Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBESSETT RESERVATION PLAT - 97-88 - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO APPLICANT (3)• DevelovAt Services Office of the Director Citv of Fort Collins October 14, 1988 Mr. James Bessett 5 Heritage Lane Shelburne, VT 05482 Dear Mr. Bessett: This is in response to your letter of October 4, 1988 expressing concern over the time it is taking the City to formally respond to the question of City interest in reserving property you own for a planned State highway project. It is true that we have been delayed somewhat. However, we must assure you that this has not been intentional on the part of the City. There are a number of process steps involved in the pursuit of a public purpose reservation pursuant to procedures set forth in State law. we are once again on track. The question has been scheduled for the October 24, 1988 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board. Two options will be presented by staff. One option relies on the formal reservation process as outlined in State law. Your willingness to seek a negotiated settlement with the City will greatly shorten this lengthy process and bring the matter to a final decision before the City Council in early November, 1988. The second option explored by staff is a simple lease agreement between you and the City to accomplish the same purpose of the reservation. It is to this second option that staff has devoted its energies and has experienced delays in finalizing its research and obtaining answers to questions involving property taxes assurung the property in question was leased to the City. As indicated above,the question is again moving forward. A plat of the property is being prepared and will be available for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board on October 24, 1988. If approved, the question of the reservation by either simple lease or the formal reservation process will be taken before the City Council on November 1, 1988. As this is a matter that will ultimately be decided by the City Council based on the 300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fart Collins, CO 80-522-0380 • (303) 221-6601 0 • merits of the proposal, we cannot predict with certainty the final decision that will be made that evening. If the City Council should decide that reservation of the subject property is not in the public interest, then the matter of a planned public street involving the subject property will be settled at a future date by the State Department of Highways. If the City Council should decide to pursue the reservation at its November 1, 1988 meeting, you will be notified and the appropriate instrument to accomplish the reservation, assuming you agree, will be executed between you and the City. In either event, we shall notify you as soon as possible after both meetings of the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Council as to the position taken be both bodies. In the mean time, if you should have any questions or wish to speak with me, please do not hesitate to call. I may be reached by telephoning (303) 221-6601. Sincerely, 1 James M. Davis � irector of Development Services cc: Steven Roy, City Attorney ,11iomas Peterson, Director of Planning Ron Mills, Right -of --Way Agent OCTOBER 4. 1988 JAMES BESSETT 5 HERTIAGE LANE SHELBURNE VT. 05482 JAMES M. DAVIS DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES P.O. BOX 080 FORT COLLINS, COL.ORADO 80522 DEAR MR. DAVIS THE FOLLOWING IS THE SITUATION THAT HAS DEVELOPED ON 1='ROPERTY THAT WE OWN IN FORT COLLINS. THIS REPRESENTS WHAT I BELIF_VE. ARE THE: FACTS REGARDING THE PROBLEM ON PARCEL NUMBERS 07012--14-007 THRU 012. STATEMENT OF EVENTS L. RUSSELL MC CAHAN OF MOORE AND COMPANY FORT COLLINS DELIVERED A POTENTIAL_ BUYER FOR THE PROPERTY ABOVE. THIS BUYER DEVELOPED SITE PLANS AND WHEN THESE WERE DELIVERED TO THE CITY HIS REPERSENATIVE WAS INFORMED BY CHERRY CLARK OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT THAT A BUILDING PERMIT MAY NOT BE ABLE TO BE ISSUED ON THE ABOVE PROPERTY . THEY WERE ALSO INFORMED THAT THE. EXPRESSWAY WAS GOING TO GO THRU THIS PROPERTY. THIS OCCURED IN THE FIRST PART OF JULY. 2. I WAS MADE AWARE OF THE SITUATION ON JULY 20 AT WHICH TIME I CONTACTED TOM PETERSON OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE PROBLEM. I REQUESTED A LETTER BE SENT STATING THAT A BUILDING PERMIT COULD BE OBTAINED ON THE PROPERTY AND THAT THERE WAS CURRENTLY NO PLANS OR FUNDS PERCLUDING THE BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY. I WAS TOLD THAT A LETTER WOULD BE IN THE MAIL BY 7/22/88. THE BUYER WAS INFORMED THAT THE PROBLEM WAS RESOLVED. 3. THE SAME DISCUSSION WAS HELD WITH PAUL ECKMAN OF THE CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE WHO WAS TO TALK TO PETERSON ON 7/20/88 AS HE APPARENTLY AGREED THAT A STATEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE SAYING A BUILDING PERMIT COULD NOT BE OBTAINED AND THAT A LETTER SHOULD BE ISSUED TO CLAIRF-Y. 4. THE STATE WAS REQUESTED TO SUPPLY A STATUS REPORT ON THE PROJECT ON 7/22/88 AND ISSUED THEIR LETTER ON 7/25/88 WHICH IS ATTACHED. 5. TOM PETERSON WAS AGAIN CONTACTED ON 7/29/88 AT WHICH TIME HE HAD RECEIVED THE STATE LETTER AND AGAIN INFORMED ME THAT A LETTER WOULI) BE ISSUED THAT DAY. AGAIN I STRESSED THE IMPORTANCE OF GETTING THIS LETTER OUT AS THE BUY WAS WAITING AND COULD BE LOST DUE TO THE PROCRASTINATION OF THE CITY. r L l� G. THE CITY ATTORN`T' OFFICE WAS CALLED ON /29/88 BUT NO RETURN CALL WAS EVER RECEIVED. G,/TL 7. TOM FI:_TERSON WAS AGAIN CALLED ON 8/8/88 AT WHICH TIME I WAS AGAIN INFORMED THAT THE.. CITY HAD NOT ISSUED THE REQUESTED AND PROMISED LETTER AND IT WAS NOW AT THE CITY MANAGER FOR REVIEW. MR. PETERS>ON CALLED BACK ON 8/8/88 AND INFORMED ME THAT THE LETTER WOULD BE ISSUED ON 8/9/88 BUT WOULD BE QUALIFIED. 3. I"II I•:::E: DAVIS THE:: DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CONTACTED ME: ON 9/10/88 AND INFORMED ME THAT A LETTER HAD BEEN ISSUED (SEE ENCLOSED) HE: ALSO INFORMED ME THAT THE PLANNING AND ;ZONING BOARD WAS TO MEET ON 3/18/88 AND AT THAT TIME THEY WOULD L"ECIDE IF THEY WERE TO PROCEED WITH RESERVATION. IF NOT I WOULD RECEIVE A LETTER STATING SO TO FREE THE PROPERTY. 9. ON 8/12/88 I SPOKE WITH TOM PETERSON WHO INFORMED ME THAT THE BOARD WAS NOT TO MEET UNTIL 8/24/88. 10. IF THE: BOARD WERE TO ELECT TO PROCEED THEY WOULD NEED TO PUT A PACKAGE TOGETHER FOR THE CITY COUNCIL WHICH WOULD TAKE AT LEAST UNTIL_ OCTOBER. I. 1 . RON MILLS WAS ASSIGNED BY MIKE DAVIS TO TRY IN WORE: OUT A AGREEMENT AS TO PRICE WITH MYSELF INORDER TO SHORTEN THE TIME REQUOIRED TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEM. THIS AGREEMENT AS TO WHAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE WAS REACHED ON 9/1/88. 12. ON 9/30/88 I WAE INFORMED BY MR. MILLS THAT THE EARLIEST THAT THE ISSUE= COULD GO TO COUNCIL WAS NOW NOVEMBER 1988. THE CITY AT THIS POINT HAS COST ME A POTENTIAL BUYER, WHO WAS READY TO WRITE A CONTRACT ON THE PROPERTY, BY NOT SUPPLYING AN UNQUALIFIED STATEMENT THAT A BUILDING PERMIT COULD BE OBTAINED AFTER HAVING MADE THE STATEMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE. THIS SITUATION HAS GONE ON FOR 90 DAYS AND STILL NO DECISON HAS BEEN MADE TO RESERVE NOR HAS IT BEEN PRESENTED TO PLANNING AND ZONING OR TO COUNCIL FOR DETERMINATION. THIS GIVES ME THE PRECEPTION OF INTENT ON BEHAFT ON THE CITY WAS NOT TO ONLY COST ME THE SALE BUT NOT TO PROCEED WITH THE RESERVATION APPROCH. I AM REQUESTING THAT WITH WHAT WAS AGREED AMOUNT OF $279, 000 IN SINCERELY f THE PROPERTY BE RESERVED CONSISTANT TO OR BE PURCHASED BY THE CITY IN THE 9/1/88 DOLLARS.