Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEVERGREEN PARK SECOND - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2003-07-31SCHOOL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROPOSAL: Evergreen Park Subdivision, Second Filing: Final Plat (C 9-76) DESCRIPTION: 166 single-family lots (North of Conifer St.) School Pupils Gemerated: Elementary - (166 units) x (.402 pupils/dwelling unit) = 67 Junior High - (106 units) x (.238 pupils/dwelling unit) = 40 Senior High - (166 units) x (.21.0 pupils/dwelling unit) = 35 TOTAL 142 Reserve Affected Schools, Capacity Enrollment Capacity Tavel.li Elementary 630 471 159 Lincoln Junior High 800 731 69 Poudre High School 1400 1260 140 Summary: Development of this proposal would have a significant impact upon the affected schools, especially Tavelli Elementary and Lincoln Junior High. The school district has no existing plans for further development of schools in the North- eastern area of. the City. 171 (.IIY OI IOIli (()l l IS PO. Box 580, fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Ph(303) 484-4220 Ext 728 ENGINEERING DIVISION May 1, 1980 Mr. Lyle Carpenter c/o Evergreen Park, A Joint Venture 1100 Broadwav, Suite 2120 Denver, Colorado 80202 Re: Subdivision Agreement Evergreen Park, 2nd Filing Dear Mr. Carpenter: We had several good construction days in April and the lack of construction activity within your Evergreen Park Subdivisions as it relates to the public right-of-wav was quite apparent. We would call your attention to Paragraph 6C of the referenced subdivision agreement wherein several street improvements are scheduled for completion on or before June 1, 1980. Completion includes sidewalks. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, *4aurice E. Rupel, P.E. & L.S. Assistant City Engineer - Development cc: Roy Bingman, Director of Engineering Services Dave Strinqer, (fief Construction Insr)ector 20 November_ 1.980 Project No. 97-1-1 / • II • • IW • • (,_i t.y of fort Collins En(lineering Services Division P.O. Box 580 1'ort Collins,, CO 80522 Al11): Mr. Mauri Rupel I)c�ir Maur.i_: I :n, wri , i nq t.kis letter in reference te, the Evergreen Par'. Project. l.s you are well aware, we have not comple t-(-�I Lho atudy to date as we had originally intended. Th r_e<rs-n t':st'_Idy has not been completed i,i .s that ll of our icd to complete the study have been devoting full t,imc t o t.`ie t.'e J, lino�? Dr�Anage I3asi_n Study for thy° City. The fact-- i s not completed is through no f;:ult of ei t ilc'r i,v.1c Carpenter. or IIvolboll-Johnson. I assure yoi.z that the study will be completed by o,.,.r_ farm i r� ;T'lnuary o f 1981. Our present schedule calls for compl-ti_011 -)I- tl.e W(-st Vine Drainage Basin Study by December 12, 1980. Our f-ii st: pr_ior.i'1_y upon cor,l>>_etion or the Priest Vine Study will 'ae c<m i>1 'ti_c)n o F the Evergreen Park Study. the anticipate completing the r:v-rcjrecn Park Studly by i.iiid January. I,yle Carpenter and Bud cord would like to receive two build.in(7 1)Ci-1nl is for .no; Lyle would like to receive an ad(.11t1_onaI hui 1d n(I pert it for an office -warehouse located south of the propos,,d Coachl fight Plaza P.U.D. Our interim drainage report for ;',undance, Second Fi lin(; states that the capacity of the pond hr,Lwec-n 1�(,dwo�>ol ncl BI_'ie SprLIGe as It n0',J exists l5 not slim i r-iOnl iC, illow -?ny Ii',or( dcvc-lopx;ont without a discharc-,e structure. li<nacvc.r, two �Idd.i.t-ionaJ_ bui_1dinI in Sundance would not affect th storm .runoff quantity to the ()--:ten that= any appreciable, Elddi_tional'. runoi'f wouli: en--er said pond. 7,he proposed office- wIir-etiousc, hui ldi_ig does not drain into the pond at all. There- fore, from �r technical ,-,pint. of view, I cwTnul.d ask that the huild:i ncr permi is bei.n,-I requested be granted. 3031221-3760 • 2020 A i rwav Ave. • Fort Collins, CO 80524 City of Fort Collins Attn: Mr. Mauri Rupel 20 November 1980 Pa(1c 2 ,,'Vj i i n I would like to assure you that the Ever(rr_een Park P) ) i.nage Stuuy will be completed in January. I am sure that this delay in completion of the study has caused you some inconvenience for which I apologize. If I can be of further �issi_stance, please advise. Very truly yours, I�;1:(: 1 ",11?EKING PROFESSIONALS, INC. hIi_chac,l N. Schmid, I'.T;. MNS/Ib cc: L-Ioir. Marc Engemoen 1r. Lyle Carpenter 23 February 1981 City of Fort- Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Attn: Mr. Mauri Runel L;ngineering Services Division Dear Mauri, I pengineering prcfeSionaiS L`7 A L: 2- J--j� IW K T am writing this letter at your request to discuss the impli- clations of allowing building to take place in Evergr�lcn Park, tiling. Approximately the eastern half of the subdivision (.trains to the partially constructed retention pond at the east end of L',vergr_een Park, Third Filing. The remainder of the subdivision drains to the partially constructed retention pond in thc, southeast corner of the. intersection or Redwood and Con ifc,r. Neither pond is capable as is, under present City of Fort Col -!ins drainage criteria, to facilitate a 100 year cesi,ln storm from the contributing drainage basins. The drainage h,-zsins contributing to these two partially constructed bonds are very flat. Therefore, no significant concentrations of Now other than at the ponds occurs. increased runoff due to ac:ditional development from a major storm would be an inconvenience, but it should not create any significant hazard to Fit-c or property. if you have any ef_:esti_ons, or if I can be of further_ assistance, please advise. Vary truly yours, I;NGINI,F'RTNG PROFESSIONALS, INC. Michael N. Schmid, P.E. rl-js/lb 30312_�'1-3700 * 2020 Airway Ave. ® Fart Collins, CO 80524 CITY" Of FOIzl ((H I IN-� ENGINEERING DIVISION 3 March 4, 1981 Mr. Lyle Carpenter Evergreen Park, A Joint Venture 1600 Broadway, Suite 2120 Denver, Colorado 80202 Dear Lyle: A follow-up letter is in dated February 20, 1981/ to clarify the letter sent to Ivan Giroux 4844220 Ext. 728 In��ter it s stated the City would not release any building permits i Ewer reen Pm-k.y It also required the developer to make a firm ccmitment to the City"T' re completion of the remaining public improvements. After review by a hydraulic engineer it has been determined that building permits can be released on an individual basis. The City does reserve the option to withhold building permits when it feels the building units will affect the required storm water detention systems. Sincerely, David Stringer Chief Construction Inspector cc: Roy Bingman ,/Plauri Rupel Bob Smith Ivan Giroux August 20, 1981 Mr. Ivan Giroux 3910 Jefferson Court Loveland, Colorado Mr. Giroux: irr lie Second F The following is in response t 6,.��est for the remaining 20 building permits for the east portion of the(_ergreen Park Seco ix in The City has reviewed your request and regretfully has to deny it until certain measures are taken. In the middle of April of this year, the City met with yourself and Mr. Carpenter, and at that time it: was understood that various improvements as required by the City would be constructed so as to release the remaining building permits in the Evergreen Park area. If not constructed, monies would be escrowed in an amount equal to the engineers' estimate for those improvements. To date, those improvements discussed at the meeting affecting the east portion of Evergreen Park 2nd have not been constructed and to our knowledge no monies have been bonded. To release your remaining 20 building permits, the facilities discussed must be roughed in to a functional state. Those facilities affecting the east portion of the Second Filing are: 1 - The common detention pond in the Evergreen Park 3rd Filing adjacent to Conifer Street. Engineers' estimate - $19,400. 2 - The temporary detention pond adjacent to the pond in the 3rd Filing. Engineers' estimate - $20,100. Certificates of occupancy will not be issued until those items identified above are final graded and accepted by the City. If you have any questions regarding the above, please feel free to contact me and I am looking forward to working with you in the future. Sincer ly, Robert w. Smith Assistant City Engineer - Drainage cc: Dave Stringer Mauri Rupel Paul Eckman Lyle Carpenter EVERGREEN PARK c 1GiOt) I>£i4?AI)WAY - S'dJITI: 2120 TsLNVER, COLORADO S0202 August 28, 1981 Mr. Robert W. Smith Assistant City Engineer City of Fort Collins P. O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Re: Evergreen Park 2nd Filing Dear Mr. Smith: I received a copy of your letter dated August 20, 1981 addressed to Mr. Ivan Giroux, Loveland, Colorado, advising that a request for 20 additional building permits had not been approved and specifically referring to additional work to be done on two detention ponds. I called your office and was advised that you were on vacation. I did discuss the matter with Mr. Rupel and suggested again my willingness to meet with you and discuss this matter. As you are aware, from our meeting last Spring, we agreed to once immediately work on the major items remaining in Evergreen Park Development and have since that time completed another half mile of foL,.rlane street and a substantial portion of the drainage work including the installation of three 30" concrete pipes under Redwood Street and excavation of much of the dirt work and detention ponds. Unfortunately, during the last 30 to 45 days we have been forced to curtail that work due to rising ground water tables. The ponds have, in part, filled with water. It would appear, we will be unable to continue excavation work until the irrigation ditches are shut down in September. I have not been aware that our progress in this regard was not acceptable to your office. If that is the case, I desire to discuss the matter immediately as it is our concern that Mr. Giroux and others developing in this sub- division be allowed to continue with the orderly development of their properties while this work continues. Some months ago I was advised that we would be formally advised of the approval of the development plan for the flood drainage program. Has that approval now been obtained? I was further advised that a program would be approved under which. Evergreen Park would be reimbursed for those portions of the many acres of ditches and detention ponds that were being built for the benefit of properties lying outside of our subdivision. Has anything further been done in this regard? Mr. Robert W. Smith Assistant City Engineer City of Fort Collins August 28, 1981 Page Two I believe the statement in your August 20, 1981 letter indicating that certificates of occupancy would not be issued until those two detention ponds were final graded to be in error as our last meeting indicated that we could not put these ponds in final form until such time as the outlet into the LeMay Street drainage system was engineered and approved or constructed. It is not my intention or desire to argue with you about this program, but to cooperate with you in the orderly development of this drainage project at a rate commensurate with the development. I will appreciate hearing from you as you get back from vacation to try to work out an acceptable program for the City and Evergreen Park that allows Mr. Giroux to continue with his development work. Sincerely, EVERGREEN PARK 2, a partnership BY: Lyie Carpenter LC/mm cc: Dave Stringer Mauri Rupel Paul Eckman Gene Fischer Ivan Giroux EVERGREEN PARK 1600 BROADWAY • SUITF; (4;0 .aYA `• '�'` DENVER, COLORADO 80202 March 11, 1982 Mr. Mauri Rupel Engineering Services Division City of Fort Collins P. O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Re: Development Agreements Evergreen Park Filings 1, 2 and 3 Dear Mr. Rupel: This letter will confirm our recent telephone conversation in which I requested that extension agreements be prepared for completion for certain of the public improvements in Evergreen Park Filing #1, #2 and #3. My records reflect that the existing extension agreements ran to January, 1982. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me. Sincerely, EVERGREEN PARK 2, a partnership BY: Lyl\ Carpenter i c ✓ LC/mm EVERGREEN PARK pyjv 1600 BROADWAY - SUITE %*" 660 DENV ER, COLORADO 80202 March 11, 1982 Mr. Mauri Rupel Engineering Services Division City of Fort Collins P. 0. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Re: Acceptance of Street Conifer Street Evergreen Park Subdivision Dear Mr. Rupel: This letter will serve as our formal request that the City of Fort Collins advise us in writing of the acceptance by the City of the above captioned fourlane street from College Avenue to Redwood Street, including that area at the inter- section of Blue Spruce Drive and Conifer Street running approximately 200 feet north. While the paving was completed last Summer; Sterling Paving Company either damaged or buried several water and sewer connections. We have had those repairs made by the C & B Plumbing Company. We are advised that verbally the City has approved these facilities. If there are any problems, please advise. Sincerely, EVERGREEN PARK 2, a partnership i BY: Lyie, C'arpenter'J LC/mm "r0 cc: Roy Bingman Les Kaplan A"% EVERGREEN PARK 1(i00 Itl:l)AI)WAY . SITI'FE. 212O 1)ENVER, COTA)RADO K0202 Mr. Robert Brunton, City Manager City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Fort Collins, Colorado Dear Mr. Brunton: July 27, 1976 o Fa JUL 2 9 19 6 CjfTy MANAGER Re t v *Mreen Park F l l i ng #2' I have been advised by our engineer that the revised final plat on OW above ca•ptI,oned project will be submitted to your planning and zoning staff ju.4y 2'.7, 1976As ypu; know,, due to the..proposed. highWa*'_44 b'ylrass, es'. I am advised that t e l'arge`amount of revisions required prevented us from completing the engineering sooner and, consequently, will not allow us to be put on the agenda for City Council until August 17, 1976. 1 have requested, in writing, another meeting with Dwight Bower, District Engineer of the Department of Highways at the earliest possible date. I have not as yet had a response from him. As you know, defining more specifically the proposed highway location is critical to our project. This highway destroys our traffic pattern, our drainage plan and access to some of our utilities. Our other concern, at the present time, is that we have Volunatrily co- operated with everybody to establish an unobstructed corridor but feel that there are others along this route, both in the City and in the County, who have no intention of giving the same degree of cooperation. V would appreci-ate you-r assurance that all departments of the City will aggressively work f .tthe protection of this corridor from other con siti tw ntJ ENGINEERING DEPT. NOTE: THIS REPRESENTS THE BEST QUALITY IMAGE POSSIBLE TAKEN FROM VERY POOR QUALITY ORIGINALS LC/mm Sincerely, EVERGREEN PARK, a joint venture.,, i BY:' Ly C rpenter EVERGREEN PARK f �•''� 1600 BROAD«'AI' •SUITE 660 f DELVER, COLORADO ;�(1202 �y March 11, 1982 Mr. Bob Lee Traffic Eng1 :i ,eying City of Fort Collins P. O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Re: ToeMay Street Extension Redwood Street Dear Bob: At a rrr eting in your conference room at 2:00 P. m. on Monday, January 11, 1982, we discussed the recc�'Ftended street cr_anaes effcct_ing Evergreen Park. As I advised you, we are in design of a subdivision to be located east of Red.wc�d Street, south of Conifer Street and north of Lake Canal. We v.ere ad,,_sed that within apprc->.imately 30 days we would be able to obtain the City's approval of a plan for a frontage road tore -place the La,,;ay Street i tprove ent plan as recx 7uended by the transportation consulting -"irm. Vle were further advised that the City would like to reduce pro,;:x-)sed Pedv.00d Street from a fourlane collector to a tawolane street. We had hoped to contract for the installation of a box culvert in Lake Canal prior to the irrigation season, which would have allowed P.edwood Street to I}a developed during 1982. If any of the above matters can be addressed, we need that response idiately. As you are aware, curbs and gutters for fourlane street in Redwood have been installed. We are now advised t-iat our efforts to cooperate with the long range elan are being considered a default under development agreer-Lents with the City and pose a threat of legal actions and dur:aaes to us. Your pro ipt response to request for inforr-atlon will be appreciated. Sincerely, EG7ERGPEEN PARK 2, a partn"ershi�_ By: Ly3 e Carpenter LCATM .s r. 1 111S TRAN'SPORTA-1ION SERVICES March 17, 1982 Mr. Lyle Carpen"--er Evergreen Park 1600 Broadway Suite 660 Denver, CO 80202 Dear Mr. Carpenter: This letter is in response to your correspondence dated March 11, 1982, concerning Lemay Street Extension and Redwood Road. In our meeting on the above date, the City advised you that a transportation study v-as currently underray for the area bounded by Conifer Street, College Avenue, and Riverside Avenue. The study is scheduled to be completed about the first of Ilay, and at that time, it will go to Council for review. In reviewing your letter and our meeting, I have the following comments. The City did not indicate that they plan to reduce Redwood Road from an existing four -lane collector to a two-lane street. The intent was to adjust the street pattern and width to fit the service area's needs. It is my understanding that the consultant will be arranging a meeting with you within the nex"- two weeks, and that you are scheduled to have a meeting with the City the week of March 15. Should you have any additional questions, this meeting would be the appropriate time to provide them. Mauri Rupel, Development Engineer in the Department of Public ',,forks, handles the new development projects. Any correspondence or concerns regarding the Evergreen project involoving City standards, contractural agreements, and subdivision agreements should be handled through Mauri. Sincerely, Robert L. Lee Director of Transportation Services P.LL/nw cc: Tom Nays Mauri Rupel Roger Krempel CITY OF FORT COLLINS P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Ph 303 484-4220 Ext. 72om ENGINEERING DIVISION March 18, 1982 Don Parsons Parsons & Associates 1405_S. College, Suite 6 Ft Collins, CO 80524 Mr. Parsons, Recently City staff met with Mr. Lyle Carpenter and Mr. Ivan Giroux regarding Evergreen Park Second Filing and the release of additional building permits. The completion of the most easterly detention pond and its outlet works was one of the several areas discussed. The main concern with this pond was the feasibility of transporting runoff around the buried concrete electrical duct bank. It was understood your firm, Parsons & Associates, has performed a field survey verifying the feasibility of this concern. It was agreed by everyone present, that I would contact you and request that we, as soon as possible, meet and review the information and find the best possible solution to the concern. Once a solution is selected the construction to finish the pond would proceed inmediately. I am looking forward to working with you on this project. Sincerely, Robert w. Smith Assistant City Engineer - Drainage cc: Lyle Carpenter Paul Eckman Ivan Giroux /Mauri Rupel �...o.�.—•-_--= Ph 303 484-4220 Ext. 728 CI Ty OF FORT COLLINS P.O. Box S80, Fort Collins, Colorado 80822 ENGINEERING DIVISION March 18, 1982 Evergreen 2 Partnership 1600 Broadway, Suite 660 Denver, Colorado 80202 Re: Evergreen Park - 2nd Filing Attention: Mr. Lyle Carpenter Dear Lyle: Thank you for your considerable effort to revise the subdivision agreement for Evergreen Park, 2nd Filing, the past two weeks. As a result of our meting yesterday, we feel that an equitable solution has been reached and development will be allowed to proceed in a short time. Confirming our camlitmnt of yesterday, the seven (7) feet wide "meandering" sidewalk on the north side of Conifer Street from Lemay Avenue to Sugarpine Street should be changed to a four (4) feet wide straight sidewalk whose southern edge should be a minimum of three feet, six inches (3'-6") north of the back of the curb, along the north side of Conifer. Again, thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Maurice E. Rupel, P.E. & L.S. Assistant City Engineer - Development cc: W. Paul Eckman, Assistant City Attorney Tom Hays, City Engineer Ivan Giroux Dave Stringer, Chief Construction Inspector EVERGREEN PARK 1600 BROADWAY • SI'IT GO) �/ `•�'"'`� DENVER. COLORADO SH202 March 30, 1982 Mr. Mauri Rupel Chief Engineering Division City of Fort Collins P. o. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Re: Amendment to Development Agreement Evergreen Park 2nd Filing Dear Mauri: I have had brief telephone conversations with Dave Stringer and Paul Eckman regarding what appears to be a single problem with our amended agreement and that concerns retention ponds A and B. Please accept this as a formal request for your approval to 1) relocate the outlet to the south and west where the engineers have determined the City's underground electrical vault provides the greatest clearance and 2) the right to increase the size of the overflow pond, pond B to provide for any deficiency created by our inability to agree with the R. E. A. for the relocation of the pole in Pond A. I am waiting for a letter from the R. E. A., which Jim Burns, of that office, stated would provide that they will not give us a figure for the relocation of that pale nor agree to do the w�r_k until we a) provide them with some additional easements (undis- closed location) b) install concrete curb cuts and driveways to the Bureau Substation (oversized) and c) pay "an old bill" for the undergrounding of electrical services to a property on the north side of Willox Lane. Apparently, a family by the name of Davis requested the service, would pay the bill, and now the R. E. A. Nays that bill should be our expense and a condition of relocating the pole. I, again, called Mr. Burns today requesting said letter and was advised the letter required their legal counsel approval before it could be sent to us. Mr. Maori Rupel Chief Engineering Division City of Fort Collins March 30, 1982 Page TWo R. E. A. cites as their authority to charge other bills to Evergreen Park a 1974 agreement under which they contend that the City of Fort Collins has given them complete authority to relocate lines, build new facilities, etc.and charge them to Evergreen Park. Evergreen Park would like to request that a complete review be made of any and all communications or agreements with the R. E. A. It is our opinion that any previous efforts to use common easements or joint facilities nave long since been terminated. I am happy to meet with you or any representative of the City at your convenience to discuss our request that formal action be taken terminate any prior agreement that would not a:Llow for the use of bids, good business practices, and the agreement of the developer, the City and R. E. A. Sincerely, EVERGREEN PARK 2, a partnership BY: Lyle'Va�enter, p�tner LC/rtm ( IIY OI I i)IZ1 C OI l II�� P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Ph(303) 484-4220 Ext. 725 Tom: ENGINEERING DIVISION September 23, 1982 Mr. Lyle Carpenter c/o Evergreen Park, A Joint Venture 1600 Broadway, Suite 2120 Denver, Colorado 80202 Mr. Carpenter: The following is in regard to the completion of the drainage improvements in pond OA of the Evergreen Park 2nd filing and the issuance of the remaining building permits for said development. I have attached correspondence from Mr. Bob Lenz of Parsons & Associates, and a map of the area to help explain the City's position on the matter. To date the inflow rip rap channel entering the pond on the northeast corner from Conifer Street is completed according to plan. The sides of the pond have .)een graded also according to plan, except for the cross hatched area depicted on the attached map. The bottom of pond OA remains to be completed. Also pond OB has been completed according to the accepted plans. The City recognizes that certain conditions persist that prohibit the pond to be completed at this time, and are willing to accept certain conditions to guarantee pond OA completion. The City has no problem with the issuance of the remaining building permits for the east drainage basin in the Evergreen Park second filing provided a letter of credit, bond or escrow, is provided in an amount equal to 150 percent of the estimated construction cost to remove the excess material along the southern edge of the pond, and the completion of the bottom of the pond. The estimated cost should be based on an engineer's estimated cost to perform the described work. Please call me as soon as possible on the above as we would like to resolve the matter in the near future. Sincerely, Robert W. Smith Assistant City Engineer - Storm Drainage Attachments cc: Bob Lenz Ivan Giroux CITY OF FORT COLLINS ICI • • • It DATE: September 27, 1982 TO: Felix Lee, Chief Building Inspector FROM: Bob Smith, Assistant City Engineer - Storm drainage RE: Building permits - Evergreen Park, 2nd Filing Please be advised the developer of Evergreen Park, 2nd Filing, Mr. Lyle Carpenter, has performed to a level of completion such that building permits may be released upon request for the 2nd Filing. This does not relieve the developer of the standard re- quirements of the permit process. This release is only applicable to drainage, the normal conditions to water, sewer, paving, curb and gutter, etc. still apply. cc: Dave Stringer Lyle Carpenter Ivan Giroux W. Paul Eckman Bob Lenz CITY OF FORT COLLINS MEMORANDUM DATE: August 17, 1983 TO: Virgil Taylor, Parks $ Recreation THRU: Tom Hays, City Engineer FROM: Dave Stringer, Chief Construction Inspecto i'a- RE: Median Maintenance - Evergreen Park 2nd In 1976 the City approved the Evergreen Park Subdivision, 2nd Filing. Included in this approval are the median islands on Foxtail Street. However, through researching / the subdivision agreement and utility plans, the maintenance of the Foxtail medians was not addressed. A portion of these medians have been constructed since 1978 and as far as can be determined, have not received any maintenance either by the City or developer. Recently, the adjacent property owners have complained to the City Engineer's office requesting these medians be maintained. As previously stated, the City failed to address the maintenance question in 1976, so it now appears the City is responsible for the maintenance. I would appreciate your putting these medians on your maintenance schedule as soon as possible. .�.WnoYNVY4iUN wn ...:,.Hsrr Y+r�S�ii.rs .MtNY+�ms.�2b �5r .�C dru :: •a= �,.x�,..�s.`.n+: :..�' ..w ....a,^aw,. _ — iJ III O{ I OIZI ( ()I I Iti5 1' O huti >5U; Fort ( ul n,, ( olm Uu �0�_'_ 1'hl 3�)> �51 �ZZO Ext.7 S 7AMaC►Wsw�aMtra'f:—.wuuxa mr... STORM WATER U111.ITY December 7, 1983 Carpenter and McAleer Associates Attn: Lyle Carpenter 1600 Broadway, Suite 660 Denver, Colorado 80202 Dear Mr. Carpenter: In a letter from this office dated September 30, 1983, you were given notice to remove weeds and rubbish which had accumulated in Tract C of Evergreen Park, 3rd Filing, and were allowed 15 days' time to comply. Upon your failure to do so, the City of Fort Collins caused such work to be done at a total cost of $113.66 (see attachments). I have assumed that this is precisely the course you wished to take, given the inconvenience associated with making arrangements for such removal from your Denver office. A check from you for $113.66 will resolve this matter quickly and simply. However, I am compelled to withhold all future building permits in Evergreen Park, 2nd Filing, until this amount is paid so that the City's interests are fully protected. As always, we are grateful for your cooperation. Please don't hesitate to call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Michael H. Mercer Stormwater Utility Engineering Services Attachments cc: Felix Lee Dave Stringer C I T Y O F F O R T C 0 L L I N S MEMOI-ANDUM DATE: August 17, 1976 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Robcrt L. Brunton, City Manager RF: Evergreen Park Subdivision, Second Filing, Final Plat The Second Filing of Evergreen Park Subdivision consists of 166 lots on 64.4 acres zoned R-L-P, located between Lindenmeier Road and Redwood Street to the north of East Vine Drive. A considerable number of problems have occurred concerning this development. One of the more critical ones is the location of the Central Fort Collins Expressway. On July 12, 1976, we received a letter from the State Department of Highways stating that the corridor for the Expressway will be south of Conifer Street, On July 26, 1976, we received a copy of a letter stating that the BA corridor would be designated for the Expressway. We will continue to monitor this problem, but some problems will exist while trying to get all issues resolved until the State has the final right of way for the Expressway designated. It appears that the earliest this will be known is late spring of 1977._ At its July 12 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended approval of the Second Filing with the understanding that the utility plans would be prepared and approved by the City Engineer and that there would be a long-term maintenance agreement for the BOR easement. Recommendation: The Administration recommends that the City Council approve the Final Plat of the Evergreen Park Subdivision, Second Filing. 16 Message' Subject: North Lemay Sidewalk Sender: Marc ENGEMOEN / CFC52/01 Part 1. TO: Gary DIEDE / CFC52/01 Part 2. Gary, ~� Dated: 10/06,08 at 1500. A / Contents: 2. You and Jody were looking for some additional information concerning the sidewalk along North Lemay in the vicinity of the Evergreen Park and Greenbriar developments. Previously I had estimated the cost of detached concrete sidewalk on the west Street north to tie in to the sidewalk be $25,000 to $28,000. This high cost that we would probably have to condemn such a walk. installing a five foot wide side of the road from Conifer on the Greenbriar property to was due in part to the fact the Thomas property to construct You asked me to look into the cost of installing the concrete sidewalk along the Evergreen Park frontages where the existing R.O.W. would permit such construction, and then constructing an asphalt shoulder along the frontage of the Thomas property, avoiding the need to acquire this R.O.W. I have completed this estimate, and the cost of such construction would be approximately $16,000. Approximately 800 feet of this sidewalk would be concrete and could be incorporated into the permanent improvements when North Lemay is eventually widened. The 450 feet of asphalt shoulder along the Thomas property would be a temporary improvement, and would be lost when Lemay is widened' I also ran through a calculation for the cost of installing an asphalt shoulder along the entire length in question, just for a comparison' The cost of this temporary improvement would be $11,000. But I would certainly not recommend this option because of the very temporary nature of the im- provements' the maintenance problems associated with it, and the fact that it really doesn't present much of a solution in terms of meeting the needs of pedestrians. Jody also asked if the City has any other leverage to make developers fulfill their commitments to install public improvements (other than holds on permits). The City could require developers to bond or otherwise guarantee the construction of their development related improvements, as some other cities do However, this matter has been discussed many times over the past decade, and the City has never felt this requirement would be palatable to the development community. I spoke to Mike Herzig this morning, and he agreed that there would be some advantages in trying to get bonds or guarantees for at least the construction of our arterial streets, since the type of problem illustrated by the Evergreen Park sidewalk most often arises in conjunction with arterials. Perhaps the City Manager or the E-team would like to consider such a proposal. If you are interested in pursuing this, we should get together with Mike H. and discuss it further. Jody asked what it would take in this particular situation to get the developer to install the improvements. Based on my experience with this developer over the past decade, the answer to that is fairly simple --it would Seriously` this situation is very much like our problem with getting Wheeler Drake �ad west of Taft Hill--onl worse, because of the Realty to constructt a� ivity in this area We wo"^d probably have to lack of any development ` . sue the developer, and depending on his financial situation, the outcome of such an action is anyo'e's guess. If you want us to pursue this matter I'll get together with Mike Herzig and Paul vigorously with the devel�per, Eckman and see what steps we need to take at this time. The big question in deciding whether or not to go after the developer in this matter would seem to be how badly the proposed street improvements are needed at this time If this same street were included in the Choices 95 process, for example,^I sincerely doubt it would rate high enough to receive any City funding in the next five to seven years. How convincing an argument can be made then for forcing the developer to construct the road at this time? Well, I've probably given you more than you even wanted. Let me know how I should proceed in this matter, or if you have any more questions. Marc End of Item 1. evergreen / Message. Dated: 09/13/88 at 1558. Subject: Lemay Sidewalk Sender: Marc ENGEMOEN / CFC52/01 Contents: 2. Part 1. TO: Gary DIEDE / CFC52/01 Part 2. Gary, You asked me to look into the cost of installing sidewalk along the west side of North Lemay Avenue between Conifer Street and the south boundary of the Greenbriar development. The area is approximately 1000 feet in length. The south 600 feet is part of the Evergreen Park 2nd Filing development, and the 50 foot wide R.O.W. for this half of Lemay has been dedicated. The north 400 feet has not redeveloped since being annexed to the City, and only a 30 foot wide R.O.W. has been dedicated along this frontage. The additional 20 feet of R.O.W. would be required to construct the proposed, detached sidewalk. The developer of Evergreen Park 2nd is responsible for the construction of the street improvements, including a four foot wide sidewalk along his portion of Lemay. According to an agreement dated March 31, 1982, this work was to have been completed no later than January 1, 1985. There has been no development activity on this property for a number of years, so we have been unable to enforce this agreement by withholding any construction permits. Based on my experience with this development over the last ten years, I believe it would be extremely difficult to force the developer to construct the walk at this time. And even if the City constructs the street improvements and sidewalk, I wonder how much success we will have in obtaining any repayment for these improvements' The City has had a somewhat stormy relationship with the property owner on the north. Recently, we had to acquire an` estimate tor one value ot one property. yur it we want to construct the sidewalk at this time, I suspect the property owner will be very diffic` t ,to work with. It would It surprise me if we were unable to rL^ch an acceptable settlemen`, and were forced to acquire the necessary R.O.W. through condemnation. I should note that the 223 foot stretch of Lemay just south of Conifer is very similar to the Evergreen Park 2nd situation' This is a portion of Evergreen Park 3rd Filing. While there has been some talk of a commercial development on this corner, there do not appear to be any immediate plans for construction. Since the situations with the 2nd and 3rd Filings are very similar, in developing a cost estimate for the sidewalk, I have developed one alternate which includes this 223 foot stretch of Evergreen Park 3rd, and one alternate which does not. Alternate One: Construct a 5 foot wide detached concrete sidewalk from Conifer north to connect with the existing sidewalk in the Greenbriar development. Sidewalk Embankment R.O.W. Design/Survey Contingency TOTAL Alternate Two: 5275 sf $ 10,550 131 cy 1,180 8280 sf 8,280 10 percent 2,000 15 percent 3,300 $ 25,310 Same as Alternate One, but with the addition of 223 feet of walk south of Conifer Street. Sidewalk 6390 sf $ 12,780 Embankment 160 cy 1,440 R.O.W' 8280 sf 8,280 Design/Survey 10 percent 2,250 Contingency 15 percent 3,710 $ 28 460 TOTAL , With either one of the alternates, the construction of this sidewalk stil leaves us far short of providing continuous pedestrian access along this segment of Lemay. With the fairly large cost of these improvements, I think we would have to look seriously at the benefits of the construction before we proceeded. Please let me know if you have any questions, or if you need additional information. End of Item 1. misc > Citv in er M E M O R A N D U M DATE: October 28, 1988 TO: Gary Diede, City Engineer FROM: Jon Ruiz, Management Assistant!,\✓ RE: Sidewalk Construction Along North Lemay I. Background Last week, you asked me to look into the possibility of extending the sidewalk along the west side of North Lemay from Conifer Street to Forest Hills Lane. Specifically, you were interested in finding out 1.) who is responsible for improving the western portion of North Lemay from approximately 500 hundred feet south of Conifer north to Forest Hills Lane, 2.) what the developers' responsibility is for the construction of a bridge for North Lemay over the Lake Canal located south of Conifer, 3.) who has current ownership of the land immediately adjacent to North Lemay, on the west, from Conifer to Forest Hills, and 4.) how much of the area along this stretch is undeveloped. The findings below address all four questions in detail. The summarized findings, however, suggest that both the developers and the City would have financial obligations to ensure the construction of a sidewalk along the entire length of the west side of North Lemay from just south of Conifer to Forest Hills Lane. II. Findings Enclosed with this memorandum is a simple drawing of the developments and properties along the west side of North Lemay between Conifer and Forest Hills Lane. This drawing is intended to be a simplistic overview of the area and is not to scale. However, it does provide an easy way to refer to the developments and properties along this stretch of North Lemay. The discussions below refer to this drawing. A. Greenbriar P.U.D. 1. Development Agreement between First Interstate Bank of Fort Collins (the Developer) and the City of Fort Collins was entered into on July 18, 1985. First Interstate Bank is also the owner of the property. As per the agreement: - The Developer agreed to install and pay for all streets, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks as shown on the approved utility plans in full compliance with the standards and specifications of the 300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. 13o\ 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 22t-0505 City. The approved utility plan includes the west side of Lemay adjacent to the property. - The City agreed to repay the Developer for oversizing Lemay Avenue to arterial standards in lieu of local street standards. 2. The sidewalk along the west side of North Lemay adjacent to Greenbriar P.U.D. has been constructed. B. Private Property (Thomas Property) 1. Currently, a single-family residence along with several private buildings set on this piece of property. There is not a sidewalk along North Lemay adjacent to the property. 2. Section 24-36 of the City Code states that sidewalks, curbs, and gutters may be constructed by the owners of property abutting upon them and at their expense. I could not find where it was required for a property owner to construct a sidewalk along the front of his/her private property. 3. If the City would like a sidewalk along this portion of North Lemay, my research shows that the City would have to incur the costs of construction or be able to provide justification for establishing a Special Improvement District (SID). However, this is easier said then done. Currently, the City does not own enough right-of-way along North Lemay to construct a sidewalk along the property line. My understanding is that the owner of the property is not agreeable to selling the amount of right-of-way required. This would leave the City with three options, 1.) wait for the property to be redeveloped in the future and require the new developer to make the improvements along North Lemay, 2.) begin condemnation procedures to acquire the requisite right-of-way, or 3.) establish a SID. The first option may take years, the second option could be costly to the City, and the third option may be difficult to justify. Rather than a sidewalk, the City could "foot the bill" to widen the asphalt along this stretch. This may or may not meet specific needs. C. Evergreen Park P.U.D. Second Filing 1. The original agreement between the Developer (Evergreen Park 2) and the City, dated December 2, 1976, as amended by a March 31, 1982 amendment, is the most current agreement on file. (The March 31, 1982 amendment deleted an earlier amendment in its entirety.) As per agreement: - The Developer agreed to install all streets shown in the utility plan, complete with asphalt paving, curb, gutter, and sidewalks, in full compliance with the standard specifications of the City. North Lemay, adjacent to this Filing, is included on the utility plan. - All street improvements were to be constructed at the sole expense of the Developer except that the City would pay the added expense of improving North Lemay as an arterial and Conifer Street as a collector rather than as residential streets. Despite the City's participation in these street improvements, as per Sections 29-679 and 29-680 of the City Code, the Developer is still responsible for improving the pavement, curbs, gutters, and ' i fi n,•J at.r, r^enY .11 ��...:ir-_r-J_. - The completion of North Lemay improvements was not required until tuff c stud i es ;,ao i�een compl e Ced (at tree City' s expense) or on January 1, 1985, whichever came first. - If the improvements were not completed on time, the City had the right to have additional work done to complete improvements in a satisfactory manner and the Developer would be liable for the costs of the work. 2. A sidewalk is not currently constructed along this portion of the development. 3. The Second Filing is only about half developed. The problem is there just has not been any real action out there for some time now. The property may be redeveloped at some point, and it may be possible to tie the improvements on North Lemay to such a redevelopment. Although the City did not exercise its option to cause the improvements to be completed in a satisfactory manner, the City can probably withhold the issuance of future certificates of occupancy until the improvements are completed as per the agreements. The completion of the improvements would then be contingent upon the Developer developing the remaining portion of the Filing. This may not be soon enough to meet specific needs. 4. The options available to the City to complete the improvements along this section of North Lemay include: 1.) establishing a SID, 2.) absorbing the costs for the improvements, 3.) trying to sue the Developer for the completion of the improvements based on the development that has occurred thus far, or 4.) waiting for the remaining portion of the plat to be developed. - Establishing a SID may be difficult to justify. If taken in conjunction with the Thomas Property it may be easier to justify; however, the purpose for needing a sidewalk along the entire stretch may be called into question. - Absorbing the costs could be expensive but could be coordinated with the eventual upgrading of North Lemay to arterial standards. - Suing the Developer may turn out to be "throwing good money after bad" given.the past track record of the Developer. - If a sidewalk is necessary now along this stretch of North Lemay, waiting may not be an option. However, waiting may be the cheapest option, and, if selected, Paul Eckman recommends that the agreement be recorded as well as a "notice of development prohibition" similar to the one recorded some years ago regarding Foothills Park resubdivision. D. North Lemay P.U.D. 1. An agreement between the City, and Retland, Inc. the DevelooerN and Dieioris ana Idi ibur i;abcOCK (the owners) was entered into on March 24, 1988. As per the agreement: - the Developer agreed to install all streets, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks as shown on the approved utility plans, and in compliance with the standards and specifications of the City subject to a three year time limitation from the date of execution of the agreement. North Lemay, adjacent to this property, is included on the utility plans. - The City agreed to reimburse the Developer for oversizing Lemay Avenue for the difference between residential street standards and arterial street standards for that portion of Lemay Avenue from the center line of Conifer Street to the south property line of the site. As discussed previously, the Developer is still responsible for improvements, to include paving, curbing, gutters, and sidewalks, to bring street up to residential standards. 2. When the property is developed, the Developer is responsible for making the necessary improvements to North Lemay, to include the sidewalk. Unless a sidewalk is needed sooner, the City should wait for the property to be developed. 3. The bridge for North Lemay over the Lake Canal is located near the south boundary of this P.U.D. The distribution of costs for constructing the bridge is not addressed in the March 24, 1988 agreement. However, an agreement between the City and Evergreen Park 2 (December 15, 1977), for the Third Filing included responsibilities for construction of the bridge. Provisions of this second agreement included: - The Developer (Evergreen Park 2) agreed to participate in the improvements to the bridge equal to one -forth of the total cost to construct the bridge. - The bridge was to be completed no later than within two years following the completion of an agreement between the Ditch Company and the City relative to the crossing. This agreement has not been completed. 4. Unfortunately, because the costs and responsibilities for construction of the -bridge are not mentioned in the March, 1988 agreement, it is doubtful that the City can avoid paying the total costs associated with its construction. (Unless a SID is established which would include improvements to the bridge.) Conversations with Paul Eckman suggest that it is unlikely that the City can hold Evergreen Park 2 to the original agreement. Their property no longer abutts North Lemay, thus they could argue that they do not have a responsibility for improvements along North Lemay, including the bridge. And, because the bridge was not mentioned in the agreement for the North Lemay Plaza, they do not have responsibility for those improvements as a part of their development agreement. Paul fl91 iPVPc t.� �t t�p r,s y! �P /O� man+ r _ ^en+ :'ioli� ^nt J� }t. z Jr; i one as to North Lemay Plaza unaer the legal theory of "novation." iiI. summary Responsibility for the improvements along the west side of North Lemay from just south of Conifer to Forest Hills Lane varies between the City and the Developer. The sidewalk along the northern section is complete while the portion from the southern boundary of the North Lemay Plaza P.U.D. to the northern boundary of the Evergreen Park P.U.D. Second Filing has yet to be completed. North Lemay has yet to be upgraded to arterial standards along the entire stretch. The City has not exercised its right to cause the improvements to be completed within the established timeframes of various agreements between the City and the Developers, particularly Evergreen Park 2. Because of this, it is doubtful that the City can now force the Developer to complete the improvements to the bridge over the Lake Canal. For these improvements the City will probably have to "foot -the -bill" if and when the improvements are deemed necessary. However, the City may be able to withhold certificates of occupancy for the remaining development within Evergreen Park P.U.D. Second Filing until the requisite improvements are completed. An alternative option is to establish a SID along this stretch of road; however, it may be difficult to justify. Improvements along the Thomas Property would require the acquisition of additional right-of-way. Currently, the City does not own enough right-of-way to properly construct a sidewalk. If the owner would not want to sell any property to the City, condemnation procedures could be initiated. The costs of such procedures could very well outweigh the benefits. Other options for this stretch could include establishment of a SID or widening the asphalt without constructing a sidewalk. This report does not address the larger question of whether or not the strc:—it ;... ^r "-In_ sik really are required at tnis time. Ii' they are the City should be prepared to incur some of the costs for the upgrade. If you have further questions or comments please contact me. IV u b. F-4 t)eve o ,ent Services ,'Linnin.; Oevariment November 8, 1989 Doug Anderson Coldwell Banker Everitt Co. Real Estate 2900 S. College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80525 Dear Doug: As per your request. I am sending you the information on the development of the remainder of the lots in Evergreen Park "rid Filing. The utility plans for Evergreen Park, 2nd Filing, were approved in November of 1976 and some of the public improvements were constructed within the two years of approval. The public improvements that are not constructed at this time will need to be completed before a building permit can be issued for the remaining lots. Sense the Utility Plans for this development have expired, a new or revised set of plans using the current City of Fort Collins standards will need to be submitted and approved before improvements are constructed. Also, the proposed improvements on North Lemay will need to be constructed before building permits will be released. The City will participate in the design and construction of North Lemay through the street oversizing fund. The above comments are relating only to Engineering Department items. I would suggest that you sign up for a Conceptual Review time slot by contact- ing the Planning Department at 221-6750. This will allow you to get comments from all affected City Departments. If you have any questions, please call me at 221-6750. Sincerely, Rick Richter Civil Engineer RR/gjt • Fart C llin;, r C1 <tii R(1 ;;i;) "'�l-h7;o ( � �� '%• 7��2 w �' i„' � ems+ t' �--- �\� -a� �i / / z-s . s-•�rrx7r: avir;x+• _ _ r x7ls ml7?d9 • 4-'y�-- �ru�.,a'a� _ post Office Box 580 Telephone 303 484-4220 Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 January 6, 1978 Fritz Jackson Northeast Engineering 817 E. Douglas road Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 To Whom It May Concern: It is standard policy for the City of Fort Collins to accept for perpetual maintenance those public right-of-way constructions which have been approved by the City and which have passed all required guarantee periods. This includes the water mains, sanitary sewer mains, storm sewer mains, street pavements, street lights, ,and street signs in the Evergreen Park 2nd Subdivision EMP: cs Sincerely, Donald i M. Parso City Engineer TIME CENTER OF THE WORLD Comm- tv Planning and Environmental rvices Engineering Department City of Fort Collins June 9, 1993 Mr. Greg Scott Classic Custom Builders Inc. 605 S. College Av. Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Dear Greg: As per your request in our June 7, 1993 conversation, I am notifying you in writing of the items at Evergreen Park 2nd filing Phase 1 that need corrected and installed. 1. The fire hydrant at 636 Foxtail Street needs to be raised to the proper elevation as per the City of Fort Collins Water Utilities Standard Construction Specifications. 2. The fire hydrant at 636 Foxtail Street needs to be repaired to correct the leakage past the o-rings in the bonnet. 3. Gravel filters need placed across the flow lineof the curb and gutter on both the North and South side of Foxtail Street as per the notes on page 2 of 4 of the project plans. Please be informed this letter does not relieve the developer or the contractors of their responsibility towards any punchlist items not mentioned or any warranties. Sincerely, Todd Juergens Engineering Construction Inspector 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-h60 CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATE: October 10, 1978 TO: Roy Bingman, Director of Public Works THRU: Donald M. Parsons, City Engineer lq — FROM: Bob Smith, Drainage Engineer 9F�;, RE: Off -site drainage for Greenbriar P.U.D. As the City approaches a limit in its ability to provide adequate public service for its urban area, the frequency of new development occurring adjacent to existing subdivisions increases. Often, such existing sub- divisions were designed and constructed in accordance with standards and specifications; less stringent than those presently in use. This is true in the case of urban storm drainage, particularly as it relates to surface runoff. At its August 24th meeting, the Storm Drainage Board discussed an example of the problems associated with this type of situation. The Second Filing of Evergreen Park Subdivision, which is presently under construction, was apparently approved without requiring that adequate provisions be made to allow for the passage of historical drainage through the site. Such provisions have become critical in view of the City's present policy of directing storm runoff toward natural drainageways. Greenbriar P.U.D., a proposed development directly north of Evergreen Park 2nd, has discovered in the course of a preliminary drainage analysis that this presents a serious problem with regard to the discharge of its storm runoff. The direction of the historical drainage for this area is generally southerly, through both Greenbriar and Evergreen Park toward Dry Creek. The development of Evergreen Park 2nd has essentially blocked the natural flow of surface runoff. This problem may be corrected by means of a number of engineering solutions. The real issue is to determine an equitable distribution of the financial responsibilities associated with these solutions. To date, the City has required development to pay its own way, relieving the City of any sub- stantial responsibility. There are basically three alternatives in dealing with these situations: (1) Require the developer to pay for the complete drainage system which will channel his storm runoff to a suitable outlet. Depending on the location of the development, such an outlet may be either on- or off -site. (2) Require the City to participate directly in the costs of these drainage systems. RE: off -site drainage for Greenbriar P.U.D. Page 2 (3) Establish a fee based upon the estimated costs of construction which allows those costs to be distributed among the affected properties. The third alternative appears to be the most equitable and feasible. Preliminary cost estimates for the Greenbriar drainage system range between $48,000 and $98,000 depending upon which design solution is finally accepted. The fees for this system could be assigned in con- junction with the subdivision improvement agreements for the developments within the area. Due to the time constraints associated with this development, it is recommended that the City take immediate action to retain a consultant to prepare a design for this drainage system. The expense of the consultant will be distributed within the fees for the project. grant street mansion S&M INSURANCE SERVICE, INC. 1121 grant street denver, colorado 80203 (303) 861-9178 February 13, 1979 Mr. Mark Engemoen c/o Engineering Services P. O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Re: Evergreen Park Filing No. 2 Location: The Northwest Corner of Lemay and Redwood Dear Per. Engemoen, I represent Mr. Giroux and 11r. Lyle Carpenter regarding their interest in the above property. I spoke to you in December regarding the placement of a bond with the City of Fort Collins. The bond represented the cost of the necessary improvements for the above mentioned property. When we discussed this in December, you suggested that the owners secure a report from an engineer estimating the cost of the needed improvements. I have attached that report that was secured from Mr. Fred Jackson. With this information, I would assume that your department could establish a bond amount. When this is done, I would ap- preciate your notifying me so that we may secure the necessary documents to execute a bond representing the mentioned improve- ments. I appreciate your assistance, and anticipate hearing from you. If I can be of assistance to you, please do not hesitate to notify me. Sincerely, P~� Z#��jp Robert A. Stapp RAS/cs Enclosures cc: Mr. Lyle Carpenter INSURANCE- BONDS CI I 01 1 OR I C01.1_INS P.O. BOX 580, FOR COLLINS, COLORADO 80522 PH (303)-484-4220 ENGINEERING DIVISION EXT. 728 December 14, 1979 Mr. Ivan Giroux 3910 Jefferson Court Loveland, Colorado Re: Building permits, Evergreen Park 2nd Dear Ivan: Per our discussion on Friday, December 14, 1979 I have agreed to release one (1) last building permit in Evergreen Park 2nd. As you know the developers agreement with the City dated December 2, 1976 clearly states a maximum of 32 building permits would be released prior to the construction of detention pond "B". Our records indicate 34 building permits issued to date with this last being Number 35. I think you will agree that the City has acted in good faith regarding this matter but can no longer maintain this stand. It is now time the detention systems are constructed per utility plans and accepted by the City. If I can be of any further help, please feel free to call me. Yours truly, 901 David Stringer Chief Construction Inspector +k L "�r9fi{�1S •v.y�,;t..- <s-: •: •xVYr?�t+�A'x: �SP.�, s abY u...` Y�.c:: * t_. CITY OF FORT COLLINS P.O. BOX 580, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522 PH (303) 484-4220 ENGINEERING DIVISION EXT. 728 January 2, .1980 Mr. Ivan Giroux 3910 Jefferson Court Loveland, Colorado Re: Evergreen Park, 2nd Filing Dear Pir_ Giroux: Pursuant to the meeting held in Mr. Bingman's office today between yourself, Mr. Bingman, Dave Stringer (City's Chief Construction Inspector) and myself, the City will allow building permits to continue to be issued within the referenced subdivision provided that the 2nd connection betcgeen Foxtail Street and Conifer Street is improved through the base course. This can be accomplished by either constructing Suqarpine Street from Conifer to Foxtail or by constructing Sugarpine to Sitka Street and Sitka Street to Conifer. This authorization is given with the understanding that the original developer of the referenced subdivision will complete the paving of Conifer and the sidewalks adjacent to Conifer as soon as wear -her permits this coming spring. we have written assurance from him that this will he accomplished. Sincerely, rlaurice E. Rupel, P.E. & L.S. Development Engineer CC: Lyle Carpenter Roy Bingnan Dave Stringer