Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTATE HIGHWAY 14, EAST FRONTAGE ROAD - ANNEXATION & ZONING (RESUBMITTAL) - 20-00 - CORRESPONDENCE - (3)Ted Shepard - RE: What our IGA says & ` Annexation Please let me know if you have additional questions or concerns. Steve >>> "Eric Hamrick" <erichamrl @attbi.com> 02/23/03 10:23PM >>> Sorry about that. I hit the send button too fast. Like Marty, my concern was about the zoning (or structure plan change). UE would be the most appropriate fit across 1-25. Eric -----Original Message ----- From: Eric Hamrick jmailto:erichamrl @attbi.coml Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 10:18 PM To: 'Marty Tharp'; 'David Roy; 'Eric Hamrick'; 'John Fischbach'; 'Kurt Kastein'; 'Karen Weitkunat'; 'Ray Martinez'; 'Steve Roy; 'William Bertschy' Subject: RE: What our IGA says about Annexation John, Too bad no one mentioned this on Tuesday night... Eric -----Original Message ----- From: Marty Tharp fmailto:mtharp@fcgov.coml Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 1:37 PM To: David Roy; Eric Hamrick; John Fischbach; Kurt Kastein; Karen Weitkunat; Ray Martinez; Steve Roy; William Bertschy Subject: Re: What our IGA says about Annexation I have no problem with the annexation. It's the structure plan that seemed unclear. Marty >>> John Fischbach 02/23/03 13:01 PM >>> Tuesday evening it was indicated that Les Kaplan could now go to Larimer County because the Council chose not to deal with his annexatiln petition. This is not exactly correct. The IGA says in Section 6.0 as follows: C. If the City denies an annexation petition required to be submitted to it .... the County may accept the application and process and rule on it... We should continue to work with Mr. Kaplan, therefore, because the City did not deny his petition for annexation. I just wanted to let you know. Let me know if you have any questions. John --- Ted Shepard - RE: What our IGA says & + Annexation Page 1 From: Steve Roy To: "erichamrl @attbi.com".GWIA60.FC1; David Roy; Eric Hamrick; John Fischbach; Karen Weitkunat; Kurt Kastein; Marty Tharp; Ray Martinez; William Bertschy Date: 2/24/03 2:20PM Subject: RE: What our IGA says about Annexation " Confidential Bottom line: 1. As John has indicated, the property that was the subject of Les Kaplan's annexation petition cannot, under the IGA, be developed in the County simply because the Council allowed Les to withdraw his petition. 2. If the petition is re -filed, the Council would have a full year from the date of filing of a new petition to decide whether to annex the property. Discussion: When Les Kaplan asked to be allowed to withdraw his annexation petition at the meeting last Tuesday, John asked me whether Les could develop in the County if the Council chose not to pursue the annexation by letting him withdraw his petition. I mistakenly answered that he could. The previous version of the IGA did not define what made a property "eligible" or "ineligible" for annexation. Under that version, I had given the opinion that, for the purposes of the IGA, a property was no longer "eligible" for annexation once the Council had considered an annexation petition and, for whatever reason, had decided not to pursue the annexation. (Otherwise, it seemed to me that the City could keep a property owner "twisting in the wind" indefinitely by postponing a decision.) However, the current IGA language clearly states that a developer of property eligible for annexation cannot develop in the County unless the City Council has actually denied the annexation petition. Since the Council did not deny the petition Tuesday night, the property cannot be developed in the County unless and until that occurs. I might note that, in talking to Les after the hearing, Les was contending that the Council action was tantamount to a denial. Under the previous wording of the IGA, I think he might have had an argument. Under the revised language, however, I don't believe he does. At some point in the future, it is possible that keeping Les "on hold" could result in a de facto taking of the property. We're not at that point yet for the following reasons. 1. 1 believe Les stated at the hearing that he has no immediate plans for redevelopment of the property, so it would be hard for him to make a case that a delay in deciding whether to annex has precluded him from proceeding with development. 2. Les has voluntarily withdrawn his annexation petition. 3. Even if Les' annexation petition had been denied by the Council, the IGA states that, if a denial is based upon an unacceptable condition proposed by the applicant (such as a particular zoning), then the applicant still cannot apply for development approval in the County. 4. If Les believes that Council's action or inaction works a taking of his property interest, the IGA requires that he go through our "takings determination process" before he can go to court with a takings claim. 5. Now that the annexation petition has been withdrawn, we would have another full year under the annexation statute for considering the proposed annexation if he re -files his petition.