HomeMy WebLinkAboutNOEL ANNEXATION & ZONING - 58-87, A - CORRESPONDENCE - LEGAL COMMUNICATION (2)j,
Ciiv cat Ft)ri Co'iIins
Robert E. Ray, Esq.
P.O. Box 1501
Greeley, CO 80632
Re: Noel Annexation
Dear Bob:
•
March 6, 1989
As you know, Council passed on first.reading the annexation
ordinance for the Noel property, together with the zoning ordi-
nance which, if passed upon second reading, would apply the R-F
zoning district to all of Mr. Noel's property. Since there was
considerable discussion about the legal effect of the various
actions that might be taken by Council, I wanted to clarify the
City's position in this matter and ask you to do the same on
behalf of Mr. Noel.
First, although any attachment of "additional conditions'
upon the annexation would result in an election under Section
31-12-112, C.R.S., I do not believe that the proposed zoning
would constitute such an additional condition. It is apparent,
however, that the R-F zoning district is not consistent with Mr.
Noel's request. Nonetheless, in the draft Annexation Agreement
submitted with this petition, he did acknowledge that the zoning
of the property is a legislative act that cannot be constrained
by the terms of any agreement.
Technically, a petition for annexation may not be withdrawn
after the petition has been filed unless such right of withdrawal
is specifically set forth in the petition itself [see Section
31-12-107(e), C.R.S.]. It was mentioned at the meeting, however,
that Mr. Noel must execute the Annexation Agreement between first
and second readings in�order for the annexation to be approved on
second reading. This would be consistent with the fact that the
annexation ordinance references the Annexation Agreement in Sec-
tion 4, although the annexation is not made expressly contingent
upon the execution of such Agreement.
Under all of these circumstances, I think it would be help-
ful for Mr. Noel to clarify his position, and his request of the
City, with regard to the second reading of the annexation ordi-
nance; alternatively, the City can merely wait to see whether he
executes the Annexation Agreement and then decide what legal
weight should be attributed to such act or omission. I think it
would be preferable to instead clarify the position of both Mr.
Noel and the City as much as possible before the next Council
meeting.
;!kl LaPorte Avenue o! 11. O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0380 • (303) 221-6320
0
Robert E. Ray, Esq.
March 6, 1989
Page 2
I cannot guarantee that if Mr. Noel desires that the City
not annex the property at this point, such request would be
granted by the Council, since the right to withdraw his petition
was not specifically stated in the petition. Nonetheless, I do
think such a clarification would be very helpful to Council's
consideration of this matter on second reading.
In order to include any correspondence pertaining to these issues
in the packet of information delivered to City Council prior to
the meeting, it would be necessary to receive the same no later
than Thursday, March 16, 1989. Thank you for your consideration
of this request.
Very truly yours,
e e J : oy
City A torney
SJR:whm
cc: Steve Burkett, City Manager
Mike Davis, Director of Development Services
Paul Eckman, Assistant City Attorney
Ken Waido, Chief Planner