HomeMy WebLinkAboutSCENIC VIEWS PUD - FINAL - 3-96A - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - STORMWATER-RELATED DOCUMENTSOPT100 2 . TTO 6 -�5t'ogt W^ i 0 Itito TAW G RoW/eAswMwv,--�
--- - - - - -- - - _ _ PeDteATED IZOW gores 5iDMrS
—1 _ _RowU - t ---•� -- `-_uNPAYED ST.- OF 57r.'Tb EWE OP FAVIJ6
- R�1
�oW
-t0 Ae lvecwu
rROQo ep
sce►v. - T
vie"
PARRce' L C 6�
RorJ MIu.s
Seey, wa 'f20U "51EP
He: is &50 SEM"
RoVJttArSeA4t"M FOR'
_ _EaCISr►NG G%Ti_UTtC tT(t3o
OW�le�t- R�yKiD I'JF�l1S .
ftA "A a NAoe trAscm'r
CC)
r,
eASEMCiVT
0MTAwe A
Copyright 1993. RMRI Rocky Mountain Research Institute
,r
au
I
I
I
i
I
I
1
I
1
I
. I
I ti
1 I
o,
RI; ARV53
I I £
-17
I _
I 1
I I
I I
I I
I I
II -
tl a
I 1;
I
V51 G I r
I I
1 Irpa
v, a w' "Q'` s
1 V19 C4�i0 �, v50
t __-_-__-_- -�-..
I it M20 � M19 M2i
I
1
.I tcc
�
1
I 1
1 c
1 2
I < i
I ; C
>
I I OI �
SC&VIC 0450 �S ,\ D
1 O
1 1 02
I I
11 1
I I 1
I I
I 1
I ARV52
i �F� -_
- 11i IE. 1 'I ^ £ I, \'' WA
smTER AND WASTEWATER
I. zon °q 1 ssu I NF o �I / UTILITY
1
m1 j m2 I i9m I 29m v 9 2?17 2v,
T .11 I 1 1 tSN :e.n
GREENTREEI
CIRCLE 11 1
u6
__.. -b-.e•-.HI.
—1PRE
.-.-. o.E wRO.EM7S
=---`--r 1 V22. MIS ;t-K�
I 1i
V20
Fat
T--_�--
IL
1 I KIMSALO I I I ri -_-'1 '[ 17 2111 IS11
m: 2911 2l11 1•e � k Mlai Ip m is 11 a i-'-- k t_E: I alp IY
IT Ile
, RI FF .II €.� £fi ---
�.
IIM,ec RC
cL ��._
w T $- II r-
O I
TA . I _ _ yi 1 i 0 100 200 300
r
21, f 2537
51 7°a _� 2e2. orno�l 1 :STbgM WAWAHUSROVEMQ RESSURE f I 1 :e0e R 1-L_'aT:- e
WGHII' 1 `
V2FI 1t 10 I 6 ^ F9 1 . �' v29 1 I w30 . , �V}}) I I ,. LINE A►. of
AY Ii M26 VJ2 O-°..�.OTVY7� 1 ��
-�v2 v}t M29 vial MJO 1
y I CHARD LACE 1\ ` ,2 11
sTomw PP
VA*0III/A�6EW 1r sar1.. V$ n $ \c TY 7 ; 291 if
u], 23u I I
\\ 2101 26m '� 9b M _ Ii - Zvi�, I
%
PtvfIG.- Eli.F1M�lR \ M33 4
--.. -. � _a-'>
N AL 9�M erWAY!- :709 ��� I rt
JAERCERI I j Ilx i- N35 -ji �i2 $ i(c)1993 by the City of Fort Collins. All rignts
C URT �� I m„I I Z e I '^ ►� I ICCEU eI ; reserved. No part of this document or Coto
PA2CCL_ PARCEL p,4�tec� W I j� ^ x m ; I �� 1 contained hereon may be reoroduced: used to
;p M3e2 _ I v a �.�I "Ne�• J ` a prepare derivative products: distributed or
_n $� 1� L_ -a• y o I publicly displayed without the specific written
Gapproval of the City of Fort Collins.
I
II* I I• I lm 2312 7A1 1 akes no claim
21a This document was prepared for internal use
2707 f�_ ` 2 ;I 2 B - Il 2e24 7Sm �e 2°,2 1 only, and the City of Fort Collins m
i 37m ^ I 11 2911 11 I as to the complEteness Or accufacy at the data
LL50rt/pT�A N/1LF lid--- _ F13 1¢ M62 . - ,I �• 'I 1 contained hereon.. r�K CT Enc9, RAIPLb 1S i, i i I' V351 Mat I. V39 V41 1�4}.-t-B'�'."•._d - f�
� y eu,I in-r---° r,-- 1
�i G�• ► ISMa ♦ ,�v}6 1 _37 v38 yap W PLUM STREET I 7317 \
(exceff for
�•.� /OHO f Val2716 LT- _913
an a
Lr_= ws I
£ 1U
i 1 Revision Date: 06/16/94
V
C 1� Ms7yx ' 1
FII ZT f st
9-7-16-2
F-_• _ , M48 I
2610 2110-� i7W I•M49 L ZI]°
2-1
W_E_9_T _E_L_IZ_A_L_E_T_M STREET
II ry , F141e sei
Va3Vaa_•---- _ ____L- II_ -HI ;_-----------------------
----- ____-
'------ 1 i-ear--•-__--_•�_ ___-_- 1
k
10
2. The Option 2 Map is a sketch showing how the underground storm water line would jog
around the 70' strip of land and into and out of the city Deed of Easement, into the city
street ROW and then into the Fisher property (D) and reach the city outfall.
3. The permanent utility Deed of Easement (4 pages) allows for the installation on any type
of underground water line or other structures.
In conclusion, the previously approved Scenic Views PUD and Replat in 1985 showed the same
location of the on -site Detention Pond we are proposing. It also showed the same siphon piping.
It also called for the nearly the same number of dwelling units. That Drainage plan called for
releasing the storm water drainage onto the adjacent property at no more than the historical rate.
Our current proposed Pond capacity is greater than the earlier approved engineering capacity
and we too will be releasing at less than the historical rates. It would seem to me that the
underground storm water line being proposed in this letter is vastly superior to an overland
uncontained flow.
We trust that after reviewing the options we have explored, that you too will concur that the
path we are proposing is the most logical and beneficial one, and is one that the city will
support.
Rocky Mountain Research Institute
3
3. While common law allows us to discharge water at the historical rate across the Stenson
property, the message we got from the city attorney's office was that you would NOT
support the Site Plan without a signed easement in place. We began searching for other
routes for the storm water because we knew it was not feasible to obtain a written
easement from the Stensons.
4. We obtained an Easement from the Fishers and believed the storm water line could be
extended across our properties and into the city ROW which we were told by the Stensons
they had deeded as far as the Bank property. This was the Plan approved at Preliminary
and is what we have shown as the Final Utility Plan route.
5. We had asked Ron Mills prior to Preliminary submittal to verify the city ROW and the
nature of the Easements along Orchard Place. At that time he told me he could not find
any Easements. There was no discussion on the ROW. In Ron's defense, I had my two
title companies search for the ROW and the Easements and they too could not find any.
Ron mentioned if it were discovered that the Easement is a utility easement then we
should be able to install a storm water line. We never got a confirmation of what type of
documents were found until the subject became a reason for denying or postponing the
Final Approval of the project last week
6. Upon review of the two city Easements which Ron found last week, one was restricted
to use as a sanitary sewer line. However, the other Deed of Easement states it is "A 33 foot
wide permanent utility easement" and is for the installation of "underground waterline and
structures "...and the easement is also "to enlarge, improve, any other number or type of
public improvements, or other structures either in the original location or at any alternate
location or locations." It seems clear that any type of underground water line, including
a storm water line could be placed within this easement.
7. The reason it is necessary to jog the line into the city easement from my property is
because there is a 70' strip of land between the Bank parcel and the city ROW that appears
not to be deeded as a part of the street ROW, and is still held by the Stensons. We do not
believe the Stensons will grant an easement over this 70', and thus the need to jog the
storm water line into the public easement.
8. I mentioned the possibility of jogging the line to Roger Buffington last week, who offered
several suggestions as what our engineers need to do to work out the installation safely
and correctly. This, of course, we will do before submitting final utility drawings.
Documents Enclosed For Reference
1. The Option 1 Map is a city Water and Waste Water Utility map showing a street along
Orchard Place which along with other city maps led us to believe the ROW has been
acquired by the city. No ROW has been found showing the odd 70' strip on the south side
of Orchard Place. Parcels (A and B) we have under contract. This map shows the proposed
underground Storm Water Line path if the city has the 70' ROW.
Rocky Mountain Research Institute
2
? f '
R M R 1 ®A&►&
rocky mountain research institute
marketing, real estate and economic consultants
DATE- October 11, 1996
TO: Mitch Haas
Planning & Development Review
City of Ft.Collins
Ft.Collins, Colorado 80521
FROM: Bill Veio, Manager
SOLITAIRE PROPERTIES,LLC
6645 e. heritage piece so. = englewood, co B01 1 1 = 303-721 -9054
FAX 970-224-6111
Pages: 10
Followed by Mail
RE: DECISION ON STORM WATER PATH FOR SCENIC VIEWS PUD
This letter summarizes the alternatives we have examined to handle the storm water runoff from
the Scenic Views site. We are asking for the city Stormwater department to review and approve
the path mentioned. We realize that Stormwater will need to consult with Paul Eckman and John
Duvall to allow us to install an underground storm water line in the existing city Utility
Easement and street Right -of -Way. For the record we will require a letter responding to this
request to use the city Easement and Right -of -Way.
The Path Recommended for the Underground Storm Water Line
The Storm Water Line will be installed within a 15' wide Utility Easement across the northern
property line of the Roberts and Boulder Valley Bank property which I have under contract to
purchase. The line would take an northern bend (at an angle to be determined from field work)
from the bank property into the existing 33' wide Utility Easement (enclosed) and then extend
southward (at an angle to be determined) into the existing City street Right -of -Way. The total
distance in which the underground storm water line will be in the Utility Easement should be
about 70' or 80'. From the street ROW, the underground water line would extend into the Fisher
yard and exit into the city outfall. Stormwater has a copy of the signed Fisher Easement, but I
am told has misplaced it. (Another copy is enclosed)
How We Arrived at The Above Route
1. Prior to Preliminary Plat submittal, we made two offers to the Stensons to purchase a
storm water drainage easement across their property in the historical West Plum basin as
identified in your two Hydrological Basin studies. The offers included construction of a
channel at our expense identical to the designs in your drainage reports. Both offers were
refused.
2. At that time Stormwater staff advised me that they would be willing to meet with the
Stensons and explain the purpose and benefits of the flood channel improvements. After
Stenson refused my offers, I asked if we could set a meeting with a staff member or the
city attorney, Stenson, and myself to discuss the easement and its benefits. Instead of the
meeting I had anticipated, I received 3 pages of case law and 4 pages of the city
interpretation of drainage issues —and a refusal to have a meeting with the Stensons.
innovative ideas for industry since 1972