Fate of riverfront condos may be decided in court

About seven years ago on Bellevue's riverfront, developers finished a 38-unit condo building named Harbor Greene with the intention of building two more buildings for a total of 108 condos.

Bellevue is still waiting for the project to be completed.

The city and developer have taken their differences to federal court to determine what, if anything, might become of the rest of Harbor Greene.

The city and developer Ackermann Group tried to work out their differences outside court last year until the developer sued the city in December in the Sixth Circuit of U.S. District Court.

Ackermann wanted to change its plans for the other buildings, making them apartments instead of condos. This angered Harbor Greene residents, who filed suit against the developer.

The Bellevue Planning and Zoning Commission denied the developer's request to change the development plans based on 11 reasons, ranging from parking to a lack of retail.

"He's out to make as much money as possible, and we're into it to build a community," Bellevue City Administrator Keith Spoelker said. "Our needs are longer range than his are."

Calls to the Ackermann Group and its attorney Thomas Kirkwood were not returned Friday.

The city and the Ackermann Group entered into a development agreement to build the condos in 2003.

Ackermann went to the city wanting to amend the agreement in order to build 216 apartments. When that met with a frosty reception, the developer lowered the number of apartments to 180 apartments.

But while the apartments proved a less popular idea with residents, other aspects of the building plans ran afoul of the city's zoning code, Spoelker said. One of the buildings would have fronted the city's main business thoroughfare, Fairfield Avenue, which zoning requires to have a commercial storefront, Spoelker said.

Ackermann, in the lawsuit, claims the changes don't violate city zoning code, and argues the city's denial violated the development agreement and the Kentucky and U.S. constitutions. By not allowing the developer to build what it sees as a lawful apartment complex, the city's actions amount to unlawful taking of the property, the Ackermann suit claims.

The city's rejection of the development plans "lacks any rational basis and destroys the value of the property to such an extent that it constitutes a taking by eminent domain without due process of law," the developer wrote in the lawsuit.

The city then filed suit against Ackermann April 28 for not living up to the development agreement. That lawsuit is also pending in federal court.

"It's a breach of contract that puts us in a bind," Spoelker said.

The city hopes to either have the condos built as planned or recoup the $2.9 million in bonds the city issued to beef up the roads, sewers and other infrastructure for the development.

Ackermann, on the other hand, wants to recoup damages that have accrued by their inability to develop the land.

Spoelker hopes the two sides can get the project going again.

"We tried working with them up until almost a week before the lawsuit was filed," Spoelker said. "We were trying to get an amicable settlement, and it just didn't work."