HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTATE HIGHWAY 14, EAST FRONTAGE ROAD - ANNEXATION & ZONING - 20-00 - CORRESPONDENCE - ANNEXATION DOCUMENTS (3)Ted Shepard - Re: E.Prospect Annex. Ac- -ment Page 1
From: Dave Dave
To: Cam McNair, Ken Waido, Matt Baker, Ted Shepard,...
Date: Fri, Sep 1, 2000 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: E.ProspectAnnex. Agreement
Paul,
Dave Dave is Dave Stringer. For some reason I've been given a new handle. The computer people are
trying to get it corrected.
My thoughts were just has you stated. Something to get before development so we aren't having to argue
later. These are notable developers.
>>> W. Paul Eckman 09/01 2:42 PM >>>
Who is Dave Dave? And, if we can justify the request for street improvements based upon
impacts/adaquate public facilities, do we need an annexation agreement? Maybe just to cement the
understanding so we don't have an argument later?
>>> Dave Dave 09/01 2:20 PM >>>
My two cents worth is yes. We should have an agreement. The main point being, the street system
(Prospect Road ) already has capacity problems and additional development will make the bad situation
worse. Therefore, I believe we can justify the request. It seems to me to be a question of adequate public
facilities.
Dave
>>> Ted Shepard 09/01 2:13 PM >>>
We have been processing a request to annex 47 acres east of 1-25, about half -way between Mulberry and
Prospect. The parcel has about 1,000 feet of street frontage along the highway frontage road.
This parcel is acutely disconnected from the fully improved urban -level street system.
The question that I would like to pose is should the City consider entering into an Annexation Agreement
to attempt to clarify the extent of the off -site improvements necessary to develop this parcel?
Paul suggests that an Annexation Agreement may be a way for a developer to voluntarily commit to doing
more than what our Code would normally require.
The risk is that the applicant could claim that an exorbitant exaction could amount to a de -facto "denial" of
the annexation. Then, the applicant could go to the County and say the City denied the annexation
request allowing the applicant to develop in the County.
This parcel is owned by Les Kaplan and it abuts a parcel owned by Dallas Horton (Galatia). Both owners
are coordinating with Ron Daggett of Poudre School District since the District owns an adjacent 100 acres
for the next high school.
If the Growth Initiative passes, the question may become moot but I would appreciate any thoughts, pro or
con, as to whether we should consider an Annexation Agreement for this application.
Thanks. Ted.
Ted Shepard - Re: E. Prospect Annex. Ac ment
From: Matt Baker
To: Cam McNair, Dave Dave, Ken Waido, Ted Shepard, ...
Date: Fri, Sep 1, 2000 3:48 PM
Subject: Re: E.Prospect Annex. Agreement
Ted --
An annexation agreement can cover anything both parties agree to, including exactions. However, I don't
know if clarifying the off site street requirements spelled out in the City Code is necessary for this
agreement. Les is well aware of city development requirements.
I would suggest that annexation agreement exactions be for obtaining ROW for abutting arterial streets
and drainage easements through existing drainage ways. This would facilitate infrastructure
improvements even if the property was slow in developing.
Improvements and requirements for development, such as off site street requirements can be more
appropriately addressed through the normal development process, when the type and intensity of use,
traffic impacts, etc. are known.
I also think annexing this property would get us one step closer to surrounding the Mulberry corridor
Just my thoughts.
--Matt
Ted Shepard --Re: E.Prospect Annex. A!' moment
From: Cam McNair
To: Dave Dave; Ken Waido; Matt Baker; Ted Shepard; ...
Date: Fri, Sep 1, 2000 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: E.Prospect Annex. Agreement
I guess I'll weigh in, too. I participated in some of the GMLT discussions on annexation agreements, and I
believe that this would be a good tool to use, primarily to avoid future misunderstandings as to the City's
requirements and expectations for development. Also, I wonder if this parcel would/should participate in
the costs of up -grading the 1-25 interchanges at Mulberry and Prospect. As for the developer using this as
an excuse to develop under the County's rules, wouldn't they still have to conform to the IGA for the UGA?
>>> Ted Shepard 09/01 2:13 PM >>>
We have been processing a request to annex 47 acres east of 1-25, about half -way between Mulberry and
Prospect. The parcel has about 1,000 feet of street frontage along the highway frontage road.
This parcel is acutely disconnected from the fully improved urban -level street system.
The question that I would like to pose is should the City consider entering into an Annexation Agreement
to attempt to clarify the extent of the off -site improvements necessary to develop this parcel?
Paul suggests that an Annexation Agreement may be a way for a developer to voluntarily commit to doing
more than what our Code would normally require.
The risk is that the applicant could claim that an exorbitant exaction could amount to a de -facto "denial" of
the annexation. Then, the applicant could go to the County and say the City denied the annexation
request allowing the applicant to develop in the County.
This parcel is owned by Les Kaplan and it abuts a parcel owned by Dallas Horton (Galatia). Both owners
are coordinating with Ron Daggett of Poudre School District since the District owns an adjacent 100 acres
for the next high school.
If the Growth Initiative passes, the question may become moot but I would appreciate any thoughts, pro or
con, as to whether we should consider an Annexation Agreement for this application.
Thanks, Ted