Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHARMONY RIDGE PUD, FIRST REPLAT, LOTS 16 - 22 & TRACT 7 - PDP - 49-95E - CORRESPONDENCE - CITY STAFF (5)Stave lr- Re: Harmony Ridge Rep lat _ Page 2 Susan CC: Dave Stringer; Karen Manci; Mark Sears; Steve Olt Stzve OIP Re Harmony Ridge Replat _ _. _ Page 1 From: Doug Moore To: Craig Foreman; Susan Joy Date: 9/30/02 10:14AM Subject: Re: Harmony Ridge Replat Craig, Once this ditch or bridge is installed what would be your time frame for finishing the link between the crossing and the trail? One of the builders was telling me that a number of people park on the street an then try to access the trail from this location rather then using the trail head. On a site visit I found several social trails from this area. Once the crossing is in I'm sure that use will increase. Thanks, Doug >>> Craig Foreman 9/27/02 5:14:21 PM >>> Hi: Very interesting! I do remember the bridge and we would help by paying for half the cost. Then at some point I also saw the pipe proposal and remember talking to someone about it. If I remember right I was told they (developers) had talked the ditch company folks into the pipe. I was a bit surprised since we had to do the bridge across the ditch just east of Taft Hill Road. In summary, I have never seen any written documentation on this, just it's appearance on the drawings Craig >>> Susan Joy 09/26/02 10:35AM >>> I may or may not have a problem that one of you can help me track down. I'm writing about the ditch crossing for the Cathy Fromme Prairie connection on this project. Originally the design called for a 12' wide bridge and a 12' wide maintenance path that was going to double as a pedestrian sidewalk into the prairie. The 12' requirement was made so that the ditch rider trucks and their occasional backhoe could get into the area for their yearly maintenance. Since the first filing, the replat has changed the location a little and the FCLWD will also need this path for their maintenance vehicles. Now for the interesting part., The original plan said that a bridge was required, but I was told verbally that since then, the developer (Padilla) had talked the ditch company into letting them pipe the ditch. But I can not find any documentation that says the ditch company agreed to this. Do you know of any? Or do you know who they spoke to at the Trilby Lateral? This is all coming up again because the last round of review on the Harmony Ridge Replat is now showing the ditch crossing for the first time and something just didn't look right. I called Gary Steadele (President of the Trilby Lateral Ditch Company) and asked him if he's seen this design at all or if he was the one who agreed to the culvert in lieu of the bridge. He said no to both questions and asked me who signed the plans from the ditch company agreeing to this. I told him that I would check and get back to him ASAP. After going through the plans and the project file, I can find no signature block that the ditch company has ever signed on the plans or any document with their signature on it,agreeing to this. All we have that's officially signed off by the city is the site plan from Harmony Ridge PUD calling out the 12' bridge and the 12' maintenance road. The utility plans conflict this with a note calling out a 24" pipe and that the exact location must be coordinated with the ditch company. Again, the ditch company did not sign off on either one of these plans. So .... the question is - who said that the developer could pipe the ditch instead of constructing the bridge? And in case you haven't guessed by now, they want the bridge. Thanks very much for taking the time to read this. Any information you have would be very helpful!