Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOTTONWOOD RIDGE - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2003-07-31JAN-01-'00 SUN 00:01 ID: #001 P02 Eric Thayer 31741 RCR #35 Steamboat Springs, CO 80487 (970) 879-1578 December 9, 1993 Mark Linder Linder Real Estate 3500 J.F.K. Parkway #221 Fort Collins, CO 80525 (970) 229-0544 Dear Mark, I received your sketch on December 5th. The mail was slow in delivering it. I have discussed your proposal with Sandy and Nona and we do not have a problem with providing an additional ROW easement with the following conditions: 1. No cost to us. This improvement is not part of the Westbury, Thayer agreement and does not benefit Thayer's proposed improvements. 2. Fence to be: replaced with metal T post fence built in accordance with CDOT M-607. Installed at a distance to be determined west of section line. 3. The widened section of Shields to be built in accordance to the most current City of Fort Collins specifications. 4. The pavement section thickness shall be Per Empire Labs 20945089 5" Asphalt 9" Base or equivalent. 5. The slope of the asphalt in the widened section shall be as approved by the City for Cottonwoaj Ridge Shields Street Improvements (see cross sections page 26). 6. Future sliver fills will not be allowed. Any fill in which the width of the base remaining is less than 8 feet wide shall be constructed to the full future width. 7. The curve return of the sidewalk on the south side of Westbury Drive shall match The City of Font Collins "Design Criteria and Standards for Streets" Detail D-7 Detached Walk Detail. 8. The casement should be wide enough to include fill slopes but not more then fifty feet from the section line. 9. Construction access shall be limited to an area twelve feet west of the proposed toe of slope and suitable temporary fencing shall be provided. ARTHUR E. MARCH, JR. RAMSEY D. MYATT ROBERT W. BRANDIES, JR. RICHARD S. GAST LUCIA A. LILEY J. BRADFORD MARCH LINDA S. MILLER JEFFREY J. JOHNSON MATTHEW J. DOUGLAS MARCH & MYATT, P.C. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 110 E. OAK STREET FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524-2880 (970) 482-4322 FAX (970) 482-3038 August 11, 1997 Mr. Mike Her2:ig City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Avenue P . O. Box 583. Fort Collins, CO 80522-0581 Re: Thayer/Cottonwood Ridge Ravine Work Our File No.: A783.1 Dear Mike: ARTHUR E. MARCH 1908-1981 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 469 FORT COLLINS, CO 80522-0469 Enclosed is a letter that I received from Eric Thayer with some follow-up questions to your letter of July 29, 1997. Please contact me with the city,s position or if you would like a more formal request for clarification. Sincerely, MARCH & MYATT, P.C. i By: / r Matthew J. Dougla' MJD Enclosure PC: Sanford B. Thayer Transpo. cion Services Engineering Department City of Fort Collins August 29, 1997 Mr. Matthew J. Douglas March & Myatt, P.C. P.O. Box 469 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0469 RE: Cottonwood. Ridge - Ravine work Dear Matt: This letter is a response to your letter dated August 11, 1997, with follow-up questions to my letter dated July 29, 1997, regarding clarification of the City's position as to the phasing of the ravine improvements in the Cottonwood Ridge Subdivision. You attached a letter from Eric Thayer to you dated August 7, 1997, For the ravine improvements to be delayed, the ravine and the adjoining lots would have to be a part of a later phase of the development. Lots 8, 9 and 10, mentioned in Eric's letter as adjoining the ravine, would have to be placed in a later phase. (As a note of caution, this letter is strictly hypothetical on moving the above listed lots into another phase. The City would have to review the proposed changes to the phase line to be assured that the proposal is logical. Cost of development and public improvements must be balanced for the phases not putting to much cost burden on the final phases.) The utility plans must be revised to show the correct phase lines. It is not enough to just describe phases in the development agreement. The utility plans must stand on their own. Interim improvements for each phase described must be designed and shown on the utility plans, also. This would be required whether the revision was one sheet or 39 sheets, whatever is necessary for the utility plans to be correct. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6605 I believe this answers Eric's questions. If you have any further questions please call me at 221- 6605. Sincerely, Mike Herzig Special Projects Engineer cc: Peter Barnes John Duval Glen Schlueter Sheri Wamhoff Eric Thayer P.O. Box 771032 Steamboat Springs, CO 80477 970-879-1578 e-mail: et@etdesigns.com October 9, 1997 City of Fort Collins Engineering Department Sherry Wamhoff 281 North College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Dear Sherry, Mike Hertzig has been, working with us in an attempt to mitigate the consequences of an error the City of Fort Collins made in vacating a public street that provides our only access to the west of the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal (PV&LC) on the Cottonwood Ridge Subdivision. As we understand what happened a person from Parks and Recreation went to the Ridge Homeowners Association (RHA) and asked for a pedestrian access to the Cathy Fromme Prairie from the Ridge property. Before the Cathy Fromme Prairie was a public space there had been a dedicated public road into the area and the RHA said OK, but vacate the public street. The person from Parks and Rec. said OK, and obtained a sign off clearance from Engineering. Later one of the property owners adjacent to the public street that we use said to the person from Parks and Rec. that there was another street that was not being used (a deceitfully false statement) and please include that street in the vacation. The Parks and Rec. person without going back to Engineering included our street in the vacation ordinance. The City did not follow normal procedures and did not notify us of the proposed ordinance. A vacation ordinance passed the City Council in March 1996. There is a 30 day period to appeal an ordinance; however, the RHA waited six months before sending us a letter to cease using; the street. We have hired an attorney and researched the law and believe the District Court can reverse the vacation, but at great monetary and time cost to us. Because of impending litigation and the open records status of correspondence to the City there are some elements of the situation that I can not discuss, but perhaps Mike Hertzig could brief you on the importance of this rephrasing request -- suffice it to say we understand the City Attorney and the City Manager have said, "get this resolved". The idea of the rephrasing came from Steve Howard, the President of the R14A who approached the city with the idea of delaying work on the ravine until after there is a bridge across the PV&LC. We obtained approval from Mike Hertzig to submit redline markup for conceptual review and Mike has asked us to send those markups to you. If you approve of the concept we will propose to the RHA and the adjacent property owners that we would ask the RHA and the adjacent property owners only for an easement for current access for residential and farming operations and to tie into an existing Fort Collins -Loveland Water District line existing in the former public street and a new sewer line easement to gravity serve three lots south of the Trilby lateral. There would. be no construction traffic through the Ridge. Since the RHA made this initial rephrasing proposal we believe they would accept this compromise. If they do accept we would redraw the necessary utility drawings, obtain new signatures and resubmit them to you for final approval, we believe this may avoid litigation not desired by us, the RHA or the City. Enclosed are two sets of red line drawings for Cottonwood Ridge Subdivision. The red lines show the necessary changes to the phase boundary for delaying improvements to the ravine. Please review the redlines and return one copy with your comments. Sincerely, 111AN . Eric Thayer cc Matt Douglas City of Fort Collins MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Board Members FROM: Sheri Wamhoff, Civil Engineer II DATE: March 8, 1998 RE: Questions related to projects on the Modification of Final Approval list At the February 13, 1998 work session for the February 19, 1998 Planning and Zoning Board meeting the following questions arose regarding the Modification of Final Approval list. - What are the ongoing issues on Cottonwood Ridge Subdivision? - What are the two projects considered to have significant issues that are on the Modification of Final Approval list? The two projects that were on the list at that time that were considered to have significant issues are: Cottonwood Ridge Subdivision and Waterglen PUD. Although Cottonwood Ridge Subdivision still is considered to have significant issues this project and the Christ Fellowship Church Subdivision have been removed from the Modification of Final Approval list since both projects are Subdivisions and not PUDs. Upon looking into these projects it was determined that they should not have ever been placed on this list. As subdivisions they do not require this extension of approval. Both projects had the condition noted on the final staff reports, but the condition referred to a PUD, therefor making it inapplicable to the Subdivisions. It is our understanding that these projects will expire at 3 years from the date of Final Planning and Zoning Board approval if they are not considered substantially complete. The dates of expirations are: 3/4/99 and 12/20/98 respectively. The following is an account of what staff considers the significant issues of Cottonwood Ridge Subdivision and Waterglen PUD to be. Cottonwood Ridge Subdivision The significant issue with this project is: There are 3 ditch laterals crossing this property and the developer has not been able to work out a deal with the owner(s) of these laterals that is satisfactory (or so it is assumed since they have not yet been able to provide mylars with the ditch owner(s) signature). Since they are modifying these laterals, the City requires the lateral owner(s) sign the plans which indicate that the owner(s) have reviewed and accepted the changes on the plans. Items that require ditch owner signature are such things as: relocation of the ditch, piping of the ditch, regrading of the ditch, doing grading within the ditch easement/row (if it exists), and adding additional or concentrated flow to the ditch. Other items that are going on with this project, but are not considered a significant issue by the City are: 1) The developer is wanting to delay some storm drainage improvements until a later phase of the project which stormwater is not allowing. 2) A portion of Row adjacent to this property was vacated by the City without retaining the proper easements needed for water/ sewer services and temporary access (as needed by the property until the site is developed). The City and the Developer are working with the adjacent property owner to get the proper easements back in place. This will not hold up the completion of the utility plans and the development agreement and as the City is working to remedy the problem. The construction work can even start while this is being accomplished as work in these easements does not need to take place in the first phase of the project. Waterglen PUD There are a couple of significant issues with this project. The main issues have to do with stormwater and stormwater flow through the site. An old agreement has recently been found in which the owners of the Waterglen property (at the time) agreed for flows to be diverted through the property and through the Cooper Slough. This is additional flow that has not been accounted for in the design at this time. The developer's engineer is working on how to accommodate these flows through the site. There are also some issues regarding the masterplan for the area; they have made some assumptions in the modeling that have not been validated and/or verified with data yet. In addition the design to accommodate the developments stormwater flows has not yet met stormwaters approval. The developer would also like to phase the off -site Vine Dr improvements and do those at the 3rd or 4th phase in order to collect enough revenues to pay for these improvements, however if drainage improvements along and across Vine Dr are not made at the initial phase than the interim hydraulic and hydrologic modeling would need to be addressed prior to utility plan approval, all this could add a significant level of analysis that is not currently available. Engineering has not yet determined when the Vine Dr improvements will need to be completed, but it is unlikely that they can be delayed into the 3rd or 4th phase. The number of lots in each phase and the phasing layout will impact this decision, as the requirements for constructing the improvements are typically based on the buildout of a certain percentage of the lots. Another issue of concern is the design for the off -site road improvements to Vine Drive. The applicant is working on these and will hopefully have a workable and good design with the next submittal. In order to accomplish these off -site improvements easements needed for construction ands slopes are needed. These have not yet been provided to the City and could cause delays in the approval of the project if they can not be obtained. These easements are the developers obligation to negotiate for and provide. MEMORANDUM DATE: February 4, 1999 TO: Planning and Zoning Board Members FROM: Dave Stringer, Development Engineering Manager RE: STATUS OF PROJECTS ON THE LIST FOR MODIFICATION OF FINAL APPROVAL The following is a list of 4 projects currently on the agenda for a one month extension of the condition of final approval requiring completion of utility plans and execution of a development agreement. A brief summary of the project status follows each item. The project list is divided into 2 categories: 1) INACTIVE - Project has not been active for 6 months or more, but the P.U.D. is within 3 years from the date of final approval granted by the Board. The utility plans and development agreement are not completed for various reasons described in the project status summary. 2) ACTIVE - P.U.D. is within 3 year approval time and the utility plan approvals and development agreement completion are currently in progress. Status is given in summary for each project. Cottonwood Ridge Notes from meeting Friday February 19, 1999 Attendees: Sheri Wamhoff Basil Harridan Lucia Liley Eric Thayer Sandy Thayer Rep from JR Eng At the meeting we determined the phasing lines that would work. They are going to propose 4 phases for the project. The first phase will be similar to what had earlier been proposed, but will not include the 3 lots adjacent to the ravine. The second phase will be the area to the north of the first phase, but not crossing to the West side of the ravine. The third phase will be the area to the west of the ravine but not the southern three lots that are adjacent to the ravine where the stabilization work needs to occur. Phase 4 will consist of the 3 lots not included in phase 1 and the southern 3 lots on the west side of the ravine. With this phasing no work in the ravine will need to be done until the 3`d Phase. At this time the developer will be required to put up an escrow for the improvements in the ravine prior to the issuance of the first building permit in the 3`d Phase. In addition the developer will agree to take a cross section survey of the ravine at the beginning of the construction of phase 3 and every 6 mo. Thereafter to determine if there is any erosion occurring. Upon the occurrence of any erosion within the ravine the developer shall be responsible for correcting / mitigation the damage in the ravine and at doing the work required on the approved utility plans at this time. The developer may also choose to do the ravine work in conjunction with phase 3. At such time that the work is completed and accepted and certified by stormwater the developers escrow for said work shall be released. Lucia was going to work on putting some language together for this. It was also determined that Eric Thayer would resubmit the plans with the changes shown on them around March 15. We would look at them at that point in time and make any remaining comments on the plans. We said it would be a three week review, but could possibly be shorter depending on the existing workload. l also asked Eric to submit a copy of the plat at that time, or as soon as possible, so that it could be reviewed by the mapping department. The street name need to be checked as it has been a long time since that was done and some of the proposed street names may not be acceptable now. also told them that there were some changes since there plans had been last reviewed. Changes to the plat include new attorney certification language, and warranty and guarantee language. A copy of the new attorney certification language was provided to him. I did not have the other language to give them at that time. I also gave them a brochure on the DCP Process and briefly told them about that. I also gave them a copy of the current general notes. As well as informing them that the street repair and construction standards have changed and they could pick up a copy of them at the engineering counter. In addition that there is a warranty and guarantee requirement for streets. This project was going to be pulled at the planning and zoning board meeting the night before but was not as Sally Craig got preoccupied and forgot to do so. Before I left Thursday night Sally did tell me that she would like to discuss this at the worksession. I told them that I would let them know at which worksession it would be discussed. It would make more sense to discuss it on the worksession that the item was on the agenda and not just the next work session. Since then I have talked to Sally and she said it would probably be best if it was discussed at the worksession where the modification of conditions were on the agenda. There are still some issues to be worked out on this project. An easement is still needed from the Ridge to connect to the waterline on their property. Lucia was going to try to set up a meeting to get this going. They also need to work out the final detail with the ditch owners to get their signatures. JAN-01-'00 SUN 00:01 ID: #001 P03 10. The disturbed area shall be smooth graded and revegetated in accordance with the City of Fort Collins Standards, 11. The existing IS- RCP pipe under Shields to be extended to past the toe of the slope. I have yet to do a detailed review of the expenses for the sub -drain and surface drainage. The one thing that I did notice was that our agreement limits our cost of the surface drainage to $ maximum of $6000. Sincerely (4,-'f Eric 'Thayer 1 Transmittal Letter March 5, 1999 To: Sheri Wamholf City of Fort Collins 281 North Collage Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 970-221-6750 From: Eric Thayer 31741 RCR #35 Steamboat Springs, CO 80487 970-879-1578 Enclosed are: 1. Three sets of revised prints. Prints revised to reflect changes in Phasing as discussed. 2. One set of the Cottonwood Ridge Plat. Please call if you have any questions. Eric Thayer March 16, 1999 To: Sheri Wamhoff From: Sanford Thayer - Subject: Cottonwood Ridge Development Agreement pertaining to financial assurances that ravine improvements will be accomplished. The Development Agreement between Cottonwood Ridge and the City of Fort Collins will contain some wording relating to assurances that improvements proposed for the ravine will in fact be completed. I would like at least the following options to provide financial assurances to the City: (1) posting a surety bond; (2) posting a Letter of Credit; (3) depositing a Certificate of Deposit (CD) with the City equal to the estimated cost of completion of the ravine work along with a Limited Power of Attorney authorizing the City of Fort Collins to cash the CD if the ravine work is not completed to the satisfaction of the City; the City would be allowed to include up to a 10 percent engineering and/or administration fee in addition to the actual amounts the City expended from the CD in order to complete the work on the ravine to the satisfaction of the City, interest would accrue to Sanford Thayer until such time as the CD was sold by the City; (4) depositing with the City common stock from Intel Corporation with a market value equal to one and one-half times the estimated cost of completion of the ravine work (ratio of 1.5 to 1) along with a Stock Power and Limited Power of Attorney authorizing the City of Fort Collins to sell sufficient common stock if the ravine work is not completed to the satisfaction of the City. The City would be allowed to include up to a 10 percent engineering and/or administration fee in addition to the actual amounts the City expended from the common stock sales in order to complete the work on the ravine to the satisfaction of the City, dividends would accrue to Sanford 'Thayer until such time as the stock was sold by the City. In the event the value of Intel Common Stock drops below a ratio of coverage of L 3 to 1 the grantor would have ten days to deposit additional stock or cash equivalents to return the ratio to 1.5 to 1. Transport -'ton Services Engineering Department City of Fort Collins April 11, 1999 Sanford Thayer 1827 Michael Ln Fort Collins, Co 80526 RE: Cottonwood Ridge Subdivision Dear Mr. Thayer, Your letter, dated March 6, 1999, asking for additional options for the escrow to the City for the work within the ravine has been reviewed with the City Attorneys office. In addition to the standard escrow options that the City will accept (cash, bond, and nonexpiring letter of credit) the city will accept the following: A Certificate of Deposit (CD) shall be deposited with the City equal to 150% of the estimated cost of completion of the ravine work along with a Limited Power of Attorney authorizing the City of Fort Collins to cash the CD if the ravine work is not completed to the satisfaction of the City. Said amount shall be deposited with the City prior to the issuance of any building permit for Phase 3 of this development. At such time that the improvements as shown on the plans are completed and if the Developer is the party that constructs said improvements, upon completion of said improvements and acceptance of them by the City, the City shall return 75% of the escrowed funds to the Developer. Any interest earned by said escrowed funds during the time of possession by the City shall be kept by the City to cover its costs for administration of said deposit. The City shall retain the remaining 25% of the escrow funds for a period of 3 years starting from the date of the approval of the certification for the ravine drainage improvements. This 25% shall be held in order to cover any potential erosion that may occur after the ravine improvements are constructed. If you have any questions in regards to this please contact me at 221-6750. Sincerely, Sheri Wamhoff, PE Civil Engineer 11 cc: file 281 North Collebe Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6605 05/27/1999 10:11 970879157851 ET DESIGNS LLC PAGE 01/01 Eric Thayer 31741 RCR #35 Steamboat Springs, CO 80487 970-879-1578 e-mall: et 8(,,,ietdesigns.com FAX COVER SHEET DATE: May 27, 1909 TIME: 10:15 AM TO: SHEFU WAMHOLF PHONE: 970-221-6605 FAX: 970-221-6378 FROM: Eric'Mayer PHONE: 970-879-1578 FAX: RE. Cottonwood Ridge Draft Development Agreement. CC: Basill Harridan (970) 221-6619 Number of pages including cover sheet: 1 Message My continents on the cross sections required of the Ravine are as follows: On page 7 second paragraph that reads "In addition to the escrow of fiends ...." I think the 50 foot requirement is to restrictive. The ravine is such that it may not be possible to access every fifty foot station. Random 50' stations may not reflect the actual erosion that may be taking place. The cross sections should be located in areas that may be prone to eroi;ion. I suggest that the paragraph read_ In addition the escrow of the Developer agrees to provide a crass section survey of the ravine at three locations The location Qf the cross sections V be at mutuall agrreeable locatigng as staked in the field by the Devolner and the City. Tlic locations shall be marked with two (j2' #5 re -bar stakes with alloy csps such that the location o the cross se.�-tion can be reesta fished for subsequent srucys_ The first survey of the cross sgWo ns shall take place prior to the start of any grading or improvemt=s within Phase 3 ...... If you have any questions please call. Eric Thayer Eric Thayer ET Designs LLC 31741 RCR #3 5 Steamboat Springs, CO 80487 970-879-1578 e-mail: et@etdesigns.com Tuesday, August 31, 1999 City of Fort Collins Engineering Department Sheri. Wamholf 281 North College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80:522-0580 Dear Sheri, I meet with Matt Balser on Monday August 16, 1999 to discuss the Shields Street improvements for Cottonwood Ridge Subdivision between the north property line of Cottonwood Ridge and the outlot parcel. We discussed the costs of the items as defined on page 10 section 7(a) and (c) of the development agreement. I am requesting an amendment to the development agreement that would allow the developer at his option to install the improvements on South Shields Street from the north property line of Cottonwood Ridge to the Outlot parcel. Points that should be covered in the amendment include: A time frame trigger. Prior to the start of construction of Phase II the developer must inform the city if he intends to construct the improvements. Prior to bidding the project the City must inform the developer that the City is proceeding with the street improvements. 2. If the developer installs the improvements on South Shields Street any previously paid building permit fees paid to the City for the improvements as described in the development agreement page 10 section 7(a), (b) and (c) shall the remitted to the developer upon City approval of the improvements on Shields Street. If the developer installs the improvements on South Shields Street any future building permit fees paid to the City for the improvements as described in the development agreement page 10 section 7(a), (b) and (c) shall not be collected. 4. The dollar amount in the development agreement page 10 section 7(a), (b) and (c) be revised to reflect the best estimate of the costs for the improvements at $ 372.76 per lot. Matt Baker and I discussed the developer doing the improvement work on South Shields at his option. The developer's installation of the final improvements removes the expense of installing interim drainage improvements, allows the developer control the costs associated with the improvements and provides the development with the improvement now rather than latter. Matt said there were previous development agreements that contained similar clauses that may be helpful in wording the amendment. The figure of $663.47 per lot includes the estimated costs of the sidewalk that the developer is required to install as part of phase U of the project. The estimated cost of the sidewalk is $6773. For 70 lots the reduction should be $96.76 per lot for a cost per lot of $566.71. City Street oversizing funds are to be utilized to pay certain costs associated with and necessary for increasing streets from local access status to arterial status. The additional pavement design cross section required to improve from local to arterial status is part of the cost associated with improving streets from local to arterial status. If the City does the improvements the amount of money that the City would have ultimately refunded to the developer should not have been collected from the developer in the first place. If the developer does the improvements then the developer would be eligible for reimbursement from the City Street oversizing funds of a similar amount. The current city standard minimum cross section for local roads is 3'/2 inches of asphalt and 6 inches of base, for arterial roads the section is 6'/2 inches of asphalt and 12 inches of base course. Street oversizing funds would pay for the extra 3 inches of asphalt and 6 inches of base. The estimated cost for street oversizing is $6641 or $94.87 per lot for a total cost per lot of $471.84 Our Geotechnical Engineering Report (November 1994) recommended five inches of asphalt and nine inches of base course as a design section for South Shields. The pavement design is based on soil exploration in the vicinity of the proposed improvements and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) with a load factor of 200 kips. Test bore #20 was through the existing asphalt on the west side of South Shields Street several hundred feet north of the outlot parcel. An R-value of 18.5 was established for the existing fill on South Shields. The area of South Shields to be improved is also in a fill area. Approximately one to three feet of subgrade fill will be place when the sidewalk is installed. This fill is a controlled fill; the contractor will control the suitability of the fill material and moisture content. The resulting R-value and stability of the fill will be similar to the existing subgrade tested on South Shields. Matt Baker used a design cross section with ten inches of asphalt, six inches of road base, nine inches of class 6 road base, and flyash subgrade preparation. The assumed total pavement cross section is 25 inches plus flyash subgrade stabilization. This design section may be based on a worst case scenario, wet clays with a low R-value (R-value of 3). I spoke with Dave Bickers of Terracon Companies, the firm that did the Geotechnical Engineering Report in November of 1994, about the changes in pavement design from 1994 to the present. In 1996 AASHTO came out with a new manual on pavement design, the method and results did not change from previous editions. The current city traffic load for South Shield is now 250 kips an increase from the 200 kips use in 1994. The result is that because of the increase traffic load the design cross section would increase. The new pavement design section would still be less than the current city standard minimum cross section. The minimum standard city design section would control. The required section would be 6 '/2 inches of asphalt and 12 inches of base course. The estimated cost for 6 1/2 inches of asphalt is $7248 and 12 inches if gravel is $6593 for a total pavement section cost of $13,841. Matt's estimated cost for the pavement section was class 6 nine inches thick $4945, 3" grading C $3508, 7" grading G $ 7643, 6" ABC $2198, flyash $3522 for a total pavement section cost of $21,816. The costs of the improvements should be reduce by $7,975 or $113.92 per lot for a total cost per lot of $357.91. There are several other minor differences in our estimates which increase the cost per lot to $372.76. A breakdown of the estimated costs are listed below: City ET Designs Difference estimate estimate Asphalt Removal $ 2,435 $ 1,806 $ 629 Embankment $ 2,598 $ 2,598 $ - Topsoil Placement $ 434 $ 434 $ - Class 6 9" thick $ 4,945 $ 4,945 3" grading C $ 3,508 $ 3,508 7" grading G $ 7,643 $ 7,643 6 1/2" asphalt $ 7,248 -$ 7,248 12" class 6 $ 6,593 -$ 6,593 6" ABC $ 2,198 $ 2,198 Flyash $ 3,522 $ 3,522 Reconditioning $ 348 $ 348 2.5' curb & gutter $ 5,418 $ 5,418 $ - Type R inlet 4' $ 1,500 -$ 1,500 Striping $ 121 $ 637 -$ 516 Traffic Control $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ - Surveying $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ - Sidewalk $ 6,773 $ 6,773 Street oversizing Asphalt 3" -$ 3,345 $ 3,345 Base course 6" -$ 3,296 $ 3,296 Total $ 46,443 $ 26,093 $ 20,350 70 lots per lot $ 663.47 $ 372.76 $ 290.71 If you have any questions please call. Sincerely, Eric Thayer cc Matt Baker Lucia Liley ARTHUR E. MARCH, JR. LUCIA A. LILEY J. BRADFORD MARCH Ms. Sheri Wamhoff Engineering Department City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado MARCH & LILEY, P.C. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW ARTHUR E. MARCH 110 E. OAK STREET 1908-1981 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524-2880 (970) 482-4322 Fax (970) 482-5719 February 15, 2000 VIA HAND DELIVERY RE: Cottonwood Ridge Subdivision /__�`c r 'rieCt��5 , Dear Sheri: Per Eric Thayer's instructions, enclosed are originals of the following: Fully -executed and attorney -certified Deed of Dedication for Easement from Eric Thayer, Jill S. Thayer, Ann E. Whittemore and Troy Thayer to the City of Fort Collins for two temporary easements for vehicular turnarounds. 2. Fully -executed (except by City) and attorney -certified Title Sheet for the Plat of Cottonwood Ridge. Also, regarding the two Easement and Right -of -Way Agreements by and among the Thayers, the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District and The Ridge Homeowners Association and Mr. and Mrs. Neal, I let the reception numbers on your voice mail but just in case, I'm providing you with that information in this letter as well. Both Agreements were recorded on February 3, 2000. The reception number for the Agreement from The Ridge Homeowners Association is 2000007632 and the Neal Agreement is 2000007633. Please let me know if you need anything further. Sincerely, MARCH & LILEY, P.C. By: Lorraine Rushing, secretary to Lucia A. Liley lr Enclosures cc: Eric Thayer 02/28/2000 19:01 970879157851 ET DESIGNS LLC PAGE 02/03 DrEPA11:YMPENT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DISTRICT OENVER REGULATORY OFFICE, 9907 S. PLATTE CANYON ROAD LITTLETON, COL.ORAdo 80128.6901 ! REPLY TO ATTENTION OF: February 25, 2000 Mr. Eric Thayer ET Designs LLC 31741 RCR #35 Steamboat Springs, Colorado 90487 RE: Cottonwood Ridge Subdivision Nationwide Permit No. 26, Corps File No. 200080129 Dear Mr. Thayer: Reference is made to your February 24, 2000 site meeting with Mr. Terry McKee of this office concerning the above -mentioned project located in the NE1/4 of Section 3, Township 6 North, Range 69 West, Larimer County, Colorado. During Mr. McKee's it was determined that the previously mapped wetland at the northeast corner of your property is no longer waters of the U.S. since irrigation activity on the property has stopped. We have reviewed the request for Department of the Army authorization, which will impact approximately 0.07 acres of waters of the U.S. for a driveway crossing and construction of drop structures in a ravine. Based on the information provided, this office has determined that the work within Colorado is authorized by the Department of the Army Nationwide Permit No. 26, found in the December 13, 1996, Federal Register, Final Notice of Issuance, Reissuance, and Modification of Nationwide Permits (61 FR 65874). Enclosed is a fact sheet which fully describes this Nationwide Permit and lists the General Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, and Colorado Regional Conditions which must be adhered to for this authorization to remain valid. Although an Individual Department of the Army permit will not be required for the project, this does not eliminate the requirement that you obtain any other applicable Federal, state, tribal or local permits as required. Please note that deviations from the original plans and specifications of your project could require additional authorization from this office. The applicant is responsible for all work accomplished in accordance with the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit. If a contractor or other authorized representative will be accomplishing the work authorized by the nationwide permit on behalf of the applicant, it is strongly recommended that they be provided a copy of this letter and -the attached conditions so that they are aware orthe limitations of the applicable nationwide permit_ Any activity which fails to comply with all the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit will be considered unauthorized and subject to appropriate enforcement action. This verification is valid until February 11, 2002. If your authorized work extends beyond that date and you have commenced, or are under contract to commence, you will have until February 11, 2003 to complete the activity under the present terms and conditions of Nationwide Permit 26. 02/28/2000 19:01 970879157851 ET DESIGNS LLC PAGE 03/03 In compliance with General Condition 14, the attached "Certification of Completed Work" form (blue) must be signed and returned to this office upon completion of the authorized work and any required mitigation. Also, be avrare of the report requirement on page 2 of the Nationwide 26 fact sheet_ The information for the report can be written on the back of the blue Certification of Completed Work form, or submitted separately. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has listed the Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonlus preblet) as a Federal threatened species under the Endangered Species .Act of 1973. However, it has been determined that the proposed activity will not jeopardize the continued existence of the mouse or destroy or adversely modify its habitat. Also, this proposed activity would not jeopardize the continued existence of the SDiranthes diluvialis (Ute ladies' tresses orchid) or destroy or modify habitats occupied by this threatened species. Should anyone at any time become aware that either an endangered and/or threatened species or its critical habitat exists within the project area, this office must be notified immediately. If there are any questions concerning this verification, please call Mr. Terry McKee at (303) 979-4120 and reference Corps File No. 200090129. [a Enclosures Copies Furnished: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Colorado Department ol'Public Health & Environment Environmental Protection Agency Colorado Division of Wildlife 2 Sincerely, r Tim y T. arey Chic , r Regulatory Office STORMWATER RECEIVED 1996 WASON Front Range Community College 3645 West 1 12th Avenue • Westminster, CO 80030 • (303) 466-881 1 November 07, 1996 Eric Thayer 31741 RCR # 35 Steamboat Springs, CO 80487 Dear Eric: The college has further reviewed your proposal after the conversation you and I had two weeks ago. We are providing the following response to your proposal. We can support your portion of proposal on the Smith Ditch lateral modification; however, we cannot support your additional water run off when you tie into Mr. Linder's retention pond due west of the college property. The current approval by the City of Fort Collins Storm Water Utilities is 18.6 GPM. Currently this line exceeds this amount. You have stated your tie-in will add approximately 8.5 GPM which will only make matters woise on our property. «.pith this issue we cannot support your proposal in full. If you could provide a system to divert this runoff to the Smith Ditch Lateral or a system to disperse the water beyond our parking lots on the East, we would be happy to discuss this issue with you. Please inform us of any modifications in this area. Please call if you have any questions. Thank you for your time in this matter. Sincerely, Michael J. Redmond, Director Facilities Department Cc: Dennis DeRemer, Director, Facilities, Larimer Campus Eric Reno, V.P., Larimer Campus Bob Rizzuto, V.P., Finance and Administration Glenn Schlutter, Storm Water Utilities, 235 Mathews St., Fort Collins, CO 80524 PROGRESSIVE LIVING STRUCTURES INC. April 1, 2004 Sheri Wamhoff City of Fort Collins 281 N. College Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Sheri: APR 1 2 2004 I Once again I ask for your assistance in eliminating an additional side lot utility easement in Cottonwood Ridge. We would like to vacate the entire easement on the south side of lot 61. I have attached the certification from the lot owners along with the description and drawing showing the easement proposed for vacation. No utilities are currently located in this easement and none are proposed. Thank you for your consideration in this matter and let me know if you need any additional information. Si e Z Ge r Hart, Is E Development Manger 4190 N. GARFIELD Hwy. 287 8 E. 42nd LOVELAND, GO 80538 (970) 669.0870 APR 0 7 2004 To: Sheri Wamhoff City of Fort Collins, Engineering 281 N College Ave Fort Collins, CO 80521 CC: Progressing Living Structures C/O George Hart 4190 N Garfield Loveland, CO 80528 April 6, 2004 To Whom It May Concern Qwest Engineering has reviewed the proposal for side -lot easement vacate at Cottonwood Ridge Subdivision Lot 61; 4815 Caravelle Dr. as presented by the developer Progressive Living Structures. Qwest has no objections to the stated side -lot easement elimination at the above address. Qwest currently has no facilities in this side -lot easements that would warrant any concerns. We also do not foresee any conflicts, issues or concerns to a side -lot utility easement vacation at this address (as referenced in the attached drawings). BSW (buried service wire) for this property will not require an easement and will be directly from access pedestal to Network Interface location on the structure for this address. Thank you in advance Sincerely, •lam% ,l 1t� Bob Rulli Qwest Field Engineering Eric Thayer 31741 RCR #35 Steamboat Springs, CO 80487 970-879-1578 November 25, 1996 Mike Redmond Director , Facilities Front Range Community Collage 3645 W 1012th Ave. Westminster, CO 80030 303 466-8811 ex5400 Dear Mr. Redmond, We have previously contacted you because we are developing our property west of the Fort Collins Campus of Front Range Community Collage. The development will include improvements and realignment of the Smith Lateral. The City of Fort Collins is requiring us to obtain approval for the improvements from the owners of the irrigation ditches and laterals. Our research into the current ownership of the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal Company and the Smith lateral indicates that Front Range Community Collage (State of Colorado Department of Higher Education) does not own any rights to the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal irrigation company or the Smith lateral. We have discussed this with the City of Fort Collins and have concluded that unless Front Range Community Collage provides documentation proving otherwise the approval of Front Range Community Collage is not required. The City has agreed to proceed with approval of our development plans, without sign -off by Front Range Community Collage, unless FRCC provides us with proof of ownership interest in the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal and Smith Lateral. Proof of ownership must be submitted via certified mail to: Eric Thayer 31741 RCR #35 Steamboat Springs, CO 80487 with a copy to: Kerry Ashbeck City of Fort Collins 281 North Collage Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 on or before December 11, 1996. If such proof is not received by December 11, 1996 we will request the City proceed with final approval of our plans. All other work for our development east of South Shields is within an existing drainage easement recorded at reception #94069424 A summary of our research is as follows: Reception #91017298 4/26/91 The Poudre R-1 School district received from Park And Thompson schools for $770,000 title to 53.03 acres in the north 1/2 of Section 2 6 69 and 1.03 shares of PV&LC. Reception #94041722 5/12/94 Poudre R-1 sells some of the land in the 53.03 acres to McGraw Land LLC no water was included. Reception #95045372 7-31-95 Transfer of 50% ownership of the land at FRCC from Poudre R-1, Park, Thompson school districts to the Colorado Department of Higher Education. Except the items described in reception #91017298, #92009470, #94041722 and #94062830. Water was not included in the document. Ken Forest the business manager for Poudre R-1 indicated in a November 5, 1996 meeting that the 1.03 shares of PV&LC water is currently being used to irrigate Poudre High School. To the best of Ken's knowledge no water transferred to FRCC with the transfer of property. Hill and Hill PC (the current attorneys for PV&LC). The secretary that bills the yearly assessments to the owners of PV&LC looked in the records for ownership. The owner's list did show the 1.03 shares that Poudre R-1 owns but did not show any ownership of Park, Thompson school districts or The State of Colorado Department of Higher Education or anything similar. We have included copies of documents obtained from the Larimer County Court House. Sincerely, Eric Thayer CC. Kerry Ashbeck City of Fort Collins Engineering Eric Thayer 31741 RCR #35 Steamboat Springs, CO 80487 970-879-1578 December 30, 1996) Kerry Ashbeck City of Fort Collins 281 North Collage Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 970-221-6750 Dear Kerry, We have not received a response from Front Range Community Collage to our letter dated November 28, 1996. The November 28, 1996 letter stated that if Front Range Community Collage failed to respond via certified mail with proof of ownership in the Smith Lateral and Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal by December 11, 1996 the City would proceed with approval of our development plans for Cottonwood Ridge with out the approval of Front Range Community Collage. We will remove the approval signoff area for Front Range Community Collage from the mylar drawings as the approval of Front Range Community Collage is no longer required. We are still working on obtaining approval from the Applewood Lateral. Sincerely, Eric Thayer Transpo. _,tion Services Engineering Department City of Fort Collins July 29, 1997 Mr. Matthew J. Douglas March & Myatt, P.C. P.O. Box 469 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0469 RE: Cottonwood Ridge - Ravine work Dear Matt: This letter is a response to your letter dated July 24, 1997, requesting clarification of the City's position as to the phasing of the ravine improvements in the Cottonwood Ridge Subdivision. You listed three statements wanting confirmation on whether they are the City's position. The following are a re -write of those statements along with our confirmation and clarification: "The ravine improvements as shown on the utility plans for Cottonwood Ridge will need to be completed prior to the issuance of a building permit for the lots that are immediately adjacent to the ravine." This is correct. An additional requirement would be placed in the development agreement. No more than 25% of the building permits for a phase of the development would be issued before all of the on -site and off -site storm drainage improvements needed for that phase are completed by the developer and accepted by the City. As long as the ravine improvements are not needed for phases 1 or 2 of the Cottonwood development, they can be completed with the phase 3 drainage improvements, of which they are a part of. "The existing house on the property may be remodeled prior to the ravine improvements so long as a portion of the existing structure remains." This statement covers too many options for us to endorse. If the majority of the existing house is to remain and a minor addition is planned for construction and the use is allowed under the zoning, a permit could be issued for such a remodeling prior the completion of the ravine improvements. If the majority of the existing house were proposed to be torn down and a large addition proposed, the lot would have to be platted and related drainage improvements completed prior to the issuance of a building permit. Therefore, to be more specific with an answer, we would need more specific information from you. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6605 Lot 8 is the southern -most lot, and is adjacent to the ravine for less than 50 feet. A building permit could issue for lot 8 if it is shown that the ravine improvements will not impact lot 8." Lot 8 would be treated like any other lots adjoining the ravine. The improvements must: be completed prior to the issuance of any building permit for any lots adjoining the ravine. I hope this response clarifies the issues for you. If you have any further questions please call me at 221-6605. Sincerely, Mike Herzig Special Projects Engineer cc: Peter Barnes John Duval Glen Schlueter Sheri Wamhoff 06/07/1997 07:07 970879157851 ET DESIGNS LLC PAGE 02/02 Eric Thayer 31741 RCR 935 Steamboat Springs, CO 80487 970-879-1578 e-mail: et@etdesigns.com August 7, 1997 Matthew Douglas March & Myatt, P.C. 110 E. Oak Street Fort Collins, CO 80524-2680 Dear Matt: Based on the letter from Mile Herzig dated July 29, 1997 it appears that the city would not require improvements to the ravine as long as the lots adjacent to the ravine were not part of the phase under construction. The current Pbase I includes lots 1 through 18 including lots 8, 9 and 10 that are adjacent to the ravine. The limitation of no more than 25% of the lots obtaining a building permit prior to completion of the drainage work is not an acceptable option if the ravine improvements are to be delayed and lots 8, 9, and 10 remain in Phase 1. I could move the Phase line on the utility drawings so that lots 8, 9 and 10 would be in Phase III. The phase lines appear on almost all of the 39 pages of the utility drawing package. 1 have obtained approval signatures on the drawings from most of the affected parties. Moving the phase lines, plotting new drawings and obtaining new signatures is an operation I am not willing to do. Would the City be willing to move lots 8, 9, 10 and the improvements required for the Ravine (Tract F) into Phase III as part of the development agreement without a major revision of the utility drawings? I could add a note to the drawings where the phase lines are shown " LOTS 8, 9, 10 & TRACT F ARE PART OF PHASE III". The lines on the drawings indicating the phase boundary would remain as is. In addition language in the development agreement could be added to make it clear that the lots are part of Phase III. Mike's statement regarding the remodeling of the existing house prior to the completion of ravine improvements is acceptable, namely, " If the majority of the existing house is to remain and a minor addition is planned for construction and the use is allowed under the zonining, a building permit could'be issued for such remodeling prior to the completion of the ravine improvements." Please contact Mike Herzig to see if the proposal would be acceptable to him Sincerely,\-1����iy1Jq Eric Thayer cc Sandy Thayer