HomeMy WebLinkAboutNOEL ANNEXATION & ZONING - 58-87, A - CORRESPONDENCE - CITY STAFF✓��'�:�nin ark _pr`.•.LE'`
rEce c:.~e
October 12, 1988
Mr. Wallace Noel
253 Gray Rock Road
LaPorte, CO 80535
Dear Mr. Noel:
This is in response to a September 21, 1938 letter from Mr. James A.
Gefroh, President, Gefroh Hatt77an, Inc. addressed to Mr. Ken Waido of the
City Planning Department concerning the Noel Annexation. As a result of a
meeting between you and staff of the Planning Departmnt, at which I
attended, it was agreed that staff would work with your representative, Mr.
Gefroh, to be in a position to present your proposal to the. City Planning
and Zoning Board on October 21, 1988 with possible Council action in
November.
As discussed and agreed at the meeting, staff would draft an annexation
agreement embodying safeguards mutually considered appropriate for the
annexation and the setting of original zoning. If at the meeting of the
Planning and Zoning Board or immediately prior thereto, it should be
decided by the Planning Director that the matter should be postponed to
allow more time to prepare for the presentation, you and your
representative would accept the decision to postpone and continue to work -
with staff to refine and improve the proposal.
In a related matter, Mr. C-efrch indicated in his September 21, 1988 letter
that the City Manager, Economic Development Administrator and Director of
Development Services voiced approval and support for the new proposal, and
would reco^miend that staff support the annexation/donation concept.
We would like to clear the record on the meaning behind the expressions of
support so that in the future, the positions taken by us at the meeting are
not misconstrued or misrepresented.
The concept you presented and the frustrations you have experienced over a
number of years relative to the referenced property was understood and
received both conceptual support and sympathy. It was and continues to be
our belief that you are entitled to a fair and speedy hearing before
appropriate approving bodies. To this end we indicated to you our
objective to see this matter through to a proper and speedy conclusion.
This does not mean nor was it intended to mean unqualified approval of the
project.
300 LaPorte :Avenue • P.O. Box ;:,S0 • Fort Lupins, CO S0522-05SO • (303) 221-6601
In concezz %cur prc-ccsal is iccric<al and re-Msonable. The C'_- v''s st tE-Zi
objective is to oreserve the fcot:ills abGv'e the 5:200 foot elevation. Yc--,;.r
prc-)oral would acc=li:h this c;^ai if accaerT ted by the Ci�i COLrcii after
'-eview ana recce.-.enaation by tiler [ lannii� �j an Zcni Soaru.
Th-e amount of de-nsivr beic J the ;-7'200 el evaticn :v?SC'.^ s di;Ss-�' C•]lth -o
definitive conciusion reached oz.,,,er 7::han i1.e rand Ceveic-re-nt C`uid-j nce
System see-i--i to be the locticai and most protective approach to be '..alien.
However, the Foothills precludes the application of this particu.iar
deveic=ent process. To allow t1 e LEGS to apply to the area below the 5200
foot elevation would require that parts of your property during annexation
and original zoning be placed in the RLP zoning category as opposed to the
RF zone as called for in the Foothills Polio.,. The final decision rests
with the City Council. The first test of your proposal will cone from the
Planning and Zoning Board. We did not nor can we guarantee the outcome of
this public heari.^ct and decision .;akina process.
Our objective at the meeting was not to indicate unqualified support for
your proposal. It was to better understand what you were proposing to the
City and how an answer could be expedited, recognizing the outcome could be
either contrary to or supportive of your interests and expectations.
We trust this adequately expresses our position in this regard.
Sincerely,
ri-L<J �:�>�is✓titer.
iamm-esM. Davis
or of Development Services
cc: City :•tanager
Director of Planning
Economic Development Administrator
No Text