HomeMy WebLinkAboutGATEWAY TO HARMONY ROAD PUD - PRELIMINARY - 1-88B - CORRESPONDENCE - EASEMENTS.10
Ci
City of Fort Collins
Atonev •
Mr. Richard O'Dell
Amoco Oil Co.
200 East Randolph
Chicago, IL
August 2, 1989
Re: The Gateway at Harmony Road
Dear Mr. O'Dell:
3 19�9
Robert W. Pennock has contacted me indicating that your com-
pany has a concern with regard to certain utility, access and
drainage easements as are dedicated on the plat of the Gateway at
Harmony Road P.U.D. and perhaps as are also dedicated by Kening-
ston Properties pursuant to another recorded document. Mr. Pen-
nock suggested that I could perhaps alleviate your concerns by
describing to you the City's policy with regard to the vacation
of easements dedicated to the public.
Utility, access and drainage easements dedicated to the pub-
lic, whether on plats or by separate deeds of dedication, are
based upon the perceived need that the public has, or will have
upon subsequent development of the property, for the installation
of utility lines, drainage systems or access ways on the subject
properties. The City has a duty to protect the health, safety
and welfare of its citizens, and if these dedicated easements are
needed by the public for any of the purposes described in the
easements, the City would be unwilling to vacate those easements
because, in so vacating, it would not be serving the health,
safety and welfare of its citizens.
Sometimes requests are made of the City to authorize
encroachments upon the City's easements and rights -of -way and
sometimes requests are made for the City to vacate those ease-
ments and rights -of -way. It is the City's policy that no such
vacation will be made and no such encroachment will be allowed
if, in doing so, there would be a detriment to the public inter-
est. If there is no detriment, the City is not adverse to allow-
ing the encroachment or vacation.
I hope this alleviates some of your concern about whether the
City might arbitrarily vacate easements at some time in the
future.
Finally, if Amoco should desire additional protection beyond
that which can be given by the City, I would see no legal impedi-
ment to Amoco obtaining a private easement across the same prop-
erty that is burdened by the public easement, so long as the pri-
vate easement is clearly made subordinate to the public one.
Then, if the City should ever determine to vacate its public
300 LaPorte Avenue • P. O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6520
40 0 •
Mr. Richard O'Dell
August 2, 1989
Page 2
easement, Amoco would still own the private easement for its own
purposes. The only issue that the City would watch in the con-
veyance of such a private easement would be to ensure that the
exercise of rights under the private easement did not in any way
interfere with or hinder the City's ability to exercise its
rights pursuant to its prior dedicated easement. To me, this
would give you the double protection of both the public easement,
as long as it exists, and the private easement thereafter.
WPE:whm
cc: Mr. Robert W. Pennock
Stan Black, Esq.
Linda Ripley, City Planner
S ince3e�vy ,
W. Paul Eckman
Deputy City Attorney