Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWATERGLEN PUD - FINAL - 71 93B - LEGAL DOCS - PRIVATE ENTITIESHASLER, FONFARA AND MAXWELL ATTORNEYS AT LAW City of Fort Collins August 22, 1994 Page 3 Waterglen PUD. It is my client's position that its responses to the above concerns constitute more than adequate provision for dealing with the Irrigation Company's legitimate concerns. To go beyond those measures proposed by the developer would be to allow the Irrigation Company to have far greater impact on adjacent development (and set precedents for future development), than would be appropriate. If you have any questions regarding the above, please feel free to contact the undesigned. Sincerely, M HAEL A. AELL MAM/am cc: Mr. William W. Reynolds Mr. Gerald P. Lee Mr. Eldon Ward HASLER, FONFARA AND MAXWELL ATNRNEVS AT LAW City of Fort Collins August 22, 1994 Page 2 place that burden on adjacent property owners. In any event, my client believes that constructing such a fence would increase rather than decrease safety concerns. It is virtually impossible to construct an impenetrable fence, and children could easily climb the fence and not be visible from the property development side of the fence. In addition, it would be necessary to put gaps in the fence for such things as Anheuser Busch's overflow ditch, which would provide other ready access to children who would not be visible from the development side of the fence. The Irrigation Company is als6.concerned about the ditch providing a convenient dumping ground for grass, clippings and other debris. It is my client's belief and experience that installing a fence would increase this problem since grass, clippings and debris would be dumped and not be visible from the development. 4. My client has no objection to noting on the Plat that neither the developer, owner or residents of the development have the right to access the ditch or use the area for any purpose and that they are not to use the ditch maintenance road. However, any such note must be subject to the possibility of the City and/or the developer obtaining right-of-way for a pedestrian bridge across the ditch and/or maintenance road, for access to the future city park. Any bridge constructed in connection therewith should meet the usual Irrigation Company standards and specifications for ditch crossings. 5. The developer acknowledges that there are potential seepage concerns in parts of the proposed development, and that homes built in those portions of the development about which the Irrigation Company has expressed concerns will in all likelihood not include basements. While design and engineering has not yet been completed, the developer's design and engineering will take into account water levels and provide appropriate safeguards to protect future residents'including the possibility of toe drains and/or perimeter drains. However, it does not appear likely that lining the ditch would be feasible, particularly since continuing seepage from the ditch is the apparent source of water for the Cooper Slough Wetlands, which we assume the City desires to maintain in place. The developer believes that it should retain the flexibility of devising an appropriately designed and engineered method of dealing with any potential problems, based upon such further testing as the developer deems appropriate in order to determine the extent of potential problems. Generally speaking, the developer wishes to work closely with all property owners in the area, including the Irrigation Company. However, the Irrigation Company's legal interests do not extend to the point of imposing drastic requirements or conditions on development of adjacent property, including HASLER, FONFARA AND MAXWELL ATTORNEYS AT LAW Sixth Floor, Key Bank Building 125 South Howes Street TIMOTHY W. HASLER Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 MAILING ADDRESS: JOSEPH H. FONFARA POST OFFICE BOX 2267 MICHAEL A. MAXWELL FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522 AMY S. ETSCHEID TELEPHONE (303) 493.5070 TELECOPIER (303) 483-8703 August 22, 1994 City of Fort Collins Planning Department 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Re: Waterglen PUD Gentlemen: This law firm represents Vine., Street -Partnership which is the owner of the property which is the subject matter of the above -referenced application -`for PUD approval. We have been asked to respond to -the issues raised in the letter -dated November 11, 1993, from Tim Dow on behalf of Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company, particularly as,it pertains.to The Eaton Ditch. The paragraphs below *Are•numbered so as to correspond to the numbers assigned to the various issues as discussed in Mr. Dow's letter. 1. My client does not dispute the Irrigation Company's need for access to its maintenance road, and is agreeable to including a note on the Plat providing for access over Waterglen Drive to the ditch maintenance road. However, the Irrigation Company should remain responsible for any damage which its use might cause (such as damaged caused by moving heavy equipment through the development). 2. The developer has proposed that the Irrigation Company's easement be inclusive of the westerly and/or northerly 100 feet of the property, rather than 25 feet from the top of the ditch bank. It is my client's belief that its proposal more clearly defines the location of the Irrigation Company's rights and easements, and if anything is generally.more inclusive than the Irrigation Company's proposal. This should also be more in. line with the Irrigation Company's granted.easement, which is fifty (50), feet on either side of the center 1ine.,.of.,.the ditch. 3. --It-is my clientId'position- that the requirement for constructing a solid. wood fence is inappropriate and :highly unusual. While the Irrigation Company may'have. rights .to exclude others from trespassing on its property,"it'is not appropriate to