Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPROSPECT PARK EAST PUD - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2005-06-10A A ■ September 28, 2000 Sheri Wamhoff City of Fort Collins Engineering Dept 281 N. College P.O Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Rul! Ccllir, PO 3 : 2 2 rE0522) Re: Advanced Energy Buildings 7 & 8 Dear Sheri: Denver r.rr Ct�lorc;:� Spi ,lD O 1 78 Attached are the revised plans for the Minor Amendment for the Advanced Energy Building 7 & 8. The following changes have been made to address comments: Site Plan (Sheet ] of 3) 1. The entry drive from Sharp Point Drive has been updated to reflect the changes shown on the engineering drawings. The reason for this change is to accommodate a request from the Citv to not relocate either of the electrical vaults along Sharp Point Drive. 2. The bridge location has been corrected to reflect the changes shown on the engineering drawings. Landscape Plan (Sheet 2 of 3) 1. The landscaping around the entry drive from Sharp Point has been updated to reflect the changes shown on the site plan and engineering drawings. Shown with this revision is the replanting of several trees to the south of the drive. 2. The landscaping around the bridge has been revised to accommodate the changes of the bridge. Included in this revision is a change to the planting area at the north end of the cast side of the building. This change is due to steeper grades in the field than were anticipated. Formerly, this area was shown as grass. Now there are additional planting beds shown. 3. The area adjacent to the north side of the Liberty Commons School was also revised. Planting beds were added between the building and the parking lot to help direct children away from the parking area. The School informed us that there is a door on the north side of the school used as a secondary egress. Street and Utility Plan (Sheet 2 of 8) 1. The entry drive from Sharp Point Drive is revised as indicated above. This includes the need for an additional easement. of .ion Services Engineering Department City of Fort Collins January 19, 1999 Hasler, Fonfara and Maxwell LLP Michael A. Maxwell 125 South Howes Street Sixth Floor, Key Bank Building Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Re: Advanced Energy Building Lots 9 and 10, etc., Prospect Park PUD Dear Mr. Maxwell I have reviewed the easement dedication documents that you sent to me in August and some additional information is needed in order to finish processing the documents. The following information/ documents are needed: 1. The deed of dedication for the utility easement on Lot 23, Prospect Industrial Park should be for the dedication of a utility and access easement, not just utility and not drainage as has been provided. The deed language needs to be changed (can provide the first page only, as the signatures already provided can be utilized as long as the easement change is acceptable to the signing parties). You did provide a deed of dedication with the August submittal, but it referenced a drainage easement (see returned document) 6. A check for $160 made out to the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder is needed for the filing fees for all 5 documents. (This assumes that the dedication statement to be provided is one sheet only) The above items are needed prior to the City signing the Utility Plans for this project. If you have any questions in regards to this matter, please contact me at 221-6750. Sincerely, i Sheri Wamhoff Civil Engineer II cc: K. Merl Haworth, Neenan Company Steve Olt, City of Ft Collins file 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6605 Transport on Services Engineering Department City of Fort Collins July 25, 1998 Hasler, Fonfara and Maxwell LLP Michael A. Maxwell 125 South Howes Street Sixth Floor, Key Bank Building Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Re: Advanced Energy Building Lots 9 and 10, etc., Prospect Park PUD Dear Mr. Maxwell I have reviewed the easement dedication documents that you sent to me in June and some additional information is needed in order to finish processing the documents. The following information/ documents are needed: 1. A legal description describing the drainage easement to be dedicated on Lot 9, Prospect Park East PUD only. The legal that was provided included area on the Vipont site (outside of this lot boundary and ownership). 2. A sketch showing the drainage easement being dedicated on Lot 9, Prospect Park East PUD. The sketch provided shows the easement extending onto the Vipont site also. 3. A legal description describing the drainage easement to be dedicated on Vipont at Prospect East only. The legal that was provided included area on Lot 9 (outside of this lot boundary and ownership). 4. A sketch showing the drainage easement being dedicated on Vipont at Prospect East. The sketch provided shows the easement extending onto Lot 9 also. 5. The deed of dedication for the utility easement on Lot 23, Prospect Industrial Park should be for the dedication of a utility and access easement, not just utility as has been provided. The deed language needs to be changed (can provide the first page only, as the signatures already provided can be utilized as long as the easement change is acceptable to the signing parties). The legal description as well as the sketch needs to be modified to indicate it is to be a utility and access easement. The access easement is necessary as portions of the sidewalk fall outside of the Row. I It CC011C,,-' :'cA nut I'O. rn, -SO •tort C,)IIm , CO t1;50 • (117t); 201-(,ot 6. A legal description describing the drainage easement to be dedicated on Lot 23 of Prospect Industrial Park is needed. The legal provided just states that the easement is to exist on this lot, but does not describe the boundaries of the easement. 7. A sketch of the drainage easement to be dedicated on Lot 23 of Prospect Industrial Park is needed. A sketch was not provided. Once these items are received and reviewed a check to cover the Larimer County filing fees will be requested. Please let me know who will be providing the check and they will be contacted directly. These above items as well as recorded copies of the "Grant of Access Easement' and "Grant of Access and Parking Easement" are needed prior to the City signing the Utility Plans for this project. Please keep this in mind. If you have any questions in regards to this matter, please contact me at 221-6750. Sincerely, Sheri Wamhoff Civil Engineer II cc: K. Merl Haworth, Neenan Company Steve Olt, City of Ft Collins file HASLER, FONFARA AND MAXWELL LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Sixth Floor, Key Bank Building 125 South Howes Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 TIMOTHY W. HASLER JOSEPH H. FONFARA MICHAEL A. MAXWELI. TIMOTHY L. GODDARD August 12, 1998 VIA HAND DELIVERY Ms. Sheri Wamhoff Civil Engineer II City of Fort Collins Transportation Services / Engineering Department 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 Dear Sheri: MAILING ADDRESS: POST OFFICE BOX 2267 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522 TELEPHONE (970) 493 5070 TELECOPIER (970) 493-9703 Re: Advanced Energy Building Lots 9 and 10 Prospect Park P.U.D. Following up on our conversation, I enclose the following items (each item is numbered to correspond to your letter of July 25, 1998, copy also enclosed for your reference): 1. Legal description of Lot 9 drainage easement. 2. Sketch of Lot 9 drainage easement. 3. Legal description of drainage easement on Vipont at Prospect Park East. 4. Sketch of drainage easement located on Vipont at Prospect Park East. 5. Revised cover sheet for Deed of Dedication (of utility and access easement) on Lot 23, together with revised legal description and sketch. 6. Legal description of Lot 23 blanket drainage easement. 7. Sketch of Lot 23 blanket drainage easement. It is my understanding that you will insert the appropriate revised descriptions into the various original executed documents HASLER, FONFARA AND MAXWELL LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Ms. Sheri Hamhoff August 12, 1998 Page 2 already provided to you and arrange for recording of same in the Larimer Country real estate records. At such time as you need a check for recording fees, please feel free to contact me directly. We are :in the process of recording the "Grant of Access Easement" and "Grant of Access and Parking Easement" and will provide same to you as soon as recorded copies have been returned (I enclose for your information copies of the documents which are being forwarded for recording). If you have any questions regarding any of the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, MICHAEL A. MAXWELL MAM/rlw Enclosures cc: Mr. Gerald P. Lee (w/o encs.) Mr. K. Merl Haworth (w/o encs.) Mr. Steve Olt (w/o encs.) HASLER, FONFARA AND MAXWELL LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Sixth Floor, Key Bank Building 125 South Howes Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 TIMOTHY W. HASLER JOSEPH H. FONFARA MICHAEL A. MAXWELL TIMOTHY L. GODDARD June 2, 1998 VIA HAND DELIVERY Ms. Sherry Wamhoff City of Fort Collins / Engineering 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 MAILING ADDRESS'. POST OFFICE BOX 2267 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO B0522 TELEPHONE (970) 493-5070 TELECOPIER (970) 493-9703 Re: Advanced Energy Building Lots 9 and 10, etc., Prospect Park P.U.D. Dear Ms. Wamhoff: At the request of K. Merl Haworth of The Neenan Company, I am delivering herewith the following easement documents: 1. Photocopy of Deed of Dedication for Easements pertaining to various utility easements on Lots 9 and 10 -- I will deliver the original to you upon receipt of same. 2. Photocopy of Deed of Dedication for Easement pertaining to utility easement on Lot 23 -- I will deliver the original to you upon receipt of same. 3. original Deed of Dedication for Easement pertaining to that portion of the stormwater drainage easement located on Lot 9. 4. original Deed of Dedication for Easement pertaining to that portion of the stormwater drainage easement located on Vipont at Prospect Park East. 5. original Deed of Dedication for Easement pertaining to that portion of the stormwater drainage easement located on Lot 23. 6. Photocopy of executed Grant of Access and Parking Easement between 1725 Sharp Point LLC and Sharp Point Properties, LLC. HASLER, FONFARA AND MAXWELL LLP AI .RNEIS AT LAW Ms. Sherry Wamhoff June 2, 1998 Page 2 7. Photocopy of executed Grant of Access Easement between Timberline Partners, Limited, LLLP and 1725 Sharp Point LLC. Also enclosed are copies of the depictions of the easements prepared by the engineer, numbered to correspond to the numbers of the easements listed above. If you have any questions regarding any of the foregoing, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, - 41 MICHAEL A. MAXWELL MAM/rlw Enclosures cc: Mr. Gerald P. Lee (w/encs.) Mr. K. Merl Haworth (e/encs.) CP PAkK ENGINEERING � CONSULTANTS July 18, 1995 City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Attn: Sherry Wamhoff RE: Advanced Energy Prospect Park East P.U.D. Dear Sherry, We respectfully submit the revised mylars for the aforementioned project. We have responded to each item in writing for your convenience, and are as follows: Plan set reviewed by Engineering (Sherry Wamhoff): Final Plat As discussed, the original mylars are being signed by the Owners and a statement of acreage will be added, prior to recordation. Since the plat in the construction set is for "Reference Only", the requested change was not incorporated. Utility Plan (Sheet 3) The access drives have been "located". Arc length dimensions have been added to the plan. Detail Sheet (Sheet 7) Detail D11 has been added to the plan as requested. Plan set reviewed by Stormwater Utility (Basil Hamdan): Utility Plan Finished floor elevation have been revised as requested. Grading Plan Finished floor elevations have been revised as requested. 1240 Main Street Longmont, CO 80501 (303) 651-6626 The requested notes have been added to the plans. The rip rap has been added to the profile, and bedding material has been identified. Contour elevation has been corrected. Please call us immediately if you have any questions or if you require any additional information. Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated, for this Project is currently under construction. Si a sly, i David S. Mayeda Project Engineer cc: Mike Daley file, 107-34.004 CPAIkK ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS June 21, 1995 City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Attn: Kerrie Ashbeck RE: Advanced Energy Prospect Park East P.U.D. Dear Kerrie, We respectfully submit the revised plans for the aforementioned project. As requested, we have submitted four blue line copies, the original mylars, as well as the redlined sets of plans. We have responded to each item in writing for your convenience, and are as follows: Plan set reviewed by Engineering (Mike Herzig): Final Plat The dedication language has been revised to reflect the proposed easement. All references to right-of-way dedications and right-of-way improvements/maintenance are not included since these items are not applicable to this project. The 8' Utility Easements are existing, and were previously approved for the overall subdivision. It is understood that the benefiting utility agency may request an additional 1 foot be granted, however, at this time, it is not required. Utility Plan The adjacent Tract A to the west was dedicated as a Drainage Easement per the original plat of Prospect Park East P.U.D. Said tract has been noted accordingly. Detail sheet numbers have been noted. PIV is defined as a Post Indicator Valve. This item has been eliminated and is no longer applicable. 1240 Main Street Longmont, CO 80501 (303) 651-6626 Sheri Wamhoff September 28, 2000 Page 2 2. The location of the bridge was revised at the request of Advanced Energy to align with the steps leading to the patio. In addition, the trail across the pond was revised slightly to allow for a better grade connection to the trail. Erosion Control Plan (Sheet 6 of 8) 1. The erosion control around the entry drive from Sharp Point Drive has been revised to accommodate the changes to the drive. 2. The erosion control around the bridge has been revised to accommodate the changes to the bridge. Easement Exhibit (Sheet 10 of 16) 1. The easements for the entry drive from Sharp Point Drive and for the pedestrian bridge are shown. Pedestrian Bridge (Sheet 9 of 9) 1. The location of the bridge was revised at the request of Advanced Energy to align with the steps leading to the patio. In addition, the trail across the pond was revised slightly to allow for a better grade connection to the trail. 2. The structural information for the bridge is included on this sheet. Easement Dedication 1. The easement paperwork is included herein for the entry drive from Sharp Point Drive and for the pedestrian bridge. We believe that all of the comments have been properly addressed. There were not any redlined drawings returned with the comments for us to return to you. If you have any concerns or comments, please contact me at (970) 495-6353. Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Robert J. Moo y Project Archit ct Enclosures %W vr4 Grading Plan The proposed inlet along the west property line has been raised approximately one foot, which allows all of the necessary graA;na-_tp__match c sting to occur Qn the subject property. Therefore, no off-s e g d gq easement i5 require$..=--- - Detail Sheet 7 The Commercial Access Drive detail has been modified, and the Access Ramp Detail has been added to the plans. A note has been added to the plan which states that all work in the city's right-of-way for the construction, repair, or replacement of curb, gutter, and sidewalk shall use the City of Fort Collins Standard Details. All on -site, private curb, gutter, and sidewalk shall be built in accordance with the details denoted as "On -Site". Plan set reviewed by Water Utilities (Roger Buffington): Utility Plan - As we discussed in our phone conversation on June 13, the proposed facility is being considered as one building. The water use figures presented to you, 55 gpm average and 116 gpm peak, were discovered to be in error. It is my understanding that the Neenan Company is continuing discussions with you concerning the size of water meter which will ultimately be required. In order to allow the processing of this project to continue, I have show a 2" domestic water service on the utility plan, with the understanding that the size of the meter may be down -sized to inch and one half (1-1/211) meter setting given sufficient proof that the 1-1/2" meter can meet the demands of the facility. Existing water and sewer service locations, obtained from the City's mapping, are shown on the plan and have been noted that these services are to be abandoned at the main according to City of Fort Collins requirements. A note addressing the proposed water main depth has been added to the plan. The proposed S" water line extension has been relocated to lie within the access drive. PIV is defined as a Post Indicator Valve. This item has been eliminated and is no longer applicable. The required curb stop is shown and labeled on the plan. Plan set reviewed by Stormwater Utility (Basil H mdan): Grading Plan - As we discussed in our phone conversation on June 13, the 0.40$ minimum slope is not required as long as the velocities within each storm sewer pipe was at least 2 feet per second. Please see the Final Drainage Report which provides the pipe velocities. A spot elevation has been provided at the north east property corner where the proposed curb and gutter ties into the existing concrete channel. Drainage & Erosion Control Plan The Courtyard area between Building 3 and Building 4 has been eliminated. Drainage within this area is now roof drainage, which eliminates the need for the area inlet. The Erosion Control Construction Sequence has been added to the plan. A note has been added which states that no seeding is required for this project and all open areas are landscaped. Please see the Landscape Plan for specific landscaping requirements. Detail Sheet 7 A rip rap detail is included on the plans. Final Drainage Report reviewed by Stormwater Utility (Basil Hamdan): Items 1-4: These items refer to the City's floodplain map which is currently being amended; the applicant is aware of these issues and is currently working with City officials to waive these requirements. item 5: The Poudre River floodplain does not lie within 150 feet of the site boundary. Item 6: Storm sewer profiles and hydraulic grade lines are shown on the plans. See Sheet 4. Item 7: The Erosion Control Construction Sequence has been added to the plan. A note has been added which states that no seeding is required for this project and all open areas are landscaped. Please see the Landscape Plan for specific landscaping requirements. `r VO Item 8: Per our phone conversation on June 13, this development was designed in accordance with the previously approved drainage concepts for this subdivision which allows the storm water from each site to free release into the Poudre River floodplain. However, based on the City's analysis of Spring Creek, 75 cfs of overtopping needs to be carried in the concrete channel along the north property line. It is anticipated that the subdivision's peak runoff will already be gone when this overtopping of Spring Creek occurs. Item 9: As we discussed in our phone conversation on June 13, the 0.40% minimum slope is not required as long as the velocities within each storm sewer pipe was at least 2 feet per second. Please see the Final Drainage Report which provides the pipe velocities. Item 10: A rip rap detail has been included on the plans. Item 11: The outfall of the proposed storm sewer pipe has been designed to an elevation which is at or slightly higher than the normal water surface for the lake in Tract A. Because of this design item, the rip rap is installed only as an outlet/erosion protection measure at the release point. The associated storm water velocities will be dissipated in the lake. Item 12: The erosion control cost estimate has been revised as noted. Please feel free to call me at (303) 651-6626 if you have any questions or require any additional information. Thanking you in advance for all of your help during this process, and allowing this project to be approved. Since ly, Donald W. Park, P. . Project Manager cc: file, 107-34.003 err TO: Basil Hamden, Civil Engineer II FROM: Mike Grimm, Floodplain Administrator Mi l7 DATE: April 14, 1995 SUBJECT: Advanced Energy The proposed Advanced Energy (AE) site is located within the Spring Creek floodway as delineated on Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel 0004A, effective date July 16, 1979. As previously discussed with representatives for AE, the Spring-Ereek Floodplain is currently in the process of being restudied by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The revised study and floodplain delineation, upon approval, will eliminate the floodplain and floodway from the AE site, however, the current maps are required to be used for regulation by FEMA. A mandatory 90-day appeal period is required for the revised study. Upon completion of the 90-day period and resolution of any appeals, FEMA will issue a letter of Final Elevation Determination (FED). Once the FED letter has been issued, the City can use the revised study as "best available data" and issue a building permit based on the revised delineation. The expected time frame for the City to be able to use the revised maps for floodplain management purposes is September 1995. If the applicant waits until the revised study and maps are approved, the AE site would no longer be in a floodplain/floodway and my comments will not apply. My comments are as follows; 1. The applicant is required to submit a technical analysis which demonstrates that the proposed encroachment into the floodway will not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood. 2. The applicant is required to elevate the lowest floor of all structures a minimum of 18 inches above the base flood elevation or floodproof the structures so that they are watertight. An elevation certificate and/or floodproofing certificate is required. 3. An approved Floodplain Use Permit is required for each proposed structure prior to all construction or development activities. Forms are attached. 4. The applicant has been advised of the floodplain variance procedure. Additional forms and a description of requirements are attached. 5. The applicant is advised to contact the Stormwater Utility for additional information on floodplain requirements and information. cc: Glen Schluter Bob Smith Spring l^ g Creek Floodp ain Development Review CJu>lux f.Fi�> 1�✓ G� MEMORANDUM TO: Floodplain File THROUGH: Bob Smith, Stormwater Department Director FROM: Mike Grimm, Floodplain Administrator DATE: May 30, 1995 SUBJECT: May 25, 1995 meeting with FEMA regarding floodplain administration and preliminary maps for Fort Collins; meeting notes. On May 25, 1995, Bob Smith and Mike Grimm from the City of Fort Collins met with Fred Metzler, the Colorado Representative for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to discuss the revised Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and preliminary maps as they relate to floodplain administration. On May 2, 1995 FEMA began the required 90-day public appeal period on the revised FIS. If no appeals are filed, the 90-day period will end on August 1, 1995. FEMA will then issue a Final Elevation Determination (FED) letter within 30-days which completes the map revision process, except for final printing which may take at least 6 months. The City of Fort Collins has numerous requests for building permits in areas along Spring Creek and the Poudre River that are currently designated as floodplain and/or floodway. The revised FEMA mapping, however, removes those properties from the floodplain/floodway designation and floodplain regulation would no longer apply. The City requested interpretation from FEMA with regard to administration of the floodplain regulations as related to those properties which will be removed from the designated floodplain based on the revised mapping. With regard to interpretation of the National Flood Insurance Program regulations and the revised FIS and mapping, Fred Metzler at FEMA determined; The revised FIS and preliminary maps as dated March 31, 1995 have been approved by the City of Fort Collins, the FEMA Region 8 Office, and FEMA Headquarters in Washington D.C. and are considered the most accurate and best available information. With regard to 44 CFR 60.1 (d) which states, that" any floodplain management regulations adopted by a State or a community which are more restrictive than the criteria set forth in this part are encouraged and shall take precedence", FEMA stated that the City of Fort Collins already has adopted more stringent regulations for floodplain management with regard to lowest floor elevation requirements and that this section of the NFIP is specifically referring to floodplain management regulations such as lowest floor elevation requirements and other design standards. With regard to 44 CFR 60.2 (h) which states that "the community shall adopt and enforce floodplain management regulations based on data provided by the administrator. Without prior approval of he administrator, the community shall not adopt and enforce floodplain management *0 regulations based upon modified data reflecting natural or man-made physical changes", FEMA stated that the City is not "adopting" anything new and the preliminary maps are being used for floodplain management based on best data. A technical analysis is required by the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed development is not in the (revised) floodplain and/or floodway, including a demonstration of no -rise if located in the floodway. The analysis should be based on "as -built" site conditions. FEMA indicated that the City has the authority to use the preliminary maps based on the technical analyses and adequate documentation showing that the proposed structure complies with all floodplain standards and regulations. The interpretations of the NFIP regulations and administration of floodplains based on the preliminary maps applies to all floodplains within the City. With regard to Chapter 10 of the City Code and floodplain administration based on the preliminary maps; Section 10-17, Purpose, is adequately addressed utilizing the preliminary maps for floodplain management. Section 10-36, (9), regarding interpretations where there is a conflict between actual field conditions/as-built and map boundaries applies to the administration of floodplains based on the preliminary maps. Sections 10-53 and 10-55 will be addressed in the technical analyses based on as -built conditions. The City will require an indemnification for all permits issued based on the preliminary maps in the event that the FEMA revision process is delayed for any reason, such as an appeal, with the following stipulations; the permit holders will hold the City harmless for any damages to their own building; 2. the permit holders will hold the City harmless for any damages to adjacent properties that may be adversely affected; and, the permit holders will correct any deficiencies with regard to floodplain regulation and compliance in the event that the proposed FEMA mapping is not adopted. cc: Rich Shannon Paul Eckman October 28, 1985 Mr. Mike Herzig Department of Public Works 300 La Porte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Dear Mr. Herzig: Rick Ensdorff of Transportation in Fort Collins notified me that he had contacted you concerning the intentions of W. W. Reynolds and the right of way at Prospect Park Way. This is a written request to allow W. W. Reynolds and Co. to place a road sign as shown in attached drawing. The sign has been designed to aesthetically improve the median while giving greater visibility to the park way. It is low enough to allow headlights, tail and side lights, pedestrians and bicyclists to remain visible to Prospect East traffic. If any other information is required in this written request, or, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ohT n McCready Architectural Design Consultant The W. W. Reynolds Companies JM/lj Enclosure ` DEVELOPERS OF DISTINCTION" 1919 14th Street Suite 802 PO. Box 1666 Boulder Colorado 80306 303 442-8687 0 tj I ,� November 25, 1985 Jde- Zi Mr. Mike Herzig Department of Public Works 300 La Porte Avenue Dear Mr. Herzig: In signing the site and landscape covenants for Prospect Park East P.U.D. and in planting and landscaping the median in question, The W. W. Reynolds Companies has assumed any implied maintenance requirements of the aignator and all successors or assigns of said signator. The placement of a Prospect Park 'Way road sign as previously submitted, located in the publicrightof way, would also fall :under the same agreement. If an add reements need to signed, please notify The'W. Reynolds Compan es. If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, John McCready Architectural Design Consultant The W. W. Reynolds Companies. JMilj DEVELOPERS Of DISTINCTION" _. 1919 14th Street Suite 802 PO Bnz 1666. R6ulder.CAln An amnF uniaa3_QAP7 '.i HASLER AND FONFARA ATTORNEYS AT LAW TIMOTHY W. HASLER JOSEPH H. FONFARA JOHN R. DUVAL CLIFFORO P. HARBOUR Planning Department City of Fort Collins 300 Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 ATTENTION: Ms. Bonnie Tripoli Dear Ms. Tripoli: November 1, 1984 SUITE 650. SAVINGS BUILDING POSTOFFICE BOX 2023 FORT COLLINS. COLORADO SO522 TELEPHONE(303) 493.5070 Re: Prospect Park East, P.U.D. Our File #10-28-84 As you know, I represent Prospect Park East Partnership, a Colorado General Partnership, and William W. Reyno s, rs of the real estate included within the Prospect Park East, P.U.D. (hereinafter "the P.U.D."). As you know, we have obtained a drainage easement from Lucile V. Anderson (hereinafter "the Anderson Drainage Easement"). The original Anderson Drainage Easement has been delivered to your office. As the Grantees under the Anderson Drainage Easement, Prospect Park East Partnership and William W. Reynolds are willing to dedicate the Anderson Drainage Easement to the City of Fort Collins. In this regard, please provide me with whatever document the City Attorney deems necessary to accomplish this dedication. If I am to prepare such a document, please let me know. Needless to say, by dedicating our privileges under the Anderson Drainage Easement, the City will not be assuming our obligations thereunder, as set forth in _the Anderson Drainage Easement. It is my understanding that the drainage easement received from the City of Fort Collins (hereinafter "the City Drainage Easement") has not yet been executed. Apparently, the City Drainage Easement must first be approved by the City Council at a hearing scheduled for November 20, 1984. As you know, in order to provide utility service to the Advanced Energy building, it is essential that we record the plat of the P.U.D. as soon as possible. It is my understanding that the Planning Department has agreed to allow the plat of the P.U.D. to be recorded prior to the approval of the City Drainage Easement by the City Council, subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. In the event the City Council fails to approve the City Drainage Easement, Prospect Park East Partnership and William W. Reynolds shall, notwithstanding the recording of the plat, cease work on the project until an alternative solution to the drainage problem, acceptable to the City, has been found. NLI gl:AA j �A I low IEW June 29, 2000 Sheri Wamhoff City of Fort Collins Engineering Dept 281 N. College P.O Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Fcr- Colllrs PC 3 127, S06221 rr, Re: Advanced Energy Buildings 7 & 8 Dear Sheri: Denver ❑, Or i q1r, Cclorcao Sp[ ngs P,0 P A14,.8 Attached are the revised plans for the Minor Amendment for the Advanced Energy Building 7 & S. Specific responses to the review comments are as follows: Dept: Water/Wastewater 1. Comment: If the plat is not being revised then provide the signed utility easement in the City of Fort Collins easement format (see attached). Response: We have corrected the "new" utility easement legal description and the visual aid. Please see the revised documentation and plans. 2. Comment: Note 3 on the overall utility plans refers to the reduction of an existing water service, however all existing services shown on the plans are labeled as being abandoned. Correct all notes to reflect what is being shown on the plans. Response: We have omitted Note 3 from the plans since it is no longer applicable. Please see the revised plans. 3. Comment: See site, landscape and utility plans for additional comments. Response: Please see the revised plans, as noted in the other comments below. Utility Plans a. Comment (on Sheet 2): regarding adding a symbol on the end of the water service line. Response: The symbol and associated note are added on this sheet. Please see revised plan. Dept: Stormwater 1. Comment: Please provide a detail for the proposed retaining wall around the dock area. Please call out top of wall elevations. Response: Please see the attached plan which is from the Building Permit Construction drawings. 2. Comment: Please show how the landscaped area next to the revised dock area will drain, it seems that there may be a low spot based on the called out spot elevations. Response: I have added small notes on the Grading Plan which calls out how the storrnwater is to be collected and/or overland flows with `Area Inlet' and `Type R Inlet'. Please see the revised plans. 3. Comment: Drainage reports do not need to be revised, please change the plans per the comments — All reports are sent back for your use. Response: Thank you for the reports. Please see the revised plans, as follows: HASLER AND FONFARA ATTORNEYS AT LAW Ms. Bonnie Tripoli November 1, 1984 Page 2 2. Prospect Park East Partnership and William W. Reynolds recognize that, notwithstanding the recording of the plat, no Certificate of Occupancy for the Advanced Energy building will be issued by the City until the City Drainage Easement has been approved and/or an alternative solution has been found. I represent, as the attorney for Prospect Park East Partnership and William W. Reynolds, that I am authorized to agree to the terms set forth hereinabove. Sincerely, � t Urn TWH/lh CC: Mr. William W. Reynolds Mr. Gerald P. Lee Mr. Roger Thorp Reid Burton Construction Co. 1w *4 RECEIVED CITY OF FORT COLLINS M E M O R A N D U M TO: Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator FROM: Ken Frazier, Assistant City Attorney7i DATE: November 2, 1984 RE: Prospect Park East P.U.D. WV 5 1984 PLANNING DEPARTMENT As a follow up to the easement confusion regarding the above referenced P.U.D., please be advised as follows. It is my understanding that the drainage easement presently conveyed from Lucile Anderson to William Reynolds on behalf of Prospect Park East will be dedicated, in so far as the priviledges are concerned, to the City of Fort Collins. With regard to the Drainage Easement and Agreement by the City of Fort Collins to William Reynolds on behalf of Prospect Park East, please be advised that we will need a resolution to go before City Council at their November 20 meeting. In that resolution it must be indicated that the property is not used nor intended to be used for municipal purposes nor secured for the purpose of being used for municipal purposes and that it is for the best interest of the City of Fort Collins that the same be sold. For your convenience I am enclosing a copy of Chapter 26, Sections 26-1, 26-2 and 26-3. In addition, please be advised that the Drainage Easement and Agreement between the City and Mr. Reynolds will need to reflect a signature "The City of Fort Collins, By the Mayor". This should be in substitution of the City Manager block signature which presently exists on my formerly approved easement form. In the meantime, it is my understanding that Prospect East will then have an easement to construct the ditch across City property, that they will maintain the ditch and that they will assume liability from any damages caused by the flooding or errosion of the drainage ditch. Further, in the event that City Council fails to approve the City drainage easement, notwithstanding the recording of the plat, the developer shall cease work on the project until an alternative solution of UhHUt Uh I Ht UI I Y A r rUHNEY 300 Laporte Av. a P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 • (303) 221-6520 CM *40 Bonnie Tripoli November 2, 1984 Prospect Park East page two the drainage problem, acceptable to the City, has been found. Finally, no Certificate of Occupancy for the advanced energy building will be issued by the City until the City Drainage Easement has been approved and/or an alternative solution has been found. If I am incorrect in the any of the foregoing understandings, please advise me immediately. Otherwise, we shall procede with a resolution for Council for the 20th, if you will draft an agenda item summary in that regard. KF:ck James H. St*art and Associates_, Inc. � Consulting Engineers and Surveyors 214 North Howes Street Laboratory: P.O. Box 429 301 Lincoln Court Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 P.O. Box 429 (303) 482.9331 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 (303)4848309 November 26, 1984 Mr. Tom Gathmann Storm Drainage Department City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Tom: This is to confirm our phone conversation regarding the storm water runoff from Lots 13, 14, 15 and 16, Prospect Park East P.U.D. Lots 13 and 14 are being reviewed at this time as a I-L Review. The drainage report was made originally for Centerpoint Park Subdivision and even though it has been replatted these lots are the same. All of the runoff flows North to the concrete drainage pan along the North line of the lots. The amount of runoff has not changed from the time of the original report. The concrete pan along the North line as well as the concrete pan East of Prospect Park Way were designed to carry the 100 year developed runoff. The design flow for this section was 25.5 c.f.s. If you have further questions regarding this matter, please call. Sincerely, JAMES H. STEWART AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Richard A. Rutherford, P.E. & L.S. Secretary/Treasurer RAR/dm cc: —'�onnie Tripoli Roger Thorp Sheri Wamhoff June 9,2000 Page 2 Utility Plans: a. Comment (on Sheet 3): Add note to the Grading Plan stating that disturbed areas on the pond/Tract A shall be re -seeded. Response: We have added a note to the Grading Plan and Drainage Plan which specifies reseeding of disturbed areas. Please see the revised plans. b. Comment (on Sheet 3, referring to the retaining walls): Provide detail and indicate top of wall elevations. Response: Please see Item 1 (Stormwater) above. c. Comment (on Sheet 3, shown in the storage area to the west of the building): Will there be a low point here:How would this area be drained'? Response: Please see Item 2 (Stormwater) above. Dept: Engineering 1. Utility Easement: a. Comment: There is one mistake in the description and the vicinity map doesn't completely match the legal either. Response: We have corrected the "new" utility easement legal description and the visual aid. Please see the revised documentation and plans. We believe that all of the comments have been properly addressed. As a portion of this re -submittal, we are including not only the bubbled redline drawings, but also the mylars to aid in the approvals of this project. If you have any concerns or comments, please contact me at (970) 495-6353. Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Robert J. Mo ey Project Architect Enclosures [PARK ENGINEERING PCONSULTANTS May 15, 2000 City of Fort Collins Engineering Department 281 N. Colleve Ave. Ft Collins. CO A'rTN Ms. Sherri Wamhoff RE: Advanced Energy, Building No 7 Addendum to Advanced Enerev, Buildinvs 7 & 8 Dear Sherri, Per our phone conversation on Friday, please find attached the revised engineering drawings for the aforementioned project- As you know, the site will be wing through a Minor Amendment to adjust an access to the site. 1 have included on each sheet which describes the changes to the site 1 believe the largest concern for the site is Storm Drainage- With the proposed changes to the site, some of the on -site drainage basins slightly changed, not significant enough to change the `time of concentrations'_ The changes to the calculations can be found in the Addendum Final Drainage Report Ifvou have any questions concerning this development, please call us at your earliest opportunity. We thank you for working with us on this project. / ' Sincerely, David S Mayeda` Project Fngineer cc Bob Mooney, The Neenan Company file, 10751 acover_wpd 420 21st Ave. Suite 101 • Longmont, CO 80501 • (303) 651-6626 • FAX (303) 651-0331 E-mail dpark98@aol.com kI =Ig g J (g " low W9 June 9, 2000 Sheri Wamhoff City of Fort Collins Engineering Dept 281 N. College P.O Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Fcrt Co is r n 1 o7 (80522' R r Re: Advanced Energy Buildings 7 & 8 Dear Sheri: Denve C ' -!'�lS t..'ri.i Cu crado Springs P.^ ii r 1.178 c rC Attached are the revised plans for the Minor Amendment for the Advanced Energy Building 7 & 8. Specific responses to the review comments are as follows: Dept: Water/Wastewater 1. Comment: Provide a copy of the revised landscape plans with the revised water and sewer lines shown. Response: The CADD background for the landscape plans had not been updated. The landscape plan attached shows the revised water and sewer lines per the current revisions of the utility plans. 2. Comment: Provide a copy of the revised plat showing the utility easement for the revised water line, fire hydrant and curb stop locations. Response: The revised plat is attached with the revisions shown to the utility easements, with a revised Easement Exhibit, per the current revisions of the utility plans. 3. Comment: Correct all abandonment notes. Response: The abandonment notes have been revised per redlines shown on the utility plans. 4. Comment: Will there not be a need for an irrigation tap now? Response: The proposed irrigation system will be from the domestic meter, so a separate water meter will not be required. 5. Comment: Revise water line layout in order to eliminate unnecessary mains and fire hydrants. Response: The utility construction for this site was initiated approximately 3 weeks ago, per die original approval of the utility plans. The southerly water main has been installed. Therefore, we ask that the two fire hydrants and main extensions be acceptable as shown on the attached plans. The legal description for the new utility easement is attached. 6. Comment: See site, landscape and utility plans for additional comments. Response: As follows: Landscape Plan a. Comment: Provide copy of revised landscape plan for our review. Response: Revised landscape plan is attached. b. Comment: Areas in red indicate a change in the architectural facade and site layout as well as planting plan changes. Sheri Wamhoff June 9, 2000 Page 2 Response: Attached revised landscape plan has "bubbled" areas shown. The exterior elevations have been modified as necessary to reflect the changes to the site layout. Utility Plans a. Comment on Sheet 2: Add note as follows: "Core drill new opening into existing manhole. Reshape bench to redirect flow." Response: The note has been added to the revised plan. b. Comment on Sheet 2, note 2: Add to note the following: "All DIP shall be encased with polywrap." Response: The note has been added to the revised plan. c. Please note (on Sheet 2) that the sewer line invert at the building has been lowered to elevation 4892.00. This was done to accommodate interior plumbing lines and does not reduce the slope of the exterior portion of the line to minimum standards. d. Comment (on Sheet 5, Storm Line C): Reconfigure water main to avoid lowering. Response: See response to comment #5 above. Dept: Stomrwater 1. Comment: Please provide details for the added inlets I-3. Response: The proposed area inlets, identified as a CDOT Type-C inlet, also meet the requirements for the City's Area hdet detail. The more stringent criteria will be upheld. The City's Area Inlet detail is on the existing detail sheets for the project. Please see sheet 7 of 16 of the approved set. 2. Comment: Please add proposed contours to the grading plan. Please label all contour lines. Response: The proposed contours have been added to the grading plan, and the contours have been labeled for clarification on the attached revised plans. 3. Comment: The proposed revised grades are too difficult to read. Please provide a blow-up of the revised area, including contour elevations; make sure proposed flow line elevations are readable. Response: We have cleaned up the plan view of the loading dock areas, and enlarged the text size for the spot elevations. Please see attached revised plans. 4. Comment: Please add a drainage summary table to the drainage plan with the revised sub -basin flows. Response: We have added the drainage summary table and flow areas to the attached revised plan. 5. Comment: Please compare the revised sub -basin flows to the original ones and discuss what the effect of the change will be on the overall site. Please explain that in the text of the report. Response: This information has been added as requested. Please see the revised Addendum — Dminage Report. 6. Comment: Please add flow arrows to the drainage plan. Please clarify where the flows in the dock area will drain. Response: We have added flow arrows on the site, which aids the overall view of the loading dock areas. (Refer to numbers 2 and 3 above.) 7. Comment: Please do not sign the submitted bluelines. These get signed only after approval of the revised mylars by the City. Response: The signatures have been removed from the bluelines. Utility Plans: a. Comment (on Sheet 3): Provide proposed contours in the exterior storage area. Response: The proposed contours are added in the exterior storage area on the plan. Sheri Wamhoff June 9, 2000 Page 3 b. Comment (on the plan): Provide now line elevations in 2 spill pan locations near exterior storage area. Response: The flow line elevations are shown on Sheet 3 for this area. Dept: Engineering 1. Site Plan a. Comment: The handicap spaces and the island between them on the southwest side of the building are shown differently on the utility plans. And there are stairs in the walk shown here on the utility plans — how is this access handicap accessible? Response: Both the utility plans and the site plans have been revised and coordinated. There is a ramp shown to the larger of the two entries to the building on the south side. The grading of the site due to the drainage in that driveway is such that the handicap parking spaces are located to the far southwest of that row of parking. This is the only location in that area that conforms to the ADA requirements for slope. This sidewalk from the parking spaces to the ramp conforms to the ADA requirements for slope. b. Comment: The waterlines are shown differently on the utility plans. Response: The CADD background file for the site plan had not been updated. The site plan attached shows the revised water and sewer lines per the current revisions of the utility plans. 2. Landscape Plan a. Comment: See Comments on the site plan. Response: See below for responses. b. Comment: The berm configuration and height on Midpoint between the two driveways is shown differently on the utility plans. Response: The berm configuration and height is shown the same on both revised drawings. c. Comment: Label the retaining walls. Response: The 4 retaining walls at the dock area are labeled on the revised landscape plan attached. d. Comment: [Show striping for the access aisles between handicap parking spaces. Response: The striping is shown on the revised landscape plan. 3. Utility Plan — Sheet 1 a. Comment: As indicated above, the handicap spaces and the island between them on the southwest side of the building are shown differently on the utility plans. And there are stairs in the walk shown here on the utility plans — how is this handicap accessible? Response: Both the utility plans and the site plans have been revised and coordinated. There is a ramp shown to the larger of the two entries to the building on the south side. The grading of the site due to the drainage in that driveway is such that the handicap parking spaces are located to the far southwest of that row of parking. This is the only location in that area that conforms to the ADA requirements for slope. This sidewalk from the parking spaces to the ramp conforms to the ADA requirements for slope. b. Comment: Label/indicate the retaining walls as shown on the site plan. Response: The 4 retaining walls at the dock area are labeled on the revised utility plan attached. 4. Utility Plan— Sheet 2 a. Comment: Not all the changes are bubbled. And changes to the parking configuration or islands also need to be bubbled. Response: The attached blueline drawings have been bubbled to show all the changes. 5. Utility Plan— Sheet 3 a. Comment: What happened to the grade lines that were on the approved set? They need to be shown and any changes from the original drawing need to be bubbled. Sheri Wamhoff June 9, 2000 Page 4 Response: The CADD drawing had a layer turned off when last we plotted. The revised plan shows the grade lines. All changes have been bubbled on the attached revised drawings. b. Comment (on the plan): Is there to be a curb or a railing here (pointing to a screen/retaining wall at the south side of the northern loading docks)? What's to keep someone from backing or driving over? Response: This is a combination retaining/screen wall. The retaining portion is because the loading dock area is lower than the exterior storage area. On top of the retaining wall is a screen built of the, brick masonry to match the building. This wall will prevent backing or driving over the wall. These walls are shown on the Exterior Elevations sheet (viewed at an angle, so the length as shown on the elevation doesn't look as though it matches the plan). 6. Utility Plan —Sheet 4 a. Comment: The on -site curb details that were on the original sheet have been eliminated. Is this part of the change? Response: The on -site curb details were moved to the upper part left of the drawing and are still part of the project. b. Comment: The grading lines showing the tie in into Lot S at Sharp Point are gone; these need to be put back on the plans. Response: The grade lines are again shown on the revised drawing. c. Comment: A lot more of the grading has been modified than is bubbled. Bubble everything that has changed. Response: The areas that have been changed are now bubbled in their entirety. it. Comment: Why is the berm on Sharp Point being reduced in height from the original approval? And as shown it does not match the landscape plan. Response: We are assuming that you meant the berm on Midpoint Drive. The berm configuration and height for Midpoint Drive is shown the same on both revised drawings. c. In addition, please note that the inlet shown in the exterior storage area has been moved several feet to the south. This was done in order to keep water away from the backside of the retaining wall to help eliminate any potential problems with the foundations. We believe that all of the comments have been properly addressed. If you have any concerns or comments, please contact me at (970) 495-6353. Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Robert J. Moon Project Archit ct Enclosures