Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBESSETT RESERVATION PLAT - 97-88 - CORRESPONDENCE - APPLICANT COMMUNICATION (2)OCTOGER 4, 1988 � JAMES BESSETT 5 HERTIAGE LANE SHELBURNE VT. 05482 JAMES M. DAVIS DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES P.O. BOX 580 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522 DEAR MR. DAVIS THE FOLLOWING IS THE SITUATION THAT HAS DEVELOPED ON PROPERTY THAT WE OWN IN FORT COLLINS. THIS REPRESENTS WHAT I BELIEVE ARE THE FACTS REGARDING THE PROBLEM ON PARCEL NUMBERS 97012-14-007 THRU 012. STATEMENT OF EVENTS 1. 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 CLAIRFY' 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 WOULD 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. � 6. THE CITY ATTORNY OFFICE WAS CALLED ON 7/29/Bq BUT NO e:w°°'''~ RETURN CALL WAS EVER RECEIVED. ~__/' 7. TOM PETERSON 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. PETERSON CALLED BACK ON 8/8/88 AND INFORMED ME THAT THE LETTER WOULD BE ISSUED ON 8/9/88 BUT WOULD BE QUALIFIED. 8. MIKE DAVIS THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CONTACTED ME ON 8/10/88 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 8/18/88 AND AT THAT TIME THEY WOULD DECIDE 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. 11. RON MILLS WAS ASSIGNED BY MIKE DAVIS TO TRY IN WORK 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 WAS 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 THE PROPERTY BE RESERVED CONSISTANT WITH WHAT WAS AGREED TO OR BE PURCHASED BY THE CITY IN THE AMOUNT OF $279,000 IN 9/1/88 DOLLARS. SINCERELY