HomeMy WebLinkAboutOBSERVATORY HEIGHTS - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2004-08-24WILLIAM C. STOVER
ATTORNEY AT LAW
UNITED BANK BUILDING -SUITE 3$5
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522
P. O. BOX 523
452-3664
AREA CODE 303
September 25, 1978
Mr. Thomas A. Sconzo
13219 Northrup Way
Bellevue, Washington 98005
RE: Pav 'N Pak Store
Observatory M—elgnts Subdivision
Fort Collins, Colorado
Dear Mr. Sconzo:
I have been instructed by the Board of Directors of The Larimer
County Canal No. 2 Irrigating Company to pass on to you the
results of their Board Meeting on the site of the proposed
Pay IN Pak store located in Observatory Heights Subdivision
south of the city of Fort Collins, Colorado.
Their physical inspection indicates that one of your lot lines
stakes, located on the northwest corner near the State highway,
is actually located within the ditch, as is one located at the
north end of the proposed east pond. Other stakes appear to
be right on the southerly ditch bank.
Also, the new architectural topographic survey has the building
located well within the ditch company's maintenance right-of-way.
The Board was advised by Sam Stegeman that the building was
moved north on the second map because of certain City requirements
concerning a proposed roadway on the south.
The ditch company cannot agree to this proposed relocation since
it would preclude proper maintenance of the ditch as historically
practiced.
It is the opinion of the Board that the building will need to
be placed a minimum of thirty (30') feet south of the second
proposed relocation. The original location meets with the
approval of the Board.
Mr. Thomas A. Sconzo
Page Two
September 25, 1978
The provision for runoff by detention pond meets with the
complete approval of the ditch company Board.
Very truly yours,
t,tti,,
William C. Stover, Secretary
WCS:s1
cc: Hugh S. Ferguson Company
Concept West
Mr. Sam Stegeman
Mr. Glen A. Johnson, President
City of Fort Collins
TVF LARIMhR COUNTY CANAL NO. 2 IRRIGATING COMPANY
P. O. Box 523
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
June 4, 1979
n`/i
Mr. Marc Mid.del
c/o Taft Hill Development Corporation
1407 South College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
RE: Aspen Knolls Subdivision
Dear Mr. Mid:del:
The problem has recently been brought to my attention of
disposition of the storm drainage water from Aspen Knolls
Subdivision and Village West 9th Filing. It is my underst-an.dinc
this storm Wateris beiI:g transported across the Nev: MercQr
Ditch into a detention pond, and then, released to go nowhere
except into the Larimer County Canal No. 2.
It is our position that this is imported water foreiqn to our
system. No contact has ever been made to our Foard, whatever,
as to whether wP might accept this runoff. We are .in the
irrigation business and not put there to accept your waters
as you see fit to put in our system without notification.
Please he auvised the Larimer County Canal No. 2 Irrigating
Company refuses to accept this water, and some other rs+t_hod
of disposition rests with you and not with us. We expect
immediate action on this matter and expect to hear Cron you.
Very truly yours,
Glen A. Johnson, President
GAJ:sl
cc: City of: Fort Collins
Mr. Pill Bartran
Larimer County Canal No. 2 Board of Directors
WILLIAM C. STOVER
ROBERT W. BRANDES,JR.
DARR" -FARRINGTON
STOVER, BRANDES & FARRINGTON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ROBERTSON BU,LDING-SUITE 220
"0 EAST OAK STREET
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522
R. O. BOX 523
482-3694
REA CODE 303
I11�JJ JurJ U 5 1979
----
Public Vdork Adp4str4ou
June 4, 1979
Mr. Tom Feeney
1119 Pearl Street
Denver, Colorado 80203
RE: Larimer County Canal. No. 2
Observatory Heights Subdivision
Dear Tom:
As yet we have not received an "as built" drawing of the sanitary
sewer line installed parallel to South College Avenue south of
Horsetooth Road. Let me outline a couple problems arising fra r.
that construction recently:
1. Sewer was installed in such a way as to protrude
above the bottom flow line of the canal. This
cannot be accepted by the company and must be
corrected at once.
2. Dirt was left on the sides of the canal and, therefore,
:oust be removed. Its presence restricts the flow of
water in the canal as does problem 1 above.
These problems must be addressed, Tom, so the flow of water- in
the canal is not obstructed so as to cause damage to property
owners upstream and adding to the ditch company's liability.
These obstacles also decrease the amount of capacity throngh
the adjoining bridge, and will lend to unnecessary future
maintenance by the ditch company.
Please he advised, also, that before any of your property in
Observatory Sleights is developed, you must make some arrangements
for your storm drainage from these sites. If this water runs
toward the canal, it will have to be properly disposed of. The
ditch company does not necessarily have to accept this water.
My advice to you is to pursue this matter before all the: other
plans are completed.
Mr. Tom Feeney
Page Two
June 4, 1979
Glen Johnson, the President
he was present when Dan Kehn
assured the structure would
bottom of the ditch, but as
does protiude into the ditch
tolerated.
WCS.sl
cc: Mr. Roy Bingman, City
Don ltehn Construction
Mr. Glen A. Johnson
Larimer County Canal
of the ditch company, states that
was pouring the concrete and was
not come above the level of t}-„
indicated in "l." above, it certainly
and this, of course, cannot be
Very truly yours,
William C. ��over, Secretary
of Fort_ Collins
Co.
No. 2 Board of Directors