Good borders make towns good neighbors

After years of legal back-and-forth, two annexation disputes in southern Weld County came to an end in June.

Attempts by Longmont and Erie to stop the annexation of properties west of Interstate 25 by Firestone and Frederick, respectively, went all the way to the Colorado Court of Appeals. One case was resolved by the parties before the court ruled, while the other upheld the decision of the Weld County District Court. In both situations, the annexing municipalities prevailed – at least for now.

The Longmont-Firestone dispute dates back to late 2007 when a group of Longmont residents gathered signatures to stop a council-approved annexation and put the matter to the voters. The development in question was a mixed-use project proposed by Lifebridge Community Church on 348 acres north of Colorado Highway 119 near Union Reservoir.

Rather than wade through a political mire, the property owner decided to take the annexation request elsewhere. That’s where Firestone came in and the dispute began.

In order to annex the Union and nearby Firelight developments, Firestone would need a flagpole annexation of rights-of-way along Highway 119 and Weld County Road 26.

“The leadership in Longmont at the time was resistant to that. It became a contentious issue,´ said Wes LaVanchy, town administrator for Firestone. “Firestone believed this was in fact a good project.”

Longmont attempted to block the annexation to maintain its community as a standalone municipality with open space borders. It took its argument to Weld County District Court in early 2008 as Firestone was rushing to annex the Firelight parcel. The court found in June 2009 that Firestone was not exceeding its jurisdiction nor abusing its discretion in seeking the annexations.

Longmont appealed the decision. The case was dismissed on June 21 after the municipalities reached a settlement that stipulates that Longmont will recognize Firestone’s annexation of the Union and Firelight developments while Firestone will recognize Longmont’s right to annex portions of land around Union Reservoir to maintain as open space.

Develop at different pace

With the dispute settled, the developments can move forward, albeit at a different pace.

“Unfortunately, politics got stuck in the middle during the last three years,´ said Martin Dickey, who previously served as chief operating officer for Lifebridge Church’s development arm 4C. He is now working with the new property owners who purchased about one-third of the development in late 2009.

Dickey credits the current leadership in Longmont with focusing on resolving the conflict rather than continuing it.

“The vision for the Union development is alive and well,” Dickey said. The relocation of the church from its current location in north Longmont is still at the heart of the project, and plans still include a mix of retail, residential and office uses.

“We are getting more interest in the last 90 days than we’ve had in the last year and a half,” he said, admitting that in some ways the delay was a blessing. “Certainly, we’re thankful not for the challenges we went through in the court system, but that we didn’t have millions of dollars in the ground.”

The property owners are now actively and aggressively courting potential developers, development partners, end-users and national homebuilders.

“From our perspective, we were all happy to get this done,” LaVanchy said.

LaVanchy sees a bright side to the dispute, saying that the settlement leaves the doors open for more regional cooperation. Firestone already had an intergovernmental agreement with Frederick, but not with Longmont. Now, discussions are open for setting one up and maybe others as well.

Protected land dispute

Erie and Frederick also saw a decision made in their years-long annexation argument in June. The property in question isn’t a prime development location that will add to some municipalities tax base, but rather land protected by the federal government.

Property owner David Yardley obtained federal wetland designation for his property along Colo. 52, just west of Weld County Road 5. According to Jennifer Simmons, planning director for the town of Frederick, he first attempted to donate the property to a local municipality to provide management continuity in accordance with federal requirements.

“Yardley had first offered it to Erie, but Erie didn’t want it,” Simmons said.

When it was offered to Frederick, the town accepted. The next step was to annex the property into the town to streamline any needed maintenance activities. The annexation was completed in mid-2007 despite Erie filing a couple of motions for reconsideration.

Erie filed a suit in Weld County District Court to reverse the annexation, stating among other things that Frederick didn’t follow proper procedures. Simmons admits that the town didn’t provide required notification 90 days prior to the annexation date. Instead, it published notification and sent letters to property owners 25 days prior, in effect satisfying other statutes.

A June 10 ruling by the Colorado Court of Appeals upheld an April 2009 ruling by a Weld County District Court judge that Frederick’s annexation of the Yardley Wetland property was proper. In the ruling, the judge found that notification discrepancies were minor. The ruling also pointed out that representatives for the town of Erie did not attend Frederick’s annexation hearings nor is Erie an adjacent landowner.

There has not been an agreement between the towns regarding growth areas. Frederick has an IGA in place with Firestone, but nothing with Erie.

“We’ve never been able to reach one with Erie,” Simmons said.

And that might not change in the foreseeable future. For its part, the town of Erie is still not completely satisfied with the Colorado Appeals Court’s decision. Fred Diehl, assistant town administrator in Erie, explained that the main concern for the town is preserving its “well established and documented” planning areas.

“Our attorneys are reviewing the ruling,” he added.

Other border wars

The disputes aren’t the first, and probably not the last, along Northern Colorado’s I-25 corridor. Fort Collins and Timnath entered into an IGA in February 2009 to settle growth boundary areas at the Harmony Road/I-25 interchange.

Loveland protected one of its gateway intersections in late 2007 by purchasing 97 acres for $6.5 million to keep Johnstown from jumping the interstate.

“It really was to anchor that entryway into Loveland,´ said City Manager Don Williams. “We always knew we would sell it to someone to develop it.”

For the past year, the city has marketed the property through on-site signage only. There is no official listing price. Williams said that interest has been light, with several inquiries shortly after the acquisition and few since then.

Loveland is about to step up its efforts to unload the property, according to Assistant City Manager Rod Wensing. Later this year, the city will likely seek a new zoning for the parcel. It is currently zoned Development Reserve, which is essentially just a hold. Wensing said discussions are to seek Major Activity Center zoning, which would allow commercial, retail and residential.

“This is the first step of truly marketing the property,” he said.

As development fills in along the I-25 corridor and municipalities hash out past disputes, there are fewer reasons for battling over boundaries. At the same time, though, those land opportunities become more valuable as they become more scarce.

on Facebook on LinkedIn