Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBRIDGES PUD - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2003-07-31WILLIAM C. STOVER ROBERT W. BRANDES,JR. DARRYL L. FARRINGTON STOVER, BRANDIES & FARRINGTON ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. 0. BOX 523 110 EAST OAK STREET -SUITE 220 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522 September 12, 1980 The City of 'Fort Collins 300 Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 ATTN: Maurice Rupel, Engineering Department RE: The Bridges P.U.D. Dear Maury: AREA CODE 303 482-3664 As you have probably been advised, members of the New Mercer Poar,l of Dir,,.,ctors have met with th( d(-orelopers in connection th(- 11.(J.D. , ind they have si.zbsequentl siibmif7t.ed a new " fina.l Plat rpaT,)" to, the Board. The Fsoard strongly fOCIS that With the extremely high density alr! 0,u 4 T e to the, pr-_�-� of bot'l), ""'he. New Mercer -iri(l No. 2 ditc-hels, -,-hat developr��tcknt. sloul('rot continue until many i"i'at_ters arC: (14r 'tisse-d andL ac.!reed i2pon, particularly in regards to acc(,,ss to the tw(-.S at all. placcs and the ,]otential for floocking of th(_--� dovn Glitch develonments. There is, of course, a possibility that the ditch company has no legal. rights in preventing the construction of housing directly below a steep hank nip to the Nelvi Mercer Ditch at: a pace where the walls of the ditch are extrernlo%ly weak and tramT)ied by c-attic passage. Regardless of the legal rights, I would think that the City �,rould not wish to pormit hopes to be constructed with the potei-itial of disaster to the occupants from water, probably C0171ing from s.torm. runot:f rather than the Nlenv Mercer's own agricultural water. This subdivision seems to be developed with an idea of ditches as amenities without regarC. to the danger of the residents or the potential injury to the ditch. CITY Of l[ OI?1 (,OLIINS P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Ph(303) 484-4220 Ext. 728 ENGINEERING DIVISION April 11, 1983 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Re: Westbridge Drive The Bridges P.U.D. It is standard policy for the City of Fort Collins to accept for perpetual maintenance those public right-of-way constructions which have been approved by the City and which have passed all required guarantee periods. This includes the water main, sanitary sewer mains, storm sewer lines and facilities, street pavements, street lights, and street signs. Yours truly, David Stringer Chief Construction Inspector RECEIVE() CITY OF FORT COLLINS M E M O R A N D U M APR 1 I984 TO: Mauri Rupel, Development Center Director DEPARTMENTtNG FROM: Ken Frazier, Assistant City Attorney DATE: March 29, 1984 RE: The Bridges Today I spoke with Doug Konkel, Attorney at Law, representing United Bank in this matter. Doug advises that United Bank is in the process of foreclosing on the $ridges and would not take a deed in lieu of foreclosure. It is my view that the bank would take the property subject to the terms and conditions of the Subdivision Agreement entered into on the 15th day of December, 1980 between the City of Fort Collins and S.J. Sharf companies as developer. It would further be my view that the notation on page 4 of 3/26/81, initialed by yourself and Jerrice Sharf indicating that Prospect Road would be completed with Phase 3 of the subdivisio should not be deemed a part of this Agreement. With all due respect, it would be my opinion, from a purely legal standpoint, that only the City Manager may bind the City with regard to contractual obligations. However, I have indicated to Doug that the City would consider negotiating a subsequent agreement on this property with either a subsequent developer or United Bank should United Bank decide to build out the project following foreclosure action. Hence, I'm returning this entire file to you at this time and will await further word from Mr. Konkel as to how United Bank desires to proceed. KF:sw Enclosure OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 300 LaPorte Ave.. P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 • (303) 221-8520 ZVFK architects/planners a professional corporation 218 west mountain avenue fort Collins, co. 8D521 usa telephone 303 493-4105 September 24, 1980 Mr. Joe Frank Senior Planner City of Fort Collins Planning Department P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80521 Dear Joe: This letter and the attached revised comments on The Bridges final P.U.D. as follows: drawings are in response to staff Staff concerns have been addressed 1. Due to the amount of necessary information and limited space on the site plan, a special drawing showing only building envelopes in relation to platted lot lines and easements has been provided. This will greatly ease the -Building Department's issuance of building permits. 2. The Fire Department's concerns and requirements of access and turning radii have been met. A tract of land immedi- ately east of The Bridges has been added to the plat and utility plans. This allows the limited access service road to be continued to Prospect Road. 3. The above mentioned road, in combination with the drive serving parking structures "a" and "m" provides acceptable access to the ditch. We have had several discussions with the ditch companies and have their preliminary approval. Some technical details dealing with the best method of stabilization of the ditch bank near buildings "A" and "V" are still being worked out, but there is no reason to doubt that we will have written approval of the ditch companies in time for this item to be scheduled for the October 21 City Council meeting. -z- 4. On July 31 of this year I attended a meeting with you, Rick Ensdorff and Don Hisam. One of the items discussed and agreed upon at that meeting dealt with the landscape treatment along Prospect Road. It was felt that because the revised plan has replaced two and one-half story stacked units with lower (two story) townhomes, the need for gigantic berms along Prospect was largely mitigated. We are still proposing a significant landscape treatment of this area. Both the buildings and landscape plans are now more in scale with the neighborhood. The berming question is further impacted by Item 9 below. 5. As with all other similar plans we have processed recently, minor planting adjacent to buildings is not shown on our landscape plan. Until final building drawings are developed, realistic planting plans for those areas are not possible. Planning staff may review those plans at the time of application for building permits if they wish. 6. Note No. 3 on our site plan specifies exactly the method of review for the pedestrian bridges in Raintree and should therefore be acceptable here. 7. Major pedestrian walks and -bridges are included in a public access easement. 8. After meeting with Light and Power and Public Service Company, we have made minor adjustments to our plan so that those utilities are satisfied they can adequately serve this development. 9. The only unresolved problem concerns Engineering's new requirements for the Prospect Road cross section. Two existing mature trees on the bridges and over 80 mature trees on the property immediately east were planted on the existing -pro erty line (30 feet off the centerline of Prospect Road. Until recently, the standard on Prospect Road was a new flow line 30 feet off the center- line and an additional ZO feet of right-of-way (as was recently constructed in the Victoria Lake P.M.). The Bridges preliminary plan was reviewed and approved with the understanding that we could slightly modify (by two feet) that standard to save the existing trees and we would run a slightly meandering bike path behind the -3- trees. Engineering is now asking for a 65-foot section to match the existing bridge at the New Mercer Canal. Obviously, we would like to do whatever we can to save the affected trees. We feel the following points are important to consider on this matter: a. The most recent Year 2000 traffic volume projections show the traffic load on this section of Prospect to be similar to that on Taft Hill, Elizabeth and Mulberry, where reduced arterial standards have been used (street sections of 50-54 feet). b. Arterial improvements (widening) that have been installed in a piecemeal, project -by -project basis have resulted in inconsistent widths (as standards have changed), difficult profiles, varying pavement design, and in some cases, unnecessary tree removal. What: we would most like to achieve is to permanently save the trees. If that is'absolutely not possible, we would suggest paving (without curb and gutter) up to two feet from the trees for a temporary road width Of r13 feat. The trees would nbt then be romoved until the entire mile of Prospect (Taft to Shields) is improved. This would allow some time for new land- scaping to be established,,and'allow•for the possibility - however remote - that a narrower width may be determined appropriate. We are anticipating The Bridges going to the October 21 City Council meeting. Please keep us informed of the status of this item. Sincerely, r� 2� Eldon Ward EW:me cc: Jerrice Sharf Art March, Jr. City of Fort. Collins Page Two Sept,�.?mber 12, 1980 T be"Amvc-, '_-+,X-se dc<Ielo-pers -h-, be very conscie-ntious people, it, is well ncCt- tc (iv t cic. fa�z- Until `actorilv con(---, 1 e(4.. Very truly yours, WWilliamC. St over. WCS: S1 CC: Arthur E. March, Jr., Esq. Mr. Louis F. Swift Mr. Ron Ruff Mr. Ralph Hansen STOVER, BRANDIES & FARRINGTON ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. O. BOX 523 110 EAST OAK STREET -SUITE 220 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522 WILLIAM C. STOVER ROBERT W. BRANDES,JR. DARRYL L. FARRINGTON October 21, 1980 Mr. Maurice Rupel Engineering Department City of Fort Collins P. 0. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 �7RE: The Bridges, P.U.D. Dear Maury: AREA CODE 303 482-3664 The Board of Directors of The New Mercer Ditch Company plans to meat and further consider The Bridges, P.U.D. at 10:30 .m. on Tuf'sc October 28, 1980, mectincl at the, Litt](., Farm where thr-, New Mercer crosses under West Prospect. I think it would be most helpfLil if you, preferably, or, at least some P & Z representatives be present. Very truly yours, William C. Stover WCS:sl cc: Mr. Louis F. Swift STOVER, BRANDIES & FARRINGTON ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. O. BOX 523 110 EAST OAK STREET -SUITE 220 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522 WILLIAM C. STOVER ROBERT W. BRANDESrJR. DARRYL L.FARRINGTON October 31, 1980 Arthur E. March, Jr., Esq. 110 East Oak Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 RE: The Bridges P.U.D. Dear Art: AREA CODE 303 462-3664 A9 I informed you yesterday, a majority of the Board of Directors of The New Mercer Ditch Company met on the banks of the proposed Bridges P.U.D. The following is an extract from these minutes, which I believe is self-explanatory: An examination of the needs of the company in relation to The Bridges P.U.D. was discussed and the physical features exa-mined. All concurred that New *fiercer Ditch Company r'aust have at least a fifteen (15') foot effective roadway on the downhill side of the ditch from Prospect to the spillway bridge below Village West Subdivision, which access would have to cross the Dr. Robert Smith property. Less desirable but acceptable would be the same road westerly to the Dr. Smith property with a suitable turn -around at the property line. The slope for such a road right- of-way should be a minimum of 3:1, with the bank seeded. The ditch company will also have to have access to the upside street when needed for maintenance and repairs. Before decision is made, the subdividers must submit a copy of their final plat since they have previously furnished the company with numerous and differing plats, each called "final". Stover was instructed to advise the developers, through their attorney, Arthur E. March, and, if he felt it desirable, furnish a letter to this effect. very truly yours, WCS : sl William C . Stover CC. :sir. Louis F. Swift Mr. Les Williamson. Mr. Ron Ruff --M1 ?�aurice Rupel MARCH, MARCH, MYATT, KORB & CARROLL ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW ROBERTSON BUILDING 110 EAST OAK STREET ARTHUR E. MARCH POST OFFICE BOX 469 ARTHUR E.MARCH, JR. FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522 RAMSEY D. MYATT MARK L. KORB JOSEPH T. CARROLL,JR. December 8, 1980 Mr. Maurey Rupel City Engineer's Office City of Fort Collins Post Office Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Dear Maurey: TELEPHONE AREA CODE 303 482-4322 Immediately after our conference regarding the Bridges, I contacted Dick Rutherford and asked him to make the changes and snow the additional matters on the utility drawings which we had discussed. I also submitted to Bill Stover, the attorney for New Mercer Ditch Company, a proposed agreement between the Developers and New Mercer and No. 2. I am enclosing herewith a copy of the proposed agreement as submitted. I understand that Dick Rutherford has not completed the changes in the utility drawings but that these should be done forthwith. I have been advised by Rill Stover that the New Mercer Ditch Company will not consider the agreement as submitted to them apparently because all of the engineering is not completed. From discussing this with Dick Rutherford it is my understanding that all necessary details are shown on the utility plans regarding the lining which was done to respond to the principal concern expressed by the Ditch Company. I believe the utility plans also show the crossings for utility lines across the ditch in adequate detail. The only matter not shown is the pedestrian bridge and the proposal as given to the Ditch Company, would give them absolute control within reason over that design. The agreement, as proposed, did anticipate develop- ment of the property to the East of that now being platted, how- ever, it does not appear reasonable to require the developer to do all engineering on that job when there is no intent to go forward on it at this time. Further, the proposed agreement gave the Ditch Company final say over all design and I cannot see how they could ask for any more. I fully realize the Ditch Company has concerns when property is developed which impacts their ditches. On the other hand as you and I discussed, I do not feel that they can dig in their heels, refuse even to negotiate on an agreement and thereby hold up a developer indefinately. We have attempted to be sensitive to the Ditch Company's needs in connection with this site, we have met on the ditch bank with the Ditch Board, we have proposed to line a portion of the ditch where seepage problems have been experienced, we have provided for utility crossing as usually done and we have agreed to give the Ditch Company final say on the Mr. Maurey Rupel December 8, 1980 Page Two plans and specifications for any desgin not now done. Again, to require complete design without any indication by the Ditch Com- pany as to what will be satisfactory is not reasonable. As you know, we agreed to take this matter off the November agenda with the understanding that it would be heard in December and with the further understanding that further delays would be a hardship to the developer. It is possible the Ditch Company may still respond to the agreement as proposed, however, the response which I got was that they would not consider it. The Developer remains ready to sign an agreement as proposed, to negotiate on any changes requested by the Ditch Company and to accommodate any reasonable request of the Ditch Company. As we discussed, I do not .feet that a developer can be required to do more than this. Therefore, I would request that the matter be placed on the agenda for consideration in December, despite the fact that we have not achieved an agreement with the Ditch Company. Through the utility plan you can impose on the developer the requirements which you determine are reasonable and required to protect the Ditch Com- pany's interest. The developer will agree to any such require- ments. I have not specifically addressed access for the Ditch Company in the above comments. As indicated by the agreement, access would be provided and it would be in accordance with the agreements which were reached when we met on the site with the Ditch Company Board. Access on the low side of the ditch would be through the fire, emergency road and access easement shown on the plan. Access on the other side of the ditch, where needed, would be through the drive along the bank of the ditch. The garage units were moved to the North in order to allow this accessway to abut the ditch bank. I will be out of my office for a week but would like to discuss this with you as soon as possible in the following week. Sincerely yours, MARCH, MARCH, MYATT, KORB & CARROLL Arthur E 'March, Jr. AEMjr/ph Enclosures cc: Bill Stover s/jshar corn anus investments • development • management April 2, 1981. City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80521 ATTN: Mr. Maurice E. Rupel - Engineering Department Dear Morey, Thank you for your time to review the temporary use of road base and railroad ties on Thursday, March 26, 1981, in the first filing of The Bridges. Per our agreement the road base will be used to complete our turn around from Westbridge Drive on the first phase. We will use railroad ties in place of curb and gutter until that area is surfaced complete. As we agreed our work on Prospect Street per the Subdivision Agree- ment will be completed in the third (3rd) phase of the first filing. Such is indicated on your plan in purple. Morey, I am assuming the installation of the storm sewer in Phase Two of the development. If you have any questions regarding the foregoing please contact me. Otherwise., I will consider this letter to be a documentation of our agreement. Again, thank you for your continued assistance on this project. Yours sincerely, Jerrice A. Sharf ' gP drake creekside tivo suite 150.2625 redwing road fort collins, colorado 80526 e303► 223-9812 a investmentsedevelopmerilec.)nstructiori management July 8, 198L City of Ft. CO Ilins 300 LaPorte Ave. FL . Collins, CO 80521 AT' FN: Mr. Maurice Rupple - Enginneering Dept. De;ir Morey, 1 would Like to thank you and Josh for coming out to the hridges�. As we discussed the sidewalk will. be raised to two (?) feet over curb height. The grade shall not 0IM'C'ed 8% and Dick Rutherford will provide you with a drawing For your approval. We also agree to maintain the zJr.-ass between the curb and icic>_waIk. _gain, thanks for yolrr advice and assistance, _t is i real_ pleasure working with you. Vary truly yours, Stephen A. Slmrf SAS/gp cc: Josh Rict]'Irdson drake creekside two suite 1,50 • 2625 redwing rood tort collins, Colorado 80526 (303) 223-9812 CITY OI I OR COI LINS P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Ph(303) 484-4220 Ext. 728 WrAMMMMUDWOROM ENGINEERING DIVISION April 7, 1982 Ms. Peggy Gold 718 17th Street Suite 800 Denver, CO 80202 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCEEN: Re: The Bridges It is standard policy for the City of Fort Collins to accept for perpetual maintenance those public right-of-way constructions which have been approved by the City and which have passed all required quarantee periods. This includes the water main, sanitary sewer mains, storm sewer lines and facilities, street pavements, street lights, and street signs. Yours truly, C� j Maurice E. Rupel, P.E. & L.S. Assistant City Engineer - Development