Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFORT COLLINS RETAIL CENTER PUD - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2003-11-03December 16, 1985 Paul Eckman, Esq. Fort Collins City Attorney 300 Laport Avenue Ft. Collins, CO 80522 Dear Mr. Eckman: Pursuant to your request, this is to confirm my understanding that, upon development of my real estate adjacent to the of the proposed Pavilion Retail Center in Fort Collins, that I will be required to construct a culvert over the Larimer County Canal No. 2 to facilitate the extension of Pavilion Street. Yours truly, Norman West Sunrise Center Partnership STATE OF COL.ORADO ss. COUNTY OF LARIMER The foregoing copy of instrument was acknowledged beforejme this day of .:�<<<<_�_«-�, 198E, by I(r<<sicc�r T). l�u`��� author of this instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. Tye, Notary Puic —; 0 My commission expires: ROATH a BREGA, P c. Office of the City Attorney City of Ft. Collins February 10, 1986 Page Two to secure that indemnity by the use of an irrevocable letter of credit or by the escrowing of sufficient construction loan proceeds to ensure the completion of the improvements; the Developer has put members of the Board of Land Commissioners in direct contact with the office of the City Manager. The State, however, continues to refuse to execute the Development Agreement. In this light, I think you will agree that the Developer has done everything within its power to convince the State to execute the Development Agreement - all to no avail. We are hopeful, therefore, that the City of Ft. Collins will re-evaluate its requirement of State execution of the Develop- ment Agreement. As the State's ownership in the project will be limited to a small portion of property (over which the Larimer County Canal No. 2 is intended to run), the waiver of this requirement should not present any risk to the City. If you have any questions or comments in regard to this or any other matter, please don't hesitate to contact me at the above listed telephone number. Sincerely, Matthew -CT Goxdbn MDG:ksc cc: Jed Hayes, Jim Johnson, Kendall Ewing S-307-77 0 HSAUYLIERM Commercial Real Estate February 11, 1986 Mr. George Holter 3509 S. Mason Fort Collins, CO 80525 Re: Construction of Pavilion Road Dear George: "EZdED R�rH a 1986 '��iJoa.. Rf6A As you know, several months ago you and I discussed the construction of Pavilion Lane as part of the development of a shopping center on the property to the north of your motel. In these discussions, you agreed that this road would lie approximately 12 feet inside your property line. However, when the time came for you to grant the right of way for this construction you refused. Consequently, we had to re -design our shopping center to compensate for this lost 12 feet. You then agreed to grant approximately 480 square feet of your property in order to facilitate the construction of the re -designed road. I have now received the January 22, 1986 letter from your attorney, Douglas D. Konkel, concerning the conditions under which you will now agree to grant the above -referenced 480 square foot easement. Upon review of this letter, it is my position that your requirements are patently unreasonable. It is clear that the construction of this road would be beneficial to you and your property and yet you have indicated no willingness to cooperate in any way with the road's construction. In this light, I am currently undertaking discussions with the City of Ft. Collins for the re -design of Pavilion Lane in order to avoid the necessity of your grant of easement or other cooperation. If you have any questions in this regard, or if you desire to reconsider your position, please contact me or my attorney, Matthew Gordon (691-5400). Yours truly, SULLIVAN, HAYES & CO. Jo n Edward Hayes II JEH/js a' EXHIBIT r cc: Matthew D. Gordon, Esq. E 1 BOO Hudson's Bay Cent^e • 1 E00 Stout St^ee:. • Denver, Colo^a= BD2C2 • f30 Ol S"aG-no-�.r, SUL VAN, HAYES&M Con irTiercial Real Fetate March 21, 1986 Mr. Rich Shannon Ms. Linda Hopkins Office of the City Manager City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 r MAR 2 5 1986 I Y F a� A I L Re: Commercial Shopping Center development (the "_Development") located at the southeast corner of College Avenue and Troutman Drive, City of Fort Collins, Colorado, developed by Troutman Partnership, a Colorado general partnership (the "Developer") Dear Rich and Linda: As you know, Troutman Partnership has, for some time, been involved in the above referenced Development, which Development has encountered more than its share of problems. Resolution of each issue has been time consuming and difficult, and has resulted in unanticipated delay. As a consequence, we have fallen somewhat behind the schedule originally contemplated, and upon which the City has relied in its municipal process. In order to assure you and your staff that we have not been sitting on our hands, I am outlining the issues addressed and the progress made toward finalizing the Development. The first significant problem arose in the acquisition and contracting for the real property to be developed (the "Assembla.ge Parcel"). Specifically, one of the title holders to a key portion of the Assemblage Parcel (Ft. Collins Assemblage, Ltd. as owners of the parcel which is to be dedicated as Troutman Parkway) discovered that it did not, in fact, own the fee title to the Troutman parcel. Rather, an undivided 15e interest in that parcel was held by a hostile party. The resolution of this problem took a great deal of money, energy and a full twelve months. Ultimately, however, the 15% undivided interest was conveyed to Ft. Collins Assemblage, Ltd. ("FCAL"), and we now have control of this parcel. Unfortunately, the removal of the undivided 15% interest required the payment of a large sum of money to the hostile party, and FCAL is seeking the recovery of these funds from Troutman Partnership; this situation will be more fully explained later. 9 BOO Hi idson s Hay Centre 0 1600 Stout Street 0 Oerver, Colorado 60202 0 [3031 534-0900 Mr. Rich Shannon Ms. Linda Hopkins March 21, 1986 Page Two After all of the properties that make up the Assemblage Parcel were under contract, the next major issue arose upon examination of title. The titles to two of the major parcels in the assemblage werre subject to a reservation of fee title from the original patent from the State of Colorado. This reservation was for an undefined 4.6 acres, which 4.6 acres were supposed to be conveyed for the passage of a ditch. The reserved fee was never conveyed! to any ditch company and remained the property of the State. After extensive negotiations and hearings with the State Board of Land Commissioners and the office of the Attorney General, we resolved this issue by the execution of the Agreement For Exchange and Relocation of Ditch, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Pursuant to this Agreement, the State has agreed to convey to us the State's reserved fee interest in the Assemblage Parcel in exchange for which we will convey an equal amount of real property to the State in the relocated ditch (as described later). The State will then grant a right of way to the Larimer County Canal Irrigating Company for the passage of the Larimer County Canal No. 2. In the negotiation of this Agreement, we encountered substantial difficulty with the State's form of Right -of -Way agreement, as well as the type of conveyances to be used in the transaction. Resolution of these problems required hearings before the Board of Land Commissioners and extensive negotiations with individual board members. Further, because the Agreement resulted in the State's ownership of a fee interest in the Assemblage Parcel, the City required the State to sign both the Plat and the Development Agreement. After initially refusing, the State ultimately did sign the Plat, but refused to sign the Development Agreement. Attached hereto as Exhibit A-1 is a copy of a letter from our attorney to the Ft. Collins City Attorney outlining this issue and its resolution. The next set of major issues we encountered were those related to the relocation of the Larimer County Canal No. 2 (the "Ditch") from its current location (traversing the Assemblage Parcel) to a new location along the east side of the Assemblage Parcel. The difficulty associated with the relocation was compounded by the necessity of relocating the Ditch on the mobile home park parcel located to the south of the Assemblage Parcel (hereinafter, the "Mobile Home Park"), as well as the City's requirement of enlargement of the Ditch across the Mobile Home Park to handle additional drainage and flood waters. We have met with the City of Ft. Collins and the owners of the Ditch (the "Ditch Company") in order to develop a scheme for the relocation and enlargement of the Ditch. This scheme is codified in the Tri-Party Ditch Agreement, the most recent draft Mr. Rich Shannon Ms. Linda Hopkins March 21, 1986 Page Three of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B. Although the Tri-Party Ditch Agreement has not yet been executed, its parties have reached agreement in principle, and expect final execution to take place sometime during the week of March 24. One significant problem encountered in negotiation of the Tri-Party Ditch Agreement was the Ditch Company's refusal to vacate the currently existing Ditch easement until the new Ditch has been running successfully for two full years. Obviously, we cannot finance the project unless the Ditch is vacated. This problem has been solved by our indemnification of the Ditch Company. In turn, we are! seeking similar indemnifications from our civil engineer, soils engineer and contractor. The negotiation of these indemnifications has been difficult and time consuming. The Ditch Company is also requiring us to provide waivers from adjoining land owners, which waivers prevent these land owners from raising any claims against the Ditch Company for damage suffered as a result of seepage of waters from the relocated Ditch. We are still awaiting the detailed form of seepage agreement as well as a list of landowners from whom it will be required. We have repeatedly requested that the Ditch Company supply us with this information and expect it to arrive on March 24. The ditch Company is also requiring executed easements from the owners of any parcel over which the relocated Ditch is to run. We have obtained these easements from the State Board of Land Commissioners as well as the owners of the parcel adjoining the Assemblage Parcel on the east. However, as mentioned, relocation of the Ditch on the Assemblage Parcel necessitates relocation of the Ditch on the Mobile Home Park as well. Additionally, and as previously mentioned, the City is requiring that the currently existing Ditch through the Mobile Home Park be enlarged. In attempting to obtain the grant of easement from the owners of the Mobile Home Park, an examination of title indicated that FCAL holds only equitable (and not Legal) title to the Mobile Home Park parcel. Therefore, in order to receive an adequate grant of easement, we are required to obtain the signatures of three former owners of the Mobile IHome Park parcel. These three owners initially sought payment from the City of market value for the additional property needed for the City's enlargement of the Ditch. The City negotiated with these owners but could not agree on a price. Ultimately, the City decided that they would line the Ditch with gunite, and, provided that all indebtedness to them from FCAL is paid in full, the owners of the Mobile Home Park have consented to the easement. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a copy of the Agreement to Grant Easement. Although this document has not yet been executed by these three owners, their execution is anticipated sometime this week. Mr. Rich Shannon Ms. Linda Hopkins March 21, 1986 Page Four Execution by the three former owners does not, however, solve the problem. As equitable owner of the Mobile Home Park, FCAL is refusing to execute the Agreement to Grant Easement until it receives $100,000 to compensate it for the cost of clearing its title problem on the Troutman Parcel, discussed earlier. Further, FCAL has recently increased its requirements for execution of 1:his easement to also include Troutman Partnership entering into a specific performance contract for the purchase of other property owned by FCAL. We are currently negotiating with FCAL for the resolution of this issue, but have not yet reached agreement. As previously discussed, FCAL is also the owner of the parcel to be dedicated as Troutman Parkway. In exchange for our construction of the roadway and payment for the value of the ground, FCAL has agreed to dedicate this parcel to the City pursuant to the Road Construction Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit D. Pursuant to this Agreement, however, FCAL is not required to make this dedication until after Troutman Parkway has been constructed. As this parcel is currently encumbered by a deed of trust, FCAL does not want to finally dedicate (and thus clear the title) until that time. We are seeking the City's cooperation in this matter, keeping in mind that FCAL has already execrated the Plat and, therefore, has technically dedicated this parcel already (although it has not yet adequately cleared title). With regard to the Plat, a problem was discovered and has been resolved. Upon completion of an Alta survey we had ordered for the title company and the lender, an error was uncovered due to an original survey interpretation. This error facilitated correcting the legal description thus changing the Plat boundaries as submitted. We have redrawn the Plat to reflect this change as well as a modification to the signature page. The signature page modification reflects our disposition as well as eliminates the ownerships that will transfer upon closing. We also plan on executing a new development agreement with Troutman Partnership as the owner. This, in our opinion, significantly cleans up these two documents. Another unresolved issue in this Development has to do with the dedication of a right of way along the proposed Pavilion Lane on the south side of the Assemblage Parcel. George Holter, the owner of property adjacent to the Assemblage Parcel on the south, had originally agreed to dedicate a 12-foot strip along the north end of his property for the construction of Pavilion Lane. Pavilion Lane would clearly benefit the Holter parcel. Mr. Rich Shannon Ms. Linda Hopkins March 21, 1986 Page Five However, when it came time for execution of the dedication documents by Mr. Holter, he reneged on his promise. Consequently, we were forced to redesign the shopping center, moving all improvements 12 feet to the north, thus allowing Pavilion Lane to be located on the Assemblage Parcel. This scenario, however, would still require Mr. Holter to grant an easement on the northeast corner of his parcel for a small radius curb cut of approximately 480 square feet. Although Mr. Holter had agreed to grant this easement, on the day before the Developer's final Planning and Zoning approval, he sent a letter refusing to grant the easement unless we made significant financial concessions. This extortive demand was made known to the City Planning staff, who have been assisting us in several alternatives. One such alternative is the redesign of the Pavilion Lane intersection, another possibility is the City's condemnation of that parcel. We will continue to negotiate with Mr. Holter to attempt to get Mr. Holter to dedicate this small right of way without involving the City. To this point, such negotiations have been unsuccessful (please see correspondence attached hereto as Exhibit Q. If we are unable to resolve this issue, we will seek the City's assistance in either allowing a redesign or in proceeding with condemnation while we proceed with construction of the shopping center. Finally, we have proceeded through the various municipal processes. We have been granted preliminary approval by the Planning and Zoning Board as well as a conditional final approval (conditioned upon the resolution of the FCAL offsite easement issue, and the Holter right of way issue). We have also received approval from your office, which approval is contingent upon our closing on the purchase of the Assemblage Parcel. As you know, we have not yet closed on the Assemblage Parcel, but have scheduled a closing (and so notified the various owners) for April 15, 1986. In conclusion,, although significant gains and progress have been made in putting together this most difficult Development, some issues still remain unresolved. We are confident that, with the assistance of the City, these problems can be solved and an excellent Development will result. These issues include: 1) the redesign or possible condemnation of the right of way at the intersection of Pavilion Lane and College Avenue; Mr. Rich Shannon Ms. Linda Hopkins March 21, 1986 Page Six 2) the payment of funds to FCAL in exchange for its granting of the offsite Ditch easement, the cash for which can only be generated at closing -- we seek the City's indulgence and are awaiting the final grant of easement until after we have closed on the Assemblage Parcel; 3) we seek the City's indulgence also in allowing a delay in the final dedication of Troutman Parkway until such time as the roadway has been constructed and accepted by the City -- FCAL's obligation to so dedicate at that time is unconditional, pursuant to the enclosed Road Construction Agreement; and 4) the Developer needs the City to assign an address for the National Car Rental site and Shopping Center site in order to facilitate the submission and processing of the Developer's building plans for permitting. I appreciate the City's cooperation and assistance on this matter to date. We look forward to a long and profitable relationship. L , 4 1, FINS, Vice) QPresi)dent Development JJ/rjr EXHIBIT LIST Exhibit A - Agreement for Exchange and Relocation of Ditch Exhibit A-1 - Letter to Ft. Collins City Attorney Re: State execution of Development Agreement Exhibit B - Tri-Party Ditch Agreement Exhibit C - Agreement to Grant Easement Exhibit D - Road Construction Agreement Exhibit E - Holter correspondence k-1 � CITY OF FORT COLLINS March 31, 1986 Mr. George Holter 3509 South Mason Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 Dear Mr. Holter: I appreciate the time you took for our phone conversation last week. It is important that the details of the development agreements for the Fort Collins Retail Center be completed as soon as possible. An easement for the curb return of Pavilion Drive is necessary. It is important that the easement for the safe design and construction of the street be granted. I understand that the street design was changed to minimize the impact on your site and was, except for this easement, designed to be entirely on the Troutman Partnership property rather than the standard "half and half" right-of-way design. As we discussed you are willing to grant the necessary easement to the developers of the Fort Collins Retail Center given certain conditions. I have reviewed the correspondence on file regarding the conditions you have requested. It appears to me that your request to have access, without any obligation to enter into the standard repay agreements is unreasonable given the current and future benefits of the proposed street to your site. To agree to such a condition would in effect make the easement very, very costly. I appreciate that you face similar development requirements on your South College property, Boardwalk Crossing PUD. I think your understanding of the need for such agreements should be helpful in continuing negotiations for the resolution of this situation. To grant the easement conditioned upon the release of the repay agreement seems to ignore the benefits you will realize from the construction of the new street and commercial development adjacent to your property. I have also talked to your attorney, Mr. Konkel, and he has indicated that you may be willing to negotiate a compromise agreement with Troutman Partnership for• the easement and repayment for the street construction. If an amicable agreement the easement cannot be achieved, the City would consider exercising the option of condemnation. 11 �111 VC "I'll I IVIIiIVMpCt1 OuU Ltlpul'6C HJ. • r u. oux JOU • rui a LUIIII6, uuuf' uu mujCC * IJU.L CC I-c]ui MEMORANDUM TO: Linda Hopkins, Acting Director. CO Dept. Ron Mills, ROW Agent Elaine Kleckner, City Planner FROM: Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator DATE: 10-1-BS RE: Minutes of Fort Collins Retail Center Right-of-way Meeting Thls memo is to recap the discussion held with Jed Hayes and James Johnson regarding possible City intervention in obtaining right-of-way for Troutman Parkway. A sequence of events was established at this meeting to inform the developer of the steps necessary to follow, should they (the Developer) desire the City to consider using its powers of condemation in obtaining right-of-way for Troutman Parkway which would be necessary for this Development. They are as follows; 1. An Appraisalacceptable to the City must be performed on the property establishing a value before the take and a value after the take. This also requires a title commitment. 2. Documented negotiations must take place between the Developer and the property owner. 3. Proof of failure to come to a satisfactory agreement must be submitted to the City along with the appraisals. 4, City studies the issue to see if it is reasonable for the City to become involved. G. Notification of proceedings to be sent to all owners of the property by the City. S. City negotiates with owners. 7. Resolution of Condemnation to be adopted by Council. 8. Set Court date and go to Court to establish possession. Depends on Developer's schedule (DODS) 0009 DODS 2 weeks min. 1 week min. 30 - 4S days min. 3 - 4 weeks min. 30 - 46 days min. Mr. George Holter March 31, 1986 Page 2 The current street design necessitates a 30 foot radius; condemnation efforts would consider all safety issues, any potential traffic needs, and would pursue a larger easement based on a 50 foot radius. Acquiring the easement through condemnation would not eliminate the necessity of the repay agreement. The cost of condemnation seems to be unnecessary, if in fact an agreement can be reached. As you are aware, in the development business time is an expensive element. The solution to this problem should be resolved between the property owners without City involvement as soon as possible. Please contact me if you have any questions, or if I can provide any additional information. My phone number at City Hall is 221-6763. Sincerely, Linda Hopkins Assistant to the City Manager for Economic Opportunity LH/lt CITY OF FORT COLLINS M E M O R A N D U M DATE: April 11, 1986 TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council FROM: Linda Hopkins, Assistant to the City Manager for Economic Opportunity p J THRU: Steve Burkett, City Manager 0 y Rich Shannon, Deputy City Manager RE: Fort Collins Retail Development Proposal There is a current development proposal, recently reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Board, which is struggling with some rather technical difficulties. I would like to outline the situation for Council, should you receive calls or hear concerns about the development. The proposed development is Fort Collins Retail Center, or as it is being marketed, "Pavilion". The 151,460 square foot retail center is located on 18.2 acres at the southeast corner of South College Avenue and Troutman Parkway. The site is part of the South College Properties Superblock #1 Plan developed in 1981. The Superblock Plan was designed to direct land use, development, and circulation in the area bounded by College Avenue, Troutman Parkway, JFK Parkway, and Harmony Road. The Super Block Plan facilitates a coordinated approach to the area which has been complicated by a number parcels of varying sizes, under complex ownership, each with different needs and development schedules. The Fort Collins Retail Center PUD is bounded by College Avenue on the west, JFK Parkway (a 4 lane arterial as designated on the Master Street Plan), Troutman on the north, and Pavilion, a local street on the south. Pavilion has been the subject of considerable frustration, negotiation, and ultimately redesign. Under the standard development scenarios, streets are constructed with right-of-way dedicated half-and-half from the adjacent properties benefiting from the new street. Total construction costs are paid by the developer initiating the project. Repay agreements are secured so that in the future should the adjacent owner develop and obtain access to the street, 1/2 of the construction costs are repaid to the original developer. ULLIUt UL I LILUI IT IVIHINAU17 1 •]UU LtlFJU1'LU HV. 0 Y.U. OU% UCU 0 FIJI L I UIIII IS, UUIU1 bUU CTUJCC 0 IUUJI CC I-U �11 Fort Collins Retail Development Proposal April 11, 1986 Page 2 The construction of the collector street adjacent to the Retail Center and Mr. George Holter's property to the south was complicated and the negotiation resulted in the redesign of the street so that the entire right-of-way was on the property to the north. The remaining issue, yet unresolved, is the acquisition of a small, approximately 450 square foot, easement for the curb return from College onto Pavilion. Mr. Holter was reluctant to grant the easement to the developers without the guarantee of several stringent conditions. Initially Holter requested that he be granted access without obligation to repay any of the construction costs for the street. After considerable negotiation it appeared that this point could virtually stop the development. The repay agreement is not unfamiliar to Mr. Holter. As the developer of a site on the west side of College Avenue (Kentucky Fried Chicken), Holter is seeking repayment from the property owners north of the street he has recently built. Normally, off -site easements must be secured before consideration by the Planning and Zoning Board, however given the complexity of this situation, including this easement, the Board heard the proposal and conditioned their approval on the completion of all necessary easements and agreements within 45 days. There has been considerable negotiation, continued discussion, and work by all the parties involved to see that this project is completed. It does not seem reasonable that the project be stopped simply because of the difficulties obtaining a 400 square foot parcel needed for the access from College Avenue. Condemnation may need to be considered. Condemnation procedures are difficult and can take a long time. All costs are paid by the developer. Should it be impossible to obtain the easement in any other way, Council may be asked to consider condemnation to secure safe proper access. I am working with Mr. Holter and the developers of the retail area to resolve this issue, the details needed to meet the P & Z deadline, and see that the project is ready for construction. This has been one of the first projects I have been working on as an ombudsman, and the variety of problems and issues has been instructive. LH/ab CITY OF FORT COLLINS STORM WATER UTILITY RECEIVED ACTION MEMORANDUM CITY ATTORNEY DATE: April 15, 1986 TO: Steven C. Burkett, City Manager THRU: Paul Eckman, Assistant City Attorney Carol Osborne, Public Works Administrator Bob Smith, Acting Transportation Services Director FROM: Tom Gathmann, Civil Engineer II M RE: Contract Approval for Drainage Improvements Please find attached two items: (1) A contract for your signature that details the responsibilites between the City, the Larimer N2 Irrigation Company and the developer of the Fort Collins Retail Center P.U.D. for the construction of certain drainage improvements in the McClellands-Mail Creek Basin; (2) a vicinity map that shows the location of the improvements. The project will extend the existing improvements to the Larimer p2 Canal from just south of Troutman Parkway to Harmony Road. The enlarged canal will then transport both irrigation and stormwater to Mail Creek. The portion of this work that is not immediately on or adjacent to the Fort Collins Retail Center P.U.D. will be paid for by the Stormwater Utility from the McClelland -Mail Creek Basin Account. The estimated City cost of $74,575 is appropriated in that account and a substantial percentage will come directly from the drainage basin fee this development is obligated to pay. This project will complete the primary drainage route for the 100 year storm runoff in this area. Please return the executed copies to e-four mailing. � .Jr--, J. , Jr� I L n lr I �I I JUU -drJ 61 Hb,. . r U. OUX JOU 0 rW"L UUul'" �UIUI'JUU JUOCC 0 IJUJr =C I-00'JJ CITY OF FORT COLLINS M E M O R A N D U M DATE: April 11, 1986 TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council FROM: Linda Hopkins, Assistant to the City Manager for Economic Opportunity 1 THRU: Steve Burkett, City Manager Rich Shannon, Deputy City Manager RE: Fort Collins Retail Development Proposal There is a current development proposal, recently reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Board, which is struggling with some rather technical difficulties. I would like to outline the situation for Council, should you receive calls or hear concerns about the development. The proposed development is Fort Collins Retail Center, or as it is being marketed, "Pavilion". The 151,460 square foot retail center is located on 18.2 acres at the southeast corner of South College Avenue and Troutman Parkway. The site is part of the South College Properties Superblock #1 Plan developed in 1981. The Superblock Plan was designed to direct land use, development, and circulation in the area bounded by College Avenue, Troutman Parkway, JFK Parkway, and Harmony Road. The Super Block Plan facilitates a coordinated approach to the area which has been complicated by a number parcels of varying sizes, under complex ownership, each with different needs and development schedules. The Fort Collins Retail Center PUD is bounded by College Avenue on the west, JFK Parkway (a 4 lane arterial as designated on the Master Street Plan), Troutman on the north, and Pavilion, a local street on the south. Pavilion has been the subject of considerable frustration, negotiation, and ultimately redesign. Under the standard development scenarios, streets are constructed with right-of-way dedicated half-and-half from the adjacent properties benefiting from the new street. Total construction costs are paid by the developer initiating the project. Repay agreements are secured so that in the future should the adjacent owner develop and obtain access to the street, 112 of the construction costs are repaid to the original developer. urriun ur 1 nt u I r IVIANAIotH ouU raporce Nv.. r.U. tdox ❑du . tort Uolllns, Uolorado bUb22 . 1JUJJ 221-65Ub Fort Collins Retail Development Proposal April 11, 1986 Page 2 The construction of the collector street adjacent to the Retail Center and Mr. George Holter's property to the south was complicated and the negotiation resulted in the redesign of the street so that the entire right-of-way was on the property to the north. The remaining issue, yet unresolved, is the acquisition of a small, approximately 450 square foot, easement for the curb return from College onto Pavilion. Mr. Holter was reluctant to grant the easement to the developers without the guarantee of several stringent conditions. Initially Holter requested that he be granted access without obligation to repay any of the construction costs for the street. After considerable negotiation it appeared that this point could virtually stop the development. The repay agreement is not unfamiliar to Mr. Holter. As the developer of a site on the west side of College Avenue (Kentucky Fried Chicken), Holter is seeking repayment from the property owners north of the street he has recently built. Normally, off -site easements must be secured before consideration by the Planning and Zoning Board, however given the complexity of this situation, including this easement, the Board heard the proposal and conditioned their approval on 'the completion of all necessary easements and agreements within 45 days. There has been considerable negotiation, continued discussion, and work by all the parties involved to see that this project is completed. It does not seem reasonable that the project be stopped simply because of the difficulties obtaining a 400 square foot parcel needed for the access from College Avenue. Condemnation may need to be considered. Condemnation procedures are difficult and can take a long time. All costs are paid by the developer. Should it be impossible to obtain the easement in any other way, Council may be asked to consider condemnation to secure safe proper access. I am working with Mr. Holter and the developers of the retail area to resolve this issue, the details needed to meet the P & Z deadline, and see that the project is ready- for construction. This has been one of the first projects I have been working on as an ombudsman, and the variety of problems and issues has been instructive. LH/ab SullivanH.ayes C o h( P A N I E S June 11, 1986 Ms. Elaine Kleckner City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Elaine: Pursuant to your letter of May 6, 1986, I would like to clarify the specific nature of all submittals we have made in order to comply for re -processing for final approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. 1. Development Agreement -- The Development Agreement has been redrafted,under Bonnie Tripoli's supervision and approval. It has been submitted signed by all parties of interest. 2. Holter Easement -- The 480 square feet easement required to facilitate the construction of Pavilion Lane has been signed by George Halter and has been submitted. 3. Sunrise Center and Alma West Easement -- Both of these easements were previously submitted. However, they were lost or, misplaced somewhere along the line. They have been re -submitted. 4. Fort Collins Retail Center Plat -- This document has been revised with the direction of the City Manager's office to reflect: the future ownership. The reason for this is that it significantly reduces the complexity of problems with dedication and objections the current landowners did not want to deal with. The signature of the attorney certifying ownership obviously cannot take place until we close on the ground. As 1 had mentioned to you in our previous conversation, we are not able to close on the ground until we can provide documentation to our lender that we have final approval on the zoning. Ib00 IIUDSON'S RAY CENTRE • 1(,00 SPOUT STREFT' • DI:NVER, COLOR ADO 80202 • O07) 534 0900 • FAX- (303) 825-3502 Ms. Elaine Kleckner Page 2 June 11, 1986 5. Griffith, Brown, Middle & Fort Collins Assemblage Easement -- The easements to provide for transition for the relocation of the irrigation ditch through the property and the improvement to the ditch downstream of the development have been submitted. All signatures required have been provided. As you know, we were unable to obtain Mr. Brown's signature due to his unfortunate death. Mr. Brown's wife has, however, signed. 6. Troutman Parkway Plans -- These drawings have been submitted and have been approved. 7. Tri-Party Ditch Agreement -- This executed document was submitted to Mr. Paul Eckman April 30, 1986. _ It is my express understanding that this completes all the necessary documentation required by the City. This project, as we are all aware, has been a more than difficult puzzle to piece together. I would like to thank you for the patience and tolerance you and other members of staff have demonstrated through this process. It has made a significant difference in our ability to accomplish this task. V r' truly yours, SOL�IVAN PA;; S COMPANIES /JameSA. Jtl nson Vic reside t Development JEJ/js VIA ZAP MAIL -- FEDERAL EXPRESS j'2 �60 you 00eQ OTTEN, JOHNSON, ROBINSON, NEFF & RAGONETTI ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW ARTHUR E. OTTEN•JR, FRANK L. ROBINSON 9RUCE E,JOHNSON 2500 SEVENTEENTH STREET PLAZA X BRUCE CAMPBELL 1225 SEVENTEENTH STREET TELEPHONE 303-291-2700 WILLIAM R. NEFF DENVER, COLORADO 80202 THOMAS A RAGONETTI TELECOPIER 303-292.3310 DONALD W DOUGLAS DARRELL G WAAS ROBERT C. EISHER,JR JOHN D, STERNBERG J. WOWS MACDONALD December 5 1986 MICHAEL WESTOVER ARD P S SAR SARAN M ` V IC E' V� K OOCKW CKWO OD GLAIRL OD D MANTEL M. INZE M EGORDON I( j BETSY5 BRAINERD DAVID T BRENNAN KEVIN A. GLIWA AOMITTLO IN NEW YORK ONLY CITY A7-:-ORNYEY The L,arimer County Canal No. 2 Irrigating Company c/o William C. Stover, Esq. P.O. Box 523 Fort Collins, CO 80522 W. Paul Eckman, Esq. Assistant City Attorney City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Avenue P.O. Box 530 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Troutman Partnership 1600 Stout St., Suite 1300 Denver, CO 30202 Attn: .Tim Johnson Re: Tri-Party Ditch Agreement Gentlemen: As you will recall, early last May Lar_imer County Canal No. 2 Irrigating Company, the City of Fort Collins and Troutman Partnership all executed the Tri-Party Ditch Agreement which provides For the relocation and enlargement of the Larimer County Canal No. 2 (tile "Ditch") through certain real property locate.9 at the intersection of Trautman Parkway and :College Avenue (the "PrJ ert ") AS VO�1 aI so will .P_Caii., Troutman Partnerships __p ___� acquisition of the Property, and therefore the relocation of the D1t;h, .was delayed cluee On Troutman's inability to acquit the nacesGary right-of-way for part o` the Ditch relocation. ae are pleased to inform you that, as of last Friday, Troutman has received the necessary right-of-way and is hoping to proceed Very Soon with its acquisition Of the subject Property and relocation or the Ditch. In the course of acquiring the right-oE-way„ it became necessary to slightly change the configuration of the relocated Ditch, as -cell as the right-of-way area. The Larimer County Canal No. 2 Irrigating Company, et al December 5, 19BG Page 2 Accordingly, I have reviewed the Tri-Party Ditch Agreement in order to determine what changes, if any, need to be made so that the document reflects the changed situation. Assuming everyone agrees, I would like to amend the Tri-Party Ditch Agreement to reflect the following: 1. Recital A: Exhibit A needs to be changed to reflect t'he revised legal description of the Property. 2. Recital I would like to add a sentence to the effect that the term "Mobile Home Park" is used for convenience and that the relocated No. 2 Ditch will not actually be located to any extent upon the Pioneer Mobile 'come Park. 3. Recital G: Exhibit 3 Plans and Specifications have changed to some minor extent. The new Plans and Specifications will need to be substituted and the appropriate officer of the Ditch Company will need to sign off on the same. 4. Paragraph 4: I would like to add an acknowledgement by the Ditch Company of their receipt of the $2,500 fee. 5. Paragraph 5: The April 25, 1986 deadline should be changed. I assume April 25, 1987 is the appropriate new date. 6. Paragraph 3: I would like to add a sentence whereby the Ditch Company acknowledges their receipt of the required E l3iaeerls Design Certificate. 7. Paragraph 9: I would like to change the language of this paragraph to reflect that the grant of easement by the owner of the Mobile some Park South is sufficient to fulfill the requirement of authorization. I would rather not have to obtain any additional documentation from the owner of that property. S. Paragraph 13: I would like to finally determine exactly who needs to execute Seepage Damage Waivers. 9. Paragraph 17: As you may have ❑oted from my new letterhead, I am no longer affiliated with Roath & Brega, P.C. Therefore, I would like to change my notice address accordingly. I invite everyone to carefully review the Tri-Party Ditch Agroem.ant to see if any other changes are necessary. As the closing on the Property is imminent, it is imperative that we After step 8 is completed the City could take possession of the ground and the project could proceed to the Planning and Zoning Board. All costs involved in the City's condemnation proceedings shall be borne by the Developer. The final step would occur when the case comes up and is settled by the court, possibly 2-or more years later. The Larimer County Canal No. 2 Irrigating Company, et al December 5, 1986 Page 3 (as usual.) act very quickly. everyone soon. MDG/jm I look forwar.] to hearing from Sincerely, Matthew D. Gordon\ for OTTEN, JOHNSON, ROBINSON, NEFF & RAGONETTI CITY OF FORT COLLINS OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, PLANNING DEPARTMENT February 6, 1987 Mr. Jim Johnson c/o Sullivan Hayes Companies 1600 Stout Street, Suite 1800 Denver, CO 80202 Dear Jim, This letter is to confirm our discussion on the telephone this afternoon regarding access to properties north of the proposed Fort Collins Retail Center along Troutman Parkway and College Avenue. First of all, no access locations are shown on a plat. The plat is a pro- perty description only. The access locations would be shown on a site plan and utility plan. Access to the property would be approved in the planning process during the review and approval of a proposed P.U.D. or subdivision. Our prefer- ence for driveway locations on Troutman Pkwy. would be to line them up with driveways on the south. Access onto College Ave. must be approved by the State. Let me know if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Mike Herzig Development Coordinator MH/bh xc: Jim Newell, Civil Engineer I C -ICF OF DEVELOPMENT 300 LaPorte Ave. • P O. Box 580 • Fort Collms, Colorado 80522 • (303) °21 6750 SrHVICLS. SullivanHayes C O M P A N 1 L S February 16, 1987 Mr. Tom Peterson Director of Planning City of Fort Collins 300 La Porte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Re: Fort Collins Retail Center "The Pavilion" PUD Dear Tom: As you know, we were unable to comply with the conditions set forth by the P & Z Board to complete the requirements for final approval of our PUD. We had difficulty getting Mr. Strickfadden to sign the plat, site plan and the Development Agreement by the deadline. The plat, site plan and the Development Agreement are however, fully executed and in the possession of the City. The Tri-Party Ditch Agreement Admendment is forth coming and should be in the City no later than next week. This leaves only the closing to take place. At the time of closing, we will be able to provide the City proof of clear title and remove the easement from escrow and record. A closing date has not been set as of this writing. Due to the depressed economic condition of real estate in Colorado, lenders are cautiously reviewing potential developments and taking a much longer time to give commitments. We do have a commitment at this time but still need to finalize details prior to scheduling a closing. Considering these factors, we would like to reapply to appear before the P & Z Board for final approval of our PUD at the earliest convenience. Unfortunately, at the December 15, 1986 meeting, we were confident that we would close by year end. If I would have had any indication from the lender contrary to that understanding, I would have asked the Board to extend the final approval as appropriate to the situation. Enclosed please find a check in the amount of $60 for the application fee. We have all spent many hours devoted to making this project a success. It is not our intention to drag this on indefinitely, but to build this project as soon as possible. If the Planning Staff and the Board would please indulge this situation for a little while longer, we will all be ,b16"ased with the results. ly, Johnson f �TRVI T • r'[ :VFR, COLORAI)O _ .'11 ;;44nm; 1SA X_ CITY OF FORT COLLINS DEVELOPIME�T SEPN/ICES — ECOJ:C%:IC DE'dELOP�'lE'JT July 7, 1937 Mr. George Halter Holter Real Estate 3509 So. Mason Fort Collins, CO 80526 Dear George: I was pleased to attend the meeting with you, Mrs. Halter, Rick Ensdorff, Joe Frank, and Debbie Debesche on Wednesday, June 24, 1987. I thought it was helpful to discuss the general issues of traffic, street improvements, and development related to the South College corridor from Horsetooth to Harmony. From the meeting it was my understanding that the South College Super Block Plan remain; as a good planning tool, which is helpful in the preliminary planning stages for development in the area. I understood that given the intensity of new developments and existing traffic, thorough and complete traffic studies are crucial to the land use and access decisions for the area. Fortimately, there is some current base data available to use in conjunction with your new data. Specifically related to Boardwalk Crossing AID, I was confident that if proper traffic study analysis supported the access and egress points and proposed design, the City staff would add their suppo:-t to the permit process with the State. Close coordination between the State and City is irportant. I also felt that the discussions related to access to your property on the east side of College was equally as direct and helpful. I can appreciate your desire to secure commitments for future access points to the motel site. However, I recognize the City is unable to make such long-term commitments, particularly without specific development proposals. You can be confident that access frcm Pavilion on the north side of your site is approved and will be constructed with that project. In our meeting, Rick Ermrsdorff noted that with proper documentation and a supportive traffic study and analysis, staff could also support a right-in/right-out access on College to the motel site. It did not seem to be particularly beneficial to attempt to secure this access with a tentative development plan. The City is interested in the safest and most efficient access and traffic movement along South College and staff will work with the developers to secure the State permits to achieve those goals. P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins. Colorado 80522 • (303) 221 6605 LCUNUMIC DEVELOPMENT The only remaining unresolved issue is the access easement fer the curb return at Pavilion and South College. Previously you'd indicated that prior to granting the easement and finalizing the agreements with Sullivan and Hayes, you would have li}:cd to have had the South College access negotiated. The City cannot make that co:r fitment, but will cork with you in the future to secure the access to serve your site. From my perspective nothing further is to be gained by delaying the easement request. In fact it would appear that the completion of the Pavilion PUD will serve to enhance the potential of the notel site for future redevelopment. Please review again the easement agreements, sign and return the copies to me, and I'll see that they are processed. Thanks again for the opportunity to participate in the discussions. It was helpful for me to understand more about the traffic impacts and requirements in the South college area. Sincerely, Linda Hopkins Economic Development Administrator Attachments cc: Debbie deBesche Rick Ensdorff SullvanHyes IE June 11, 1986 Ms. Elaine Kleckner City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CC 80522 Dear Elaine: Pursuant to your letter of May 6, 1986, I would like to clarify the specific nature of all submittals we have made in order to comply for re -processing for final approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. 1. Development Agreement -- The Development Agreement has been redrafted under Bonnie Tripoli's supervision and approval. It has been submitted signed by all parties of interest. 2. Holter Easement -- The 480 square feet easement required to facilitate the construction of Pavilion Lane has been signed by George Holter and has been submitted. 3. Sunrise Center and Alma West Easement -- Both of these easements were previously submitted. However, they were lost or misplaced somewhere along the line. They have been re -submitted. 4. Fort Collins Retail Center Plat -- This document has been revised with the direction of the City Manager's office to reflect the future ownership. The reason for this is that it significantly reduces the complexity of problems with dedication and objections the current landowners did not want to deal with. The signature of the attorney certifying ownership obviously cannot take place until we close on the ground. As I had mentioned to you in our previous conversation, we are not able to close on the ground until we can provide documentation to our lender that we have final approval on the zoning. 0 i00 III II)GIW 11l YRC. IAnr CT(`i'T CTn CI:T. FWI I "I I •v ��'�� :. ..... �� .11, r._. Ms. Elaine Kleckner Page 2 June 11, 1986 5. Griffith, Brown, Middle & Fort Collins Assemblage Easement -- The easements to provide for transition for the relocation of the irrigation ditch through the property and the improvement to the ditch downstream of the development have been submitted. All signatures required have been provided. As you know, we were unable to obtain Mr. Brown's signature due to his unfortunate death. Mr. Brown's wife has, however, signed. 6. Troutman Parkway Plans -- These drawings have been submitted and have been approved. 7. Tri-Party Ditch Agreement -- This executed document was submitted to Mr. Paul Eckman April 30, 1986. It is my express understanding that this completes all the necessary documentation required by the City. This project, as we are all aware, has been a more than difficult puzzle to piece together. I would like to thank you for the? patience and tolerance you and other members of staff have demonstrated through this process. It has made a significant difference in our ability to accomplish this task. Vfr$ truly yours, SVL4IVAN AY�S COMPANIES .- uame -t. u nson Vic reside t Development JEJ/js VIA ZAP MAIL -- FEDERAL EXPRESS March 6, 1987 Mr. Kelly Ohlson, Mayor City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO. 80522 Dear Mr. Ohlson: On behalf of the other signatories, I herewith submit for your consideration the attached Petition from Keil Ingestment Brokerage,Inc., residents of Andersonville and Fort' Collins Business Center, Ltd. partnership. With this Petition we are requesting the City of Fort Collins to give priority to, and budget for, the installation of the Lemay Avenue extension around the east side of Andersonville. We request the City Council's consideration of this matter and look forward to a favorable decision. T. Gregory, Collins Bus ral Paxltner 1 s C@RjAer, Lt cc: Steve Burkett,-fify Manager Mike Davis, Dev.Services Dir. Tom Peterson,Planning Director Ken Waido, Planning Dept. e Gary Diede, City Engineer; Rick Ensdorff, City Traffic Eng. - Bob Wilk :in'son,-Planning'Dept. - 3 PETITION March 6, 1987 The undersigned are owners of property in Andersonville and the residential and industrial portions of Fort Collins Business Center. It is the desire of the property owners of land lying to the east of Andersonville to develop their respective parcels. In order to serve the well being of Andersonville residents as well as to achieve optimum land development for the property to the east of Andersonville it is necessary to construct the proposed new alignment of Lemay Avenue around Andersonville. Consideration of the need for this street goes beyond the immediate vicinity of Andersonville as the need for smooth traffic flow through this area affects all residents to the north of Andersonville. Construction of the new Lemay Avenue alignment is important for a major portion of northeast Fort Collins. The owners of the 10.7 acre parcel of residential land lying immediately to the east of Andersonville wish to proceed with a P.U.D. plan for the development of this property. Meetings with residents of Andersonville subsequent to the neighborhood meeting held December 9, 1986 reveal that, in principal, Andersonville residents support the concept of a low cost, single family development on the subject parcel, however, they would prefer to have the new Lemay Ave. installed to accomodate the increased traffic which will result from the new residential area. Residents of Andersonville have complained that traffic along the current alignment of Lemay Ave. (9th St.) has reached intollerable levels and is negatively impacting their quality of life. Traffic backs up at the railroad and Vine Dr, intersection and during peak traffic times it is extremely difficult to make a left turn out of Andersonville to go south on 9th St. Further, the exhaust fumes from the heavy 9th St. traffic has caused a notable deterioration of the air quality in this area. Andersonville residents need the new Lemay Ave. alignment now. Any further development in the area or to the north will only make this bad situation worse. The owners of the residential parcel, on the other hand, wish to develop a quality, low cost, single family residential neighborhood on it's parcel which will enhance the area by increasing real estate values as well as building the tax base for the City of Fort Collins. The owners and future developers of this property wish to work closely with Andersonville residents to achieve an improved quality of life for all concerned. In the fall of 1986 the 60 acres of land lying to the east of Andersonville were annexed into the City of Fort Collins and the right of way for the new Lemay Avenue within this parcel is in the process of being deeded to the City. The undersigned believe that now is the time for the City of Fort Collins to give the construction of this planned street a high priority and we herewith petition the City to allocate funds in the budget and schedule the installation of new Lemay Ave. 1 v- N Fort Collins Business Center, Ltd., a Colorado limited partnership. By: Day, Peters 6 Co., a Colorado limited partnership. By: Rg�,,Inc., a Colorado Corporation. M c Ke i I /I w4fiba a tpWnt By: Andersonvillo Ran resid&nt era\ Inc. nt iden a: C i_ 2 I� //. F !��: Cr'/ January 23, 1986 Alma West Sunrise Center Partnership Bruce L. Cason Stephen D. Johnson East Side Venture, Ltd. Ft. Collins Assemblage, Ltd. Super Block Holding c/o Troutman Partnership 1600 Stout. Street, Suite 1800 Denver, CO 80202 Re: Ft. Collins retail center subdivision plat, site plan and development agreement (which document shall herein- after be collectively referred to as the "PUD") as executed by the above named addressees (the "Addressees") Dear Sirs and Madam: On Monday, January 27, 1986 the Planning and Zoning Board for the City of Ft. Collins, Colorado (the "City") will consider final approval of the above referencedPUD. The City acknowledges that execution by the Addressees of the PUD documents is a necessary prerequisite to such final approval by the City, but that the Addressees do not intend to develop their respective portions of the real property subject to the PUD (the "Property"); rather, the Addressees intend to sell their respective portions of the Property to Troutman Partnership (the "Developer") who shall in turn develop the Property pursuant to the PUD. The City further acknowledges that execution of the PUD documents by the Addressees may legally bind some or all of them to development and/or dedication obligations, which obligations should not accrue to Addressees, but rather to Developer after Developer receives fee title to the Property. Therefore, this letter shall serve as the City's under- taking to the Addressees that, in the event the Developer does not acquire fee title to all of the Property prior to the 45th day following the City's final approval of the PUD, that such final approval shall be rescinded and the PUD documents executed by Addressees shall be destroyed and all obligations of Addressees pursuant to said PUD documents shall be null and void and of no further force and effect. The City acknowledges that the Addressees may rely upon this letter to induce their execution of the PUD documents. SullivanHayes C 0 M P A N I E S June 11, 1987 Mr. Rick Ensdorff Traffic Engineering Department City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Re: The Pavilion, Fort Collins, Colorado Dear Rick: SFCEIVED JUN! 4 51987 PLANNING UPARTMENT There have been numerous conversations regarding the site access for the above construction traffic. I have had several conversations with Mike Hertzig and the site superintendent has had numerous conversations with your field representatives. I would like to confirm the directions we have been given to date. We have been told that the City of Fort Collins would prefer that the construction traffic access the site from JFK Parkway off of Harmony Road rather than from College Avenue via Boardwalk. Trucks are then to enter the site via Troutman Parkway off of JFK Parkway. Trucks are prohibited from full use of the intersection at JFK Parkway and Troutman Parkway due to the limited capacity of the bridge at the storm water crossing. We have also been told that the City will provide signage indicating maximum load levels acceptable on this portion of the roadway. We have a concern that the roadways, that are being recommended for access by the City of Fort Collins, are sufficient to withstand the traffic being proposed. We are also concerned whether the roadways are sufficient for the future delivery traffic that is anticipated for the shopping center. Your review of these concerns, and your written confirmation of the direction we are to take will be greatly appreciated. Please call if I can be of any assistance in providing any additional information toward or your decision. Best regards, Donald Casper . Director of Construction do/bn cc: Jack Knopinski, Saunders Construction Dick Fullerton, Saunders Construction Mike Hertzig, City of Fort Collins, Planning Department Jim Newell, City of Fort Collins, Planning Department W4 �IXTFF9TN I -!HEFT. THIRD FI00P • IIF'�A'IR I "f)FAI),)R2'0:. 04J ) Si4_0900. FAX 003) ti25_i50� S,1U1Qz)erzS , C Or25tr2UCtlOr2 lr2c. P.O. BOX 22356 DENVER, COLORADO 80222 June 12, 1987 Mr. Mark Goldrich Schmidt Earth Builders 621 Sherry Drive Ft. Collins, Colorado 80524 6950 S. JORDAN ROAD ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO 80112 Re: Ft. Collins Retail Center Dear Mark: (303)699-9000 It has come to our attention that the sanitary sewer manholes furnished by Aguilar Concrete Products are not acceptable to the City of Ft. Collins Engineering Department. This problem was discussed during our meeting of June 11, 1987 and resolved as noted in the minutes of the meeting. After the meeting, Steve Biegler, Engineering Construction inspector, visited the site and delivered a memorandum dated June 10, 1987 whichaddressed this problem. A copy of this memorandum is enclosed. Saunders Construction must insist that only first class materials be utilized in the construction of this project. Inferior products or workmanship will not be tolerated or accepted. We are greatly concerned that this problem will have a detrimental impact to our schedule. Due to the fast track nature of the project schedule, we cannot allow this situation to create any delays. We must insist that Schmidt make the necessary corrections promptly and provide additional crews or work all overtime as necessary to correct this occurence, and to maintain the schedule. Should you have any problems complying with the instructions of the City of Ft. Collins or in maintaining the schedule, please advise me immediately. Sincerely, Jace�_Xr�4 - nski Project Manager JK:cyt CC: Don Casper Steve Biegler Stan Myers Bill Greer June 19, 1987 Mr. Mike Herzig Planning Department City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Re: The Pavilion, Fort Collins, Colorado Dear Mike: JUN 2 41987 PLANNIN%a pr?ASWEN.i This serves to confirm my conversations with you and Rick Ensdorff regarding the construction access to the above project. The following facts were confirmed: 1. The City of Fort Collins prefers that construction access to the site be restricted to Harmony Road, Boardwalk Avenue, JFK Parkway, and the eastern portion of Troutman Parkway adjacent to the site. These roadways are designed to withstand the 35 to 40 ton weight loads of the construction vehicles. Any "unusual" damage to the roadway due to rapid deceleration or turning of vehicles while fully loaded will be the responsibility of that subcontractor. Any failure of the roadway under normal use would be considered the City of Fort Collins' responsibility.. 2. Construction traffic exceeding 17 tons is prohibited from crossing over the ditch crossing at the intersection of Troutman and JFK Parkway. 3. The sign that is currently posted at the intersection of Boardwalk and JFK Parkway, which stipulates a 17 ton maximum load, will be relocated to the northeast corner of Troutman and JFK Parkway. This will mitigate any confusion as to the accessibility of the site from JFK Parkway. 4. An access permit will be required from the Colorado Division of Highways prior, to any acc ss to College Avenue other than light vehicle. Z;,v Ap Thank you for your assistance in clarifying this issue. Bregds, Donald Cas r Director of Construction do/bne cc: Rick Ensdorff Jack Knopinski Dick Fullerton Bill Greer St111iv�1t�� [���cs July 22, 1987 Mr. Mike Davis Director of Developmept Services City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Mr. Davis: VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS I am writing you this letter as a result of my continued frustration with the City of Fort Collins. Currently, there are two issues before me that have created a great many problems for our project at College and Troutman, known as The Pavilion. They are, the increase in the street oversizing fees and the Heart Special Improvement District boundary amendment. I would first like to address the street oversizing fee issue. When we submitted our zoning for approval by the P & Z Board, the street oversizing fees were approximately $5,000 per acre. Because of the numerous delays to gain final approval, in which we had no control over, we were, in my opinion, penalized with an additional $8,000 per acre in street oversizing fees. We were informed that the street oversizing fund, if you will, was suffering and this was a necessary measure. This resulted in approximately $140,000 in additional fees which will be required to pay the City. When we recently pulled our building permit, we were informed that the fees had increased again and that we would be required to pay an additional $20,000 on top of the $140,000 we were already required to pay. I find this not only outrageous, but terribly irresponsible on behalf of the City. We were never informed that the fees had been increased again and we feel it is the City's responsibility to inform developers, who have projects submitted to the City for approval, about fee increases. As you are aware, we all have budgets which we must abide by. An increase of $160,000 over the original budget is a devastating one. I am requesting an abatement of some sort be considered by the Staff and City Council. '.I l:I;., .. •!..A,k.,, 1 il,aJl,I-,10'.,":19 rI",),",. IAA.,;,�iI -;"), Mr. Mike Davis July 22, 1987 Page Two Secondly, and even more alarming, is the issue concerning the Heart Special Improvement District. The property which we purchased for the development is split by the Heart SID. It has been our intention from day one to incorporate the land within the development, yet outside the District boundaries, into the district. Enclosed is a map illustrating this. Prior to closing, I had a meeting with Steve Roy and Matt Baker to discuss this issue, along with a potential problem we had concerning the State. During that meeting, we had a conference call with our attorney, Matt Gordon, to make sure we were covering all of our bases for the closing. As a result of this meeting, Matt Gordon and I had an expressed understanding that amending the district boundaries would not be a problem. We therefore, conveyed this to our lender and proceeded with our closing. Since that time, the City has reviewed its position and informed us that their interpretation of the code does not allow this proposed amendment. We proceeded with our closing with reasonably reliance from the City that this was not going to be a problem. I might add, that many conversations with regard to this boundary amendment had been discussed with staff prior to my meeting with Mr. Roy and Mr. Baker and never was there a mention of a potential problem. We have spent a significant amount of time and thousands of dollars in attorney's fees as a result of this situation. The solutions that we have presented to the staff are reasonable and extremely beneficial to bond holders, the District and the City. The staff's reluctance to move in a more expeditious manner to resolve this issue is confusing at best considering the extreme urgency of this matter. For the most part, I have enjoyed the working relationship I have with the City of Fort Collins. Certainly without the help of a few dedicated staff people, such as Linda Hopkins, this project would have never happened. However, the problems I have described in this letter seem to be typical throughout my experience with this project in the city. This does not shed a very bright light for our continued motivation to do business in Fort Collins. pe you will consider my concerns as warranted and will take the opriate action as soon as possible. I would welcome the opportunity ,pet with you to discuss this further. Vetyj�truly yours, -�JamE. Johnson Vice resident: - Development JEJ/rjr z¢ O�2 8 s o f r a � � rl, �'ii `+ 111111, SY co { m z �.7777U all ICU 0 ' a c� �� II III i II IIII � 111IIs � li � '-' / ^ ('RI'I I I�1T��4 I i \ III 1111'1 y \/ � � 1� � 11�� . V 11 �i III �,`�. �V � � ♦.e. 7-7 11 Jill 1111 a A m ...0-10 - ..._. tAtlMWitld NVW1110li1, 14, a DIP: July 28, 1987 TO: John. Huisjen, City Attorney FM: James M. Davis, Director of Development Services /< Attached is a memo from Matt Baker and a letter from Mr. James E. Johnson, Vice President for Development with the Sullivan Hayes Companies. Mr. Johnson alleges that the passage of time, unnecessary delays, and misinformation from public officials have cost his company $140,000 in additional, unbudgeted development fees associated with the subject AID. He also asserts that staff made certain representations regarding the Heart SID that have caused "...significant amount of time and thousands of dollars in attorney's fees..." Mr. Johnson has asked this office to intercede and set the record straight. Matt Baker's memo of July 24, 1987, attempts to respond to Mr. Johnson's concern. Please review the contents of this correspondence and advise as to the most appropriate response that should come from the City. We appreciate your assistance in this regard. I will be out of the office until August 3, 1987. Let's discuss this when I return. Attachments cc: Gary Diede Matt Baker Steve Roy MEMORANDUM DATE: July 24, 1987 TO: Mike Davis, Director of Development Services THRU: Gary Diede, Director of Engineering FROM: Matt Baker, SID Coordinator RE: Attached letter from James Johnson It has been one year since the street oversizing fee was significantly raised by Council action. It has been 7 months since the fees were raised to their current levels. Notices were sent to all developers of record and all contractors of record when the fees were originally increased in July of 1986. Since that original notice, a 4% increase in the fee was requested by staff and approved by Council, to cover the costs of inflation. This inflation was calculated by difference in unit prices the City paid out for street oversizing reimbursements in 1985 and 1986. This increase was only an adjustment for inflation and a massive mailing of notices was not undertaken. All legal notice requirements were met. On a commercial property of this size, the inflation rate increase would add approximately $5,600 to the street oversizing fee, not $20,000 as Mr. Johnson states. Staff indicates that the two year delay of the project was directly under the control of Sullivan -Hayes. It is their responsibility to meet City requirements for approval of their project. It is not the City's responsibility to obtain street, storm drainage, and utility easements for developers. Development fees are due at building permit issuance by Code. The developer was well aware of street oversizing fees when he submitted for approval, yet he comes in for a permit after two years without obtaining new estimates. On the second issue regarding the Heart S.I.D., I attended a meeting with Mr. Johnson and a conference call with his attorney. At the time, Sullivan -Hayes were trying to close on the property and had become concerned about a State Easement and obtaining a reallocation to remove the assessment against the proposed easement upon dedication of the State. we discussed this problem in detail for one and one-half hours. At the very end of this meeting, Mr. Johnson mentioned they were also thinking about this change in district boundaries. At that time, I indicated that changing boundaries is a "difficult if not impossible thing to accomplish, requiring Council action". That mention of changing district boundaries was the only contact I had with Mr. Johnson on that subject. I do not understand how Mr. Johnson could call that reasonable reliance from the City. I never was involved in "many conversations with regard to this boundary amendment" that Mr. Johnson claims. My opinion has been that the ordinances prohibit boundary changes in a district after construction of the improvements are complete (Chapter 16-9). I have since been involved with discussions between Steve Roy and Sullivan -Hayes' attorney regarding changes to the ordinance to allow boundary changes in Special Improvement Districts. Although I agree that boundary changes could be beneficial in some circumstances if done prior to the assessing ordinance of a district, I have serious reservations about changing the district after assessment. 1. If the new assessment or boundary is challenged and deemed illegal or delayed in court, the City may lose the assessment for an entire district. At best in this situation, it would involve many months of staff time to re -assess a district with the City paying on the bonds until this could be accomplished. At worst, the City would become liable to retire the bonds out of other revenues. Although the risk is small, it becomes significantly greater as properties develop and more and more property owners become involved. 2. The addition of new property in a district after assessment may change the assessments for all properties in the district. How to allocate a new assessment over properties who have made partial payments and those that have not made any payment would be complex at best. This would become exceedingly complex as properties subdivide. 3. The legal issue of benefit to the property was a concern of John Huisjen which I do not feel has been addressed. I think this is a major criteria for any change in district boundaries, before or after assessment. 4. Changing district boundaries would be an option that a developer would have to remove a parcel of property from a district. This would allow a developer to sell off a portion of his property without paying off the assessment, and "load up" the remaining properties with the full burden of the assessment. 5. Any change in district boundaries after assessment would administratively be the equivalent of creating a new district. This is a complex process requiring much staff time. This type of change could be repeated on a district year after year as properties develop. In summary of these points, I cannot recommend changing district boundaries if it puts the City in any risk, however minimal. The consequences of losing the assessment on a district would seriously jeopardize the City's financial standing. I have not received a written opinion from the City's bond counsel regarding this issue, and would recommend delaying any decision until then. Even if the changes to Ordinance 16-9 are deemed appropriate and taken to Council for approval, I would not recommend any changes to the Heart S.I.D. Even though this development will add security to the district, by increasing the land value, the district has sufficient land value already or would not have been formed initially. Also, the benefit to the additional properties proposed to be included, is not clear. The main reason that this boundary change is being requested is so that the S.I.D. assessment can be reallocated over the entire shopping center as a common area fee. This could be accomplished by a private agreement or the lease agreement, and not through a change in the district boundaries. I would suggest. that Sullivan -Hayes renegotiate their own leases rather than ask the City to take on the task of re -opening a completed Special Improvement District. Attachment January 23, 1986 Page Two By its execution of this letter, Developer acknowledges that, in the event Developer fails to acquire fee title to all of the Property prior to the 45th day following the City's final approval of the PUD, that the City may take all appropriate and necessary action to rescind its approval of the PUD and remand the PUD approval process back to the preliminary PUD approval existing prior to January 27, 1986. The Developer further acknowledges that such approval rescission may be taken by the City, or any agency thereof, without any cooperation, permission or other participation of Developer. THE CITY OF FT. COLLINS, COLORADO, a municipal corporation By Acting Community IreveloPment Director ATTEST: 4b�� City C TROUTMAN PARTNERSHIP, a Colorado general partnership By: John dward Hayes, II Genitral Partner C 0 Ni 'P A N I Il ti August 24, 1987 Mr. Jim Newell City of Fort Collins Planning Department P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80552 RE: The Pavilion Fort Collins, Colorado Dear Jim: AUG 2 6 1987 PLANNING DEPARTMENT This serves to confirm our conversation on August 18, 1987 regarding the extension of sanitary sewer main in Troutman Parkway to the Strickfaden property to the north. We are extending the eight inch sanitary sewer line from the existing man hole in Troutman Parkway to the property line with the understanding that. the City of Fort Collins will require the property owner to utilize this facility upon future development. The cost of the manhole and the sanitary sewer main extension shall be reimbursed to Troutman Partnership by the property owner north of Troutman Parkway pursuant to Chapter 112 of the City of Fort Collins' ordinances upon development of the property. The installation of the line will begin immediately in order to preceed the asphalt pavement which is scheduled for Tuesday of this week. Please call immediately if you have any comments regarding the above. Best regards, SULLIVAN HAYES COMPANIES Don Casper DC:tc C U M P A N I If S August 24, 1987 AUG 26 1987 Mr. Jim Newell PLANNING City of Fort Collins DEPARTMIENT Planning Department P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80552 RE: The Pavilion Fort Collins Dear Jim: This serves to document our conversation on August 20, 1987 regarding the installation of the accel/decel lane at College Avenue. Pursuant to our conversation, and my telephone conversation with Mr. Dean Yost with the Colorado Division of Highways, I am directing our contractor to proceed with the demolition of the existing curb and installation of new curb work and accel/decel lane. The work will be completed in accordance with the Colorado Division of Highways' requirements and the City of Fort Collins' requirements, with the exception of the top lift of asphalt which will be delayed until the existing power and telephone poles can be removed. On completion of the telephone service relocation, the poles will be pulled, the holes will be patched, and the top lift of asphalt will be completed. Lighted barricades will be provided during all phases of construction and until the completion of work and acceptance by the City of Fort Collins. Please indicate your acceptance of the above information by signing in the space provided below and remitting one copy to our office. Acceptance of the above information does not constitute responsibility or liability for maintenance of the barricades during the construction phases and until the acceptance of the final improvements. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Best regards, SULLIVAN,HAYES COMPANIES D3Fi�Casper�h 1 ig DC:tc T cc: Dean Yost, Colorado Division of Highways Jack Knopinski/Saunders Construction �. APPROVED, READ and ACCEPTED this day of August, 1981 By: CITY OF FORT COLLINS MEMORANDUM DATE: September 28, 1987 TO: Mike Herzig FROM: Steve Biegler `7 RE: Right -of -Way This is to inform you that Bill Greer, Job Superintendent at the Fort Collins Retail Center representing Saunders Construction Company, was notified September 8, 1987 that the property belonging to a Mr. Holter at the SE corner of Pavilion and College Avenue was not dedicated as City right- of-way and not to trespass. This message was repeated to Mr. Greer again the following week. RMINC Engineering Consultants 2900 South College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 303/226-4955 October 22, 1987 Mike Herzig City of Fort Collins Planning Department 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 RE: DRAINAGE OF HOLTER SITE SOUTH OF PAVILION LANE Dear Mike: Attached are the meeting minutes and proposed sketch of the storm drain extension we discussed with George Holter on April 21. As per his request the invert of the storm drain extension will be stubbed out as low as possible with the inlet invert elevation set at 26.00. It should be clarified with Mr. Holter that future developed flows entering this pipe must be detained. It should also be clarified that detained flows should be allowed only from the southern offsite area (see Attached Exhibit A). The storm drain pipe system in Pavilion Avenue is not designed to handle any detained flows south of the southern offsite area shown in Exhibit A. The southern offsite area will now be drained at two low points, rather than one as originally designed. I trust this letter clarifies the present and future impacts of the proposed storm drain extension. Sincerely, RBD, Inc. i Stan A. Myers, P.E. cc: Susan Hayes Don Casper Other Offices Vail. Colorado 303/476-6340 • Colorado Springs, Colorado 3031574-3504 Engineering Consultants CLIENT ''.1�: _��J__ JOB NO. I:!_�. PROJECT �AV/,LLB.CALCULATIONS FOR, -'7-S �)E'/Iiti MADE BY -- ,_ DATE __. _.__.. CHECKED BY DATE �Xisri,vG C q T"r � [.A.S l�f i,V r � (' •:CL /G}� .!.�1.t�E �STA :. � �� :. �O� INv -4 23zo 20 OF F<-<+�ED ENO SEP rio.� 'EFf7 Bk'Y�A rE� itfET.+G Qr�.a o CITY OF FORT COLLINS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR I7P: November 6, 1987 TO: City Council Members TIUU: Steven C. Burkett, City Manager/ /LX,_ FM: James M. Davis, Director of Development Services RE: Pavilion PUD and &dnent Domain Issue The following is in response to Council's request for more information regarding (wilding permits issued for the Pavilion PUD with an outstanding P & Z Board condition having not been met, and the need for eminent domain action to secure an easement. The request of eminent domain consideration came to Council only after extremely lengthy and arduous negotiations between the two developers and, ultimately, in the interest of public safety, between the City and the property owner. Preliminary development of the Fort Collins Retail PUD was complicated by the number of property owners (including the State) required to be assembled for any viable project in the South College Super -Block Area. Since July 1985, staff has worked as a facilitator, coordinating meetings, researching and providing information on issues of traffic, access, and drainage. The primary purpose of the staff work was to help resolve issues critical to the City and not specifically to benefit any one developer. Consequently, staff worked diligently to address the concerns of both the developer and the involved adjacent property owners. Staff advises that by April 1, 1986, negotiations between the owners of the Pavilion and Mr. George Holter for the land area needed for the curb return, had taken the form of a draft agreement. All parties were pursuing the resolution in good faith and there was every expectation that the matter would be concluded. The plans were approved by P & Z with a number of conditions. The plat was recorded with all signatures and required an off -site drainage easement. The plat noted that the curb return easement would be dedicated by the adjacent owner. There was no Engineering hold placed on the permit. The Building Inspection Department issued a permit for a recorded and approved plan. Given the negotiation progress and apparent timely resolution, no hold was issued on the permit. As indicated at the Council meeting, between issuance of the building permit and this date, Mr. Holter added the granting of the easement, a matter involving a claim against the City for costs he incurred to defend against a Public Service Company condemnation of property he owns near the Anheuser-Busch plant. The claim has been denied by the City's insurance carrier and Mr. Holter has indicated his intention to sue the City unless this issue can. be resolved with the Pavilion PUD and the need for land to accommodate the curb return. Staff has grappled with this issue for over 18 months. The strategy brought to the. Council Tuesday night was to use the threat of condemnation as a way of breaking the log jam and, hopefully, resolving the Pavilion issue; while recognizing the unrelated, outstanding claim can be resolved through separate legal procedures. An agreement pending between the developers of Pavilion and Mr. Holter provided for a curbcut, water and sewer lines, and storm drainage improvements extended to the Holter property, at his request, presumably for his future! use. These improvements were installed by the developer of the Pavilion PUD in exchange for the dedication of the curb return right-of-way to the City. This agreement also limited Mr. Holter's repay obligation from the standard one-half of the cost to construct the subject street and utility extensions to approximately $10,000. Should the City condemn Mr. Holter's property, the pending agreement between the developers of the Pavilion and Mr. Holter will become moot and Mr. Holter could become responsible to repay the Pavilion developers for one-half the cost to construct the street, assuming Mr. Holter were to use the curbcut and utility lines. Given this agreement, Holter got a "good deal" and has had an incentive to dedicate the property. However, he is now attempting to resolve other issues with the City. As a developer himself, Holter has now brought forward every concern he has had with the City on his own developments over the years. Staff has worked to resolve a number of these issues including access approval with the State for his property on the west side of College, and has negotiated requirements for traffic studies for his development proposals. In each case, these issues have been tied to the resolution of the Pavilion easement. These other issues were resolved to Holter's satisfaction. The A-B utility corridor easement had been denied by the city's insurance claim process and a proposed cash settlement is again attached to the Pavilion Staff continues to negotiate with Mr. Holter for the dedication of the easement. S,QU12a�12S , OCT 2 1987 C2St12UCt1012 � +heAr+nq rapt. o l nc. P.O. BOX 22356 6950 S. JORDAN ROAD (303) 699-9000 DENVER, COLORADO 80222 ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO 80112 October 19, 1987 Mr, Steve Siegler City of Fart Collins Public Works Department 300 La Porte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Re: The Pavilion Dear Steve.: This letter shall confirm our verbal estimate regarding the valuation of the off -site work yet to be completed for The Pavilion. Troutman Parkway, final asphalt lift - 5,444 SY $16,200.00 Collec[e Avenue decelleration lane - 667 SY 9,000.00 Pavilion Lane, final asphalt lift - 2,600 SY 7,800.00 City sidewalk on College Avenue - 1,120 SF 2,000.00 TOTAL $35,000.00 This is the work that Saunders Construction shall provide to Sullivan - Hayes, however, does not include landscaping or sprinkler work which is not in our contract. Should you have any questions or need any additional information, please advise. Sincerely, SAUNDERS CONSTRUCTION, INC. Jac Knopinski Project Manager JK:cyt cc: Don Casper January 19, 1988 Mr. Dave Stringer Engineering Department Fort Collins Water and Sewer P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80552 Re: The Pavilion Shopping Center Fort Collins, Colorado Dear Dave: Pursuant to our telephone conversation of this date, I am requesting a final acceptance of the improvements at the above project. The areas of particular concern are the roadway improvements at Troutman Parkway, College Avenue, and Pavilion Lane. I am also concerned about verification that the water main improvements have been satisfactorily completed. Please send the information to Sullivan Hayes Companies, Attention: Mr. Bob Boxwell at the address below, and copy to my attention at P.O. Box 37402, Denver, Colorado, 80237. Thank you. B est regards, Donald (Caspe— dc/bn cc: Bob Boxwell Sullivan ayes ( () m I' A " I 1 - March 10, 1988 Strickfaden Associates 3600 S. Beeler Street Suite 220 Denver, CO 80237 Attn: William K. Strickfaden RE: Pavilion S.0 / Troutman Parkway Ft. Collins, CO Dear Bill: By Messenger Confirming our conversation on site of 3/3/88, we will install the following im- provements to assure access to your properties. 1. Troutman Parkway: we will complete the drive pan currently across from our north egress. additionally we will install a similar structure immediately north of our egress at the rear of the center which also services the new National Car Rental facility. 2. Pavilion Lane: we will install a depressed curb type access on the extreme S.E. corner of Pavilion to allow access to your property. This will match the existing access servicing Holter'sproperty to the west. As agreed, upon completion of these improvements, you will expedite processing of the paperwork necessary for the dedication of Troutman Parkway. as you know, this is im- perative in my requirements with the City; your prompt attention will be greatly app- reciated. I am enclosing drawings showing the location of the above described improvements for your reference. We anticipate completion of this work, weather permitting, no later than 3/15/88. I will contact you and Mike Herzig to schedule an inspection for the purpose of expediting the process. In regards to the joint access to both Holter's property and yours off of Pavilion, I have been unable to reach Mr. Holter. The idea, however, is an extra expense that I cannot bear. We will have provided all agreed upon access improvements with the com- pletion of the above detailed items. Should you and Mr. Holter arrive at a mutually agreeable means of modification to the existing access, I would be glad to refer you to people who could performthe work for you. Bill, your cooperation and assistance is appreciated, if I may be of further assistance do not hesitate to contact me. i'1 �1V I 119 i II ,I I<I t 1 . l II!FI) II1 UUR . I)FVVREF, ( ( �1 ORAP, ) h020' . I W' i34-0`)Oi' . }AX_ ( W3) 625-ii02 CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION February 5, 1986 MEMORANDUM TO: Rich Shannon, Interim City Manager FROM: Linda Hopkins, Acting Community Development Director RE: Fort Collins Retail Center The attached letter and section of a map depict another problem facing Jim Johnson and the Sullivan -Hayes firm related to the development of the Fort Collins Retail Center. The P & Z approval was conditioned upon S-H obtaining all the property and easements within the 45 day period. From my discussions with Mr. Johnson, I know that they are working to accomplish that, but the property owners are making it very, very difficult. Mr. Holter, the property owner to the south, would not agree to have the normal split of right-of-way for Pavilion Street on his property which caused redesign of Pavilion Street during the project review. The entire street right-of-way is on the S-H property, except: for a small easement for the curb return. Mr. Holter has informed S-H that he would agree to allow that easement under some very stringent conditions, which the attached letter outlines. The most costly and, in my mind„ unreasonable condition is (c) - which releases Holter from paying the standard re -pay to the developer of the adjacent street. The street would clearly benefit him, and at such time that he wanted to improve his property or get another point of access, the re -pay agreement would have in the standard situation be in place and Holter would then reimburse S-H approximately $40,000. Given the S-H efforts to date - redesigning the street, and moving the building alignment further into the site, to maintain the desired setback - another change to the street design seems unreasonable. Jim Johnson is asking that the City use it's powers of condemnation to secure the easement. S-H would pay the entire land costs, (estimated at $2800 for the full 480 feet) plus fees, and staff time. The financial benefit is obvious to them, but the question is this an appropriate use of condemnation powers. t ]] Jf 2 w� Y{+ •k �,� t1 PAGE TWO Cordially yours, (�/LC Dwight Boyi es Construction Manager DB/dn Encl. cc: Bob Boxwell Mike Herzig, P,E. iusv b,W ,� (01000 g� ••� ��•' ATIONAL CAR RENT] • 1 , 1 0Cw 1 _ •/ I 1 I 1 I 1 1 FK�S77N17 D6JJ i f 4 t 63 /^// /' O /••I tGtaV o/ • O N �1I 1111111 RETAIL "A If RETAIL �A2� RETAIL �Mo RETAIL *81' W RE a Q O cr /' IT, m go` M► ,d'�GM-O CVN) i i i I PAD 'A' j PHASE 2 CLAN 1 0c� — ..a 'o .«ems (e,e) - — +— -- - — + - dtcf v cvne� isee PAD .B. PHASE 2 Pv rs= .aD Itola'i - 4 N.r•s. 4ro-0 4 -pt AA�i9sa��Vc r P ��F tiEw b P D6aRfSs� GULF -_ ll✓� FC��SS / RETAIL �E' RETAIL �F' I roa pc-n eo Pytw 1 tH v O 1 �V ai lye' N ` a cone Prr� 0 _ m ` v 1 Z 1 F- ' U - FK(5TIAL7 I � o — -. �w poI. Par,. 0 0 -- - - j See W ETAL•n W •G' �� 1 aa0^ n0 - � I 1 1 1 DOE or cF r.`l3n/♦ C i :NUE (existing) Aqfss 0 25 50 100 150 200 / CITY OF FORT COLLINS OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. PLANNING DEPARTMENT April 4, 1988 Mr. Bob Boxwcll Vice President of Construction Sullivan and Hayes Companies 1800 Hudson's Bav Centre 1600 Stout Street Deliver, CO. 80202 KF.: Pavilion Shopping Center Dear Mr. Boxwcll: Mr, Don Casper asked that the City of Fort Collins supply information regard- ing the improvements required for a bus stop on Troutman Parkway. It will be recalled that the bus stop was originally intended to be placed internally within the Pavilion but this option was dropped after objections by one of the anchor tenants. As a result, it was decided that in lieu of internal service, bus service would be handled on Troutman Parkway contingent upon an improved bus stop. Please find enclosed a rough schematic which outlines what improvements would be acceptable to both Transfort and the Planning Department. Basically, the City is asking that the 10 foot wide concrete walk exiting the Center be extended from behind the existing 5 foot wide public sidewalk, all the waa to the back of the existing curb along Troutman Park�hay. Within this 10 foot wide concrete walk, it is suggested that a 3 foot area remain flat for relocation of the existing bus bench, a 3 foot area be used as transition, and 4 feet be devoted to a standard handicap ramp. This ramp will line up across the street with a future bus stop also featuring a ramp. The ramp may feature either a vertical curb or a flared curb on the west side. 'file final design would be your option. There are no plantings in this area other than sod. There are two sprinkler heads nearby as shown on the diagram. As best that can be determined, no sprinkler heads would have to be relocated. OFFICE Of DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, PLANNING 300 LaPorte Ave. • P.O Box 580 • Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 • (303) 221-6750 Page 2 Transfort will need a sign for the bus stop. Please assist in locating the underground irrigation lines so the line is not damaged during sign installation. The enclosed sketch is not intended to be a construction document but merely an illustration of the extent of the improvements. Please call if there are any questions or comments. Sincerely, T /--k Ted Shepard City Planner cc: Ken Sylvester, Transfort Mike Herzig, Development Coordinator TR0UTI%AP' 8 US STOP FiT ?HE PIRV I M AfflL 5, 14EO PER KEN SYLVESTER TED SHEPRRO I� 0� Pjqv1L101� sloeWRLI< iPRr�',fNEO CONCRETE PUQL10 SIOEWAI.X (GONGKE7E) OPTIONAL VERTI"E CUAO PUA PAMP +-1 LrwQSGfIPE0 STRIP �-SOD) � OPTIONRL FL PAf POR RAM/ 1' 6 Lq CURE 3FAINKLEf HEA04 NORTH _ Toe ovTMtiN 1" ` 10' SC;IL.E WITHIN .THIS S' 8" Sop OEO 4PE-R, ZK)£NO THE lo' GEloE SloEWRLK To TkE gRcK or CURB. odes NOT NAVE 7a gE "OfTT7 RNE0 I . RLSO, :;:N CL UOE A STANDARD L11 W10e RRr7P. LEAVE SUFFIUErJ7 RRER Fag Tme Qus 3ENCH. PLEASE P1RRK APJ AReR CLEq,f 0;: 2,2RI6RTIarJ LIN£s �OK THE Bus SToo S/6r!• SEE BELOW FOR RAMP QPTIONS. C—_---�'-- y r- VERTICLE EDGE OP FRMP QENCH TQRNSiTioN QRf1P a' 3' 3' L{ SLOPED EDGE OF RAMP, WOULO MAY 1 May 5, 1988 City of Ft. Collins Development Services 300 LaPorte Avenue P.O. Box 580 Ft. Collins, CO. 80522 Attn: Steve Biegler Engineering Construction Inspector RE: Pavilion Retail Center Dear Steve: As requested, I researched the required area of hydro -seeding of the Larimer Ditch No.2. My investigation showed the original parameters of seeding modified by change to the P.U.D. and Landscape/Irrigation plans on 10/13/87. This was done by Pouw & Associates, our Architect on the project. I trust this will clarify your concerns; should you desire further assistance, do not hesitate to contact me. Cordially yours, Dwight Boyles / Construction Manager cc: Bob Boxwell DB/dn Engineering ConsuRants 2900 South College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 3031226-4955 June 20, 1988 Dwight Boyles Sullivan -Hayes Company 303 16th Street, 3rd Floor Denver, Colorado 80202 RE: VERIFICATION FOR THE POND AREAS AT FORT COLLINS RETAIL CENTER Dear Mr. Boyles: We have completed the field spot elevations in the detention areas; for the Fort Collins Retail Center. These spot elevations confirmed that the construction of these detention areas provide the required detention as specified in the drainage report for this project. Sincerely, RBD, Inc. Gary 7illAlanjdP.' L`8// Other Offices: Vail, Colorado 3031476-6340 • Colorado Springs, Colorado 3031574-3504 June 23, 1988 City of Fort Collins Development Services - Engineering 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Attn: Steve Biegler Engineering Construction Inspector RE: Pavilion Shopping Center Dear Steve: As requested, enclosed please find documentation confirming the capacity of detention ponds constructed on the above referenced property. This should complete our requirements for verification type documents. I plan to be able to schedule our last required repair work this next week. At that time, I will notify you and request final inspection and acceptance. Cordially yours, Dwig�'�i yles Construction Manager encl: cc: Bob Boxwell September 28, 1988 City of Fort Collins Development Services - Engineering 300 LaPorte Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Attn: Steve Biegler KL: Paviiiuii Shuppiny Center Dear Steve: Upon review of our files, I do not find evidence of final acceptance of public improvements on the above referenced property. To the best of my knowledge, all items we had discussed have been completed. As we are in need of closing the books on this project, please respond at your earliest convenience so we may complete our required one year warranty period without undue time lapse. Your prompt assistance will be appreciated. Cordially yours, Dwigh Boyles Construction Manager cc: Bob Boxwell I'd suggest that a redesign of the curb be investigated. There are some difficulties because informal agreements with the State regarding access points to the State Highway do not allow much design flexibility. The whole situation is uncomfortable and I'm not sure how or if we ought to be involved. I would appreciate your direction. T:ID,NC Engineering Consultants 2900 South College Avenue Fort Collins. Colorado 80525 3031226 4955 Octo')er 14, 1988 Susan Ilayes City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Dept. 235 Mathews Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 RF: RETAIL SPACE PROPOSED ON PAD A OF THE FORT COLLINS RETAIL CENTER P.U.D. a.k.a. THE PAVTIJ ON Dear Susan This letter's purpose is to clarify drainage impact of the forementioned project. The area for Pad A was .included in the original drainage report- done for the Port Collins Retail Center P.U.D., dated September 4, 1985. A copy of the pertinent area of Lhe drainage plan is attached. The original layout included a driveway and teller window area. This has now been eliminated with a parking area added along the west. side of t_he proposed retail space. The overall change in the site V' factor is insign1ficanL to t_he overall drainage plan (see attached calculation). The proposed use of pad site complies with the previously ap- proved overall drainage plan for the Retail Center-. The proposed improvements can therefore be built according to the approved grading plan without changing the previous drainage approach. Sincerely, RBD, Inc. Stan A. Myers, P.E. Oltrcr OfficesVail, Colorado 3031476-6310 • Colorado Springs, Colorado 303/574-3504 RmNC Engineering Consultants CLIENT1OA v_°L_//!%<� -_-- JOB NO PROJECT_ f�f✓�' -.P"7 (*-"Y'f 4-'CALCUEATICNS FOR MADE BY DATE--____. CHECKEDBY__.-_-DATE - _ _ SHEET_ OF AP'/OVT `C' CA C, 0 6j-L)e.APEA zcC,a In 0,;�97 PAVt0 APEA 8164 G.I4:1 E;;e 2 G. t: 7 slerc2k APEA N SSG OICXl4" ,Anus Aee-A �3173 .2 o,! 98 43C75 G.5/7 g3o7S NEVI wrw C = G,.633 Tmeac Engineering Consultants 2900 South College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 3031226-4955 September 8, 1989 Rick Richter Office of Development Services Planning Department City of Fort Collins 300 Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: CONSTRUCTION COMPLIANCE OF THE SOUND WAREHOUSE SITE Dear Rick: Please find attached the record drawing we are submitting of the site improvements constructed at the Sound Warehouse site on Pad A of the Pavilion. This information is the result of our site survey of the finished construction. On the basis of this information, we certify that the construction of these improve- ments is in substantial compliance to the overall drainage plan for this area. The owner is aware of a potential low level pond- ing problem which could occur in the landscaped area immediately north of the building pad. We have made recommendations to deal with this problem and he is accepting responsibility to remedy the situation. This problem, however, does not effect the site substantial compliance to the Pavilion's drainage plan. I trust this plan and letter will address your concerns. Sincerely, \ /� Stan A. Myers P.E. cc: Dwight Boyles, Sullivan Hayes 105-008A Other Offices: Vail, Colorado 303/476-6340 • Colorado Springs, Colorado (719) 598-4107 Engineering Consultants 2900 South College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 303/226-4955 September 12, 1989 Susan Hayes Stormwater Utility Department City of Fort Collins 235 Matthews Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: CONSTRUCTION COMPLIANCE OF THE SOUND WAREHOUSE SITE Dear Susan: Please find attached the record drawing_we are submitting of the site Im rovements constructed at the Sound Warehouse site on Pad A of the Pavilion. This information is the result of our site [ii survey of the finished construction. This survey revealed that i ��,}�,r'the finish floor elevation of the pad site was constructed 0.5 feet below the design elevation or 30.00. It also showed that 11\ 3k(til areas of the parking lot were constructed from 0.6 feet above to f;!rl 0.3 feet below the design elevations. These discrepancies from the design plan, however, do not effect the ultimate drainage patterns. On the basis of this information, we certify that the construction of these improvements is in substantial compliance to the overall drainage plan for this area. The owner is aware of a potential low level ponding problem which could occur in the landscaped area immediately north of the building pad. This area will likely pond water in minor storms with major storms draining toward Troutman Parkway. We have made recommendations to deal with this problem including the installa- tion of a curb cut and sidewalk culvert to drain to Troutman Parkway. The owner is accepting responsibility to remedy the situation. This problem, however, does not effect- the site sub- stantial compliance to the Pavilion's drainage plan. Other Offices: Vail, Colorado 3031476-6340 • Colorado Springs, Colorado (719) 598-4107 I trust this plan and letter will address your concerns. Sincerely, Stan A. Myers P cc: Dwight: Boyles, Sullivan Ilayes _ '� 1Oco .05-008A =,,,� U A t T:ONC Engineering Consultants 2900 South College Avenue Fort Collins. Colorado 80525 303/226-4955 FAX. 303,226-4971 June 11, 1992 Ms. Susan Duba Hayes Stcrmwater Utility Dept. City of Fort Collins 235 Mathews Fort Collins, Co. 80522 RE: VERIFICATION OF DETENTION AND STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES APPLEBEE'S RESTAURANT Dear Susan: RBD Inc. has field surveyed the storm drainage improvements indicated on the ApplebeeIs Restaurant Utility Plans. The attached blueline reflects the field survey in the critical design area for this site. I:n discussion with Don Tippen of Bevans Enterprises a concrete pan will be installed joining the southern sidewalk chase for the roof drain to the drainage pan along the south side of the building. The concrete pan along the northern section of sidewalk called for on the plans was eliminated by the owner but should not effect the intent of the overall drainage plan. The survey shows that the drainage swale have been constructed to comply with the intent of the drainage plan and is within construction tolerances of the design shown on the above referenced plans. Although sections of the pan - were installed above the design elev t ons adequate fall and freeboard are -available at the doorways.. I trust this letter addresses your needs and agrees with your understanding to the status of the existing drainage improvements. Sincerely, ,t`\m",.. R... 18?CO Stan A. Myers P.E. ^^e cc: Don Tippen, Bevans Enterprises Stephen A. Grove, Restaurant Concepts Inc. «v; Other offices. Denver 303,458-5526 • Vail 303,476-6340 • Longmont 303,678-9584 Community . tanning and Environmental Seri _es E4 , Engineering Department P a O City of Fort Collins March 2, 1993 Ms. Micki Elliot Sullivan Hayes Companies 303 Sixteenth Street 3rd Floor Denver, Co. 80202 Re: Pavilion Shopping Center Fort Collins, Co. Dear Ms. Elliot: The intent of this is to inform Sullivan Hayes Companies that the City has accepted the streets constructed as a condition for development of the Fort Collins Retail Center, dba Pavilion Shopping Center. Specifically, Troutman Parkway and Pavilion Lane have been accepted for maintenance by the city. If you need additional information please contact me at 221-6314 or 221-6605. sincerely David Stringer \ Chief Construction Inspector cc: Mike Herzig Matt Baker 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6WU 0400 60LLEG EXIST. FL 11 1 0+57,00 04-6o6.3o W� {-IIGN I-JIw 0+e700 P.G K. 3+ti Al 417 TFANSITM4 TO I' WALK@RAMP T`(P. F30TH 510Eh 9._ N o+-rs.oc PG LEAVE 6UR5 PCAV DON FOK ALGE05e7 RAMP A2ER "aotSMD FQ-OF, 1-104.TtAt- 4CEA Nf.IZ-Oi-D 1:;00- 1AlP2oJfHfNTS l�S fJe SI �_wl S(1 i j ROATH a BREGA, PC. C. HENRY ROATH ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHARLESF BREGA CENTER FIVE HAROLO 5. BLOOMENTHAL 1700 WRITERS LOREN L. MALL 1873 SOUTH BELLAIRE STREET ROBERT L ROBERTS P.O. BOX 5560 TA JAY W ENYART JOHN M. SIRKELAND DENVER, COLORADO 80217 ROGER P. TMOMASCH l]OJI 601 5400 EDWARD N. BARAD THEODOREZ GELT TCLLK AS 0252 J. STEPHEN MCGUIRE DAVID W. STARK DOWNTOWN OFFICE JACK IN BERRYHILL CARL A. EKLUND ONE UNITED BANK CEHtEP' STUART N. SENNETT SUITE 2222 ROBERT E. KENDIG 1700 LINCOLN STREET IFSLIE J. ROOS DENVER, COLORADO CO203 ROBERT C. KAUFMAN KENNETH D. WILLIS RECEIVED JAY JOHN SCHNELL JAMES G. BENJAMIN FEB 1 91 1986 KEVIN D. MILLARD DAVID L UNTO RICHARD E. STODDARD CLAYTON A. REEVES DONALD SALCITO CHARLES W. BESS HEIL M. GOFF SUE ANN FITCH JULIE A. MACKAY MADELEINE AUSTIN LEON M. UYDEN JAMES A. CUNNINGHAM WILLIAM K. LESTER. JR. MICHAEL D. MCINTYRE JEFFREY BARTHOLOMEW GREGORY C. TEVIS DAVID WARREN MILLER CAMERON J. SYKE J. STEVEN BEASOUT MARK A. WIELGA MATTHEW D. GORDON BRUCE A. JAMES CHRISTOPHER C. CROSS STEVEN O. SEARLS LOREA L MITCHELL LEWIS BONNIE A. BELL TONYA KINS WILLIAM L. JOHNSON CURTIS E. KNUDSEN W. KEITH TIPTON JOHN B. DOUGHERTY ALAN M. KEEFFE CLAIRE E. HOLMES DENISE K. YOUNG JOHN EDWARD HAAS STEVEN E. ABELMAN WAYNE M. GAZUR MARGARET C. GILLIAM DAVID A. KLIBANER LOUIS E. GELT OF .0J.S2L February 10, 1986 Pi N�_ *Roy, Esq. 0` teve Roy, Esq. Office of the City Attorney City of Ft. Collins 800 LaPorte Avenue Ft. Collins, CO 80522 Re: "Development Agreement" for real property located at the Southeast corner of College Avenue and Troutman Parkway, Ft. Collins, Colorado Gentlemen: This farm represents Troutman Partnership, the potential developer of the above -referenced property ("Developer"). As you know, the State of Colorado, acting through the State Board of Land Commissioners, has refused to execute the Development: Agreement. The Board's rationale for this refusal has centered on their unwillingness to commit the State to the continuing obligation to construct onsite and offsite improvements upon this development. The Board feels that since the State will own only a small, undevelopable portion of the subject property, and because the project does not benefit the State in any direct manner, the State has no reason to accrue this type of liability. Further, the State would be the only signator to the Development Agreement with any continuing liability. In order to alleviate the State's concerns, the Developer, in conjunction with the office of the Colorado Attorney General, has suggested several alternatives. The Developer has offered to indemnify the State from any liability pursuant to the Development Agreement and has indicated its willingness