HomeMy WebLinkAboutBROOKFIELD - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2003-05-2811/02/1999 14:54 6943332 BROKERS NEST PAGE 01
8101 E_ Prentice Ave., Suite 815
Greenwood Village, Colorado 801 1 1
(303) 771-8854 - Fax (303) 694-3332
Chateau Development
Chateau Custom Builders
www.chatea ud evel opm ent com
Nov. 2, 1999
Ron Fuchs
Current Planning
281 North College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80552-0580
310 Lashley Street,#107
Longmont, CO 80501
(303) 774-04SS - Fax (303) 774-0435
Re: Brookfield - A. Portion of the OAP Which Includes H.P. and Kaplan
Dear Ron. -
As you know, our 43 acre tract is part of a larger plan that includes the H.P. and Kaplan
properties.
There are a number of questions that come to mind with regard to our property. They are
as follows:
1. There would be office, condo's and apartments. We would like to install the
infrastructure f)r these three areas and then sell them to an office developer, apartment
builder, etc. and let each of them process their own PDP and MY The attached sketches
indicate what we would install for the roads, sanitary sewer and water system. The
developers of the specific sites would install the remaining utilities that are necessary to
serve their sites. What is the process by which we would be able to install the
j infrastructure and leave the balance for the individual developers?
2_ We have prepared an agreement that H.P., Kaplan and Chateau will sign, which
erfumerates the responsibilities that cach party has with regard to the installation of the
public improvements relative to the ODP.7oes t e Ci7orBrookfield
be party to this
agreement?)3. Is there a way we can start the process on the before it is
annexed?
4. There is an existing ODP for the H.P. property. When we include our property
and the Kaplan property, should we do a master plan amendment or an amendment to the
ODP? Which one is faster?
' 5. Will the City be paying for the traffic light at Cambridge and Harmony Rd.?
Lf j& K t-r> V-71C )F�ZA4e-
�
Page 1
From: KothleenReovis
To: EricBnanke. Mark McCallum
Qmbm: Thu, Sep 7.3OOO 9:15AyW
Subject: Re: Brookfield T|8
Even though |have some issues with Matt'snport (for instance the evaluation area for aschool is one
mile not 1/4mile aeheindicates, plus | never promised hosend him the info
—hasays |—d/d)
| don't th
ink
henoedstnre-doit. |dobelieve that a2Omph school zone should baprovided nnCR3Salong with op
ed
signal in order to facilitate children walking/biking to school. We probably don't need the unoarpass(thnughitvou|dhavebeennice). |amconcerned that Katt'op ~ progression esn''----^'`rMhofuture
signals hothe east ofCambridge, but this isEhc'acall soI'll leave the acceptance cfthat uphohim.
am
>>> Mark McCallum O8/0G4:63PyWp>>
The nvanaU T|S for the Harmony Tech. Park Amended ODP was updated by MattOe|ioh with the
Brookfield project. vv
e��� |jun�onbedgetyourthoughtaonthePASSERana|ysisandthopedustrian/bike/
safe route to school analysis.
Mark
Am design amims
Memo
To: Mark McCallum
Peter Barnes
From: Ben Wieseman
CC: Steve Steele, David Berton, Kevin Crehan, Craig Kam
Date: 10/02/00
Re: Brookfield
Mark, Peter,
I just wanted to drop you a memo regarding the decision we came to the other
day on 10/01/00 regarding Brookfield driveways on private drives. Based on our
conversation we will be using driveway lengths of 18' and 8' only, behind garages, off
the private drive. These distances set wall to wall garage separations at 56' and 36',
across the private drives. We will be using Fort Collins standards when supplying
additional off street parking spaces, located separate from garages.
If you would please initial the memo and resend it too me for my records. Thank you.
• Page 1
a'd t'BBc-t'ES-EOE zgedoN jazsnN e90:GO 00 60 zoo
From: Mark McCallum
To: Cam McNair, Dave Stringer, Eric Bracke, Gayl-ene Rossiter, Kathleen Reavis, Marc Virata, Mark Jackson, Matt Baker, Mike
Herzigl... )
CC: Gary Diede, Ron Phillips
Date: Friday, October 06, 2000 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: Willow Brook ODP and Harmony Tech. ODP
This letter is over due, but nevertheless I would like to take a second to revisit the traffic signal and connectivity issues associated with Willow
Brook and Harmony Tech. ODP.
1. At the September 15, 2000 Transportation Coordination meeting Eric and Gary explained the City's position on the proposed signal at
Technology Parkway and the improvements to Harmony Road associated with HPs PDP. At the conclusion of that meeting it was decided that Eric
would write a letter to the John Fischbach, explaining for the record the signal and the associated improvements (i.e. 314 movement at Cambridge
Drive, and Harmony Road, curb & gutter and Sidewalk along Harmony Road; etc.). For informational purposes, has that letter been written?
2. It was anticipated that the aforementioned letter would precede a meeting between the City and COOT to discuss the signal and associate
improvements to Harmony Road. Has that meeting taken place?
3. The HP POP is still not showing any connection to Ziegler Road. Marc Virata is asking for a connection to Ziegler Road for recirculation as was
directed in a meeting with Tess Jones, Eric, Dave, Marc, and myself. Since that time, there has been a change in the City's position regarding the
signal at Technology Parkway. Therefore, do we still desire the connection to Ziegler Road if Technology Parkway is signalized?
4. The Developer for Willow Brook ODP and PDP, and Brookfield PDP (apart of the Harmony Tech. ODP) is seeking direction regarding two points of
access to their proposed developments, and the City's and CDOT's collective position on the specifics of those connections.
For information purposes, the initial CDOT and City position is that these developments shall provide a recirculation road to Ziegler Road to utilize the
available capacity at the intersection of Zielger Roadl Harmony Road. Our direction has been that the Developer connect Rock Creek Drive to Ziegler
Road. The Developer's of her access point has always been shown as Cambridge Drive. Obviously, it is important to have this discussion between
the City and CBOT prior to meeting with the Developer. After the City's meeting with CDOT, the Developer would like to participate in our
Transportation Coordination meeting to discuss the required connections.
Well, that is probably enough questions and information far a Friday afternoon. Please respond as appropriate
Thank you,
Mark McCallum
Transportation Services
Engineering Department
Citv of Fort Collins
November 6, 2000
Michael Bello
Hewlett Packard Company
3404 East Harmony Road
Fort Collins, CO 80528-9599
Lester Kaplan
1060 Sailors Reef
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Brad Bennett
Chateau Development Company
8101 E. Prentice Avenue, Suite 815
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
Exhibit 'A'
Sheet 1 of 3
SUBJECT: Street Improvements for the Hewlett Packard, Brookfield, & Willow Brook
Project Development Plans
Gentlemen:
This letter is intended to clarify the City's position on traffic and connectivity related issues
regarding the Hewlett-Packard and Brookfield project development plans within the Harmony
Technology overall development plan and the Willow Brook project development plan within
the Willow Brook overall development plan. The primary confusion for these projects is
defining their individual impacts as project development plans in the context that each will
contribute to the street network within the same mile section. Therefore, this letter will be
formatted to focus on the requirements that dictate certain street improvements for each
project development plan. Please note that CDOT approval is needed for many of the items
that the City supports below and that certain aspects of design have not been thoroughly
explored with this letter. Concerning the latter issue, the City is meeting with CDOT on
November 22, 2000 to discuss these issues with the intent of a coordinated response. The
street design issues should be discussed in more detail with the project engineer for each
project development plan.
Hewlett-Packard:
♦ The City is supportive of a traffic signal at the intersection of Technology Parkway and
Harmony Road with the first phase of Hewlett-Packard's new development.
♦ As a part of phase 1, the City will not require that Technology Parkway be extended
southward to Rock Creek Drive. In addition, the City will not require an east -west
connection from Technology Parkway to Ziegler Road. However, Technology Parkway will
need to be extended to the east -west connection mentioned below.
1.�,)tl( 5�() :. ��14P`� _L' ���-�� l)��fl) • <<i,ll� �_,-f�hl)i � ��� �,�1/tl) _...f-h i,ti
2 November 6, 2000
♦ The City will require that an east -west street connection be constructed between
Technology Parkway and Cambridge Drive.
♦ The City will require that Cambridge Drive adjacent to Hewlett-Packard's new development
be constructed for safety reasons with a % movement intersection at Harmony Road. The
movement will allow for eastbound and westbound left turns into Cambridge Drive and the
older Hewlett-Packard site, respectively. However, left -out movements will be restricted on
both sides of Harmony. In addition, Cambridge Drive will have to be fully constructed adjacent
to Hewlett-Packard site.
♦ All improvements to Harmony Road, as agreed upon with Celestica will be completed with
the connection of Technology Parkway to Harmony Road.
Brookfield:
♦ The main issue with Brookfield has always been providing at least two points of access
from the existing public street network with one of the connections providing an adequate
improvement to the city's Improved Arterial Street Network, as described in Section 3.3.2(F) of
the Land Use Code. As one connection, the City will require the connection of Rock Creek
Drive from the site to Ziegler Road. The basis for this decision is primarily in the interest of
providing adequate allocation of traffic to the full arterial network with the emphasis of not over
burdening Harmony Road. In addition to that connection, the City will support the connection
of Cambridge Drive from the site to Harmony Road. Ultimately, CDOT will have the final
authority regarding the connection of Cambridge Drive to Harmony Road. With the connection
of Cambridge Road', to Harmony Road, the City will require that the intersection be constructed
for safety reasons with a % movement intersection. The City would be receptive to other
connections provided that Rock Creek Drive is one of the connections. One alternative has
been Cinquefoil Lane. The City would support the connection of Cinquefoil Lane to Harmony
Road if Rock Creek Drive and Cambridge Drive were constructed first to Ziegler Road and
Harmony Road, respectively. In addition, the City agrees with CDOT that no waivers be
granted for the connection of Cinquefoil Lane at Harmony Road. This would mean full
construction of acceleration and deceleration lanes and any other related improvements,
including the correction of the sight distance problem at the Cinquefoil Lane/ Harmony Road
intersection.
Willow Brook:
♦ The main issue with Willow Brook has always been providing at least two points of access
from the public street network with one of the connections providing an adequate improvement
to the city's Improved Arterial Street Network, as described in Section 3.3.2(F) of the Land Use
Code. The difference between this project and Brookfield is the .t it has ,;oni ye on Kecther
Road. Therefore, the improvements necessary depend on the phasing for this project.
If the development begins construction on the north property line as was discussed in the
Willow Brook ODP Planning and Zoning Board meeting on September 21, 2000, the City will
require the connection of Rock Creek Drive to Ziegler Road to meet Section 3.3.2(F) of the
Land Use Code. The basis for this decision is primarily in the interest of providing adequate
allocation of traffic to the full arterial network with the emphasis of not over burdening Harmony
Road. The second point of access could either be provided through the development or with
the construction of Cambridge Road.
Sheet 2 of 3
November 6, 2000
If this development begins construction adjacent to Kechter Road, then it will have to construct
Kechter Road to Ziegler Road to meet Section 3.3.2(F) of the Land Use Code. In addition, the
two points of access to the development could be satisfied with an adequate phasing plan.
However, at some point, as this project develops to the north, Rock Creek Drive will have to be
constructed from the development's eastern property line to Ziegler Road to distribute the
traffic impacts generated from this development to the arterial network.
I hope this letter clarifies the City's position on traffic and connectivity related issues regarding
the Hewlett-Packard, Brookfield, and Willow Brook project development plans. If there are
questions, please direct them through the City's Development Review Engineer assigned to
your respective project.
Respectfully,
Ga�Diede
TOPS Director
City of Fort Collins
cc: Transportation Coordination Staff
file
Sheet 3 of 3
Transportation Services
Engineering Department
Facsimile
TRANSMITTAL
to: Elsie Winchester
fax #: 561 /732.3993
re: Cinquefoil Road/ Harmony Road Improvements
date: 1,16.01
pages: 3 (includes the cover sheet)
Comments:
Elsie —
Q: What is the existing right-of-way for Cinquefoil Road south of Harmony Road?
A: The existing right-of-way is 60 feet. The City has classified Cinquefoil Road as connector
street (see attached detail), which typically has a right-of-way section of 57 feet. However,
the City has required that developer for Willow Brook and Brookfield provide a right-of-way
of 69 feet, which basically adds two six foot bike lanes. At this time, the City has not
detE!rmined whether the potential development adjacent to your property will warrant the need
for on -street parking. Generally, the potential development either would have enough
existing right-of-way or will have to obtain a maximum of 4.5 feet from you to construct
Cinquefoil Road. In addition, the developer may need to acquire construction easements
from you to tie-in grades. The City will not know until we review a construction plan for
Cinquefoil Road.
Q: How does the construction of Cinquefoil Road effect your property?
A: It is difficult for the City to speculate as to how the construction of Cinquefoil Road will
effect your property. Again, it appears that most of the work can be done in the existing right-
of-way, except for in the case of the additional 4.5 feet of right-of-way. The City will have to
review a design before we will have any additional comments.
Q: What will be the right-of-way dedication requirement for Harmony Road?
A: With the addition of an acceleration lane, the necessary right-of-way that the developer
will have to obtain from you is approximately 8 feet. Before that number of feet is set in
stone, I suggest waiting to see a proposed design from the developer. In addition, a few
additional feet will more than likely be needed for a construction easement to tie-in grades.
Q: How will the construction on Harmony Road effect your access and billboard sign?
A: The City does not have authority over the access. I recommend that you contact CDOT
to determine if the potential change would negatively effect you. My thought is that the
access points would be allowed to remain unless you ever did a development on your
property. On the other hand, Harmony Road at this location is a major street and CDOT may
look at this as an opportunity to create a safer access situation. Please contact Tess Jones,
CDOT Region 4 at 970/350.2198 if you have additional questions at this time. The City
meets with CDOT on February 15, 2001. 1 will try to answer this question at that time.
The sign is another issue. Is it a permitted sign? Is it in the existing right-of-way or on private
property? If the sign is on private property, it is permitted, and the developer constructing the
acceleration lane has to move it, then it would be at the expense of the developer. The other
scenarios will have to be explored if they exist. I will try to discuss this with Tess Jones,
CDOT Region 4 at the next meeting.
I COUld send you additional documents at a small expense to you. After reviewing them, I
was not sure they would be of much use. Let me know. In addition, I would recommend that
you request any design information from the developers' effecting your property. Please
know that the City would not approve a street design for Cinquefoil Road or Harmony Road
without the developer obtaining dedications for rights -of -way and easements from you.
I hope this helped to answer your questions. If you have additional questions in the future,
I would be happy to answer them.
Mark.
The information contained in this facsimile is confidential and
intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which this
cover sheet is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible to deliver
it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that use,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, please immediately notify the transmitter by telephone.
From the desk of...
Mark McCallum
Civil Engineer 1
City of Fort Collins Engineering Department
281 North College Avenue, P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
9701221.6605
Fax: 970/221.6378
Transportation Services
Engineering Department
City of Fort Collins
January 26, 2001
Brad Bennett
8101 E. Prentice Ave., Suite 815
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
(303) 771-8854
SUBJECT. Street Improvements for Rock Creek Drive from Cambridge Drive to Ziegler
Road
Mr. Bennett:
In order to facilitate proper traffic circulation and utilization of the existing arterial street system
(Ziegler Road), Rock Creek Drive shall be constructed from the Willow Brook and Brookfield
development boundaries to Ziegler Road. Further explanation of this decision can be
referenced in the November 6, 2000 letter from Gary Diede, TOPS Director, City of Fort Collins
(see Exhibit 'A').
The City does not participate in the acquisition of right-of-way for development purposes.
Therefore, the intent of this letter is to notify you that right-of-way will have to be acquired and
dedicated from the Webster family and Hewlett-Packard in order to facilitate the connection of
Rock Creek Drive to Ziegler Road.
The City has reviewed design alternatives by TST, Inc, consulting engineer, and have
determined the limits of the right-of-way acquisition needed to facilitate the construction and
alignment of Rock Creek Drive from Cambridge Drive to Ziegler Road. In order to provide
adequate transitions to ensure vehicle safety, the design will have an expanded right-of-way for
approximately 640 feet from the Rock Creek Drive/ Ziegler Road intersection (see Exhibit 'B').
At the end of the transition, the City shall require that a Collector Street without parking,
straddling the quarter section line (or property lines) be designed and constructed to City
standards, as shown in Exhibit 'C'. As an interim, the City will allow Rock Creek Drive to be
constructed to the cross-section shown in Exhibit 'D'.
This has been a culmination of events and
h 1 �aG that this will assist you in ac-uiring
Please let us know if you have any questions
Respectfully,
*����
Mark McCallum
Civil Engineer 1
cc: file
Ted Shepard, Current Plannuing
efforts by both the City and your team. The City
the needed righ:s-of-way for Rock Creek Drive.
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6605 • FAX (970) 221-6378
www.ci.fort-collins.co.us
9-20-2001 2:19AM FROM
P_ 2
8101 E. Prentice Ave., Suite 815
Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111
(303) 771-8854 • Fax (303) 694-3332
Chateau Development
Chateau Custom Builders
www.chateaudevelvpment.com
September 11, 2001
Les Kaplan
Imago Enterprises, Inc_
140 Palmer Rd.
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Re: Brookfield ]Right -of -Way and Easement Dedication
Dear Les;
310 Lashley Street, # 107
Longmont, CO 80501
(303) 774-0455 • Fax (303) 774-0435
A number of rights -of -way and easements, descriptions of which I have sent you, are
required for the development of our Brookfield project.
Please indicate your willingness to negotiate the dedication of these items by signing
below.
I will send the deeds of dedication to you shortly for your signature.
Approved: r ems'
Les Kaplan, Imago Enterprises, Inc,
Sincer y;
'. ? JJQ���
Thomas A. Iskiyan
Land Development Construction
Manager
1/02/1999 14:54 6943332 BROKERS NEST PAGE 02
I will call you to discuss.
Thanks for your help.
Sincerely
Thomas A Iskiyan
Land Development Construction
Manager
G
ANdERSON CONSU[TINCI ENGINEERS, INC
Civil • Water Resources • Environmental
October 24, 2001
Ms. Shar Shadowen, P.E.
TST, Inc.
748 Whalers Way, Building D
Fort Collins, CO 8052.5
Re: Analysis of the Ground Water Subdrain for the Brookfield Planned Unit Development (COTST52-1)
Dear Shar:
Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc. (ACE) has reviewed the problems and concerns identified by the City of
Fort Collins in their September 26, 2001 letter with regard to the ground water underdrain designed for the
Brookfield Subdivision. Specifically, ACE reviewed and analyzed the City's question about the size of
underdrain pipe changing from 10" to 8" and the effect of separating the two underdrains and insuring that the
proposed basements in the Brookfield subdivision are not submerged at the new outfall location and elevation.
No additional modeling was needed to answer these questions. Referring to the revised groundwater report
dated May 8, 2001; the total ground water underflow captured by the underdrain system for the combined
subdivisions was 82 gpm. The revised or separated underdrain system for the Brookfield subdivision is
designed at essentially the same elevations and in the same locations as in the previous model, therefore the
intercepted ground water flow will not be greater than that modeled in the revised May 8, 2001 simulation.
The 82 gpm can be easily carried in an 8" PVC pipe at grades as low as 0.001 ft/ft, which is the flattest of any
in the design; therefore, the flows in the separated system can also be carried in an 8" pipe.
Referring to sheet 49 of the Willow Brook subdivision plan, the 100-year hydraulic grade line (HGL) in the
storm water pipe where the underdrain system for Brookfield is designed to discharge is at 4882.5 feet. As
long as the basement ;foundations are above this HGL then the surcharge in the underdrain pipe should not
impact the foundations. Reviewing the Brookfield Plat, the nearest lot planned with a basement to the
underdrain outfall, and hence the building with the lowest elevation basement, is Lot 48 on Rock Creek Drive
with a basement designed at 4894.8 feet, well above the 100-year HGL. It was assumed that the individual lot
underdrains for these units along Rock Creek Drive would tie into the non -perforated pipe of the perimeter
drain system buried in Rock Creek Drive. All basements in the Brookfield subdivision shoulld be constructed
above elevation 4883 feet.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
S
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
;olin F' Scdtt, P.E.
Project Manager
JFS:tlt
Enclosures
T:\OPEN\Cotst52\cotst52-1 report -rev ltr l.doc
Wednesday, October 24, 2001
2900 South College Avenue, Suite 3B • Fort Collins, CO • 80525
Phone: (970) 226-0120 • Fax: (970) 226-0121 • E-mail: mail@acewater.com
OCT-30-2001 10:06 FROM:C:HATEAU
3037740435 TO:9702216378 P.002
0
.a
�o
it
MR
IJD
K,
c
M
October 25, 2001
Steve A. Steele
Chateau
310 Lashley Street, Suite 107
Longmont, Colorado 80501
Dear Steve:
In response to your request for a 15-foot utility easerrnent for the purpose of installing and
maintaining a subdrain utility line for your development, Village IIomes is willing to express our
intent to grant said casement, provided that the granting of said easement does not prevent us
from developing Parcel E to its full development use. Therefore, the granting of the easement
will be conditioned on a final site plan for Parcel l✓ that will be designed for and approved by
Village .H.omcs. In addition, Village Homes will not grant said easement until we agree on
easement language and compensation for said casement, which shall be negotiated at a later date.
It is my opinion, this letter satisfies the City of Tort Collins requirement for a letter of intent
before a public hearing. Any corrections or clarifications that the City may require should be
directed to Peter Benson (303-776-3510) or myself (303-776-4196).
Sincerely
Mar um'' —
Planning ..anabcr
CC: rile
8101 E. Prentice Ave., Suite 815
Greenwood Village, Colorado 801 1 1
(303) 771-8854 • Fax (3.03) 694-3332
Chateau Development
Chateau Custom Builders
www.chateaudevelopment.com
November 13, 2001
Marc Virata
Engineering Dept.
281 North College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Re: Brookfield Easements
Dear Marc:
310 Lashley Street, # 107
Longmont, CO 80501
(303) 774-0455 • Fax (303) 774-0435
Attached you will find most of the required easements for Brookfield. The ones that are
still outstanding are: (see highlighted easement exhibit)
Subdrain Easement:
We are obtaining this easement from Village Homes and expect to have it shortly.
Utility Easement:
Les Kaplan has issued this easement, but the dedication did not get notarized. Les is
getting it notarized and will have it to me shortly.
Temporary Waterline Easement:
It was recently determined by Jeff Hill, that we would have to reroute the waterline to
avoid getting it in too close proximity to the existing barns. The necessary easement
exhibits are being prepared. Once they are signed I will forward them to you.
I thought it would be advisable to get the easements to you that we currently have so that
you could begin your review. I will follow up soon with the above remaining easements.
Sincerely,
Ili �.,,�► C � I-ILI
~Thomas A. Iski} yan
Land Development Construction
Manager
12/11/2001 16:19 6943332 BROKERS WEST PAGE 01
M MORA"UM
December 11, 2001
To: Marc Virata
Fort Collins Engineering Dept.
From; Alan Kirkhope i''�;Ix
Re: Brookfield Development Agreement.
cve o er: South Harmony, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company
Owner: Electric Equipment and Engineering Co. Employee Profit Sharing Trust
1. Add to the first WHEREAS Paragraph -
"WHEREAS, the Developer is the owner of a portion of that certain real
property..."
2. Immediately following the legal description. add -
"WHEREAS, the Developer has entered into an agreement with the Owner to
acquire the ownership of the remaining portion of the above described real
property; and„
3. Addresses for notice -
Developer: South. Harmony, LLC
8101 E. Prentice Ave,
Suite 8IS
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
Attn: Alan Kirkhope
Owner: Electric Equipment and Engineering Co.
Employee Profit Sharing Trust
c/o Thomas J. Morroni, Trustee
P.O. Box 16383
Denver, CO 80216
With a copy to: Robert F. Fiori, Esq.
3300 E. First Ave., Suite 600
Denver, CO 80206-5809
Marc Virata - Brookfield DA Page 1
From: Marc Virata
To: Paul Eckman
Date: Thu, Dec 20, 2001 4:06 PM
Subject: Brookfield DA
Paul,
Another (and final) question was raised by the developers/owners of the Brookfield project with regards to
the DA. This is specifically with regards to our standard language in "III. Miscellaneous". Paragraph P is
added when the Developer and the Owner are not the same entity. Is the proposed change below okay
with you? They should be set to finally sign after this change.
Thanks!
Marc
Original:
P. The Owner is made a party to this Agreement solely for the purpose of subjecting the Property to the
covenants contained in this Agreement. The City and the Developer expressly acknowledge and agree
that the Owner shall rot be liable for any obligations of the Developer under this Agreement, unless the
Owner were to exercise any of the rights of the Developer in which event the obligations of the Developer
shall become those of the Owner.
Proposed:
P. The Owner is made a party to this Agreement solely for the purpose of subjecting the Property to the
covenants contained in this Agreement. The City and the Developer expressly acknowledge and agree
that the Owner shall riot be liable for any obligations of the Developer under this Agreement, unless the
Owner were to exercise any of the rights of the Developer to undertake any of the development activities
in this Agreement, in which event the obligations of the Developer shall become those of the Owner.
12/20/2661 16:28 6943332 BROKERS WEST PAGE 61
FAX Memorandum
December 20, 2001
To: Marc Virata
Engineering Department
City of Fort Collins
Fax # 970-221-6378
From: Alan Kirkhope
Chateau Development
]Phone # 303-773-3666 ext.13
Re: ]Brookfield Development Agreement -
Marc -
The Owner of the second parcel of land within the Brookfield Subdivision has reviewed
the Development Agreement, and is requesting one change to Section P. I have
reproduced that Section below. The proposed modification to that Section is set forth in
underlined, bold type. Please let me know if you think this modification will be a
problem.
Thank you for your ongoing courtesy and cooperation regarding this .matter.
"P. The Owner is made a party to this Agreement solely for the purpose Of
subjecting the Property to the covenants contained in this Agreement. The City and
the Developer expressly acknowledge and agree that the Owner shall not be liable
for any obligations of the Developer under this Agreement, unless the Owner were
to exercise any of the rights of the Developer to undertake any of the
development activities described in this Agreement, in which event the
obligations of the Developer shall become those of the Owner."
8101 E. Prentice Ave., Suite 815
Greenwood Village, Colorado 801 1 1
(303) 771-8854 • Fax (3.03) 694-3332
Chateau Development
Chateau Custom Builders
www.chateaudevelopment.com
February 18, 2002
Marc Virata — Civil Eng.
Engineering Dept.
281 North College Ave.
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
310 Lashley Street, # 107
Longmont, CO 80501
(303) 774-0455 • Fax (303) 774-0435
Re: Brookfield and Cambridge Ave. Development Construction Permit Application
Dear Marc,
Attached is the DCP application for Cambridge Ave. improvements and the Brookfield
development improvements. I have prepared a separate cost estimate for each area, with
the associated construction inspection fees for each.
In addition to the DCP application and cost estimates, you will find:
• Traffic control plan for Cambridge Ave. improvements
• Traffic control plan for Brookfield improvements
• Construction schedules for Cambridge Ave. and Brookfield
• $300 application fee
Our bank is working with us to secure a performance guarantee for the above referenced
improvements. 'We should have the surety in hand prior to our 2/27/02 preconstruction
meeting.
If you have any questions, please call me at (303) 771-8854, ext. 15.
SincQ e].,
Thomas A. Iskiyan/
Land Development Construction
Manager
Sent By: ACESS DATA CONSULTING CORP.; 303 770 2811; Apr-4-02 10:47; Page 1
TEA U DETVELOPMENT COMA
8101 E. PRENTICE AVL STE #815
ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111
(303) 771-8854 Ext. 15
Fax 694-3332
E-mail: T.iskiyan*,Chateaudevielopment.com
MEMORANDUM:
DATE: 4/4/02
TO: MATT BAKER
FROM: TOM ISKIYAN
RE: BtROOKFIELD COST ESTIMATE - PREPARED FOR
THE DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT
After the City reviewed my cost estimate, the instructions I received
from Marc Virata were as follows.
The inspection fee amount that I had calculated was correct - $30,883.80
However, the infrastructure calculation needed to be revised from my
calculation of $743,932.8.5 to the corrected amount of $7191008.11.
I in order to update my cost estimate, I need to know how the new
infrastructure number was arrived at. Also, if the infrastructure
number was changed, why wasn't the inspection fee amount changed?
To tell you what 1 know about it, so as to help you reconstruct the City's
changes, the first sheet headed "Phase 1 Sanitary Sewer", was
determined to be District sewer, so it did not apply. So ends my
knowledge.
Thanks for your help.
8101 E. Prentice Ave., Suite 815
Greenwood Village, Colorado 801 1 1
(303) 771-8854 • Fax (303) 694-3332
Chateau Development
Chateau Custom Builders
www.chateaudevelopmentcom
September 9, 2002
Marc Virata
Engineering Dept.
281 North College Ave.
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Re: Cambridge Ave. — Storm Sewer Bond Refund
Dear Marc-,
310 Lashley Street,#107
Longmont, CO 80501
(303) 774-0455 • Fax (303) 774-0435
The storm sewer that had originally been planned for installation in Cambridge Ave.,
from Rock Creek Dr. to Harmony Rd., will not be constructed. We would like to get a
refund from the bonding company for that portion of the bond premium that is
attributable to the storm sewer improvements.
The bonding company has already agreed to refund $1,953.00.
The construction cost of the storm sewer is $122,027.05, as shown on the attached
"Project Quantities and Cost Estimate Sheet".
It is my understanding from your email dated 8/30/02, that the City will send a request to
the bonding company to reduce the bond.
Please let me know if there is anything else I need to do.
Thomas A. Iskiyan
V
Land Development Construction
Manager
Cc: Rita Willaims
July 25, 2003
Mr. Mark Virata
City Of Fort Collins
Engineering Department
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, Co 80522-0580
Re: Brookfield Record Drawings
Utility Plans
Project No. 0788-074.1
Dear Mr. Virata:
Please find enclosed Record Drawings for the Brookfield Utility Plans, phase one. Record drawing
plans have been provided on mylar and show approval signatures in the signature blocks. The
City requested that the South Fort Collins Sanitary District "sign -off' or "initial" the Overall Utility
Plan Record Drawings prior to their return to the City. However, the SFCSD has chosen to not
provide their "initials" on these plans.
Please contact me should you have any questions or require further information.
Sincerely,
TST, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Heather E. McDowell
HEM/sjk
Enclosures
TST, INC. 758 N'halcrs Way - Building 1)
Consulting Engineers Fort Collins, CU 80525
(Y70) 226-0557
Metro 1303) 595-9103
Fax (970) 226-0204
Email info(11lslinc.com
NN'"AstinCfon)
2/1999 14:54 6943332 BROKERS WEST PaGE 03
00
44
STREETS �, \ ` �'\�� I V `l.\\,
� // •. �t ,\,I,il�t`1�}\}al'F��11111rIi 1 � �ItI
\ _i
Jam•, ' \ / ` ` ! � } l }�' � ltt }} \il}` I} } I I
\'tV
I } V A ,A A
I
/ \ 1
2/1999 14:54 6943332 BROKERS WEST PAGE 04
I
r
SANITARY SEWED\\
i
i
i
I
s
ape•
;2i1999 14:54 6943332 BROKERS WEST PAGE 05
Ilk 1
WATERLINE
1 ( r \ \\1 a ,1 11 l l IIlk t
V
1 t � 11 �.
/
i I
/
/ �SG,4LL,• / � 2vo � /
Transpor, -ion Services
Engineering Department
City of Fort Collins
April 27, 2000
Tom Iskiyan
Chateau Development Company
8101 E. Prentice Avenue, Suite 815
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
Re: Willowbrook CDP --- Meeting Notes from Thursday, April 20, 2000
Dear Tom:
Below are the meeting notes for Willowbrook CDP meeting held Thursday, April 20, 2000
(Attendance: Matt Delich, Kathleen Reavis, Eric Bracke, Pete Wray, Shar Shadowen, Basil
Hamdan, Tom Iskiyan, Brad Bennet, Ben Wieseman Mark McCallum).
1. The status of a signal at the intersection of Cambridge Drive and Harmony Road (State Hwy.
68):
Responses:
♦ Matt Dellich is in the process of revising the traffic study, which was a request from Eric
Bracke and Kathleen Reavis. The traffic study, the State Hwy. 68 access plan, and
CDOT input will all determine if a signal at Cambridge will be allowed.
♦ Cinquefoil will have to be analyzed as to whether it needs to be classified as a collector
near Harmony Rd. Currently, traffic volumes would suggest it be upgraded.
♦ Matt Delich is to do a link volume analysis for Cinquefoil, Cambridge, Rock Creek,
Technology Parkway, and the east/ west connector.
2. Connectivity questions:
Responses:
♦ Pete Wray and I asked that they submit an alternative compliance to the northern
boundary.
♦ The applicant has an alternative compliance prepared for County Road 36 and the eastern
boundary, which will be included in the next submittal.
3. Stormwater questions:
Responses:
♦ The issue with Stormwater is how to get the drainage to Fossil Creek Inlet ditch. Basil
made some suggestion and the applicant will provide the design with PDP submittal.
�hI \orth C��llc,;r ��c nuf f O. Fiox - • Fort Collins, CO 80522-( 580 • (97[l} 221-hh(l� •FAX (�t7O) 221 h;78
�ti-�,\-�1-.ci.tort-collins.co.us
4. Street width question for the connector streets:
Responses:
♦ After discussions with Eric Bracke and Kathleen Reavis, it was decided that Cinquefoil
Lane be designed with an 8-foot parking/ 6-foot bike lane combination, as opposed to the
1 1-foot shared due to the estimated traffic numbers and the safe route to school issue.
(Please note that this comment is for the Willowbrook ODP. The City will expect that at
a minimUun the same cross section is provided north to Harmony Road, but will have to
defer a decision on the final cross section until the new traffic study is submitted.) In
regard to the east/west connector, it would be our preference that it be designed with an
8-foot parking/ 6-foot bike lane combination.
5. Safe route to school and general pedestrian questions
Responses:
♦ Matt Del ich shall do anew analysis, which should look at a variety of alternatives
(including a grade -separated crossing).
♦ Kathleen offered to provide Matt with CalTrans information for safe routes to school.
If you have further questions, please contact myself (221.6605) or Ron Fuchs (221.6750). Thank
you.
Sincerely
Mar lurn
Civil Engineer 1
Cc: Ron Fuchs
Basil Harridan
Eric Bracke
Kathleen Reavis
Pete Wray
Matt Delich
Ben Wieseman
Brad Bennet
Shar Shadowen
...... _ .. l
Mark McCallum - Re: Harmony Road Page 1
From: Kathleen Reavis
To: "Tess.Jones@DOT. STATE. CO. US"@FC1.GWIA, Dave Dave,...
Date: Frig, Aug 25, 2000 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: Harmony Road
Please keep me apprised as things proceed on this. Thanks
KR
>>> Eric Bracke 08/25 7:27 AM >>>
Just as a curious sidebar, I was just asked to attend a meeting with the City Manager on September 9th
regarding the signalization of Tech Parkway. I'm not sure yet who set the meeting up or what the issues
are.
Eric
>>> Dave Dave 08/2.4 4:46 PM >>>
The discussion today was to determine what would be required of the developers for circulation roads
from the sites towards the west out to County Road 9. We decided a 36 foot width of Rock Bridge to
County Rd. 9 with Westbrooke and or Brookefield Hp could build Tech Parkway south to Rock Bridge or
their interior street south of Celestica out to County Rd. 9. If the Brookfield and/or westBrooke
development choose to use Cinquefoil then it must be right in / right out and the developers must build it to
CDOT access standards without waivers. Cambridge was left as you indicated. It will be the first
signalized when it meets warrants.
Marc and Mark will relay this information back to the developers consultants with hopes that they will have
prepared information for a meeting with Tess and Staff on 9/21/00 at 1:15 in conference room A.
Mark this on your calendar but it is tentative based upon the consultants ability to provide us information.
>>> Kathleen Reavis 08/24 3:36 PM >>>
I just learned that there was a meeting held today to discuss the access issues along Harmony Road as
part of the Harmony Technology Project. I was surprised to have not been invited to this meeting since I
have attended prior meetings on this project/issue as well as due to my role in updating the Harmony
Road Access Control Plan.
Dave and/or Tess, could you please let me know what the outcome of your meeting was? I'm concerned
that it be consistent with what we have come up with so far on the Access Plan update, particularly the
sequencing of the future signals at Technology Parkway vs. Cambridge. Which is to be installed first? I
thought we were trying for the one at Cambridge first to at least get 1/2mile spacing for a while before
installing the signal at Tech Pkway. What was decided today?
Please let me know and please let me know if there are future meetings on this project. Thanks
KR
CC: Marc Virata, Mark McCallum, Susanne Durkin, Tim...
Mark McCallum - Willowbrook
_ Page 1 I
From:
Kathleen Reavis
To:
Mark McCallum, Ron Fuchs
Date:
Wed, Sep 6, 2000 1 A2 PM
Subject:
Willowbrook
Just to follow-up with my written comments on the Willowbrook project (they are the same as my verbal
comments at this morning's meeting)...
1. City needs to determine phasing of roadway connections for this project (as well as for the others
adjacent to it). Specifically, which project is responsible for the connection(s) to Harmony as well as which
to CR 9 (along Rock Creek). I would recommend this be scheduled as an item for the next Transportation
Coordination meeting so that staff can all be in agreement prior to us meeting with any of the developers
and/or their representatives.
2. Transportation staff (Transportation Planning & Engineering) need to meet with Parks, Natural
Resources, and Current Planning to explore options for trail connections northward from Rock Creek
toward Harmony as well as possibilities for east/west connections to the future regional trail along CRT
Please let me know who is planning to take the lead in coordinating the trail issues. If you would like me
to set up the meeting, just let me know.
Thanks.
KR
P.S. the meeting that was set for 9/14 at 2 p.m. is at the same time as the meeting set for the Old Town
North project. Is theme any way to reschedule it?
CC: Mark Jackson, Tom Reiff