Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutENGLISH RANCH - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2003-07-31ARTHUR E. MARCH, JR. RAMSEY D. MYATT ROBERT W. BRANDES, JR. RICHARD S. GAST LUCIA A. LILEY J. BRADFORD MARCH LINDA S. MILLER WILLIAM C. BEYERS DENISE L. SAATHOFF GLORYI BURNS Mr. Mike Herzig MARCH & MYATT, P.C. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 110 EAST OAK STREET FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524-2880 (303) 482-4322 TELECOPIER (303) 482-3038 January 20, 1992 ARTHUR E. MARCH 1909-1981 MAIL--ING. ADORESSs,_` >P. b.BOX 469 1 !FORT COLLINS, CO BOS22-0469 ' I JAN 2 i City Planning Department HAND DELIVERED 300 LaPorte Fort Collins,, CO RE: Bartran & Co. - Development Agreement for English Ranch Dear Mike: At Bill Bartran's request, I have reviewed the Development Agreement which you presented to him for the English Ranch development. The matters covered by this Development Agreement include the repay fee being imposed by the City for the Sid Brook's sanitary sewer line which is not accessible from this property. Since that charge has been imposed under instructions from the City Attorney's Office, I have written directly to Steve Roy and Steve Burkett on this issue and will not cover that here. However, there are several other matters which we feel have been overlooked in preparing this Agreement and I will address those in this letter. The Agreement requires a repay to the City for the water main the City installed in Horsetooth Road. Bartran's engineers have reviewed the plans for this line as it adjoins the English Ranch property. Biased on their review and Bill Bartran's knowledge, as a developer, of the cost of installing such lines, it appears that the charge being made is substantially greater than it should be. Therefore, we would like additional information concerning this line. I have reviewed a letter from Brian Hahn which set out the original basis for a charge of $16.37 per front foot. I understand that was basE!d on the cost of the entire line installed by the City prorated on the basis of the linear footage of the portion of the line abutting this development. Mr. Bartran made objection that he should only be charged on the basis of the cost of the portion of the line adjoining this property. The City agreed and recomputed the charge. I have also reviewed the revised calculations. I note that several new items were added into the cost the second time, thereby reaching a per foot charge which was greater than that originally proposed. It appears to me that adjustments :should be made in those calculations. I note that the ARTHUR E. MARCH, JR. RAMSEY D. MYATT ROBERT W. BRANDIES, JR. RICHARD S. GAST LUCIA A. LILEY J. BRADFORO MARCH LINDA S. MILLER WILLIAM C. BEYERS DENISE L. SAATHOFF GLORY I . BURN S MAIRCH & MYATT, P.C. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 110 EAST OAK STREET FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524-2880 (303) 482-4322 TELECOPIER (303) 482-3038 Mr. Mike Herzig City Planning Department 300 LaPorte Fort Collins, CO January 30, 1992 ARTHUR E. MARCH 1909-1981 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 469 F 00 5 2 2 0 46 9 r, i RE: Development Agreement for English Ranch Dear Mike: I represent Bartran & Co. in connection with its application for approval of the English Ranch Development. At our request the subdivision plat was presented to the Planning and Zoning Board for final approval before the terms of the development agreement had been agreed upon. The Planning and Zoning Board approved the subdivision plat at its meeting on January 27. This letter will confirm that this was done at our request and that the approval does not prejudice, in any way, the rights of either the City or Bartran & Co. in the negotiations concerning the development agreement. ' V,$ By: AEM/cjs P.C. Steve Roy, City Attorney Greg Byrne, Development Administrator Utility -,rvices V ,iter &-, IVistewater January 30, 1992 Mr. Michael Herzig Development Engineering Engineering Department, Manager City of Fort Collins RE: Questions raised by Arthur March Jr. about water and wastewater reimbursements in the English Ranch. Dear Mike: We have reviewed the letter Mr. March sent to you on Jan 20th. This letter addresses the questions raised by that letter concerning water and sewer reimbursement and oversizing. Please share this information with Mr. March and Mr. Bartran the developer of the English Ranch. Both before and after Mr Bartran's objection the methods of assessment we used in establishing the cost of the waterline in Horsetooth were based on a front foot of the applicant's property pursuant to Section 26-121(b) of the City's ordinance. Also pursuant to Section 26-121(b) if another basis was used I believe it would require the approval of City Council. I believe since we used the front foot basis no ordinance, resolution of other document is needed to establish the assessment method. Engineering costs for the waterline in Horsetooth are a function of the lineal feet of the total project and not a function of the cost. I do not know on what Mr. March bases his understanding that Engineering is normally a function of the cost of the project. Our Engineers have found that the cost of engineering and engineering change orders. are the same on a 16" waterline as on a 24" waterline. I believe personnel services and commodities are allowed to be charged as project administration pursuant to Section 26-121(b) of the City's ordinance. We had a project engineer who was responsible for the administration and was also on site at this job. The off site sewer line extended east of the English Ranch may qualify for a reimbursement however we should not include a provision for reimbursements in the development agreements. Reimbursement agreements are only written after the work is completed and paid for. 1'0 1)-, -"5() • Iol-I Colhils, CCU • CO')) 221-6h81 Herzig Page Two January 30, 1992 All provisions of Sec. 26-372 of the City's ordinances must be strictly followed to obtain a reimbursement. Please stress the particular importance of submitting all the information including three bid forms within ninety days from acceptance of the utility lines by the Director of Engineering. Sincerely, '�O Juk�,j Brian Hahn Utility Develoment Administrator iii iii City of Fort Collins Culturi A'.ibrary and Recreational Servic Park Planning & Development Division January 31, 1992 Bill Bartran Bartran Homes, Inc. 1136 East Stuart Fort Collins, CO 80525 Dear Mr. Bartran: As a follow-up to our conversation on January 29, 1992 regarding a neighborhood park in your English Ranch subdivision I spoke to Ted Shepard in the City Planning office about future road alignments on adjacent lands. His indication was that, as you said, the new streets could be aligned to afford us a little more park acreage on adjacent land south of your development. At Ted's suggestion I'm writing to suggest that the many people involved get together to discuss the park and street aspects. I would suggest that the people named below set a meeting for Thursday, February 13 or Thursday, February 20 in the early afternoon, between 1:00 and 3:00 p.m. Please call and I will arrange a suitable time. Sincerely, Randy Balok Manager Park Planning and Development /j cc: Leslie Bryson - Park Planning Mike Herzig'- Development Engineering Manager Warren Jones - Poudre Fire Authority Dick Rutherford - Stewarts Engineering Ted Shepard - City Planning 281 North College AVenue • Fort Collin,, CO SO;24 • 003)1 22!-h3h0 ARTHUR E. MARCH, JR. RAMSEY D. MYATT ROBERT W. BRANOES, JR. RICHARD S. GAST LUCIA A. LILEY J. BRADFORD MARCH LINDA S. MILLER WILLIAM C. BEYERS DENISE L. SAATHOFF GLORY I. BURNS MARCH & MYATT, P.C. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 110 EAST OAK STREET FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524-2880 (303) 482-4322 TELECOPIER (303) 482-3038 February 4, 1992 City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue P. O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 ATTENTION: Mike Herzig Planning Department ARTHUR E. MARCH 1909-1981 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 469 FORT COLLINS, CO 80522-0469 7m; FIB 5 HAND DELIVERED RE: Development Agreement for English Ranch Subdivision Dear Mr. Herzig: I have received the proposed Development Agreement for the English Ranch Development. The City has modified this Agreement in response to certain objections which I made to the original form. However, it is my position that the current form of the Agreement still imposes obligations on the developer which the City has no valid basis for requiring. The remaining matters which I believe are objectionable are the following: (a) The requirement set forth in Part II. A. 1. that Bartran & Co., as the developer, pay the sum of $28,431.23 plus an inflation factor, in order to receive water service from the 16 inch line in Horsetooth Road. The bases for my objection were set forth in the second paragraph of my letter to you dated January 20, 1992. I have reviewed the response by Brian Hahn concerning this matter. I believe the facts which he asserts in his response are demonstrably erroneous. Therefore, it remains my position that the City has exceeded its authority in imposing this requirement. I have discussed this matter further with Mike Smith and he has agreed to obtain more information pertaining to the factual basis behind the Ci.ty's position. I understand that we will discuss this matter further after he gets that information. (b) The requirement that Bartran & Co. install the oversize portions of streets, even if funds for reimbursement are not budgeted and appropriated from the street oversizing fund. We have City of Fort Collins February 4, 1992 Page 2 been advised that the City's position on this matter is firm and that the subdivision plat will not be approved and the City will not authorize developement unless Bartran & Co. accepts this provision. From this we understand that the City is using its power to deny approval of a subdivision plat, which otherwise meets the City's requirements, in order to force the developer to install and pay for the oversized portion of the streets even though the City will nct assure repayment to the developer for the City's share of the street work. I should also note the requirement added by section II. D. 4. that the developer submit its request for repayment of the cost of reconstructing a portion of Antelope Drive in the Fox Meadow's Subdivision in accordance with the requirements of Section 221-121 of the City Code. We understand that this only addresses the method of submitting the request and that reimbursement of the developer for these costs is not dependent on the appropriation and availability of funds from the street oversizing fund. (c) A new provision has also been added to the Agreement in section II. 1.. This provides that City Code provisions referenced in the Agreement shall be applied in the form they exist under the ordinances at the time of application for reimbursement. I have raised objection that this, in effect, is the equivalent of an ex post facto law, allowing the City to impose new conditions after the Agreement: has been signed by both parties. Again, I understand that this provision is required by the City as a condition to approving the subdivision plat and granting development approval. From my discussions I also, however, understand that the section was intended only to require compliance with additional documentation or similar items which may be required by a new ordinance and which the developer has reasonable ability to provide at the time the requirement is made. To the extent this can be reasonably done, we do not have objection and will comply, even though this may not be a valid requirement. I am herewith submitting to you the copies of the Agreement which have been executed by Bartran & Co. as the developer. However, for the reasons stated above, you are advised that Bartran & Co. has executed these copies under protest and only because the City has advised that it will not approve the subdivision plat and authorize the development unless the developer accepts these objectionable provisions. If it is to continue with this development project it is necesasry for Bartran & Co. to proceed, at this time, with the contracts it has negotiated for installation of subdivision improvements. Therefore, the Agreement has been City of Fort Collins February 4, 1992 Page 3 signed with these provisions in it only because my client has no other alternative if it is to go forward with the development. Sincerely yob, By: AEM/cjg p.c. Steve Roy, City Attorney Bill Bartran . E . March, ,fir. Building homes. Building tradition. March 24, 1992 Mr. Mike Herzig Planning Department City of Fort Collins 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 Dear Mike, Attached is a breakdown of the costs associated with the street work to be done on Antelope Drive in accordance with our agreement. We propose to use Connell Resources for the main portion of the site work followed by Western Mobile & Kiefer Concrete. I have also added a "not to exceed figures" for final grading and installation of sod on the two homeowner lots which will be effected. Also I have a proposal for your consideration to solve the drainage problem created on the south side of Antelope. I would suggest we install a manhole cone over the existing storm sewer and grade this area to the low point with a grate on the manhole to get storm water into the line. In estimating, this will cost about $850.00 to construct. As I offerd at our meeting in the field that day, I am willing ' to pay half of this cost. i Sincerely, William D. Bartran Bartran & Company, Inc. 1644 Alcott St. • Fort Collins, CO 80525 9 303t-225,2E498- G Building homes. Building tradition. STREET RECONSTRUCTION Antelope Drive & Fox Meadows Subdivision Connell Resourses Western Mobile Kiefer Concrete Earthwork Compaction Testing Supervision & Overhead by Bartran & Company TOTAL $ 3,001.00 2,850.00 2,212.00 200.00 1,600.00 $9,863.00 1644 Alcott St. • Fort Collins, CO 80525. 303/223-2200 Develc lent Services Engineering Department June 1, 1992 Bill Bartran Bartran Homes 1136 East Stuart Street Fort Collins, CO 80525 RE: English Ranch, 1st Filing Dear Bill: This letter is to inform you that the utilities on the City right-of-way have been inspected and initially accepted by the City of Fort Collins pending the normal contractor's warranty period. Please be informed that this letter of acceptance does not relieve the developer, the contractors, and lot owners or their contractors of their responsibility for the repair of any damage which may occur as a result of the building construction. Sincerely, C ig Farver ngineering Construction Inspector CF/ltg I North College .Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-hoo :; Mr. Mike Herzig January 20, 1992 Page 2 engineering is charged back based on the proportion of the lineal feet of pipeline adjoining this project. Engineering charges are not normally based on the number of lineal feel of pipeline installed. Rather, they are normally a function of the cost of the project. That appears to have been the case here since engineering charges were increased as change orders increased the price of the project. That being the case, it would appear that an allocation of engineering costs, based on the total contract price, would be proper. That: would result in this project being responsible for 11.82% of the engineering cost. I also note that the City charged back personnel services and other commodities which I assume represents administrative costs assigned to this project. However, Section 26-121(b), which creates the City's right to charge back the cost of lines it installs, does not include this as a cost to be recovered. From our calculations it appears that a price of $15.00 per lineal foot would result, using the costs allowed in Section 26-121(b). Section 26-121(b) also provides that the method of assessing the cost is to be established at the time the installation of the line is authorized. I request that you furnish me with a copy of the ordinance, resolution or other document which was adopted at that time to establish the assessment method. The utility plans for this project impose several requirements on Bartran which are not required to serve this development but rather are to serve other property. These additional costs should be paid by the City in some instances, and repay agreements should be provided in others. The Development Agreement should cover this. The specific items are set forth below. (a) Sewer Lines: Bartran is required to install a sanitary sewer collection line through the English Ranch development and easterly to County Road #9 where it connects with the Hewlett Packard sewer main. Pursuant to Section 26-372 of the City's ordinances, Bartran should be given a reimbursement agreement requiring reimbursement for the portion of the line east of the English Ranch development from the owner of the property abutting the line. It appears the only property that will be served by this line is the Spring Creek Farms' property through which the line will run. An oversized sewer line in Antelope Drive has been required in order to serve property to the south. The City should pay for the cost of this line over the eight inch line which would be required to serve the English Ranch development as provided in Section 26-371 of the City ordinances. f:\wpc\aem\bartran A"Jq-'Ist 14' 199' IM r- e H 9 r z Plannin,j Dej..,artment i t •y of Fort Cal I i ns 1'2 1 IN . I I e g e Fort C ins, (:O 80 24 e,'3 r M1 e, In a w I-) our . e t- ba I agreement I am b111 i n g the it r -!)e half the c.c::: t of the tcD r r) drain manhole installed f I (-, pe. P ca d adl o 1 t i n g Fc, " He adows subdivision. My a manhole price from Hall -Irwin was $765.98 rather* -,a; he pt ice noted for a 5' I.D. manhole on their Lid' sheet. Theref:-)rtF the city cost for this is A 1 -,: u 11--he request. o` Craig Farver, City Inspector.. we 3,th e k,,a t e r line n e ti tI'S C he.-�kitig for leaks in the water , r,, i t, Tliiwas, dCne i:i the Lzeqcticn -,f Antelope Road we improved Ff ME�ad,)w--- Slibdivisjon. We had orened all of i the 7Enq'i isli Ranch and did not, find any leaks. tn t Is e ()n Antelope Road. The leak turned t be in f-J'e valveczat. ..he int-ev, section of Antelope and �':.q 1-1! win has submitted -a bi 1 1 to me for the wc.rk in the f R .) -F these b i I is have been paid a n d I request pa me n t. . That-J, �(,-u for y,-;-,-Ar Sincerely. William 0. Sarf ran B;--ir tr an 'I' Corr,F,an v n(-. ENGINEERING DEPT. NOTE: THIS REPRESENTS THE BEST QUALITY IMAGE POSSIBLE TAKEN FROM VERY POOR QUALITY ORIGINALS CITY OF FORT COLLINS M E M O R A N D U M DATE: September 3, 1992 TO Sandy O'Brien/Lesa Salmon, Financial Coordinator FROM: Marc Engemoen, Engineering Manager le RE Repayment for Extending Antelope Drive When Fox Meadows Subdivision was originally developed, a connection with future development to the north was planned at Antelope Drive. When the street improvements for Fox Meadows were constructed, the future connection was partially constructed as well, but did not extend all the! way north to the property line. Bill Bartran is now developing the property to the north, English Ranch. He was required to connect his development with Fox Meadows at Antelope at the boundary of his development. But because Antelope was only partly completed in Fox Meadows, the connection could not be made without additional construction on the Fox Meadows side. Because no provisions had been made with the developer of Fox Meadows to complete this connection when the property to the north developed in the future, it was determined that the City was responsible for the costs of completing this connection. Bartran agreed to construct the connection provided he was repaid for these costs. The construction has now been completed, and Bartran has submitted request for repayment supported by invoices for the work. I have reviewed the request and am in agreement with the quantities and costs. Please process payment to Bartran for the amounts shown on the requests. Funds for this payment should come from Minor Street Capital. Please let me know if there are any questions concerning this matter. cc: Mike Herzig No Text Building homes. Building tradition. December 15, 1992 Mike Herzig Planning Department City of Fort Collins 281 North College Fort Collins, CO 80524 Dear Mike: I'm writing in regard to the unpaid bill I submitted to the City for the payment of one-half the cost of the storm drain manhole installed next to Fox Meadows Subdivision. The engineering data requested by Storm Drainage was submitted and approved by them through verbal communication with Mr. Glen Schlueter. Please check this with Storm Drainage so my statement or $382.99 can be processed by your department. Attached is a copy of my letter of August 14, 1992. All other bills for oversizing have been paid and I have completed the off -site agreement with the Sewer Department. Sincerely, William D. Bartran \big Attachment 1644 Alcott St. • Fort Collins. CO 80525 • 3031223-22C0 00 C') 0 00 O 0 ,o Q o ry CN O 0� J 10 O 'O V o ' C) z LU W O J W D z W a z a r z a m M V CY) CD z W W z z LJ "' _J C U • x z v o J a W cr- o Cl- cc z a 3 W LLL. Z a H � F- Q MEMORANDUM To: Bill Bartran, Bartran Homes Inc. Dave Klockeman, Fort Collins Engineering Department From: Matt Delich Date: November 30, 1992 Subject: English Ranch collector street volume (File: 8635MEM1) This memorandum serves as an amendment to the "Johnson Farm Site Access Study," December 1986 and the memorandum "Spring Creek Farms Traffic Impacts," March 11, 1987. The name change to English Ranch was made a number of years ago. The original plan showed a collector street and a local street intersecting with Horsetooth Road. The local road access to Horsetooth Road was eliminated. This has a bearing on the traffic projection for the collector street. City of Fort Collins staff requested a new traffic projection for the collector street so that the pavement can be designed. A reassignment of the peak hour traffic was performed with the new street system. The two-way peak hour traffic on the collector street is projected to 150 and 190 vehicles in the morning and afternoon peak hour, respectively. The morning peak hour traffic was factored by 0.07 and the afternoon peak hour was factored by 0.09 to obtain the daily traffic projection. These factors are typical for the City of Fort Collins residential streets. The factors are also in line with factors reflected in Trip Generation, 5th Edition, ITE. The daily traffic projections derived from the two peak hour calculations were averaged, yielding an average weekday traffic volume of 2130 vehicles on the collector street just south of Horsetooth Road. It is recommended that this daily volume of 2130 be used to design the pavement for the collector street. Mr. Mike Herzig January 20, 1992 Page 3 (b) Water Lines: An oversized water line in the Kingsley Drive right-of-way has been required to serve property south of this development. The City should pay the cost of this line above an eight inch size which would be required for this project. That participation should be computed as provided in Section 26-371. The City has also required that Bartran extend a 12 inch water line from the main in Horsetooth Road north to serve the property on the north side of Horsetooth. Although I can not find a basis for imposing this requirement on Bartran & Co., it is willing to have this done as part of its work but the cost should be paid by the City. This is not an extension through the English Ranch property which City ordinances require in order to allow service to other properties, but rather it is an extension beyond the Bartran property to serve another developer. The requirement is apparently made in order to have this line installed before the street work is completed so that it will not be necessary to cut the street in the future. It would appear that the City should require the owner of the property on the south to pay for this extension as authorized by Section 26-370 of the City's ordinances. In any event, it should not be Bartran's cost. (c) Streets: The City has provided for its payment of oversize costs on Horsetooth Road. It should also pay oversize costs on Kingsley, which it is requiring be improved as a collector in order to meet off -site needs. Also, there should be a provision for City participation in paying for the oversize cost of the sidewalk on Horsetooth. '� The City, is also requiring that Bartran overlay the existing pavement on the north half of Horsetooth Road. Again, this is an off -site requirement which should be paid by the City. There are also some other provisions of the Agreement which we feel should be revised. These are the following: ►� (a) Bond: Section II D 2 on Page 6 of the Agreement requires bond or other guarantee to insure completion of public improvements in street rights -of -way. I have not been able to f ind an ordinance which authorizes this requirement. I understand that the City has started to make this requirement because of difficulties it had in getting improvements completed on two projects with which Wheeler was involved. It does not appear to me it is necessary to require a bond in order to insure that these improvements are installed. As you know, Bartran desires to install the Horsetooth Road improvements right away. Therefore, f:\wpc\aem\bartran Mr. Mike Herzig January 20, 1992 Page 4 I would request that you substitute a different requirement that the improvements be completed by a given date and also restrict the number of building permits which can be obtained before all of the improvements to Horsetooth Road are completed. This would seem like a proper way to insure that the improvements are timely installed, without adding unnecessary cost to the project. (b) Tracts A, B & C: These tracts are set aside for City facilities, including a walkway to provide access to public schools and drainage ponds. The City facilities required will prevent other usage of these tracts. Therefore, Bartran proposes to deed these tracts to the City. There is no valid reason for keeping them on the tax rolls since they will be devoted solely to public purposes. If they are not deeded to the City, they will ultimately be sold for taxes which would not seem desirable. I would request that the Agreement reflect the willingness of the City to accept a deed for these tracts. (c) Repayment from Street Oversizing Funds: In Part III D 1 on Page 5 of the Agreement, it is recognized that the City's obligation to pay oversize street costs only applies if the funds have been budgeted and appropriated by the Council. The Agreement, however, goes beyond that and requires that the developer agree to construct the improvements even though the City may not fully reimburse it. This does not appear to conform to Section 24-121 of the City ordinances. The ordinances specifically provide (as noted by the Agreement) that the City will not require construction, at developer's expense, of any oversize portion of streets not necessary to off -set traffic impacts of the development unless otherwise agreed by the City and the developer. A requirement imposed by the City, as a condition to allowing the development, is not an agreement as I understand that term. Rather, it is an imposition. Since the ordinances specifically provide that such requirement will not be imposed, I do not believe that this provision in the Agreement is proper. (d) Temporary Easement Over Lot 100 for Emergency Access: The Agreementrecites in part II D 3 on Page 6 that this easement will be automatically vacated upon construction and acceptance of another access. However, the plat, in its present form, does not provide for automatic vacation but rather appears to impose a requirement on the City that it vacate the easement at that ti'meZ1,.,' ` I would suggest the language on the plat be changed to accomplish { automatic vacation of this easement when the alternate access is provided. f:\wpc\aem\bartran Mr. Mike Herzig January 20, 1992 Page 5 Since this matter is on the agenda of the Planning and Zoning Board for its meeting on January 27. I will appreciate your early consideration of these matters. Please call me if you need more information or clarification of anything in this letter. We are available immediately to attend a meeting on any issue if that is desirable. By: AEM:cjs Sincerely yours, MARCH & PYAT'T--/PIIt . . E. Mdreh/ Jr. p.c. Steve Roy, City Attorney Steve Burkett, City Manager Rich Shannon, Director of Utilities (HAND DELIVERED) f:\wpc\aem\bartran Bmrbrm!3 Building homes. Building tradition. January 28, 1992 Director of Engineering City of Fort Collins 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 Attn: Gary Deide Gentlemen: I have broken out some estimated costs for the development work to be performed within the Horsetooth right-of-way adjoining the English Ranch Subdivision. They are as follows: Earthwork $ 10,000.00 16" Water Line at Kingsley 10,000.00 Curb, Gutter & Sidewalk 23,500.00 New Construction Paving 38,000.00 Overlay Paving 27,000.00 Field Engineering 4,000.00 TOTAL $ 112,500.00 Since there is a considerable portion of the above costs which will be borne by the City through oversizing and pay back agreements, I propose to present to the City a letter of credit of $67,000.00 as required by the development agreement. I have not attempted to compute all of the oversizing costs so in the interest of expediency I propose this to be a mutal 1 y agreeable figure. Please immediately advise me of your concurrance so I can proceed with the letter of credit. Sincerely, William D. Bartran Bartran & Company, Inc. 1644 Alcott St. • Fort Collins, CO 80525.303/223-2200 ARTHUR E. MARCH, JR. RAMSEY D. MYATT R08ERT W. BRANDIES, JR. RICHARD S. GAST LUCIA A. LILEY J. BRADFORD MARCH LINDA S. MILLER WILLIAM C. BEYERS DENISE L. SAATHOFF GLORYI BURNS Mr. Mike Herzig MARCH & MYATT, P.C. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 110 EAST OAK STREET FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524-2880 (303) 482-4322 TELECOPIER (303) 482-3038 January 29, 1992 ARTHUR E. MARCH 1909-1961 MAILING ADDRESS: (Ff Tt�O�Lr F.,; c6'60S22-0469. f ' A A..Y_� ........ter City Planning Department HAND DELIVERED 300 LaPorte Fort Collins, CO RE: Development Agreement for English Ranch Dear Mike: I am enclosing my letter confirming that approval of the subdivision plat for the English Ranch Development does not prejudice the City's rights or those of my client with regard to the development agreement, the terms of which have not yet been agreed upon. I spoke to you yesterday about the remaining unresolved issues which were covered by my letter of January 20. I reviewed these remaining issues with you and Greg Byrne in the City Attorney's office on January 23. At that meeting it was agreed that you would have the issues raised in my letter reviewed by the appropriate department and would get back to me after this had been done. Bartran & Co. desires to be -in development work as soon as possible. Before we can do this we need to reach agreement on the issues raised by my letter. In addition, I have learned of one more issue. The street pavement on Antelope Road in the Fox Meadows Subdivision, which adjoins the English Ranch on the west, was apparently not properly installed and has deteriorated. Bartran has been asked to re -do some of that street and has shown this work on the utility plans which it submitted. Since then Bill Bartran has :Learned that the street is in worse condition than he originally understood and the work shown on the utility plans is probably not adequate to remedy the defects in that street. He has also learned that the costs will be substantially more than originally anticipated. If only the 61 feet of repairs now shown on the plans are performed, the cost will exceed $7,300.00. In Mr. Bartran's opinion, the minimum work, which should be done to Mr. Mike Herzig January 30, 1992 Page 2 correct the problem, would amount to replacing approximately 86 feet of street. The cost anticipated for this amount of work will be almost $13,000.00. Bartran & Co. is willing to include this work under its contracts in order to assist the City in correcting these problems. However this is off -site work for which Bartran is not responsible. Therefore, we request that the City confirm it will pay all of the cost of this off -site work. We also request that the City review the condition of the street and determine the amount of work which is to be done. Bill Bartran advises me that he has also talked to you about the water limes and sewer lines which the utility plans require Bartran & Co. to install off -site. As noted in my earlier letter, Bartran & Co. should receive a re -pay agreement in connection with the sanitary sewer line it is extending to County Road Nine and the City should also pay the remainder of the off -site costs and over- size costs which were identified in part (a) on page 2 and (b) on page 3 of my letter. You told me in the meeting that the City did not normally put such detail in the development agreement. However, I note that the agreement, on the first page, references the requirement for the developer to install improvements primarily of benefit to other properties and Part B on page 2 provides that the developer is required to install all water lines and sanitary sewer lines shown on the utility plans. Part D on page 2 provides that such lines shall be shown on the utility plans and installed within the time established under special conditions. Part E on page 2 of the agreement further provides that the developer will pay for all water and sanitary sewer lines except as otherwise specifically agreed in the agreement. In view of these provisions, it seems to me to be imperative that the City insert provisions in the agreement requiring re -pay agreements and reimbursement by the City where appropriate. As I understand the purpose of the development agreement, it is to identify the obligations of both the City and the developer with respect to all improvements required. This can only be done if all of such obligations are established by the agreement. In order to begin construction by the middle of February, as now anticipated by Bartran, it will be necessary to enter into agreements with the contractors who will perform these improvements. In order to allow time for that process, we feel we need a response from the City by next week. I therefore request that a meeting be scheduled next week with you and other appropriate city personnel so that we can discuss and resolve these issues. Please advise me when such a meeting can be held and we will make arrangements to be there. I will not be in my office on Fri- Mr. Mike Herzig January 30, 1992 Page 3 day and, therefore, would appreciate it if you could get back to me today. Sincerelv yours. By: AEM/cjs p.c. Steve Roy, City Attorney Greg Byrne, Development Administrator