Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUN DISK VILLAGE FINAL SUBDIVISION - 15 91A - CORRESPONDENCE - LANDSCAPE PLAN (3)HPDesk Local Print for Sherry CLARK Start of Item 16. Message. Dated: 09/25/92 at 1207. Subject: Weed Maintenance Sender: Jon RUIZ / CFC52/01 Contents: 2. TO: Sherry CLARK / CFC52/01 Part 1. FROM: Jon RUIZ / CFC52/01 TO: Sherry CLARK / CFC52/01 Part 2. Sherry, Reference the question about weed maintenance along Windmill Drive. We will go ahead and maintain this portion. I suspect we will spray it once or twice during the spring/summer. As you eluded to, it is a bit confusing. Sometimes we maintain these types of areas, other times Parks does, and preferably, most of the time, the adjacent property owner is responsible. We would encourage that during planning review, you continue to try and find ways to ensure the adjacent property owners are responsible for this type of maintenance. In this case, it seems that was the intent, but didn't work out. Hope this helps. Please let me know if you have further questions or comments. Thanks, Jon End of Item 16. HPDesk Local Print for Sherry CLARK Start of Item 2. Message. Subject: Weed maintenance Sender: Sherry CLARK / CFC52/01 Part 1. FROM: Sherry CLARK / CFC52/01 TO: Jon RUIZ / CFC52/01 BCC: Tom PETERSON / CFC52/01 Part 2. Dated: 09/24/92 at 0822. Contents: 2. John, I am curious about our policies regarding maintenance of weeds in the r-o-w. Here's the situation (I think Gary Lopez from Streets knows about this one): On the east side of Windmill Drive (north of Horsetooth) is the Sundisk development. Fencing was installed 4' from back of the sidewalk, rather than being shifted 6' more to the east to allow for street tree plantings. The resolution of this initial problem was to place the trees inside the fencing, on the individual lots. Also part of the solution was to place "cobble" between the back of walk and the fence (there wasn't enough room to install the trees, so cobble was the solution we "reluctantly" accepted). Anyway, now the problem is who maintains the cobble. The adajcent property owner, Gary Dunlap (who raised the fencing placement issue in the first place) has now raised the maintenance question. (Apparently, he is a difficult person to work with.) The original intent was for the adjacent owners to maintain the landscaping, so they would have had the responsibility to also maintain the strip behind the walk; however, in our infinite wisdom, we didn't require any way to access this area (ie. gates). Our hearts were in the right place, but... What we're talking about is a strip 290' in length along Windmill Drive, that may need spraying a couple time a year. Do you have any ideas on how to resolve this one?? Does your department provide weed spraying anywhere in town now?? This strip of land we're talking about is in the r-o-w and is separated from the actual lot by the fence and an easement, but it's not clear to me, in theory, who should have the maintenance responsibility. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks! End of Item 2.