HomeMy WebLinkAbout980561.tiff 7050 Loma Linda Ct.
Longmont CO 80504
# %n r,,n t!q
303 833 2992
CLE:, March 4, 1998
Weld Board of County Commissioner]r) T;.;.:
PO Box 1738
Greeley CO 80632
Subject: Del Camino East PUD S#439
Ladies and gentlemen:
In my letter of February 27, 1998 I stated a concern that, in conditionally approving S#439,
the County might be exposed to a damage award if it was not able to comply with the vesting
being granted to the developer.
From a review of the Resolution as adopted, allow me to make the following comments:
L The elimination of any use designations from the plat as stated in 1[j] will be positive in
facilitating the negotiations between the developer and the Town of Firestone with regard to
annexation to that Town. Hopefully, it will result also in the elimination of the inappropriate
RV Park, RV Storage uses and provide for a lesser density residential zoning on the property,
more appropriate to the area.
2. The approval of the plat map indicating numerous dead end streets branching from the
arterial, Del Camino Parkway in the commercial/industrial zoning may pose a problem.
Arterial design, normally, does not permit intersections this close together and may not be in
conformity with Firestone's requirements as exemplified in the plan at Del Camino Central for
the same road.
3. The ICGA, in 4.3[b], states: `...the COUNTY shall require that there be [sic] executed
annexation agreement between the applicant and the MUNICIPALITY which requires the
owners to annex the property to the MUNICIPALITY...". As this requirement puts the
applicant in the position of having to satisfy two masters; what is the purpose of applying to
the County at all? [It is understood that in this particular case the application was submitted
prior to the ICGA]. This ICGA provision only makes clearer that the MUD is, now, an
unnecessary encumbrance on development of the area and should be dissolved. All the area
within the MUD is contiguous to the surrounding municipalities and they have demonstrated a
willingness to annex lands in it petitioned by their owners, in the manner prescribed by statute
to accommodate urban growth. Perhaps the County should limit its role in development to
mediating agreements between the surrounding municipalities for standards, regulations, land
use and road infrastructure [yes, including Longmont].
4. An annexation agreement is usually is drawn up simultaneously with the processing of a
petition for annexation so that the terms coincide with the intentions of the parties at the time
of the annexation [and zoning]. To execute an annexation agreement, as required in the
approval of S#439, and then petition for annexation at later date when conditions have
changed could prove damaging to both parties.
5. In regard to the exposure of the County for redress of damages to the applicant resulting
from County non compliance as to vesting, consider the following possible scenario. The
o3/I11 q8 a c /at ' (I) 980561
Resolution in 2.m states: "The applicant shall submit a petition to the Town of Firestone and
make a good faith effort to pursue such annexation." At the same time, the ICGA demands
the requirement of the County as quoted in item 3. above. Having made an unsuccessful good
faith effort [a phrase that invites litigation], the applicant can fulfill all the other conditions of
S#439 and demand County approval to proceed with his project. This would leave the County
in non compliance with the requirements of the ICGA. ICGA 4.3[h] does not remove the
requirements of the County under 4.3[b]. This is a catch22 situation for the County, unless it
can be resolved by negotiation. Unlikely? Who would have thought that local residents would
have had the tenacity to take the Pre-parole issue to court? Who would have thought that the
Court would have ducked deciding the complaint on the issue of whether the project was a
correctional facility [non complying] or a rehabilitation facility [complying with an approved
use] and, inappropriately, make it a ballot issue?
In summation, it is difficult to understand the motivation for the haste to approve S#439
when, between the inevitable changes that must result from the applicants negotiations with
the Town of Firestone and the numerous conditions that the applicant must satisfy for the
County that has left more to future resolution than has been decided in the Plan as approved.
It might have been more prudent to continue consideration before giving any approval until
the Town and County requirements had been satisfied.
This input is intended to be positive and I hope it will be accepted as such. It is sometimes
helpful to be able to step back for a better perspective [something about the forest for the
trees]..
Very truly yours,
ohn S. Folsom
PC: Weld County Attorney, Director of Planning Services, Weld County Council
delcame2.doc
Hello