The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About706 Frontier Ct - Correspondence/Building Inspection - 12/31/1986CITY OF FORT COLLINS December 31, 1986 Mr. Timothy J. Dow Anderson, Sommermeyer, Wick & Dow PO Box 2166 Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: Quaid v. City of Fort Collins, et al. Dear Tim: In response to the questions you posed in your December 19 correspondence, I offer these comments: To #1: M&I/Donohue did indeed prepare both the subdivision plat and the development plan (also commonly referred to as the utility plan) for Woodwest, Sixth Filing. To #2: In my opinion, M&I/Donohue made what I consider to be quite serious errors in the preparation of the referenced engineering plans, and in their role as Wood Bros.' engineering consultant. The engineering plans contain two obvious errors/omissions: #1. On the original utility plan prepared in October of 1975, M&I showed a detailed drawing of an overflow swale which was 14 feet wide, and which swale would have fit within a typical 16-foot wide easement. Lloyd McLaughlin, the City's development review engineer who reviewed the plan in October of 1975, then verified that all drainage easements were sufficient in size. However, 16 months later (in February of 1977), M&I submitted a revised detailed drawing of the swale which was the 38-foot wide design, and which swale would obviously not fit within the 16-foot wide easement. But M&I failed to make the appropriate changes on the other pages of the utility plan which still referenced the 14-foot detail. The City approved the February 1977 revisionshown on page 8. Apparently, neither M&I, nor Wood Bros., nor the_ City felt the need to amend the subdivision plat by widening the easement to accomodate the revised swale since the developer and the builder were one and the same at that time (Wood Bros.), and strict adherence to these utility plans was necessary to get FHA financing. Since Wood Bros. later sold the lots to Noah, and the Building Inspection Department refers to the easements show on the subdivision plat for establishing what the minimum building setback is to be, the Quaid house was subsequently built outside of the easement DEPARTMENT OF 700 Wood Street • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 • (303) 221-6615 TRANSPORTATION s- as is required, but within the boundaries of the revised Swale design. In my opinion, M&I's failure to provide a soundly engineered swale originally, and its failure to make such a major revision in a timely and consistent manner, are what led to all the subsequent problems with the swale. And Wood Bros. and /or Noah still should have made arrangements during their property transaction to make sure building setbacks were sufficient to accomodate the Swale and that it got constructed. #2. Even if the revised overflow Swale had been properly constructed as designed by M&I/Donohue, the adjoining Fourth Filing, which is directly downstream of the Sixth Filing and which filing was also engineered by M&I/ Donohue, has no facility through which to receive the waters which were to be delivered through the swale in the Sixth Filing. These waters would have simply been dumped onto the lots in the Fourth Filing and would have caused substantial flooding because M&I/Donohue simply failed to make- any -provisions whatsoever to safely outlet these waters onto and through the Fourth Filing. The City's role in the development process is to attempt to protect the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, prosperity and welfare by requiring a land developer to meet certain minimum provisions during the subdivision of his land and the construction of public improvements. One of these provisions is that the developer hire a duly licensed and registered professional engineer to design the public improvements. Any serious errors or omissions committed during the performance of an engineer's work become potential liabilities he must deal with or he jeopardizes his professional license. In essence, an engineer must guarantee his work. That is also why the City requires all engineers and surveyors to affix their registered seals and_ signatures on any set of engineering plans they submit. Accordingly, never is it stated or implied that the City agrees to assume any liability for an engineer's or surveyor's errors or omissions simply because those errors or omissions were somehow not "caught" by the City. Another way the City attempts to protect the public's interests during the development process is to require the developer to sign an agreement to construct all public improvements serving his development as designed. Wood Bros. apparently opted to provide their own construction management services for this subdivision, in which case their negligence would seem to grow even greater, in my opinion, given the huge discrepancy between those critical elevations shown on the utility plans approved by the City versus what was subsequently built in the field (i.e. the elevations at the top back of the curb, the crown of the street, through the length of the swale, etc.). A developer typically hires a registered surveyor to insure that design elevations are being met during construction. Since the swale was on private property and probably would not have been constructed and fine -graded until the two adjacent houses on either side were built, it would not have been inspected by the City when all the other public improvements on Frontier Court were being inspected. It would have been incumbent upon Wood Bros. to make Y certain that the swale did eventually get constructed, and then to call the City for a formal inspection and approval. After selling the lots to Noah, Wood Bros. apparently failed to communicate to Noah that the swale would still have to be constructed and inspected, or, Noah knew it and simply failed to act upon this communication. Nonetheless, negligence would seem to rest solely with these two for their combined failure to build the swale and get it approved and accepted by the City. Only after such an inspection and acceptance, would Wood Bros. have met its obligations as developer to construct all public improvements which serve this development. I feel very strongly that negligence falls squarely onto the other Defendants in this case: M&I/Donohue, for its engineering errors and omissions I referenced earlier; Wood Bros., for its failure as developer to construct all public drainage facilities as designed; and Luxel Homes, for its failure to adhere to common industry standards in the construction of the Quaid home (i.e. making sure that the top of the foundation was at least 18 inches above the top back of the street curb, building .a driveway which slopes away from the house and not towards it, not taking the appropriate action when notified by Wood Bros. in a letter dated August 7, 1978, that this home was sure to be flooded without the protection offered by the overflow swale, etc). Tim, my overriding concern throughout these proceedings has remained unchanged --the flooding problem still exists and must still ultimately be addressed. Do the Defendants plan to apportion the costs of the improvements needed yet to solve this flooding problem in those same percentages used to contribute to the cash settlement? As you recall, the most feasible alternative recommended in the Donohue Study (July 1986) was estimated to cost about $107,000. I am in the process of gathering the documents needed to satisfy the other Defendants' Formal Requests For Documents. I'll let you know when I am ready to go over them with you. Please call me any time if you need me to explain my comments and opinions in more detail. Sincerely, Michael H. Mercer Coordinator of Operations and Maintenance cc: Linda L. Luce Steve Roy Lynn McConkey Larry Schneider Bob Smith Roger Krempel Rich Shannon