intersections along or local
street.
The traffic analyses contained herein assumed that the Cargill
Property (casL extension of Hay Meadow Way) is fully developed, even
Lhough there are no known development proposals for that property.
There are three lots on the south side of Hay Meadow Way, east of Iowa
Drive, which will each have a driveway to Hay Meadow Way. Figure 2
shows the forecasted peak hour traffic on Hay Meadow Way east of Iowa
Drive. Because the locations of the driveways to the lots on the
south side of Hay Meadow Way are not known, a composite of the trip
generation (Lurning movements) to/from these lots is shown at a single
access location. This is a reasonable approach. Likewise, since the
eyebrow loop driveway provides for two-way traffic, a composite of the
trip generation (turning movements) to/from the eyebrow lots is shown
at a single access. It can either be at the west leg or the east leg.
The primary reason for the minimum separation distance between
street intersections is to be sure that there is adequate storage on
the local street (Hay Meadow Way) at the Iowa Drive intersection. Hay
Meadow Way will have stop sign control.. The westbound right turns and
left turns will be in a single approach lane. Therefore, the highest
approach volume (50 vph) will occur in the morning peak hour. Using
the conventional "rule of thumb" to allow one foot of storage for each
approach vehicle in the peak hour_ would indicate that 50 feet would be
required. In consideration of the first vehicle of the queue at 13
Sect (driver's eye) behind the flowline, the back , the second
Q,( j':vehicle would be approximately 50 feet west of the west lea of the
fl gycbrow loop driveway. This would allow an eastbound left turn to the
eyebrow to enter the west leg of the eyebrow with no conflicts from
the westbound queue on Hay Meadow Way approaching Iowa Drive. A peak
hour operational analysis of the Iowa/Hay Meadow intersection
indicates that. the 95 percentile queue on Hay Meadow Way is less than
one vehicle. This further confirms that the current 120 feet
separation between Tow& Drive and the west leg of the eyebrow loop
driveway is adequate and will not be detrimental to the public health,
welLare, and safety. It is respectfully requested that the above
variance be granted.
Please contact me with any questions or additional information
that you may need for approval of this variance.
Sincerely,
C
Matthew J. Delich, P.B.
N
Al
SCALE: 1"=50'
SITE PLAN Figure 1
a
--wAM/PM
Way
�i
LONG RANGE (2020) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 2
Susan Joy - MODICATION-Sidehill fire lanes
Page 1
From:
Ron Gonzales
To:
Dave Stringer; Susan Joy
Date:
3/10/03 3:08PM
Subject:
MODICATION-Sidehill fire lanes
A modification has been granted by the Fire Marshal for the fire lane requirements in accordance with
3.6.6(B)(1) of the FCLUC.
The modication involves granting less than the required 30 foot fire lane for a 3 story bldg. In this case,
and for most of the bldgs. 29 feet was being offered.
The condition for approval is that all the MF bldgs. shall be fire sprinklered.
Ron Gonzales
Asst. Fire Marshal
Poudre Fire Authority
970.416.2864
CC: Kevin Wilson
March 27, 2003
James Company
2919 Valmont Road, Suite 204
Boulder, Colorado 80301
Attention: Mr. James Postle
Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Sidehill Subdivision (Johnson Property)
Fort Collins, Colorado
Job No. FC-1774
We have prepared this letter at the request of the City of Fort Collins and Mr.
Joe Carter with Cityscape Urban Design, Inc. to address pavement subgrade at the
proposed Sidehill subdivision (formerly know as the Johnson Property).
We performed a "Geologic and Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation,
Johnson Property, Northwest Corner of Timberline and Drake Road, Larimer
County, Colorado," dated August 31, 2000 (CTL Job No. FC-1562). In this report,
we identified subsoils generally consisting of sandy clays and gravel overlying
claystone and sandstone bedrock. The overburden soils exhibited negligible to
moderate swell potential. The claystone bedrock exhibited low to high swell
potential.
If soils or bedrock with moderate or higher swell potential are exposed or
placed at or within three feet of pavement subgrades during site grading, mitigation
of the swell potential will be required. We recommend placing on -site soils with a
low swell potential at subgrade where possible. If more plastic materials are placed
or exposed at subgrade, the swell potential of these soils should be mitigated to a
minimum depth of three feet below subgrade. A cost effective mitigation technique
consists of moisture conditioning the soil and fly -ash treating of the upper 12
inches of subgrade below pavements. Other alternative mitigation techniques
could be used. Recommendations for moisture treatment of the subgrade are
contained in the referenced August 31, 2000, report. Fly -ash or recommendations
for other mitigation methods will be prepared based on specific subgrade
conditions identified in a Subgrade and Pavement Investigation to be performed
subsequent to overlot grading.
If you have any questions, please call.
Very Truly Yours,
CTL/Thompson, Inc.
Juan C. Sorensen, PE
Project Engineer
Review by
Thomas A. Chape CPG, PE
Branch Managervii( 3
CTU/THOMPSON, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
375 E HORSETOOTH RD. 0 THE SHORES OFFICE PARK 0 BLDG. 3, SUITE 100 0 FT. COLLINS, O) O 0525
April 4, 2003
Susan Joy
City of Fort Collins Engineering Department
281 North College Avenue J•R ENGINEERING
P.O. Box 580 A Sahsidiary al Weslriaa
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
Re: SidelIill, Filing 1 — Request for Variance for Reduction in Minimum Centerline
Radius
Dear Susan: -
Please consider this as the Variance Request to reduce the centerline radius for a portion of
Sidehill Boulevard, which is considered a minor collector per traffic impact study dated July
2001 by Matthew Delich. In particular, we request a variance to, reduce the centerline from the
minimum allowed of 600 feet (as required per table 7.3 Fort Collins Street Standards — Technical
Design Criteria of the 2001 Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards) to the proposed 415
feet on two curve sections of Sidehill Boulevard adjacent to the proposed neighborhood park that
will be located in the future phase directly north of Filing 1.
As depicted on sheet 4 of 6 of the Sidehill Filing 1 plat the centerline of the curve that
approaches the proposed park from the east and the curve adjacent and surrounding the southerly
side of the park is designed at 415 feet. In supporting a lesser radius for the curves approaching
and surrounding the proposed park compliance with neighborhood traffic safety and traffic
calming is achieved. A major component in street layout is neighborhood traffic safety.
Implementation of physical techniques intended to slow traffic is a reactive approach to
minimize high speeds. Since significant efforts in traffic calming have been put forward on
existing roadways and in the development of new roadways to provide for safer travel for all
modes of transportation including pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular we suggest that this variance
is consistent with the intent of design standards for local and minor collector streets.
It is not anticipated that any public health, safety, and/or welfare problems will be created by the
varied design.
If you have any questions or comments, or need additional information, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (970) 491-9888. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Director of Operations
2G20 Fast Prosp— Road, Sure 190, Fort Collins, Co 80525
970-491-9888 • Fax: 970-491-9984 • wwv+jrmgM"fi-g.com
7,00 9NINH8NI9N3 NC 6866 I6P OL6 XV1 6S:ZT £OOZ/OT/t0
4-.c«- ...�C - i1C
., �" cr_,.��. be �:, �� r-�'��-o, ..— !(a�y� u�w'l
� �,.L ,:3w,'T A L�'a'Z Zc :Y�i6� 'r _ TD �;c?ow --���5 .__ _ _._._ .��,
.w'-� T,-cr� -,_ _..—a--+ /�iu€ ���G Fad. 2IZ Cz`.��,^' ,. � �r.`L:
�_ � ._ "r r;, ., = AL:'.c:�y,-,+� - ;,�7L. �F�p� — _n, ,_ �i,FSI�.� t^.., q^' .; s`
mas ...--a�-:,,x:.c. --ear= _�_, o �w�-,.:, oc,; ta:,� �;;.:: ��." ri�Pv �,�-
:� ..i �,crf+-�r'�r-l- �D :-Mvc "iR: rl �c. ,.---rdl_'J Y1�r ;.
J-R ENGINEERING
A Sub"mry or Weshian
2620 R ProRect Rd., Suite 190, Ft. Collins, CO 80525
970-491-98.38 - FAX 970-491-9984 • www.jrengioeering.com
Letter of Transmittal
To.- City of Fort Collins
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
Phone: 221-6750
Attention: Susan Joy
Date: 4/10/03
Job Name: SideHill — Filing One
Job Number: 39350.00
Re; Variance Letter
We are sending you the following items: FlAttached F� Under separate cover
❑1 Prints ❑ Originals ❑ Disks ❑ Sepias M Documents
These are transmitted as checked below:
X For Approval Approved as Submitted
For your use Approved as Noted
As Requested Returned for Correction
For Review & Comment For Recording
For Bids due Plans Returned After Loan to Us
If material received is not listed above, kindly notify us at once.
Transmitted by:
H
Fed Ex
Pick Up
Resubmit Copies for Approval
Submit Copies for Distribution
R�. mrn Corrected Prints
HFirst Class Mail { Messenger
Certified Mail E, UPS
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 970-491-9888,
ext. 108.
Signed Received By
Copies Troy Jones, City Of Fort Collins Planning Dept, (1) letter, mail
Jim Postle, James Company, (1) letter, US Mail
Joe Carter, CityScape, (1) letter, US Mail
Mike Brake, JR Engineering
100 in
Susan Joy - Re: Sidehill TIS Page 1
From: Eric Bracke
To: Susan Joy
Date: 4/30/03 12:43PM
Subject: Re: Sidehill TIS
I left a message with Matt Delich this morning stating that in the "Response to Comments" sheet, that they
need to acknowledge the fact they have an apt issue and cannot proceed to the building permit process.
Eric
>>> Susan Joy 04/30/03 11:46AM >>>
I just got a call from Matt Dehlich saying that he "took care of this with you". I wanted to double check with
you and make sure that this was true. And if so, does that mean you did get the APF analysis for the
PDP? If not, do you still want it?
>>> Eric Bracke 04/18/03 12:35PM >>>
I believe it was part of the first TIS and it failed. I haven' seen one come in on the PDP.
Eric
>>> Susan Joy 04/18/03 11:27AM >>>
Hello again! Did you ever get the APF analysis for the Timberline and Prospect intersection from this
developement? I didn't get one with the last submittal and hoped that they sent it directly to you.
Thanks very much!
Susan
Susan Joy - Fwd: Timberline from Prospect to Drake
Page 1
From: Dave Stringer
To: Katie Moore; Marc Virata; Sheri Wamhoff; Susan Joy
Date: 4/30/03 3:52PM
Subject: Fwd: Timberline from Prospect to Drake
FYI - I know this doesn't impact the Rigden Farm projects but it's interesting information
>>> Matt Baker 04/30/03 03:43PM >>>
Gary, et. at;
My staff spent some time preparing a conceptual estimate of Timberline based on the preliminary six -lane
design work done by JR Engineering. Although I am comfortable with these figures based on the early
conceptual planning, they should not be used for budgeting purposes. This would be a large and complex
road construction project and actual budgeting figures should be based on the final engineering design.
For discussion purposes, I have put conceptual numbers to the two options we discussed this morning.
Option 1: Four Lane arterial standard, including landscaped medians, from Drake to Prospect, including
construction of the ultimate configuration of the Timberline/Prospect intersection in concrete. The ultimate
configuration of the Spring Creek Bridge, the Great Western Railroad crossing and purchase of ultimate
ROW was also included. This is the construction option originally included in the failed transportation tax
measure.
Developer's Local Access Portion for Sidehill: $990,500
Developer's Local Access Portion for Mansion Park: $515,000
Street Oversizing Reimbursement: $4,500,500
Capital Improvement Portion: $5 384.000
TOTAL PROJECT COST $11,390,000
Option 2: The construction of the four lane arterial standard along the frontage of the Sidehill and
Mansion Park developments, transitioning into an interim pavement adequate for four travel lanes and two
bike lanes from the pipe factory property to Prospect. Interim widening at the Timberline/Prospect
intersection to add auxiliary turn lanes would necessitate partial widening of the Spring Creek bridge and
RR crossing This would increase capacity for all modes, with the objective of adequately relieving
congestion and addressing APE issues to allow development to proceed. A future City Capital
Improvement Project would be necessary to bring the road up to standards, with the purchase of
additional ROW and installation of landscaped medians and curb, gutter and walk on the west side of the
roadway.
Developer's Local Access Portion for Sidehill: $990,500
Developer's Local Access Portion for Mansion Park: $515,000
Street Oversizing Reimbursement: $3,120,000
Interim Improvement Portion: $2 276 000
TOTAL PROJECT COST $6,902,000
As you can see, the developer's Local Access Portion remains the same because the improvements
along their frontage remain the same. The Street Oversizing Reimbursement goes down because of the
elimination of the landscaped median for the north half mile. The Interim Improvement Portion would be
lost in the future ultimate configuration as the asphalt would need to be removed for medians. Interim
bridge widening costs would not be wasted, but removal and replacement of parapet walls in the future
would offset any savings. The Timberline/Prospect intersection would need future reconstruction to
standard with concrete paving.
Susan Joy - Fwd: Timberline from Prospect to Drake Page 2
I have sent this to everyone at this morning's meeting, so if you wish to share these conceptual estimates
with additional staff, please feel free to forward.
Thanks.
--Matt
Susan Joy - Re: SideHill Comments
Page 1
From: Troy Jones
To: Joe Carter, Susan Joy
Date: 5/5/03 2:58PM
Subject: Re: SideHill Comments
Joe,
Regarding comment 102 ........ as far as the contours are concerned, I'm OK with leaving them on the
overall site plan if Susan Joy is OK with it. I like the notion of leaving them off the detailed site plan pages
however.
Regarding comment 221 ..... I think the trees should be removed on this overall site plan, unless you
show all landscaping (not just some of the trees) and label the page "overall site and landscape plan." If
You do this, be sure to clarify on this sheet which pages show the details of the site plan and which pages
show the details of the landdcape plan. Otherwise, it doesn't work to just show some of the landscaping
as it may add confusion to exactly what is vested in the approval.
Hope this clarifies what you need. Let me know if you need further clarification.
Troy Jones
CC: Susan Joy
>>> Susan Joy 04/30/03 01:11 PM >>>
Hello and thanks for waiting for your answers. Bob is on vacation this whole week so I'll have to wait until
then to talk to him about #221. I'm ok with showing landscaping on the site plan if planning is ok with it bu
the problem with showing landscaping and grading on the site plan is that it's real easy for the plan sets to
not match by the time the revisions are all said and done. If he agrees to it, we could put a note or a
disclaimer on the site plan saying something to the effect of "please refer to the landscaping plans for all
proposed and existing landscape materials".
#102 Again, we don't show contours on the site plan because it increases the possiblity of conflicts within
the different plan sets. Then the question in the field becomes "which one is right?' If you absolutely must
have contours on the s'te plan, then we could put another disclaimer or note on the site plan saying
something like "Grading and contours shown on the Site Plan are for concept only. Please refer to the
grading plan on the utility drawings for actual grading". Something to that effect would be fine.
#220 - the only typical street sections shown with the last submittal was in the landscape plans and they
do not match the ones shown in the city's street standards. If I remember right, there's an optional row of
trees, sidewalk or parkway or something that doubles our requirements.
That's fine, you can put in extra sidewalks and trees outside the city's ROW but the city won't maintain
it —but I bet you knew that already! This comment was mostly asking that the typical street sections on
both the utility and landscape plans match. I talked with John Lofton a couple of weeks ago and he knew
right away what I was looking for. He's great!
I hope that helps you so far. 1 will get together with Bob when he gets back next week and let you know
about the landscaping being shown on the site plan.
Thanks Joe! Please keep the emails coming! I'm happy to help!
Susan
>>> "Joe Carter" <joe(c�cityscapeud.com> 04/28/03 02:51 PM >>>
Susan,
We have a few questions for you regarding your comments. Specifically -
Susan Joy - Re: SideHill Comments
Page 2
Comment # 220
Could you please expand your comment number 220? The comment states:
"Coordinate the typical street sections with the utility plans.
We are not sure what you would like to see within these sections.
Comment number 102.
We would prefer to retain the contours on this overall site plan because
they provide needed grading and drainage definition to those referring to
the overall site. We have specifically left them off the detailed site plan
(as required). Is this OK? We can add a note that directs people to the
grading plan for exact grading/drainage if that helps.
Comment number 221
As stated immediately above, we would like to retain the landscaping on this
site plan for overall context. This plan provides overall context for a
major pedestrian feature connecting the future Rigden Farm King Soopers, the
proposed transit stop on Timberline and our neighborhood park. We would
like to keep these trees on this plan to emphasize this connection. We have
left these trees off of the detailed site plans and would like to retain
them here.
In both instances (the trees and the contours) we can provide you with a
copy of this overall site plan to review without these details shown if you
would like.
Thank you.
Joe Carter
Landscape Architect
Cityscape Urban Design
3555 Stanford Road, Ste. 105
Fort Collins, CO 80525
(970)226-4074 phone
(970) 226-4196 fax
j oe(a)cityscapeud.com
Transportation Services
Engineering Department
City of Fort Collins
June 2, 2003
Mr. Jim Pestle
Postle Development Company
6800 79`h Street, Suite 201
Niwot, CO 80503
RE: Side Hill Development Project
Dear Mr. Pestle:
is
et:
I understand from your engineering consultants, J.R. Engineering, that an agreement was reached
last week concerning the Drake Road design associated with the Rigden Farm King Soopers
project. I appreciate your cooperation with the developer and designer to the south of your Side
Hill project, and I am glad you were able to work out the design issues so that the King Soopers
project can proceed.
The accommodation for the westbound left -turn lane on Drake Road, into Illinois Drive on the
Rigden Farm site, will cause your Side Hill project to undergo some design modifications. I
agree that City Engineering will incorporate the revised plan sheets into the submitted design
package that is currently in review in the City staff. We will not require a separate submittal
solely on the grounds of these modifications made to accommodate the Rigden Farm King
Soopers development.
I look forward to receiving the revised sheets from J.R. Engineering. Once again, thank you for
helping to work this out so that the City's street design criteria can be properly satisfied. If you
have any questions., please feel free to contact me at 221-6605.
Sincerely,
Cam McNair, P.E.
City Engineer
Susan Joy - Sidehill Hearing Date
Page 1
From:
Troy Jones
To:
Doug Moore; Susan Joy
Date:
7/17/03 9:05AM
Subject:
Sidehill Hearing Date
Doug and Susan,
In the comments that went out to the applicants for Sidehill on 6/19, we gave them the following punch list
of items to resolve before we can schedule a hearing. The punch list was explained in my comment # 268
as follows:
"There are only a few items to clear up before we are ready to go to hearing. These items won't require a
full formal submittal, however the items do need to be resolved prior to scheduling for the hearing. Here is
a list of the items:
(1) Susan Joy needs a revised plat informally submitted to her that addresses her plat comments;
(2) Susan Joy needs the variance request resubmitted with the correction asked for;
(3) The Sidehill Boulevard right-of-way, as it crosses the valley wall, may or may not have grading
encroachment into the required natural habitat buffer (see issue # 146 dated 1/6/03), and needs to be
coordinated with Doug Moore of Natural Resources at 224-6143. Doug needs the grading sheets of the
utility plans with the buffer zones shown in order to complete his review,
(4) Letters of Intent or the actual easements themselves for all off -site easements (all we have so far is
legal descriptions)."
I spoke with Joe Carter this morning, and he asked about shooting for an August 11th Type 1 hearing
date. That would mean that we have to mail notice out by August 28th. Apparently, they are going to try
to resolve the punch list by the 28th, with the exception of the mitigation plan. Joe Carter is going to call
you (Doug) (he may have already this morning) to coordinate the timing of the review of the mitigation
plan. I told him that I need to hear from both of you (Susan and Doug) that it's OK to schedule the hearing
by the 28th in order to schedule it for August 11 Does this sound like a reasonable approach?
Troy
CC: Joe Carter
>>> Doug Moore 07/11/03 10:52AM >>>
Joe,
Sorry for the delay, I got side tracked. I added a note related to allowing an encroachment in to the wood
lot buffer. At this time I can't say that Natural Resources would grant this encroachment until I see plans
showing what that is.
Thanks,
Doug
>>> "Joe Carter' <oe cityscapeud.com> 7/8/03 11:04:59 AM >>>
Doug,
For clarification on last weeks' meeting I thought I would send you a copy
of the meeting minutes. We still have questions regarding the valley wall
and hopefully you can confirm the specifics of these by a response to the
attached minutes.
If you need information on the location of the mitigated area please let me
know.
The representative from JR Engineering, Randall Provencio, and I heard two
completely different things regarding the valley wall and associated
Susan Joy - Sidehill Hearing Date Page 2
mitigation so I need you to provide clear and concise direction on what is
required.
Thank you and please call if necessary.
Joe Carter
Landscape Architect
Cityscape Urban Design
3555 Stanford Road, Ste. 105
Fort Collins, CO 80525
(970)226-4074 phone
(970) 226-4196 fax
j oe(aicityscapeud.com
CC: Joe Carter
July 21, 2003
Susan Joy
City of Fort Collins Engineering Department
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
J R ENGINEERING
Re: SideHill, Filing 1 — Request for Variance for Reduction in Minimum Centerline Radius
Dear Susan:
Please consider this as the Variance Request to reduce the centerline radius for a portion of Sidehill
Boulevard, which is considered a minor collector per traffic impact study dated July 2001 by Matthew
Delich. In particular, we request a variance to reduce the centerline from the minimum allowed of 600
feet (as required per table 7.3 Fort Collins Street Standards — Technical Design Criteria of the 2001
Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards) to the proposed 415 feet on two curve sections of Sidehill
Boulevard adjacent to the proposed neighborhood park that will be located in the future phase directly
north of Filing 1.
As depicted on sheet 4 of 6 of the Sidehill Filing I plat the centerline of the curve that approaches the
proposed park from the east and the curve adjacent and surrounding the southerly side of the park is
designed at 415 feet. The design speed for a minor collector per standard is 40 mph with an assumed
average running speed of 36 mph. The average safe running speed equates to a minimum radius of 600
feet for a balanced geometrically designed roadway. Because of the proximity of this proposed roadway
to a park a practical posted speed would be 25 mph. A calculated minimum safe radius utilizing the
simplified curve formula as expressed in Chapter III of A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and
Streets, 1990 would be 231 feet for this speed. This considers using a side friction factor of 0.18, which
has been concluded to he a safe side friction factor for speeds from 25 to 30 mph based on definitive tests.
Allowing it design radius of 415 feet would provide safe traveling speeds up to 33 mph assuming the
same parameters.
Therefore, no public health, safety, and/or welfare problems will be created by the varied design.
If you have any questions or comments, or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact
me at (970) 491-9888. Thank you.
Sincerely,
JR Engineering
j;
Michael Brake, PE, PLS
Director of Operations
2620 Lin Rmcpen Road Sim, 190, Fort Collin,, CO 80525
970-191-9888 • Rix: 970-491 -9984 • www.jrengincering.com
Tfl flnsPLFln ln179500ArE5 /i1C,
Consulting Engineers
DEC 2 S 2000
December 27, 2000
u,=`.. � -
DCCOM,pP.Ny, NC.
Mr. Bary Sherman
DCB Construction
909 E. 62i" Avenue
Denver, CO 80216
RE: Midpoint Self Storage Traffic Impact Study Addendum
Mr Sherman:
This letter provides a response to the City of Fort Collins comments to the Draft Traffic Impact
Studv letter dated September 15, 2000. The City staff notes a few minor comments in an
Octoi)er - , 2000 project comment sheet, and this letter serves as written documentation
acknowledging the comments. The comments to the traffic study concern the following:
l) Clarification that right-of-wav dedication will be required for the extension of
Sharp Point Drive with development of the lot adjacent to the Midpoint Self
Storage site
2) Clarification that the cross -sections for Midpoint and Sharp Point Drives includes
two travel lanes and bike lanes. not parking lanes
3) Only the short-term scenario was evaluated for the site traffic, there is no
discussion about the studv intersections over the long-term
Right-(A-»av and Cross -Sections
The traffic impact study documents that there are plans to extend Sharp Point Drive to the south
of the intersection with Midpoint Drive. As indicated in the City's comments, right-of-way
dedication will lee required 1.vith the development of the lot adjacent to the proposed mini -storage
fhciiity. file site plan on Figure 2 of the traffic study letter does show the extension of the right-
of-way. As noted by the City. the cross -sections of Midpoint Drive and Sharp Point Drive
provide for two travci lanes and nvo mike lanes rather than the parking lanes that were referenced
on page of Ile traTCtc studv letter. The site plan provides for parking within the site. and the
a'oscncc of on -,meet parking is cviil not effect site operations.
Lone -Term Scenario
P er dISCuSSIU[ls with the Citds uaffic cngincer. the midnonu Self Storage site is projected to
r3T3 ,vainur Street, Scare 211 • Boulder, Cororaeo 30302-5263 Telephone: (302) 442-3130 • Facsimile.' (303) 142-3139
Susan Joy - Temporary Construction Easement for Cargill Property - Sidehill Project Page 1
From: <MBrake@JREngineering.com>
To: <sjoy@fcgov.com>, <bhamdan@ci.fort-collins.co.us>, <joe@cityscapeud.com>
<dwenzinger@jamescolorado.com>, <jpostle@postledevelopment.com>
Date: 7/25/03 5:22PM
Subject: Temporary Construction Easement for Cargill Property - Sidehill Project
Susan, this is to confirm your phone discussion today with Jon Lofton
regarding the Temporary Construction Easement on the Cargill Property. As
discussed with Jon an early design for the Sidehill project had a drainage
swale located along the common property line between the Sidehill project
and Cargill property. Due to Cargill owners not allowing improvements on
their property the swale is designed to be completely within the Sidehill
project. Therefore no construction will occur outside of the Sidehill
project along this property line and a need for a temporary construction
easement does not exist.
The discussion with yourself and Basil Hampdan resolved that if construction
does not go outside of the Sidehill project then an easement will not be
required. Therefore I am requesting on behalf of the James Company that the
condition of a temporary construction easement across the Cargill property
be presented to the City not be a condition of scheduling a hearing.
If you should have any concerns or do not accept this request please contact
me or a James Company representative.
Thanks Susan
Michael Brake, PE-PLS
Director of Operations
JR Engineering
2620 E. Prospect Road, Suite 190
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
970-491-9888
970-491-9984
CC: <jlofton@JREngineering.com>, <RProvencio@JREngineering.com>
Susan Joy - Fwd: SideHill and Timberline Road
Page 1
From: Cam McNair
To: Don Bachman, Matt Baker, Ron Phillips; Susan Joy
Date: 8/21 /03 9:49AM
Subject: Fwd: SideHill and Timberline Road
Reply requested when convenient
The attached message from John Beauparlant (the ex -Thornton SO expert) has several questions. I
need your help in responding.
1. Susan, let's talk about the Development Agreement and when a draft can be released for them to
begin filling in the blanks.
2. Ron, the question in the last paragraph concerning APF makes reference to your last letter. I believe
the answer is that it is true that the interim improvements would make the Timberline -Prospect
intersection acceptable for APF purposes. I guess the real question is whether we can commit to that in
writing.
Matt, paragraph #1 is a heads -up for you.
Thanks everyone for your help on this.
Cam
CC: Sheri Wamhoff
Susan Joy - Re: SideHill and Timberline Road
Page 1
From:
Cam McNair
To:
John Beauparlant
Date:
8/22/03 3:35PM
Subject:
Re: SideHill and Timberline Road
John,
This is a first response to your message from a couple of days ago.
First, Matt is the correct person to work with on the details of the potential district. He will be very glad to
help in that regard. It appears that the two of you have considerable experience in the mechanics of SIDS,
so your working with Matt directly on which properties might be appropriate to include, assessments,
schedule and so forth would be fine.
Second, Susan should have recently sent you a form entitled "Information for Development Agreements".
Please complete and return it as soon as you can. The "boiler plate' DA has also been provided to your
company previously. A lot of the details that need to be included in the DA will depend on the Final Plans
for your development, as well as the decisions that are yet to be made concerning the SID, the APF
questions, and some design questions on Timberline Road as they relate to your connecting streets and
utilities. Our folks will work with yours very carefully to insure that this contract covers all salient points.
Third, we will need a little more time to get you a properly coordinated response on the question of the
interim Timberline improvements as they relate to the APF situation.
I will contact you next week with more information as it becomes available.
Thanks,
Cam McNair, PE
City Engineer
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 805:22-0580
Phone:970-221-6605
Fax:970-221-6378
E-mail: cmcnair@fcgov.com
>>> "John Beauparlannt° < beau parlant@jamescolorado.com> 08/20/03 10:55AM >>>
Cam,
It was an interesting meeting yesterday, and I thank you for coming by
afterward to introduce yourself. It is rare when a City offers to help
solve a problem associated with a Code provision, so we are most grateful
for the positive approach. It should be a very interesting pursuit. I will
take one more look at a potential SID and will give Matt Baker a call when I
have that done to see if we can sit down and discuss specifics of which
properties might be included, how assessments might be made, schedule, etc.
Maybe we can do that next week sometime.
On a totally separate, but very much related, topic, we have been told by
Susan Joy that we will not be able to receive a draft of the
project -specific Development Agreement until we have made what she refers to
as our "final compliance submittal." We are hoping to get that done as soon
as possible, but I wonder if it might be at all possible to release the
draft of the DA for our review in anticipation of receiving the revised
plans from our consultants. As is the case with everything, of course, we
are always wanting to get things done yesterday.
Susan Joy - Re: SideHill and Timberline Road Page 2
As far as the Adequate Public Facilities (APF) compliance is concerned, we
are wondering if we could receive a written commitment from the City stating
that the "reduced scope" set of improvements would, in fact, satisfy the APF
requirements insofar as the development of our parcel and the Cumberland
parcel. Ron Phillips' letter intimates that the interim section would be
satisfactory, but it doesn't expressly state this. Should I contact Ron
directly for this clarification?
Thanks so much again for meeting with us on a fairly complicated issue. We
look forward to proceeding with our project.
John Beauparlant, AICP
Entitlement Manager
JamesCompany
2919 Valmont Road, Suite 204
Boulder, Colorado 80301
Voice: 303-443-6666
Fax: 303-443-6777
<mailto:ieauparlant((�iamescolorado.com> jbeauparlant(o)iamescolorado.com
CC: Brock Chapman; Dan Wenzinger; Don Bachman; eeckberg@englehomes.com; Matt
Baker; Ron Phillips; Steve Maguire; Susan Joy
Susan Joy - Re: Fwd: SideHill and Timberline Road Page 1
From: Ron Phillips
To: Cam McNair; Don Bachman; Matt Baker; Susan Joy
Date: 8/25/03 9:48AM
Subject: Re: Fwd: SideHill and Timberline Road
Since we don't have a design yet, I think a "commitment" is difficult. We have given them our best shot for
now. I have asked them for a letter of "intent" on their willingness to participate that we can use with the
City Council to try and get this issue on the ballot - I did not ask them for a "commitment." If you disagree,
let me know. Without a design, I think the description of what we intend to build is difficult to develop.
10. 40
>>> Cam McNair 08/21/03 09:49AM >>>
The attached message from John Beauparlant (the ex -Thornton SID expert) has several questions. I
need your help in responding.
1. Susan, let's talk about the Development Agreement and when a draft can be released for them to
begin filling in the blanks.
2. Ron, the question in the last paragraph concerning APF makes reference to your last letter. I believe
the answer is that it is true that the interim improvements would make the Timberline -Prospect
intersection acceptable for APF purposes. I guess the real question is whether we can commit to that in
writing.
Matt, paragraph #1 is a heads -up for you.
Thanks everyone for your help on this.
Cam
CC: Sheri Wamhoff
09/09/2003 14:24 3034436777
w_U'J-2UU3 WED O9 28 AM CFO EM,
JAMES COMPANY
FAX NO. 9702216378
PAGE 02/03
P. 02
Development Review Engineering pe_partment
Project:
Attention: iie'A Al o y
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT INFORMATION
The following information Is needed to
Agreement related to the project listed above.
�e n�r and return this form to the Development Rowew Lngineanng ueparmuirn,
purposgs only_and i. Lot',• t0 by oonstrue_1 ant s the actual Develoomenl AgreemeIt requires nq sjgn to ures.
Please contact Susan Joy at 0701221-6606 and/or e-mail: Joy_Q(g43ov.uam if you have any questions. The
roan may be returned by fax at 970122.1-6378, The information you provide should match that shown on the
plat, (Please type or print clearly)
Proposed Development Name _, MZ tit+ + _
Contact Person
Address
Phone Number
Provide the complete nime(s) of the Entlty(s) who is/are develoOing the site. Include the type of
organization. ([xampios are as foilowW Development Innovations, Inc., a Delaware corporation; or
AEC Partners, a Nebraska general partnership; or John Z, Doo, an individual). _
wR IT6 s = .fatly°j ivtisusw�idn-
2. Provide the complete names) and tiUe(s) of the Individual(s) who will sign the Development Agreement
for the Developers) listed in item 1. The Individuals must be officers for the development En6ty(s) of
the individual(s). Also include the name and title of the parson who will sign as an Attest for
corporations. Please note: if It Is a corporation — you need an officer (1,a, President, Vice President)
and Secretary for to attest If there Isn't a Secretary, then a corporate seat is required. If it Is a
partnership — the General Partner must sign the agreement. No attest is needed, If It Is an LLC — a
Managor must sign the agreement, No attest is needed. If It Is an Individual —the Individual must sign
the agreement No attest is nsedad,
lrNlaM� TRLE
�as°.r`n�sr�n.fC
�T fC'£iT
281 North Collego Avenue • P,o, Box 380 • Port COtlins, CA 80622-OMO 97OWl -6760
FAX; 970/221.6376 • TDD: 9701224.6002
09/09/2003 14:24 3034436777 JAMES COMPANY PAGE 03/03
SEP-03-2003 WED 09;29 AM CFC ENG, FAX NO, 9702216378 P. 03
3. Provide the complete nanle(s) of the Lntlty(s) who islare the Owner(s). Include the type of
organir..ntion. (Examples are as follows: Development Innovations, Inc-, a Delaware corporation; or
ABC Partners, a Nebraska general psnnershlp; or John Z. Doe, an individual) If different from the
Developer,
1VAMP TITLE
Provide the complete name(s) and btie(s) of the individuals) wlic will sign the Development Agreement
for the Owner listed in item !. The Individual(s) must be an officer(s) for the Owner. Please note: If it
Is a corporation -- you need an officer (i.fl. President, Vice President) and Secretary for to attest. It
there isn't a Secretary, then a corporate seal is required. If it is a partnership — the General Partner
must sign the agreement. No attest is needed. If it is an LLC — a Manager must sign the agreement.
No ntlest is needed. If it is an Individual —the individual must sign the agreement. No attest is
needed,
NAME:. TITLE
AT F� §T
6. Explain any relationship between the Developer and the Owner for this development project In
addition, explain any transfers or property ownership that will take place before construction of iris
project begins, -this information is needed to clarify the responslbilitles for development.
Susan Joy - Fwd: City Council Results from September 2 Page 1
From: Dave Stringer
To: Katie Moore; Marc Virata; Sheri Wamhoff; Susan Joy
Date: 9/4/03 9:57AM
Subject: Fwd: City Council Results from September 2
Interesting developments for Timberline/Prospect
>>> Ron Phillips 09/03/03 03:01 PM >>>
Brock, Dan, Steve and John,
Unfortunately, the proposed ballot issue that would have moved funds from two other projects to build the
Timberline and Harmony Road projects was not approved by the City Council last night. So, the ability to
build the full improvements on Timberline is now doubtful, unless other funds become available.
It is my opinion that we should continue to pursue the SID option for the interim level improvements. The
SID amendment ordinance was passed unanimously on consent last night, although two Council
members had questions of clarification they want answered before second reading in 2 weeks. Alan
Krcmarik is working on those answers. (John, every reading of an ordinance is a public hearing, but this
will be on consent again for second reading. It can however, be pulled off of the consent agenda by a
member of the public or a member of the Council to be discussed separately.)
It is my opinion that we should continue working towards the funding solution for the interim improvements
for Timberline as we have discussed. The rubber will meet the road, so to speak, when we take the
ordinance establishing the SID to the Council for approval. Since they have taken this position on the
ballot issue, there is always the chance they might not approve the SID as well. Personally, I think that will
not be the result, but I have been wrong before.
I propose that we go to second reading on the ordinance amending the SID portion of the Code relating to
assessments, that we review the letter of intent draft you sent us yesterday and discuss any necessary
changes in it, and that we continue down this SID formation path to a future Council meeting where we
find out if they approve it or not. I am sure we will get some feedback from them in the meantime on
whether there are problems or not, but, as we experienced again last night, you cannot always depend on
that.
Ron
>>> "John Beauparlant"<Ibeauparlant(a�iamescolorado.com> 09/03/03 11:27AM >>>
Ron and Steve,
I see on the City's web site that the proposed Code revision pertaining to
assessments passed on Consent by a 6-0 vote. That is good news, and I
assume there was no discussion. What is the next step? Is second reading a
hearing? If so, I assume we should be present? Also, I assume there is
some sort of referendum/appeal period after adoption/publication before the
new provision becomes effective? I wonder if one of you could send me an
overall time line.
I imagine that the City can start on the SID formation while the Code
revision is going through the process. We would definitely appreciate being
able to get going on this, as we know it is a fairly time-consuming process.
I have called Matt Baker a couple of times to set up a meeting to discuss
details; 1 wonder if we could do that fairly soon.
Susan Joy - Fwd: City Council Results from September 2 Page 2
I also heard from Susan Joy that the proposed ballot issue did not pass.
Could you fill us in on that? I assume that means that the full set of
Timberline improvements cannot be done until some future time, but we can
still proceed with the reduced scope, and that the reduced scope will still
satisfy the APF issue. Susan also mentioned that she really didn't know how
to address the APF issue in our Development Agreement.
Please let me know your thoughts. And thanks again for all the hard work.
John Beauparlant, AICP
Entitlement Manager
JamesCompany
2919 Valmont Road, Suite 204
Boulder, Colorado 80301
Voice: 303-443-6666
Fax 303-443-6777
<mailto:ieauparlant(a)iamescolorado.com> Ieauparlant(a)iamescolorado.com
Susan Joy - SideHill - Nancy Gray Boulevard
Page 1
From:
"Joe Carter" <joe@cityscapeud.com>
To:
'Troy Jones" <tjones@fcgov.com>
Date:
9/11103 7:56AM
Subject:
Sidel-lill - Nancy Gray Boulevard
Troy,
Since the primary road though the site was a collector, we were told that we
needed to name this road after a deceased community figure. Through my
discussions with you and Ginger I was led to Ted since he is the holder of
the "Famous Dead Guy List". Through my discussions with Ted we determined
that we would like to use the name of Nancy Gray and would like to consider
the collector from Timberline Road to the Rail Road Tracks as Nancy Gray
Boulevard We provided Ted with a simple graphic showing that there were
medians and a neighborhood park located along this road and I believe that
Ted concurred with our estimation that this road could be considered a
boulevard.
The remaining section of road, from Drake Road to the proposed roundabout
should not be considered a boulevard since there are no medians. This road
is still a collector and we would like to call it Miles House Road. We
would prefer to use both Mlles and House combined since "House" has several
connotations.
Please let me know if this resolves the street naming issue. If we need to
discuss this further please let me know.
I have a call into Jeff H'11 to resolve his comments.
I will also get you copies of the revised lighting plan and revised building
electrical plan by Friday/Monday.
Thank you.
Joe Carter
Landscape Architect
Cityscape Urban Design
3555 Stanford Road, Ste. 105
Fort Collins, CO 80525
(970)226-4074 phone
(970) 226-4196 fax
joe@cityscapeud.com
CC: <tshepard@fcgov.com>, "Randall K. Provencio" <rprovencio@jrengineering.com>
Memorandum
December 19, 2002
To:
From: Katic Moore, Development Review Engineer
Re: Mansion Park, Timberline Design
The following is a summary of the conclusions reached at the City's Transportation Coordination meeting
on'I'hunsday, December 19, 2002:
Mansion Park is responsible for the full design of Timberline along the property frontage.
Timberline also needs to be designed offsite to the north through the intersection at Prospect, showing the
horizontal I I alignment, the centerline profile of Timberline, and any further information needed
to verify that the design will work to City Standards. This design should maintain the current elevation of
the railroad trucks and, if possible, should accommodate any trees that the City Forester requires to he
maintained c�. n,ut it uniici atc�I that �'tc pruposcd roads+u� coming into Pie crc.t n1 (h� hill till ha
i., _il, r, �h. ceistinecicco�ion.
The redesign of the Prospect/Timberline intersection will need to be included as well, holding the east curb
line in its current location.
It is highly encouraged that the engineers from Mansion Park coordinate with the engineers of the Side Hill
development directly across Timberline for the design of Timberline, and Development Review
Engineering will schedule a meeting to facilitate this coordination.
The PD11 for Mansion Park may be approved a i;h conditions pertaino - to h, A111 " j by the Planning
and Zoning Board 1.,r 11 at in.: ()ill, cr after the above designs have been completed, I loccr. i!n Final
Compliance will not be approved and plans signed off, nor kill a Devclopinow sli�rccmcnr be stared. or
until the APF issues at the Timberline -Prospect intersection have been solved
by the design and construction of improvements to the intersection either by the City or by private
develop i � .:, t i � l .ihitul Pool, It in cuusUuct the nrgt rid imprun n": °it..
Susan Joy - Re: Fwd: SideHill - Nancy Gray Boulevard
Page 1
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Ted Shepard
J.R. Wilson, Jim Hoff, Susan Joy, Troy Jones
9/11/03 9:55AM
Re: Fwd: SideHill - Nancy Gray Boulevard
Nancy Gray and Miles House are both approved for collector names. If there is a planted median strip,
then it can be called a "Boulevard."
Take an overall map over to J.R. to check alignments and directional changes to see where is the best
place for a name break. There is logic in extending the name "Sharp Point" over to Drake but I defer to
J.R.
>>> Troy Jones 09/11/03 09:08AM >>>
JR & Ted,
Can Nancy Gray be named a boulevard? It sounds like it has medians. Does Miles House Road work as
a collector road name. I wonder if the name Sharp Point Drive should be used for the entire length
between Drake, crossing the Railroad tracks, and connecting to the existing Sharp Point Drive. They both
would be generally north -south streets. See attached e-mail, and please let me know what you think.
Troy
CC: Susan Joy, Jim Hoff
Susan Joy- Re: Heads -Ups
Page 1
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Thanks, Cam.
Ron Phillips
Cam McNair; Gary Diede
9/11/03 5:18PM
Re: Heads -Ups
1. You please contact the James Co.
2. 1 agree that those parties need to work this out, but it seems to me that the limo cc. is responsible.
How dumb can someone be?!
Ron
>>> Cam McNair 09/11/03 04:07PM >>>
Ron amd Gary,
I need to give you a couple of heads -ups:
(1) RE: the Sidehill development (NE Timberline @ Drake, the James Company proposal) - as you know
the developer has been pushing to get their development agreement (DA) going. We had a meeting today
involving Eric, Mark J., Matt, Dave, Susan Joy and myself to discuss some of the DA requirements.
For one thing, the developer needs to design its Timberline frontage, plus continue the "grade and ground
lines" (basic design) for 1000-ft beyond the north boundary of the property. This is to insure that future
street improvements can meet our standards, and that everything fits together properly. Some of the
design costs, for the oversize portions, are reimbursable. So far, the plans submitted on this project have
not included any design work on Timberline, probably because we all thought the City would be taking
over the design effort. However, today we are not in position to do that. So we believe that this
development should be treated like all others and take care of its design requirements on Timberline.
The other item the DA needs to mention is APE. We will simply make a reference to the City's APF
requirements in the DA, and note that no building permits can be issued on this project until the APF
requirements are satisfied.
I think we should call them instead of just sending out the draft DA. Would you like me to communicate
these things to Dan Wenzinger at the James Company, or would you or Don prefer to do that?
(2) RE: the Slurry Seal project - on a more mundane matter, the slurry seal operation was out on
Wheaton today. Someone drove a white limo past 2 sets of warning signs and a ROAD CLOSED
barricade. The fresh asphalt slurry was damaged and had to be redone, and the white limo and a
driveway will need to be cleaned. The driver of the limo was pretty upset. We believe this is a matter for
our contractor (Inter -Mountain Slurry Seal) and the limo owner and their respective insurance companies
to sort out. We will file an incident report with Risk Management. Just wanted you to know in case this
person goes to the City Manager.
Hope you're having a nice day!
Cam
CC: Dave Stringer; Don Bachman; Eric Bracke; Matt Baker; Polly Bennett; Rick Richter;
Susan Joy
Susan Joy - Sidehill
Page 1
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Cam,
Dave Stringer
Cam McNair
9/12/03 10:09AM
Sidehill
There is another issue with Sidehill that I believe you need to be aware of.
Sidehill has a ground water under drain system which outfalls off of their site into some channel that is
along the Railroad property. Naturally, we have been asking for this off -site easement prior to final
compliance approval of their civil plans. In Susan's latest conversation with John Beauparlant of the
James Company he doesn't believe we have the right to request this easement since it's between parties
other then the City. Is important that we know this easement has been granted so we know what is being
proposed is functional. In addition, to the easement the out fall is being proposed to tie into a channel to
be built by Rigden 6th filing. Since the Rigden plans are not approved yet is the responsibility of Sidehill to
design and build the Rigden channel if it isn't built before the Sidehill project starts construction.
Susan is calling Mr. Beauparlant to relay this information to him again and she suspects that he will go
right to the top since he believes that upper management is relieving this developer of their normal
obligations as it relates to development requirements.
Dave
CC: Susan Joy
Susan Joy - Re: Sidehill
Page 1
From:
Dave Stringer
To:
Cam McNair
Date:
9/12/03 11:22AM
Subject:
Re: Sidehill
Cam,
Paul's response to me is " If we require the subdrain system, the we certainly have the right to sign a copy
of the signed easement document" I believe we need the document.
As far as I know we have not issued encroachment permits for sub drain systems built with development,
should we be?
Yes, this is the out fall for the subdrain. If they were to build a system with out this the sub drain won't
function correctly.
I have been told that the developers engineer has ben telling the developer about these issues with the
sub drain for some time now and the developer has chosen to ignore/delay the issue.
Dave
>>> Cam McNair 09/12/03 10:18AM >>>
I talked to John B. last evening, and he said the same thing to me about that private easement. Can you
check with Paul Eckman and see if we can legally require them to provide us a copy of this private
easement agreement? I agree with you that we need to insure that it is done. Also, won't they need an
encroachment permit from us to put their private sub -drain line in City ROW? Maybe that gives us some
more leverage, if we need it. Do they need to install this sub -drain line with their first phase? Can this
requirement to provide us a copy of the easement be made a part of a later phase?
Let's get together to talk this over some more
Thanks,
Cam
>>> "Dave Stringer" <DSTRINGER(7a fcgov.com> 09/12/03 10:09AM >>>
Cam,
There is another issue with Sidehill that I believe you need to be
aware of.
Sidehill has a ground water under drain system which outfalls off of
their site into some channel that is along the Railroad property.
Naturally, we have been asking for this off -site easement prior to final
compliance approval of their civil plans. In Susan's latest
conversation with John Beauparlant of the James Company he doesn't
believe we have the right to request this easement since it's between
parties other then the City. Is important that we know this easement
has been granted so we know what is being proposed is functional. In
addition, to the easement the out fall is being proposed to tie into a
channel to be built by Rigden 6th filing. Since the Rigden plans are
not approved yet is the responsibility of Sidehill to design and build
the Rigden channel if it isn't built before the Sidehill project starts
construction.
Susan is calling Mr. Beauparlant to relay this information to him again
and she suspects that he will go right to the top since he believes that
Susan Joy -Re Sidehill
Page 2
upper management is relieving this developer of their normal obligations
as it relates to development requirements.
Dave
CC: Susan Joy
Susan Joy - Re: SideHill Filing 1
Page 1
From: Troy Jones
To: John Beauparlant; Susan Joy
Date: 9/12103 4:07PM
Subject: Re: SideHill Filing 1
John,
I will change our database to reflect you as the applicant rather than Cityscape Urban Design if you would
like. Any future formal written comments will be then be directed to you. I don't think we really have much
in the line of formal written comments to go on this. We are now in the level of detail in the finalizaion of
this where Joe Carter and Randall Provincio are working closely on many minor details. Using you to
communicate with them would be quite cumbersome if you are to be the primary contact for this level of
detail. 1 suggest that you ask Joe and Randall to keep you informed to that level of detail. I will however
send you any formal correspondence.
Troy Jones
>>> Susan Joy 09/12/03 08:26AM >>>
I have copied your planner on this request. Please work with Troy Jones directly in order to receive copies
of all the department's comments (221-6750) as I can only forward you my comments from engineering.
Your question about the lighting is not an engineering issue. Troy can help you with that also.
Susan
>>> "John Beauparlant"<ieauparlant(d,)iamescolorado.com> 09/08/03 02:12PM >>>
Susan,
I was wondering if you have received everything you need from us and/or our
consultants in order to draft the Development Agreement for Filing 1. It is
my understanding that there was a small lighting issue? Also, I wonder if
you could send all your future comments pertaining to SideHill directly to
me. You can certainly copy Joe Carter or Eldon Ward or Randall Provencio,
but it is important that I get your comments firsthand, as they are issued.
Rob Thorsheim of Engle Homes and I have sort of split up our joint venture
projects, and I have been anointed as the project manager for SideHill. I
will also be working with Matt Baker in the formation of the SID that we
hope can be used to help finance the Timberline Road improvements.
Please let me know if there is anything you are needing to proceed with the
agreement for Filing/Phase 1. Thanks so much!
John Beauparlant, AICP
Entitlement Manager
JamesCompany
2919 Valmont Road, Suite 204
Susan Joy - Re: Heads -Ups
Page 1
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Ron Phillips
Cam McNair; Gary Diede
9/15/03 9:09AM
Re: Heads -Ups
I agree. I sent it on to the CAO and Alan K. so that all involved in the discussion are aware of it.
Ron
>>> Gary Diede 09/12/03 09:22AM >>>
Cam, this all sounds reasonable and you have my support.
Gary
>>> Cam McNair 09/11/03 04:07PM >>>
Ron amd Gary,
I need to give you a couple of heads -ups:
(1) RE: the Sidehill development (NE Timberline @ Drake, the James Company proposal) - as you know
the developer has been pushing to get their development agreement (DA) going. We had a meeting today
involving Eric, Mark J., Matt, Dave, Susan Joy and myself to discuss some of the DA requirements.
For one thing, the developer needs to design its Timberline frontage, plus continue the "grade and ground
lines" (basic design) for 1000-ft beyond the north boundary of the property. This is to insure that future
street improvements can meet our standards, and that everything fits together properly. Some of the
design costs, for the oversize portions, are reimbursable. So far, the plans submitted on this project have
not included any design work on Timberline, probably because we all thought the City would be taking
over the design effort. However, today we are not in position to do that. So we believe that this
development should be treated like all others and take care of its design requirements on Timberline.
The other item the DA needs to mention is APF. We will simply make a reference to the City's APF
requirements in the DA, and note that no building permits can be issued on this project until the APF
requirements are satisfied.
I think we should call them instead of just sending out the draft DA. Would you like me to communicate
these things to Dan Wenzinger at the James Company, or would you or Don prefer to do that?
(2) RE: the Slurry Seal project - on a more mundane matter, the slurry seal operation was out on
Wheaton today. Someone drove a white limo past 2 sets of warning signs and a ROAD CLOSED
barricade. The fresh asphalt slurry was damaged and had to be redone, and the white limo and a
driveway will need to be cleaned. The driver of the limo was pretty upset. We believe this is a matter for
our contractor (Inter -Mountain Slurry Seal) and the limo owner and their respective insurance companies
to sort out. We will file an incident report with Risk Management. Just wanted you to know in case this
person goes to the City Manager.
Hope you're having a nice day!
Cam
CC: Dave Stringer; Don Bachman; Eric Bracke; Matt Baker; Polly Bennett; Rick Richter;
Susan Joy
Susan Joy -Re Sidehill
Page 1
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Dave and Susan,
Cam McNair
Dave Stringer
9/15/03 3:18PM
Re: Sidehill
OK, let's go ahead and require proof that the easement has been granted, or at least that there is a letter
of intent to grant it. Since it will need to be built in Phase 1, this will be needed before they can start any
construction.
As for the encroachment permit, I would like to ask you to go over the plan with Rick and Bill Benson, and
see if they need a permit in order to establish a record of this, separate from the utility plans. We are
dealing with more and more of these kinds of "private" facilities in the public ROW (such as fiber -optics
lines for CSU, etc.), so it may be important to have a record of this sub -drain. For those sub -drains that
are located in the sewer trenches, maybe we don't need a permit or separate record for those. Let's
discuss this some more with Rick when he's back.
Thanks,
Cam
>>> Dave Stringer 09/12/03 11:22AM >>>
Cam,
Paul's response to me is " If we require the subdrain system, the we certainly have the right to sign a copy
of the signed easement document" I believe we need the document.
As far as I know we have not issued encroachment permits for sub drain systems built with development,
should we be?
Yes, this is the out fall for the subdrain. If they were to build a system with out this the sub drain won't
function correctly.
I have been told that the developers engineer has ben telling the developer about these issues with the
sub drain for some time now and the developer has chosen to ignore/delay the issue.
Dave
>>> Cam McNair 09/12/03 10:18AM >>>
I talked to John B. last evening, and he said the same thing to me about that private easement. Can you
check with Paul Eckman and see if we can legally require them to provide us a copy of this private
easement agreement? I agree with you that we need to insure that it is done. Also, won't they need an
encroachment permit from us to put their private sub -drain line in City ROW? Maybe that gives us some
more leverage, if we need it. Do they need to install this sub -drain line with their first phase? Can this
requirement to provide us a copy of the easement be made a part of a later phase?
Let's get together to talk this over some more
Thanks,
Cam
>>> "Dave Stringer" <DSTRINGER(a)fcgov.com> 09/12/03 10:09AM >>>
Cam,
There is another issue with Sidehill that I believe you need to be
aware of.
Susan Joy - Re: Sidehill Page 2
Sidehill has a ground water under drain system which outfalls off of
their site into some channel that is along the Railroad property.
Naturally, we have been asking for this off -site easement prior to final
compliance approval of their civil plans. In Susan's latest
conversation with John Beauparlant of the James Company he doesn't
believe we have the right to request this easement since it's between
parties other then the City. Is important that we know this easement
has been granted so we know what is being proposed is functional. In
addition, to the easement the out fall is being proposed to tie into a
channel to be built by Rigden 6th filing. Since the Rigden plans are
not approved yet is the responsibility of Sidehill to design and build
the Rigden channel if it isn't built before the Sidehill project starts
construction.
Susan is calling Mr. Beauparlant to relay this information to him again
and she suspects that he will go right to the top since he believes that
upper management is relieving this developer of their normal obligations
as it relates to development requirements.
Dave
CC: Susan Joy
Susan Joy - Re: Timberline Road SID and SideHill Developer's Agreement Page 1
From:
Cam McNair
To:
John Beauparlant
Date:
9/16/03 1:36PM
Subject:
Re: Timberline Road SID and SideHill Developer's Agreement
John,
I will be happy to meet with you this afternoon. Why don't you plan to stop by my office at 281 North
College Avenue around 4:30. 1 will ask some of our staff to join us, and we can discuss the Development
Agreement, sub -drain easement, Timberline design, and any other issues you think we need to address.
Without going into a lot of detail, let me provide a few preliminary answers to some of your questions.
On tonight's Council item, we don't expect any opposition to the ordinance change that Steve drafted.
This is a second reading tonight, and the item passed unanimously on first reading two weeks ago.
The sub -drain easement is a sticky issue. The sub -drain system appears to be a vital part of the project
design, and the easement is needed for the outfall from this system. Let's discuss this further this
afternoon.
Up until two weeks ago, we fully expected to take the lead on the design and construction of the
Timberline improvements. Now, however, we do not have the means to do so. It will be necessary for the
developments to perform the design of Timberline, and a portion of the design costs will be reimbursed.
The City can still manage the construction. As I told you on the phone last week, I do not believe the SID
should cover the frontage improvements that the developments are responsible for providing directly.
Only the costs of the interim improvements north of the developing properties and thru the Prospect
intersection should be included in the SID, in my opinion. Others with more experience on SIDS may want
to contradict me on this, and I am of course always open to suggestions on better ways to organize the
financing and the work that needs to be done.
See you this afternoon,
Cam
>>> "John Beauparlant"<jbeau parlant@jamescolorado.com> 09/16/03 09:55AM >>>
Ron, Cam & Steve,
I thought I would touch base with you on these two interdependent items
to see what we can do to move both of them forward. We had been hoping
to close on the Spring Hill Farm (Johnson) property on October 1, but it
is unlikely that we would want to do so without having had a chance to
review a draft of the Developer's Agreement (DA) first. So that is a
very important item.
After speaking with Susan Joy and then you, Cam, on the timing of the
DA, I am hoping that the two crucial items -the private underdrain
easement through the McDowell property and the Timberline Road
improvements -can be adequately addressed in it as follows:
Underdrain Easement
The DA could require that the actual easements be signed and recorded
prior to any individual dwelling unit building permits being issued by
the City. I spoke with John Scott of Anderson Consulting, which was
retained by McDowell to review the entire underdrain system across his
property, and he noted that it would be another six or eight weeks until
Susan Joy - Re: Mansion Park Timberline Design
Page 1
From: Cam McNair
To: Dave Stringer, Eric Bracket Kathleen Reavis; Katie Moore, Marc Virata; Mark
Jackson, Matt Baker, hike Herzig, Sheri Wamhoff; Susan Joy, Tom Reiff, Ward Stanford
Date: 12/19/02 4:05PM
Subject: Re: Mansion Park Timberline Design
Good memo Katie.
2 suggestions:
1. Make it clear that the level of design for the off -site portion of Timberline is to a preliminary engineering
level, not final design.
2. In the final paragraph, the APF issues can be solved by having funds appropriated to design and build
the improvements - the actual design and construction does not need to be accomplished before PDP
approval.
Thanks,
Cam
>>> Katie Moore 12/19/02 02:48PM >>>
Hello all,
I've put together a little memo regarding the decisions we made this morning about Mansion Park and the
design of Timberline up to Prospect. (see attachment)
If I have misunderstood or mis-stated something, please let me know.
Thank you,
Katie
Susan Joy - Re: Timberline Road SID and SideHill Developer's Agreement Page 2
they had everything completed and McDowell would possibly be in a
position to sign the easement for SideHill. Needless to say, if we had
to wait for this to happen before we would be allowed to start our
grading, we would be way behind the eight ball. Is it possible for us
to address the underdrain easements in this fashion? I believe this
would permit both JamesCompany and the City to move forward with some
certainty on this item. One other possibility we (James) might want to
pursue is that underdrains are not actually required (according to our
engineers' opinion) for Filing 1. We do intend to provide them for
Filing 1, however.
Timberline Road
The Timberline Road (and Timberline/Prospect intersection) improvements
issue is a bit more complicated, however, I also believe that this item
can be addressed in general terms in the DA. After our big meeting at
the City on 19 August, both Cumberland Companies and JamesCompany were
under the impression that we would be pursuing the formation of a
Special Improvement District through which to finance the requisite
improvements. At that time, it had not yet been determined whether the
City Council would support a ballot measure that, if passed, would
potentially permit the transfer of funds from one project to another
and, thereby, perhaps allow the completion of the full set of Timberline
improvements. However, we were never counting on that action by
Council, and were planning to pursue the Reduced Scope of Timberline
improvements through the SID, with Cumberland and James agreeing to
front the missing Capital funding portion. We are very appreciative of
staff's pursuit of the Code revision that would revise the maximum
assessment provision, thereby enhancing our possibility of receiving a
fuller reimbursement of the monies we have agreed to forward.
We have, all along, been under the assumption that the City would move
forward with the SID, that the SID would include all those properties
currently affected by the Adequate Public Facilities management system,
and that the method of assessment would be such that it would allocate
shares of the cost of the Reduced Scope of improvements to all of these
parcels. We have also been under the assumption that the City's Code
requires all plans for improvements to be financed through an SID to be
prepared by the City, and that all costs associated with the formation
of the SID and the construction of the improvements (engineering,
planning, appraisal, etc.) would be incorporated into the amount to be
financed through the SID. In other words, we never imagined having to
provide detailed construction plans for any stretch of Timberline Road.
Nor did Cumberland.
I believe that the construction of the Timberline improvements to be
financed through the SID mechanism could be adequately addressed in the
Developer's Agreement. It is a long time until we would expect to be
adding any traffic to Timberline from SideHill residences, as we do not
anticipate our first four or five closings to occur there until November
of 2004 at the earliest.
It is my hope that we can move forward with a Developer's Agreement that
provides the City with the surety it needs, while also permitting us to
move forward with our project in a timely fashion. And that we can also
move forward with the SID. I plan to sit in on tonight's Council
Susan Joy - Re: Timberline Road SID and SideHill Developer's Agreement Page 3
meeting to hear what might be said on the proposed Code revision. Does
anyone expect any opposition to the item?
Cam, is there any way we might be able to meet late this afternoon to
discuss the DA? I need to go to the Larimer County offices to get
something recorded, so 1 will be up in Fort Collins. Please let me
know. And thanks to all for your time and consideration.
John Beauparlant, AICP
Entitlement Manager
JamesCompany
a Division of TOUSA HOMES INC.
2919 Valmont Road, Suite 204
Boulder. Colorado 80301
Voice: 303-443-6666
Fax: 303-443-6777
CC: Alan Krcmarik; Basil Hamdan; Dave Stringer; Don Bachman; Gary Diede; Matt
Baker; Paul Eckman; Ron Phillips; Steve Roy; Susan Joy
Susan Joy - Timberline Road Meeting
Page 1
From: "John Beauparlant" < beau parlant@jamescolorado.com>
To: <sjoy@fcgov.com>, <cmcnair@fcgov.com>
Date: 9/18/03 11:16AM
Subject: Timberline Road Meeting
Susan and Cam,
I am wondering if we are unnecessarily complicating our ability to set
up a meeting to discuss the Timberline Road improvements funding options
by also combining it with a sit-down to discuss outstanding issues
regarding our SideHill project. As such, I would like to propose that
we split what would have been one giant meeting into two smaller ones.
I think the Timberline meeting must include Cam, Ron Phillips, Steve
Roy, Matt Baker, and Alan Krcmarik for sure. Maybe you would like to
include others as well, but it is important that these listed folks be
there. This meeting would include discussions on the options available
for Timberline Road, the City's exaction process, the road oversizing
payment process, the scope of improvements needed to remove APE
restrictions, timing, the City's role, etc. It would not be specific to
SideHill except that the APE restrictions are thought to be applicable
to our ability to go forward with this project.
The second meeting -dealing only with SideHill issues -could include
anyone you think would be required, Susan. I would ask Mike Brake of JR
Engineering to attend that meeting with me.
Please let me know what you think of this. Thanks! We would certainly
want to hold both of these meetings ASAP.
John Beauparlant, AICP
Entitlement Manager
JamesCompany
a Division of TOUSA HOMES INC.
2919 Valmont Road, Suite 204
Boulder, Colorado 80301
Voice: 303-443-6666
Fax: 303-443-6777
Susan Joy - Sidehill Meeting CANCELLED again
Page 1
From: Cam McNair
To: Basil Hamdan; jbeauparlant@jamescolorado.com; Matt Baker; Ron Phillips; Sheri
Wamhoff; Steve Roy; Susan Joy
Date: 9/18/03 1:28PM
Subject: Sidehill Meeting CANCELLED again
I am really sorry folks. Susan Joy and I have been trying very hard to organize a meeting to address the
Sidehill issues as requested by the James Company. However, I just talked to John Beauparlant again,
and he said that the meeting tomorrow (Friday the 19th) is not going to work for them now. So let's do
this:
1. Separate the drainage and sub -drain design problems from the Timberline SID issue. Development
Review, Stormwater and JR Engineering need to get together to work on the design solutions.
2. See if we can pull together another SID "summit" with all the previous players, perhaps for next
Thursday afternoon, the 25th. Or this could even be delayed into the following week if necessary. 1 will
get with Cynthia Cass to try and organize that one.
Thanks, and my apologies again for all the confusion on this.
Cam
>>> Susan Joy 09/18/03 11:29AM >>>
The meeting for tomorrow, Friday, September 20th at 11:30am will still be held in Conference Room A of
the 281 N. College building. Sandwiches will be brought in shortly before noon so that we can keep
working through the lunch hour.
Paul: If Steve Roy is unable to attend his portion of the meeting at 1 pm, could you attend in his place?
Ron: You do not need to show up until 1 pm as well.
John: Please let me know how many people will be attending with you so that 1 can order enough
sandwiches for lunch. Thanks!
To everyone: Thank you very much for coming to this meeting on such short notice!
See you all soon!
Susan
Cd��lll�x.7, r7' ik7i1
Susan Joy - Fwd: Timberline SID Page 1
From: Dave Stringer
To: dev engineers
Date: 9/24/03 10:56AM
Subject: Fwd: Timberline SID
FYI
>>> Cam McNair 09/24/03 10:14AM >>>
John,
After our meeting yesterday, I thought some more about the discussion concerning what portions of the
Timberline costs could be apportioned to other property owners via the SID. I do not want to mis-lead you.
I want to be clear. I think the direction you want to go with this is not workable. We are certainly willing to
listen, and ultimately it is not my call. But I just do not want to imply that because we are listening, that we
somehow agree with the notion that the costs of your local frontage portion of Timberline and Drake can
be distributed to the other property owners.
Below is an extract from our Municipal Code. To me it is pretty clear. This has been in place for a long
time, and has been applied to developments large and small. It would be a huge surprise to me if this
were to be changed or varied on behalf of your development.
ARTICLE III. STREETS
Sec. 24-95. Obligation for construction
(a) The construction of the local portion of a public street adjacent to undeveloped real property 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.
(Code 1972, § 95-98; Ord. No. 32-1988, § 2, 3-15-88; Ord. No. 97, 1996, §§ 4, 10, 7-16-96; Ord. No. 186,
2000, § 2, 1-2-01, Ord. No. 98, 2001, 6-19-01)
John, I think we should go ahead with the meeting next week, and I just want you to be realistic with
regard to your expectations. Call me if you have any questions or want to discuss any of this further.
Cam
Cam McNair. PE
Susan Joy - Timberline Road SID - CONFIRMATION Page 1
From: Cynthia Cass
To: Alan Krcmarik; brock@stcharlesinv.com; Cam McNair; Don Bachman;
jbeauparlant@jamescolorado.com; Matt Baker; Ron Phillips; Steve Maguire, Steve Roy
Date: 9/25/03 1:26PM
Subject: Timberline Road SID - CONFIRMATION
This is to confirm that there will be a meeting on Thursday October 2, from 1:30 - 3 p.m. in conference
room 1 B at 215 N. Mason.
This meeting will include discussions on the options available for Timberline Road, the City's exaction
process, the road oversizing payment process, the scope of improvements needed to remove APF
restrictions, timing, the City's role, etc.
Attendees:
John Beauparlant
Brock Chapman - arriving at 2 p.m.
Steve Maguire, not confirmed
Steve Roy
Alan Krcmarik
Ron Phillips
Don Bachman
Cam McNair
Matt Baker
CC: Dave Stringer; Mary Donaldson; Polly Bennett; Susan Joy
Susan Joy - Re: Side Hill development agreement
Page 1
From: Dave Stringer
To: Basil Harridan; Glen Schlueter
Date: 10/16/03 10:44AM
Subject: Re: Side Hill development agreement
That's kind of my take. That's why I suggested Jim and Mike get involved. I know that as soon as James
Company is told that we won't record the plat that all heel will break loose.
>>> Glen Schlueter 10/16/03 10:36AM >>>
That is different than I understood. Maybe Paul Eckman needs to get into this conversation. They don't
have a project without the easement so how can we record it and let them start?
>>> Dave Stringer 10/16/03 10:27AM >>>
Basil also include me in the message to Susan. Also, as clarification they may not have an eeasement in
hand by the time they want to start construction. That's why I'm asking Can the plat be recorded with out
the easement?
>>> Basil Harridan 10/16/03 09:03AM >>>
Dave,
I agreee that we can wait for the plat recordation for the easement to be obtained.
In the meantime, I will work on the DA language today and tomorrow and I will have my first draft to Susan
by tomorrow afternoon.
Thanks,
Basil
>>> Dave Stringer 10/15/03 05:02PM >>>
Glen and Basil,
The rubber has now hit the road for Sidehill. The developer is going to pursue the easement for the
off -site storm sewer and subdrain outfall. Consequently, they are pushing us ( through higher ups ) to get
the Development Agreement drafted. I'm asking you to please draft language for this development based
upon the fact that the out fall as shown will occur. As a CYA you should also include some language that
if it doesn't happen they need to redesign their stormwater system.
Also, since it's your call on requiring the easement prior to recordation of the plat I'm not sure how you
want to handle that issue. Knowing this John Beauparlant and the games / lies he's played with our
management you should also inform Jim and Mike Smith about the issues depending on how you elect to
proceed.
We need your DA Language by Monday morning at the latest. Transportation management has
committed to having a DA for Paul to look at by then.
Thanks
Dave
CC: Paul Eckman, Susan Joy
Susan Joy - Re: Oct. 20th
Page 1
From: Cam McNair
To: Dave Stringer
Date: 10/17/03 8:59AM
Subject: Re: Oct. 20th
Dave,
The meeting for Monday morning is already set, so Susan will need to be there. If Jim or Glen need to
attend to clear up that point on the easement, then that's fine, too. Perhaps they could come toward the
end of the meeting, around 11:00, since I think we need to work on the SID first.
Thanks,
Cam
>>> "Dave Stringer" <DSTRINGER@fcgov.com> 10/16/03 11:22AM >>>
Cam,
I miss spoke yesterday when you asked if I would be in on Monday the
20th. I looked at my calendar and I'm out in the morning getting my
horses shod. Will be in at 1:00.
Also, Storm Water said they will have their language to Susan and I by
tomorrow afternoon. However, they are concerned about filing the plat
without the outfall easement. Glen has escalated this to Jim for now to
get his thoughts.
Dave
CC: Susan Joy
Susan Joy - Re: Sidehill DA Qs
Page 1
From:
Matt Baker
To:
Susan Joy
Date:
10/21 /03 2:41 PM
Subject:
Re: Sidehill DA Qs
>>> Susan Joy 10/21/03 12:34PM >>>
Here's a couple of comments/questions that have come back so far:
How soon after the SID petition and authorization to the city do we want the Developer to pay the
$100,000 for the Timberline Design? 30 days? 60 days? Or? 30
How will they be reimbursed for the $$ not their local share of this design?
As a credit against their local street portion due Feb 2005
And then prior to the issuance of 25 building permits for Filing One and Two, we had in there that they had
to pay for their local portion of Timberline. Do theyjust pay to the City or to you specifically? They pay to
the City of Fort Collins, c/o Engineering. I'll take it to Council to appropriate into the project account
Thanks again Matt. I'll be sending around another version of this thing by the end of the day.
Susan
Susan Joy - Re: Timberline/Prospect
Page 1
From: Cam McNair
To: Eric Bracke, jbeauparlant@tousa.com
Date: 10/20/03 5:46PM
Subject: Re: Timberline/Prospect
Thanks Eric.
John, this is in response to your questions this morning concerning what movements are causing the
Timberline -Prospect intersection to fail. Our criteria is generally anything less than LOS D is considered
inadequate. It looks like virtually every approach and turning movement fails in both peaks.
Let us know if you don't understand the abbreviations here.
With respect to the current development projects in the Spring Creek business park, the convenience
store was approved many years ago under a previous system (LDGS) which did not have an APF
requirement. So they had a vested right to proceed. The other one at the former beer distributor did not
exceed the 2% threshold when comparing new trips generated with the previous use.
Hope this is helpful.
Cam
>>> Eric Bracke 10/20/03 04:35PM >>>
Here are the LOS for the Timberline/Prospect Intersection:
AM
EB Approach-F
WB Approach-F
NB Approach-E
SB Approach-F
EBT -F
WBL-F
NBL -F
NBT -F
SBL - E
SBT -F
PM
EB Approach-F
WB Approach-F
NB Approach-E
SB Approach-E
EBL -F
EBT -E
WBL -F
W BT- F
NBL -F
SBT -F
CC: Don Bachman; Matt Baker; Susan Joy
Draft Mansion Park Scope of Work
January 14, 2003
General Scope
The general scope of work will be to determine or show that the proposed location of
Timberline Road as shown in the Mansion Park Utility Plans will not have an undue
negative effect on the future improvements of Timberline Road to the north of Mansion
Part:. This will include the Prospect Road and Timberline Road intersection and 1000'
north of Prospect Road. This design will be done at a conceptual level. The general
issues that will be addressed will be the following:
I. The horizontal alignment of Timberline Road across Prospect Road.
2 The horizontal alignment of Timberline Road across the Spring Creek Bridge.
3. Vertical alignment of Timberline Road over railroad crossing.
4. The horizontal and vertical alignment of Timberline Road around the historic
Johnson Farmhouse.
5. Check for impact on water and sewer.
G. Show Flood Plain of Spring Creek.
Design Approach.
The design approach will divide Timberline Road into two portions. The first portion
will be north of the railroad tracks and the second, south of the railroad tracks. The
northern section will only be designed horizontally. It is anticipated that there are no
large vertical design issues in this portion. The section south ofrat Iroad track will be
designed vertically and horizontally. This will address the issue of vertical alignment
over the hill by the Johnson Farm Homestead.
A base map will be created from two sources. The first source will be from the City of
Fort Collins and contain aerial Mapping for the Portion of Timberline Road north of the
railroad tracks. It is important to note that this will only have an accuracy of 2-loot
contours. The second source will be an aerial topographic map with one -foot contours,
produced by JR Engineering, from Drake to the railroad north of Drake. Approximate
property lines will be shown throughout both areas and will be based on the City of Fort
Collins' GIS information.
"I he base map will only be done using current information. No additional surveying will
be done.
Design Issues
The main design issues to be resolved from north to south are:
The striping and alignment of Timberline across Prospect Road and the Spring Creel:
Bridge.
Susan Joy - Side Hill Page 1
From:
Roger Buffington
To:
Susan Joy
Date:
10/20/03 9:28AM
Subject:
Side Hill
Susan,
I hope this one works better
The City and Rigden 6th had agreed on cost sharing for the 42-inch sewer. If Side Hill builds the 42-inch
sewer, both DA's (Side Hill and Rigden 6th) will need to be revised to reflect this. Since I am not sure
what is going on with Side Hill and Rigden 6th, I did not try to address the cost sharing at this time. Keep
me posted on what's happening, and I will help with revisions if needed.
Thanks,
Roger
Susan Joy - Timberline -Prospect SID and Sidehill Development Agreement Page 1
From: Cam McNair
To: Don Bachman; Paul Eckman; Ron Phillips; Steve Roy
Date: 10/21 /03 1:21 PM
Subject: Timberline -Prospect SID and Sidehill Development Agreement
This is a summary of our meeting this morning.
Attendees: John Beauparlant (James Company)
Dan Wenzinger (James Company)
Brock Chapman (Cumberland Co,)
Don Bachman
Matt Baker
Susan Joy
Cam McNair
Key Points
1. An involuntary SID will be the proposed financing mechanism. The amount to be financed will be $2.3
Million, or the "APF Portion" needed to build the Timberline -Prospect intersection improvements. The
developers' Local Access Portions and the Street Oversizing Portion will be paid directly, and would not be
a part of the SID.
2. No City -backed bonds will be used to finance the improvements necessary to satisfy our APF
requirements. The James Company intends to use private placement bonds and/or developers' cash to
pay for the improvements. Actual payment will not be necessary until ready to bid the construction
(approx. Feb 2005 at the latest). Security in the form of a performance bond for the $2.3M will be
provided by James Company when they are ready to begin pulling building permits.
3. Participating properties in the SID were discussed, and a list of potential participants will be prepared.
Essentially these will be properties within a one -mile radius of the intersection that have development or
re -development potential.
4. The assessment method will be developed based on two factors associated with each property: (1) trip
generation, and (2) proximity to the intersection.
5. Three primary principles or arguments can be made to Council for involuntarily including certain
properties from within the one -mile radius in the District: (1) Fairness, based on the benefits to these
properties realized from removing the APF barrier, (2) Public interest, based on the safety and congestion
problems existing at the intersection now; and (3) No public financial risk associated with this approach.
6. Efforts will be made to obtain informed consent of the property owners to be assessed, prior to the
Council decision to create the District.
7. Offering a 10-year repayment schedule for the properties being assessed may provide an incentive for
properties to participate in the SID. The alternative to a 10-year payback is a one-time immediate
assessment of the full amount assessed.
8. We recognize that this means a "TABOR vote" is necessary to allow the City to enter into a multi -year
obligation, but the immediate one-time assessment on involuntary SID participants would likely produce a
greater protest. The vote would be among the SID participants only and not the City at large. A simple
majority would be sufficient. The City is merely the collection agency so there would be no financial
liaibility for the City.
Proposed Timeline:
Nov 03 --- 1 st Resolution, City Council accepts the petition and directs the Engineering Dept to design the
Susan Joy - Timberline -Prospect SID and Sidehill Development Agreement Page 2
project, and prepare cost estimate and assessment needs.
--- Design funds provided by developer, and Sidehill development agreement finalized.
Nov 03 - May 04 --- Sidehill site development construction on 1 st Filing.
Nov 03 - Aug 04 --- City prepares engineering design and cost estimates.
Approx. May 04 --- Developer wants to pull first building permits.
--- Developer posts $2.3M security for assuring APF correction.
At 25% of building permits issued for 1 st Filing, developer pays local street portion for Timberline.
Aug 04 --- 2nd Resolution to City Council to approve engineering report, design plans, costs and
assessments.
--- Public hearing
--- SID creation ordinance to Council, with master agreement.
--- Set election for TABOR purposes for Nov 04 (SID participants only).
Sep 04 - Feb 05 --- Acquire ROW.
Nov 04 --- TABOR election.
--- Begin bridge construction, RR crossing and utility relocations.
No Later Than Feb 05 --- Developer pays APF portion ($2.3M) and any remaining Local Access
Portion(s).
--- City bids the construction project to contractors.
2005 - 2006 --- Timberline Road construction and intersection improvements.
2006 --- Construction completed.
--- Assessment Ordinance to City Council. SID members begin repayment.
CC: Dave Stringer; Matt Baker; Susan Joy
Susan Joy - Re: Timberline -Prospect SID and Sidehill Development Agreement
Page 1
From:
Ron Phillips
To:
John Fischbach
Date:
10/22/03 9:24AM
Subject:
Re: Timberline -Prospect SID and Sidehill Development Agreement
John,
Below is a summary of the latest meeting with the developers of the proposed Sidehill and Mansion Park
developments along Timberline Road at Drake - The James Company and Cumberland Properties
respectively The one thing that isn't mentioned in the proposed schedule - and which I do not plan to
discuss with the developers at this time - is the possibility of federal funding for this project. The
respective staff members of our congressional delegation that I met with last week all stated that we would
be in line for our $2 million request, or some portion of it, in the FY 2005 federal appropriation process.
This, of course is not a guarantee, but it is promising that we might be able to have all the funding except
for $1 1 million to do the full project. We will not know the answer on federal dollars for sure until about
this time next year, so it leaves us in somewhat of a quandary about whether to design the full project or
the interim project 1 will discuss this further with the Engineering Department, but my guess is that we will
design the full project and fall back to an interim design if necessary.
Ron
>>> Cam McNair 10/21/03 01:21PM >>>
This is a summary of our meeting this morning.
Attendees: John Beauparlant (James Company)
Dan Wenzinger (James Company)
Brock Chapman (Cumberland Co,)
Don Bachman
Matt Baker
Susan Joy
Cam McNair
Key Points:
1. An involuntary SID will be the proposed financing mechanism. The amount to be financed will be $2.3
Million, or the "APE Portion" needed to build the Timberline -Prospect intersection improvements. The
developers' Local Access Portions and the Street Oversizing Portion will be paid directly, and would not be
a part of the SID.
2. No City -backed bonds will be used to finance the improvements necessary to satisfy our APE
requirements. The James Company intends to use private placement bonds and/or developers' cash to
pay for the improvements. Actual payment will not be necessary until ready to bid the construction
(approx. Feb 2005 at the latest). Security in the form of a performance bond for the $2.3M will be
provided by James Company when they are ready to begin pulling building permits.
3. Participating properties in the SID were discussed, and a list of potential participants will be prepared.
Essentially these will be properties within a one -mile radius of the intersection that have development or
re -development potential.
4. The assessment method will be developed based on two factors associated with each property: (1) trip
generation, and (2) proximity to the intersection.
5. Three primary principles or arguments can be made to Council for involuntarily including certain
properties from within the one -mile radius in the District: (1) Fairness, based on the benefits to these
properties realized from removing the APE barrier, (2) Public interest, based on the safety and congestion
problems existing at the intersection now, and (3) No public financial risk associated with this approach.
Susan Joy - Re: Timberline -Prospect SID and Sidehill Development Agreement Page 2
6. Efforts will be made to obtain informed consent of the property owners to be assessed, prior to the
Council decision to create the District.
7. Offering a 10-year repayment schedule for the properties being assessed may provide an incentive for
properties to participate in the SID. The alternative to a 10-year payback is a one-time immediate
assessment of the full amount assessed.
8 We recognize that this means a "TABOR vote" is necessary to allow the City to enter into a multi -year
obligation, but the immediate one-time assessment on involuntary SID participants would likely produce a
greater protest. The vote would be among the SID participants only and not the City at large. A simple
majority would be sufficient. The City is merely the collection agency so there would be no financial
liaibility for the City.
Proposed Timeline:
Nov 03 --- 1 st Resolution, City Council accepts the petition and directs the Engineering Dept to design the
project, and prepare cost estimate and assessment needs.
--- Design funds provided by developer, and Sidehill development agreement finalized.
Nov 03 - May 04 --- Sidehill site development construction on 1 st Filing.
Nov 03 - Aug 04 --- City prepares engineering design and cost estimates.
Approx. May 04 --- Developer wants to pull first building permits.
--- Developer posts $2.3M security for assuring APE correction.
At 25% of building permits issued for 1 st Filing, developer pays local street portion for Timberline.
Aug 04 --- 2nd Resolution to City Council to approve engineering report, design plans, costs and
assessments.
--- Public hearing
--- SID creation ordinance to Council, with master agreement.
--- Set election for TABOR purposes for Nov 04 (SID participants only).
Sep 04 - Feb 05 --- Acquire ROW.
Nov 04 --- TABOR election.
--- Begin bridge construction, RR crossing and utility relocations.
No Later Than Feb 05 --- Developer pays APE portion ($2.3M) and any remaining Local Access
Portion(s).
--- City bids the construction project to contractors.
2005 - 2006 --- Timberline Road construction and intersection improvements.
2006 — Construction completed.
--- Assessment Ordinance to City Council. SID members begin repayment.
CC: Alan Krcmarik; Cam McNair; Dave Stringer; Diane Jones; Don Bachman; Matt
Baker; Paul Eckman; Steve Roy; Susan Joy
Susan Joy - Timberline SID and Sidehill DA
Page 1
From: Cam McNair
To: Alan Krcmarik; Brock Chapman, Dan Wenzinger; Dave Stringer; Don Bachman;
John Beauparlant; Matt Baker; Paul Eckman; Ron Phillips; Steve Maguire; Steve Roy, Susan Joy
Date: 10/23/03 5:14PM
Subject: Timberline SID and Sidehill DA
This message is intended to confirm a couple of meetings on Monday, October 27. The purpose of
these meetings is to insure that the remaining issues associated with the Petition and Waiver form and
other SID documents are settled. We will also take the opportunity to review the development agreement
for Sidehill and possibly the Agenda Item Summary for Council.
The first meeting Is for City staff only (no offense developers). It will be at 8:30 AM in the City Attorney's
office.
The second meeting will be open to everyone. It will be at 3:00 PM, also at the City Attorney's office (300
LaPorte Avenue). I have talked with Steve Maguire and Dan Wenzinger, and this time seems to work for
them.
Thanks everyone!
Cam
CC: Mary Donaldson
Susan Joy - Signature and SID Info
Page 1
From: "John Beauparlant" <jbeau parlantQamescolorado.com>
To: <sroy@fcgov.com>, <rphillips@fcgov.com>, <sjoy@fcgov.com>,
<mbaker@fcgov.com>
Date: 10/28/03 8:06AM
Subject: Signature and SID Info
Dear All,
I have attached information for the proper signature for the Johnsow
you can perhaps just paste it onto the end of the final version of the
Waiver and Petition.
Matt, I have your check ($1,875.00) and will get it delivered directly
to you in the next day or two. Steve and Ron, if you could get the
petition for signature to Gene Fischer, I will ask him to deliver it to
Steve after he obtains the signatures. 1 see no problem in getting that
done today or tomorrow. Susan, I will call you later today to discuss
the format and amounts of the LOCs and the status of the plans. You
should receive JR Engineering's resubmittal today, and should have
received Cityscape's last Friday. Please let me know if there is
anything else. We truly appreciate the efforts everyone has made.
Gene Fischer's telephone is 970-482-4710. His office is at 125 South
Howes, Suite 900.
John Beauparlant, AICP
Entitlement Manager
JamesCompany
a Division of TOUSA HOMES INC.
2919 Valmont Road, Suite 204
Boulder, Colorado 80301
Voice: 303-443-6666
Fax 303-443-6777
<mailto:jbeauparlant@tousa.com> jbeauparlant@tousa.com
Susan Joy- Re Fwd: Please review'10-28 RED Sldehill BaseDevelopmentAgreement'
Page 1
From: Basil Harridan
To: Susan Joy
Date: 10/29/03 4:55PM
Subject: Re Fwd: Please review'10-28 RED SidehillBaseDevelopmentAgreement'
Susan
Hope it is not too late...
I just noticed that the soil amendment paragraph fails to provide a number of permits,
Please change that to:
(I added the number 20)
Thanks,
Basil
Soil Amendment
In all areas associated with this Development that are to be landscaped or planted in accordance with the
Final Development Plan Documents, and do not require a building permit, the soils shall be loosened and
amended by the Developer in accordance with Section 3.8.21 of the Land Use Code prior to the issuance
of more than 20 building permits in this Development. Completion of soil amendments shall include
certification by the Developer that the work has been completed. This certification shall be submitted to
the City at least two (2) weeks prior to the date of issuance of additional building permits in this
Development.
>>> Susan Joy 10/28/03 04:25PM >>>
Last chance to review or forever hold your peace! :D
Susan Joy - Re: SideHill
Page 1
From: Cam McNair
To: Dave Stringer; Susan Joy; Troy Jones
Date: 11/3/03 5:38PM
Subject: Re: SideHill
Troy and Dave,
I did commit to doing the best we could on expediting the Sidehill final compliance review, and they did
make us aware of the Nov 14 closing date.
There are a number of variables involved, such as the Council resolution tomorrow night which would
initiate the SID process. Also the off -site easement on the McDowell property. If either of these is not
successful, then I think the Nov 14 date is no longer important. Also, as Dave states, there seems to be a
Catch-22 evolving concerning who can legally sign the DA and possibly other documents. But if Council
approves the resolution tomorrow night, and If the developer comes thru with that off -site easement, and it
the signature authorities are settled, then we need to do all we can to complete the final compliance
review and sign -off by the 14th.
It is my understanding from Mike Brake at JR Engineering that the final plans will be here tomorrow, and I
believe we have settled the questions on the DA language. Let me know if I need to be doing anything
else to keep this moving.
Thanks,
Cam
>>> "Dave Stringer" <DSTRINGER@fcgov.com> 11/03/03 05:06PM >>>
Troy, I don't know what is happening with this project. To many fingers
in the pie. I don't believe we agreed to any such expedited review.
They were supposed to get plans back to us to look at to make sure we
were ready for mylars as well as work on the D.A.. That is or soon will
be in their hands. In addition sidehill still needs the easement sign
off and owners sign off on the plat and DA ( if you haven't heard, they
are not the owners just the developers) before we will file anything.
John B was told this last week and has been working towards getting the
issues resolved.
Dave
>>> Troy Jones 11/03/03 1 >>>
Joe,
I'm not aware of this, however I'm willing to help in any way I can.
Such a committment doesn't really affect Planning much because most of
the remaining comments are Engineering related. Ten days sounds pretty
fast' You might check with Engineering to see who they spoke to and in
what context.
Troy
CC: Dave Stringer, Susan Joy, Cam McNair
>>> "Joe Carter" <joeRcityscapeud.com> 11/03/03 03:58PM >>>
Troy,
John Beauparlant at James Company said that the City (it might have
Susan Joy - Re: SideHill
Page 2
been Cam
McNair) had made a commitment to an expedited review of SideHill Filing
One.
Do you know anything about this? If so, do you know the timeframe that
was
agreed upon?
The team is pushing for a November 14th closing. We realize that there
are
still easement issues that are being worked out but we are confident
this
will be taken care of in the next 10 days
Thanks
PS — got your message on the plans for 7 Oaks and I sent Feet of
Fort
Collins to pick those plans up. Thank you for the call.
Joe Carter
Landscape Architect
Cityscape Urban Design
3555 Stanford Road, Ste. 105
Fort Collins, CO 80525
(970)226-4074 phone
(970) 226-4196 fax
ioe(d)citvscaoeud.com
CC: Matt Baker
The vertical alignment across the railroad tracks.
❖ The vertical alignment over the hill.
The horizontal alignment around the Farmhouse and how that relates to tying into
Timberline at the north end of the Mansion Park site.
Final Product
The deliverables to the City of Fort Collins will be:
l . Conceptual I lorizontal Control and Striping Plan for the entire area of study.
I Conceptual Centerline Plan and Profile from Drake Road north to the railroad tracks.
3. A Conceptual Report to suPPlcment the drawings discussing the issues and covering
any discussions between the City of Fort Collins and the Developer for future
reference.
Susan Joy - Comments on Proposed Developer Agreement for SideHill
Page 1
From: "John Beauparlant"<jbeauparlant@jamescolorado.com>
To: <sjoy@fcgov.com>, <cmcnair@fcgov.com>, <sroy@fcgov.com>,
<peckman@fcgov.com>
Date: 11/4/03 3:59PM
Subject: Comments on Proposed Developer Agreement for SideHill
Dear All,
I am attaching two annotated copies of the draft Developer Agreement for
SideHill. One of the copies includes elaborate comments from Catherine
Hance, our attorney with Davis, Graham & Stubbs. The other copy
includes my comments, which are much less complete and do not address
all the issues Catherine's comments touch upon. Many of her comments
are on the boilerplate items that have likely been used, as currently
written, for quite some time now, but she believes that some of those
provisions can and should be reworded to more accurately reflect the
intent of the particular paragraph or section. Many of her comments
also clarify certain referenced portions of the proposed Agreement in
order to reduce the potential for confusion.
My comments are more concerned with the major items addressed. For
example, reference is made in many locations to the approved documents
applicable to the project, but the actual names used are not consistent
with what we (and the City) have been calling these documents for all
these months The biggest concern I have is over the cost -sharing
wording for the 42-inch sewer in Drake Road and the fact that the City
is not agreeing to withhold building permits from whichever developer
does not construct this line in order to insure that the developer that
does construct it gets reimbursed. There should be a guaranteed
reimbursement associated with this item. 1 am also concerned that there
are two different deadlines being used for the completion of the
off -site storm drainage line addressed in Paragraph 2.C; the deadlines
should be the same for both single family and multi -family structures,
and the deadline should be "prior to Certificate of Occupancy," as that
is when there would be a new owner who would be subjected to the
then -existing condition of the surface drainage facilities. Another
issue I have is with the special provision pertaining to the grading.
Why is this special provision inserted?
My other comments are fairly mundane and self-explanatory. I will get
you the owner information as soon as we figure out exactly who is going
to be the owner at the time the Agreement is signed. I imagine you will
need updated title work to substantiate whatever names) will be used?
Also, is the Agreement signed prior to the plat, or vice versa? It will
possibly make a difference in the succession of ownership.
Catherine Hance would be happy to discuss her comments with you
directly, if you might want to include her suggestions. Her direct line
Susan Joy - Comments on Proposed Developer Agreement for SideHill
Page 2
is 303-892-7375. Feel free to call me if you have any questions or need
anything else. I assume the recently submitted Project Development Plan
and Utility Plans are under review, and I hope that JR Engineering and
Cityscape have made all the required changes. Mike Brake is intending
to get cost information submitted in the next day or two from which the
Letter of Credit amounts can be calculated. Please let me know if this
does not happen.
Again, we sincerely appreciate all the efforts being made by City staff.
I will look forward to receiving a revised Agreement.
John Beauparlant, AICP
Entitlement Manager
JamesCompany
a Division of TOUSA HOMES INC.
2919 Valmont Road, Suite 204
Boulder, Colorado 80301
Voice: 303-443-6666
Fax 303-443-6777
<mailto:jbeauparlant@tousa.com> jbeauparlant@tousa.com
Susan Joy - Comments on Proposed Developer Agreement for SideHill Page 1
From: "John Beauparlant"<jbeau parlant@jamescolorado.com>
To: <sjoy@fcgov.com>, <cmcnair@fcgov.com>, <sroy@fcgov.com>,
<peckman@fcgov.com>
Date: 11/4/03 3:59PM
Subject: Comments on Proposed Developer Agreement for SideHill
Dear All,
I am attaching two annotated copies of the draft Developer Agreement for
SideHill. One of the copies includes elaborate comments from Catherine
Hance, our attorney with Davis, Graham & Stubbs. The other copy
includes my comments, which are much less complete and do not address
all the issues Catherine's comments touch upon. Many of her comments
are on the boilerplate items that have likely been used, as currently
written, for quite some time now, but she believes that some of those
provisions can and should be reworded to more accurately reflect the
intent of the particular paragraph or section. Many of her comments
also clarify certain referenced portions of the proposed Agreement in
order to reduce the potential for confusion.
My comments are more concerned with the major items addressed. For
example, reference is made in many locations to the approved documents
applicable to the project, but the actual names used are not consistent
with what we (and the City) have been calling these documents for all
these months. The biggest concern I have is over the cost -sharing
wording for the 42-inch sewer in Drake Road and the fact that the City
is not agreeing to withhold building permits from whichever developer
does not construct this line in order to insure that the developer that
does construct it gets reimbursed. There should be a guaranteed
reimbursement associated with this item. I am also concerned that there
are two different deadlines being used for the completion of the
off -site storm drainage line addressed in Paragraph 2.C; the deadlines
should be the same for both single family and multi -family structures,
and the deadline should be "prior to Certificate of Occupancy," as that
is when there would be a new owner who would be subjected to the
then -existing condition of the surface drainage facilities. Another
issue I have is with the special provision pertaining to the grading.
Why is this special provision inserted?
My other comments are fairly mundane and self-explanatory. I will get
you the owner information as soon as we figure out exactly who is going
to be the owner at the time the Agreement is signed. I imagine you will
need updated title work to substantiate whatever name(s) will be used?
Also, is the Agreement signed prior to the plat, or vice versa? It will
possibly make a difference in the succession of ownership.
Catherine Hance would be happy to discuss her comments with you
directly, if you might want to include her suggestions. Her direct line
Susan Joy - Comments on Proposed Developer Agreement for SideHill Page 2
is 303-892-7375. Feel free to call me if you have any questions or need
anything else. I assume the recently submitted Project Development Plan
and Utility Plans are under review, and I hope that JR Engineering and
Cityscape have made all the required changes. Mike Brake is intending
to get cost information submitted in the next day or two from which the
Letter of Credit amounts can be calculated. Please let me know if this
does not happen.
Again, we sincerely appreciate all the efforts being made by City staff.
I will look forward to receiving a revised Agreement.
John Beauparlant, AICP
Entitlement Manager
JamesCompany
a Division of TOUSA HOMES INC.
2919 Valmont Road, Suite 204
Boulder, Colorado 80301
Voice: 303-443-6666
Fax 303-443-6777
<mailto:jbeau parlant@tousa.com> jbeauparlant@tousa.com
Susan Joy - SideHill Plat
Page 1
From:
Dave Stringer
To:
Paul Eckman
Date:
11/6/03 4:11 PM
Subject:
SideHill Plat
Paul,
A question has arisen from John Beauparlant, if the City would have a problem if Calvin Johnson (the
current owner of the Sidehill property) signs off on the plat mylar as owner, then the mylar is recorded and
shortly thereafter the holding companies purchase the property at the closing between the Johnson and
themselves. Then the holding companies would sign the D.A. as owners and the James Company sign
as developers.
I've checked with Planning and they do not have a problem with this, nor does Engineering, (Storm Water
has deferred to us). We (Engineering I will not sign the Final Development Plan Documents, (except the
Plat), the final signature, Cam's on the Civil Plans, the Development Agreement, Site and Landscape or
Development Construction Permit until such time as we have the storm sewer out fall easement dedicated
to the City.
Another issue with the easement is, I have heard that the land owner who will grant the off -site storm
water easement may want the easement in a location different then what is shown on the Sidehill plans as
currently proposed. If that is the case, I believe we can not sign the Sidehill plans as they are today since
there wouldn't be an easement for the storm sewer. Is that correct? I know this is confusing so it's
probably best if we could discuss this possible alternative as a show and tell.
Dave
CC: Cam McNair; Cameron Gloss; Glen Schlueter; Susan Joy; Troy Jones
Susan Joy - RE: Sidehill Engineering Cost Estimate as an Exhibit for the Development Agreement Page 1
From: Susan Joy
To: MBrake@JREngineering.com
Date: 11/6/03 5:28PM
Subject: RE: Sidehill Engineering Cost Estimate as an Exhibit for the Development Agreement
We inspect it so we need to collect the inspection fees on it, so yes, it does.
Any word on the revised subsurface report? I hate to be a nag about this but we really need to have it
ASAP if you plan on going with the design as is.
Susan
>>> <MBrake@JREngineering.com> 11/06/03 04:36PM >>>
Susan, does the subdrain need to be secured if it is a private line and not
public?
Mike
-----Original Message -----
From: Susan Joy fmailto:sioy(dfcgov.coml
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 4:34 PM
To: MBrake(a)JREngineering.com
Subject: Re: Sidehill Engineering Cost Estimate as an Exhibit for the
Development Agreement
Hi Mike. Unfortunately this estimate is not acceptable. It needs to be
in our format (the spreadsheet I sent you) and it needs to:
include the sub -drain system
include the off -site
and take out the gas and electric.
All the items that you need to cover are on the spreadsheet. Hopefully
its pretty self-explanatory but please call if you have any questions.
You can either talk to myself or Lance Newlin in inspection.
Thanks,
Susan
>>> <MBrake(a)JREngineerinq.com> 11/06/03 02:15PM >>>
Susan, attached you will find the engineering cost estimate to be used
for
securing the on -site public improvements, including the sanitary sewer
system supporting Filing 1 to be installed in future filings. This
estimate
is based on the current plan being reviewed for final compliance. If
you
should have any questions please do not hesitate to contact myself or
Jeff
Paulsen here at JR Engineering at 491-9888.
Thanks,
Susan Joy - RE: LOCs Page 1
From: Susan Joy
To: John Beauparlant
Date: 11 /6/03 11:24AM
Subject: RE: LOCs
Here is the document you requested. Some of the amounts of the LOCs are in the rough draft of the
Development Agreement currently in your possession. The remaining LOCs will be needed for your DCP
and no, we have not received the DCP estimates yet. Once received, we will need to review them against
the plans for their accuracy. At that point we will either approve the amounts submitted or provide the
engineer with corrections. You will need to provide the actual LOCs prior to the issuance of the DCP itself,
not before. For your convenience, I have attached the DCP brochure explaining that process in detail (a
copy of which was provided to your engineer yesterday).
Susan
ps... City offices are closed for Veteran's Day next Tuesday, the 11th of November. Please take that into
account when planning next week's schedule.
>>> "John Beauparlant" <jeauparlant@jamescolorado.com> 11/06/03 10:53AM >>>
Susan,
Can you send the LOC template attached as a Word document? We can send
them electronically to Florida. Are you going to give me the amount(s)
of the LOC(s)? Did Mike Brake get you everything you need? We
desperately need to initiate the LOC process if we hope to have them in
place before we close on the property.
John
-----Original Message -----
From: Susan Joy jmailto:sioy(a)fcgov.coml
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 9:27 AM
To: John Beauparlant
Cc: Cam McNair, Dave Stringer
Subject: LOCs
My records indicate that I faxed you the Letter of Credit and Bond
templates on the 31 st of October. Did your office not route them to
you? I can fax them again if you like. Please let me know.
I spoke with Mike Brake at JR Engineering yesterday and emailed him all
the information he requested. It was my understanding that I had
answered his questions to his satisfaction.
Please feel free to call me directly anytime you have a question
(970-221-6605). 1 am happy to assist.
Susan Joy
Development Review Engineer
CC: Dave Stringer
Susan Joy - Re: RR Permit O from Sidehill
Page 1
From: Mike Herzig
To: Cam McNair, Dave Stringer, Susan Joy
Date: 11 /7/03 1:43PM
Subject: Re: RR Permit O from Sidehill
Hi, Susan.
I am not aware of the railroad denying a crossing. They just have specific requirements for approving a
crossing, such as 1) everything has to be paid for by the owner, 2) the owner must maintain the facility; 3)
it must be done in away that causes no damage or risk for the railroad, 4) all fees are paid to the railroad,
and 5) insurance requirements of the railroad are met.
On the city applying for the permit vs the developer, I don't know if it matters. If I were the railroad, I would
prefer the city as providing more assurance that the facility will get maintained. It is okay for us to be a
party to the agreement and permit as long as the developer pays for everything and the ownership of the
crossing is taken over by the city following city acceptance.
I have not been involved in a pipe crossing permit from the railroad. So, I don't know if this is answering
your questions. I talked to Owen Randall in Utilities. He will send me a list of names for contacts with the
railroad.
Let me know if you want to talk more.
Mike
>>> Susan Joy 11/07/03 10:01AM >>>
Mike Brake with JR Engineering brought up a question on his client's behalf and I told him that I would
present it to "the group" for their answer.
Some background in a nutshell .... Sidehill's off -site drainage easement is currently shown on the south
side of the RR tracks. McDowell (the property owner) wants the easement moved to the north side of the
tracks. That would now involve a RR permit.
His question is .... If the off -site drainage easement is being dedicated to the City, would the City be more
comfortable in signing off the mylars BEFORE the RR permit has been obtained because "the City would
have a better (guaranteed) chance at getting the permit from the railroad while the developer may not?
Mike, the O for you is has the City ever been denied a below surface crossing before? Do you expect that
we will be denied on this one?
Please don't shoot the messenger :D I had to ask!
Susan
Susan Joy - DCP Application
Page 1
From: Susan Joy
To: jbeauparlant@jamescolorado.com; mbrake@jrengineering.com
Date: 11 /7/03 9:21 AM
Subject: DCP Application
Good Morning. I'm sending both of you the DCP application that will need to be filled out in order to
schedule the DCP. Typically the GC fills this out, but it could be filled out by either one of you as well. I've
also attached another copy of the DCP brochure outlining the process just in case one of you needs it
again.
The LOCs for the public infrastructure and the inspection fees are paid just prior to the issuance of the
DCP. They are NOT paid with the Development Agreement.
As always, please call if you have any questions.
Susan Joy
CC: Dave Stringer
Susan Joy - RE: SideHill Plat
Page 1
From: "John Beauparlant" <jeauparlant@jamescolorado.com>
To: "Susan Joy" <sjoy@fcgov.com>
Date: 11 /10/03 10:21 AM
Subject: RE: SideHill Plat
Susan,
Thanks for the info. By the way, you might want to word the note
pertaining to the responsibility to design and construct the Timberline
improvements to reflect the fact that the City has agreed to do this
(design and construct the roadway) in response to our agreeing to post
the $2.3 million bond, and that JamesCompany will not be responsible for
this design or construction whether or not the SID is actually formed.
This is detailed in Paragraph II.D.7 of the draft Development Agreement.
John
-----Original Message -----
From: Susan Joy (mailto:sjoy@fcgov.com]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 9:55 AM
To: John Beauparlant
Cc: Dave Stringer; Troy Jones; mbrake@jrengineering.com
Subject: Re: SideHill Plat
John,
I have received Technical Service's comments on the plat this morning
and there is still an open item remaining from the previous rounds of
review. I am copying Mike Brake in this email so that he has the info
he needs to make the corrections to the cover sheet as well as any other
sheet affected by their comment.
The comment is: Repeat comment. Legal does not close. Legal and
boundary do not match. See redlines.
This comment must be corrected before we will sign off on the plat. I
will enter the comment into DIMS so that it becomes part of the official
response packet to your submittal which is due on 11/12/03.
I will put the plat redlines on Current Planning's counter for JR
Engineering to pick up by 3pm today. The plat has one more person in
Technical Services that needs to look at it. Unfortunately they are
very short handed over there right now and that's the soonest he can get
to it. His review is for general formatting only and does not look at
the boundary description or legals. If he can get to it faster, I'll
call Mike Brake and let him know.
Mike Brake received the remaining issues from me on the utility plans
last Friday by email. I have not received Stormwater's comments as of
yet, but will forward them on as soon as I do. I've attached my
comments for your review.
We (being Engineering) are ready for mylars PROVIDED that the remaining
items are addressed. That includes the revised subsurface report and
the off -site easements (Mike, I revised comment #119 to exclude the
plat). I cannot speak for Stormwater at this point. As soon as I get
2-05-2003 11:24AM FROM CITYSCAPE 970 226 4196 P.2
Fe 05 03 10:21a
I
0
0
v
D
LLI
C)
'i
a
TO:
LO
o pRC
W
a uasa:
u.
SUBJBCT:
I
O
N
o,
4
n
m
MATTHEW J DELICH 970 ass 2061
t9MRABDDM
Jim Postle, The James Company
Eldon ward, Cityscape Urban Design
City of Fort Collins
Matt Delich _JD
February 5, 2003
Sidehill Development PDP Transportation Impact Study -
Geometry at the Drake/Timberline intersection
(File: 0260M£02)
This memorandum responds to a city staff comment concerning
the need for an exclusive westbound right -turn lane at the Drake/
Timberline intersection. The traffic analysis for the Johnson Farm
Property CDP is contained in the `Johnson Farm Property
Transportation Impact Study,- July 2001. In that study, the long
range (2020)'.future analysis at the subject intersection had the
following approach geometry on the east log or Drake Road: one left -
turn lane, two through lanes, and one right -turn lane. When this was
done, I was under the impression that this was the City's desired
geometry on this approach. However, subsequent information indicates
otherwise.
Since the above cited TIS was prepared, I have also prepared
the "Rigden Farm Commercial Transportation Impact Study," January
2002_ This TIS also contains a long range (2020) future analysis that
demonstrates acceptable operation with the following approach
geometry on the east leg of Drake Road: one left -turn lane, one
through lane, and one combined through/right-turn lane. In light of
this analysis, I recommend elimination of the exclusive westbound
right -turn lane at the Drake/Timberline intersection.
In addition to elimination of this right -turn lane based upon
operational criteria, I have come to learn that the curb and gutter
in this quadrant of the intersection have been built at their
ultimate location. The Fort Collins Light and Power Department has
located considerable utility infrastructure in the area where an
exclusive right -turn lane would have been. Given this practical
physical constraint and the demonstrated acceptable operation, it is
recommended that the exclusive westbound right -turn lane on Drake
Road approaching Timberline Road should be eliminated from
consideration by City staff.
p.2
Susan Joy - RE: SideHill Plat Page 2
their redlines we'll know where the utility plans stand from their
perspective.
With one minor exception, Engineering has no further comments on the
Site or Landscape plan. A note is now being required on the sheets
because the SID has been approved and this development is no longer
responsible for the design and construction of Timberline. The street
trees and sidewalk will now be constructed with the SID and become part
of your local street portion.
You would need to speak with your planner, Troy Jones, for any
additional comments he may have on any of the plan sets. I do not know
if he is ready for mylars. He and I will be meeting to talk about this
as soon as all the comments are in.
The Project Development Plan you inquired about is not a separate item
in and of itself, but rather a term that includes all the various plan
sets - Utility, Site, Landscape and Plat, so no, there will not be a PDP
plan to sign off other than the ones mentioned.
1 hope this answers your question to your satisfaction. If not, please
contact me by email or telephone and I'll get you the information you
need.
Susan
>>> "John Beauparlant"<jbeau parlant@jamescolorado.com> 11/10/03
08:57AM >>>
Susan,
I need to have JR Engineering make the mylars for the plat so we can
get
the Johnsons' signature and get it submitted for recording in the next
day or two. Are there any changes or corrections required on the
cover
sheet? We will change the signature to reflect the fact that there
are
two co -managers of Spring Creek Farm, and we will delete the
lien -holder
section, as there are no existing liens. Please let me know if
everything else on the cover sheet is OK. Thanks! Also, how is the
review of the rest of the documents coming? Are the Project
Development
Plan and Utility Plan also ready for signature?
John Beauparlant, AICP
Entitlement Manager
JamesCompany
a Division of TOUSA HOMES INC.
Susan Joy - Sidehill/ Rigden Farm 6th drainage easement Page 1
From: Dave Stringer
To: Cam McNair
Date: 11/17/03 3:05PM
Subject: Sidehill/ Rigden Farm 6th drainage easement
Cam,
This is for your information regarding the off -site easement that Sidehill needs to get their plans approved.
The Developer has hired Ron Mills to work with McDowell to try and obtain the easement through his
property To date they have not been totally successful, so they presented to Steve Roy a draft
Memorandum of Understanding, which states something to the effect that McDowell will grant a temporary
easement to the City_ However, no drainage facilities (the channel work) can constructed on the
McDowell property until April of 2005. In addition, it had language in it that the City would build a channel
which stormwater wants no part off.
The MOU is silent as it relates to the underground subdrain system, which causes me concern. Also,
stormwater has made the decision that they will not allow the subdrain system to be pumped into the
stormwater pond or piping. It must be a gravity system.
We (Sheri, Susan and 1), met with Stormwater, Steve and Kerrie this afternoon and found their proposal
unacceptable. The City will not accept the MOU. Steve will give the heads up to John should Mr.
Beauparlant decide to play that card. As it stands right now the City wants the easement in place prior to
signing off the civil plans, DA and etc..
Dave
CC: Glen Schlueter, Sheri Wamhoff; Susan Joy
Susan Joy - Re: Sidehill
Page 1
From:
Glen Schlueter
To:
Dave Stringer
Date:
11 /19/03 1:06PM
Subject:
Re: Sidehill
Great minds think alike, that is you consider John B. and Jim H. as having great minds. Jim stopped in
here late last night and said that while we were meeting with Paul he had discussions with Cam and
others about condemnation. The consensus was that condemnation should be pursued as soon as
possible. So John B. doesn't need to talk to Mike Smith, he can just start the procedure so we can take it
to council. Now if he wants financial assistance that is a different story. I'm don't think Jim will go for that
since it wasn't Stormwater that wanted the drainage to go this route. I know he is supportive of getting the
outfall and he really doesn't want it to go through McDowell's ponds. He wants a separate outfall all the
way to the River as in the design for Rigden.
>>> Dave Stringer 11/18/03 04:49PM >>>
Cam and all,
I just finished talking with John Beauparlant and informed him of the Clty's decision that we do need the
Storm Water easement form McDowell and we are not interested in the MOU as a substitute. He
understood and now realizes that the stormwater issue is a big deal. He indicated that they were again
trying to extend the closing date with the Johnson's in order to explore other alternatives. If the closing is
delayed then they will ask for a meeting with Mike Smith and others to discuss options including
condemnation.
He also stressed that if they can't get the extension they may just pull the plug on the project, but only as a
last resort, they still would like to proceed.
From our conversation It's clear more discussion may be taking place regarding the issues.
Also, Sheri, talked with Ron Mills and offered to send him our latest draft of the easement but Ron said he
would pick it up tomorrow when he meets with Basil and Matt on another issue.
Guess we'll stay tuned for now.
Dave
CC: Basil Hamdan; Paul Eckman, Susan Joy
Susan Joy - Re: Side Hill Underdrain
Page 1
From: Dave Stringer
To: Cam McNair; Jim Hibbard; Roger Buffington
Date: 11 /25/03 2:07PM
Subject: Re: Side Hill Underdrain
Following are my comments to the questions raised
>>> Roger Buffington 11/25/03 11:55AM >>>
I met with Mike Brake this morning and reviewed the possible options for the underdrain that we discussed
last week. The idea of having separate systems for the upper and lower portions of the overall
development seems to have merit. The developer has not made a decision on basements for the lower
area but at this point, wants to leave the option open. There will be 200+ living units in the lower area of
the development. A few questions that came up are:
1. Will Engineering allow the underdrain from the upper portion of Side Hill to daylight in a ditch adjacent
to the west side of the road that follows the sanitary sewer?
Answer: Before we can answer this question we need to know where the subsurface water will go as it
leaves the site. It needs to go into an existing drainage channel other then a borrow ditch, it can not
create an adverse effect on adjacent properties, such as flooding, creating marshy/bog areas or become a
nuisance. Of -site easements will need to be obtained so the drainage way can be maintained by the
HOA
2. Will the City allow a portion of the underdrain for the lower part of Side Hill to be installed now in the
sanitary sewer trench for future connection to a pump station? If so, should this pipe be solid wall or
perforated?
Answer: If the design is such that the system can outlet without creating an issue in the future I don't
know of any reason why it can not be installed at this time. The Ground Water Subdrain Analysis report
written by Anderson Consulting specifically discussing how the system should be built. I believe it states
that the piping should be perforated until Drake Road. However, the design engineer needs to verify what
is recommended in the report and work with the ground water engineer if they propose to change from
what is the recommendation.
Let us know your thoughts.
Thanks,
Roger Buffington
(970) 221-6854
rbuffington(ad)fcgov.com
CC: mbrake@jrengineering.com; Susan Joy
Susan Joy - RE Sidehill questions
Page 1
From: "John Beauparlant" <jeauparlant@jamescolorado.com>
To: "Dave Stringer" <DSTRINGER@fcgov.com>, "Paul Eckman"
</yECKMAN@fcgov.com>, <mbrake@jrengineering.com>
Date: 12/4/03 10:35AM
Subject: RE: Sidehill questions
Dave,
Thanks for the update. We will be happy to pay the $100,000 design fee
once the Development Agreement is signed by both us and the City. The
current wording required it to be paid within 30 days of the adoption of
the Council's resolution authorizing staff to proceed with the District,
that will not be possible. Please do forward the revised DA for review.
Thanksl
John
---Original Message -----
From: Dave Stringer [mailto:DSTRINGER@fcgov.comj
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 10:09 AM
To: Paul Eckman; John Beauparlant; mbrake@jrengineering.com
Cc: Don Bachman; Susan Joy
Subject. Sidehill questions
Good morning all,
I am responding to Paul's voice -mail asking about the status of the
Sidehill development. The quick answer is, not much has occurred for
several weeks. There are still outstanding issues which need to be
addressed not including the condemnation for the stormwater/subdrain
easement. The City has not asked for the mylars from the consultants,
due to the following outstanding issues.
1 What is happening with the subdrain out fall?
Roger Buffington met with Mike Brake of JR Engineering early last week
to discuss several alternatives to the subdrain system which will allow
for an outfall prior to the off -site channel being built. We have not
seen any redesign or heard anything more from JR Engineering. This
change when designed and approved will need to be shown on the mylars.
2. What is the final dollar amount for the letter of credit?
Susan worked with Mike Brake on getting this together. The latest that
was submitted from JR (some weeks ago) was incorrect. We are waiting
for JR to resubmit the revised spread sheet .
3. The Development Agreement will be revised to reflect whatever
changes are going to occur including subdrain/stormwater changes. If
the City goes forth with condemnation for the off -site channel the D.A.
will not be signed until the judge gives the City the authority for
possession.
4. Can Sidehill (John) get a copy of the revised D.A. (sent out before
Thanksgiving)?
Susan Joy - RESidehill questions Page 2
Yes.
5. Can the remaining process (DCP) be expedited so that when
everything is in order the project can commence?
Yes, All we need is the corrected spread sheet, the DCP application
form and hold a DCP meeting. However, we will not issue the Development
Construction Permit until the D. A. is signed, (as per item 3), the
letters of credit are posted, inspection and erosion control fees are
paid.
6. When does the 100 thousand need to be given to the City?
It is our desire to have the monies as soon as possible. However, no
later then 60 days after Council approved the SID resolution. Once the
City has the money we will contract out the design of Timberline Road.
Please contact Matt Baker for additional information. Matt can be
reached at (970) 221- 6108 or mbaker@fcgov.com.
7. 1 have also attached earlier e-mail's from Susan to John/Mike
basically relaying the same information as I've stated today.
Dave
CC: "Don Bachman" <DBachman@fcgov.com>, "Susan Joy" <sjoy@fcgov.com>
Susan Joy - RE: Side Hill Underdrain Page 1
From: <MBrake@JREngineering.com>
To: <DSTRINGER@fcgov.com>, <RBUFFINGTON@fcgov.com>
Date: 12/8/03 9:35AM
Subject: RE: Side Hill Underdrain
Thanks, see you then
Mike
---Original Message -----
From: Dave Stringer [mailto:DSTRINGER@fcgov.com]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 9:05 AM
To: Roger Buffington; MBrake@JREngineering.com
Cc: Cam McNair; Jim Hibbard, Susan Joy; jbeauparlant@jamescolorado.com
Subject: RE: Side Hill Underdrain
Good morning,
Thanks for responding so quickly. Looks like we are set to meet this
Wednesday December 10th at 1:30 here in the Engineering Conference
room at 281 N. College.
See you then
Dave
>>> Roger Buffington 12/07/03 12:51 PM >>>
I am available as follows:
Wed (12/10) - 1:00 to 5:00
Fri (12/12) - 9:30 to 11:30
Following week - After 3:00 Tuesday through Friday
Roger Buffington
(970)221-6854
rbuffington@fcgov.com
>>> <MBrake@JREngineering.com> 12/5/03 3:34:08 PM >>>
Thanks Dave, How about Tuesday at 4 pm, Wednesday 12 - 5 pm, Friday
930 -
11:30 or after 3 pm of next week?
Mike
-----Original Message -----
From: Dave Stringer [mailto:DSTRINGER@fcgov.com]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 3:21 PM
To: MBrake@JREngineering.com
Cc: Cam McNair; Jim Hibbard; Roger Buffington, Susan Joy;
jbeauparlant@jamescolorado.com
Subject: RE: Side Hill Underdrain
Mike,
Susan Joy - RE: Side Hill Underdrain
Page 2
Sorry Monday doesn't work for Cam or I. Maybe try for some other days
next week except Tuesday, Wednesday in the A.M., Thursday in the A.M.
and 1:00 to 2:00, and Friday from 12:00 to 3:00 Please be aware There
are other meetings that are in the process for filling these same time
slots as well. I also, believe Roger Buffington needs to be involved
as
well.
Dave
>>> <MBrake@JREngineering.com> 12/05/03 01:51 PM >>>
Dave, is it possible to set up a meeting with you and any other staff
that
you feel should be involved to go over our ideas on how to surface the
underdrain for the upper Filing 1 portion and to review on how the
drainage
will discharge offsite. I would like to shoot for Monday the 8th in
the
afternoon if that works for you. We should only need an hour or less.
Thanks,
Mike
JR Engineering, Inc.
Michael Brake, PE-PLS
Director of Operations
2620 E. Prospect Road, Suite 190
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
970-491-9888 Office
970-491-9984 Fax
970-217-4911 Cell
-----Original Message -----
From: Dave Stringer [mailto:DSTRINGER@fcgov.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 2:08 PM
To: Cam McNair; Jim Hibbard; Roger Buffington
Cc: Susan Joy; mbrake@jrengineering.com
Subject: Re: Side Hill Underdrain
Following are my comments to the questions raised
>>> Roger Buffington 11/25/03 11:55AM >>>
I met with Mike Brake this morning and reviewed the possible options
for the underdrain that we discussed last week. The idea of having
separate systems for the upper and lower portions of the overall
development seems to have merit. The developer has not made a
decision
on basements for the lower area but at this point, wants to leave the
option open. There will be 200+ living units in the lower area of the
development. A few questions that came up are:
Susan Joy - RE: Side Hill Underdrain Page 3
1. Will Engineering allow the underdrain from the upper portion of
Side Hill to daylight in a ditch adjacent to the west side of the road
that follows the sanitary sewer?
Answer: Before we can answer this question we need to know where the
subsurface water will go as it leaves the site. It needs to go into
an
existing drainage channel other then a borrow ditch, it can not create
an adverse effect on adjacent properties, such as flooding, creating
marshy/bog areas or become a nuisance. Of -site easements will need to
be obtained so the drainage way can be maintained by the HOA.
2. Will the City allow a portion of the underdrain for the lower part
of Side Hill to be installed now in the sanitary sewer trench for
future
connection to a pump station? If so, should this pipe be solid wall
or
perforated?
Answer: If the design is such that the system can outlet without
creating an issue in the future I don't know of any reason why it can
not be installed at this time. The Ground Water Subdrain Analysis
report written by Anderson Consulting specifically discussing how the
system should be built. I believe it states that the piping should be
perforated until Drake Road. However, the design engineer needs to
verify what is recommended in the report and work with the ground
water
engineer if they propose to change from what is the recommendation.
Let us know your thoughts.
Thanks,
Roger Buffington
(970)221-6854
rbuffington@fcgov.com
CC: <CMCNAIR@fcgov.com>, <JHIBBARD@fcgov.com>, <sjoy@fcgov.com>,
<jbeauparlant@jamescolorado.com>
Susan Joy - Sidehill Meeting 12-23-03
Page 1
From: Cam McNair
To: Dan Wenzinger; Dave Stringer; Don Bachman; John Beauparlant; Matt Baker; Mike
Brake
Date: 12/24/03 10:06A M
Subject: Sidehill Meeting 12-23-03
Purpose: to discuss issues related to the Sidehill development that need to be settled before transfer of
the $100,000 can occur to fund design of the Timberland, Drake to Prospect, road improvements.
Attendees: Dan Wenzinger, John Beauparlant, Jim Postle, Mike Brake, Don Bachman, Dave Stringer,
Matt Baker, Cam McNair.
Kev Discussion Points
- Storm drainage and groundwater discharge issues are still not totally resolved, and until such time
that these design issues can be considered solved, the developer is unwilling to fund the
Timberline -Prospect improvements.
--- The James Company has not yet closed on the acquisition of the Johnson property, and will not do so
until they are sure they can develop it all.
--- The James Company again requests language in the development agreement that allows for future
consideration of City reimbursement for the "SID improvements" if the SID is not approved by the City
Council.
--- In addition to the future Sharp Point Drive connection across the RR tracks, a recent requirement has
surfaced which involves extending a 42-inch sanitary sewer main across the RR tracks at Sharp Point.
The developer asks that the City assist in obtaining the necessary permits from the Great Western RR,
and we agreed to assist in that coordination. Also, since this sewer main also serves Rigden Farm, both
developments will have the same language in their development agreements regarding repays, depending
on which development goes first and builds the sewer main.
Please feel free to comment if you have anything to add or clarify on these minutes.
Cam
CC: Jim Hibbard; Mike Herzig; Paul Eckman; Ron Phillips; Susan Joy
Marc Virata Re trans_coord 2/6 Page 1
From: Susan Joy
To: Marc Virata
Date: 2/6103 9:31AM
Subject: Re: trans coord 2/6
Could you print this for me? Thanks very much!!
>>> Cam McNair 02/06/03 08:57AM >>>
Susan,
I believe I have made it known that my preference is to try to get dedicated right turn lanes at all
arterial -arterial intersections, on all approaches. I know that is not always possible, and there are probably
places where it is not necessary, but I believe those are the exceptions. The standard should include RT
lanes, and back off from that when justified.
In situations like that at Drake -Timberline where development is being planned, I believe we need to at
least get enough ROW and leave room for the RT lane to be built in the future. My preference would be to
go ahead and get it built with the development I imagine that when Matt built that intersection a couple of
years ago, he probably did not look at an ultimate design that would include this WB RT lane. I hope I'm
wrong about that, but we'll see.
In terms of who pays for it, that needs to be determined from the traffic analysis. It may need to be a
shared cost. Matt will protest, but that's just something he will have to accept.
Cam
>>> Susan Joy 02/06/03 08:40AM >>>
Good Morning! Do you have any strong feelings about the NB right turn lane from WB Drake at
Timberline? I'm almost wondering if we should wait until you arrive because there may or may not be a
huge disagreement among the departments. What do you think?
Thanks Cam!
Susan
>>> Cam McNair 02/06/03 06:21AM >>>
I am planning to go to the DMU display and presentation at 10:00, and I will try to get back for Trans
Coord by 11:00 or so.
Cam
Cam McNair, PE
City Engineer
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Phone: 970-221-6605
Fax: 970-221-6378
E-mail: cmcnair(cDfcgov.com
>>> Sheri Wamhoff 02/05/03 10:42 AM >>>
Here's the agenda for tomorrow. Let me know if there are any additional items.
AGENDA
Transportation Coordination Meeting - February 6, 2003
10:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M.
LOCATION 281 Conf B
Susan Joy - RE. Sidehill Meeting 12-23-03
Page 1
From: "John Beauparlant"<jbeau parlant@jamescolorado.com>
To: "Cam McNair" <CMCNAIR@fcgov.com>, "Don Bachman" <DBach man@fcgov.com>,
"Dave Stringer" <DSTRINGER@fcgov.com>, "Matt Baker" <MBAKER@fcgov.com>, "Dan Wenzinger
<dwenzinger@jamescolorado.com>
Date: 12/29/03 9:25AM
Subject: RE: Sidehill Meeting 12-23-03
Cam et al ,
Sounds pretty accurate to me. The only item of concern you did not
mention is the apparent desire on the part of the City to take another
look at the "valley wall' situation, after we had all thought it had
been resolved long ago.
Mike Brake called Dan and me on the way home from last Tuesday's meeting
to tell us that the stormwater issue has apparently been resolved. I am
going to contact Basil to see if he can get you the proper language to
insert into the Development Agreement so we can go ahead and release the
$100,000 Maybe one of you could also work on that, as I believe Cam
will not be in this week? I will probably call you, Paul, to discuss
Thanks!
John
-----Original Message -----
From Cam McNair [mailto:CMCNAIR@fcgov.comj
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 10:06 AM
To Don Bachman, Dave Stringer, Matt Baker; Dan Wenzinger; John
Beauparlant
Cc: Jim Hibbard, Mike Herzig, Ron Phillips, Susan Joy, Paul Eckman
Subject. Sidehill Meeting 12-23-03
Purpose to discuss issues related to the Sidehill development that
need to be settled before transfer of the $100,000 can occur to fund
design of the Timberland, Drake to Prospect, road improvements.
Attendees: Dan Wenzinger, John Beauparlant, Jim Postle, Mike Brake,
Don Bachman, Dave Stringer, Matt Baker, Cam McNair.
Key Discussion Points:
--- Storm drainage and groundwater discharge issues are still not
totally resolved, and until such time that these design issues can be
considered solved, the developer is unwilling to fund the
Timberline -Prospect improvements.
--- The James Company has not yet closed on the acquisition of the
Johnson property, and will not do so until they are sure they can
develop it all.
--- The James Company again requests language in the development
agreement that allows for future consideration of City reimbursement for
the "SID improvements" if the SID is not approved by the City Council.
--- In addition to the future Sharp Point Drive connection across
the RR tracks, a recent requirement has surfaced which involves
Susan Joy - RE: Sidehill Meeting 12-23 03 Page 2
extending a 42-inch sanitary sewer main across the RR tracks at Sharp
Point The developer asks that the City assist in obtaining the
necessary permits from the Great Western RR, and we agreed to assist in
that coordination Also, since this sewer main also serves Rigden Farm,
both developments will have the same language in their development
agreements regarding repays, depending on which development goes first
and builds the sewer main.
Please feel free to comment if you have anything to add or clarify on
these minutes.
Cam
CC: "Jim Hibbard" <JHIBBARD@fcgov.com>, "Mike Herzig" <MHERZIG@fcgov.com>, "Ron
Phillips" <rphillips@fcgov.com>, "Susan Joy" <sjoy@fcgov.com>, "Paul Eckman"
<W EC KMAN @fcgov. com>
Susan Joy - Revised Rigden 6th storm drainage language
Page 1
From:
Basil Hamdan
To:
Susan Joy
Date:
12/29/03 4:15PM
Subject:
Revised Rigden 6th storm drainage language
Susan,
As I mentioned in my email from this morning to John Beauparlant, I have revised the storm drainage
section to remove the obligation off the off -site channel from Sidehill Filing 1 and obligate them instead to
improvements on the Rigden 6th Filing spillway.
The version of the stormwater Development Agreement language that I worked off of may not reflect
subsequent changes that were done by you and Paul, but the main paragraphs that I changed in the first
one which now specifies how many single family permits are allowed prior to completion of the spillway
work and I removed the latter paragraphs referencing the off -site channel.
I know you and Paul may be out this week, and we need to have Paul to look at the draft language before
finalizing it, but I wanted to get my stuff done as soon as I could to give John some assurance that the
Sidehill First Filing can proceed without that easement in place in order for us in turn to be able to proceed
on the Timberline Road improvements design.
Thank you.
CC: Cam McNair: Dave Stringer, Paul Eckman
Susan Joy - Re: Fwd: SideHill Issues Page 1
From: Roger Buffington
To: Cam McNair, Cameron Gloss; Dave Stringer, Jim Hibbard, Matt Baker, Paul
Eckman, Susan Joy
Date: 12/31 /03 2A6PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: SideHill Issues
I agree with the concerns about making commitments for Filings 2 and 3 when we have not even seen
plans let alone signed mylars.
With regard to the development agreement, I have some revisions that I am working on. I plan to have
them completed by Monday at the latest. Basil and Glen are out until Monday, and I think they may also
have some changes
Roger
>>> Cam McNair 12/31/03 9:23:10 AM >>>
Hi Folks,
Here is the latest from John Beauparlant. I would like feedback from you all so that I can respond to his
requests.
I am a little skeptical about trying to make commitments in the Filing One DA concerning subsequent
filings Do we normally do that? I believe the Filing One DA should focus on Filing One. Is there some
other way to assure them that the solutions developed for Filings Two & Three will be acceptable when DA
time comes for those filings? Would a letter be sufficient? Maybe they need to organize this entire project
as a single filing with multiple phases - then all of the issues he mentioned can be addressed in one DA.
Cameron, can you help me with the valley wall question after you talk with Natural Resources? If
commitments were made during the ODP hearing, then we should not go back on those commitments
now.
Susan and/or Paul, if you have the latest version of the DA, with Basil's latest input, is it OK for me to
share that with John B ? If so, please forward a copy to me and I will send it with my reply to his e-mail.
Thanks everyone. Happy New Year!
Cam
Susan Joy - Re: Sidehill DA
Page 1
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Roger Buffington
Paul Eckman, Susan Joy
1 /5/04 2:51 PM
Re: Sidehill DA
The two water main projects were constructed at different times, hence, the different ENR dates for
purposes of calculating the inflation.
We have always worked directly with the railroad companies on permits. I am not aware if the PUC is
involved The engineer for Rigden 6th originally submitted the permit application to UPRR but learned that
the UP no longer has this track. I will find out the correct name to insert in the DA.
Roger
>>> Paul Eckman 1/5/04 1:43:14 PM >>>
Why use two different ENR publication dates? 1997 and 1989.
Also, isn't the RR Crossing permit really gotten from the PUC, in cooperation with the RR? And isn't the
RR really the UP, not Great Western?
>>> Roger Buffington 01/02/04 05:17PM >>>
Please replace A. and B under II. Special Conditions with the attached.
Thanks,
Roger
CC: Mary Donaldson
Susan Joy - Re SideHill Issues
Page 1
From:
Cam McNair
To:
John Beauparlant
Date:
1/8/04 8:32AM
Subject:
Re: SideHill Issues
John,
Dan Wenzinger called me yesterday to discuss these issues from your Dec. 30 message, and others. I
am having difficulty getting firm answers on all points, so let me share what I do have and also what Dan
and I discussed yesterday. I will also copy this message to other staff that has been working on some of
these issues, so that they can provide input or reaction as appropriate.
You received the latest version of the development agreement (DA) on Tuesday. That raised some more
questions from your company concerning utility reimbursements for two previous waterline projects on
Timberline and Drake. I believe you also had questions concerning the timing of the requirement for the
42-in sanitary sewer. I need to refer you to Roger Buffington or Jim Hibbard in Utility Services for answers
to those questions.
The "Valley Wall" issue is a Natural Resources Dept concern. I have asked Current Planning and Natural
Resources to provide a response to your questions on that issue. However, unless the valley wall is
impacted in Filing One of the development project, it will not be addressed in the Filing One DA.
In fact, I do not feel that we can agree to any requests to add commitments for future filings in the DA for
Filing One. The separate filings need to stand alone as independent projects, in terms of the utilities and
infrastructure design and development agreements. So the questions about underdrains and the valley
wall that are pertinent to future filings will need to be handled in the plans and DAs for those future filings
I believe we do have agreements in principle on most design questions, but a lot more work will be
necessary before those can be solidified in approved plans and DAs. If you want to back up and
re -submit the entire project as a single filing, then all of these design details can be solved and recorded in
a single set of documents The actual construction work could still proceed in multiple phases of a single
filing.
Finally, I am also having difficulty on the request to include additional language in the Filing One DA that
would allow City Council to reimburse the developer for APF improvements. I believe the City's position
on this, in accordance with our Land Use Code and its APF provisions, is clearly stated in II.D.3 - 7 of the
DA I just don't see how we can commit to more than this. But you are certainly welcome to elevate that
request to my superiors and/or to the City Attorney.
Unfortunately, it looks like sub -paragraph II.D.5. will need to be changed again since the 30 days for
payment of the $100,000 has now passed.
John, I wish I could provide quick and positive answers to all of your requests. As I told Dan yesterday, I
think it is important to the City for this project, and its associated public improvements, to proceed to
construction. I want to facilitate that effort, but many of these issues fall outside of my sphere of influence.
Let's both keep plugging away until the job is finished.
Cam
>>> "John Beauparlant" <jeauparlant@jamescolorado.com> 12/30/03 03:54PM >>>
Cam,
Dan Wenzinger and I just met with Jim Postle to discuss the future
SideHill filings and the issues we discussed at last week's meeting. We
still have a certain amount of trepidation with respect to some of these
Susan Joy - Re SideHill Issues
Page 2
issues, and we thought that perhaps they could be addressed in the
Filing 1 Development Agreement (DA) in such a way that we could rest
assured that the entire property, including Outlots A and B, can
ultimately be developed as contemplated.
In addition to our desire to include language that specifically permits
the City Council to provide reimbursement payments for the APF
Improvements through the SID and/or any other means available to the
City, there are two other pressing issues we would like to see addressed
in the DA. These are as follows:
The Valley Wall
We are concerned about the possibility that the City will require that
the Valley Wall be completely protected and preserved on the Johnson
property. If this should be the case, it would be impossible to develop
the balance of the property in such a way as to be economically
feasible. Since we will be purchasing the Johnson property in its
entirety, we are totally relying upon the ability to develop Outlots A &
B in accordance with the general layouts and density we have been
discussing for some time now. I believe it would be possible to address
this issue in the Developer Agreement by saying something to the effect
that Filing 2 & 3 development will not be unnecessarily restricted by
Valley Wall concerns but that we (the Developer) will preserve the
integrity of the Valley Wall to the extent possible. I don't have any
better suggestion than that. I am still not exactly sure just what this
Valley Wall really is.
Filings 2 & 3 Underdrains
Now that the stormwater issue has apparently been resolved (I spoke with
Basil Harridan about this yesterday), and the Box Elder Ditch board has
agreed to permit Filing 1 underdrain flows into that ditch, we can turn
our attention to Filings 2 & 3. The stormwater issue for Filings 2 & 3
has already been resolved, as those flows will be discharged into the
FCRID, in accordance with the approved Master Drainage Plan. The
underdrain issue, however, is not yet resolved It is my understanding
that the City would consider a lift station for the future development
areas. This appears to be the only sure way to get rid of the
underdrain flows, as running the underdrain pipe all the way out to the
Poudre River through the McDowell property was never all that appealing,
and the line could never daylight above the 100-year water surface
elevation anyhow. As I mentioned to Jim Hibbard, JamesCompany would be
happy to capitalize a maintenance and repair fund for a lift station in
order to provide assurance that it will be properly maintained. We can
also write provisions into the covenants for the future filings that
would provide additional assurances. It is extremely important to have
some sort of guarantee that the underdrains for the balance of the
property will be able to function properly, as groundwater is a serious
concern there. We therefore ask that the Developer Agreement for Filing
1 specifically authorize the use of a lift station for the Filings 2 & 3
underdrain system.
Susan Joy - Re SideHill Issues Page 3
Basil has agreed to provide the new wording for the Filing 1 stormwater
improvement requirements, which are to consist of the construction of
spillway erosion protection on the Rigden Pond. It is my understanding
that these improvements will have to be completed prior to the issuance
of any Certificates of Occupancy for more than 25 percent of the units
in Filing 1. If you could forward a revised Development Agreement,
incorporating the new stormwater wording and addressing the above two
items, I believe we will be in a position to deliver your $100,000
check. I hope we can get a revised DA to review early next week; I will
also be in on Friday.
Please call or email if you have any comments or questions or need any
additional information. Thanks so much!
John Beauparlant, AICP
Entitlement Manager
JamesCompany
a Division of TOUSA HOMES INC.
2919 Valmont Road, Suite 204
Boulder, Colorado 80301
Voice: 303-443-6666
Fax. 303-443-6777
<mailto:ibeau parlant(a)tousa.com> Ibeau parlant(a)tousa.com
CC: Cameron Gloss, Dave Stringer; Don Bachman; Doug Moore,
dwenzinger@jamescolorado.com; Jim Hibbard; John Stokes; jpostle@jamescolorado.com, Matt Baker,
"MBrake@JREngineering com".GWIA60.FC1 Paul Eckman; Roger Buffington; Ron Phillips, Steve
Roy, Susan Joy
Susan Joy - Re. Fwd: OFFICIAL Sidehill Development Agreement Page 1
From: Dave Stringer
To: Cam McNair; Susan Joy
Date: 1/8/04 8:42AM
Subject: Re Fwd: OFFICIAL Sidehill Development Agreement
Cam,
It's my belief that there is no such thing as late comments from Utilities, or any other City Department in
the DA drats. All of the DA's to date have been drafts, which means they are subject to change.
Changes made to drafts is a two way street, the City always reserves the right to make changes just as
the developer has the right to make any changes they desire. I guess it's my opinion that our revised
drafts are no different then when the Sidehill Developer desires to had additional language, such as what
they proposed at the end of December.
It's better to have changes during the draft stage then to go back later and try to amend the final.
>>> Cam McNair 01/07/04 05:52PM >>>
Thanks Susan. Dan Wenzinger of the James Company called me to talk about some of the provisions of
this latest version, and to complain about more late additions from Utilities, among other things. Let's talk
about this when you have a chance.
>>> Susan Joy 01/07/04 01:47PM >>>
Susan Joy - Re Fwd: SideHill Issues Page 1
From: Cam McNair
To: Doug Moore
Date: 1/8/04 9:57AM
Subject: Re: Fwd: SideHill Issues
Thanks Doug. At least this helps me understand the issue and where we are
>>> Doug Moore 01/08/04 09:17AM >>>
At this time I am unable to agree to relieve the 2nd & 3rd filings of obligation set forth in the Land Use
Code to protect the valley wall_ The James companies consulting teams (Downy Thorpe James and
Cityscape) have been aware of this issue though both the ODP process and the review of the first filing
There isn't a specific buffer standard called out for the valley wall. There is a buffer zone standard for
locations of geological sites of special interest (LUC 3.4.1 (E)) and the buffer zone performance standards
(LUC 3 4.1(E)((1)(f)) which specifically calls out the valley walls as existing site topography that projects
shall be designed to integrate with and otherwise preserve. In the ODP process the James Company's
did not want to resolve the valley wall issue in the ODP process but preferred to deal with the issues on a
case to case (filing to filing) bases, which the Natural Resources Department agreed to.
When the first filing enter the planning process it appeared not to involve the valley wall. During the
process an additional road connection was require which ended up bisecting the wall. NDR agreed with
the applicant to mitigated disturbance by having the applicant restore a part of the "highly" farm disturbed
section of the wall to a character similar to what would have occurred prior to the farm disturbance. The
applicant's consultant Joe Carter, with Cityscape, had asked to receive a letter agreeing to relieve them of
this obligation. We didn't not agree to or provide this letter because relieve from these requirements of the
code may require a modification from the Planning and Zoning Board. John Stokes and I have meet on
site and discussed possibly taking a similar approach with the 2 & 3 filings. Our next step is to determine
now these sections of code apply to these projects and how we will need to implement sections either
though preservation or mitigation.
Currently the only information that I have on the second and third filings is the concept plan presented at
conceptual review which shows the majority of the development occurring on sections of the wall that the
least amount of farm impacts and provide the best characteristics of the valley wall. 1 have not been
provided with grading plans, which would provide better insight in to the impacts. I have discussed
grading for the next to filings with Joe Carter and it sounds as though the grading will be heavily impacted.
I the past the James Company has been unwilling to link the resolution of the valley wall with all of the
projects because of they were considering selling off filing to others. If this has approach has changed it is
my preference to resolve the valley wall issue as a whole with filing two since impacts cause in filing one
have been resolved.
John and I have a meeting scheduled on Monday afternoon January 12th, the day he returns from his brief
medical leave He and I will try to reach a decision on the Departments' approach. I agree with your letter
back John Beauparlant stating that filing one is separate from filing one. Let's move forward with DA
language We will deal with valley wall issues with the next filings.
Thank you,
Doug Moore, ASLA
Environmental Planner
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
(970)224-6143
>>> Cam McNair 1/7/04 1:52:38 PM >>>
I still need to respond to this message concerning Sidehill. Can you please provide me some input on his
"Valley Wall" questions?
Thanks,