Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
EAST RIDGE - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2009-11-06
9 Fire Prevention Bureau 102 Remington Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 January 25, 2005 Ms. Susan Joy City of Fort Collins Engineering Department 281 North College Fort Collins, CO 80521 Re: East Ridge PDP — Access issues Project No.: 0983.0006.00 Susan, Phone: 970-221-6570 Fax: 970-221-6635 Internet: www.poudre-fire.org This letter is in regards to the East Ridge project emergency access issues, specifically the need for two points of access. The East Ridge project's only vehicular access comes from existing Timberline Road on the west. The remaining three (3) sides are land locked due to: 1. an existing gravel mining operation to the South, 2. vacant agricultural land to the West (Whitham property) and 3. existing railroad tracks to the North. I had a meeting with TST Engineering, January 19, 2005, and stated the Poudre Fire Authority (PFA) could approve the proposed street configuration as shown on the Concept submittal documents. However, two points of access will be required that meet the distance requirements of the PFA, since all access is from one side (Timberline Road). I anticipate this project will be submitted in phases. The existing points of access will allow the PFA to approve some portion of the project depending on the diagonal distance of the phased portion of this submittal. At the time of Final Development Plan submittal of the most easterly portion of the site, PFA will require a twenty (20') foot wide, all weather (some kind of chip/base course material) temporary access to be located across from the most northerly Collins Aire Park access (access is directly north of Skymaster Drive located on the East Ridge PDP site). Colo.) BUSI3NELL v. LARIME. a & WELD I1M CO. 1019 ;303+926+0853 # q/ >> quantity of water to irrigate one hundred an sixty (100) acres of land and no more. Th eight to irrigate the said one hundred an lxty (100) acres of land from said ditc shall be perpetual and without expense t the said Franklin W. Garrett; in maintainin said ditch. And it Is further agreed by th said Benjamin H. Eaton that in case h should fail to: keep the said ditch in repair so that there should not be suifident supply of water in said ditch to irrigate said on hundred and sixty (160) acres, then the said Benjamin H. Baton shall forfeit his right b virtue of such -sale above :made after due no - Me of such failure and neglect ou his part and further .neglect and failure after said notice on his part to perform his agreements as aforesaid.". It was farther alleged In that complaint that after the execution of this contract the said Eaton acquired the right of way and the appropria$on•and priorities and.right to, the use of waters;of said irrigation ditch No. io for the purpose of enlarging and extending the same. A* -that on the 24th day of April, 1878, _the :saWGimett: was' -the owner of the N:,,:.;of:,;&:Idl:j(: ot.'sectton.8,'towteship 7, rapge.:: e8;ivesp; $ad;' other elands ndjaecnt. ttisrei o: The load thus- described is the laud now. owned by Bushnell and involved in this cane.. It .was.farther alleged. that, pursuant to the terms, of the said contract, the.sald Garrett °diverted from the.taid ditch the con- nnaous use, zorarr411,U9n••and -domestic pu! pose,-6r-ttai�eieat`watelr !or no acres of said. land; : includin{:;;tie,; said 'described •"tract; taf attgriaaidsi'%'"toil elfl"1'eouveFed to .he,• defendaU.-ODmpatjy the. said: irrigation' ditch-aiad;tie •saidappropriations of water to aoquirbd' by 1".; 'tbat.harrett conveyed :the said tract of );mi : inyoleed : in thla suit, . to- gether•wfth all'righia;to the'use bf wnter cou- i twined: is t>le contract• tvlth. Eaton, - to Henry T.- suffer;• and-.*.:Wt. dgring •the mobth•. of I¢oc'embei, hiller conveyed the laud, with all of theAnid•rights to water and use thereof as provided In 'said contract, to the then. Plaintiff 3ivahneil, defendant in this case, who has erer since been the holder and owner of the same. It is then.set'fortb 'in the complaint in that case 'that:;GaArett'Aflller. and plaintiff .during all the;.times mentioned, and while each is and Ras: the owner of the water xis) Uin question.. dojayed;:an untnternLpted use of water: ttnder'tbe' •contract -with Eaton for irrigation aiid domestic Iurposes, and had the: sole .and exclustve control o; the said lmadgated of'Q. t.. certd.In. lateral ditch ex- tending from ditch Na 10 and known as the Lorimer and Weld canal, to the land afore- said, which said lateral ditch was and is used for the purpose of conducting the said water to the said pitmism; that Garrett, Miller, i and the plaintiff in succession continuously used•tbe sold water upon the said lands for i irrigation and domestic purposes and enjoy- 1 d ed the sole and exclusive control of said head- s gates and the free and uninterrupted use of d said- head gates Until some Onle_ durilig :the h ntonfh o! July, 1.800, when the defendant in o .that. case, the irrigation company, caused the g said'hit Eidgaafes #o`be'Iodked, and denied to e the plaintiff Bushnell the use of eater, and e refused and still refuses to recognize Bush.. nell's right to the use of the water under the terms of the Baton contract with Garrett. e Bushnell prayed In that case for an injunc- UOU against the defendant company from in y any manner interfering with him, his heirs and ,assigns, In the use of the water• under the terms of the Eaton contract. To this Complaint the defendant, the Larlmer do Weld Irrlgatlon Company, filed its answer, admit- ting •the facts set up generally in the com- plaint, but alleged that on the Mot day of December, 1881, Garrett assigned all -his rights and interests Hader fbe'Itatou contract° to the:aald drrigadon aompauy and received ia. Oohsi'aeratl6n :therefor tbe; Usual water- contrAvfn.'the;IArimer. & 1reld Irrigation Compilny' for wh'bt• was * idi} A 'as two water. rights;. including one foe the premises involy ed in -this action, and therefore that Bush- nell's :sights were limited to such new con - Among. 6thir provisions in the said contract between G}arrett.az :the •irrlrafion company, are. tliei fplI•gtiving: • ••ln.-coasiderntion iih4re... of 46..mid.. second .party.: agrees to surrender. and c eel; ,and: hereby:_daiee surreodea-=i caltcet;- a; certain:'eentent: between I3enla - min H:r.ICaton sad himself'ln regbrd fo'water for106=acies•:ol:laud, dated the 24th day of April, i878. And• In case. the second- party Shall. fail td -perform. and complete All pnd each of said ' agreements and stipulations aforesaid, strictly and literally, NrItbout any failure'or default,then this contract,"so far as It may bind said Brat party; shall becunLe . utterly. null and void, and all rights . and Interests. hereby created or then existing in favor of the second party, or derived from Win, shall utterly .cease nnd*determin% and ill equitable and legal interests in the water rights hereby Contracted to be convoyed shall revert to and rest in said first•party without my declaration of, forfeiture, or any other . Let of said first party, to be performed. and nithout any right, of, said secoiiil party of .0damation• or compensation for moneys )aid, or service performed, as- absolutely, 'ully, and perfectly as if this contract had . Lever been made." • ,rile pialilak..Bastinch In ills replication to Ile allswer of the Lorimer & Weld Irrigation :omlwny. 'in that ease admitted the execu Loll of the assignment and agreement set up a the answer of the Irrigation company. but WitendeQ •tbit•tlie.lrrtgatlon caupauy should of prevail-Tor-Awo reasons (1) That, at*.all.times Once the execution f the said assignment a.nd agreement, ' the arimer & Weld Irrig-utiou- Comp,my had 6-27-05; 8:25AM;TIENKEN AND HILL LLP 1020 186 PACIr'IC REPORTER # 5/ 11 (Colo, treated the said Garrett and his successors in interest as though the latter contract had not been executed, and has abandoned the same, and that the .lCaton contract was in full force and effect upon both parties there- to and their successors in interest for that daring each and every year since the 2d day of November, 1881, Garrett and his succes- sors in interest, Miller and the plaintiff, have taken water from the : canal of the said com- pany and regulated the headgates of the ' lat- eral. through which water has been taken to Irrigate the lands of the plaintiff at all times, without any let or, hindranceas to. the amount of water required to irrigate acid land,as at such time..%v 'deemed necessary by the Plaintiff and his predecessors to di- vert water from the canal of the defendant and apply it upon his:: said land, and. that the defendant since said date, and its employft at all times immediately preceding the com- mencement of the.. action, acted upon and treated the acid contract set out in the irri- gation company's answer as of no binding force and effect, and• at all times since the execution of the contract between the irriga- tion company and Garrett pave not attempted c" in . any way to enforce any of the provisions of the latter contract; lint have. acted. -tire= ly upon the contract: • as betweed • Garrett. an¢ Eaton, and that Garrett; �icttng upon . the said conduct of the defendant irrigation com- .. parry,, its officers, agent, and employft and relying theregn, sold,: assigned, and trans - tarred said water right upon that express understanding and' belie! to Henry T. Miller, and that the said Duller, relying upon the conduct of the defendant, its officers, -agent and employes, and from the statement then made to him by -Eaton; then the president of the defendant company, to the effect that the contract •bet%reen Eaton and Garrett was in `force, and that he had the privilege of taking all the water.: from said ditch • that e he needed for thirrigationof the land in i question wherever he needed t, sold, assigned :and'. transferred to %a plaintiff said water right. as being an approved perpetual right to the use of the water upon the land of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff Bushnell, so rely- ing on the acts and conduct of the company, Purchased the said rights. (2) That in an acUbn*in,the distriet:court of.Lartmer county in Abe year 10C wherein the Colorado Dulling •.& Elevator Company was plaintiff! and the Larimer. & Weld Irriga- tion Oompany was codefendant., with all the original contract holders of the No. 19 ditch and `their:.avkgM .-ors. in, interest,. rely'it: was sought to adiiidicnto":•the right to the.: use -'of water In the. Onche;la Poudre river as between the'said deleigdgiit'ooiapanyand the said ``.blorado killipt d Movator Com- pany, -as °well as . all the., original contract hokleri in 4Z6. 10 ditdbh iyltlt. th8 said Eaton and their successors in interest, the sold do - Pendant, the Larimer * Weld Irrigation Oom- pany, in its own behalf, as well as on behalf of the said original contract holders of tho No. 10 ditch and their successors In interest, answered and alleged, among other things; "That during the year 1878 the defendant B. H. Eaton purchased said ditch or canal No. 10, together with all rights, title, interest, . and privileges therein, and the appropria. lions thereof, for the purpose of enlarging and extending the said ditch and for the pur- pose of supplying defendants, including Hen- ty T. Miller, with water for irrigation pur. poses and other beneficial uses, and upon the express consideration that the said persons . above named as. detendants and owners of land under and users of water from the said ditch or canal No. 10, have the privilege `of conducting, from said irrigation ditch a safes- cient smpply or quantity of water to irrigate .' I their said lands: that all such rights were .. ' made perpetual and preferred, as. against '+ water rights thereafter granted and. acquired In said canal; that tK *uWVnt 0f:.*4er• 3' actually-neeepsaty io irrSgate'.the Baid..lands belonging ta. delendanta,: Llcludi, 9 Henry M . .'.. Miller an¢.others. for.. •their beaieIIdal,: uses," for which .said' water hsis..�beea .saolled, is much more tbau 295A cabic-fee't `of water per second of time"=which said allegations were proved and admitted by the plaintiC in said proceeding, and judgment of. dismissal as to said Henry T. ' MMer and the other holders of said Na 10 contracts was .duly given and. " entered by said court on the 27th day of De= comber, 104,• and which judgment Is'still. in`- full force .and effect; and the said plaintiff herein had. actual notice .of and Participated In said controversy .v 1th the. said Ooloiado:... ?' MIIling & Elevator Company, wifh full notice, knowledge, consent, 'and. ratification of the . • 'z . said defendant; the rArimer & Weld Irriga- tion Company. That.. the • plaintiff,, relying upon the said 'admissions -and conduct of the Larimer & Weld Irrigation Oompany in that ass "then 4-i proceeding, and .which of record, and believing the same to be true, purchased the land and -'.water right. described in the :'°r. complaint, and ever sinceban used . the . vwa- ter from defendants' canal upon the belie! and understanding that he had a preferred 1011 perpetual water right without restriction whatever. in its use, as alleged and proved in said proceeding. Ia tbe.Jndgment rendesed:lntlie said..+cause ':'•::• � ;, :oi.Buahneil yti,arInapr;'th:W�d.Irrigation t:o., the courk; :found i.ln.- favor:'. qi the plaintiff• Bushnell . ,.asxd: si` eiI that'.aa 'between' the , 'g plaintit Buslnell, and;. the defendant, fife .. ... Irrigation company, its successors` aud...ass- signs, Bushnell's title to the use of water ,from the canal. Of the defendant. irrigation company was held and adjudged to be .the right conveyed and. expressly described in and by''the terms of the Eatoh contract,,- and • `+;::' that the•plaintif!` Bushnelh;-:his heirs and as=' signs, shah forever bold and -enjoy the same °. as:'.though':.the :--saeM'contract. had' been ere- :. euted between the said defendant company:.:'' and tile- said plaintLIX Biahnell. The court ;303+926+0853 1✓- Colo.) PRICE v. LUCKY FOUR GOLD MINING CO. 10 :1 further expressly decreed as follows: "And which might have been raised and determined it is further ordered; • adjudged, and decreed in it Johnson v. Johnson. 20 Colo. 143, 8a: that the said .plaintiff (Bushnell), his heirs Pat 898; People ex rel. Itcynolds v. Board and asaigas;'shall 'have the use and enjoy- of Oounfy Commissioners of Ilia Grande anent of the hiiidgate and the ,.water from. County, 11 Colo. App. 124 & 180, 52 Pac. said canal as he has heretofore enjoyed 'the 748; Brotxe v. Haley, 11 0010. 351, 38 Pac. same with othi '116:' 10 contract:' holders, in 551; City of Denver Y. Lobeustein et . al., 8 and from said defendant's canal, sufeclent to Colo. 210;' Clark v. I;:nox et al., 82 Colo. Irrigate the N: 'A of the S. & 3A of section 842, 70 Pac. 872 ; hioatesuma Cattle Ca T. 8, township 7 nortls,'raage .q west,' and !or Dale, l0 Colo. App. 139, Q4 Pea 1058. domeiti8 -pnrposis, and that ' the said de- The answer of the plaintiff in error sets Pendant company; itsagents, attorneys, and forth facts' suffident to Sustain a, plea -of employoA are forever restrained and enjoined fornsbi adjudication of the matters cotnplain- from in any manner. interfering with .the ed oL: water right. of plaintiff. as herein adjudicated The judgment. is reversed. and determined; and ftom' interfering with MUSSEIt; C. J., and GABBf.12T, J. concur. him as to. the., amount and. manner of diver-. lion of water, agmk'1 +Tonle terms of said coatraef,. ezcept'<that'.t�ie.said:.phtintiff;;'his 50 Colo. 103 heirs and assigns, ebail'.be• restrained In the. -:PRIOR v. LUCKY FOUIt GOLD MINING amount•of:afi%r nied.to'3l.ie.ue0OWties for Op. irrigation of the said' land and for'. domestic (Supreme Court of Colorado. Dec-' 1938.) pu�o '„ L VsnQuiat (j le•)=NA rrmr. or Acriow. It is further alleged in the in' of Bush- : In an •.action k Pueblo county against a . neU in ths'present case that the 'said decree smelting and refining company for the value of.' has never been disturbed, appealed from, or are alleged to have been sold and delivered to reversed, and has at all times been in full it is U Plats count%, Snell company, on an - davits alleging- that the ore was received from :force and a fleet; and that the.,matters and p,.in La Plata count.; that it cards from min-.'. things iii3gate4 in. the 'said action and. ad- iag props. , . title to which was claimed by. judicated in said decree are the same matters both plund and P. ; tliit in consequence both and things which the said plaintiff seeks to claimed the'right to the proceeds thereof; that gs certain actions.wers then pending in the courts have litigated and"adjudicated is this action: of La Plata county to determine such title; The defendant In error, plaintiff below in and that defendant bad no interest is the con- troversy except that it desired to pay the value this Case,' demurred to the answer of the de - 'to ttar ore to the Party entitled thereto—moiod fendaat Bushnell,_ which 'demurrer was sus- to Substitute P. as defendant upon payment of . tai.ned. by the court Plaintiff in error, hush- such value into court. Plaintiff stipufated that nell, electing to � Stand on. his answer, the Such substitution might be made, thus is affect vlt court rendered judgment against 1 in in con- w agreeing that the statements io the mado. gm were true, and the substitution was made. fortuity with the player of the complaint, and 1rd4 that- upon such substitution the action be - which judgment .Is now before. us fair re- came one for: conversion of ore by P. in the view county. of La' Plata where be resided. and From this synopsis of the pleadln .in this should vi tried is that casecous other Code e Cs 29, ppsnvidiag that all eases other than those case. and the pleadings and Judgment. in the sppecified is prededing sections shall be tried in case of Bushnell v. Larimer & Wild Irrign the. county 3n •:which the defendants, or any of tion Co., it will be observed that both actions farther provisithem, reside, further was not triable under the on of that section'that actions were in the same court:. that the latter ac- on -book .accounts or for goods sold and de1h;er- fioa terminated in a` judgment -.and decree oil mays be tried .hi ,the county where the plain- tio laver of terminated Bu6i ell and nit the irriga- t� rexIdes,• or where the goods were sold. in.[IA Note.=For other canes, age Venue, Cent tion company; that at the commencement of D% i 82; Dec. Dig. j is.•) _ this action the surd-. decree was I'a full force 2. Vznos, (j 77•) — CrIA xoa — WArvta or and effect; that the parties in the former itIOUT.' snit. were identical with..the parties in this haveA. defendant venue tot id not w l changed Lot the suit; -.and that the matters and things there count, in which he resided by- filing a demurrer litigated are identically the. same as are. to the complaint with his motion for the sought to be litigated in :this procoeding. changs. (i] The answer'. of the plaintiff. in error,' DCE;i 6o�te.�Fo1r,other cases. _ ; 7j Venue, Cent. If true, constituted. a sufficient defense to ig the complaint of the defendant in error, for Lrror to District Court, Pueblo County; C. It unmistakably sets forth a former adjudi- S. L?=ex; Judge. cation between the parties-thereto�ot predne- Action by the Lucky Your Gold Alining ' Iy the same matters involved is this pro- Company against the American -Smelting & ceedtng. Refining Company, which interpleaded John [2] It is settled 3a this jurisdiction that a M, Price,' who was thereupon substituted as former adjudicsiffoa, is conclusive in a sub= defendant.. Judgment for plaintiff, and, the Sequent proceedin=,between' the snnae'parttea substituted —defendant brings error. IteverS- as. to ever y..maf#e;. properly-iupolved, and ad with instructions. •F or other cones seesame topic and section NUMBER in Den Dig. A Ala. Dig. Key -No. Series a Rep'r Indexes ILL LLP ;303+926+0653 * b v bO A o bc u � t p I U a 3 N a c T u ar Is •� B a 0 0 FM ° b0 ii et jS, b0 Q ►N. 'b0 SO a, a .+ ba Lu v .y $ 'O N v .� •� i7 U ; d Y L' CO ram+ N W 'C3 L L' .: m ^v 6J wy "[ •Qi si ' CJ L w — �.+ �.CIS c cit V 3rui Cd r.. .. In CU I — 04 CO! In ri to ed Ow bc y u b 4VJ IS O �p O o-zr-tea; C:YOAM;IItIVKtN ANO HILL LLP ;303+926+0853 # 8/fu 11 W iR d r p o w b r^ u .rt H •� sy41 cQ qp a r go $ 'O c� :� p V v •� qua LLj ' W .e4 eAi st y a` W 19 Y td w" v v `C Z CIS 0 co 0 to OM b q 4.4 larp •U,,, u c q c m is d v a '� m O :d G •Lr cc cd y I 'd .G r�i u '• u q O ca tsi'• tt y 'S7 0.d .a O p' Cep R' .q y a • A i3 W d is 0^� ^L. yir. S 'a O yw pp 12 z i�+ V bQ L2 .0 iC .C] *�+ :z .ur rl bg M Im 'gyp •..: 9A:. .ry:. > ..a . ,•y ... , �.•..-'•. :•<.-;, 'i. �•+:i!': o , , ti. . .. ++ Ogoo V w W Ea0 C f,y td ... '.� in t: a "' y u w ` V v C M O v d i0 K ry v ►+ ,, A q qd v O Ly yV vto .O y " H 0 O � O e x a - $ = •� _ i Co �c °i .°; u u o v a, ed v tv u In LV 1+.r. V: CJ V V eC ri H Q1 "•+ ++ j _ V (J y K it .4: CSi% a.0 •II ° .•� O Cr •✓ r .r •� CJ W tom.. i i •> GS iu _ Y ug 0 _ v y• Cd O G LL r. rlr ci c. c. Y J O Y � M �y M 27-05; 8:25AM;TIENKEN AND HILL LLP ;303+926+0853 ul .d rC O ••�i yyy O A '' O '� 0�6 u W �i V svr to V Go d �`4) -� bev 4..Q 'w .�q t1 M N td A y r O• 'fU .11 p '� v� •syi ow cd A © O 13 co q Cd O• v +' M O y c6 u r+ y w •C v � � i, •`iiN O � � O >, •ci o`d •� .sa .lu lu 440 r ;� b a :stir 'a `•lu` waf ° ca co cd ►� +� V w .w 41 34 O LL M w N V cd u c c c pa i V O o W (� +ca+ tom\ O 14 hC 'S7 .•.• Nr. .... .r �' V ..l z ^d f " O +' = v CJ ffi '.• +' � G � •—� CC IOC t�.1 "•.' a+ � a'O .� f\ OC .O �r�j .r.. •O• W F.r ^ C! a+ V •y `" u u+ j V p ' ' a: b0 ter'• .�. 00 do �, .� .t» .. �, v. 78 C. y � •> u � o � '= 40 O a."• > 4 ►Li M rN V M 0 05; 8:25AM;TIENKEN AND HILL LLP ;303+928+0853 LVi y y ►. •d Y .rci F3� y . O v v G cis To d ..-•cc O 'O c� cc JU V, Co o v ul cl ' q A 0 v a *" m 0 � u tkoQ r d a Qi c . u ? La.� .� t �,�, � 'a d Co L O r bocyy u '� O bO c t s a, • p '� r,' . 1 O w o .+L3vo � +�+ r FI •'�'' ul .�mayy -y tul .t.l r0 tlr �O w' 'C W ' O 'C7 m U +' as v- p It 0 U cd u W .N "" O LaCIS �.CIS a a '►+ bo W p O ay+ 'O M o ' a O� •t' v O .+ V yld r-t r r04 A .. M. •: C O ; U 4 w 'y0 O '= v0, L i7 •e0 to Co 'n o c� o cc tv yCo Co CS a a S o o w v b fR 4" T G Cd g d p .1 qj W ce O as G tL u A. p u ctd .c +.= by O Q > u J u .L' bc ^ 1! 'O S 'Cc 4! .0 a ...i y "' cc a 1 ^ r p % N00 to a 3 �{ p �+ ,O c0CIS a Ci 'Orr' i O Vj r w a Qd y .O U cC c0! c�J Bpi w N U � N ~ M � H 8-27-05; 8:25AM;TIENKEN AND HILL LLP ;303+928+0853 'd O .Ul cd 0 i+ u = bo ° U ►�+ d H A O p u ya w p P4 8 cc v a u o ,� �s � �d• °. U• d a 4 O vu, F•I 4 .�. ° V o r, ++ �+ O ..�. i7. O O Zo GA a i7 w wa N ~ ., cd .n .G �. 5 r+ � ,.tka ✓fin � IW 9 9 cd cc eat W .O .� n, B y ey0 A .a to •t = 9— d '" O :. 1 m r $ 'd v 'Cd W v E U u3 a •� �%, 9 U)> a 'o o Cd td a>i D >''� v -a be _ O x ' N i3 ed ca fd z ++ w i d) �jy V LV. +� i.i N V v O p e�9 ^^. td �. m �, ro •g = o• a a � tito e to 6 :+ %. totj U, h as vyvi •ir w 3_ v •� 42 V R3 L y cd 'C .0 •A �"' ^ O y IV. ... c5 — y O •y •. ij++r L ... ice. co � v .v+ L+" V CJ O .O O +� • y nt ?. cQ «+ '6 a N %11 H ���cM�M�M7F7K�K�KJKJK�K�K7KJK7K�KJK�JKJK�KJK�K�K�K�KIK�K�KIK�K�IK�K�K�(�KIK�(IKW �K�KIK�KJK�K�(%K�(�K%KJK�KJKJKJK�K�K%K�K�K�(�K�KIK�KJK��(�K�K�KJK�K�K�(��KJK�K��K�(JK%KIK�K�(�K��K%K%K�KIK TRANSACTION REPORT P.01 JUN-27-2005 MON 09:36 AM FOR; LILEY ROGERS MARTELL 9702214242 RECEIVE �K DATE START SENDER RX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE M# DP �K JUN-27 09:27 AM 303+926+0853 8'12" 11 RECEIVE OK �K � 7-11-05; 2:35PM;TIENKEN AND HILL LLP ;303+928+0853 * 2/ 3 TIMOTHY J. DOW, MBA, JD PATRICIA T. DOW, CPA, JD, LLM* MAYO SOMMERMEYER, LAWYER, LLC** OF COUNSEL THE Dow Law FIRM, LLC ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW P.O. BOX 1578 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522-1578 (970) 08-9900 FAX: (970) 499-9966 E-MAIL: dow"wiawfirm.com July 7, 2005 Vila Facsimile (303) 926-0953 & U.S. Mail Alan G. Hill Tienken & Hill, LLP 726 Front St., Suite B P.O. Box 550 Louisville, CO 80027 Re: East Ridge PDP Dear Alan: I T @ T U -TT[ JUL 0 8 2005 # 7 CLOCK TOWER SQUARE 323 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS. COLORADO W524 • Ar30Amdff D-rmCr=LAwwwsmscA ••ArcoADMI7 or0rsAcr=uw01wvordm0 The purpose of this letter is to document our agreement and understanding concerning your client's use of what is generically referred to as "No. 10 water." This is, of course, Larimer & Weld Irrigation Company decreed water which is being provided to the successors in interest to those old No. 10 people with whom Ben Eaton contracted back in the 1800's. Your client is developing approximately 160 acres of property generally located at the southeast intersection of Vine Drive and Timberline Road and north of what is going to be International Boulevard. The preliminary landscape plan on this property was reviewed at our meeting of June 7 and I will incorporate the plan done by Jim Sell Design, being sheet Ll of 9 dated March 29, 2005, into this letter. Your client proposes to develop a secondary, non -potable water system for the purpose of irrigating green belt and lawns in the subdivision. It is estimated that there will be between 35- 40 acres of green belt and lawns and a storage pond of approximately 39 acre feet is planned. It is the position of LWIC that the non -potable use of the water as you propose is acceptable and comports with the old contractual limitations on the water's use. As you know, we did a project similar to what you are planning a number of years ago involving the City of Fort Collins park ground in the Greenbriar development. It is understood that East Ridge will have available sufficient water to irrigate each acre Of the planned green area to be irrigated, so long as the water is available pursuant to the No. 10 delivery criteria. Larimer & Weld has no objection to the storage pond, even though this water h The new temporary access should tie into the existing Timberline Road, approximately 1500-feet to the north of the most southerly residential street located on the East Ridge project. This will meet the PFA distance requirements for two distinct points of access that were discussed in the aforementioned meeting. This temporary emergency access shall be required and available so long as is necessary until another permanent access is provided which connects with any of the adjoining properties. It was recognized this new access could be a potential conflict with the realignment of the TimberlineNine intersection. Should this realignment occur prior to the east phase being developed, it shall be necessary and required to provide another solution for the required second point of access meeting the fire department requirements. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Ron Gonzales Assistant Fire Marshal Poudre Fire Authority Cc: Sherri Wamhoff Development Review Manager TST Consulting Engineers Keith G. Sheaffer, PE 748 Whalers Way Bldg. D Fort Collins, CO 80525 970.226.0557(p) 970.226.0204(f) 2 7-11-05; 2:35PM;TIENKEN AND HILL LLP ;303+928+0853 # 3/ 3 does not carry a specific storage decree, so long as whatever storage activity does not interfere with the operation of the Larimer & Weld Irrigation Company or put it at risk Should East Ridge wish to obtain a more defined storage entitlement, we would have no objection thereto, again insofar as it would not be something that would be adverse to the interests of the LWIC et shareholders. The water which your client receives is from a head gate generally north of the property. LWIC does not operate or control this head gate (as it does all others) pursuant to an old Supreme Court case that preserved the right to operate this particular head gate to those users entitled to take water therefrom. Alan, I hope that this sets out the main important elements of our understanding and agreement so that it may satisfy the needs of appropriate planning staffs as your client moves through the process. If we need to discuss any further elements or modify this document, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Very truly yours, Mayo SOMMERNMYER, LLC Mayo Sommermeyer MS/jrr cc: Donn Engel • LILEY, ROGERS & MARTELL, LLC - ATTORNEYS AT LAW FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION DATE: July 12, 2005 TO: Paul Eckman, Esq. Fort Collins City Attorney's Office Fax No.: 221-6327 FROM: Lucia Liley Liley Rogers & Martell, LLC 300 S. Howes Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Fax No. (970) 221-4242 Telephone No. (970) 221-4455 RE: East Ridge PDP TOTAL PAGES: 3 (including this cover page) DOCUMENTS TRANSMITTED: letter to Alan G. Hill from Mayo Sommermeyer dated July 7, 2005. MESSAGE: ORIGINAL WILL p WILL NOT (E FOLLOW BY FIRST CLASS MAIL. P. 01 TRANSACTION REPORT JUL-12-2005 TUE 11:14 AM FOR: LILEY ROGERS MARTELL 9702214242 DATE START RECEIVER TX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE M# DP JUL-12 11:13 AM 2216327 1'31" 4 SEND OK 311 TOTAL : 1M 31S PAGES: 4 ITIttk) tvrvrvrwrwwvrw,rwwvrwvrrwvr 4 LILEY, ROGERS & MARTELL, LLC ii ATTORNEYS AT L A W July 12, 2005 Matt Baker City of Fort C011ins Street Oversizing Department 281 N. College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 Susan Joy City of Fort ollins Enginee ' g Department 281 N. ollege Avenue Fort llins, CO 80524 RECEIVrn Via Hand Delivery Via Hand Delivery I'll. 1 4 2005 Re: East Ridge PDP, Type I/Response to Staff Project Review Comments Dear Matt and Susan: Matt, thanks for meeting with me to clarify certain transportation -related comments set forth in the April 22, 2005 Staff Project Review for East Ridge PDP and for the later clarification with TST of Timberline right-of-way for the overpass. Sorry that you couldn't join us, Susan. This letter will confirm what we understand now to be the City's position with regard to the following items: 1. Engineering No. 23: Attached is a drawing which Matt agrees shows the anticipated needed City ROW for the future Timberline/Vine overpass. It is understood that the City will need to pay the developer for this ROW including any amounts which an appraisal may determine are damages to the remainder. No further design is required. 2. Engineering No. 24: This comment should be deleted since this development will not be responsible for any improvements to Vine Drive because the property is separated from Vine Drive by the railroad and there will be no access to Vine Drive. 3. Engineering No. 25: This development is responsible for the following in connection with International Boulevard: a. Escrowing the cost of design and construction of that portion of International Boulevard from its southeast corner west to a point LUCIA A. LILEY a JAMES A. MARTELL is TODD W. ROGERS THE PETER ANDERSON HOUSE a 300 SOUTH HOWES STREET * FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521 TELEPHONE: (970) 221-4455 x FAX: (970) 221-4242 Matt Baker Susan Joy July 12, 2005 Page 2 representing approximately the easternmost 1/3 of the wetland (see attached map). In lieu of this escrow, the developer has the option of crediting it against the payment from the City for Timberline ROW costs. b. Providing an interim and ultimate design for the three street stubs to International Boulevard and escrowing the costs to construct the same. c. Estimates for the escrows, will be provided to the City for its review and approval, and the escrow amounts and terms will be memorialized in the development agreement for this project. It is my understanding that, in addition to the above -referenced items, meetings with PFA on the fire access issue (Engineering No. 20) will be addressed as follows: the development will have a temporary emergency access lane off the northwest side of the property which will be replaced with a permanent access meeting the City's requirements when one becomes available elsewhere on the property or when the TimberlineNine overpass is constructed, whichever first occurs. In the event that the TimberlineNine overpass is constructed first, the permanent access would remain in the same location as the temporary but would be constructed at a grade not to exceed 8%. Please let me know as soon as possible if you have comments or questions on any of the above responses since the developer is getting ready for the final resubmittal and would like to get to hearing as soon as possible on this PDP. Thanks for your help. Sincerely, LILEY, ROGERS & MARTELL, LLC By: Luci A. Liley LAL/mer Enclosures PC: Jeff Strauss George Hart / Matt Blakely V Keith Schaeffer m" NAm G M 3 Z 1 Na ' ` EAST RIDGE Wr°MMAL errmm- PRUMUM CONCH" dft1T /'IM F /Y! /'n/ A!lFLA TST TST, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 748 Whalers Way, Bldg, D Fort Collins, CO 80525 970.226.0557 metro 303.595.9103 fax 970.226.0204 info@tstinc.com www.tstinc.com July 20, 2005 Mr. Mike Hertzig City of Fort Collins Engineering P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Re: East Ridge Variance Request Project No.: 0983.0006.00 Dear Mike, This letter is regarding a variance request identified during our Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) for East Ridge. Per Section 1.9.4, "Variance and Appeals Process" of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Sections (LCUASS), the following information outlines the variance that is being requested for the East Ridge project. Timberline Road is classified as a 6-1-ane Arterial. A variance to standards 7.7.5.0 (Crosspans-Prohibited on Arterial and Collector Streets) is requested for the proposed crosspan at the intersection of Timberline Road and House Drive. This variance of allowing a 10' crosspan on the east side of the intersection of Timberline Road and House Drive will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, nor will it cause additional expense to the City of Fort Collins. The purpose of the crosspan is to direct the stormwater runoff from Timberline road south to the southeast corner of the project site, where it will enter our proposed storm sewer system and the proposed detention pond on site. Due to the high imperviousness that must be assumed for the northern commercial and multi -family tracts, the proposed storm sewer that runs on the north side of the site have extremely large diameters. It is our intent to minimize as much as possible the amount of storm water runoff that is being conveyed by these storm pipes. We believe that this proposed crosspan at the intersection — intersection of these two (2) roadways meets the intent of the LCUASS standards and provides a better engineering design to adequately convey the developed storm water through our site. We appreciate the review and approval of this variance. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter, please feel free to contact our office. TST, 3723 hr TA K ffer, Pal S ytr S «i KGS/tar n Transportation Services Engineering Department City of Tort Cor1 i.. 6 July 29, 2005 Lucia A. Liley Liley, Rogers & Martell, LLC 300 South Howes Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Re: East Ridge PDP, Type I/Response to letter dated July 12, 2005 Dear Lucia: In response to your letter dated July 12, 2005 regarding transportation/engineering issues for the East Ridge project, I would like to clarify the City's position and the requirements on a few of these items: 1. Engineering No. 23: The drawing that was attached showing a line depicting the amount of right-of-way (ROW) necessary for Timberline Road has not yet been agreed upon. There is some design information included in the submittal that was made to the City last week that we will review to determine if it provides the information needed to determine the ROW/easements. As I indicated, the information should include a preliminary layout, preliminary centerline profile, and a couple of cross -sections identifying the design standards. Hopefully, we will come to the same conclusion regarding the amount of ROW needed. The City agrees to pay the developer for the amount of ROW being dedicated above that normally required for a major arterial street based on agreed upon appraised value, but will not pay for any damages to the remainder of the property. 2. Engineering No. 24: Responsibility for Vine Drive. The City agrees that this development will not be responsible for improvements to Vine Drive. 3. Engineering No. 25: The development is responsible for the following in connection with International Boulevard: a. In lieu of constructing said roadway at. this time the developer can provide an escrow for the cost of final design and construction of that portion of International Boulevard from its southeast corner west to a point representing the easternmost 1/3 of the wetland. The developer will be given the option to credit this cost against the payment from the City for Timberline Road ROW costs. The developer does not need to provide a final design for this roadway at this time, but does need to provide a preliminary design of this roadway so that drainage patterns and roadway grades for the three street stubs that tie into International Boulevard will be accommodated. b. The city agrees that the developer shall provide interim and ultimate design for the three street stubs to International Boulevard and escrow the costs to construct the portion of roadways that will not be constructed with the development. It needs to be clarified that the portion of roadway adjacent to buildable lots will need to be constructed in accordance with Section 24-95 of the City Code and Section 3.3.2(D)(6) of the Land Use Code. c. The City agrees that the developer shall provide engineering estimates for the escrow amounts to be provided for the City's review and approval and the escrow amounts and terms can be memorialized in the development agreement for this project. 4. Engineering No. 20: Temporary Emergency Access. The temporary emergency access in the submittal does not appear to be in the location needed for the Poudre Fire Authority. In addition, construction of the emergency access is not shown. With these details lacking, the City cannot agree to provide the emergency access if the future Timberline Road overpass/underpass is constructed prior to additional connectivity. We are happy to meet with you regarding this project to discuss or clarify any Street Oversizing issues or concerns that you have. Both Street Oversizing and Engineering Development Review should be involved in future meetings that involve items both parties have interest in. Sincerely, Matt Baker' Street Oversizing Program Manager IZ - - c: Don Bachman, City Engineer Sheri Wamhoff, Development Review Manager City of Fort Collins Transportation Services Traffic Operations From the Desk Of: Eric Bracke, P.E., P.T.O.E. Traffic Engineer "17 RECEIV--D AUG ? 2007 f 626 Linden Street • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (970) 224-6062 • Cell (970) 222-4788 • Fax (970) 221-6282 November 16, 2005 Mr. Pete Wray Current Planning Department 281 N. College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: Project: East Ridge Response to City Comments, Project Development Plan JSD Project No. 1894.3 Dear Pete: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING ENGINEERING GRAPHIC DESIGN We have received comments from City of Fort Collins staff, dated 08/08/2005, regarding our submittal for the EAST RIDGE Project Development Plan (PDP) - TYPE I and have incorporated responses to the comments in our resubmittal documents (attached with this letter). The following is our narrative response (in italicized text) to each of the comments. ISSUES: Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Pete Wray Topic: General Number: 106 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] Site Plan SP-2: Net residential density shown as 4.60 will meet minimum standards with future multi -family phases. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 107 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] Site Plan SP-2: The minimum mix of 3 housing types is described in the Unit Summary Table. Staff has reviewed conceptual architectural elevations dated (3-29-05). More detailed architectural drawings including plan and elevation renderings will be required prior to Final Plan approval Response: Acknowledged. Number: 108 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] Show emergency access easement on all drawings. Response: This easement has been added to drawings. Number: 109 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] SP-4: Add note describing hatched lots (9-18). Response: The following note has been added to lots 9-18: "Hatched area within Block 5, Lots 9-18 to be single. family attached units. " See Site Plan cover sheet for additional information regarding lots 9-18. Number: 110 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] SP-5: Check "Zeppelin Way" street name spelling? Response: Acknowledged. 1 APR-27-2005 WED 02:31 PM JIM SELL DESIGN INC, FAX NO, 9704842443 P, 10 748 WhWws W';Y, .TIj:, j) FOR LOIIIi6& Co ft'.3 9 970.226.o55i macro 303 95,5I03 fox 970.226.ow4 In 04=0nc.com www-tkuncxom City of Fort Collins Development Review City of Fort Collins — Planning Department P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 February 03, 2005 RE.' East Ridge PDP- Leiter of Intent for a Temporary Grading Easement Proj No.: 0983.0006.00 Dear City of Fort Collins Development Review, We the undersigned, represent the Whitham property and the East Ridge PDP Project. This letter of intent QlQaWte aKh inworking together to pnovide a mutually beneficial 20"foot,g easement along the Whltham property's Western property line .(East Ridge POP Eastem Property line) for grading purposes. line. Mr. Davld itham VSW Ridge of Fort Collins, LLC CITY OF FORT COLLINS ENGINEERING REVIEWED BY •J El Number: I I I Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] SP-5: Label east sidewalk adjacent to lots (20-23). Response: The sidewalks have been labeled. Number: 112 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] SP-5: Remove building envelopes from site distance easement along lots (9-15). Response: No building envelopes have been shown on the site plan drawing. The lines shown on the site plan drawings are utility easements. See sheet SP2 for typical building envelope locations. Number: 113 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] SP-6: Remove building envelopes from site distance easement along lots (19-25). Response: No building envelopes have been shown on the site plan drawing. The lines shown on the site plan drawings are utility easements. See sheet SP2 for typical building envelope locations. Number: 114 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] SP-8: Show limit of sidewalk on south end of Dassault St. Response: The limit of sidewalk has been shown on the south end of Dassault Street. Number: 115 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] Overall Landscape Plan L-1: Revise emergency access easement on all drawings. Response: This easement has been added to drawings. Number: 116 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] L-1: Planting Notes, revise #7. Landscaping within residential parkways shall be installed by developer for each block phase at time of completion of driveway installations. Parkway landscaping shall be maintained by lot owner following installation. Delete note #2 in Landscaping Assurances section. Delete note #15. No standard for shrub separation to utilities in LUC. Response: The planting notes have been revised. Number: 117 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] L6-8: Off -site improvements to property in second annexation including landscaping, irrigation, grading and fencing shall be ... Response: The second annexation has been approved, therefore the improvements shown are a part of the PDP and included in the project. Number: 118 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] Park site (tract Q) dies not have to be graded. We will do at time of development. If some grading is needed, complete at 1% grade (see Craig Foreman for any questions). Response: Acknowledged. Number: 119 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] Boxelder Sanitation (Randy Siddens). See red -line comments. Response: The drawings have been updated to reflect the sanitary sewer location and plant separations. C:\D000ME-1\PLANNER\LOCALS—I\Temp\PDP Comment Responses 11-08-05 (2nd sub).doc Page 2 of 13 Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy Topic: General Number: 20 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] Repeat. The emergency access easement shown or its proposed location does not meet PFA's minimum requirements. As stated below, this development is required to design and construct a second point of access acceptable to PFA in both the interim and ultimate conditions if you want to pull building permits for the entire site. In order to determine if the EA drive works in both the interim and ultimate, enough preliminary horizontal AND vertical design is required on the plans before going to public hearing. Please provide a plan and profile of the EA road as well as a plan and profile and show how it ties into Timberline in both the interim and ultimate. If you can not show that the EA drive will work in the ultimate, than only half the site will be allowed to pull building permits and this site would have to be phased or done in separate filings (please see comment 21). [4/20/05] This development as shown with is out of fire access. A second point of access is required per Ron Gonzales with PFA. He has agreed to a temporary emergency access lane off the north west side of the property in the interim BUT this may go away if the over/under pass is constructed. If and when that happens, another acceptable secondary point of access will be required prior to the release of future phases. Response: Emergency access road was realigned. Ron Gonzalez (PFA) has seen the current configuration and approves, pending a separate exhibit being submitted to him showing the truck clearance in profile view. Number: 21 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] [4/20/05] Suggest doing separate Filings for this development versus Phasing. Phasing would require that all public improvements be constructed within a 3 year time frame. If this does not occur, then the plans expire and you must resubmit to whatever the standards are at that time. Do Filing one now such that it meets PFA's requirements and leave the future filings alone until another street provides your secondary point of access. Response: Client has chosen to phase the project. Number: 22 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] Repeat comment. Not enough information was provided for Timberline's design to comment on. Please see chapter 7 of LCUASS for all street design requirements and call out the information on the plans (CL radius, tangent lengths, taper lengths, etc). [4/20/05] Please provide an interim and ultimate design for Timberline up to Skymaster. Please provide a typical street section for each condition. Please provide an interim and ultimate striping plan. Response: Curve tables have been provided on p&p sheets with centerline info. Number: 23 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] Not enough vertical information is shown on the plans to determine if the proposed row is enough to accommodate the future overpass and emergency access road. Please do NOT resubmit until we have met to go over your proposal. It is to your benefit if you work with me closely and coordinate this design over the next few weeks. I can set up as many meetings as we need with all of the appropriate people to get this worked through but I need you to CALL me to start the process and be willing to meet (221-6605). [4/20/051 Please provide a preliminary design for the overpass with enough information to determine the actual row needs along Timberline OR you can start at the west row line at the Plummer School, take it up 4:1 to the 20 or 25' height, add in the street section, and then take it back down 4:1 to find the approximate slope. This option will put you out about 300' into your property. Response: Overpass design and alignment has been coordinated with city staff and has been OK'd. C:\DOCUMF 1\PLANNERU.00ALS-1\Temp\PDP Comment Responses 11.08-05 (2nd sub).doc Page 3 of 13 Number: 25 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] The City agrees that the developer can provide an escrow for the cost of final design and construction of that portion of International Blvd from its SE comer west to a point representing the easternmost 1/3 of the wetland. The developer will be given the option to credit this cost against the payment from the City for Timberline ROW costs. The developer does not need to provide a final design for this roadway at this time, but does need to provide a preliminary design of this roadway so that drainage patterns and roadway grades for the three street stubs that tie into International Blvd will be accommodated. The city also agrees that the developer shall provide interim and ultimate designs for the three street stubs to International Blvd and escrow the costs to construct the portion of the roadways that will not be constructed with the development. It needs to be clarified that the portion of roadway adjacent to buildable lots will need to be constructed in accordance with Section 24- 95 of the City Code and Section 3.3.2(D)(6) of the Land Use Code. Estimates for the escrow amounts must be submitted by a license professional engineer for the City's review and approval and those amounts will be added into the Development Agreement. [4/20/05] This development is responsible for the design and construction of International along its frontage. Need an interim and ultimate design for your street stubs to it. Will need to provide an estimate for the construction of the street stubs to the property line for our review and approval. That amount will go into the DA. Response: Acknowledged. A note was added clarifying roadway construction adjacent to lots. Number: 26 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] No decision has been made at this time pending more design information on the plans. [4/20/05] Right Turn Variance on Timberline — will discuss with Eric next week. I may need more information (like striping plans, street section, etc) from you before we can make a determination. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 27 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] A formal variance request is required where you are not meeting this standard. All variances must be either approved or denied before going to public hearing. [4/20/05] Public alleys cannot exceed 660'. Response: The cross -connecting alley has been converted into a mid -block pedestrian connection. After meeting with City Transportation Department, this is an acceptable connection and will not require a variance. Number: 28 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] It is all right to use the 53' row in all conditions because the parkway will just be wider on the side with the vertical curb. The plans need to be very clear with what's happening and where. Right now there are conflicting typical cross sections that need to be cleaned up. [4/20/05] All local streets have been designed and platted with 53' of row BUT you have some streets with VC both sides, some streets with rollover both sides, and some streets that mix and match. 53' of row is req'd for rollover both sides, 51' for VC both sides, and 52' where they are combined. You will need to provide separate typical street sections for each of these occurrences (4 possible configurations depending on what side of the street is VC and rollover) and then list the street name from station xxxx to station xxxx underneath it. The curb must be consistent from block to block, can't change the curb type mid block. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 29 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] [4/20/05] Barnstormer exceeds the 660' max for a temp cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac needs to be pulled back so that it doesn't exceed that distance. No building permits will be allowed for lots 12-18 until the street goes through. C:\DOCUME-1\PLANNER\LOCALS-1\Temp\PDP Comment Responses 11-08-05 (Znd sub).doc Page 4 of 13 Response: After meeting with PFA, the following notes have been added to all plans: 1. Lots 12-18 of Block 5 shall be sprinklered if Barnstormer Drive will exceed 660' as shown with turnaround. 2. If Barnstormer Drive connects to the subdivision directly to the east prior to Lots 12-18, Block S being developed, said lots shall not be required to be sprinklered. Number: 33 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] [4/20/05] Need to align ped access ramps. See trans planning for their input for your proposed midblock locations. Response: Pedestrian access ramps have been aligned. Number: 34 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/5/05] Please label all slopes on the grading sheets so that we can determine whether or not the 4:1 max is being met. [4/20/05] Slopes effecting public row or in public row cannot exceed 4:1. Response: Areas of 4:1 slope have been labeled "4:1 max slope". Number: 35 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] [4/20/05] See Appendix E6 for all scanning requirements. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 36 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] Repeat comment. [4/20/05] Need a greater overlap from sheet to sheet so that all lots are shown in their entirety on at least one sheet (all plan sets). Response: Acknowledged. Number: 37 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] Repeat. No variance will be granted to allow the cosspan at the Collector/Arterial intersection. [4/20/05] Crosspans are not allowed in Collector streets. Midblock crosspans have to be 12' wide. 8' on Collector streets, 10' on Arterials. Response: Crosspan was removed from plans. Number: 40 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] Please call out ALL dimensions as required per detail 7-24. [4/20/051 Plan and Profile sheets — provide a detail of the street widening for all locations that this occurs. Show all dimensions required in detail 7-24. RI can be from 20-36' per Mike Herzig. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 42 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] This configuration is insufficient and will not be approved. A larger median will be necessary to prevent the left turn movements from Citation. [4/20/05] The pork chop in Timberline may not be adequate in the interim to control the movement. Will need to look at this more and discuss with Eric. Response: TST will coordinate design with cityfor final design. C:\DOCUME-1\PLANNERUACALS—I\Temp\PDP Comment Responses 11-08-05 (2nd sub).doc Page 5 of 13 Number: 43 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] No more than 500sf of surface area may drain over a public sidewalk. [4/20/05] Will need sidewalk culverts at all Alley intersections to take the drainage out to the street. Cannot drain over sidewalk. Response: Sidewalk culverts were added to all alley intersections. Number: 44 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] [4/20/05] Vertical crest and sag curves must be in accordance with details 7-17 and 7-18. Response: Vertical curve design was checked and revised where necessary. Number: 45 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] [4/20/05] Need to show existing features for a minimum of 150' of the project boundaries. Response: Existing trees, structures and utilities are shown. Number: 48 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] [4/20/05] See redlines for other comments. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 49 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] [4/20/05] More detailed comments to follow in Final Compliance when greater detail is given. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 51 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] I am very concerned that several meetings and/or conference calls have taken place regarding Engineering's comments without Engineering's knowledge or consent. This is a complicated site and attempting to negotiate Engineering comments with other departments can only delay your project and cause confusion. Please make sure that I am involved in all future meetings or discussions. [4/20/05] Please call or email me to set up a meeting with Matt Baker regarding the overpass design requirements. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 53 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] As shown on Appendix E4, preliminary cross sections are required every 50' as stated below. Sheri has agreed that you may provide fewer cross sections along Timberline as long as it is clear what is being proposed for the overpass in the ultimate. [4/20/05] Please provide cross sections for all arterial and collector streets at 50' intervals. Please provide cross sections at the local street widenings, three total, one on each end and one at the middle. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 92 Created: 4/25/2005 [8/2/05] Repeat. This comment must be addressed on the plans prior to scheduling the public hearing. Please call me to schedule a utility coordination. (4/25/05] Any lot with less than 50' of frontage will have to have the driveways shown on the plat, landscape, site and utility plans to ensure that you can fit the utilities, driveway and street trees. C:\DOCUNE—I\PLANNER\LOCALS-1\TempTDP Comment Respoum 11-08-05 (2nd sub).doc Page 6 of 13 Response: Driveways have been shown, as well as all utilities. Number: 100 Created: 8/2/2005 [8/2/05] Remove the word "Preliminary" from the title block on all plan sets, all sheets. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 122 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] My comments with this round are preliminary in nature and are not all inclusive due to the insufficient turn around time for the submittal as well as the lack of information on the plans. More detailed comments to follow with the next round of review for which I will require at least a 3 week turnaround to properly review and coordinate the plans. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 123 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] This project may not go to hearing until the "bumpout" along the southern property line is annexed into the City. You may also handle this by changing the property boundary on the plan sets to reflect what was annexed in with the ODP and then handle that piece as an offsite improvement with the appropriate easements. Response: This area has been annexed to the City and is referred to as "East Ridge Second Annexation ". Number: 129 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] Alley intersections need to meet PFA's 25' inside and 50' outside turning radii requirement. Response: The alley intersection has been removed and converted into a pedestrian connection. Number: 135 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] Just want to make sure that it is very clear to your client that no structures over 4' are allowed within the Sight Distance Easement. This affects quite a few lots and tracts in the project and may make future development in the effected tracts difficult at best. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 137 Created: 8/8/2005 [8/8/05] Please show all existing features within 150' of the project boundary. Response: Acknowledged. Topic: Landscape Plans Number: 91 Created: 4/25/2005 [8/5/05] [4/25/05] Please see Appendix E6 for scanning requirements. These sheets will not scan well and will not be accepted. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 131 [8/5/05] Show all utilities. Response: Acknowledged. Created: 8/5/2005 C:\DOCUME-1\PLANNERTMALS—I\Temp\PDP Comment Responses 11-08-05 (2nd sub).doc Page 7 of 13 Number: 132 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] Show driveways on all lots less than 50' in width. Response: Acknowledged. Topic: Overall Site Plan Number: 133 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] No structures of any kind, including project ID signs, are allowed in any easement. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 134 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] Please provide a legend, scale, north arrow, etc. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 136 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] Remove contours. Response: Acknowledged. Topic: Plat Number: 54 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] [4/20/05] Please update the plat language to the current version. I can email this to you so you can just cut and paste it into your drawing. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 56 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] From Technical Services: The boundary and legal do not close with this submittal. [4/20/05] From Technical Services: Boundary and legal close. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 61 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] Need to say that all tracts to be owned and MAINTAINED by the HOA. [4/20/05] From Technical Services: Need a "chart" as to what the tracts are and who owns and maintains them. Response: Acknowledged. On sheet 1 of the plat, a table has been shown. Survey note 1 explains that the HOA owns and maintains all facilities. Number: 99 Created: 8/2/2005 [8/2/05] From Technical Services: Can you place block numbers on the preliminary plat? Response: Acknowledged. Blocks are shown. Number: 101 Created: 8/2/2005 [8/2/05] From Technical Services: Minor drafting problems only. Response: Acknowledged. 16= C:\DOCUME--1\PLANNER\LOCALS-1\Temp\PDP Comment Responses 11-08-05 (2nd sub).doc Page 8 of 13 Number: 103 Created: 8/2/2005 [8/2/05] Lot numbering does not match the utility plans. Response: Acknowledged.Lot Numbers have been coordinated on the utility plans. Number: 104 Created: 8/2/2005 [8/2/05] The row for Dassault at the southern property boundary does not accommodate the curve in the road shown on the utility plans. Response: Acknowledged. ROW has been revised. Topic: Street Names Number: 12 Created: 4/19/2005 [8/8/05] House is very close to Howes, an existing street. Phonetically similar names are not allowed and suggest contacting PFA to see if they approve of House as soon as possible. [4/19/05] Collector street names must be taken from the approved street name list. Please contact Ted Shepard (221-6750) as soon as possible. Response: We have selected another street name and have contacted the City to reserve: "Sykes Drive ". Topic: Utility Plans Number: 19 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] Please see comment #92. These comments go hand in hand and must be completed before the next round of review and before we can schedule the public hearing. [4/20/05] Please schedule a utility coordination meeting prior to your next submittal. You can call me at 221- 6605 or email me at sjoy@fcgov.com to set one up. Response: We had a utility coordination meeting on 8124105. Number: 47 Created: 4/20/2005 [8/2/05] Several highlighted items were not provided with this submittal. [4/20/051 Please complete and submit Appendix E4 with the next submittal. All highlighted items must be complete prior to scheduling the public hearing. Any item not addressed will become a new comment with the next submittal. Response: E4 will be submitted with this submittal. Number: 124 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] The property boundary lineweight is too close to the lot lines and existing and proposed contours. Please make it more distinguishable. Response: Property boundary linetype was changes. Number: 125 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] No manholes are allowed in wheel paths or bike lanes. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 126 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] Sheet 25 - what exactly is this sheet proposing? If you are installing utilities on someone else's property, you will need a letter of intent prior to hearing allowing this occur. The actual utility easement must be provided in Final Compliance. C:\DOCUME-1\PLANNER\LOCALS-1\Temp\PDP Comment Responses 11-08-05 (2nd sub).doe Page 9 of 13 Response: Our first submittal did show this off -site sewer design and it was included in the plan sets. We also provided the letters of intent (in the first submittal) for comment. This sheet is an overall util. sheet showing the off -site sanitary sewer alignment. Call -outs and labels were added to help clarify. Number: 127 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] Sheet 38 - please provide 500' of offsite preliminary design. Response: Design has been extended to 500' offsite where needed. Number: 128 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] See chapter 7 for street design requirements including but not limited to minimum arc lengths, slopes, tangents, radius, sag and crest curves, etc. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Doug Martine Topic: Landscape Plans Number: 96 Created: 7/26/2005 [7/26/05] A streetlight plan drawn on a landscape plan, was hand delivered to Jim Sell Design on 7-26-05. The planned streetlights need to be shown on the landscape plan and street tree locations adjusted to provide 40 ft. clearance between lights and trees (15 ft. if the tree is an ornamental). Note that some storm drain catch basins may need to be adjusted to provide space to install streetlight standards. Response: Street lights have been added to the landscape plans and trees have been adjusted to accommodate light clearances and a note is included to indicate said clearances. Street lights were adjusted where conflicts with inlets existed. Topic: Streets Number: 95 Created: 7/26/2005 [7/26/05] Is the road from Timberline, south of House Dr. is named Quinby Way or Zepplin Way? The overall landscape plan shown Zepplin, the 1 "=50' landscape plan shows Quincy. Response: It is Zeppelin Way and has been clearly labeled. Topic: Utility Plans Number: 94 Created: 7/26/2005 [7/26/05] The developer is encouraged to separate the planned 'paired' water services. As an alternative, many, but not all, of the water services will be required to be separated to provide space for electric vaults and streetlights. Specific locations where the separation will be required will not be known until the electric utility system is designed, but prior to actual installation of the water services. Response: Acknowledged, utils. have been updated per the util. coordination mtng. Department: Natural Resources Issue Contact: Doug Moore Topic: General Number: 97 Created: 8/1/2005 [8/l/05] No remaining issues. Wonderful job on the Wetland Mitigation Plans. NRD will provide a reference to this plan as well as a reference to the timing of construction limits related to the raptor use the development agreement. Please contact Doug Moore at (970) 224-6143 if you have any addition question or concerns. Thank you. C:\DOCUME-1\PLANNER\LOr-MS-1\Temp\PDP Commenl Responses 11-08-05 (2nd sub).doc Page 10 of 13 Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Basil Hamdan Topic: Canal Overflow (Larimer and Weld) Number: 120 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] According to the Dry Creek master plan, the Larimer and Weld Canal has a spill upstream of this area of 290 cfs (Conveyance Element 953). These flows will need to be routed through this site. This spill is shown on the approved Dry Creek master plan. Even though this site is located technically in the Cooper Slough Boxelder basin, it is impacted by this overflow, which is detailed in the Dry Creek master drainage plan. Response: TST has been coordinating with ACE and the city on this matter. Topic: Channeling off -site flows through the site (Black Hollow Channel) Number: 121 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] The City is currently looking at an alternative that would convey water to the Dry Creek Channel from areas north of the Larimer and Weld Canal. The City's consultant on this project is Anderson Consulting Engineers. The channel would carry the detained areas north of the Canal. These flows are in the range of 270 cfs. The channel that would be needed for the Larimer and Weld Canal overflow should be sufficient to carry these flows through this site. I can email you a copy of the preliminary design of the channel if requested. This channel could possibly address the conveyance of the Larimer and Weld Canal overflow as provide a master planned improvement needed in this area. It is recommended that you contact me to set up a meeting with our master planning engineers, in order to more fully explain and explore this issue. Please note that this is based on best available information, as this channel alternative design for the master plan improvements was only recently developed by the City. Response: TST has been coordinating with ACE and the city on this matter. Topic: Drainage Number: 98 Created: 8/2/2005 [8/2/05] The current design allows water to pond up in forebays prior to entering Pond 1, please provide overflows from these forebays in to Pond 1, and provide a way to get rid of low flows from these forebay areas into the Pond 1. Response: Low flow pipes have been shown. Pipes will be finalized with final design Topic: Drainage design issues Number: 102 Created: 8/2/2005 [8/2/05] Please explain in the report what areas off -site from this development were accounted for in the drainage design and how that compares and complies with the sub -basin delineation as shown in the Cooper Slough master drainage plan. The Cooper Slough Mater plan shows basin 16, to be 60.5 acres to the northeast of this site and to drain through the site with a future planned detention. The model takes into account only 13.08 acres at a very low percent impervious rate. This issue was brought up early on with the design engineers; however, the drainage report for this site has failed to address it and thus does not comply with the currently approved master plan for this site. Please provide a SWMM model schematic in the drainage report showing all basins, conveyance elements and ponds. It seems like the percent impervious for open areas was assumed to be close to 0% in some open areas, please use a minimum of 20% per City criteria. Response: SWMM model has been adjusted. 1i C:\DOCUN4B-I\PLANNER\LOCALS-1\Temp\PDPCommou Responses 11-08-05 (2nd sub).doc Page 11 of 13 1APR-27-2005 WED 02:31 PM JIM SELL DESIGN INC. FAX NO, 9704842443 P. 11 a.... 748 Wtehlem Way. BleS D Fore C01HP4 co 80523 970=6.0557 MnM 303S95.? 103 ft 970.228.M Infoo:WMaom ! www."Vjnaaom f February 03, 2005 City of Fort Collins Development Review City of Fort Collins — Planning Department P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: East midge PDP- Letter of Intent for a the Boxelder Sanitation District Sewer Easement Pro/. No.: 0983.0006, 00 Dear City of Fort Collins Development Review, We the undersigned, represent the Whitham property and the East Ridge PDP project This letter of intent Indicates good faith In working together to provide a mutually beneficial Boxelder Sanitation sanitary sower easement. Said easement will be a permanent 30-foot em nt located directly North of the 20- foot power line easement that is located along the )Pithig,�m property's Southern property line. In addition to the 30-foot permanentleant, a 100-foot temporary construction easement will be located to the North of the permanent. Said temporary easement will no longer cassa'once construction bf said 18-inch sewer main has been installed and a�pted by the District Mr. avid h m a ge of Fort Collins, LLC Topic: General Number: 130 Created: 8/5/2005 [8/5/05] Please note that due to the short turn around provided and the preliminary nature of the information submitted on this round of review, all the comments given are general in nature. Once a more detailed submittal is provided, more detailed comments will follow. Response: Acknowledged Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: David Averill Topic: General Number: 105 Created: 8/3/2005 [8/3/05] The size of Block 22 poses a problem from a Ped LOS perspective, specifically the directness measure. Let's take a look at this at see if we can find a way to put in a pedestrian path similar to what has been done in other areas of the project. Response: We have added a mid -block pedestrian connection to Block 22. Topic: Overall Site Plan Number: 11 Created: 4/19/2005 [8/3/05] Thanks for adding the walk. Please add a note that specifically states that this is a "temporary paved connection". [4/19/05] The TIS indicates that there will be a "temporary paved connection" from the southern edge of this property to the existing sidewalk on the east side of Timberline which terminates at Timberline/International intersection. I do not see this noted on the planet. Please include this improvement on subsequent submittals. Response: A note has been added to the Site Plan. Topic: Plat Number: 5 Created: 4/18/2005 [8/2/05] Looks like Tract R is the only one that didn't get resolved, according to the tract table and plat. Looks like that bit of Tract C where the ped path passes through needs a public access easement as well. Thanks. [4/18/05] The pedestrian walkways in Tracts B,R,P,U,T,S, and Y need to be placed in Public Access Easements. These can be blanket easements or called out separately. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes Topic: Zoning Number: 3 Created: 4/4/2005 [7/26/05] Sheet SP-4 shows the 10 lots for the attached single family units. However, if these lots contain the 3' side yard easement that is typical on all the lots, then attached units won't work. I don't have a plat to review with this round, but if they haven't removed the easements, they'll have to do so. [4/4/05] Their project note #7 and their response number 4 on their Conceptual Review letter response indicate that there are 3 housing types proposed with this PDP. However, only 2 housing types are listed in the Unit Type Summary on Sheet SP-2 of 8. The Code requires 3 housing types in each PDP over 45 acres in size. Even if there are 3 housing types in the ODP, that doesn't satisfy the requirement that 3 are required for this particular PDP. So I don't believe the "Future MF Tracts" count towards satisfying the requirement. Response: The shared side yard easements have been removed from the plat and site plan. _a C:\DOCUME—I\PLANNER\LADCALS—I\Temp\PDP Comment Responses I 1-08-05 (2nd sub).doc Page 12 of 13 Redline drawings have been returned with this resubmittal. Thank you for your review of this letter and the resubmittal PDP materials. Please do not hesitate to contact me for any reason. Sincerely, JIM SELL DESIGN, INC. L Matthew J lakely, A A Project ager cc: George Hart, Progressive Living Structures, Inc. Jeff Strauss, Tri-Trend Homes Keith Sheaffer, TST, Inc. Consulting Engineers =a C:\DOCUME-1\PLANNER\LOCALS-1\Temp\PDP Comment Responses 11-08-05 (2nd sub).doc Page 13 of 13 November 16, 2005 Pete Wray Interim Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services City of Fort Collins 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80521 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING ENGINEERING Re: Alternative Compliance Request for East Ridge PDP from Street Pattern and GRAPHIC DESIGN Connectivity Standards Dear Pete, Per our discussign with David Averill of Transportation Planning, he has indicated that we are required to submit an Alternative Compliance request from the Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards (Sec. 3.6.3), for Block 14 of the East Ridge PDP. The development plan meets the Purpose and General Standards of Section 3.6.3, however, Block 14 doesn't meet the requirements of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards Section 7.2.3.1) as follows: 7.2.3 Local and Minor Collector Streets D. Maximum Length New Minor Collectors and Local streets are limited in continuity. The maximum permitted length between 90-degree turns and controlled intersections is 660 feet on local streets. The maximum continuous length for a Minor Collector is 2640 feet. Per the Alternative Compliance criteria, "The plan and design shall clearly identify and discuss the modifications.and alternatives proposed and the ways in which the plan will better accomplish the purpose of this Section than would a plan which complies with the standards of this Section." We have proposed a pedestrian connection at the approximate mid -block location of Block 14. This block fronts on Sykes Drive, a Minor Collector street classification, and is approximately 791' long. The pedestrian connection will allow pedestrians to safely and efficiently traverse the block without having to walk to either end. In addition, this pedestrian connection aligns with pedestrian connections in the proposed blocks to the north and south encouraging a continuous pedestrian connection from the north end of the project to the future City of Fort Collins Neighborhood Park. Although this proposed configuration does reduce access and circulation for vehicles, it maintains facilities for bicycles and pedestrians. 53 WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 P970.484.1921 F970.484.2443 INF0aa11MSELLDESIGN.00M JIMSELLDESIGN.COM Please consider that this alternative design minimizes the impacts on natural areas and features, fosters non -vehicular access, provides for distribution of the development's traffic without exceeding level of service standards, enhances neighborhood continuity and connectivity and provides direct, sub -,arterial street access to parks,and the neighborhood center within the development from the proposed development within the • same section mile. Sincerely, Matthew J. akely, ASL • Jim•Sell Design, Inc. cc: Jeff Strauss and George Hart 0 November 16, 2005 Pete Wray Interim Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services City of Fort Collins 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80521 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING ENGINEERING Re: Alternative Compliance Request for East Ridge PDP from Street Pattern and GRAPHIC DESIGN Connectivity Standards Dear Pete, Per our discussion with David Averill of Transportation Planning, he has indicated that we are required to submit an Alternative Compliance request from the Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards (Sec. 3.6.3), for Block 14 of the East Ridge PDP. The development plan meets the Purpose and General Standards of Section 3.6.3, however, Block 14 doesn't meet the requirements of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards Section 7.2.3.1) as follows: 7.2.3 Local and Minor Collector Streets D. Maximum Length New Minor Collectors and Local streets are limited in continuity. The maximum permitted length between} 90-degree turns and controlled intersections is 660 feet on local streets. The maximum continuous length for a Minor Collector is 2640 feet. Per the Alternative Compliance criteria, "The plan and design shall clearly identify and discuss the modifications and alternatives proposed and the ways in which the plan will better accomplish the purpose of this Section than would a plan which complies with the standards of this Section." We have proposed a pedestrian connection at the approximate mid -block location of Block 14. This block fronts on Sykes Drive, a Minor Collector street classification, and is approximately 791' long. The pedestrian connection will allow pedestrians to safely and efficiently traverse the block without having to walk to either end. In addition, this pedestrian connection aligns with pedestrian connections in the proposed blocks to the north and south encouraging a continuous pedestrian connection from the north end of the project to the future City of Fort Collins Neighborhood Park. Although this proposed configuration does reduce access and circulation for vehicles, it maintains facilities for bicycles and pedestrians. 153 WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 P970.484.1921 F970.484.2443 INFO(,+)JIMSELLDESIGN.COM JIMSELLDESIGN.COM 0 Please consider that this alternative design minimizes the imphcts on natural areas and features, fosters non -vehicular access, provides for distribution of the development's traffic without exceeding level of service standards, enhances neighborhood continuity and connectivity and provides direct, sub -arterial street access to parks,and the neighborhood center within the development from the proposed development within the same section mile. Sincerely, Matthew J. ely, ASL • Jim Sell Design, Inc. cc: Jeff Strauss and George, Hart ,tl a TST 748 biA'iders Way, r5Idg. �r Fcr� C 11ins, CCU 1052S, 970.226.0557 metro 303.595.9I C 3 970.226.0204 ru c. JUN 2 7 2006 June 13, 2006 Mr. Matt Baker City of Fort Collins Transportation 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 Re: East Ridge Timberline Road Project No.: 0983.0007.00 Dear Matt, This letter is regarding the two (2) meetings that we had with you regarding our design of Timberline Road for the East Ridge Final Plat submittal. I have attached the two (2) memos that were created based on the aforementioned meetings. These memos describe what was agreed upon and what TST will be presenting to you in our Final Construction drawings. If there are any items that are incorrect, please contact our office as quickly as you can so that we can be proactive in a resolution. We are still waiting on some information from Ms. Susan Joy regarding some striping and what Mr. Eric Bracke would like. If there is any way we can get this information quickly, it would be appreciated. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to give our office a call. Respectfully, TST, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS r ;6 Keith Sheaffer, P.E. DNT/tvl Enclosure(s) cc: Mr. Jeff Strauss Mr. George Hart Ms. Susan Joy Transportation Development Review. Fee Date Received/ raid T tal Atrt Project Name: t l -Q le FIA, � o punt Paid Project Location: 0a e - 17/i7 Vibe Date: % - Type of Submittal - Please indicate the type of application submitted by chedmg the box preceding the appropriate requests). Fee stnrctnre amount due ❑ Overall Development Plan (ODP) $500 each Final Development Plan (FDP) This fee includes 2 rounds of review $1000 each LLL ❑ Additional round of review $ 500 each 0 Annexation $20 x _ awes = + $250 = ❑ Minor Amendment $250 each ❑ M4orAmendment $2,500 each ❑ Re -zone $200 each ❑ Modification to Land Use Code $200 each ❑ Wireless Telecommunication Egnipmeat (wM) $65 each ❑ Road Projects acres (of roadway) X $250 = ❑ Vacation ofEasement(s) *** # of vacations _X $400 = ❑ Vacation ofRight(s)-of--Way •** # of vacations _X $800 = ❑ Dedication of Easemeat(s) and/or RigW3)-af-Way "** # of dedications _ X $250 = *** This fee does not include the coat of filing &a. Filing fees shall be ddermined at the time of final document submittal and will be required prior to filing. ❑ Project Development Plan (PDP) or Base' 'c Development Review Project requiring Transportation Services Review and/or utility plan review. This fee includes 3 rounds of review. Datached Single Family $160 per unit # ofunits.X $160 1V nkilandy or other residential units $115 par unit # of units X $115 = Commerm&I, Industrua, Retail, and/or Non resdential b ldMg sgasra footage $0.25 per square foot aq ftX $0.25 = Size of the developmant (area being platted or if not being pinned size of parcel accourpanyms all development movements) 3250 per acre acres X 3 250 = Project fee 32,000 each Total of above amounts If this fee amoaat =creeds $30,000 Ilea the fee amount shall be adjusted with the following formula: $30,000 + A (the amount over 30,000 the mwd men fee for any residential ONLY project shall be $500 per residemtiai unit. This check should be used to verdy the fee amount (does not a*y to m=edarae developments). PDP fat strap be -the leap of this amount or the above calculated amount. # of residesetisi units X 3500 = Reduction for affordable baning — a copy of dw City letter certifying/ sir thatizing.thtaff rdable housiagstrail be wavidad withthis application. Ammut of reduction to be applied Total owed for PDP $ Land Use Information: Total number, of single family detached units: Total number of multifamily/other residential units: 1 C Total number of certified affordable dwelling units (a copy of the letted authorization is required): Non residential building square footage: NA- sq ft Gross Acreage: % 3.2 1 acres General Information: Owners Name(s): eAz i e/J2,- & `k-ft4r Street address: e4AKe/C:10A1,1t' City/StatelZip: ✓eyavlwl eo ?0 3b- Telephone: 4?44-L,!?70Fa c: Applicants/ Consultants Firm Name: rilM S L li�al.�J �lyL. Street address: f 53 L-V AN-_T A97VA! VC Clty/State/ Zip: l` e-d",/NJ. (6 2 2� Telephone: -1 a Fax: ie,�-� fa Certification: - By signing this petnit I acknowledge that I an acting with the knowledge, consent, and authority of the owners of the property (including all owners having legal or equitable interest in the real property, as deined in Section 1-2 cif the City Code; and including cammon areas legally connected to or associated with the property which is the subject of this application) without whose consent and ate' the requested scorn could not iavaWy be accomplished. Pmmmi to said authority, I hereby permit City officials to eater upon the property for ptaposes of inspearam. Name (please �: il' +nor&W U, 4,Ak-6 SiivAtcme: Tdapiaoee: �1`` ��2/ D RrQ a' DELICH ASSOCIATES Traffic & Transportation Engineering 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, Colorado 80538 Phone: (970) 669-2061 Fax: (970) 669-5034 -7 1 r August 1, 2007 File: 0245LT01 Mr. Eric Bracke, P.E. Fort Collins Traffic Operations P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Dear Eric: This letter is a variance request for the spacing between a driveway to/from a gas/convenience store and Timberline Road, along Sykes Drive, within the East Ridge development. A site plan is provided in Appendix A. Sykes Drive is considered to be a minor collector street. According to Table 7-3 in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, the distance between a high volume driveway and a street intersection is 175 feet, on -centers. The distance shown is 164 feet. As shown on the site plan, Sykes Drive will have a raised median from Timberline Road to Vicot Way. This median will prevent left -ins and left -outs at the subject driveway. The primary issue related to the driveway location is that a number of right -turning egressing vehicles from the subject driveway will desire to get into the westbound left -turn lane approaching Timberline Road. If there are more than two vehicles in the left -turn lane, a vehicle exiting the subject driveway will not be able to get to the back of the left -turn queue. Analyses in the "East Ridge Transportation Impact Study" indicate that the left -turn queue will be approximately five vehicles during the peak hours. This would indicate that exiting vehicles from the subject driveway could not get into the left -turn lane during the peak hours. However, experience would indicate that there would be periods of time, during the peak hours, when there would be less than two vehicles in the left -turn lane, especially when/if this intersection is signalized and the traffic on Sykes Drive clears. At times when the left -turn queue extends beyond the driveway, it is likely that the right -turn lane queue would also extend beyond the driveway. At these times, vehicles exiting the subject driveway could not get on Sykes Drive. The delays to the exiting vehicles would be within the gas/convenience store property and would not negatively impact the operation of Sykes Drive. Exiting vehicles also have the alternative of using Vicot Way, which is over 220 feet from the stop bar on Sykes Drive. Based upon the operational analyses, the queue on Sykes Drive will not extend to Vicot Way. With this alternative route, these vehicles can enter either westbound lane on Sykes Drive. It is recommended that a sign be posted at the subject driveway stating that "exiting vehicles should not block Sykes Drive." Since this land use will primarily serve East Ridge and the nearby area, customers will learn that, during the peak hours, exiting via Vicot Way will be more efficient. During other hours of the day, there should not be a concern at this location. It is respectfully requested that a variance to the spacing standard from 175 feet to 164 feet be granted. This reduction of nine feet will not be detrimental to the public health, welfare, and safety. The raised median on Sykes Drive will positively create a right-in/right-out access to the gas/convenience store. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions or desire additional information. �QOn�E�'%R ate, Sincerely, �Q� tr ., Matthew J. Delich �,'s,E , APR-27-2005 WED 02:31 PM JIM SELL DESIGN INC, FAX N0, 9704842443 P. 12 ' •,�r�i�.L:k 'irk �'�.•let .•i .., . February 03, 2005 City of Fort Collins Development Review City of Fort Collins — Planning Department P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: East Ridge PDP- Letter of Intent for Deloz/er Road Rjghtof Wa y Prof. No.: 0983.0006.00 Dear City of Fort Collins Development Review, We the undersigned, represent the Whitham property and the East Ridge PDP project. This letter of intent indicates good faith In working together to Provide a mutually beneficial street right -Of -Way for the minor collector roadway nand Delozier Road. Said roadway right -Of -way consists of 764&et total, 38-feet on the East Ridge PDP project and 38-feet on the Whitham property, er. David m s Ridge of Fort Collins, LLC 74d W'Wua Way, &d�, r, Fern COIL" W :Os25 970=A,8957 —QV 3U8.595.9103 fix 97p�.0,..2,Zd,=4 InfO WWW.t6thmcOm APPENDIX A J , II �� �OQ 16- --- - VICoT WAY .,. (LOCAL)' 1 G� I 1 I ox q —Rx +l r z Q:I l I 1 J a I I31 �Y —nf Ll ------- - - - - -J a I 76 �axow' i j � $ ell i I ' p 0 lo OVI?1318v a 3NI1639 -- TST TST, INC. CONSULTING„ ENGINEERS 748 Whalers Way Fort Collins, CO 80525 970.226.0557 metro 303.595.9103 fax 970.226.0204 info@tstinc.com www.tstinc.com January 23, 2008 Ms. Susan Joy City of Fort Collins Engineering Department 281 N. College Ave. PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Re: East Ridge storm sewer bury depth variance request Project No. 0983.0007.00 Dear Susan, A variance for the minimum depth of bury for storm sewer pipes is being requested for the East Ridge project. The specific criteria for which the variance is being requested is from the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) Chapter 12, Section 12.2.2 (Minimum Depth). This criteria states that all utilities shall be located at least 2 feet below the scarified subgrade elevation. Constraints on the storm drainage system prevent the storm sewer system from being lowered. To achieve the 2 foot minimum depth over all of the storm sewer would require an exceptional amount of fill over a large portion of the site. TST was notified that per Rick Richter at the City of Fort Collins that the City would accept 1.5 feet from subgrade to top of pipe. All of the East Ridge storm sewer meets this criteria, with most areas exceeding it. TST believes that if the contractor properly installs and backfills the storm sewer pipe, there should be no issues with excessive settlement that would cause damage to street paving. This variance There is no due to this vs; - Please feel t` further. Sincerely, TST, z C. CC Spencer M. Si SMS/mgf maintenance costs for the City. health and safety of the public or to discuss this request TST 748 Whalers Way Fort Collins, CO 80525 970.226.0557 metro 303.595.9103 fax 970.226.0204 January 23, 2008 Ms. Susan Joy City of Fort Collins Engineering Department 281 N. College Ave. PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Re: East Ridge Vertical Curve Length Variance Request Project No. 0983.0007.00 Dear Susan, A variance for the minimum vertical curve lengths for crest and sag curves along Sykes Drive is being requested. The specific criteria for which the variance is being requested is from the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) Chapter 7, Section 7.4.1, BA.a (Minimum Length Crest and Sag). This section references Figures 7-17 and 7-18 to determine the minimum curve lengths. Due to street drainage capacity and grade issues, numerous low points were needed along Sykes Drive. With narrow lot frontages (typically 50') it was necessary to place the Type 'R' inlets at lotlines to allow room for driveways, water and sewer services and "shallow" utilities. To accomplish this, vertical curve criteria for a local street section were used. The difference in curve length for the majority of the curves is 30' (design curves are 30' shorter than criteria). TST looked at trying to use the minor collector criteria for vertical curve lengths, but found that the low points and inlets would have to be placed along lot frontages and not on lot lines. The vertical difference in the high and low points between the local and minor collector curve lengths was found to be generally hundredths of a foot to a tenth. In two cases the difference was approximately .2-.3' (24"). TST does not believe that this vertical difference at the high and low points will noticeably affect the drivability of the roadway. This variance will not impact construction or maintenance costs for the City. There is no perceived or anticipated risk to the health and safety of the public due to this variance from the design criteria. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or to discuss this request further. Sincerely, TST, I . CONSULTING ENGINEER 4 Spencer . Smith, P.E. n - SMS/mgf S �- info@tstinc.com I ■ www.tstinc.com TSTTST, INC. 'L:sT ` a � 748 Whalers Way =ort Collins, CO 80525 970.226.0557 metro 303.595.9103 fax 970.226.0204 March 24, 2009 Mr. Ward Stanford ! City of Fort Collins Traffic Department 626 Linden Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 Re: East Ridge Sight Distance Variance Request (Sykes & Yeager) Project No. 0983.0007.00 Dear Mr. Stanford, On behalf of East Ridge of Fort Collins, LLC., TST respectfully requests a variance to the required sight distance for the intersection of Sykes Drive and Yeager Street in the East Ridge subdivision. Sykes Drive is to be classified as a minor collector with a design speed of 40 mph and a corresponding "corner intersection sight distance" (CISD) of 660'. The variance is requested to the design CISD reducing the design speed from 40 mph to 35 mph with a corresponding CISD of 520'. The variance is requested exclusively for sight distance from the northbound lane of Yeager Street looking westward along Sykes Drive toward Timberline Road. The specific criterion for which the variance is being requested is from the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) Chapter 8, Section 8.2.14 requiring a sight distance easement according to the design tables presented in figure 7-16. TST believes that the speeds will be relatively low at the intersection of Timberline and Sykes, located roughly 930' to the west of Yeager Street. Sykes will be stop controlled from the west and movements from Timberline Road onto Sykes Drive will be slowed by the required 90 degree turns. Sykes is also designed with tight centerline curve radius' (600') approaching Yeager Street to slow the acceleration of traffic from the Timberline Road and Sykes Drive intersection approaching Yeager Street. This variance will not impact construction or maintenance costs for the City. There is no perceived or anticipated risk to the health and safety of the public due to this variance from the design criteria given the justification for lower design speeds as explained above. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or to discuss this further. W" - n Rr, :y 2502E t� • Ir Sincerely, TST, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS c Ry n O. Banni---� 4F7". Hu nn P.E. info@tstinc.com I ROB/SFH/mgf w■ ww.tstinc.com m m m m I X w z w �o W N � o Qm w `n W 0 W � U zW Q (l� 0 Z U V) Page 1 of 1 Susan Joy - Eastridge From: Sheri Langenberger To: Susan Joy Date: 7/1/2009 3:47 PM Subject: Eastridge CC: Helen Migchelbrink; Marc Virata; Steve Dush A recap of our discussion this afternoon upon reviewing the Eastridge plans that are showing the AB line and the relocation of that line only on the overall utility plan sheets. I will sign the utility plans as they are - even though they are not showing the AB line or the easements on all sheets. They do need to show and label the existing AB easement and the new AB easement on the Plat. And AB will need to sign the plat. We will add a paragraph to the DA that identifies that the AB line in Delozier (sp?) will need to be relocated with Phase 2 and the line shall be removed or abandoned in accordance with city standards and the easement vacated prior to the construction and acceptance of Delozier. A copy of the document recorded at the County for the vacation of the easement shall be provided as proof of vacation. Please write a paragraph and send the document over to Paul. I will review it on Monday and if we need to make changes we will resend those paragraphs over to Paul. But we can at least get him started on his review. Sheri Sheri Langenberger, P.E. Engineering Development Review Manager City of Fort Collins, Engineering Dept 970-221-6605 file:HCADocuments and Settings\sjoy\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 7/1/2009 c c c C C C: C 2 a LL (J w Cr 0 z w 0 ti CV N Ui a g It co 0 0> CD co 0 ti rn X Li Co 0 CV 0) 0 0 0 ti rn w 0 a 0 z R w w z z LLI 0 a 0 a z a x L Cr r February 14, 2005 File: 0245LTOI Ms. Sherri Wamhoff, P.E. Fort Collins Engineering 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 Dear Sherri: This letter is a variance request northbound with regard to the right -turn lane approaching the future Timberline/Skymaster-Collins Aire intersection. The right -turn lane is required based upon the traffic forecasts and Figure 8-4 in the "Larimer County Urban Area Street standards- (LCUASS). Timberline Road is classified as a six -lane arterial street on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Arterial streets have a design speed of 50 mph. At this design speed, the right -turn lane should be 435 feet long including bay taper. The bay taper should be 200 feet for a 12 foot lane. The distance between the Timberline/Skymaster-Collins Aire intersection and the Timberline/Citation intersection (to the south) is approximately 460 feet (on -centers). It is my understanding that the Timberline/Citation intersection location was mandated by City staff in accordance with the City intersection spacing requirements. Right -turn lanes are measured from the P.C. of the curb return on the arterial street. Therefore, the available distance for the right -turn lane is approximately 350 feet. The design shown on the engineering drawings indicate a continuous right -turn lane between these two intersections. This design approach was discussed with and agreed to by Eric Bracke, Fort Collins Traffic Engineer. Timberline Road is posted at 45 mph and this posted speed will likely continue into the future. The deceleration length for 45 mph is 375 feet including the bay taper. Vehicles entering the continuous right -turn lane will likely do so just past the north curb return of the Timberline/Citation intersection. While the deceleration design value is 435 feet (LCUASS), information contained in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, AASHTO, 2001, indicates that at a comfortable rate of deceleration for a passenger car, the stopping distance from 50 mph is 150 feet for dry pavement and 220 feet for wet pavement. Therefore, it is concluded that a vehicle (passenger car) can stop safely in the available distance in the continuous right -turn lane. This design approach will not be detrimental to the public health, welfare, and safety. It is respectfully requested that you favorably consider this variance. If you require additional information or have questions regarding this variance request, do not hesitate to contact me. Sin ely, Matthew J. Delich, P.E. 303+926+0852 0 1/ 11 James C. Tienken, P.C. Alan G. Hill, P.C. Date: June 27, 2005 TIENKU & H"111wy 4.L.Pi Attorneys at Law 726 Front Street, Suite B P.O. Box 550 Louisville, Colorado 80027-0550 Telephone (303) 673-9373 Facsimile (303) 926-0853 FAX TRANSMISSION Pages being transmitted (including this page): 11 PLEASE DELIVER TO: Lucia Liley FROM: RE: East Ridge COMMENTS: Alan G. Hill Attached is a copy of the court ave res "udicata e court or der —is als o atta regulate the headoate of FAX NUMBER. - Court case in which the Irt or er. The 1901 trial uimer and Weld cannot I will forward a revised letter to Butch Sommerineyer today, and copy you with it. I will suggggest removing the volumetric limit of 2.2 acre feet per acre, and the headgate language. Call 303/673-9373 if the complete document is not received. To reply by fax, dial 303/926- 0853. Status of Original: To follow by Ist Class Mail: ❑ To remain in this office: ❑ Other. ❑ THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATIONTHAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIALAND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message to us by mail. Thank you. AA FACSIMILE. rieMttu HOI.wyd b—Zt—ub; b:ZbAM;TIENKEN AND HILL LLP ;303+926+0853 * 2/ 11 Colo.) BUMNELL v. LA1tIMER & WELD IRFL CO. 1017 might be implied, and they are. eliminated construction or the .condition of the bridge, • from the case. The Attorney General makes you will acquit him. NVe cannot approve of no claim that the evidence shows nay ma- the theory adopted by the prosecution. licious intent to damage the bridge. Do- 4. In 11103 the Legislature passed the fol- ' fore driving onto it, defendant and his en- lowing statute: f*F •- gineer went under the bridge, made a person- "Section 1. It shall be the duty .of all i ',"rr•:. al inspection, .and honestly believed they persons, associations and corporations open •S could safety cross. Besides, it is natural for sting steam threshing maclliaes or vehicles, �;�:,..s, every person to protect his life and guard or using the public roads for transporting his property from damage, and it does not such machines, or. other heavy machinery. seem. reasonable that the defendant would to use R sufficient number. of heavy planks, drive upon' the bridge with the evil intent of wherever necessary, to protect all sidewalka, breaking it down. Supporting detmdant's bridges, culverts and causeways from being theory that- it was an accident, the uncontra- broken by said steam threshing machines, d[cted evidence shows that, at file point or other heavy maebinery, in passing over where the damage occurred, one of the sup-. the same. porting rods, suspended from the cable "Sam2 If any person; association or cor- tbrough'an I-beam which supports the string- Donation shall purposeIy destroy or injure } era, had slipped on the cable and dropped naay sidewalk, bridge, culvert or causeway, through the I-beam several inches, so that or remove nay of the timber or plank there - It was, without any support from the rod, of, or obstruct the same, -be shall forfeft a. which weakened the bridge. sum not lees than one hundred dollars, nor more than three hundred dollars; and shall & The information evidently was drawn, all damages occasioned thereby be lifer the case tried, conviction had, and sentence defend - pronounced on the' theory that it the defend- rebuilding and for all aece�nry costs for rebutIding or all < ' ant omitted a duty imposed by statute is not repairing the same. And. all lorieitures and earns of money :recovered .sprier this get *•: - . plinking the. bridge, which resulted is its e injury, he was guilty of malicious mischief, shall' be turned Into the county road fund." ..4,`'..; regardless of 'evil intent The court refused Seca Laws, 1908, p.'410. The defendant seems bpve been tried for Z. ° ." '' all instructions on the questions of accident, good faith, evil design, or intention. , It gale .to violating the above statute importing only a for as one instruction section 13331, it S. 1908,, civil liability, and sentenced violating 4: regarding the planking o1 bridges, and told the malicious mischief act imposing a crim- the jury that '"unlawful" meant contrary to inai liay. .The mere'intentional doing of liability. as act prohibited by statute, or omitting the law, without authority of law, and Implies pertormaace of a statutory duty, does not that the act was not done as the law allows requires The was that it It ass , alone constitute malicious mischief, though it `' or .theory nalawiul.to cross the bridge without'plank- may damage the property of another. The malicious mischief statute is etiminal, and ing it, which restlted in the damage, defend• it is not Its province to make simply the in- sat was guilty of maUcious mischief because tentional doing of an unlawful act, which z the act nine unlawful.. regardless of evil .in= Injures dnather's property, s crime Inds - teat.'. Defendant requested Yastructions sub - pendent of atq. evil purpose or intention pendent as follows, Which were refused by the court: The'. statute under Which this The bridge statute given to the jury carries prosecution Is brought is entitled "An act with It its own penalty, which is civil, and had no place in the trial of this case. concerning malicious. mischief." and before Judgment reversed,. and cause remanded, you can iiud the defendant guilty you must with directions to di,phiss, be satisfied from the evidence beyond a rea- Reversed dad remanded, with directions. ponable doubt that in doing the act complain- ed of be,*48 moved by wanton and malicious lntont or purpose to. injure the 'bIridge; . and, MUSSER.. C. J„ said SCOTT. J., concur. _ If you Bnd'from the evidence that the injury '^ complained of has the result of a mistake In judgmeut Without any intent to injure or .riG Coto. 92 destroy the bridge, you, must acquit the de- �133�.!•,�31.1^��Tr;rs.:;Ti.; i;�:IL::dg.:�Li.D.. fondant If the defendant In the ezertise •?� t`'ilc of bis honest judgment believed it was Dot (Supreme Court' of. Colorado. Der-.1, '1f113.) accessory to plank the bridge, he cannot be held to be criminally liable for a mistake in 1. Juva).Mlr1' (5' 7154)--ItEa JUDICATL A judgment ina former action by deteod- judgment unaceompenied by any intentional violation. of the law. In ord4r to convict' ant herein against -plaintiff irrigation cotalmny involving. the same water. rights, ad - the defendant, you must be satisfied from hcrc[a, judging that defendant -herein should have the the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that by- to the bridge Was caused by the use and enjoyment of a ceriai'a beadkate, haltb others and eaitraloinIIII plaiotilf,herein from [It- terfering with defendant's right or the wI111u1 act of the defendant; and, if you ,water amount or manner of.Alvtisiots, was a bar to find that It was caused by any defect In the a subsequent suit by plsfntjQ herein 'to restrain �r .p a Vor other cues "o same' topic and seotloa NUMBER is Dee- Dlg. a Am. Dig. Key -No. series a Rep'r i..dasw .. .. Colo.itap. 136-1319 Pia 4> 6-27-05; 8:25AM;TIENKEN AND HILL LLP ;303+926+0853 yF 3/ 11 1018 136 PACIM) REPORTEE (Colo defendants from opening the beadgates of their the same, or the distribution of water them. ditch and takfri9 necessary water. "t from, in so far as the headgates of the de• CF.r1• Note —For Other canes, see Judgmept, iendants are concerned. r Cent. Dig. §§ 1244-2246; Dec. Dig. § 715.*j The complaint prays for an injunction to 2. JUDGMENT (§ 723*)—Ttyg JVDIOA1W. prevent these acts and.'. t6` A former adjudication is concluslve in CQR1peY'the' do' a subsequent proceeding between the same Pendants to r%eive the water to which they +r. c , as to all questions which might have heeariir are.entitled. by the direction and order of ad and' determined in the prior proceeding the superintendent of the plaintiff. To this (Ed- .Note. -=For other cases, a" Judgment, eompistnt the' phiinHff in error, defendant' *284-1237, Bushnell, ffied, his separate answer, in I2311, 22Q. 7 06Dec. DSO J 71 wbteb g § 7m he pleads -that the matters and things in - District Court, Lorimer County; Era. TOlved in the :complaint are as to him res a Jas E. Garrigoes, Judge, adjudicate. .It .is allegedn -this' aniwet Suit by the Larlmer do Weld Irrigation that "of an: adjudication thematters com- Company against E. H. Bushnell and others._ plained.. of was is the case of the' Judgment .had said . tor;plalnthr, and defendant named defendant: Bushnell --a inst .the Larlmer .E brings error. ,'Reversed. Weld' Irrigattdn`Company, plaintiff In.. this Fancher Sarchek of Ft Oollins, for plain- instituted In, the district . court of .Lar= tits in error: Rhodes & Farnworth, of Pt Ito r county. , on . the 4th day of January,... Collins, for defendant in error. 1t102:' Tbe. pleadings and decree in that case.'ate fully set. out is Bushnell's answer SCOTT, J.' This suit igas.brotight by -the in .this case, From these it appears that. Lartmer & Weld Irrigation Company against there were certain• original -.owners: of•'ap,:,.: ' <, E, H. Bushnell, plaintiff in error, and other Froprlutions and :pilorltles of -the: Irrigaooi • defendants. ditch;• then known' as "Irrigation: ;dItch. h'o.?;'-: It was alleged In the complaint 1a Bob- 10,7 taking. its. ,x6ppiy of water Yrom.::the-.:: stance: That'tbe plaintiff, is the owner of :1a:3'ottdre river, and that 8eujamiit.::.: a line of ditch known as, the, Lorimer d: Eaton, the .it*+ Ln of the rlmiir Weld Irrigatitin Company's canal, and dram l"%atlon•. Qompany,,entered into a contract,;, ;.. which it supylles water: to irrigate many with Oath. -.of: the •Bald- •gwaeta.of• prl4rIties:;:;' thousands of acres of land to various con- add :091mmers, of water; among. which; `wds b'tbftuic?iv'i;si�rott;•lrcm'wlitim'`ii sumers, Including .• the.,defendank.each-.'o! hell:,. '` ... Bald;,�letelidaota:'LavIn`.;contmcts:to.:w•hich deiaigtNed lila:'tltle.� The.:cqufract between• the p1ai11f hrfy; giving them right l:atoa and Garrott •was fully: eeQ outt ii:;<,tbe tolrbbi rigs`plaf»t1Q water con llataVin the case•of.Bushnell T. Irrlga- SUMV-ioku-• : iv it - ifib. 'iiuiibned Hoi<i• c;q. bs oltowa ; :' ..: . slid iieet'lified ti'the`-`iederaieontraefy That •• "Snot► all men tiy`these presents that I:.. the plaintiff has a superiutcndent in charge Franklin W..Garrett, of the county of Ltiri-...; Of this canal, whose duties are to regulate mer, state of Colorado, for the considers-.. .. and operate the canal and MAL--e distribu- tion hereinafter expressed to be performed .�`= w tion of water to the'pasties entitled,thereto. by' BenlamIA 11, Eaton, his heirs and as-.;:= ` ;'r< That, In order that the. 'Siena, do hereby,sell, give, grant and release ' the plaintiff's canal may properly run- and onto the. said Denjamin IL Eaton, his heirs. 'y operate the same and make proper distrlbu- and assigns, all the right, title and interest .- t tion of the %-star therefrom, it is necessary which i have in and to any shares or priv-' that he should have • charge: and control of lieges 'or any' surplus credit for and on no- , the headgates upon the canal.used -for the onunt of hay work or labor performed on. . distribution of water.. It..Ig=.Ww,cbarged account of the. same in the irrigation ditch that: the `defcpdaats claiad ;sad: undertake -to known as Irrigation 'Ditch Company Number' eseretaei the .right. or ;,jlrlvll2Fe:.of control Ten (10); acid ditch being located on the. and':operation: aft6 ratious'"(ui!adgatts be- north side of the Cache )a Poudre river' In longing to. -the :pikintlGet 'and •. tg:.rafse and the county of Lorimer, state of Colorado. lower such: beadgutes: o9d•,take. water from Witness my band and seal this 24th diy �of the said canal` ilkillo. `a0:.snpgrvisioa by April' A. D, Mt the, plain'ti¢'s.acreeiriteri8otjt, and."mfuse to "And I, the said Benjamin g. Eaton, do... allow the .plaintiff to bave..:any-voice or;say heitby, agree. as a consideration for said as to an7 water so:neei)ed'•by.sald'defend- grantand sale above made that the said auts;.and as to wben.itis"proper that. Said Franklin W. Garrett, his -heirs and ass! giis; . headgates-should be, open'or•elosad;.or.as to shall have. the right and privilege and the': •: ; ;_§. what Ointity' of water said defendants are said right and privilege Is • hereby granted. to receive from .the cdnel through said bead- unto the said ' FranL•!la W. Garrott, his ., . gated, and tl=at. defendabts have opened said heirs andassigns, to take from said irriga- beadgates without authority from the said tion ditch number ton (10), at the place where superintendent and have assumed to take the lower portion of said ditch -as now cola- from plaintiff's superintendent the right.to strutted intersects with anew survey made ' conduct and operate said ditch or -control, by the said Benjamin H. Eaton, a sufficient . ' . &Ter other eLsee see same topic and section NUMBER to Dec- Dip k am. Dis. Key. -No. Series. &Rep'r Ind'uea'