Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPRESERVE AT THE MEADOWS - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2005-06-09SEAR• BRr January 4, 2002 Mr. Cam McNair City of Fort Collins Engineer 281 N. College Fort Collins, CO 80521 Dear Mr. McNair, ., .... 5285 McWhinney Blvd., Suite 190 Loveland, CO 80538 970.461.2800 phone 970461 2801 fax wwwsearbu,wn.com This letter is to inform the City of a potentially serious problem involving the "Preserve at the Meadows" project approved January, 2001 by the City. A pedestrian bridge was included as part of the design plans prepared by Northern Engineering which referenced structural design details prepared by Sear -Brown. However, Sear -Brown did not design the pedestrian bridge indicated in the Northern Engineering plans. Northern Engineering apparently misrepresented the structural design for a different pedestrian bridge designed by Sear -Brown as the structural design for the bridge shown on this project. This was done without the knowledge or consent of Sear -Brown. Jim Allen -Morley, dear -Brown, was contacted on December 28, 2001 by Dave Wyatt who is the contractor for the "Preserve at the Meadows". Mr. Wyatt called to see if the footings of a pedestrian bridge could be raised because of ground water problems. When questioned which bridge it became apparent that it was not a pedestrian bridge that had been designed by Sear - Brown. The bridge in question is located on the New Mercer Canal, 300 feet north of Horsetooth Road. According to the contractor, the plans that he would be building the pedestrian bridge from are included in the approved utility plans for the "Preserve at the Meadows" which were completed by Northern Engineering. Following that conversation Jim Allen -Morley spoke with Bud Curtis, Northern Engineering, and visited the City of Port Collins Mapping to see the approved plan set. The approved plan set for the "Preserve at the Meadows" had included sheets 34 and 35 of the approved "Warren Farms Third Filing" plans prepared by Sear -Brown and at each new bridge location referenced these Sear -Brown plan sheets. One example, is on the Northern Engineering grading plan, Sheet 4 of 17 where the new pedestrian bridge is shown there is a note: 'Pedestrian Bridge to be constructed with this project. See included Sheet 34 of approved Warren Farms Third Filing infrastructure Plans by the Sear -Brown Group for Details." Sear -Brown's design plans were prepared for the bridge located approximately at the boundary between Warren Farms Third Filing and the Preserve at the Meadows, not the location shown on sheet 4 of 17 in Northern Engineering's plans. Sear -Brown insists that our plan sheets 34 and 35 and all the references to them be removed from Northern Engineering Plans for the "Preserve at the Meadows". Sear -Brown has not given any permission for our design plans to be used in this location and will not stand behind these plans as being appropriate for a bridge in this location. Responsible, competent professional engineers •CA .•i.. Via'. .�v` "'.� a iF, 4�, F�J'- i:i:..a `.n..,,sw.-tiv :'� .. 'nyw. C .. ..Sv:r a .. �5'.'i. T+v4`Yx SEAR•BRO� understand that a structural design is unique for each bridge due varying site conditions including soils, ground water, loading, length, width, etc. and cannot simply be duplicated from one site to another without appropriate design consideration. Sear -Brown considers this misuse and misrepresentation of our design information as irresponsible on the part of Northern Engineering. In addition, this is a serious infringement on our copyright. Sear -Brown intends to refer this matter to the State of Colorado Board of Professional Engineers for further investigation into the professional conduct of the individuals involved and will internally review the matter with our attorney for possible further legal action due to the copyright infringement. We again expect that the City will rescind any approval of plans containing the above described bridge design, stop any and all work related to the bridge and return these plans to Sear -Brown. We certainly appreciate the City's cooperation in this unfortunate matter. We are also forwarding this letter to Mr. Louis Swift at the New Mercer Irrigation Canal Company for them to take appropriate action and rescind their approval as well. Thank -you for your time and consideration, if you have any questions please let me know. Sincerely, Bret A. Cummock, P.E. Associate Cc: Jeff Stone, Sear -Brown Legal Counsel Louis Swift, New Mercer Irrigation Canal Company Dave Stringer, City of Fort Collins Engineering Feview Mike Jones, Nortlnem Engineering Bud Curtis, Northern Engineering Transpc, ation Services Engineering Department City of Fort Collins David E. Bailey 601 Corporate Circle Golden, Co. 80401 RE: Development Construction Permit number 0101 — Preserve at the Meadows Dear Mr. Bailey: The intent of this letter is to notify you that the City has agreed to extend your Development Construction Permit number 0101 with the issuance date of February 5, 2001. This effective issuance date of this extension is May 9, 2001. Sincerely, 1David Stringer Development Review Manager _,V _, ,_.: is ;�Y-m�� �� ';0..-AO'-utY _.� li n5, June 30, 2000 Dave Stringer City of Fort Collins Engineering Department 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 RE: The Preserve at the Meadows Dear Dave: ..��- -i�� ✓✓ems/ice%..-s= ��i..' Attached please find the revised The Preserve at the Meadows Utility Plans. We have revised these plans to address the comments contained in your letter dated April 21, 2000. The utility revisions include. but are not limited to the following: 1. No additional construction easements are required for The Preserve. 2. The traffic study was submitted with the initial submittal of The Preserve at the Meadows by The Sear -Brown Group. 3. The provided language has been added to the plat and the benchmarks have been revised on the cover sheet. 4. The Ditch Company signature blocks have been added to the Utility Plans. 5. The utility relocated have been coordinated with Warren Farms TO Filing Infrastructure Plans. 6. The pedestrian bridge design on sheet 34 of the approved Warren Farms 3r° Filing has been included in this set. 7. The private streets have been revised to meet City standards. 8. Storm water and sanitary sewer manhole inverts were originally included in the plan set, but were previously strategically camouflaged in the profile to aid in construction confusion. 9. A typical cross-section of a private street has been included on the general detail sheet. 10, Redline comments on the blue lines have been addressed at this time. 11. Maintenance of the streets, open space, tracts, etc. have been addressed in the site plan drawings by Vingette Studios. 12. Another utility coordination meeting took place on May 31, 2000 and all issues have been resolved between the different entities. Please feel free to contact our office if you have any further questions or comments. Sincerely, NORTHERN EN INEERING SERVICES, INC. Keefe, Project Engineer cc: Fil 420 SOUTH HO'WES, SUITE 202, FORT COLLINS, COLORAOO 80521, (970) 221-4158, FAX (970) 221-4159 Transpc ition Services Engineering Department City of Fort Collins June 16, 1999 Jim Allen -Morley 209 South Meldrum Fort Collins, CO 80521-2603 Dear Jim: The Engineering Staff has reviewed the variance request for Warren Farms, 3`d Filing submitted May 27, 1999. As a representative for the Engineering Department, I would like to thank you for your time and effort in resolving all our concerns. The variance request letter is thorough and concise. 1 recommend approval of the following: Meadowlark Avenue: I. The minimum centerline radius of 410 feet as opposed to the standard minimum centerline radius for a collector street of 610 feet. The City Engineering Department is able to accept the centerline radius reduction for the following two reasons: The posted speed limit will be 25-mph, which is below the typical 35-mph posted speed limit for a collector street. Consequently, the reduced speed limit could suggest that the design speed be reduced to 30-mph for which the centerline radius would then be compliant under City standards. The design of Meadowlark Avenue is constrained by a 400-foot centerline radius at the northern boundary and the required alignment with Manhattan Avenue to south (per the Master Street Plan). 2. The minimum tangent between curves or intersections of 82.63 feet as opposed to the standard minimum for a collector street of 150 feet. This variance is justified for the following two reasons: The variance is technically only for one of the three tangents between curves or intersections along Meadowlark Avenue for the other two tangents are 170 feet and 269 feet. The variance for the minimum tangent of 82.63 feet is located at the constrained northern boundary where existing conditions and the required alignment of Meadowlark Avenue with Manhattan Avenue at Horsetooth Road cause a reduced tangent. 3. The minimum corner sight distance of 350 feet as opposed to the standard minimum of 400 feet with exception to the Meadowlark Avenue/ Mercer Way and Meadowlark 281 Not College P.vcnuc • 170. Box CFO • For: Collin Ct) So7??-05;30 • (070)--1-06(1�, Avenue/ Planter Way intersections which the City will allow 277.4 feet and 325.54 feet, respectively. The City Engineering Department will allow the corner sight distance reduction from 400 feet to 350 feet for the following reason: ♦ The design speed for a 460-foot centerline curve radius (maximum centerline radius for Meadowlark Avenue) as calculated from AASHTO (1990) pg. 190 is 36-mph. The allowable corner sight distance for a vehicle crossing 2-lanes of traffic from a stop (the apparent base of the City standard) is shown in figure IX pg. 762 to be 350 feet. The City Engineering Department will approve a 277.4-foot and 325.54-foot corner sight distance as opposed to the 400 feet required based on the following: The design speed for a 400-foot centerline curve radius (the existing centerline radius along Meadowlark at both Mercer Way and Planter Way) as calculated from AASHTO (1990) pg. 190 is just over 34-mph. The allowable corner sight distance for a vehicle crossing 2-lanes of traffic from a stop is shown in figure IX pg.762 to be approximately 320 feet. Furthermore, the posted speed limit is 25-mph creating a design speed of 30- mph: therefore the above derivation of corner sight distance would be approximately 280 feet. 4. The minimum intersection spacing criteria which would allow reductions to the minimum standard of 200 feet for the two (2) private drives along Meadowlark Avenue with the condition that the distances are verified to be accurate. My findings measure the 130 feet and 196 feet distances to be 165 feet and 132 feet, respectively. This variance is justified by the small amount of traffic generated from the 4 homes on each private drive and the minimal conflicting left -turn movements. Local Residential Streets: 1. The minimum centerline radius of 100 feet as opposed to the standard minimum centerline radius for a local residential street of 240 feet. The City Engineering Department approved this variance for the following reasons: The length of the run of any of the proposed residential streets are very limited, generally 100 to 200 linear feet at any given segment. The reduced radii create a condition were vehicle speeds in the neighborhood will be reduced. For example, the design speed for a 100-foot centerline curve radius as calculated from AASHTO 0990) pg. 190 is 20-mph. 2. The minimum tangent between curves or intersections of 59 feet as opposed to the standard minimum for a local residential street of 100 feet. This variance is justified based on the following: ♦ The reduced tangent length is not prevalent at intersections. In fact, tangents at intersections meet or exceed the City's design standards, which allows for adequate sight and stopping distances at intersections. ♦ The reduced tangent lengths are generally between the reduced centerline radii. By reducing the tangent length between reduced centerline radii a vehicle can not accelerate to an unsafe speed before navigating the next curve. 3. The minimum corner sight distance of 200 feet as opposed to the standard minimum of 300 feet for the Riva Ridge Drive/ Warren Farm Drive and Warren Farm Drive/ Harvest Way intersections. The City Engineering Department will allow the corner sight distance reduction from 300 feet to 200 feet at the intersections mentioned above for the following reasons: ♦ At a majority of the residential street intersections the corner sight distance is meeting the City's corner sight distance standard of 300 feet. ♦ Both the Riva Ridge Drive/ Warren Farm Drive and Warren Farm Drive" Harvest Way intersections will have a controlled stop condition. The Riva Ridge Drive/ Warren Farm Drive intersection will be a four-way stop condition and the Warren Farm Drive/ Harvest Way intersection will be stop condition for vehicles on Harvest Way (Warren Farm Drive will be a through street at this intersection). ♦ The design speed for a 100-foot centerline curve radius as calculated from AASHTO (1990) pg. 190 is 20-mph. The allowable corner site distance for a vehicle crossing 2-lanes of traffic from a stop is shown in figure IX pg.762 to be approximately 190 feet. 4. The 18-degree angle of departure for the Mercer Way intersecting at Meadowlark Avenue as opposed to the required I0-degree angle of departure. This variance is justified for it aligns the intersection with the existing cul-de-sac street to the west within the existing confines of Meadowlark Avenue. Once again, the Engineering Department appreciates all the time and effort that has occurred over the past several months. If you have any questions, please call me (Mark McCallum) at 221- 6605. Thank you. SincQrely, Mark McCallum Civil Engineer 1 Cc: Dave Stringer Eric Bracke Steve Olt Craig Kam Approved by t e City Engineer: Cam Mc air City Engineer IWK TIDE PRESERVE March 20, 1995 Mike Herzig Fngineering Department City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Re Mercer Ditch at The Preserve Apartments Dear Mr. Blanchard: We have reached a tentative verbal approval with the engineer of the Mercer Ditch Company regarding a bank stabilization plan along (he northern edge of our property at The Preserve. 'fhe proposed solution culls lot either a tri-lockine stone system or a large rock, rip -rap solution. 1 nor concerned that we will be unable to anuplcte the required work in the allowed tinre required by the Ditch Company. In a letter sent by the Mercer Ditch Company's attorney, this work is to be completed by April I. The Ditch Company's em'uineer has been out of town and unavailable. Through TSI, Inc., we have diligently pursued a solution that the Mercer Ditch Company would approve. As I mentioned on your voice mail this morning, t am concerned that if we do not complete the work by April I and the ditch begins to run with water, then the City of Fort Collins will not issue my project an% certificates of occupancies as the buildings are completed. By way of this letter I am asking the City of Port Collins to allow the work to be completed in the fall when the ditch is shut down for the winter months and before the last buildin, is completed. The completion date for the project is estimated to be November 25, 1995. I am also attaching a letter that 1 am sending Louie Swift, President of the New Mercer Ditch Company requesting a time extension for the work until next fall. In short- I am asking the City of Fort Collins for a written response, independent of what decision the Mercer Ditch Company might make, whether we can delay the proposed wort: along the Mercer Ditch without jeopardizing our certificate Of Occupancies, I am uncertain to whom this letter should be addressed, so I have sent the identical letter to Mile Cicbo, Lob Blaoch',rd and to you - You can reach me at 303-384-0200, and write to me at: 601 Corporate Circle, Golden, CO 80401. Sincere'% David F. Bailey :! Manager F.nclosmrc: Letter to Louie Swift