Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGLENMOOR P.U.D., 2ND & 3RD FILING - PRELIMINARY / FINAL - 8-95C - LEGAL DOCS - LEGAL COMMUNICATIONMr. Cameron Gloss Ms. Susan L. Duba Hayes Mr. Ron Mills February 5, 2001 Page 4 parties. If the City will not agree to this approach, we then formally request a retroactive extension to finalize the Glenmoor P.D.P. so that Mr. Rutherford may continue the process and hopefully satisfy all required comments and letters by February 28, 2001. We would appreciate a prompt response to this request so we may determine what action needs to take concerning the Glenmoor P.D.P. Sincerely yours, Ma iamid MJM:jlw cc: Steve Roy, City Attorney John Fischbach, City Manager Richard Rutherford Ed and Marcia Fleming Mr. Cameron Gloss Ms. Susan L. Duba Hayes Mr. Ron Mills February 5, 2001 Page 3 pursuing development approval of the project is to guarantee that the City will pay the highest value of the property. At this point we prefer not to attempt to pinpoint blame for the delay in securing final approval of this project. We also believe it makes absolutely no sense to start over and file a new application and pay another application fee, in excess of $6,000.00, when it is clear that the development will never take place and the City intends to acquire the property either voluntarily or through a condemnation. The City's review of this project acknowledges that the single-family development will never occur, and that the City intends to acquire the property. See for example, the August 2, 2000, Interoffice Memorandum from Tim Blandford to Can McNair, City Engineer, concerning a request for variance. Approval of a variance is supported by the fact that the single-family housing project will never be constructed. To continue with the project would be a waste of the City's resources as well as my client's resources. The purpose of this letter is to suggest that rather require my clients to file a new application and pay another fee to "start over," that all parties acknowledge that the project will never take place, that the project would ultimately have been approved as a single-family residential project in substantially the form of the application prior to its expiration, and that the value of the property will be as if such final approval had been secured. It will not be fair under the circumstances if the anticipated offer to purchase bases the property value on the fact that the P.D.P. was never finalized or finally approved, considering the delays and various modifications required to satisfy the city departments, including stormwater and natural resources. My clients, at this point, are willing to sell the property provided they are offered fair market value based on the highest and best use of the property. Ms. Hayes stated in her April 18, 2000, letter to Mr. and Mrs. Fleming, "I do want to assure you, the City pays fair market value based on the highest and best use of the property." We believe that the approach which we have proposed in this letter is the most logical and it will conserve resources by all Mr. Cameron Gloss Ms. Susan L. Duba Hayes Mr. Ron Mills February 5, 2001 Page 2 information was first made available to the public at the beginning of February 2000 and apologized for not letting my clients know sooner of the project. The master plan that was finalized and adopted in July, 2000, included the anticipated acquisition of my client's property for the detention pond. On August 22, 2000, Mr. Ron Mills sent a memo to Susan Hayes outlining a very simplistic approach to estimating the value of the property. That memo was forwarded to me and to Ms. Fleming on September 6, 2000. My clients have continued to proceed with the application to gain the final approval for the development of the Glenmoor P.D.P., in accordance with the plans which they have had for the property for many years. One of the requirements for final approval of the plan was a letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning two endangered species, the Ute Lady's Orchid and the Prebble's Meadow Jumping Mouse. Mr. Rutherford attempted to secure all the necessary letters and items by the extension date of December 14, 2000. Since the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did not meet in December, it was impossible to secure the disqualification letter in a timely manner. Mr. Rutherford advised me that he attempted to call Troy James on December 14, to request an extension, but the City had a telephone outage on that day. Unfortunately, the requested extension was never formalized nor granted and in accordance with a letter dated December 27, 2000, addressed to Mr. Rutherford, the project expired. The letter from Mr. James states that in order continue review of the project, a new application and fee must be filed (in other words, my clients must start over.). My clients did not learn until the middle of January that the application had expired and that a new filing fee was required in order to restart the process. My review of the Glenmoor P.D.P. application and file in the planning department indicates that everyone involved with this property recognizes that the City intends to acquire it for a detention pond and the development will never occur. My clients have been advised that they will receive a formal offer to purchase through Mr. Mills' department in early February 2001. Ms. Hayes has indicated, as have others in the Planning Department, that they understand the reason my clients are WOLFE & MASID, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAw CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 1008 CENTRE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80526 Mr. Cameron Gloss Current Planning Director City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Ms. Susan L. Duba Haves, PE City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Mr. Ron Mills Right of Way Agent City of Fort Collins_ P.O. .Box. 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 KENNETH C. WOLFE MARIAM J. MASID CHERYL LEE VAN ACKERN February 5, 2001 Reference: Glenmoor, P.D.P. Dear Mr. Gloss, Ms. Hayes and Mr. Mills: This law firm represents Marsha and Ed Fleming and their entities, which are the owners of the property located at Taft Hill Road and Glenmoor Drive, known as the Glenmoor P.D.P. My clients have spent several years in the planning and development phase of the property. Richard. Rutherford. of James H. Stewart and Associates, Inc. has been acting as the project engineer. Our law firm was retained in the spring of 2000, to assist with the drafting of covenants for the P.D.P. which was anticipated for final approval by April 2000. There have been a number of delays in connection with this project as a result of requirements of various city departments for modifications to the plans and various letters required by the Natural Resources Department concerning development of this project. On April 18, 2000, Ms. Hayes sent a letter to my clients stating that as part of the City's Canal Importation Basin Master-Drainageway Plan, the City was proposing a regional detention pond on the Glenmoor site. Ms. Hayes states that this TELEPHONE 970-493-8787 FAX 970-493-8788 wolfemasld@aol.com