HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE FARMSTEAD - FDP - 8-03 - CORRESPONDENCE - LEGAL DOCUMENTSSteve CUt Re: Farmstead Development Agreement Page 3
Sincerely,
Troy Jones A.I.C.P.
M. Torgerson Architects
CC: Mikal Torgerson, Lucia Liley, Matt Baker, Steve Olt, Cameron Gloss,
Cam McNair, Sheri Wamhoff
CC: Cameron Gloss; Ililey@lileyrogersmartell.com; Marc Virata; Matt Baker;
mikal@architex.com; Sheri Wamhoff; Steve Olt
Steve Os - Re: Farmstead Development Agreement_
Phone: (970) 221-6605
Fax: (970) 221-6378
mvirata a)fcgov.com
>>> "Troy Jones" <troY(a)architex.com> 12/29/04 3:02 PM >>>
Marc,
In reading through the DA language, I'm not clear on a few items, and
hoped you could coordinate a clarification for me.
Paragraph II.D.1. on page 8 seems to be saying that we need to improve
Laporte Avenue. It was our understanding that we weren't being required
to improve Laporte Avenue. In talking with Mikal about conversations
that he's had with the city throughout the development review process
(prior to my involvement in the project), we weren't required to design
Laporte Avenue on the utility plan sheets because the City wasn't going
to require it to be improved. All through the entire review, we haven't
been proposing any street improvements along Laporte Ave. Was the
inclusion of this paragraph a mistake? Please clarify.
Paragraph II.D.2. on page 8 talks about needing to have a competitive
bid process for any improvements within the public right-of-way over
$30K in value, and to insure the improvements with a performance bond if
the value improvements within the ROW exceeds $50K. Would this apply to
Pennsylvania improvements or is this only for arterial right-of-way
improvements?
Paragraph II.D.3. on page 8 says that $23,140 must be paid for the cost
to construct Laporte Avenue. We were under the understanding that
Laporte Avenue wasn't going to be constructed. What is this money for
if Laporte is not going to be constructed?
Paragraph II.D.3 on page 8 also says that we owe $53,404.40 for our
portion of the cost of the bridge that was constructed on Taft Hill
Road. We find it imparitive to point out that in this case, there is no
proportional nexus between the impact of the development and the need
for the bridge improvement. The bridge is an improvement to the
city-wide street network and wasn't necessitated by this development.
This fee, if imposed, is literally a project killer. The project simply
would loose money (make a negative profit) if it had to absorb this
$53K. We (Mikal, Lucia Liley, and 1) would like a schedule a meeting
about this issue with you, Matt Baker, and whoever is next up on his
chain of command (Is this Cam McNair) to explain how there really isn't
a proportional nexus, and that the City really needs to take this charge
off the development agreement.
Steve OIl -Re: Farmstead Development Agreement Page 1
From: Cam McNair
To: troy@architex.com
Date: 12/30/04 10:39A M
Subject: Re: Farmstead Development Agreement
Troy, let me provide some further explanation on that bridge. That was built as a capital project by the
City. Farmstead's obligation is to repay the local street portion of that bridge, and that is what the $53K is
for. The local street portion of curb, gutter, sidewalk and pavement had previously been paid for in the
70's thru a Special Improvement District (SID), I am told. The City Code section that provides this
requirement is Section 24-95, and sub -section (c) in particular. This requirement has been in place for
some time and is applied uniformly throughout the City as properties develop.
Two years ago, in recognition of the extra burden placed on developing properties that are adjacent to
bridges and similar structures, we adjusted (increased) the Street Oversizing fees to spread the total cost
(including the local street portions) of bridges and box culverts among all fee payers. That happened after
this bridge on Taft Hill was built, so that structure was not included in the new SO fee calculation. The
repay agreement was already established.
As Marc notes, we made Ken Scavo aware of this requirement before the bridge was built. Mr. Scavo
agreed to dedicate the necessary right-of-way and easements to accommodate future widenings of Taft
Hill Road and LaPorte Avenue, and we bought some extra ROW from him to accommodate the future turn
lanes and other design requirements that will come into play when Taft Hill is widened. We provided him
with a letter that clearly states that reimbursement for the local street portion of the bridge would be
required if the property redevelops as anything other than a single-family dwelling.
I will be glad to meet if it helps to talk about this further.
Cam
>>> Marc Virata 12/29/04 10:46PM >>>
Troy,
I'll be out of the office until the new year, but wanted to respond with regards to the concerns you brought
up.
1) Paragraph II.D.1, speaks to the construction of sidewalk on Laporte Avenue that your project is
proposing. The intent of the paragraph with regards to Laporte Avenue is that you're eligible for being
reimbursed by the City for the sidewalk you're proposing to construct on Laporte.
2) Paragraph II.D.2 only applies towards improvements being reimbursed that are called out in the
previous paragraph (II.D.1). As such, the competitive bid process is not applicable to Pennsylvania, only
the sidewalk on Laporte.
3) The reimbursement for Laporte is due to the street being eligible for reimbursement, as Laporte is a
street that was previously improved this is a repayment due to the City.
4) The repayment due for the bridge construction on Taft Hill Road was originally outlined in a letter from
the City Engineer to Ken Scavo. I realize this a concern and discussion point from your end end; I won't
be able to coordinate a meeting until I return, but perhaps with Cam, Sheri, Matt, and others included in
the original email, this will occur during my vacation.
Thanks,
Marc P. Virata, P.E.
Civil Engineer II
City of Fort Collins - Engineering Department