HomeMy WebLinkAboutASPEN KNOLLS - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2003-07-31EC IVFD
MAR 71978
Planning and
City Hall
Fort Collins,
WILLIAM C. STOVER
ATTORNEY AT LAW
UNITED BANK BUILDING -SUITE 315
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522
Zoning Office
Colorado 80521
March 2, 1978
P. O. BOX 523
482-3804
AREA CODE 303
RE- No. 2,6- , Aspen Knolls subdivision - preliminary plan
-*Tg8 Village West 9th - preliminary plan
Gentlemen:
Though Marc Middel of Aspen Knolls has contacted us nothing
definitly has been done by New Mercer Ditch Company to approve
that plan. As far as we can determine from examining the map
such subdivision would greatly increase the run-off into New
mo rcer Ditch and, until plans for the disposition of run-off
have been made, we would definitly oppose the granting of any
approval.
As to the second matter Nortran Joint Venture has not contacted
us at all concerning their Village West subdivision 9th Filing
and we feel the same will materially effect our ditch and would
want to have them meet with us and make satisfactory arrangements
or otherwise we would definately object to the approval of.this
application.
Very truly yours,
William C. St ver
cc; Louie Swift
WCS :ms
plan-,0-19 ,nd zoning Bo, 14inutes
y.1rc-h 13, 1978
page 7.
s
Sp^cif-ic staff concerns were:
15-raffic Circulation. The major concerns from the February
ra�eting have been resolved by the redesigned street pattern.
iiie discosition of the 17' x 17" parcel between the R.O.W.
an the cir_lrch property will be worked out between the
church and the developer. It will not remain as an outlot
as currently sha.,rn.
2__Pights-of-t9ay Improveffents. A seven -foot pedestrian,/
bikepath ,,7ill be required along Taft hill Road.
the curb and gutter on Taft Hill Road adjacent to the Flmanuel
CLristian R:-forued Church has been constructed too far to
the east_ It will be properly relocated at the City's
e:,perse_ the developer of Aspen Knolls should coordinate
the plaae:rent of street improvaiTents with this relocation;
s <� aoalicant has indicated only 50' R.O. 1. for local streets.
Tne s,.�_-di vision ordinance requires 60' _ `There is ho,.,�ever,
roo.n to shcF.Y 60' R.O.W. without making -the lots unbui.ld ble
except peri-taps one triangular shaped lot.
3-Ex-ist,ing adjacent utilites and ease,-:ents are not shown. 1be
c'evelo�er should indicate proposed routing of sanitary sen:er
since : n easern,nt may have to be obtained through existing
c:_velop: x'nt to the north- water mains should be looped;
:e detenLion pond should discharge into the Spring Creelk
cL_aina e systc�n rather than into the new Mercer Canal_
i,ie cirai aga pr_cblem is a historic one which will have to
he :-,turned out bebie• n the devel.o�=rs and staff.
e V ,� motion) _ Suggested that since this
�Lll 1.�C;��. lOi 1.�_i7t Wtt-�_r G•
item ana '; 47-78 w,!re designed and presented together that
staff cents on Village ?•-est 9th be heard before fur er
discssi.cn on Pspan Knolls.
u
f3ob i;urn'1�
Agreed that this could he d- ne, but specified that any.
m ions rp ode on the two i te,-5 be sep;?rat--
i 47
Village Vest Stia3ivi sion 9th Filing, Preliminary Plan.
Description: Proposal for 76 single falidly lots on 19.6
acres zon??d R-L, io%-7 Dansity Residential District, located
o:z Stu- -- � St_cet e at of South Taft Hill Road_
-plicant: 1 ortran Joint Venture, 1700 Valley Forge F�a3,
Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521.
Elck)n Weird:
Presenthe following thfollowing staff co:rsrents and reco:ire.^.3ations:
'finis propo-1-al represents a Eajor redesign of the controversial
plan revie::ed by the Board last April_ he "T" cul-de--sacs
have reolacz_d by loop streets and Stuart Street has
�-
t� h-, os�� '" frc'm it, Etiicii>>?_O1 �:2St OF
f
Taft Bill
st. ff f: _Is tl_.e traffic c cirLila.tion pattern and general
d �siyn of the plan %.;ork very well_ Specific caz-a-ents are:
1. ih, anplihas inch cater only 50' rights -of way for
Ilartram
Homes
,July 28, 11»8
Air. Ilon ParSOnS
City krigineering
City of Dort Collins
300 LaPorte /Avenue.
Dort Collins, Colorado 50521
Dcar Mr. Parsons,
It is proposed that sl.orm water run-off from the Village West Ninth Filing and the
�spcn Knolls SUbdiVis",ons be discharged into the New Mercer Canal. The New Mercer
t;an�rl abuts the, northeast corner of the development site, and is the waterway that
presently receives the storm water run-off from the presently undeveloped land.
The continuance of storm water discharge into the Now Mercer Canal is considered
to be the only feasib=_e alternative of those available, and this approach is con-
sistent with the 1071 Black � Veatch Storm tGater Drainage Facilities Report for
the City of Fort Collins.
The only possible alternative is to discharge the run-off into the natural thalweg
located north of the development site, the storm water thusly to follow an approx-
imitely one (1) mile course to Spring Creek. Delivering the drainage to the natural
thalwe(,' would require the immediate crossing of two ditches - the New Mercer Canal
and the I,arimer County Number 2 Canal. Once there the channel itself poses the
following-, limitations in handling the additional run-off:
1) Fxisting ponds v,ithin the Prospect Green Development are not sized to take
additional run-off.
B) Buildings within the Prospect Green Development may be too close and/or too
low to permit the passage of additional run-off without damage to these structures.
C) Lxisting pipes under both fleatherridge Road and Shields Street have not been
sized to ,iccommodite the additional run-off.
The above listed limitations are also applicable to apartment development at the north-
west intersection of Stuart and. Prospect, called the Northwood Apartments.
Additionally, there arc unplatted areas between the two ditches and also cast of
llcathcrric]gc ,and Prospect where no easements exist to handle the water.
All above items
arc representative of only a_
cursory review of
this natural channel,
but demonstrate
the unsitable nature of this
alternate drainage
course, nor would such
an approach be
in kceping with any existing
comprehensive drain�.ge
plan.
1942 Constitntion
Arenm- Fort Collins,
Colorado 80521
Ph. (303) 482-7221
(2)
File developors of dill,()(, Nest Ninth Filing do not have the authority to acquire the
necess,iry Right of N'Iys, or to financially discharge the water through this area.
It can only he clone w th i complete study of this drainage area. Also, the costs
to handle the storm water in this manner would be prohibitive.
As presented in our July 27th meeting, our position is to agree to discharge water
from the detention pond into, under, or over the New Mercer Canal. It then is the
responsihility of the City of Dort Collins to plan for, and accept the water at this
point.
Ive have agreed to wort: with the City and the engineers for the New Mercer Ditch Co.
to arrive at ,l final solution.
We pr-ospos(' to proceed with development and will fulfill the above committment when
the Ciiy has made its final decision i.n conjunction with the Ditch Company as agreed
in our meeting with the City and the Ditch Company on July 26, 1978. This decision
is expected to he completed by September 15.' 1978.
I hcrchy re,iucst the Cite of Fort Collins to agree to this request and prepare the
finaI utility agreement F�)r tho Village West Ninth Filing and the Aspen Knolls Sub-
division.
Sincerely
Wi I 1 i am 1). Bart r,in
President - R,irtran homes, Inc.
%z
CITY OF FOW COLLINS
Memorandum
DATE: August 21, 1978
TO: The Developers of Village West, 9th Subdivision and Aspen Knolls
Subdivision
FROM: Donald M. Parsons, City Engineer
BE: Construction of Water and Sewer Lines
The utility plans for the Village West 9th and Aspen Knolls Subdivisions
have not been signed by this office awaiting a final design of the deten-
tion pond.
It is not anticipated that any change will be made in the water and sewer
lines as submitted on the utility plans. Therefore, permission is hereby
granted for the installation of water and sanitary and storm sewer lines
in accordance with the utility plans. The following conditions are a
consideration of this grant:
1. The Developer shall suhrnit a letter guaranteeing this office
that should any reconstruction of the water, sanitary or storm
sewer be necessitated as a result of the detention pond redesign,
it shall be reconstructed at his expense.
2. A detention pond design acceptable to the City Engineer's Office
will be agreed to on or before September 8, 1978.
Sincerely,
Donald M. P sons,
City Engineer
DMP:nkk
/ .•¢ ems--- _� _ •_—..
f� ....`"
CITY OF FORT COLLINS P.O. BOX 580yFORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522 PH (303) 484-4220 EXT. 3(
ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Mr. Gorge Weitzel
Weitzel Excavating
225 S. Taft Hills Road
Fort Collins, Colorado
Dear Mr. Weitzel:
February 1, 1979
Re: Village West 9th and Aspen Knolls Subdivision
It is indicated in our records dated August 6, 1978 that while you
were working on the above subdivisions, your water truck damaged
the curb and gutter adjacent to the fire hydrant at 1900 S. Taft
Hill Road.
We would appreciate you looking into this matter. It appears that
approximately 20 feet of vertical curb and gutter needs to be
replaced and some asphalt patching in front of the hydrant is
indicated to correct this situation.
We realize that the severity of the weather will delay this repair
for scene time. However, once the construction season begins, we
hope you will see to this matter as soon as possible.
If you. have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free
to call me. Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Matt J.
Construction Inspector
cc: Middel Enterprises
F3artran Hanes, Inc.
100% Recycled Bond
Middel Enterprises, Inc.
1407 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE
P. e.-BOX 7 48t
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522
March 27, 1979
Mr. Maurice Rupel
City of Fort Collins
Engineering Department
300 LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
RE: ASEPN KNOLLS SUBDIVISION BY--�
AFT HILL DEVELOPMENT CORP.
Dear Mauri:
PHONE 221-1100
AREA CODE (303)
Pursuant to our meeting on March 26, 1979 between yourself,
Roy Bingham and my father and I, I am addressing this letter
to confirm the mutual agreement reached regarding the issuance
of building permits on the Aspen Knolls Subdivision in Fort
Collins, Colorado.
It is my understanding that building permits will be
issued for lots 21 through 37. However, construction on lots
21 through 30 will not be commenced until such time as the
asphalt base is installed in the streets adjoining those lots.
This base will be put into place as soon as weather and manpower
permits.
I am submitting two copies of this letter, one for your
file and one For myself. I would appreciate it if you would sign
in the appropriate place at the bottom of this letter and return
one executed copy to me at the address in the letterhead. If you
have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate
to contact me.. Thank you very much.
I,JRICE RUPEL , E gi eering C ` .tIDDEI — Secretary -Treasurer_ ,
Dept., City of Fort Collin-S, Taft Hill Development Corp.
Colorado
-- illAu Aar
James H. Stewart and Associates, Inc.
Consulting Engineers and Surveyors
October 16, 1979
Mr. Marc Engemoen
City Engineers Office
City of Fort Collins
P.O. Box 429
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Dear Marc:
This is to inform you that we have checked the detention pond for Aspen
Knolls and Village West 9th Filing. It was found to have been constructed
according to the plans. We are enclosing a copy of the pond plan with
the existing elevations written in black. It is our understanding
the City of Fort Collins will now begin maintenance of the pond.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call.
Sincerely,
JAMES H. STEWART AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
a�
Richard A. Rutherford, P.E. & L.S.
Secretary -Treasurer
RAR/cjf
xc:Bartran Homes, Marc Middel
Attachment
OFFICE- 214 NORTH HOWFS • P.O. BOX 429 • FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522 • "1 ELFPHONF AREA 303/482-9331
(! I1 UI I till t (�I I I\ti
IM 1`,IO.N
December 11, 1979
Sterling Paving Companies
Attn: Dale !.tiller
1800 N. Taft Mil Road
Fort Collins, Colorado
Dear Dale:
This letter is to inform you that the Construction Inspection Departr,ent has made
field inspections on the following subdivisions in order to determine the feasibility
of installing pavements.
l,!oodlands P.U.D.
Rossborough
Larkborough
Aspen Knolls
Cedar Village 4th
Golden Meadows 2nd
Four Seasons
Site investigations 171ade on December 10 and 11, 1979 revealed that in all cases
the in -place base material eras cohrpletely penetrated by frost. It was also found
that the sub -grade material contained frost in varying depths ranging from a5 to
oreater than 1.2 Beet.
Due to the frozen state of the base and sub -grade materials at this time, we
rcgllost that plac,(,wont of asphalt pavements on the above listed projects be
delayed until the spring of 1930, or until the %,,eather becomes consistently ti;,arm
enough to coiilpletely reirove all frost and allow stabilization of the existing
materials.
It should be noted that the City Specifications state: No surfacing shall he
placed unless the at�ospheric temperature in the shade is at least forty (40)
degrees F. and rising, and other Breather conditions are suitable. In no case
shall pavements be laid on foundations in ti.rhich frost is present.
If you have any questions or when you feel the ,reather will allow you to resume
construction, please do not hesitate to call me at your convenience.
"Very truly yours,
Rodney R. Albers
Construction Inspector
r_c: Roy Ringr�an, Director of Engineering Services
Dare Stringer, Chief Construction Inspector
":��ri Rupel , Developrr,ent Engineer
CITY OI
LORI (OLLINS
ENGINELRING DIVISION
December 21, 1979
iT
u .IYi+. h.Ji.✓..._v✓' •. � n.:. ...AW.w�.. -. n-..� m.:�Ln., ua.:wa.
P O. 13OX 580, FORT COLLINS, <0LORADO S0522 PH (3031 484-4220
EXT. 728
Mr. Bernard L. Cain, Jr.
Bartran Homes, Inc.
1942 Constitution Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
Dear Mr. Cain:
Ile have rece_ved your letter of December 7 with a cony of the
concrete test results for the box culvert flume on the Aspen
Knolls -Village FYest 9th detention facility. Based upon these
results and the letter from James H. Stewart & Associates
stating the pond construction is in conformance with the
approved utility drawings, the City accepts this installation
for maintenance, effective January 1, 1980.
Sincerely,
Mar En Moen
cc: Marc Middel
Frank Fisch
Dave Stringer
C I I 1 OI I (W I l OI I I \,) P.O. Boa 580, Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Phf 303) 484-4220 E 7 78
ENGINEERING DIVISION
November 18, 1980
Mr. Marc Middel
Middel Realty
1407 S. College
Ft. Collins, Colorado
The public improvements in the Aspen Knolls Subdivision have been
oompleted and accepted for City maintenance pending normal contractor
warranty periods. This acceptance does not, however, relieve either
the builder or developer from their obligation to clean the streets
and sidewalks of construction related dirt, nor is it a blanket
acceptance of curb, gutter and walk adjacent to undeveloped lots.
Respectfully' yours,
6O'A
Ga
Construction Inspector
March 17, 1978
TO: Eldon Ward., Planning Department
FROM: Marc Engernoen, Engineering Division
RE: Storm Drainage for Aspen Knolls - Village West 9th
It seems there has been some confusion on the part of the developers for
the Aspen Knolls and Village West 9th subdivisions about the comments made by
our office regarding storm drainage for these developments at the last Planning
and Zoning preliminary meeting. We are currently reviewing new storm drainage
specifications based on the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual. Twn of the
major points indicated in the drainage policy are that irrigation ditches shall
not be used as outfall points for initial or major drainage systems unless
such use is shown to be without unreasonable hazard substantiated by thorough
hydraulic engineering analysis, and that natural drainage ways shall be used
for storm runoff waterways whenever possible.
The preliminary plans for the Aspen Knolls - Village West 9th subdivisions
suggested the use of a combined detention pond with an outlet into New Mercer
Canal. We agree with the proposal for a joint pond; however, the outflow should
be siphoned under. New Mercer Canal and enter the Larimer County No. 2 ditch.
With this arrange.-nent, we would, in the future ask the developers of the prop-
erties east of these subdivisions to siphon the storm water under the Larimer
No. 2 ditch thus allowing the run --off to reach a natural drainage way - Spring
Creek. Naturally, appropriate ditch company approval would have to be obtained.
It is essential that we begin to examine storm drainage on a long-range
basis, and in tits sense, it is of the utmost importance that we provide for
storm water access to natural drainage ways rather than relying on the unlimited
use of the canals.
If there are any further questions regarding this matter, please contact
us for additional information.
ME:cs
1�2•`-r 11 c1nc�a� UMQ
(ft%f\o. Co 8o52(o
o r m,,c*, cbcenC'9S1 �nq
6� RCN ..a`1(�•,�
j �` • ` 'CRC cc.. Are
�� s
� an � fie.
S��`` l t•• �)Ck4v\ )
W�.o� iR2 �th2
0i Ae qsrm
IIY 01.1111.11.1.1111 INS � P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins Colorado 80522 Ph 303 4844220 Ext, 728
ENGINEERING DIVISION
January 3, 1983
Mr. Sandy Thayer
182-/ Michael Lane
Ft. Collins, Colorado
Sandy,
The following is in response to your concerns regarding the development
of Dr. R. T. Smith's property.
Your concern of the blocking of the drainage by the stock piling of
excess materials is a legitimate one. However, this stock piling of
material is only temporary and once the stock piling operation is
completed the drainageway will be opened again. The contractor on site
has been advised of this condition through our constriction inspection
department.
You are correct in that the final drainage pattern will be directed along
the western and then the southern property lines of Dr. Smith's property.
Until this drainageway is constructed, the drainage pattern on site from
the southern area will remain as it has historically. This southern area,
as I understand, will not be developed until the drainageway is constructed.
If the above does not answer your concerns or raises additional ones,
please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Smith
Assistant City Engineer - Storm Drainage
cc: Dave Stringer
Develo, ent Services
(MM!!M61�i0mm
City of Fort Collins
Engineering Department
November 27, 1990
Larimer County Assessor
Attn: Janet Gleiforst
P.O. Box 1190
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
Re: Lot 16 - Aspen Knolls Subdivision
Dear Ms. Gleiforst:
Per our telephone conversation of November 26, 1990 concerning the status
of Lot 16 (1932 Promenade Way) in the Aspen Knoll development, I believe
this to be a buildable lot.
In researching our records, Lot 16 may have been designated as a temporary
detention site until the permanent facility was constructed. The City
accepted the permanent detention pond on January 1, 1980. With the
acceptance of this facility the temporary structure was no longer needed.
Therefore, the City will not withhold the issuance of a building permit for
Lot 16 based upon storm drainage requirements.
Hopefully, this clears up the question regarding Lot 16. If you have any
further questions, please call me at 221-6605.
Sincerely,
1 ��Z
David Stringer
Chief Construction Inspector
cc: Aspen Knolls file
281 North College Avenue - P.O. Box 580 - Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 - (303) 221-6605
.��
Post Office Box 580 Y
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Telephone 303 484.4220
Plarch 21, 1978
The City is currently in the process of reviewing and finalizing the new
storm drainage specifications based on the DRCOG Urban Storm Drainage Criteria
I,L=inual. The basic policies of the new specifications have been thoroughly
rcvie; d and tentatively agreed upon; however, the actual approval by the proper
C i-ty authority r-ay be delayed so_rvec•inat due to our present staff shortage as
�-'l as the cLa-,an--uut nature of such revie7a processes_ in view of this potential
delay, we feel strongly that it is in the best interests of the City as i,ell
as the developers and engineers in the community to implenv--nt certain portions
of the new specifications as soon as possible. As you fray be aware, the City
has recently begun to establish a mre comprehensive storm drainage program,
of which these spr^cifications are an integral part, and the invediate implemen-
tation of the new drainage design procedures will help insure a continuous and
effective transition to the new policy once formal approval is obtained.
The essential requirelrents of the specifications which should be incorpo-
rated into the utility plans review process as soon as possible are as fol1a,7s:
(1) Subni t wit;1 all utility plans a drainage report which reviews both axistir_g
and proposed drainage conditions (including contours) and which also includes
all calculations for detention volumes, pipes, controlled outflows, channel
i-tprovorrents, and/or other drainage features.
(2) The detention required shall be determined by the 100-year (1% recurrence)
d v lo, r cl storm with the release rate equal to the t�,o ye-tr historical storm.
Page 2
ILIarch 21, 1978
Ilistorical conditions shall be defined as that site in its natural state;
developed conditions shall be that site in its fully developed state. The
runoff charts based on Black and Veatch's curves for storms of three hour dura-
tion will no longer be used to calculate the required detention volume. Instead,
the c,uziulative runoff method described in the "Storage" section of the criteria
Manual shall be used
(3) Irrigation ditches shall not be used as outfall points for initial or
major drainage systems unless such use is shown to, be without unreasonable
hazard substantiated by thorough hydraulic engineering analysis, and natural
drainage ways s',',..all be used for storm runoff watenrays tiinenever possible. It
is essential that we begin to examine store drainage on a long range basis, and
in this sense, it is of the utmost importance that we provide for storm water
access to natural drainage says rather than relying on the unlimited use of the
canals.
(4) k equate reasures si-all be taken to accor c'ate the passage of major
storrtis lip to the 100-year stor:z through the pr—o e ty while allowing only dju-
mal dai�age.
Naturally, the chang=e-over to the new procures will entail a certain.
aK)unt of confusion, but with a concerted effort by the City and the private
sector, we should be able to successfully i^mle7ent the new drainage program in
the it r ,? i a to future.
Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any further questions or
'01wo act like additional info=ation reg�sding this matter, -� e cor_tact cur
office.
Sincerely,
Donald M. Pars . s
city Engineer
D % Pt : c s
14EETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF
THE NE6-t MERCER DITCH CO_'jP,,rIY
July 17, 1978
At a meeting of the Board of Directors of The New Mercer
Ditch Company on the l7th day of July, 1978, upon groper notice
and �:ith a quorum present, the fcllowinr resolution tras adcnted
by the Board:
RESOLVED:
That after full discussion and considerable study, and
upon the reco:.-merdation of the Company's engineers, The New
Mercer Ditch Company resolves that until further studies can
be. com:pleted .and a final determination made, it shall no longer
permit the diversion of nonhistori c runcff into the Cer.-LLpanv's
(-itch or its Company-o�-.,ned laterals, except such nor -historic
waters as r•:ay :low be diverted therein by prior written agreem.e t
or by cor.:mmon-1y accepted past usage through discharge pcints
established more than three (3) years prior to the date of
this resolution.
The secretary is hereby instructed to notify all present
applicants fo17 such diversion and such others as may now be
dischargi::g ir. violaticn of the purport of this resolution.
BY O?DEIR OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
July 19, 1978
Copies sent to:
City Manager
Art March
Marc Middel
James Stewart and Associates
M & I Inc.
Dave Love
Bartran Homes
Tnm HivF,c, — ri t-v 4dat-Pr ;:;n As,rnr
4�"2��A - '//u/n, Aa P4
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
Memorandum
DATE: July 25,1978
TO: John Arnold, City Manager
FP,OM: Don Parsons, City Engineer
THRU: Roy Bin(.pan, Director of Public Works
PE: Storm Drainage for Aspen Knolls -Village West 9th
As you know, the City has been involved for some time in re-evaluating
the storm drainage program and attanpting to update our design and construction
practices in this crucial area. The Engineering staff has examined a number
of references on this subject and has determined that the Denver Regional
Council of Goverril-ents Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manuel provides the
most co,-._rehensive and effective guide in dealing with storm drainage in
Fort Collins. We have developed a set of storm drainage specifications
has(-d on these manuals, and while there are certain refinements still
necessary before the specifications are adopted, we have asked the local
developers and engineers to comply with the major aspects of these speci-
fications in order to insure the most continuous and effective transition
to the new drainage program. In implementing this transition, probably
the most substantial obstacle encountered thus far has involved the use of
irrigation ditches as outfall points for drainage systems.
In past _years it has been cowon practice for municipalities to
discharge storm waters into irrigation ditches because of their convenience
and nroximity. Generally, because the irrigation ditches tend to parallel
the contours, and drainage �,rays cross them, the major drainage runoff has
flowed into these ditches. The recent increase of problems, caused by
overflowing of irrigation ditches, has made it apparent that the use of
irrigation ditches for the collection of storm runoff eras often ill-advised.
Throughout the region numerous hardships have been caused by irrigation
ditches overflowing at uncontrolled points of discharge. Irrespective of
rkast practices and court determinations, it is clear from a hydraulic
2
standpoint that the use of irrigation ditches to collect storm runoff_ must
be subjected to close evaluation and review to reduce existing problems and
to prevent additional hazards from being created. The best rule to follow
in planning drainage improvements, whether following the natural watercourse
or artificially draining surface water, is that the municipality is liable
if it actively injures private property as the result of improvements made
to handle surface water. A city is in a much stronger position if it can
establish that the improvement followed the natural drainage. In view of
this, if there is any doubt about liability involved, it would be prudent
to proceed in a manner which would leave the storm runoff in its natural
watercourse, and furthermore, to proceed in a manner which will result in
the minimal hazard to those properties potentially affected.
The irrigation and canal companies whose ditches course through
urbanized areas of Fort Collins, as well as many areas which will be de-
veloped in the future, have registered with both the City and the local
developer and -their engineers their concern regarding the limited capacity
of these ditches and the increasing quantities of storm runoff being diverted
into than by recent developments. The City certainly shares the ditch com-
panies' concerns in this regard, and has indicated on a number of occasions
that a thorough hydraulic engineering analysis should be undertaken to
establish that the discharge of storm runoff into an irrigation ditch may
be accomplished without unreasonable hazard whenever such drainage alterna-
tives are considered.
In the specific case of the Aspen Knolls and Village West 9th develop-
ments, the City's position -regarding the disposition of storm runoff from
these developments has been consistent with the foregoing considerations.
The engineering comrents transmitted to the City Planning Department at the
preliminary Planning and zoning meeting of January 26, 1978 for Aspen Knolls
state that storm waters from the detention pond should not be discharged into
the New Mercer canal unless no other reasonable alternative could be developed.
`Phis position i,.,,as repeated at the preliminary Planning and zoning meeting on
February 27, when a combined proposal for Aspen Knolls and Village West 9th
was reviewed. At that time, engineering advised that consideration should
be given to storm runoff being discharged into a natural drainage way rather
than into the :irrigation ditch. This comment is reflected in the specific
staff concerns for these developments in the Planning and zoning Board
3
minutes of March 13, 1978, a copy of which is attached to this memo.
Following this meeting, at which both Mr. Bartran and Mr. Middel were present,
the engineering division forwarded to the planning department a memo clarifying
this position, a copy of which is also attached. The memo clearly states
that the runoff should be directed under the New Mercer Canal to be taken
eventually to the Spring Creek drainage way. At the time, a preliminary
alternative of allowing the water to enter the Larimer County No. 2 ditch
was suggested, but this alternative was never examined further in order to
determine whether or not such a disposition of the runoff would prove to be
more effective and overall, more economical than siphoning the runoff under
this ditch as well and taking it into the Spring Creek system. Furthermore,
the City reiterated all of these points in the attached letter dated March 21
which was sent to the local developers and engineers, including Mr. Cain of
Bartran Homes and Janes Stewart and Associates.
Throughout the utility plan review process for the Aspen Knolls -Village
Vq'est 9th subdivisions, these drainage concerns have been consistently side-
stepped. No drainage report considering any of the alternatives other than
direct discharge into the ditch has been submitted; no thorough hydraulic
analysis of the effects of such discharge into the ditch has been made; nor
has any consideration of other drainage alternatives taken place which might
bring a more effective, and over the long run, more economical solution to
fruition. Rather., the time has been spent on a number of time-consuming
byways, such as the possibility of discharging storm ,raters at various flows
corresponding to "historical" conditions rather than at the two year level,
and the justification of a storm sewer to reduce street innundation. In
addition, desp;Lte the developer's assurance that the New Mercer ditch company's
approval of the proposed discharge was forthcoming, Mr. Swift, the ditch
company president, has indicated on two recent occations that the ditch will
not accept the proposed discharge.
The engineering staff's position remains the same. First, we will
support the drainage plan which will be, over the long run, the most efficient
and economical solution. However, such a judgement cannot be made unless all
the reasonable alternatives are analyzed. Second, any use of an irrigation
Glitch as part of a storm drainage system should be preceded by an hydraulic
engineering analysis demonstrating that such use is without unreasonable
hazard. And finally, until an accurate determination can be made to firmly
establish the role of the irrigation ditches in the City's overall storm
drainage program, the policy of directing storm runoff toward natural drainage
ways should he pursued.
RWMAMMMMS