HomeMy WebLinkAboutDIXON CREEK SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2003-07-31'WR'51&1 consulting engineers
4710 South College Ave. • Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
Telephone (303) 226-2323
M & I #1385-008
March 25, 1982
Mr. Michael Smith
Director of Water 6 Sanitary Sewer Operations
P. 0. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
RE: Dixon Creek P.U.D.
Sanitary Sewer Outfall System
Dear Mike:
• The final plat of the Dixon Creek Planned Unit Development was approved
by the City's Planning and Zoning Commission on February 22, 1982.
This letter is submitted as a request to continue negotiations of an
agreement for :installation of sanitary sewer service to the project.
As you know, the owner, his legal counsel, and his professional engineer,
began meeting with the City's staff in January of 1981 in an attempt to
have all conditions for utility service resolved prior to the Planning
Commission's review. Following several meetings with City staff and pre-
paration of an agreement under their direction, the agreement was consid-
ered unacceptable by the Public Works Director.
As indicated, the owner would like to continue negotiation of the agree-
ment. Hopefully, this letter will provide adequate background, estimated
cost information, and reasons why the City should be willing to partici-
pate in the project financially.
The site consists of 58.71 acres located on the south side of Drake Road
at Overland Trail. It is proposed to develop the site with a mixture of
407 dwelling units consisting of patio homes, condominium townhomes, and
condominium flats for a gross density of 6.9 units per acre.
As an alternative to the gravity sewer system a lift station analysis was
made. It was determined that this was an acceptable alternative from a
cost standpoint. of construction, and operation and maintenance. However,
in evaluating the projected flows it was determined that the existing
system in the Brown Farm area would be overloaded.
The gravity sewer trunk line, as proposed, would tie into the existing
system at the intersection of Drake Road and Hanover Drive. It would
then be extended along Spring Creek to the west.
Dixon Creek P.U.D.
October 6, 1982
Page 2
Based upon estimated costs developed by the engineer for D. Jensen
Enterprises, there appears to be a difference of approximately $60,000
between what the developer and City are willing to contribute towards
construction of the Dixon Creek Trunk Sewer.
Construction of the Dixon Creek Trunk Sewer would benefit both D. Jensen
Enterprises anc! the City of Fort Collins. To prevent scattered development
and the divergence in services it causes, the City requires that new
development occur contiguous to existing developed areas. D. Jensen
Enterprises is one of the few developers trying to promote new residential
development in the southwest portion of Fort Collins. While other
developers continue plans for further stretching the City and its services
to the southeast, Jensen is trying to promote development closer to the
City's Service Centers and adjacent to existing development. completion of
the Drake Crossing Shopping Center at Drake Road and. Taft Hill. Road will
likely increase development activity in that area; this additional
development will obviously increase the need for the Dixon Creek Trunk Sewer.
Extension of a trunk sewer along Dixon Creek would make sewer service
available to all properties within the Urban Growth Area between Drake and
Horsetooth Roads. The Dixon Creek Trunk Sewer would encourage desirable
development along Drake Road and Dixon Creek without requiring that each
property install a costly, problem prone lift station and force main that
would be abandoned once a trunk sewer was extendedd by downstream developers.
Design and construction of the Dixon Creek Trunk Sewer entirely through the
basin it is to serve is the most cost effective approach to sewering all
benefited properties. The cost of the sewer will undoubtedly decrease as
the size of the project increases, particularly in these economic times when
contractors are so competitive in bidding larger projects. Easements can
currently be obtained through large farm plots that are valued less than
residential properties which may he platted along Dixon Creek in the near
future.
According to Dave McCloskey, Larimer County Sanitarian, several septic
systems along Dixon Creek have failed in the past two years. One septic
system continuouslycausing problems is located at 2707 South Taft Hill Road;
the leach field for that particular system is apparently located within
several feet of Dixon Creek. Periodically, the leach field will become
saturated causing sewage to surface and flow directly into Dixon Creek.
With problems like these existing along the route of the Dixon Creek Trunk
Sewer, it is expected that several homes would immediately connect to the
sewer, resulting in repayment of a portion of the sewer and effectively
eliminating contamination of Dixon Creek and Spring Creek.
Dixon Creek P.U.D.
October 6, 1982
Page 3
LEGAL CONCERNS
Chapter 112-76 E(6) of the City Code is very specific about who should pay
for sewer main extensions. tinder this section of the Code, Jensen, not the
City, should pay the $60,000 difference.
ACTION
We are at a point where we need some direction and additional legal advice.
We had previously spoken with Paul Eckman regarding the possibility of the
City committincl to the W ,000 expenditure via the subdivision agreement.
Paul's response was no. He said the matter would have to go to City
Council. One of the remaining legal questions is whether the Council can
comnit the City to a $60,000 expense which is specifically addressed in the
Code as a developer expense. If this is not a problem, then the question
remains of whether this issue will go to Council.
RECOMMENDATION
If the legal concerns are resolved in a satisfactory manner, then the staff
would recommend that this matter be referred to City Council for their
action.
If it is decided that the City should invest the additional $60,00O in this
project, there are adequate funds available in the 1992 budget.
MBS/my
CITY OF FORT COLLINS P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
(ENGINEERING SERVICES
MEMORANDUM
DT: October 18, 1982
TO: Roger E. Krempel, Director of Public Works
FM: Tom Hays, P.E., City Engineel��A
RE: Dixon Creek PUD Sanitary Sewer
Phone 484-4220 Ex. 723
i have talked to Randy Balok of the Parks Department regarding possible
joint use of the proposed easement for an extension of the trails system
as well as for the sewer extension to Dixon Creek PUD.
He agrees that. the proposed alignment would probably be useful. He has
sore concern about the point where the easement crosses Taft Hill Road.
An underpass may need to be considered which would require changing the
grade of Taft Hill considerably. This is probably the greatest obstacle
to actual construction.
Randy indicated that they have paid about $8,400 per mile for previous
easements. TY:,is would mean a contribution to the project of about
$10,000, considerably less than the $60,000 difference between the
amount the developer and the Water & Sewer Utility are willing to pay
and the estimated project cost.
The City's Land Use Policies Plan adopted in August, 1979, contains
several statements which would support the expenditure of City funds to
construct the sewer.
"#22. Preferential consideration shall be given to urban development
proposals which are contiguous to existing development within the City
limits or consistent with the phasing plan for the City's urban growth
area."
The extension of a sewer to the Dixon Creek area will stimulate develop-
ment on the south side of Drake Road, contiguous to the City limits in
the southwest portion of the town. This will help to balance growth to
the southeast.
Policies 23, 24, and 25 also support construction of this sewer:
"23. The City shall develop a phased expansion plan for services and
facilities, including utility extensions."
1124. All utility extensions should be in conformance with the phased
utility expansion portion of the City's Comprehensive Plan."
Roger E. Krerpel
Dixon Creek PUD Sanivary Sewer
October 18, 1982
Page 2
1125. Based on a fiscal evaluation and an analysis of effects on the
Capital Improvement Program, the City could provide incentives such as
utility and infrastructure improvements, streets, power, etc., in order
to direct growth in desired directions or area."
sko
t
C.IIY OI I )R1 ( Ul 1 INS P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Ph(303)484-4220 Ext. 726
PUBLIC WORKS and WATER UTILITIES DEPT.
January 28, 1983
Mr. Ramsey D. Myatt
March, Myatt, Korb, Carroll & Brandes
P.O. Box 469
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
Re: Dixon Creek PUD
Sanitary Sewer
Dear Mr. Myatt:
The City Administration has considered, and cannot recommend to the
City Council, the request of Dan Jensen to have the City participate
in the construction of a sanitary sewer to serve the Dixon Creek PUD
above and beyond the normal participation as covered in Section 112-
14 E(5) which involves oversizing of lines and also 112-74 E(6) which
covers the repayment procedures for others who may benefit from the
Sewer installed by the developer.
We recommend that the developer plan and construct the required sewer
facilities as provided by City ordinances. The City will be prepared
to enter into the normal Utility Agreement as processed through the
City's Development Review Center.
Sinc rely,
Roge E. Krempel, P.E.
Director of Public Works
and Water Utilities
RK/sb
cc: John Arnold
John Huisjen
Curt Smith
UM
ale
1.or+r.r..sw�tw.`rgw..�w.ybvrH
CITY OF FORT COLLINS I,(). BOX 580, FORT COLLINS, COI.ORADO 80522 (303) 484-4220
-?F1FgW11111Yo1TMePVin�� 3? -
_.
DEVELOPMENT CENTER EXT. 655
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Jim Meitl, Deputy City Manager
THRU: Curt Smith, Director of Planning and Development
FROM: Mauri Rupel, Development Center Director
CRE: Dixon Creek PUD, Off -site Trunk Sewer--�-I
DATE: September 15, 1983
This PUD, with its problem of off -site sewer, was approved by the Planning
and Zoning Board prior to the formation of the Development Center. However,
most of the "players" are still in house so we can respond to John's memo
of September 9, 1983, with good information.
0
From the Planning and Development Department's standpoint perhaps a list
of chronological order of review of this item would be of most help.
February 25, 1980 Conceptual Review
January 1981 Water and Sewer (W&S) comment to preliminary
plan "substantial off -site sewer requirements
- exact funding split not agreed upon but is
under negotiation".
March 23, 1981 Preliminary plan approved by Planning and Zoning
Board
April 10, 1981 Utility Coordination Meeting - Developer agreed
to show more detail of W&S to check against
building envelope conflicts.
October 1981 Final plan submittal - W&S comments - "Dixon
Creek trunk sewer agreement is under considera-
tion."
November 9, 1981 Applicant requested continuance to December
21, 1981 hearing
December 8, 1981 Applicant requested continuance to January
25, 1982 hearing
January 1982 W&S comments on the revised final plans -
"The route of the sewer line downstream from
Dixon Creek PUD has not yet been determined."
Memorandum
September 15, 1983
Page 2
Jar,. 22-Feb. 22, 1983 Numerous letters and Phone communication beTt.,jeen
Paul Eckman and Ramsey Myatt concerning changes
to the Development Agreement. Agreement
;as
reached by altering paragraph 2B to read "See
Exhibit "A" attached." The parties hereto
have, for several months, discussed a possible
front ending of certain sanitary sewer main
extensions by the City. These discussions
are ongoing and, as of the date of execution
of this agreement, no agreements have been
reached between the parties concerning any
such payment by the City. For out -of -sequence
installations see Exhibit "A". Exhibit "A",
Paragraph 2, states "No building permits will
be issued until the Developer constructs facili-
ties capable of discharging sanitary waste
from manhole number 1 which is approved by
the City Engineers."
February 22, 1983 Planning and Zoning Board approved Dixon Creek
PUD Final on Consent Agenda (Stoner withdrew
due to possible conflict on a Consent Agenda
item).
May 5, 1983 Eckman letter to M. Smith suggesting Addendum No. 1 as
prepared by our staff be rejected as it stated the City
would pay for the "Georgetown Portion" of the trunk line.
Neither the City nor the developer has signed the addendum.
MER/g1a
OF ICE 01 11if C1Il MANA(A'k
ME11ORAND!.1M
DATE: September 30, 1983
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: James R. Mei tl , Deputy City Manager
RE: Dixon Creek PUD Sewer Line
On August 29, 1983, Mr. Ramsey D. Myatt. attorney for Mr. Dan Jensen, wrote
a memo suggesting Council involvement in an attempt to reach an agreement
with the City for the installation of sanitary sewer services to the Dixon
Creek P.U.D. City Manager John Arnold wrote you a memorandum on September
9 stating that. we would either resolve the issue or it would appear at the
September 27th worksession. This report is to let you know that we have
arrived at an agreement that is acceptable to both the developer and staff;
therefore this item will not have to be brought to a worksession.
It has been ter. Jensen's contention that the installation of this trunk
sewer would benefit the City as a whole to such an extent that the City
should participate financially beyond the normal Darticipation. The staff
agrees that there is additional benefit and therefore made a proposal which
was accepted by the developer. The agreement that was arrived at basically
sets out the normal cost associated with any project of a similar nature
plus 1/3 of the difference between those costs and the total project
cost. Current projected cost for this project have to be fully detailed;
however, preliminary figures make the agreement look like this:
TOTAL PROJECT COST $300,000
(includes design, easements,
construction and contract administration)
MINUS NORMAL CITY COST
- Oversizing from 8" to 15" ($62,000)
- Taft Hill crossing ($10,000)
- Georgetown Extension ($24,000)
(tnru an existing P.U.D.)
- 96,000
NORMAL DEVELOPER'S SHARE $204,000
Minus 1/3 of $204,000 - 68.000
CURRENT DEVELOPER'S SHARE $136,000
CURRENT CITY SHARE $164,000
Dixon Creek PLID Sewer Line
September 30, 1983
Paqe Two
The developer and the City would share on a repay agreement as other pro-
perties are connected to the sewer according to the following percentages;
City share 568 .000 = 33'0
S 2 0' , C
Developer share $136,000 = 66A
$20 ,000
Normally the developer would receive 100') of the repay. If all the pro-
perty lying on either side of the trunk were to connect, the total project
cost with inflation would be recovered by the City and the developer on the
basis of percentage listed above.
The only real difference with this project and other projects is the way
the project cost is divided at the outset. The oerson or firm who uo
fronts the cost stands to get it back if the area on either side of +he
line develops.
There is a precedent
for this kind of City
participation on the .1arren
Trunk Line in
1980.
We did not use this as
a basis however; we looked at
the true City
benefit
of the installation of
this line against establishes
City policies.
For
this kind of analysis,
we used established policies
that are used
in the P.U.D. review process. They include:
o r3 The City shall promote:
a. Maximum utilization of land within the City (density of de-
velopment is 6.9 DU/ac net).
d. The location of residential development which is close to
employment, recreation and shopping facilities (CSU, Moore
Park, Drake Crossing).
o #75 Residential areas should provide for a mix of housing densi-
ties. (Project has 3 distinct housing unit types, with densities
varying frcm low in the single family patio home areas to higher
densities in the townhome and apartment areas.
We also felt that each proposal received by the City should be reviewed as
to its own special considerations. It would be much easier to simply say
"We can't help - our policy is this...", but that wouldn't necessarily help
us get the kind of development we are looking for.
In summary, we feel that Mr. Jensen's request warranted special considera-
tion, and we weighed the benefits to the City against established policies
and came up with a proposal that we feel is a win - win situation for the
developer and the City. Should you have any questions, or if you would
like further clarification, please feel free to call.
r
g!�('g '�
�
T,+/
...,.- Y
� i OF FOR COLL_INS P.O. BOX 580, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522 (303) 484-4220
x
TANNING and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT EXT.652
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Paul Eckman, Assistant City Attorney
FROM: Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator
DATE: January 12, 1984
RE: Dixon Creek PUD Sewer Line
I have not been -involved with the negotiations with D. Jensen Enterprises,
but in reading the Agreement I do have one comment. On repay agreements
the City generally charges 3% of the amount for which the installer is
eligible,to cover administrative costs. I feel it should be included with
this considering the number of future users of the line and the amount of
time and effort :spent by the City in collecting such fees. It could
possibly be negotiated down to 2% to match the sharing of the repay -
2/3 Developer; 1/3 City.
TB/kb
Mr. Michael Smith
March 25, 1982
Page Two
The trunk line would serve a total area of approximately 470 acres as
indicated on the enclosed exhibit.
The engineer's opinion of probable construction cost for the sewer main
extension is $260,000.
Of this amount the following are costs which the City has agreed would be
their responsibility:
1. Oversir.ing $48,500.00
2. Taft Hill Road Crossing $11,468.00
3. Extension through Georgetown
P.U.D., an existing subdivision
receiving no benefit. $29,760.00
TOTAL $89,728.00
This leaves a total of $170,272.00 remaining, a financial burden to the
Dixon Creek P.U.,D.
In the agreement, as proposed, the developer's initial contribution for
construction was $40,000.00 and the City would pay the additional
$130,000.00. These costs would then be proportionately reimbursed to the
developer and the City as the City allowed other benefited properties to
tap into the sewer main.
Benefits to the City derived from the extension of the sanitary sewer
system in this area are as follows:
1. In the event an acceptable outfall for a lift station is deter-
mined, the City would be burdened with the entire cost of the
gravity system should maintenance of the lift station become an
undesirable burden.
2. The City administration encourages urban density residential
development at three or more units to the acre, since the cost/
benefit of any service is directly related to population dens-
ity. Dixon Creek P.U.D. is 6.9 units per acre.
3. The City has a policy to provide incentives, such as utility
extensions, to direct growth in desired directions or areas.
Development to the southeast is 3-4 miles farther south than the
area to be served by the proposed sewer. The area served by
this sewer would be an obvious fill-in for the City.
4. Preferential consideration should be given to urban developments
which ,are contiguous to existing development and within the City
limits.
CITE' OF FORT COLLINS
STORM WATER UTILITY
April 12, 1984
Mr. Ray Kinch, Sales Engineer
J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc.
7559 Storm Mountain
Littleton, Colorado 80127
Dear Mr. Kinch,
Abo
Re: Perma-Loc PVC Sewer/Drain Pipe
This letter is in reference to our conversation concerning substituting
21" Perma-Loc PVC Sewer/Drain pipe for the sta�Qi�xo;n
27" PVC straight
walled pipe planned for a storm sewer for the Creek Sanitary Sewer
Extension.) The City of Fort Collins will not accept this substitution.
I talked with the engineer who designed the plans and he had information
which indicated that Perma-Loc pipe would not be suitable for this project.
Also, I do not have enough information to show that the Perma-Loc pipe can
sufficiently withstand HS20 loads at depths shallower than 3-feet.
If you have any new information about the strength of the Perma-Loc pipe,
please forward it to me and I will be happy to review it. Also, if you
have any questions about this letter, please call me at 573-0444,
extension 7309.
Sincerely,
Bobbi Dunham
Civil Engineer I
1/cc: Phil Waite
J � Y
t2 _ c_
Mr. Michael Smith
March 25, 1982
Page Three
It is respectfully requested that the agreement, as jointly prepared by
the developer and the City's staff, be reconsidered.
On behalf of d. Jensen Enterprises, a meeting is requested of the follow-
ing parties to obtain direction and resolution of the matter:
'Rodger Krempel, Public Works Director
'Michael Smith, Director of Operations
-Ken Waido, Acting Planning Director
Dan R. Jensen, President, d. Jensen Enterprises
Ramsey Myatt, Attorney, d. Jensen Enterprises
Lloyd McLaughlin, Project Engineer
Of course, additional City staff as you deem necessary may be included.
It is requested that the meeting be held within two weeks.
Your consideration in this matter is sincerely appreciated.
Very truly yours,
M & I, INC.
Lloyd G. McLaughli
LGM/kd
Enclosures: Vicinity Map
Agreement draft
Corridor Map
cc: Rodger Kremple
Ken Waido
Dan Jensen
Ramsey Myatt
V
�� • I �\ .. q • ST» Y ✓� �•l� P P 7
1 �1 � I � \ \ N •PROS .i � � •� SOS6 .
V.
•�O 1 I 11, y •I _ s .i 7 I ;
1\ 1 I s Q •• .I y0 I
577
,1Hil
122
O Dr,�o I E3 A I B9C1N DARrY �/
Dixon Canyon Dam R E h ii07t 1 .GE }� I - ,h9
Dam (�,.. \ �
_ ^J
'DRAKE pAD _ DRAKE
INTO
�ihl
LI N7ROPOSEp
VI
RY
n---- 27 --- --
u � - t� • AC3l� � d �<<
I�� `, �\ \` ' + Pry • H O RS ETOG�T� ROAp
33 Gravy 3 3Lkl
32
1-4
...
Srwtng Carryon �t - _ - • i Graver• X ,�: ` , . , �,- --
Dam' S?77 Pit
•�
low
1 I �
C� . o
I ooO
°000 MERRICK
Merrick & Company
P.O. Box 975
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Telephone 303/482-3639
April 26, 1982
Mr. Dan R. Jensen
d. Jensen Enterprises
P.O. Box 1007
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Dear Dan:
The following thoughts are submitted for your consideration in
preparing a response to the City of Fort Collins requesting their
participation in extending sanitary sewer service to the Dixon Creek
P.U.D.
As Rodger Krempei indicated in our meeting of April 16, 1982, it will
be difficult to show benefit to the City, as a whole, in order to
justify extension of the sanitary sewer with public funds. However,
he did indicate a willingness to consider it if your initial contri-
bution was increased to the estimated cost of installing a temporary
lift station. This would be $85,000. In addition, he requested
that the construction estimate be revised to current costs.
The probable construction cost has been updated and indicates the
sewer main could be installed for approximately $221,000.
The City has agreed to pay the following costs which have also been
revised for today's construction.
1. Oversizing $40,956.00
2. Taft Hill Crossing 9,748.00
3. Extension through
Georgetown P.U.D.,
an existing subdivision
receiving no benefit 25,296.00
TOTAL 76,000.00
Given your proposed contribution of $85,000 the remaining balance
is $60,000.
The following is a summary of the above information:
Merrick G Company. Engineers E Architects • P.O. Box 22026 0 Denver, Colorado 80222 0 Telephone: 303/751-0741
19
.2
City contribution for
oversizing and misc.
Developer contribution
City contribution to be
recovered through future
connection charge
TOTAL
$76,000 34%
85,000 39%
60,000 27%
221,000 100%
Note that the Developers contribution is also recovered through
future charges made to benefited properties.
It should also be noted that your increased contribution, and the
revised construction estimate changes your portion of the cost from
15% to 39%.
If I can provide additional input in this matter to aid you in
preparing your response to the City, please contact me.
Very truly yours,
MERRICK & COMPANY
Lloyd G. McLaughlin
Project Manager
LGM/slh
Merrick 8 Company: Engineers & Architects 0 P.O. Box 22026 0 Denver. Colorado 80222 • Telephone: 303/751-0741
r
ARTHUR E.MARCH,JR.
RAMSEY D. MYATT
MARK L. KORB
JOSEPH T.CARROLL,JR.
ROBERT W.BRANDES, JR.
RICHARD S. GAST
MARCH, MYATT, KORB, CARROLL & BRAN DES
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW
ROBERTSON BUILDING
110 EAST OAK STREET
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 8OS24
(303)482-4322
May 12, 1982
Mr. Roger Krempel
Public Works Director
City of Fort Collins
300 West Laporte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
Re: Dixon Creek P.U.D.
Sanitary Sewer Outfall System
Dear Mr. Krempel:
ARTHUR E. MARCH
190 9 -1981
MAILING ADDRESS:
P.O. BOX 469
FORT COLLINS,CO 80522
cc: Mike
Smith
Jim
Hibbard
Paul
Eckman
Tom
Hays
Mauri
Rupel
As you know, our office has been involved over a protracted
period of time in attempting to reach a satisfactory agreement
for the referenced matter on behalf of our client, d. Jensen
Enterprises,Inc. The prior agreements reflected a developer's
cost of $40,000.00 as a contribution toward installation of
the system. More recently the talks have focused around the
cost of installation of a temporary lift station. Apparently
this cost has been estimated at $85,000.00. My client has
now agreed to contribute the sum of $85,000.00 toward the
construction costs. The construction costs have been
updated, and indications are that the main sewer could be
installed for approximately $221,000.00. The following is a
revision of the costs which the City has agreed to pay:
Oversizing $40,956.00
Taft Hill Crossing 9,748.00
Extension through Georgetown
P.U.D,., an existing subdivision
receiving no benefit 25,296.00
Total $76,000.00
Our client's contribution would be $85,000.00, and the
City would bear the remaining $60,000.00. Our client's
contribution of $85,000.00 and the City's contribution of
$60,000.00 would both be recovered through future charges to
be made to benefited properties. The paybacks would be
proportionate to the relative contributions, i.e. 58.62% for
r•-
Mr. Roger Krempel
Page 2
May 12, 1982
Jensen and 41.38% for the City. The payback vYould be made
in accordance with the terms of the prior proposals concern-
ing this matter.
Our client's engineers believe that if an agreement can
be reached immediately, the construction costs may be even
less than that shown above. Therefore, we would hope that
this matter might be brought to a satisfactory conclusion as
quickly as possible.
Thank you for your continuing cooperation in this
matter.
Very truly yours,
MARCH, MYATT, KORB, CARROLL &
BRANDES
BY
Ramsey D. Myhtt
RDM:cm
cc: d. Jensen Enterprises, Inc.
Hand delivered.
WATER & SEWER UTILITIES
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
P.O. BOX 580
Cantennla� FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, 80522
PH (303) 484-4220
ACTION MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 5, 1982
TO: Roger E. Krempel, Director of Public Works
FROM: Michael B. Smith, Director of Operations.,,:p
RE: Dixon Creek P.U.D.
Pthrur.Rni mmT)
The Dixon Creek P.U.D. is a residential development planned on 58.71 acres
immediately south of Drake Road, and immediately east of Overland Trail. D.
Jensen Enterprises, owner of the property, plans to develop Dixon Creek at a
gross density of 6.9 units per acre, or a total of 4017 dwelling units.
D. Jensen Enterprises initially proposed sewering Dixon Creek P.U.D. with a
gravity sewer connecting to an existing sewer line at Drake Road where it
crosses Spring Creek, then extending west along Spring Creek and Dixon
Creek. The developer drafted agreements seeking City participation in the
construction of what became known as the Dixon Creek Trunk Sewer, but was
unable to reach an agreement with the City to share in the sewers estimated
cost of 5221,0100.
The developer's engineer examined the possibility of installing a lift
station to sewer Dixon Creek P.U.D. until a gravity sewer was extended and
made more accessible to the property. Analysis of the gravity sewers which
the Dixon Creek lift station would discharge to revealed that there was not
enough capacity in those lines to carry additional flows from Dixon Creek
P.U.D., thus the only way to provide sewer service to this property appears
to be through construction of the Dixon Creek Trunk Sewer originally
proposed by the developer.
At the last meeting between D. Jensen Enterprises and City personnel, the
developer indicated he would be willing to contribute an amount equal to the
cost of the lift station (approximately $85,0100), provided the City would
contribute the balance of the sewer's $221,0010 cost. As it normally would
on a project of this type, the City agreed to contribute the following:
Description Estimated Cost
Oversizing from 8" to 15" $40,956.00
Taft Hill Road Crossing 9,748.00
Extension through Georgetown P.U.D.,
an existing subdivision
receiving no benefit 25,295.0101
TOTAL 575, 0 001.0J01