Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHUNTINGTON HILLS PUD SEVENTH - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2007-02-06September 11, 1998 Mr. Bob Blanchard Director of Planning City of Ft. Collins Planning Department 281 North College Avenue Ft. Collins, CO 80521 Re: Request for Minor Amendments to the Huntington Hills Overall Development Plan and to the Oak/Cottonwood Farm Overall Development Plan Dear Bob: As you are aware, the representatives of Oak/Cottonwood Faun and Huntington Hills Overall Development Plans (ODP) have been working witif the City's Natural Resource Department to find a creative way to develop Parcel J in Huntington Hills so that the City's natural resource areas along the Fossil Creek and Mail Creek drainages are protected to the maximum extent feasible. The proposal currently being explored involves the following: • The City's Natural Resource Department would purchase Parcel L in Oak/Cottonwood Farm ODP (Miramont) • The Natural Resource Department would then trade a portion of Parcel L for a portion of Parcel J. The effect of the trade would be that the City would acquire natural resource area along the drainages and the developers would acquire the internal land for development. This unique approach appears to work well for the City, the developer and the neighborhood. However, in order to proceed the developer will need to develop a minimum of 260 dwelling units on the combined Parcels J and L. The Huntington Hills ODP describes Parcel J as 16.66 acres with a density range of 5-10 du/ac which equates to 167 dwelling units maximum for Parcel J. The Oak/Cottonwood Farm ODP describes Parcel L as 9.5 acres Low Density Residential with 10 dwelling units proposed. We are requesting a minor amendment to the Huntington Hills ODP increasing the maximum number of dwelling units on Parcel J from 167 to 260. Since as many as 24 of these dwelling units may be placed on land that is currently Parcel L in the Oak/Cottonwood Farm ODP, we are also requesting a minor amendment to the Oak/Cottonwood Fami ODP increasing the maximum number of dwelling units on Parcel L from 10 to 24. No more than 260 total dwelling units will be proposed for the combined parcels J and L. The City's Land Use Code specifies under what conditions Minor Amendments to approved development plans may be approved administratively by the Director. The Code states that minor '1 12-03-1998 12:09PM FROM ANDOVER 713GS88322 P. 7 ` pe Yd In addition to the City, there are three neighborhood groups which have concerns regarding this project, Huntington Hills, Miramont, and Fossil Creek Meadows. In addition, the project must address the concerns of the elementary school Huntington Hills: Of the three neighborhoods, Huntington Hills is least affected by the proposed project, therefore we have heard little from the residents. It is even possible that some of the residents of Huntington Hills look forward to completion of the Fossil Creek Parkway connection (including the bridge), as currently residents In Huntington Hits use LeMay and Hammy to get to College (or even the elementary school). The only Huntington Hill resident to voice concern at the neighborhood meeting took the position that if the Huntington Hill connection was completed, it seemed only fair that the Miramont Connection be completed, so that Miramont traftc would not drive through Huntington Hills to get to College. No Huntington Hills resident, to my knowledge, has made a negative comment about the project Itself. I fdramont: Miramont residents, on the other hand, came out in numbers to the neighborhood meeting for the purpose of voicing their concern about the connection of Roma Valley Drive to Mat Creek Lane. Several of the residents noted that no one had ever informed them of the development agreement which required a connection between the neighborhoods, which is to say that they fed deceived by .somebody", and I believe a few of theses residents were legitimately surprised to loam of any proposed connection. It is the connection that is of concern to Miramont Fong Creek Meadows: The Fossil Creek Meadows homeowners were not at at surprised, they have lived with the concept of a proposed connection for over ten years. In fact, I believe that most of the these residents believe that the Fossil Creek Parkway connection will be made, and they are out to negotiate the hest conditions possible for the connection. Their concerns are the amount of traffic, its effect on children walking to school and the safety of those children, or children crossing Fossil Creek Parkway in route their private park They worry about the wear and tear on their portion of Fossil Creek Parkway which Is already deteriorating. Concerns about the project rtaeff: In the neighborhood meeting, or meetings with specific neighbors, this is what we've heard. The project is too large, too high, too dense, not landscaped enough, its lighting win not be attractive, etc. We've also heard several residents note that the plans appear attrac", and that they are reasonably satisfied If the project is similar to Argyle at Willow Springs. A 12-03-1998 12.10PM FROM ANDOVER 713SS88322 M We have attempted to address each of these comments to the best of our abilities_ We've now reduced the number of units to 224 (originally 296), we've limited the number of three story units, we've hired the best landscape architect in the city, and we have carefully prepared lighting drawings, so as to minimize the flow of light outside the project. These are the Issues we can address as developer. What we have a more difficult time addressing is the public issues of interoonneotiviy, quality of streets, and safety otchildren. %101 South Fort Collins Sanitation District August 16, 1999 Mr. Ted Shepard, Planner City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80525 RE: Fossil Creek Parkway Improvements Utility Plans Mail Creek Lane Improvements Utility Plans Dear Mr. Shepard, The Fort Collins - Loveland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District have reviewed the above mentioned project and submit the following comments. All utilities are to be identified on the drawings. The District requires signature blocks on all sheets except the property plat. All District facilities are to be adjusted in accordance with District requirements. The District will require another review due to the nature of the above comments. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 226-3104, ext. 14, if you have any questions or require additional information. Respectfully, Mr. Te Farrill Sy Engineer xc: Mr. Michael D. DiTullio, District Manager Services 40 Engineering Department City of Fort Collins January 15, 1999 Mr. A. John Knapp, Jr. Andover Group, Inc. 910 Travis, Suite 2205 Houston, Texas 77002 Re: Proposed Multi -family Huntington Hills PUD, 7`s Filing Dear John: I am writing regarding your memo dated December 3, 1998, where you had suggestions and questions about your proposed development. The comments you received from Ted Shepard, dated December 21, 1998, with other attached comments from city staff, addressed most of the suggestions and questions in the memo. With this letter I am responding the the remaining items.. Speed Bumps and Crosswalks: For Fossil Creek Parkway, neither the City nor the County want speed humps on a collector street with 6,000 to 8,000 cars per day. However, a speed hump in the form of speed table combined with a crosswalk for the school crossing and any other critical crosswalks, would be acceptable to both agencies. A similar crosswalk is the one on Fossil Creek Parkway just west of Lemay. Before speed humps could be installed on any local streets, the neighborhood must be in favor of their installation. In the City, 70% of the neighborhood must be in favor of their installation and be willing to sign a document that indicates as such. The County is the same, except they require 65% of residents to be in favor. School Crossing signal: The City will pay for any school crossing signal to be installed. However, the signal must be warranted. Eric Bracke, the City Traffic Operations Engineer will make that determination. 11 I believe this takes care of the remaining items. Call me if you have further questions at (970) 221-6605. Sincerely, //,A/ Michael Herzig Special Projects Engineer cc: Cam McNair Eric Bracke Ted Shepard 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6605 a Mr. Michael Herzig City of Fort Collins Engineering Department 281 N. College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 Re. Fossil Creek Parkway Project No. 0270-030 Dear Mike Herzig: M February 9, 1999 Enclosed you will find the preliminary plan & profile for the Fossil Creek Parkway Extension adjacent to Huntington Hills P.U.D. — Filing No, 7. This plan was prepared prior to obtaining a decision from the city regarding the road section (40' H-FI). We are awaiting additional information from Storm Water pertaining to the design of the bridge before revising this plan. The following items we are aware of and will incorporate into the revisions: I. The road will be designed to the new collector street cross section. Due to setback distance issues with Huntington Hills P.U.D. — Filing No. 7, we are going to shift the center line of the road and the west R.O.W. line to the west along the Huntington Hills propert-v. 2. The bike path needs to pass under the bridge on the north side of Fossil Creek. This will change the bridge design. Also, we are waiting for information from Storm Water regarding the new flow rates in Fossil Creek. This information is required before we can size the bridge structure. 3. We will look at the curve radius south of the bridge to provide as large a radius as possible. Originally, we were attempting to keep the curve off of the bridge. Due to the alignment and bridge changes, this may not be possible. 4. We will provide a preliminary design for the off -site improvements on Fossil Creek Parkway to College Avenue. We arc in the process of obtaining additional information to complete this design. Hopefully, this addresses your concerns for the design of the Fossil Creek Parkway Extension. Should you have further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, TST INC. COONSULTING ENGINEERS Eric M. Fuhrman EMF Enclosure cc: Mr. Mark Palkowitz Mr. John Knapp Mr. Bob Campbell TST9 INC. 748 Winders Way - Building D 102 Imemess Terrace East Fort Collins, CO 80525 Consulting Engineers 226-0557 suite 105 (970) Englewood, CO 80112 Metm (303)595-9103 (303) 792-0557 Fay (970) 226-0204 F. (303) 792-9489 Email inf.@tstinc.com waw.[e[inc.com From: Ted Shepard To: Craig Foreman, Eric Bracke, Kathleen Reavis, Ma... Date: Thu, Apr 22, 1999 9:12 AM Subject: Huntington Hills 7th The meeting to discuss sidewalk options for the north side of Fossil Creek Parkway between Mail Creek Lane and College Avenue has been set for: Monday, May 3rd, 5:30 p.m. at TST 748 Whalers Way, Bldg. D Mr. Barry Long, President of the Fossil Creek Meadows HOA will also be in attendance. We have encouraged Mr. Long to invite some of the property owners whose lots back onto the street. Mr. Long is aware that we are looking at options, one of which is the null alternative. Mr. Long has asked the following to be prepared for the meeting: 1. How far set back from the street will be the Fossil Creek Trail on the south side of the road? He is concerned that the existing control box and valve box for their private irrigation system may be impacted. 2. Will the improvements include curb and gutter? 3. What are the improvements planned for Mail Creek Lane? Will this include curb and gutter? 4. Will an easement be needed from the HOA in order to build the 8 - 10 foot wide sidewalk on Mail Creek Lane? 5. Will an easement be needed to extend the culvert under Mail Creek Lane? Basically, the HOA wants to make sure that everything that was promised at the neighborhood meetings will be provided. suggest that we prepare something in writing that we can hand out. Please note that I will be out of the office from April 23 to April 30. Marc Virata is the lead City Engineer on the project so please provide information back to Marc in preparation of this meeting. Thanks, Ted. From: Gary Diede To: Cam McNair, Dave Stringer, Eric Bracke, Glen So... Date: Wed, May 12, 1999 3:43 PM Subject: Re: Roma Valley Drive design - sidewalk, curb & gutter type? Here is the latest and probably final on the Roma Valley saga. Today I met with Bill Neal, Gar y Nordic and Eldon Ward (Mark Jackson was there for part of our meeting too). What I found out is that Roma Valley from the bike/ped access into Huntington Hills to about 100'west of Highcastle is currently under construction and can not be changed without many delays and penalties to the developer. This portion is under a different phase than the connection to Mail Creek Lane. So we will need to follow the approved design of Roma Valley as a 36' wide Ft -to FL with rollover curb and a T9" attached sidewalk. Eric and i have decided that it is not worth trying to widen the street to 40' for the remainder of Roma Valley for wo reasons 1) the houses on the south side will have 3-car garages and will very seldom need on street parking and 2) the traffic volumes are low. Kathleen would like to see 5 ' wide sidewalks that will have to be attached in the existing ROW and will provide for a safer ped corridor to the school. So the bottom line is we've widened the sidewalk from 3'9" to 5' on Roma Valley from about 100' west of Highcastle to MAil Creek Lane and Eric will stripe the street wiouth and parking. We expect that the curb and gutter will be rollover rather than 6" vertical t match the react of Roma Valley. Dave, I would expect that the utilities can build in the normal easements - is that corect? Gary >>> Dave Stringer 05/12 8:42 AM >>> Gary, There was some discussion about having 10.5 feet of green space area behind a 5 foot sidewalk, and maintaining the existing street side R.O.W. and easement. This does not allow enough room for the utilities. Normally, they need a 13 foot green built area to get light & Power and public service within the easement and R.O.W. I believe that if we are going to allow less then the 13 feet they need to be contacted for approval. To ask for an additional 3 feet or so of easement does not seem out of the question. It would not have any affect on the lot layout or home (location within the lot lines Dave >>> Gary Diede 05/11 5:44 PM >>> Let's not cellebrate yet!! I have a meeting with Bill Neal and Eldon Ward tomorrow at 9:45. They have concerns. Gary >>> Kathleen Reavis 05/11 11:59 AM >>> Thanks for the great information - the attached cross sections are very helpful. Halleluia! I'm so glad we were able to get the 40' roadway width - congratulations! Regarding the other issues... Again, due to the designation of Roma Valley being proposed as a Collector and given the ped/bike traffic going to and from the school and park sites. I would prefer a 5' detached walk (with 2' parkway) and vertical curb if possible. If detaching the walkway is not possible, then I would at least like to see 5' walks with the vertical curb. That's my two cents worth for now. Let me know how these options work out. Thanks again. KR >>> Marc Virata 05/10/99 04:36PM >>> Just to quickly summarize after what was discussed last week: Roma Valley Drive will be widened to 40' FL -FL. The cross-section will entail a 10' travel lane on both sides, a 6' bike lane on the north side and a 6' bike lane/8' park lane on the south side. This was agreed upon by everyone. A new situation The right-of-way for Roma Valley Drive is 54'. 40'FL-FL with 54' leaves 14' remaining. How do we utilitze the remaining ROW? If the street were to give the appearance of a collector, we would then probably want detached sidewalk and vertical curb. If we don't want the appearance of a collector, then attached sidewalk with driveover curb would be more likely. In either scenario we would need a minimum of 13' of combined easement and right-of-way for the placement of utilities. In terms of the approved plans for Miramont, Roma Valley Drive has driveover curb and attached sidewalk everywhere, except in between Highcastle Drive and Southridge Greens Boulevard. Here, Roma Valley has vertical curb and an attached 4' sidewalk on the north side only. Highcastle Drive has vertical curb and 4' attached sidewalk for most of the street. Southridge Greens Boulevard has vertical curb wl 4.5' sidewalk detached. This is a collector street by name and design. The rest of the local streets utilize driveover curb and gutter with attached sidewalk. The cross-section for Roma Valley Drive where curb is driveover on both sides gives 310" of open space behind the sidewalks as part of our right-of-way, added to 9' utility easements, which basically gives 13' for utility needs. Now with the road widening, additional easements from the previous 9' will be needed to maintain 13' of combined easement/ROW. Sidewalk width, attached or detached, and curb and gutter type - these options will have an impact on the amount of easement needed. Is there a consensus on the improvements we want outside the roadway? Any thoughts would be appreciated. Attached are the proposed and approved cross -sections FYI, as well as our standards for curb & gutter and sidewalk. Thanks. Marc P. Virata Development Review Engineer City of Fort Collins (970) 221-6605 x7188 mviratw5ci.fort-collins.co.us CC: Mark Jackson, Sheri Wamhoff cm 1*0 Interoffice Memorandum Date: 6/12/1999 To: Cam McNair, City Engineer From: Marc Virata, Development Review Engineer RE: Huntington Hills, P.U.D. 7" Filing TST Engineering, on behalf of the developer for the Huntington Hills, P.U.D. 7`s Filing, has submitted a request for a variance to section 1.02.03.06 and Figure 1B in the "Design and Construction Criteria, Standards and Specifications for Streets, Sidewalks, Alleys, and Other Public Ways" in order to reduce the minimum length of sag vertical curve from approximately 260' to 1551. The 260' requirement is an estimate based on Figure iB. Because of the interpretive nature of the figure, Sheri Wamhoff advised me on using the enclosed Table 202.4 "Design Controls for Vertical Curves" for checking vertical curves. The table gives a guide using K values based on the length and algebraic difference of the curves. Using a design speed of 40 mph, the minimum K value for a sag curve is 60 (note that with the formula, this would give a minimum length of 279' for a 4.65 algebraic difference and 291' for a 4.85 algebraic difference — more stringent than Figure 1B.) TST provided K values of 32 to 33. It is my opinion that this variance request can be supported. As the letter indicates, they are constrained from increasing their vertical curves by the requirements set forth on the bridge design to the north. They could, in theory, try to better meet the requirements by cutting back into existing pavement to the south; however, this would cut into pavement adjacent to existing homes. It is of note that this area to the south was originally designed (in 1977) to residential street standards, not as a collector. As such, traffic volumes in this area was designed (and posted) with residential speeds in mind. In speaking with Eric Bracke, the posted speed on Fossil Creek Parkway is 25 mph but may be increased to 30 mph as a maximum. While we are using a design speed of 40 mph for approval because Fossil Creek Parkway is classified as a collector, using residential criteria does not appear to be detrimental. Please let me know of any issues or concerns you may have with this request. Sincerely, Marc Virata Cc: Ted Shepard From: Dave Stringer To: Cam McNair, Gary Diede, Marc Virata Date: Mon, Aug 2, 1999 10:42 AM Subject: Re: Miramont Valley - impts. to Highcastle Cam, 1. Yes, Gary Nordic knows there is a hold on permits. 2. Common sense dictates that we only escrow the amount needed construct the trail connection, remove the existing radii ( if they exist) and install curb, gutter and walk through what would have been the street intersection, plus 50%. This money would then be returned after the improvements are made and the street R.O.W. vacated. In addition, we need to amend the Development Agreement to discuss these new developments and to address the Roma Valley connection costs, responsibilites and etc.. 3. The amount to be escrowed is to be determined by the developers engineer. Once the escrow has been established we can release the overall hold on permits but continue to hold lots 62 & 63 plus those lots that are subject to the replat off Roma Valley. Dave >>> Cam McNair 07/30 5:23 PM >>> Marc, Gary Diede is out of town until August 9th. Has anyone talked to Gary Nordic yet? Does he know there is a hold on further permits? Have you revised the cost estimate for escrow purposes from street construction to trail construction (surely the trail costs less)? What is the amount we are now requiring to be placed in escrow? What does the phrase in red below mean? Let's talk about this please. Cam >>> Marc Virata 07130 12:06 PM >>> Gary, As a heads up, you may receive a phone call from Gary Nordic regarding Miramont Valley. As part of the Development Agreement, he was required to pay for or post a cash escrow plus 15% for the construction of street improvements to Highcastle Drive adjacent to two lots (62 & 63), which will no longer be a street, but will now be a bike/ped trail. This was required prior to the issuance of any building permits in the development but apparently was not originally noticed. As such, we have placed a hold on the issuance of any further building permits until funds are received, with the approved design of Highcastle being a street. It appears that per the Development Agreement we are bound to this despite the change from a street to a bike/ped trail, however if the Developer constructs this portion he will be eligible for reimbursement. If you have any concerns feel free to inform me and/or Dave. Marc P. Virata Development Review Engineer City of Fort Collins (970) 221-6605 x7188 mvirata(&Ci.fort-collins.co.us amendments shall include changes to approved development plans, which were originally approved by the Planning, and Zoning Board provided that: a) the minor amendment results in an increase or decrease by (1) percent or less in the approved number ofdwelling units (our understanding is that the 1% rule applies to the ODP as a whole and not to individual parcels within the ODP) HUNTINGTON HILLS ODP The number of allowed dwelling units within the Huntington Hills ODP is expressed as a range between 534-618 total dwelling units. Parcel J is the last Parcel in the Huntington Hills ODP to be planned. Previous approvals account for 325 dwelling units. The proposed 260 dwelling units added to 325 equals 585 dwelling units. Since the total proposed number of dwelling units falls within the range, there is no increase or decrease in the number of units allowed in the ODP. OAK/COTTONWOOD FARM ODP The number of allowed dwelling units within the Oak/Cottonwood Farm ODP is listed on the current document as 849 total dwelling units. Like Huntington Hills, the Oak/Cottonwood Farm ODP is also close to completion. Parcels L, N, and P are the only parcels, which do not have approved site -specific development plans, recorded. Previous approvals account for 698 dwelling units. Parcel P is under construction as a city park and therefore will not add any dwelling units to the ODP. The project proposed for Parcels J and L would place a maximum of 24 dwelling units on Parcel L. The proposed 24 dwelling units added to the 698 previously approved dwelling units equals 722. Subtracting 722 from 849, the total number of units allowed within the ODP, leaves 127 dwelling units. This means that 127 units can be approved for the last remaining Parcel N without exceeding the 849 maximum number. b) the minor amendment results in an increase or decrease in the amount ofsquare footage ofa nonresidential land use or structure that does not change the character of the project HUNTINGTON HILLS ODP Non-residential land uses are not included in this ODP. OAK/COTTONWOOD FARM ODP The proposed change in number of dwelling units allowed for Parcel L does not affect the non-residential portion of the ODP. c) the minor amendment results in a change in the housing mix ratio that complies with the requirements of the zone district and does not change the character of the project. HUNTINGTON HILLS ODP The Huntington Hills ODP was submitted as a Planned Unit Development in March of 1994. The assumption was that individual parcels within the ODP would be reviewed against the criteria in the Land Development Guidance System, which effectively replaced the underlying existing zoning at the time. According to Ordinance 161, parcels within the Huntington Hills ODP can continue to be processed under the Land Development Guidance System since the ODP contains over 100 acres and is more than 20% complete. We believe that the change would comply with the requirements of the zone district, those being the requirements of the ODP in regard to housing mix ratios. 2 %W Mr. Marc Virata City of Fort Collins Engineering Department 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Re: Huntington Hills PUD — Fossil Creek Parkway Project No. 0270030 Dear Marc, 140 August 3, 1999 This letter is in regards to requesting a variance from the City of Fort Collins regarding the design of Fossil Creek Parkway. The variance requested is specifically for the K value and length of the vertical curves just south of the bridge. As shown on the street plans, the K value and length for the vertical curves is less than required by city criteria. The following are design constraints which have minimized the length of the vertical curves and resulting in the lower K value: 1. The existing slope of Fossil Creek Parkway within the Huntington Hills project was designed preliminarily with the bridge elevation being lower than now required. This is due to a bike/pedestrian path being added to the design of the bridge (Parks Department). 2. The height of the bridge has been set to an elevation that will allow for 8-feet of clearance between the bottom of the deck and the bike/pedestrian path. This 8- foot clearance was a requirement from city staff (Parks Department). 3. The elevation of the bike/pedestrian path was designed to be above the 2-year event for storm drainage runoff. This was a requirement from city staff (Parks Department). 4. The existing Fossil Creek Parkway was designed to local street standards. The city's master plan designates Fossil Creek Parkway as a Collector. The design of Fossil Creek Parkway for this part of the project has been designed to Collector criteria. Again, requirements from city staff (Engineering Department). The design speed for Fossil Creek Parkway is 40 mph, however the posted speed limit will not exceed 30 mph. The vertical curves south of the bridge should drive comfortably with a speed limit of 30 mph. TST9 INC. 748 Whalers Way - Building D 102 Inverness Terrace East Fort Collins, CO 80525 Consulting Engineers 226-0557 Suite 105 (970) Englewood, CO 80112 Met. (303) 595.9103 (303) 792-0557 Fax (970) 226-0204 Fax (303) 792-9489 Email info@tstinc.com www.tstinexom Mr. Marc Virata August 3,1999 Page 2 of 2 With all of the design constraints listed above, we have designed the vertical curves south of the bridge to the maximum length possible. We feel that the attached plan is the best design with the constraints impacting the parkway and request a variance from the City to allow the length of the vertical curves to be less than required. Please refer to the attached plan of Fossil Creek Parkway. Please call should you have any questions. Sincerely, TST, INC CONSULTING ENGINEERS ar ene A. do n+ P.E. SAS/tdy Enclosure cc: Mr. Marc Palkowitsh, Huntington Hills LLC From: Dave Stringer To: Cam McNair, Eric Bracke, Gary Diede, Marc Virat... Date: Wed, Aug 4, 1999 5:22 PM Subject: Roma Valley - In the continuing saga of the Miramont Valley/Huntington hills 7th filing developments I think it is important for us to get together and come up with some strategies on where the City needs to go from here. As many of you know the Miramont folks are talking about forcing the City to Condemn the property in order for the road connection to occur. In addition, Gary Nordic is pushing strongly for the City to allow him building permits on his remaining lots except for those that may be impacted by the street connection. In fact, he is claiming he has an approved plan. Therefore, he can legally proceed with building homes along Roma Valley. Please give me some times next week that work for you. If you have time on the following that would be great: Wednesday afternoon August 11th: Thursday August 12 th all day: For those of you who have not received Marc's memo after his discussion with Gary Nordic I have included it at the end of this memo. I was informed yesterday afternoon that the HOA for Miramont Valley has decided against deeding to the City open space land they control, which is needed as right-of-way to allow Roma Valley Drive to connect to Mail Creek Lane. Gary Nordic, developer of Miramont has informed me that the HOA will be having a closed meeting tonight and will be looking to have an attorney represent them. The HOA does not want the connection to take place. It is their spoken belief that this connection will create excessive cut -through traffic through their development as well as decrease safety around the Werner Elementary School. At this point, there are issues that should be raised, including (but not limited to) - At this point, do we want to reserve the right to keep the Highcastle Drive connection as a street, in case ultimately, it is decided that the Roma Valley Drive connection to Mail Creek cannot be "legally' made? If so, and if Highcastle Drive becomes the new City connection, the Huntington Hills 7th Filing is affected by this, as this would have Highcastle Drive going though their development plan. In addition, we will be creating a roadway through a now City owned natural area, which Natural Resources presumably would be against. - With the connection currently in limbo, does this prevent the Huntington Hills 7th Filing from proceeding? Huntington Hills 7th has resubmitted as a Final and if we grant them final approval at P&Z (which could take place in September), we would lose (presumably) any right to bring the Highcastle Drive connection through their development in lieu of the Roma Valley connection. The developer for this project has argued that with the Master Street Plan change to have Roma Valley Drive connect to Mail Creek, rather than bring Highcastle Drive to the south through their project, any inabilities to bring the Roma Valley Drive connection through shouldn't prevent their project from proceeding. - Will this hold up the Miramont Valley development from proceeding? With the Roma Valley Drive connection in limbo, should no permits be issued on any further development, not knowing where a connection might be? If the developer proceeds with pulling permits and developing lots, are we running the risk of letting things go to far that any changes would be major? Does the developer now have the responsibility to be involved in sharing the costs of purchasing the land needed to bring the Roma Valley Drive connection out to Mail Creek? - Should we be actively approaching the Miramont HOA to hedge off bringing this to a legal matter and see what may be done in discussion? Perhaps a meeting of City Staff with the HOA can bring about a resolve that can satisfy everyone. We can perhaps satisfy them to show that the connection is in -fact not a detriment to their neighborhood. - How do we address the (potential) issue of condemnation? - If we do not get a connection on Roma Valley (or Highcastle Drive) what impact will this have on connectivity? Direction on how to proceed at this point is encouraged as both developers have been vocal about their respective "timetables". Any responses should be sent to all, as I will be out of the office Thursday and Friday and won't be able to respond to any possible questions directed towards me until Monday. Thank you. Marc P. Virata Development Review Engineer City of Fort Collins (970) 221-6605 x7188 mvirata(aci.fort-collins.co.us CC: Kathleen Reavis, Mark Jackson, Mike Herzig From: Cam McNair To: Gary Diede, Marc Virata, Paul Eckman, Ron Mills... Date: Thu, Aug 5, 1999 8:37 AM Subject: Re: Roma Valley Drive connection to Mail Creek I agree with Ron Mills that we need to "stay the course", even if it means going to condemnation. It is disappointing, though, that Mr. Nordic and Mr. Neal are unable to deliver the ROW as promised. I think the meeting next week will be helpful in setting our strategy. >>> Ron Mills 08/04 5:04 PM >>> It is my opinion that Council addressed the HOA's concerns when they made the decision to change the Master Street Plan. I don't see why we can't go forward with the needed acquisition. Thanks, Ron >>> Marc Virata 08/04 4:20 PM >>> I was informed yesterday afternoon that the HOA for Miramont Valley has decided against deeding to the City open space land they control, which is needed as right-of-way to allow Roma Valley Drive to connect to Mail Creek Lane. Gary Nordic, developer of Miramont has informed me that the HOA will be having a closed meeting tonight and will be looking to have an attorney represent them. The HOA does not want the connection to take place. It is their spoken belief that this connection will create excessive cut -through traffic through their development as well as decrease safety around the Werner Elementary School. At this point, there are issues that should be raised, including (but not limited to): - At this point, do we want to reserve the right to keep the Highcastle Drive connection as a street, in case ultimately, it is decided that the Roma Valley Drive connection to Mail Creek cannot be *legally* made? If so, and if Highcastle Drive becomes the new City connection, the Huntington Hills 7th Filing is affected by this, as this would have Highcastle Drive going though their development plan. In addition, we will be creating a roadway through a now City owned natural area, which Natural Resources presumably would be against. - With the connection currently in limbo, does this prevent the Huntington Hills 7th Filing from proceeding? Huntington Hills 7th has resubmitted as a Final and if we grant them final approval at P&Z (which could take place in September), we would lose (presumably) any right to bring the Highcastle Drive connection through their development in lieu of the Roma Valley connection. The developer for this project has argued that with the Master Street Plan change to have Roma Valley Drive connect to Mail Creek, rather than bring Highcastle Drive to the south through their project, any inabilities to bring the Roma Valley Drive connection through shouldn't prevent their project from proceeding. - Will this hold up the Miramont Valley development from proceeding? With the Roma Valley Drive connection in limbo, should no permits be issued on any further development, not knowing where a connection might be? if the developer proceeds with pulling permits and developing lots, are we running the risk of letting things go to far that any changes would be major? Does the developer now have the responsibility to be involved in sharing the costs of purchasing the land needed to bring the Roma Valley Drive connection out to Mail Creek? - Should we be actively approaching the Miramont HOA to hedge off bringing this to a legal matter and see what may be done in discussion? Perhaps a meeting of City Staff with the HOA can bring about a resolve that can satisfy everyone. We can perhaps satisfy them to show that the connection is in -fact not a detriment to their neighborhood. - How do we address the (potential) issue of condemnation? - If we do not get a connection on Roma Valley (or Highcastle Drive) what impact will this have on connectivity? Direction on how to proceed at this point is encouraged as both developers have been vocal about their respective "timetables". Any responses should be sent to all, as I will be out of the office Thursday and Friday and won't be able to respond to any possible questions directed towards me until Monday. Thank you. Marc P. Virata Development Review Engineer City of Fort Collins (970)221-6605 x7188 mvirataAci.fort-collins.co.us CC: Dave Stringer, Mike Herzig Interoffice Memorandum tx Ai v 0C' Date: /12/1999 To: Cam Mc�Cingineer ,,-'tA %5 as 01V -t'/' P k- From: Marc Virata, Development Review Engineer RE: Huntington Hills, P.U.D. 7" Filing .1S TST Engineering, on behalf of the developer for the Huntington Hills, P.U.D. 7" Filing, has submitted a request for a variance to section 1.02.03.06 and Figure 1B in the "Design and Construction Criteria, Standards and Specifications for Streets, Sidewalks, Alleys, and Other Public Ways" in order to reduce the minimum length of sag vertical curve from approximately 260' to 155'. The 260' requirement is an estimate based on Figure 1B. Because of the interpretive nature of the figure, Sheri Wamhoff advised me on using the enclosed Table 202.4 "Design Controls for Vertical Curves" for checking vertical curves. The table gives a guide using K values based on the length and algebraic difference of the curves. Using a design speed of 40 mph, the minimum K value for a sag curve is 60 (note that with the formula, this would give a minimum length of 279' for a 4.65 algebraic difference and 291' for a 4.85 algebraic difference — more stringent than Figure 1B.) TST provided K values of 32 to 33. It is my opinion that this variance request can be supported. As the letter indicates, they are constrained from increasing their vertical curves by the requirements set forth on the bridge design to the north. They could, in theory, try to better meet the requirements by cutting back into existing pavement to the south; however, this would cut into pavement adjacent to existing homes. It is of note that this area to the south was originally designed (in 1977) to residential street standards, not as a collector. As such, traffic volumes in this area was designed (and posted) with residential speeds in mind. In speaking with Eric Bracke, the posted speed on Fossil Creek Parkway is 25 mph but may be increased to 30 mph as a maximum. While we are using a design speed of 40 mph for approval because Fossil Creek Parkway is classified as a collector, using residential criteria does not appear to be detrimental. Please let me know of any issues or concerns you may have with this request. Sincerely, Marc Virata Cc: Ted Shepard From: Gary Diede To: Dave Stringer, Marc Virata, Paul Eckman, Ron Mi... Date: Fri, Aug 27, 1999 11:18 AM Subject: Re: roma valley Ron M. sounds good that you talk to Bill Neal before He meets with HOA. Bill s also trying to get me scheduled with HOA to explain what we intend to do . I'll include you and Cam at that meeting. Apparently the HOA thought there was a 2nd reading on adding Roma Valley extension for the Master Street Plan, but it was approved in May by resolution. I'll let you know when we might be able to meet with HOA. gary >>> Ron Mills 08/27 10:11 AM >>> Gary: Since the HOA is not a "willing seller', I think it would be prudent for me to discuss the appraisal issues with Bill and Gary before they go to meet with the homeowners. Thanks, Ron >>> Gary Diede 08/27 9:15 AM >>> Bill Neal called today to offer to go to the Miramont HOA to see if they would just accept payment for the Roma Valley ROW to avoid the city from having of go through condemnation. Neal and Nordic will pay these costs and the city would get the ROW. Ron Mills is putting together a land value which we will give to Neal for his offer to the HOA. Ron shoiuld we hold off on an appraisal to see if this works so we don't have that expense? How time critical is this ROW? thanks Gary CC: Ron Phillips ,9�1-1999 1:15pM FROM ANDOVER 71365813322 P.2 %W *40 Memo TO: Cam McNair Frmm A. John Knapp, Jr. C6r Mark Varata, Bob Campbell, Lucia Llley, Mark Palkowitsh Datm Septemberl,1999 Rer Huntington Hills P. U. D., cost sharing on otisite Improvements: Cam. I fear that like guests that have stayed W long, we as the proposed developer of the Huntington Hills P. U. D., are wearing out our welcome with the City Staff. Please know that its our goal to comps this process in an orderly manner. Eery on in our design and approval process, we recognized that it was both proper and necessary that we participate In off site costs. These would include improvements to Fossil Creek Parkway within Fossil Creek Meadows, improvements to Mall Creek Lane (including adjoin'arg id wide sidewalks), and the construction of a pedestrian bridge across Mall Creek. As to the improvements on Fossil Creek Parkway, we believe we will reach a reasonable agreement with Matt Baker for a cash sum contribution on our part for the improvements to be made, However, as to both the improvements on Mail Creek lane and the construction of a pedestrian fridge across Mail Creek (Connecting to Miraitnont), we are concerned that our initial wgfingness to participate In mesa costs has now become our obligation to fully fund these improvements We ask that the city both keep an open mind to participate (pemaps with the county's involvement) and to assist us in causing the developer of Miramont to participate as well. Background: Mail Creek Lane: At the onset, we, that is Andover, agreed that we would provide for a 1" overlay on Mail Creek Lane and further, we would provide a sidewalk from FOSW Creek parkway to the Schad. Our engineers, TST, estimated that the Coat of such work was $30,000. It was during this early period that we arranged a conference call through our legal counsel, Lucia Liley, to Big Neal, the developer of Mi amont The purpose of the call was to ask that Miramont particpade In both the Mail Creek Lane improvements and the Pedestrian Bridge over Mail Creek In an amount equal to our contribution. Big Neal certainly Indicated willingness to participate in the costs and encouraged us to moos forward. Among other statements he made was that Miramont had a cost sharing mrangement with Huntington Hills for the construction of a major sewer fine. Our project would benefit Miramont as Miramonfs 919 Travis, Stcto 2205 • Houston, 7K • 77002 Phone: 7131559-0444 • F= 713A58-= 6-201-1999 1:15PM FROM ANDOVER 7136588322 P. 3 obligations for this line would be reduced as a result of additional units been served by the tine. My purpose In Including Lucia Llley in this memo is to remind her of the conversation. At a subsequent meeting with city staff, the discussion turned to under what circumstances could the city partiepate in these Improvements We were led to believe that if the improvements made to Fossil Creek Parkway and Mail Creek Lane were such that the street was brought up to a county standards (20 year life) then the city would be In a position to participate in the improvement costs. We then asked TST and Earth Engineering Consultants to arrange to test both Fossil Creek Parkway and Mail Creek Lane to insure the stability of the base and to estimate the asphalt overlay that would need to be poured I believe the outcome of that work was that the base was in good shape and that the overlay would need to be 4.5 inches on Fossil Creek and 2.5" on Mail Creek respectively. �5 The issue of curb and gutter on one side of Mal Creek lane arose, to the best of our Su knowledge, in a neighborhood meeting, wherein residents of Fossil creek Meadows were Iting city staff with questions and concerns. At the meeting with city staff committed that thhe Side of Mail creek would have curbs and gutters. I assure you that any reasonable !j)e rofessionalwould have made asimilar commitment �D "'yyyuuu�" #114 r etiecting the scope of the Mail Creek Project, whereas the original estimate was $30,000,_ 7 Ap r1) today the estimate for this work is in excess of $80,000. Ell Pedestrian Bridge across Mail Creek Lane: We recognize that this Is not a city project and does not involve city money. We do ask the ellly's help in two areas. First, does the scope of the Bridge truly have to be a seventy-foot i� reakaway bridge that will accommodate a vehicle? Evidently, TST originally envisioned a e i shorter, narrower bridge, and gave us a cost estimate of $50,000. Today's estimate is 00,000. IMP //Second, we would appreciate any help from the city in maintaining an involvement of the ri f u Miramont developer in the cost sharing. I believe that it is Miramont's residents who will most benefit from the bridge. Our agreement to share in the reclamation costs of the Creekbeds. While I realize that you are aware of the improvement costs to streets (and bridges), you may not be aware of our willingness to particpate with the Department of Natural Resources In the reclamation of creekbeds (Mail Creek and Fossil Creek): Tom Schumacher asked us to contribute $15,000 towards the cost of such rectification, and indicated that both adjoining developers would be asked to do the same. Wilt God's good graces, If we make it through this process, well fund our commitment to Tom (Mark Palkowtish has indicated he would do the same). I remain hopeful that Miramontwll as well. Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to visiting with you on these Items at your convenience. The ODP allowed a range of 243-327 multi -family units. With the current proposal, the number of multi -family units in the ODP will be 260. Since 260 falls within the anticipated range of multi -family units, the housing mix ratio has not been substantially altered. Multi -family housing was the land use proposed for Parcel J on the ODP. Since a multi- family project is still what is being proposed for this land area the "character" of the ODP has not been changed. OAK/COTTONWOOD FARM ODP The Oak/Cottonwood Farm ODP was submitted as a Planned Unit Development in May of 1992. Lille Huntington Hills, the assumption was that individual parcels within the ODP would be reviewed against the criteria in the Land Development Guidance System, which effectively replaced the underlying existing zoning at the time. According to Ordinance 161, parcels within the Huntington Hulls ODP can continue to be processed under the Land Development Guidance System since the ODP contains over 100 acres and is more than 20% complete. We believe that the change would comply with the requirements of the zone district, those being the requirements of the ODP in regard to housing mix ratios. The Land Use Breakdown on the ODP lists Parcels A, N, P, and Q as potential multi -family areas. The number of multi -family dwelling units proposed for each total 370. Of this 370 allowed multi -family dwelling units, only 210 have been approved. Parcel A was originally intended as multi -family but became a single family project instead. Adding 24 multi -family units to Parcel L would bring the total number of approved multi -family units to 234. We believe the proposed change helps the ODP achieve the housing mix ratio intended. d) the minor amendment does not result in a change in the character of the development HUNTINGTON HILLS ODP Since there was never a site specific development proposal for Parcel J, there is no established building character. OAK/COTTONWOOD FARM ODP Since there was never a site specific development proposal for Parcel L, there is no established building character. We believe the proposed minor amendments meet the above criteria and should be considered administratively. If you have any questions regarding the above analysis or need further documentation please call. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, 9WL4� Stanley Wh cer, Jr. VhK FA-XM 3:1JG. Nt Marcus Palkowitsh, Manager Huntington Hills, L.L.C. of Colorado From: Ted Shepard To: Gary Diede, Marc Virata Date: Thu, Sep 2, 1999 2:06 PM Subject: Condemnation for Roma Valley Gary, the P & Z Board worksession for Huntington Hills 7th Final will be on Friday, September 10th. At that time, we will need to inform the Board that we are in a condemnation proceeding for the Roma Valley/Mail Creek Lane street connection. We need to give the Board the background on howl we got to this point and that the fact that we are in a condemnation proceeding does not lessen our resolve to implement the Master Street Plan. I have been informed that the Miramont H.O.A. will argue to the Board that the condemnation issue alone is sufficient to deny the project at Final. Could you be on hand on Friday the 10th to address the Board at worksession? Thanks, Ted. From: Craig Foreman To: Bob Blanchard, Cam McNair, Dave Stringer, Gary ... Date: Wed, Sep 8, 1999 9:17 AM Subject: Huntington Hills, 7th Filing Hello to everyone. The trail bridge is going to be connected to an 8' walk south into the main trail system and the park. I would anticipate considerable traffic on the trail from school, park and trail users. Parks Maintenance would likely try and keep the trail open through light snows, etc. as we do the main trail and primary side trails. This trail is much like the one in Rolland Moore Park that feeds north to Stuart Street. It's 8' wide and maintained in the same manner as the main trail. Our folks would have a hard time clearing the trail north of the bridge if it is downsized and would not allow for vehicle access. The public will likely call and ask/demand the trail be cleared to the street north of the bridge. I'd rather not put the maintenance folks into a hand clearing operation for this section of the trail. That would not be cost effective. Also, the narrower bridge would cause congestion and could have the potential for accidents to occur. Both sides of the bridge would have an 8' trail being downsized to a lesser width. We try and not do that on our trail system due to safety concerns. The length of the bridge is controlled by the stormwater needs. I do know from seeing the preliminary plans the trail has a steep grade of 5% on the north side. A shorter bridge would likely steepen this grade which can be a safety concern having a steep (6 to 8%) grade coming into a bridge. A concern that needs to be considered if options are possible to shorten the bridge. Bottom line. I would think the 8' wide bridge suitable for light vehicles will be the best. If you need anything else. Let me know. Craig Craig L. Foreman Manager of Park Planning and Development 970-221-6618 cforeman@ci.fort-collins.co.us CC: Craig Foreman Transportkwon Services 1gO Engineering Department City of Fort Collins September 10, 1999 A. John Knapp, Jr. Andover Group, Inc. 910 Travis, Suite 2205 Houston, TX 77002 Re: Huntington Hills 7`h Filing Dear Mr. Knapp: In response to your memo, I have gathered input from various City departments that will answer the issues you have raised. While I cannot guarantee that you will be totally satisfied with my response, hopefully you will find some different avenues to pursue that will alleviate your concerns. It has been the City's position that the Huntington Hills 7`h Filing is required to build the bicycle/pedestrian trail connection north of your site as well as the bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Mail Creek. This was affirmed at the Preliminary Approval hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board. It is my understanding that you had negotiated with Miramont for sharing the costs of the bridge. Nonetheless, Huntington Hills 7`h is on record for having to build the bridge and the City does not want to become involved with any third party disputes. Craig Foreman has agreed to pay for 3' of oversizing of the trail width from 5' to 8', north to the bridge. Craig has noted the importance of this bridge accommodating vehicles for the purposes of maintenance. Having the bridge accommodate vehicle loading will allow for a person in a vehicle to maintain the entire trail in one motion from your site to Miramont and not have to maintain a portion, backup, drive around, and maintain the other side. Snow removal would also be done in one motion with a vehicle, rather than having to remove snow from the bridge by hand. Finally, in an emergency situation, it is beneficial to know that emergency response can use the bridge if necessary. Perhaps the larger issue with the bicycle/pedestrian bridge is the span. Unfortunately, Marsha Hilmes is out of the office until the 15`h. I believe Marsha had made the point to span the bridge beyond the floodway, but perhaps the following information will be of benefit. Her supervisor, Bob Smith offered this response which seems to indicate that the 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6605 n "set in stone". Hopefully, you'll find this of benefit. Regardless, it would be best to speak to Marsha further on this matter. "The length of the bridge is a matter ofa couple offactors and really depends on what the developer wants to do with the project. The underlying criteria is that no matter what length, width, or shape any thing that impacts the existing conditions must mitigate the effects it has on the water surface of the flood flows in the creek or the creek itself. The more of the impact, the more the mitigation efforts. If you can do a break away bridge that is the best alternative because the structure is designed to fall away during a flood and thus eliminate any effects it would have by floating off to the side. Thus the structure can be in the flow path and have limited effects, because during flooding conditions it is considered non existent in regard to the blockage offlows. Normally these structures have abutments that are flush with the existing ground and these as well have minimal if any effects to flow conditions. Thus resulting in minimal modeling efforts and mitigation activities. The length of the bridge structure can vary depending on the site conditions such as bank heights, approach grades, and stream conditions where the abutments are located. As far as I know we have not dictated the length of the structure. " With regards to the issue of the trail connection north of the bicycle/pedestrian bridge to Roma Valley Drive, it is my understanding that this, too, is between the Huntington Hills and Miramont Valley projects. I would request that you contact Gary Nordic and/or Marc Palkowitsh to request assistance in funding this short trail connection if it is a problem for your project to handle alone. With regards to Mail Creek Lane, Mike Herzig has noted that up until recently, TST has never submitted plans for this design. However, it has always been the City's position that completed improvements must be done on the east side — curb and gutter and sidewalk. Ted Shepard has verified this. A 10' sidewalk without curb becomes basically a concrete bike trail. The neighborhood meeting minutes back on February 3, 1999 notes the curb and gutter requirement. As such, I do not see this as an issue. I hope I have assisted you in this matter. Please inform myself or Marc Virata of any further questions you might have. Sincerely, ����+ Cam . Jai , P.E. City Engineer cc: Gary Nordic Gary Diede Marc Palkowitsh Bob Blanchard Bob Smith Marc Virata From: Mark Sears To: Cam McNair Date: Tue, Sep 14, 1999 8:55 AM Subject: Huntington Hills, 7th Filing Cam, Kim and I looked at the plans for this trail/neighborhood connection. It will connect Miramont to the future community park and it will connect Huntington Hills to Werner Elementary. An 8' trail is proposed and will carry a large amount of bicyclists and pedestrians. We feel that this needs to be a 70' breakaway bridge 8' wide and capable of accomodating a small pickup with a snow broom. We agree that it looks like Miramont will benefit equally from this bridge. I guess that it makes sense that they participate in the cost. I'm sure that is easier said then done. Let me know if you need any more help. Mark CC: Craig Foreman, Kim Kreimeyer, Tom Shoemaker Transport.*n Services 14W Engineering Department City of Fort Collins October 8, 1999 Barry Long, Fossil Creek Meadows HOA President P.O. Box 270216 Fort Collins, CO 80527 Dear Mr. Long, As you know, there have been quite a few changes occurring around your neighborhood with the Miramont and Huntington Hills development projects. The intent of this letter is twofold: first, to inform the residents of Fossil Creek Meadows of recent developments with the Huntington Hills 7`h Filing and Miramont Valley projects, and second, to explain the City's desire to acquire a portion of your open space for the purpose of bringing Roma Valley Drive out to Mail Creek Lane. Invariably, change can cause feelings of uneasiness. Indeed, we are aware that your subdivision is well established and can understand any feelings of concern over the changes being brouht about by the development of your new neighbors, Miramont Valley and Huntington Hills 7` . We would like to assure you that the City has been proactive in addressing the concerns of this area and are working attentively to ensure that the two projects are developed prudently. We feel confident that the full build -out of this area will result in a harmonious, safe environment that will benefit everyone, existing and new neighbors alike. Perhaps I can provide a little information on the present history of your two neighbors to show how we have gotten to where we are today. I am sure you are well aware of most of the events. The Preliminary Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) for the Huntington Hills 7th Filing was approved on April 1, 1999 subject to the successful amendment of the City's Master Street Plan to conform to the Huntington Hills 7`' Filing Preliminary P.U.D. This amendment required a new street connection network that allows the Mail Creek Lane/Roma Valley Drive connection in lieu of the Highcastle Drive connection over Mail Creek. On May 18, 1999, the City Council approved this Master Street Plan Amendment. On September 16, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Board approved the Final P.U.D. The Miramont Valley P.U.D. received final approval in 1996, with the Development Agreement approved on September 30, 1996. The project has been proceeding knowing that the option was left open of having the Roma Valley Drive connection out to Mail Creek Lane, in lieu of the Highcastle Drive vehicular connection to the south. With the approval of the Huntington Hills 7th Filing and the approval of the amendment to the Master Street Plan, the development will now be making the Roma Valley Drive out to Mail Creek Lane connection. The City believes 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6605 *4 that this connection is needed, as the City firmly contends that connectivity between neighborhoods is important During this past year we have attempted to keep you and your neighborhood aware of the changes occurring and have welcomed your input. On November 9, 1998 and February 3, 1999 neighborhood meetings were held to discuss the Huntington Hills 7s' Filing. On May 3rd, a meeting at TST Engineering with yourself, the City, and the developer for Huntington Hills 7d' was held to discuss how to improve Fossil Creek Parkway to City Standards while mitigating the impact on the existing community. On September 29, a meeting with yourself and the City was held to discuss the present situation. Most recently, City Planner Ted Shepard and Development Review Engineer Marc Virata, met a week ago with homeowner Mr. Joel Lurkins to explain what will be occurring around him. As originally discussed at the May 3rd meeting at TST Engineering, Fossil Creek Parkway will be built with curb and gutter on the outside edge of the roadway width. The roadway will have a 12' travel lane and 8' bike lane in each direction. The existing median configuration will be left in place. In addition, a 5' attached sidewalk will be built on the north side. On the south side, a regional trail will serve as the pedestrian system and a raised crosswalk with a pedestrian light will be installed across Fossil Creek Parkway at the intersection with Mail Creek Lane. These improvements were done with the interest of creating a safe route for children to travel to and from the Werner School as part of the "Safe Route to School Program" as well as attempting to minimally impact the existing residences. All of the work will be contained within the existing 80' public right-of-way. The City will be administering the construction of Fossil Creek Parkway from Mail Creek Lane out to College Avenue. The remainder portion of Fossil Creek Parkway, including the bridge to connect the roadway to the southern leg, will be constructed by the Developer for Huntington Hills 7`s Filing. Mail Creek Lane, from Fossil Creek Parkway to the Werner School, will be built with curb and gutter and a 10' sidewalk on the east side. The pavement for Mail Creek Lane will be improved to a 20-year design life. This is an off -site connectivity requirement of the Developer for the Huntington Hills 7t' Filing; however, the developer for Miramont Valley has agreed to share in the responsibility of these improvements in recent discussion between the Developers and the City. With both Fossil Creek Parkway and Mail Creek Lane, the City will be taking over the maintenance with the construction of these roads at the time the streets are improved and accepted by the City. With the configuration of Fossil Creek Parkway from College Avenue to Mail Creek Lane, the City will manage the project construction and will be responsible for maintenance from that point forward. For Mail Creek Lane and Fossil Creek Parkway adjacent to the Huntington Hills 7d' Filing, the Developer for Huntington Hills 7d' Filing will be required to maintain these roadways for a two-year period and guarantee errors or omissions in the design and/or construction of the roadways for a five-year period upon completion of these roadways. Your homeowners association will no longer be responsible for these roadways. Although the City's Boards have approved the Huntington Hills 7d' Filing, several steps must be negotiated before any project construction can begin. The utility plans and the Development P- 1w+ I% d Agreement have not been finalized and approved by the City, however, we anticipate these being finalized within the next month. The Developer is obligated to have the portion of Fossil Creek Parkway adjacent to his site as well as the bridge over Fossil Creek and the off -site improvements to Mail Creek Lane, constructed and completed prior to any Certificates of Occupancy being issued for the project. In addition, the Developer will be obligated to contribute a monetary amount to the City for the cost sharing of improvements to Fossil Creek Parkway from Mail Creek Lane to College Avenue. As the City will administer this, the timetable of construction will not be tied to the Huntington Hills 7 development. However, we anticipate the completion of this portion of Fossil Creek Parkway to have a similar timetable with completion of the project. Mr. Long as you are aware after our discussion on September 29th, there is a portion of land that is required to bring Roma Valley Drive out to Mail Creek Lane that is owned by your Homeowners Association. This section of land totals 76 square feet and the City is prepared to pay fair market value for the land in question. The City's Land Office Manager, Ron Mills has been in talks with the lawyer for your HOA and we hope to have the acquisition process coordinated in the next few weeks. City Staff would have no objection in recommending to City Council that a "friendly condemnation" approach be used for acquiring the needed right-of-way if your Attorney and Board of Directors so request. We would also hope to have the support of the majority of the association's homeowners. We realize that this may be a sensitive issue for many and are sympathetic to any concerns your neighborhood may have. I hope we can all work together on getting the final pieces of the puzzle to fit. If you have any concerns, please don't hesitate to contact myself or Marc Virata, the development review engineer for the two projects. Again, with improved roadways, improved bicycle and pedestrian circulation, and connections that bring neighborhoods together, I am quite optimistic that the end result will be a neighborhood that everyone can be proud of. Sincerely, Cam McNair, P.E. City Engineer cc: Gary Diede Ron Mills Bob Blanchard G41--Y DrErz- ,- Transport, in Services - Post -it' Fax Note 7671 Engineering Department r City of Fort Collins October 28, 1999 Bob Campbell, Andover Development Group John Knapp, Andover Development Group Stan Myers, Sear -Brown Engineering Bill Neal Gary Nordic, Nordic Construction Marc Palkowitsh Shar Shadowen, TST Engineering Re: Developer responsibilities To all interested parties 5j 22G- C, Post -it' Fax Note 7671 Post -it' Fax Note 7671 To I.>i CC All�&.IV l L s z 4" 2s- `�7e-q ✓�cj' Ipaogesl� Z C�irr O,r,�'rle<c � B # L `/ (B pages- 2 -ir-'F/a.Pr�ccJ 3# Date paof -' From . G ;qT Co. GAF Phone # Fax # As you are all aware, there are many complex issues regarain the responsibilities for improvements to the area surrounding the Huntington Hills 7 Filing and Miramont Valley. The following is a synopsis of the City's understanding on improvements for the area which include Mail Creek Lane, Fossil Creek Parkway, as well as the bike/pedestrian connection in lieu of the Highcastle Drive road connection. Fossil Creek Parkway The City will administer the Fossil Creek Parkway upgrade project from the intersection of Mail Creek Lane out to College Avenue. The Andover Group will contribute an amount yet to be determined by the City for this portion of the roadway. The portion of Fossil Creek Parkway, adjacent to the Huntington Hills 7th Filing and south of Mail Creek Lane, will be the responsibility of Huntington Hills. This includes the bridge over Fossil Creek Parkway. The City will contribute in oversizing these improvement costs. Mail Creek Lane Andover has agreed to upgrade the road surface to a 20-year design life from the southern boundary of the Werner School to the intersection with Fossil Creek Parkway. In turn, Bill Neal and Gary Nordic have agreed to fund the construction of 10 foot of sidewalk and curb & gutter on the east side of Mail Creek Lane for the length that the roadway fronts Miramont Valley (approximately 300 feet in length.) Andover Group will be responsible for the remainder portion of sidewalk and curb and gutter, south of Miramont's property to Fossil Creek Parkway. Post-it' Fax Note 7671 Data r, Vic, pagoes* '-I- To / t_`/i%' / From CoJDept. Co. Phone # Phone # Z -z - 5 Fax # -� 2 _ y Fax # Post -it' Fax Note 7671 Date /G/Zeq To i wy kt C'Cs C From a`?.4;�c: eTi9 Co.JDept.�,`,`J Co. �,_J 7�,& F,i r�CCL�-c,s Phone# Phone Fax # _v..wu.. �,v. �b� ... ..�.... .,,..."....0 m, �ovj: _ UJDU • (7/U 441-bbun ♦. 1 *40` Bicycle/Pedestrian Trail between Miramont Valley and Huntington Hills 7th Bill Neal and Gary Nordic have agreed to construct improvements for the bike/ped trail from Roma Valley Drive, south to connect to the bridge over Mail Creek. The area internal to Miramont Valley, which is currently right-of-way for the former Highcastle Drive, will not be vacated and the City's Parks Department will be maintaining the existing width as right-of-way. Andover is responsible for the bike/ped trail from their site north, including the bridge over Mail Creek Lane. Any agreement between developers on cost sharing of this bridge is a third party agreement that the City is not aware of. I hope this helps clarify the latest discussion on the two projects. Design work should be coordinated between the two projects to ensure that the off -site obligations noted for each project are shown with their respective utility plans. In each case, both projects need to show 500 feet of road design past their obligations (including sidewalk, curb & gutter) along Mail Creek Lane. (TST Engineering shall show the design of sidewalk, curb & gutter continuing to the Werner School, and Sear Brown Engineering shall show the design of sidewalk, curb & gutter continuing to Fossil Creek Parkway.) The utility plans for both projects will not be approved without showing these designs. Please inform me of any concerns you might have. Sincerely, W- Cam McNair, P.E. City Engineer cc: Gary Diede Bob Blanchard Matt Baker a ss 1 8 GRASS REST ACRES± / \p LOW \DENSITY NTIAL ' PARCEL __ 13.9 GROSS At LOW AND/OR ti DENSITY RES�Df ee ^ o L �_a0 e \� 9.5 'GROSS ACRES- °p ' GA s cc orclnr;ytL �e FOR STREET CONNECTION FOSSIL CREEK PLEASE SEE NOTE t 1 COMMUNITY PARK ZONED rip ILAND USE BREAKDOWN A n _ Ow].yw0 t.+l•f A Wwlwr DIM91, Iv KOOK M!A r4) q l 11 •• !C IM br �� A. h . Itw.e.n.w .M wr y r 42 JO ]M •.r l.. Mom.• •rr... u o 7 a t<ti C•f�r C L 0 i t1 •..r w n. ! ... a.........�..w o ..r ,. n 7 V 0�. Lw.'•.O•..y. 1 1 s � r Y Nr y h. 000 M V.w. 1....• N O MY y rr Lu..r L..t� u0 t• a w.r f OW y r O •+..... s..aw .rw r 0 •rr.rw..y L 1 tA0 •., rr }LO OOO y n_ i ] I. I wry D.wwt r M ...r• L .) w.r � 10 MO y n iM•e O�.w. r. o �.... o .wr J+.e-lo yn_ KEY Se Ar sfo�eye 4.75ac. / u..> 0.2/ d!./ac. 71,975 sy.vor.0, C0wmao rr I W O{><iCe 0.54ac. O untfs O dci/ac. /O,Gi7Q �.Ff. * L`rI.�OI"� ' o«.crnw TOTALS 27/. 7ac. 449 unilts B5/, 975 ST. {t. f' JSDLL1nAl1 I.A. n vr0 P29-11-14B November 4, 1999 Mr. Champney ("Cam") McNair, Jr. City Engineer City of Fort Collins, Engineering Department 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 RE: Huntington Hills —Fossil Creek Parkway and Bridge Construction, 7th Filing Dear Cam: The purpose of this letter is to point out an erroneous statement in your memo dated October 28, 1999 regarding the cost sharing obligations of the parties for the development of the above referenced project. Your memo stated that it is the sole responsibility of Huntington Hills to pay for Fossil Creek Parkway adjacent to the Huntington Hills 7th Filing south of Mail Creek Lane including the bridge over Fossil Creek. This is incorrect. I am enclosing a copy of the Purchase and Sale Agreement entered into by the City on February 4, 1982 when it purchased the 99.9 acres for the Fossil Creek Community Park. The Agreement states in Paragraphs 11 and 12 that it is the responsibility of the City to pay for all improvements to Fossil Creek Parkway including the water line and bridge for the portion of the construction where it is on the City's property. The succeeding paragraphs state the methods the City may utilize for the payment of its construction costs. This Agreement has been in place for many years prior to your arrival with the City. I could therefore understand how you would very possibly not be aware of this prior Agreement. I am also enclosing a copy of the letter I sent to Craig Foreman at the City Parks and Recreation Department regarding this matter. Sincerely yours, i Marcus Palkowitsh Enc. (2) Cc: David Osborn, esq. John Knapp 650 Srwf& 5w�teY35 penver CO E'02#6 (303) 399-9509 fay (303) 399-3631 •I cam P29-I 1-14B �•I Is November 1, 1999 Mr. Craig Foreman City of Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Department 281 N. College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: Fossil Creek Parkway, Bridge and Utilities— Cost Payment Agreement Dear Craig: The estimated portion of the City's share of the construction costs for Fossil Creek Parkway including the bridge over Fossil Creek and that portion of the roadway that lies within the Fossil Creek Community Park property owned by the City of Fort Collins Park and Recreation Department is approximately $800,000.00. The City's estimated costs include the extra expense that pertains to the construction improvements requested by the Parks and Recreation Department for its bike path under the bridge. No sewer line relocation costs are included, except the cost to remove the existing sewer line that is to be abandoned. All of the bridge and adjacent streets and related improvements on the ends of the bridge that are located on the City's Fossil Creek Community Park property. The City is responsible for all costs of these improvements. A copy of the Purchase and Sale Agreement that was entered into by the City on February 4, 1982 for its purchase of the 99.9-acre parcel of land for Fossil Creek Community Park is enclosed. The Agreement states in Sections 11 and 12 the City's obligation for payment of costs for the items discussed herein. Huntington Hills, LLC will construct and pay the road improvement costs to connect to the required City portion of the improvements. We need to discuss and reach agreement on the following items: • When and how will the City make payment for its construction costs? Will the City be required to provide for its costs of the project the same performance and warranty guaranties as Huntington Hills, John Knapp and the Miramont group? 650 SrwfW C" Sfreef, Sw�fe q35 penury CO 8"02y6 (303) 399-98"OY fay (303) 399-3631 7 ■ How will the City provide for its share of the required performance and warranty guaranties? ■ Will the City require performance and completion guarantee bonds from the contractors performing the City's portion of the construction? We are presently soliciting bids for the project. A detailed bid analysis will be completed and forwarded to you next week. Please call me after you have had the opportunity to review the enclosed data so that we can arrange a mutually convenient time as soon as possible to finalize the above stated items so that we can commence construction of the project. Time is of the essence. Sincerely yours, Z�. Marcus Palkowitsh Enc. (2) Cc: Cam McNair David Osborn, esq. John Minatta A. John Knapp %W A - 3.500 feet of an existing or reserved neighborhood pa0..; 'S - 4 000 feet of an existing or reserved community park; C - 3,000 feet of a major employment center (Yelnar Strip). 10. It is further agreed that any and all park land maintenance costs will be the responsibility of the Purchaser and any costs associated with improvements desired to be made by the Purchaser to the dam of the Portner Reservoir will also be the responsibility of the Purchaser. All inlets, outlets, gates, sluices, and other items of equipment or fixtures per- taining to the dam and other works of the Portner Reservoir and its opera- tion are conveyed by the Seller to the Purchaser as is, where is, without warranty of workmanship, materials, usability, fitness or otherwise. 11. The Purchaser will be responsible for its proportionate share of design and installation costs of the donestic water and sanitary sewer mains and gas and electric transmission lines serving the herein described property. At the time of development of said property, the Purchaser, subject to the following condition, will reimburse to Seller, upon presen- tation of invoice, or pay that portion of the costs of such utilities which is attributable to Purchaser's projected usage of such utilities for service to said property. Should Purchaser develop said property prior to development by Seller of that portion of Huntington Hills also served by such mains and transmission lines, Purchaser shall coordinate installation of mains and transmission lines with Seller and Seller shall bear its proportionate share of the costs thereof. The aforesaid costs shall include all costs of engineering, design and construction. 12. The Purchaser shall be responsible for street improvement costs to Lemay Avenue, Fossil Creek Parkway, and that certain collector street along the western boundary of the property described on Exhibits "A" and "D", only to the extent that the aforesaid streets are adjacent to and abutting against that property as described on Exhibits "A" and "6". The aforesaid street improvements would be made at the time of development of those properties as described on Exhibits "A" and "B" or as necessitated by development of adjacent properties. 13. Recognizing that the budgetary ordinances of the City of Fort Collins do not enable the contracting for monetary obligations on the part of the City which have not been appropriated in the current budget, the parties confirm that a portion of the consideration for the sale of the property by•the Seller to the Purchaser is the Purchaser's acknowledgement that it has obligations for bearing its proportionate share of the costs of utilities and streets,.'serving the property all as described in Paragraphs 11 and 12 hereof. .Accordingly, the City agrees that it will use its sincere best efforts, consistent with good municipal policy, to include such items in the budgets for the years in which such improvements become necessary or are desirable. Should the Purchaser fail to make appropria- -3- FS %W Mr. Marc Virata City of Fort Collins Engineering Department 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522 Re: Fossil Creek Parkway Extension Project No. 0270-030 Huntington Hills P. U.D. — Filing No/ 7 Project No. 0866-012 Dear Mr. Virata: u November 9, 1999 This letter is in response to staff comments of August 4, 1999 regarding the above referenced projects. Separate response letters have been written to the Fort Collins - Loveland Water District and South Fort Collins Sanitation District to address their comments. The response numbers in the following sections correspond in order to the comments received. Fossil Creek Parkway Improvement comments will be addressed with that submittal. Mail Creek Lane Design 1. Included design with Huntington Hills P.U.D. — Filing No. 7 Utility Plans. Due to cost reimbursement issues, it only includes design of a detached sidewalk and overlay (1/2" required) as committed to by the developer. 2. Included additional detail 1. Changed label to "Access and Emergency Access Easement". 2. Changed approval block. 3. Reception numbers will be provided when they are available. The related documents are currently in the process of being recorded. Utility Plans 1. Added elevations to existing contours. 2. The off -site easements are shown on the plat. 3. Structural calculations provided. TST INC. 748 Whalers Way - Building D 102 Inemess Terrace Fast >f Fort Collina, CO 80525 suite 105 Consulting Engineers (970) 226-0557 Englewood, CO 80112 Metm (303)595-9103 (303) 792-0557 F. (970) 226-0204 Fax (303) 792-9489 Email info@tstin .com w Astinc.com 3 M 400 TST, INC. 4. Corrected detail. 5. Changed to a concrete culvert. 6. The easement along Fossil Creek Parkway has been modified to 9' on all sheets. 7. Clarified with Stormwater. Utility plans and report coincide. 8. Noted. 9. Changed location of crossing. Additional design of bridge (Big "R" or equiv. per Park's Department criteria) will occur once location and length are finalized. Mapping 1. Information regarding northline added to the plat. 2. Fossil Creek Parkway is being dedicated by a separate document. Recording information will be provided when available. Currently in process. 3. Will be shown when available. Also currently in process. 4. The entire Tract A is dedicated as easement. See note #2 on the plat. 5. Fossil Creek Parkway is 40' Fl-Fl (with additional width at left turn lane). Public Service 1. Noted which conduits are for whom. Stormwater (Utility. Plans) 1. Corrected. 2. Corrected. 3. Extent of trench rock bank protection has been revised based on relocated sanitary sewer. 4. Provided cross-section analysis. The outfall has F.E.S. w/ riprap instead of a headwall (discussed with Basil). Equipment will be in the area to cleanup/shape the channel. The cut-off walls will be installed at the same time. 5. Added Class 6 blanket. 6. Done. 7. The bridge has been relocated. The deck elevation and 100-yr water surface elevation have been labeled. Additional design of bridge and abutments to occur once a location & length are agreed to by all parties. Erosion & Sediment Control Comments 1. Done. 2. Changed to dryland pasture mixture. 3. Corrected. 4. Corrected. 5. Two different developers & plan sets are being submitted. Corrected reseeding/mulching calculations. %W TST, INC. Stormwater (Floodplain Analysis Report Comments) 1. Addressed by Anderson Consulting Engineers (ACE). 2. Addressed by ACE. 3. Addressed by ACE. 4. Addressed by ACE. 5. Addressed by ACE. 6. Per previous meetings, the building was raised V above back of curb. In addition, the bike path was relocated between the low point and building to help direct flows away from the building. 7. Details provided and notes added. The only area where the distance to existing bank is critical is where the sewer is being relocated. The trench rock will be installed as part of the sewer relocation in this area. 8. Additional detail provided. Sheet S3 just shows the riprap as a reference. On the revised plans this sheet directs to the civil drawings for the extent of the riprap. 9. Detail provided. 10. Addressed by ACE. 11. Not revised. Pipe does not extend into the creek. Outlet riprap is incorporated into the grade control. Additional comments from ACE. 12. Addressed by ACE. 13. Addressed by ACE. 14. Addressed by ACE. In addition to these responses, responses were made directly on any redline plans provided as necessary. Should you have any additional comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, TST, Inc. Consulting Engineers Eric M. Fuhrman EMF/tdy Enclosures cc: Mr. Bob Campbell Mr. John Knapp Mr. Mark Palkowitsh %W cm November 12, 1999 Mr. Marc Virata City of Fort Collins Engineering Department 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522 Re: Fossil Creek Meadows - Fossil Creek Parkway Improvements Project No. 0866-013 Dear Mr. Virata: This letter is in response to staff comments of August 4, 1999 regarding the above referenced projects. The response numbers in the following sections correspond in order to the comments received. ENGINEERING Fossil Creek Parkway 1. Noted. 2. Added radii at street intersections. 3. Corrected detail sheet. TO We attempted to do locates on existing utilities. However, OneCall would not locate these utilities for design purposes. If you would like to have these utilities located, we will show them on the construction drawings, or note conflicts. From surface indications, the facilities appear to be on the north side of the road, outside of the construction area for the majority of the road. STORMWATER Submitted drainage report. TRAFFIC OPS & TRANS, PLAN Added left turn land from south bound Fossil Creek Parkway onto Mail Creek Lane. TSTINC. 748 Whalers Way - Building D 1021memess Terrace East 7 Fort Collins, CO 80525 Suite 105 Consulting Engineers (970) 226-0557 Englewood, CO 80112 Metm (303)595-9103 (303) 792-0557 Fax (970) 226-0204 F. (303) 792-9489 s �fl Email info@tstinc.aam www.fstinc.com � x 'p} M %W n TST, INC. FORT COLLINS-LOVELAND WATER DISTRICT SOUTH FORT COLLINS SANITATION DISTRICT 1. Identified utilities on drawings. 2. Added signature blocks for the District. 3. Added note regarding adjusting District facilities. In addition to these responses, responses were made directly on any redline plans provided as necessary. Should you have any additional comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, TST, Inc. Consulting Engineers i Eric M. Fuhrman EMF/tdy Enclosures cc: Mr. Bob Campbell Mr. John Knapp *r MEMORANDUM DATE: December 17, 1999 TO: Craig oreman Matt Baker John Knapp Shar Shadowen w/TST Engineering David Osborn, esq. 191n Mi attg IvIave FROM: Marc Palkowitsh 7 RE: Fossil Creek Parkway and Bridge Construction Construction Bid Analysis and Cost Estimates *0 P29-18-05N We have completed an initial bid and cost analysis for the project based upon the latest plans submitted to the City of Fort Collins and the water and sewer districts. Enclosed are copies of the bid analysis. We analyzed each segment of the work to be completed by category, including the bridge. Kehn Construction was the only contractor who bid all of the work, including the bridge. The other contractors bid only the portions in which they have experience and specialty. For example, Concrete Structures bid only the bridge portion of the work and are willing to coordinate work with any other contractor for the balance of the project. We combined and analyzed the best combination of contractors required to complete the entire project. The combination of Connell Resources and Concrete Structures provides the lowest overall estimated cost of $1,080,765. In the final analysis, there was less than $100,000 of spread between all four combinations of contractors and bids. The lowest bid is $135,722 or 11% less than TST Engineering's cost estimate. As you can see from the enclosed analysis, we also included in the total cost the estimated additional fees that will be incurred for engineering, testing, staking, permits, and bonds, etc. To the best of our knowledge at this point, the only missing items are the costs for road stripping and signing, and landscaping adjacent to the roadways. A provision will need to be included in the Development Agreement executed by all parties setting forth the responsibility of each respective party for the cost sharing or installation of these items relative to their portion of this work. 650 5rwf& C&" Sfreet, Swift 435 prKM. CO 8"02116 (303)399-98-09 far (303)399-363/ 12-03-1998 12:06PM FROM AIDOVER 7136588322 P_2 U Memo To: Cam McNair Mike Herzig Flom: A John Knapp, Jr. D.ter December 3, 1998 1RrK Proposed Multi -family Huntington Hills Cam, there Is always a risk that If a developer (hopefully a good developer in this cam) becomes pro- active to city or public issues, the developer serves as a lightning rod for both public sentiment (ill will) and financial obligations. On the other hand, failure to be proactive can often result in very mediocre results, or worse, no resolution. Please forgive me, then, if this memo appears to be Intruding into the sphere of the city. I fear that if we fall to develop a cohesive plan for this site and these neighborhoods, then we, as developers, will lose the opportunity to build this project and the city will continue to have no resolution to circulation issues that have been outstanding for over 12 years. As I mentioned Tuesday afternoon, Gary Diede suggested that we work with you as coordinator of the city's engineering players. I guess that happens when you're the one who did not attend the meeting. Enclosed is a brief, which tries to shed some light on the history of this parcel, our proposed parcel, and the three neighborhoods which would be connected in this development goes forward. I'm sure others in the city will shed much further light on the history. Essentially, we are proposing to develop a multi -family project on a site zoned for mull -family at density levels approved by the city. In the course of doing so however, we will connect the two ends of Fossil Creek Parkway, which will become a through street There are two major issues regarding Fossil Creek Parkway. The first is the amount of traffic and the second is the design and condition of the roadway through the Fossil Creels Meadows Community. Traffic flow: Our traffic consultants have prepared studies submitted to the city which reflect a flow of 6,000 to 8,000 airs on Fossil Craak Parkway when our project is complete, full, and College is connected to LeMay. While the traffic projection Is high for the collector standard, all parties appear to agree that it is bath an acceptable level of traffic and is not a cause of concern. Design and Condition of Fossil Creek Parkway through Fossil Creek Meadows: What Is a legitimate cause for concern appears to be the design and condition of Fossil Creek Parkway within the Fossil Creek Meadows neighborhood. Evidently this portion of the street (in the county but Fossil Creek Parkway and Brid onstruction - Construction Bid Analysis and Estimates Page 2 The final step in our analysis was the preparation of the cost sharing allocation summary based upon each parties portion of the construction work to be completed and includes a prorated portion of the estimated additional costs and fees that will be incurred. We advise all parties that the numbers stated on the enclosed analysis are bids based upon the plans dated October 24, 1999 and the amended water plans dated November 4, 1999. The bids may vary due to additional construction plan design modification requirements received from the City on December 13, 1999. Also, we are still awaiting comments from the City's engineering and stormwater department regarding the bridge design. David Osborn and Lucia Liley are working together to complete a draft of the proposed Development Agreement for this project. There are certain elements of the bid analysis that are necessary for inclusion in the Development Agreement to be signed by all parties for the construction of this project. Therefore, we would appreciate it if all parties would review the enclosed bid analysis and provide us with your comments as soon as possible. Enclosures `r O a r o N `i W D A_ Z w m a m m m fn W o O 0 m O a (O T N c N Z f m CD m --I (D O CD_ a- O Cl) co�Qm m N n R- i m G m 3 a A z m O Ha a a 0 m 0 N N m a T N N dl A W � v � ? -9A O O O O L N (O A N j A m (O m W m (D O C d a Oo O -4 + O = C ONE W W U (3)) CD t0 N ? O N C � (D W W N v v n O m o w m c A -4 A m w w O o� y � (NO Ul N N N 0 O W A Ul O O U O O O 0 W O March 21, 2000 Mr. Marc Virata City of Fort Collins Engineering Department 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522 Re: Fossil Creek Meadows - Fossil Creek Parkway Improvements Project No. 0866-013 Dear Mr. Virata: This letter is in response to staff comments of December 10, 1999, regarding the above referenced project. The response numbers in the following sections correspond in order to the comments received. 1. Provided spot elevations. 2. Provided a detail of the raised crosswalk. 3. The signing and striping plan was incorrect. It has been corrected. STORMWATER 1. Removed water quality ponds and provided direct outfalls to Fossil Creek as requested. 2. The City is going to be doing the construction of these improvements at a time to be determined by them. When does this permit need to be submitted and by whom? The developer is only responsible for the asphalt overlay of the road. 3. Done. 4. Done. 5. Done. 6. The cross -sections of the roadside swales north of Fossil Creek Parkway match the existing swale configuration as close as possible per City specified cross- section. 7. Done. 8. Added note. 9. The inlet at this location is designed to intercept 100% of the flow. Any backwater effect on the inlet would be okay. The flowline of the gutter is not blocked by the raised crosswalk, so flow will be able to get by. A detail has been provided. TSTINC. 748 Whalers Way - Building D 1021rwemess Terrace East 7 Fort Collins, CO 80525 Suite 105 Consulting Engineers (970) 226-0557 Englewood, CO 80112 Metro (303)595-9103 (303) 792-0557 x Fax (970)226-0204 F.(303) 792-9489 " s' Email info@tstia,.00m s w'WN'.ISIInC.COIn .. } it F ry 5, %W rdd TST, INC. Erosion Control The road improvements from College Avenue to Mail Creek Lane will be a separate construction project performed by the City. Because of this, there are separate plans and drainage reports. All plans reference the related separate plan sets where appropriate, and the erosion/sediment control is individual to each plan. TRAFFIC OPERATIONS 1. Done. 2. Pulled median back from intersection. 3. Bike stencils and signage has been called out on the S & S plan. 4. The raised crosswalk was requested by Transportation Planning & the Routes to Schools program. 5. Done. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING The future city trail location has not been shown on the plans as we do not know where it will be. It has been stated that it will be the Park's responsibility and they have not committed on a location. At College, the existing easement for a trail through Fossil Creek Meadows is on the south side of the creek and not shown on the plans. The connection has been shown at Mail Creek. In addition to these responses, responses were made directly on any redline plans provided as necessary. Should you have any additional comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, TST, Inc. Consulting Engineers �! Eric M. Fuhrman EMFlamb Enclosures cc: Mr. Bob Campbell Mr. John Knapp 1✓ 11111110 Mr. Marc Virata City of Fort Collins Engineering Department 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522 Re: Fossil Creek Parkway Extension Project No. 02 70-03 0 Huntington Hills P. U.D. — Filing No. 7 Project No. 0866-012 Dear Mr. Virata: March 21, 2000 This letter is in response to staff comments of December 10, 1999, regarding the above referenced projects. A separate response letter has been written to the Fort Collins - Loveland Water District and South Fort Collins Sanitation District to address their comments. The response numbers in the following sections correspond in order to the comments received. ENGINEERING Utility Plans 1. Done. 2. Done. The construction of the driveway will occur with the construction of the Parkway Extension. 3. Done. 4. Issues regarding the Mail Creek Lane design have been resolved. Negotiations are still occurring with Natural Resources regarding the pedestrian bridge. 5. Noted. 6. Provided an overall context diagram. Plat: Updated language as requested. MAPPING 1. Building envelopes were added back to the previous comment in June. 2. Done. 3. The Fossil Creek Parkway R.O.W. between Recording information is shown. plat after being removed per a 60' & 7th has been dedicated. TSTINC. 748 Whalers Way - Building D 102 In erness Terrace East f Fort Collins, CO 80525 Suite 105 Consulting Engineers (970) 226-0557 Englewood, CO 80112 Met. (303) 595-9103 (303) 792-0557 Fax (970) 226-0204 Fax (303) 792-9489 44 Email info@tstine.com ?' M .%O TST, INC. NATURAL RESOURCES The pedestrian bridge over Mail Creek is being resubmitted as per the discussion in the field in February. Bob Campbell is working on finalizing the crossing location and/or cost share issues. The plan will be revised as necessary upon completion of these negotiations. PARKS 1. Corrected STORMWATER 1. Added. 2. Calculations provided for the road and sidewalk culverts. The swale and culverts are part of Miramont's construction plans and report. 3. The location of the crossing has been revised per a site visit in February with Natural Resources, Stormwater, and Anderson Consulting. At that time, it was expressed that bank stability would not be an issue at the revised crossing location. As this location has not been accepted by Natural Resources yet, detailed plans of the breakaway bridge will be provided at a later date in case of any revisions in the crossing location. The bridge will be per Park's department criteria as stated on the plans. 4. Added. Erosion & Sediment Control Comments 1. Added blanket note to plans. 2. Since there are two different developers, two different plan sets have been submitted, one for Huntington Hills 7s' and one for Fossil Creek Parkway Extension. The plans indicate that there are separate plan sets as necessary, and both sets of plans reference the common drainage report. The erosion/sediment control has been made individual to each plan set. Fossil Creek Parkway Extension 1. The bridge is only discussed in the ACE report. Discussion as to the variance request has been added to that report. 2. Note is included in the "Notes" on the plan sheet. 3. Corrected by ACE. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 1. The 5' Park Trail connections are okay per Mark Virata on 1/27/00 after discussing with city staff. 2. The 10' path, 8' path to the property line and the pedestrian bridge over Fossil Creek are to be constructed by the Park's Dept. 3. 4' internal walks are okay per Mark Virata on 1/27/00. The previous comment had been answered by staff and was never addressed to us. *.I TST, INC. 4. After discussing with Mark Virata, we can not recall being asked to change the 4' attached sidewalk at the entrance. It has not been revised. 5. A handrail has been specified on the plans adjacent to the 10' walk as it crosses over Mail Creek. 6. The pedestrian bridge over Mail Creek is 8' clear in width. Fossil Creek Parkway Extension 1. As instructed by Mark Virata after meeting with staff, the bikelanes have been adjusted to 8', and the travel lanes to 11'. Bikelane signing & striping is called out on the plan. 2. Provided a detail of the raised cross walk. In addition to these responses, responses were made directly on any redline plans provided as necessary. Should you have any additional comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, TS c. Consulting Engineers :,X� Eric M. Fuhrman EMFlamb Enclosures cc: Mr. Bob Campbell Mr. John Knapp Mr. Mark Palkowitsh rr/ Mr. Marc Virata City of Fort Collins Engineering Department 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522 Re: Fossil Creek Parkway Extension Project No. 02 70- 030 Huntington Hills P. U.D. — Filing No. Project No. 0866-012 Fossil Creek Parkway Improvements Project No. 0866-013 Dear Mr. Virata: May 22, 2000 This letter is in response to staff comments of April 17, 2000, regarding the above referenced projects. A separate response letter was written to the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District and South Fort Collins Sanitation District to address their comments. Due to the nature of the comments, with all comments received being addressed, mylars have been submitted per your last comment. The response numbers in the following sections correspond in order to the comments received. 1. Submitted last week. The two easements for Huntington Hills are with the attorneys and are near completions. Easement descriptions for the storm drainage easements for the Parkway Improvements have been provided. 2. Discussed situation with Donnie Dustin (Stormwater) and he was okay with it. Discussed with you 4/18/00. It is an existing condition that is not being changed by the proposed improvements. 3. Modified note and added a detail. 4. Done. 5. Added note. 6. Decision on an option is to be made prior to construction based on bids received. A note was added to the plans regarding this. 7. Done. 8. Location for pedestrian bridge moved. Using 80' bridge per client & Natural Resources. Note added regarding shop drawing approval. 9. This land was traded to the city with Reception No. 0099084549. Easements were included in this transaction. 10. Submitted plans to Rusty McDaniel 4/18/00 for his review. County primarily wanted to be aware of what was happening. No comments regarding plans. 11. Corrected. 12. Easements are in process. Mylars submitted. TSTINC. 748 Whalers Way - Building D 102 ]nvemeea Terrace East ! Fort Collins, CO 80525 Suite 105 Consulting Engineers (970) 226-0557 Englewood, CO 80112 Met. (303)595-9103 (303) 792-0557 F. (970) 226-0204 Fax (303) 792-9489 Email info@tstinc.com ww .tsmse.com %W VVO TST, INC. Mr. Marc Virata May 22, 2000 Page 2 NATURAL RESOURCES 1. Per conversation 4/19/00, the exposed is referring to the riprap immediately under the bridge. The note on Sheet S5 references the civil drawings for riprap info, where it states that all riprap is to be buried except for the riprap immediately under the bridge. This was the recommendation from Anderson Consulting Engineers. 2. Form liner & colored concrete called out. Per Matt Baker, the color is to be determined at time of construction from selected contractor's color palettes. 3. The pedestrian bridge was revised to the 80' span. Note added that shop drawings for the bridge and abutments are to be approved prior to construction. STORMWATER Onsite Drainage Report and Plans 1. As discussed 4/18/00, shop drawings will be provided for review prior to construction. A note has been added to the plans regarding this. 2. Done. Erosion/Sediment Control Comments 1. Note #15 on the cover sheet calls out the common drainage report. As one analysis was performed, there is not a separate report or plan for the construction of Fossil Creek Parkway. This was discussed with Bob Zackley on 4/20/00. 2. Erosion control info for the parkway is shown on the drainage and erosion control plan. Fossil Creek Parkway Extension 1. Done. 2. Done. 3. Checked with City Building Inspection who did not have any criteria for a bridge. They transferred me to Engineering. Mark Virata checked and did not request any changes. 4. The ACE hydraulic reports were bound and were submitted earlier to Matt Fader. TST drainage report submitted. Erosion/Sediment Control Comments 1. Talked to Bob Zackley 4/20/00. Added note to plans as discussed with no stand-alone plan necessary. The method of crossing Fossil Creek is a construction issue. General performance standards have been specified of the contractor who will submit a construction plan (piping, pumping, etc.) prior to commencing construction. 2. Amount as $655 since < 5 Ac. as specified by stormwater. Fossil Creek Parkway Improvements 1. Adjusted outlet direction. Added note regarding placement of F.E.S. 2. As discussed 4/18/00, the 2.5:1 slopes were specified by Engineering and the HOA. The 2.5:1 slopes occur only along portions of the road with most of the slopes being 3:1 or 4:1. The slopes allow for the swale to remain in its current location without having to obtain easements from the home owners. This was okay per our conversation. %W TST, INC. Mr. Marc Virata May 22, 2000 Page 3 Erosion/Sediment Control Comments. 1. This comment does not pertain to this plan set. This plan set does not involve the bridge crossing of Fossil Creek. 2. Revised city cost to $655 for reseeding. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 1. The bikelane stencils & signage are specified on the plans by the legend. Notation is okay with Engineering. 2. Revised note regarding the hand rail and added a detail. 3. Roma Valley is the responsibility of Miramont (including construction of). Per Mark Virata, crosswalk should be on their plans. 4. Revised pedestrian bridge for 80' direct crossing. In addition to these responses, responses were made directly on any redline plans provided as necessary. Should you have any additional comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, TST, Inc. Consulting Engineers Eric M. Fuhrman EMF/amb Enclosures cc: Mr. Bob Campbell Mr. John Knapp Mr. Mark Palkowitsh 12-03-1998 12:07PM FROM ANDOVER 7136588322 p 3 over time. The residents in the neighborhood (who do not pay city taxes) fee( that a substantial amount of the wear and tear to date has been created by the school buses in route to Werner Elementary. Perhaps correctly, they feel that if they don'tstand up now, history will newt itself, and their Parkway Will serve as a connector streat access to the school, and the street condition shall continue to deteriorate. Further, their children (and residents) will have difficulty crossing the street to get to their community park on the South side of Fossil Creek Parkway. Resolution of these conaenns: I believe that these concerns can be addressed and resolved, and that the resolution can be achieved at a reasonable cast. My notes (which are never perfect) from the Tuesday meeting with the entire staff are as follows: 1. Speed Bumps: The developer can include in the street design for Fossil Creek Parkway two speed bumps, which we all know may be «are Psychological than etfecWe, {personal now: we have speed bumps in our neighborhood and my wife contends they are most effective). Note, these speed bumps will marginal increase the cost of the new Fossil Creek Parkway, which costs are bome between ourselves as developer and the city. 2. Sidewalk on the south aide of Fossil Creek Parkway, connecting College to the proposed Fossil Creek Park crossing under the bridge at Fossil Creek: evidently the Park department is planning a 10 foot wide walkway which wig serve ea a connector to the park being planned along Fossil Creek at LeMay. This Brcdewak could also serve as a safe pedestrian and bicycle mute along Fossil Creek Parkway. 3. Pedestrian Crossings: It appears that two pedestrian crossings might be appropriate, one at the intersection of Mail Creek Lane and Fossil Creek Parkway, and one at the intersection of Parkway Circle and Fossil Creek Padcway. These should not be major cost items should they? �. School Zone Signals_ It appears that it is appropriate to have this flashing yellow lights for school zones along Mail Creek lane and Foull Creek Parkway, does the ally agree? Cost? Responsibility? 5. Improvements to Fossil Creek Parkway within Fossil Creek Meadows: Evidently, this has been an ongoing discussion for a long period of time. The best solution would be the complete replacement of this section of road with curbs, gutters, and sidcwaiks. The cost of such makes such a solution irnpossible, particularly In light of the multiple jurisdictions involved County, School District, City, and the unincorporated community of Fossil Creek Meadows. The interim solution appears to be a 4" overlay on tap of the existing pavement which would substantially Improve the street The cost of such night be in the neighborhood of $80,000 (needs to be confirmed). We also believe that a strategy for achieving the ultimate solution needs to be thought out 6. Improvements to Mail Creek Lane: It has been suggested that Mail Creek Lane have the same 4' overlay and In additional a sidewalk Cost? Responsibility? Bridge improvements? 7. Other items suggested by neighborhoods, discussed at Tuesday McOng, and currently viewed (at least in my notes) as inappropriate by staff for one reason or another, but which might be appropriate In the future: Traffic signal at LeMay and Fossil Creels Parkway, three way stop at Mail Creek Labile and Fossil Creek Parkway, Pedestrian Crossing Light (Signal) at Mall Creek Lane and Fossil Creek Parkway. Could we develop a plan for monitoring exations in the future, with clearly slated time frames, and identified thresholds. For Instance, when the City park is Completed, it 8 possible that a substantial amount of pedestrian and �LE Transpou,jon Services Engineering Department City of Fort Collins Date: July 27, 2000 To: Bob Campbell, Andover Development Group CC: Lucia Liley, March & Liley, P.C. From: Marc Virata, City of Fort Collins Engineering Re: Mail Creek Lane developer obligations Dear Mr. Campbell: This letter is in response to our last meeting regarding the Huntington Hills 7'h development obligations for Mail Creek Lane. At the July 13'^ meeting, you had expressed your view regarding pavement improvement responsibilities for Mail Creek Lane as such; the Developer is responsible for 1 %" asphalt overlay on Mail Creek Lane or, the Developer is responsible for improving Mail Creek Lane to a 20 year design life with "City participation". As this was not my understanding, I noted that I would revisit these issues with the Engineering Department. I have expressed your concern with Mike Herzig, who was the Development Review Engineer at the time original discussions regarding Mail Creek Lane took place. He maintains that at no time did Engineering ever specify a particular pavement thickness for Mail Creek Lane. The City would not ever commit to a specific pavement thickness design knowing that the City requires a 20 year design life on all its roadways and a specified thickness can change by the time a project has completed the review process. Furthermore, it is worth noting the written understanding of the Engineering Department regarding Mail Creek Lane based on the letter the City Engineer sent on October 28, 1999. Specifically, with regards to Mail Creek Lane, "Andover has agreed to upgrade the road surface to a 20 year design life from the southern boundary of the Werner School to the intersection with Fossil Creek Parkway." Our understanding of the obligations stated in this letter was sent to yourself, your engineer, as well as the City's Planning Department. While your recently expressed concerns are certainly noted, there unfortunately does not appear to be a resolution between your views and the Engineering Department. At this point, I would recommend formally documenting your issues (noting who was a party to your understanding of conversations regarding Mail Creek Lane responsibilities) and submitting them to the City Engineer. Respectfully, .. _ Marc P. Virata Development Review Engineer 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6605 • FAX (970) 221-6318 wwwdfort-collins.co.us \✓ Proposed insert to Huntington Hills Filing 7 Development Agreement, paragraph 4 (D) (3) page 6 of the red -line and strikeout version of 8/14/00. The City and Developer have negotiated the final location of the pedestrian bridge crossing of Mail Creek. This crossing location requires an 80-foot span, which is longer and more expensive than originally planned for by the Developer, but will minimize the construction impact to the City -owned Natural Area at the Mail Creek crossing location. In recognition of this, it is mutually agreed that the Developer shall not be required to contribute the sum of $15,000 toward the restoration of the Natural Area, pursuant to paragraph 5 (B) (i) of the Agreement of Exchange of Real Property, between the City and Huntington Hills dated August 10, 1999. Instead, such sum shall be applied to the Developer's cost for construction of the pedestrian bridge. The City agrees to reimburse Developer the difference in cost to widen the pedestrai bridge from eight (8) feet to ten (10) feet, including the additional cost of widening all structures associated with the bridge. Services WIM/ Engineering Department City of Fort Collins DATE: September 18, 2000 TO: Huntington Hills, LLC of Colorado Attn: Marcus Palkowitsh 650 South Cherry Street, Suite 435 Denver, CO 80246 Osborn & Bloom, P.C. Attn: Dave Osborn, Esq. 217 W. Olive P.O. Box 2003 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Andover Fossil Creek, LLC Attn: A. John Knapp, Jr. 910 Travis, Suite 2205 Houston, TX 77002 Lucia A. Liley, Esq. March & Liley, P.C. 110 E. Oak Street, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80524 FROM: Marc Virata, Development Review Enginee� RE: Huntington Hills 70' Development Agreement Please be advised that it is the City's understanding that Exhibit `B-2" in the Development Agreement for the Huntington Hills P.U.D. Filing No. 7t' noted as "Allocation of Security Costs (Roadway and Erosion Control)", is incorrectly labeled and should be titled "Allocation of Security Costs (Erosion Control)", as noted on the `Exhibit List" for this Development Agreement. Reference II.C.2 (Erosion Control) of the document for the specific application of this exhibit. Please let me know of any questions or concerns. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6605 • FAX (970) 221-6378 www.ci.fort-collins-co.us 02/06/2001 13:33 01lOV01 10:00 9702260204 $970 `5 4382 TSTINC CONCRT STRCTRS w PAGE 04 9002 Concrete Structures, Inc. 4325 Hilltop Road Longmont, Colorado 80604 Phone (970) 535-0202 ♦ Metro (303) 440-0634 FAX (970) 535-4382 January 5, 2001 T.S.T. ATTN.- ERIC 748 Whaler's Way, Building D Fort Collins, CO 80525 RE: FOSSIL CRSEB pApXWAY BRIDGE Eric: Due to unacceptable aril conditions on the north abutment; the footing elevation has been lowered five (5) feet. The north abutment height is now consistent with the soutb side abutment height. The price difference for this incidental change is $17,217. This price change has been calculated using the differences between the original prices quoted for the north and south abutments plus the cost of raising one wingwall five feet. Thus, the price change of $17,217. The problem was discovered early enough no that no additional tests have been incurred. If you should have any questions or comments please contact me direct at (970) 536-0202. Respsetfully� WAYNE A. SCBRLL, PRESIDENT CONCRETE STRUCTURES, INC. cc 0626 File 02/06/2001 13:33 9702260204 TSTINC PAGE I a Mr. Bob Campbell Andover Development Partners 6307 Washington Houston, TX 77007 Re: Fossil Creek Parkway Bridge North Abutment Redesign Project No. 0952-003 Dear Bob, January 10, 2001 This letter is to update you on the status of the changes for the north abutment of the Fossil Creek Bridge. During the open pit inspection by Terracon for the footer of the north abutment, it was determined that the soil conditions were unacceptable to place the footer at the design elevation. Conversations with Terracon determined that the footer had to be lowered five feet to be on acceptable bedrock or the design changed to a pier system to satisfy the conditions present. Due to the time constraints with redesigning the abutments to keep construction in progress, it was decided to lower the footer, therefore increasing the abutment depth. The design for the north abutment now matches that of the south abutment. Prices were obtained from the contractors to add the additional five feet to the abutment. The additional cost from Concrete Structures, Inc. is $17,217 for the additional depth of the abutment and one wingwall. The additional cost from Schmidt Earth Builders, Inc. is $4348 for the extra excavation required for the abutment and stabilization rock since the footer is now below the water table. These changes are required for the north abutment to be constructed on stable soil conditions. We are therefore recommending that these changes be added to the bridge construction contract. The total cost for the additional work is $21,565. Please find enclosed the cost estimates from the contractors and letter from Terracon. Please call if you have any questions or need additional information regarding this change. Respectfully, TST, C CONSULTING ENGINEERS Al • Eric M. Fuhrman, P.E. EMF/cros Enclosures TST, INC. 748 Whalen Way -Iluil4incD Consulting Engineers Fort Collins, CO 80525 9 (970) 226.0557 Metro (303) $95.9103 Fax 070) 226.0204 Email info@lsunc.com www.cstinc.com TranspdWion Services Engineering Department City of Fort Collins February 27, 2001 Eric M. Fuhrman, P.E. TST, Inc. 748 Whalers Way Building D Fort Collins, CO 80525 Re: Fossil Creek Bridge Dear Mr. Fuhrman: As per our phone conversation, this serves as written indication of the City's decision to specify color sample 385 "Tan" for the Fossil Creek Bridge structure as required per the approved utility plans for the "Fossil Creek Parkway Extension". Kim Kreimeyer and Doug Moore in the Natural Resources Department, as well as Matt Baker in the Engineering Department agreed upon said color sample. The City will keep the color samples you had sent from Slaton Bros., Inc. for reference purposes. Call if you have any questions. Sincerely, �far�-6 c P. Virata Development Review Engineer cc: Huntington Hills 7"' Project File 281 North College Avenue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6605 • FAX (970) 221-6378 www.d.fort-collins.co.us Transpotion Services Engineering Department City of Fort Collins March 23, 2001 Eric M. Fuhrman, P.E. TST, Inc. 748 Whalers Way Building D Fort Collins, CO 80525 Re: Fossil Creek Bridge Dear Mr. Fuhrman: This letter serves as written confirmation that the City signed off on a revision submitted from your firm, extending the height of the north abutment for the Fossil Creek Bridge as part of the utility plans for the "Fossil Creek Parkway Extension". Call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Mar . Virata Development Review Engineer cc: Huntington Hills 7`s Project File 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6605 • FAX (970) 221-6378 www.ci.fort-collins.co.us Communitv Planning and 7iivironmental Sorvices Current PINIWng NINO— April 17, 2001 Eric M. Fuhrman, P.E. TST, Inc. 748 Whalers Way Building D Fort Collins, CO 80525 Re: Fossil Creek Bridge Dear Mr. Fuhrman: This letter serves as written confirmation that the City (Parks, Natural Resources, Engineering and Stormwater) approved the "Continental Bridge Shop Drawings" you had submitted on March 26, 2001. This approval does not constitute the abutment design that you had indicated in your transmittal would be forthcoming. Call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Mar . Virata Development Review Engineer cc: Huntington Hills 7`h Project File 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 FAX (970) 221-6378 TDD (970) 224-6002 *AO MAY 1 =")I companies Suite 435 650 S. Cherry Street Denver, Colorado 80246 Phone (303)399-9804 Fax (303)399-3631 May 10, 2001 Mr. John Knapp Andover Development Partners 910 Travis, Suite 2205 Houston, Texas 77022 Registered Mail -Return Receipt Requested RE: Huntington Hills - Filing 7 Fossil Creek Parkway and Bridge Construction Dear John, P29-23-02 The purpose of this letter is to serve notice of your default under your agreement with Huntington Hills, L.L.C. of Colorado and the City of Fort Collins for the construction of Fossil Creek Parkway and the related bridge structure over Fossil Creek. Your agreement required that you diligently proceed with the construction of these facilities. As of last week your bridge contractor moved off the job and is performing no work towards completion of the project. When I inquired as the reason for this, your bridge contractor stated that they were told by your representatives that since enough of the construction had been completed on Fossil Creek Parkway for you to accomplish building permits for your Filing 7 of Huntington Hills there was no longer a time crunch for completion of the roadway and bridge improvements. The bridge contractor said they had other jobs they would like to move to and your representatives said it was okay to move off the job and come back when they had time to finish it. *AW r%O We hereby request that your contractors return to work immediately and complete the job in a diligent and uninterrupted fashion. We are also hereby requesting the City of Fort Collins to place an immediate stop work order on your project in Filing 7 until your default has been cured. Hopefully, you will accomplish this so we can avoid turning this matter over to our attorney. I look forward to hearing from you immediately. Sincerely yours, rcus S. alkowitsh Cc: David Osborn, Esq. Matt Baker, w/ City of Fort Collins Engineering Department Mark Viratta, w/ City of Fort Collins Engineering Department Bob Campbell 12-03-1998 12:07PM FROM ANDOVER 7136588322 P. q %W bicycle traffic will Come from MftMOnt through the Intersection of Mall Creek lane and Fossil Creek Parkway? Perhaps when that W11c develops, a pedestrian signal will be justified. The Issue of the Miramont Connection at Mail Creek Lane and Roma Valley Drive: Please recall that one of Tom 5choemaker's drives to become invoked in this endeavor was to avoid a bridge over Mail Creek Therefor, in an effort to reach a comprehensive solution for these neighborhaoda and connectivity, it has been proposed that a connection be made at Mail Creek Lane and Roma Vaiay. The fact that any connection whatsoever is being considered seemed to be quite a surprise (shock) to the residents of Miramont who attended the Neighborhood Meeting. As I have no experience in this meetings it was also a surprise to me that the issue of any connection at all was controversial. Was such a reaction to be expected? Is it universal in the neighborhood, or do only those who have negative reactions come to the meeting? Is this connection significant to the city? Is the timing of the connection imperative that ti coincides with the opening of the Fossil Creek Parkway connection? Is it possible that the Mal Creek Lane connection be planned for (amendments flied, etc), but that the actual connection be delayed undo the Fossil Creek connection has been compered, is in operation, and proves itself to be acceptable? I look forward to visiting with you on these items, and again, I apologize if I am intruding too far into sty business. 1%0 ANDOVER FOSSIL CREEK, L.L.C. 6307 Washington Ave. Houston, TX 77007 PH:713-880-5800 FAX:713-868-7945 May 17, 2001 Marcus Palkowitsh MSP Companies VIA CERTIFIED MAIL 650 S. Cherry St., #435 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Denver, CO 80246 RE: Huntington Hills — Filing No. 7 Fossil Creek Parkway and Bridge Construction Dear Marcus, Your registered letter concerning default of our agreement with Huntington Hills, L.L.C. of Colorado and the City of Fort Collins for the construction of Fossil Creek Parkway and the related bridge structure over Fossil Creek is inflammatory and without basis. A.J. Shilling, representing Huntington Hills, L.L.C. has been my contact person throughout the construction of this project and I spoke with him May 10", the same day your letter was dated. Our conversation was all positive and he mentioned nothing of your concerns or "default in our contract". It would seem a phone call could be most appropriate to understand the progress of work, for you are not working with information provided by myself or the managers of Concrete Structures or Schmidt Earth Builders. We are diligently working on the installation of the parkway. My time frame has not changed, it has always been attached to the occupancy of the first building and we have heard nothing of a stop work order from the City of Fort Collins. It is very contradicting that I proceeded with the approval and payment of a change order that was critical in the execution and progress of work and it took 120 days to receive approval of payment from MSP and you are accusing me of being in default. I do not know how to cure your problem when there is not one. I encourage you to call anyone with the City of Fort Collins or TST Engineering or either of the contractors working on site to discuss our performance on the project. I will make myself available should you like to visit on site to further discuss, otherwise I will consider this issue resolved. N Sin y, � Bob Campbell cc: John Knapp David Osborn Matt Baker, City of Fort Collins Engineering Dept. Mark Viratta, City of Fort Collins Engineering Dept. Wayne Schell, Concrete Structures Gene Pfief, Schmidt Earth Builders A.J. Shilling I -d 946L698ETL 0033 d6E:b0 TO LT FEW Transp%,r ion Services , Engineering Department June 19, 2001 Eric M. Fuhrman, P.E. TST, Inc. 748 Whalers Way Building D Fort Collins, CO 80525 Re: Fossil Creek and Mail Creek Bridges Dear Mr. Fuhrman: This serves as written indication of the City's decision to specify color sample 437 "Sandy Beach" for the Fossil Creek Bridge Class V finish based upon the Thoro color palette provided. This was decided based upon input from the Engineering Department, Natural Resources, and City Parks. The City will keep the color samples you had sent for reference purposes. In addition, this letter also serves as notice that the City approves the pedestrian bridge abutment design you had submitted, which were signed and sealed by Thomas Hartman on 4-23-01. This approval was based upon agreement by the City Engineering, Parks, Natural Resources, and Stormwater Departments. No further action is needed from you at this time with this approval and the City will keep the drawings you had submitted for reference. Call if you have any questions. Sincerely, C Maarrrcc . Virata Development Review Engineer cc: Huntington Hills 7t' Project File 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6605 • FAX (970) 221-6378 www.fcgov.com %W M July 5, 2001 r _ VF RIPLEY Marcus Palkowitsh ASSOCIATES INC. MSP Companies Suite 435 Landscape Archi[echne 650 South Cherry Street Liban Denim, Denver, Colorado 80222 Plannin, 401 W'ea Nluunuaia Acanue Re: Fossil Creek Parkway Street Trees S"ke 201 Fait Co[ha,. CO 40521-2614 Dear Marc: PHONE 1971h'_'4-5A'_e I=A,X' IB701—4.1662 As you are aware Bob Campbell has contracted with our firm to prepare construction documents for street trees and irrigation along Fossil Creek Parkway from Mail Creek Lane to south of the Fossil Creek bridge. You commented on the concept plan in our office last week. We have made the revisions you requested and have enclosed a copy of the revised planting plan for your review. Since I was not involved in any of the earlier negotiations between yourself and the City I thought it best to put this information in writing so all the parties involved can understand what is going on to resolve the street tree installation issues. I met with Ted Shepard (project planner), Doug Moore (Natural Resources Department), and Mark Viratta (Engineering) to determine how to proceed regarding irrigation of the street trees. The staff made it clear that it was the Developer's responsibility to provide street trees and maintain them for two years, before the City's Park Department or Natural Resources Department would take over responsibility for maintenance. It was assumed at this meeting, that Bob Campbell was responsible for the street trees adjacent to his project frontage, and that you had the responsibility for the remainder. The staff believes it is your responsibility to determine a water source. The options they suggested included: Purchasing a water tap from the South Fort Collins/Loveland Water District Negotiating with Craig Forman in the City's Parks and Recreation Department to extend irrigation from the planned Fossil Creek Park. This option may be tough since the park is not under construction yet and current plans don't indicate irrigation at the west edge of the Park. Eliminate the automatic irrigation system and instead contract with the Forestry Department to manually water the trees for two years. Doug Moore will provide an estimated cost for this service in the next few days. Our office cannot complete the construction documents until the water source is identified. Hopefully you can direct us on how to proceed soon. Sincerely, VF RIPLEY ASSOCIATES Linda Ripley Principal CC: Bob Campbell Ted Shepard Doug Moore Mark Viratta `r r.I FOSSIL CREEK PARKWAY Preliminary Cost Estimate 6/29/01 Soil Prep (rip, till, fertilize) 4,951 st -pV.Ub y3a0.vo Fine Grading 19,421 sf $0.05 $971.05 III. PLANTING $13,100.00 Deciduous Trees - 2" cal 46 ea $250.00 $11,500.00 Ornamental Trees - 1-1/2" cal 8 ea $200.00 $1,600.00 IV. SOD, SEED $2,848.60 Sod (Kentucky Blue Grass) 4,951 sf $0.40 $1,980.40 Dryland Seed 14,470 sf $0.06 $868.20 V. PLANTING BED MATERIALS $101.10 Pole Peelings for Tree Suacers 337 sf $0.30 $101.10 TOTAL COST $23,605.58 CONTINGENCY 6% $1416.33 GRAND TOTAL $25:021.91 Notes All unit rates include labor. Items not included: hardscape, lighting, fencing, street furniture. December 11, 2001 P29-05-OIN Mr. Cam McNair Engineering Department City of Fort Collins P. O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 RE: Fossil Creek Parkway Extension and Bridge Escrow Dear Cam: Thank you for your return of my telephone call last week on the Fossil Creek Bridge inspection by the City. The terms of the letter of credit in the amount of $72,350.76 provided to the City on October 25, 2000 provide for reductions in the amount of the letter of credit as improvements are constructed and accepted by the City. The letter of credit was provided relative to storm sewer, water & sanitary sewer and street system costs. During your call you said there were some punch list items which 1 understood were related to concrete installation. Huntington Hills of Colorado, LLC is formally requesting release of the letter of credit in full at this time. At the time of the meeting held in your office on November 8, 2001 you indicated that this process should be completed in a few weeks. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, 1 A.J. S*Iing Controller Cc: Marcus Palkowitsh Marc Virattae- — qy yp¢¢ 4 '� yypppp p A 5� A 3g . 1 8 9 a ggyyy$�a�A �.•r�° Y Y a��tlS pIS yg i g y p 1 g`$4 yy 557;1 ardby4ag .pp Y beriH qo eeg�� QJp.@ 4$yedlON. �Yp16ag gYak edg gp@: pp3pp44 yy$ Y4 tl e�eq a. 4 e 8p Y49�Y ao : AAu$ g9n92 4Ele I I a Y h7 - g -Is No Text 12-03-1998 12:08PM FROM ANDOVER 7136588322 0 02 Andover Group, Inc. Memo T04 Huntington Hills Reading File Fi ans John Knapp Dallas 12-01-98 RUN Brief on Current Stous, proposed muftaily pmjeet in Huntington Hills The purpose Of this memo is to update all parties on the status of this project, the hurdles it faces if it is to become reality, and to try to identify a path to approval which addresses most of the concems raised by bah the city and the adjoining neighbors. Background: First, the vast majOr4y Of this proposed project Is in Huntington Hills, parcel J. Andover, as proposed developer has contracted to acquire a portion of J from the owner of Huntington Hills_ Tract J contains approximately 24 acres, the project will use 14 Of these acres and the balance will either be conveyed to the city in right of way, or sold to the cty for park lands. Second, the proposed projed uses approximately 2 acres of Miranront Parcel L. The city proposes to acquire Parcel L (approximately 12 acres) from the Land Vast which has owned the parcel for a lengthy period. This seller is not the same entity which is developing Miramont In Arm, the city will exchange approxlmatey 2 acres out of the Minimont Parcel for approximately two acres out of the Huntington Hills Parcel, those bainlg the two acm most adjacent to Fossil Creek It is my understanding through the grapevine that the cIVS acquisition of both Mlydtnont Parcel L and the Huntington Hills Land are at below market prices which reflect the degree of dhMculty In developing ng Thus the proposed Project which now contains 224 units (elfec ing the most recent reduction in the number of units as Clty Staff has atempl ed to respond to concerns of the neighbors). Although the site for the project contain only 14 acres, it lies within an overall tract of 34 acres, reflecting a density 0.6 units to acre. While there is great controversy about the traffic generated by the connections of Fossil Creek Parkway from College to LeMay, and the connection of the Miramord Community to Mal Creek Lane, as of yet the project itself has not received substantive criticism. Perhaps thara aniy because of the intensity of Me interest in this connections. 910 Travis, Sues 2203 - Houston • 77002 Phone: 71385&osat • Fsc 7136584= 12-03-1998 12:09PM FROM ANDOVER 7136588322 P. 6 Inbrwts of the Cilty: In addition to the cky's usual concerns about the quality of the development In any project, the city has expressed throe major concerns Department of Natural Resources: Rrst, the department of Natural Resources, through Tom Schoemaker, Is concerned about maintaining trte Integrity of both Mall Creek and Fong Creek Mills Tom would prefer to avoid another bridge over either creek, he appears to be willing to accept a corrprorniw a bridge over Fossil Creek, and no bridge over Mal Creek, and maintaining set backs for this proposed development of approximately 200 feet from both creeks. Importantly, Tom has some financial resources to commit to this compromise, Second, the Parks Department appears to be committed to continuing the Fossil Creak Traii that will provide pedestrian access to the major Fossil Creek Park Project The proposed trail will be a 10 foot wide concrete sidewalk that will run along Fossil Creek, under the bridge to be built (Fossil Creek Parkway) and then on the south side of Fossil Creek Parkway to College. Traffic and Engineering: Intermonnectivilyt Throughout the history of Ft Collins, interconnectedness bras been a predominant design prerequisite, and this remains one of the two key issues to the city today in this project Evidently, the drive for interconnectedness begins in City Council. Speoffically, the city engineering sW is devoted b having Fossil Creek Paltcway connect film leMay to College. This ISSN is evidently most compelling to city staff due to the fact that the clty's usual grid System has been interrupted by Fosse Creek, and east west flow of traffic is now pushed north to Harmony. Miramont to Fossil Creek Parkway: as the cky desires to connect nelghborhoods, the connections of these two neighborhoods (or really three) Is also an expressed concern to fie city engineering staff. Perhaps I am wrong, but it appears that this connection is slightly less imperative to city staff, than is the Fossil Creek Connection, Safety of all: Perhaps not evident to glove affected by intercom activity, is the city stable' overwhelming dedication to safety of all ranem of the streets, especially children. The stag appears to be particularly knowledgeable about extst&tg traffic patlems of students, school buses, and the eflbct that a Fossil Creek connection will have an these patterns. Further, sly staff steady understands those tads available for handling and controlling traffic flows.