Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSOUTHGLEN PUD, 2ND FILING - MAJOR AMENDMENT - 31-99 - CORRESPONDENCE - PUBLIC NOTICEwas not a meeting required by the City to be convened, and so was something extra the neighbors took it upon themselves to organize for the benefit of themselves and the apartment occupants. The pool has not been in operation for a long time and it is still a congregating area for teenagers who disturb area residents and endanger themselves. This PUD has abundant open space that exceeds all applicable requirements significantly, with or without the swimming pool, and the close proximity of Troutman Park means, again, that all applicable City open space and park requirements are far exceeded. The Board assumed authority it lacks under the Code and Charter in so inferring and arriving at conclusions not supported by any credible evidence and against the considered recommendation of the Staff. Appellant respectfully requests that the City Council review the record of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing, find that the request and the Staffs recommendation of approval thereof are congruent with applicable provisions of the . Code and Charter, are supported by all of the competent evidence in the record, and are in furtherance of the best interests of the Appellant, the apartment occupants in this PUD, and the surrounding neighborhood, and reverse the decision. SUBMITTED this day of December, 1999. SOUTHGLEN PARTNERSHIP, LLC By: Manager n the three lot proposal was not part of this request, the Board misinterpreted the Code in its consideration of that aspect of the Appellant's future plans. f. The motion which passed on a 4-3 vote was to deny the request with the condition that the Staff be directed to use appropriate processes to work with the owners to return the pool to functional use. The maker of the motion used the term "condition", and the person who seconded the motion also used the term "condition". While the City Attorney observed he felt this was simply giving direction to the Staff, it was clearly a motion to deny with a specific condition. The Board is not empowered by the Charter or Code to deny requests with conditions, and the Board misinterpreted and misapplied the Code and Charter in this regard. g. The Board's majority apparently felt that the fact that the swimming pool is not currently in operation constituted violation by the owner of a City ordinance, namely the approval ordinance for this PUD under the LDGS (Land Development Guidance System), as advised by the City Attorney. However, there was no evidence in the record that the approval ordinance occurred under the LDGS. In fact, it preceded the LDGS. The Board misinterpreted and misapplied the Charter and Code in this regard. h. A review of the hearing indicates that in the totality of the circumstances a majority of the Board was largely confused as to who owned and controlled the swimming pool, what the actual request before the Board was (and, importantly, was not), what the authority of the Board or the City was generally in requiring the Appellant to do a host of things with regard to the swimming pool, and what the effect of various alternative actions that the Board might take would be. Based on nothing in the record, the Board's majority created an inference that the swimming pool is a desired amenity. All of the evidence in the record suggested the contrary. The owner, the apartment occupants, and the neighbors all desire the swimming pool to be removed. The Board received no objection from any quarter to this request. The City Staff recommended approval. A large amount of the discussion of the Board's majority centered on whether or not the City could and should require the pool to become operational. There was no evidence that anyone desires this to occur. The uncontested evidence was that the pool and pump house were regularly vandalized, ultimately so severely that they could not be affordably repaired. They have continued to be vandalized. The neighbors have been adversely affected by trespassing, noise and disturbance. The neighbors held a neighborhood meeting to discuss removal of the pool, gave notice to all of the apartment occupants, and received no objections from anyone to the removal. This t�l space. However, while the Staff report mentioned the applicant's intent to seek approval of three single family lots in this area, that proposal was not part of this request. In fact, upon information and belief the approval of the three lots could have occurred by administrative approval, and it was only the fact that the swimming pool and bath house were part of the original PUD plan for Southglen PUD, Second Filing, that the Staff determined the P & Z Board's approval was needed for the removal of those aspects of the original plan. The Board therefore assumed authority it does not possess under the Code and Charter to decide matters not before it. Additionally, the undisputed evidence was that the PUD today has sixty percent (60%) open space and, even if three single family lots were approved for the area now occupied by the swimming pool and bath house, the PUD's open space would still be over half (51 %). This is still an enormous percentage of open space which far exceeds the requirement in effect at the time of the PUD's original approval (30%). The Staff has informed the Appellant that there is no current minimum requirement for open space, so the Board applied a standardless standard. The undisputed evidence also indicated that Troutman Park, which is very close to this area, by itself satisfies Section 4.4(D)(7) of the LUC, regarding required park/open space proximity, even if there were no open space within this PUD itself. The Board misinterpreted and misapplied the Code in this regard. d. The Board's majority apparently felt that the City could and should work with the Appellant to restore the swimming pool to a functional state. However, nothing in the Code or Charter empowers or authorizes the City to essentially dictate to a private property owner whether it should keep open a private swimming pool. This was in the face of undisputed evidence that serious vandalism (including puncturing the pool cover and extensive destruction of the pump house after breaking and entering) was submitted. The neighbors in letters and testimony, which were uncontroverted, apprised the Board of their concerns about vandalism, trespassing, and youth congregating at all hours around the private pool facility. The uncontested evidence also showed that the pool has not been filled or in operation for a protracted period of time for these reasons and, again, because none of the apartment occupants object to the removal of the facilities. The Board assumed authority not accorded it under the Code and Charter. e. The Board's majority apparently felt that the future proposal to plat three single- family lots in the area now occupied by the swimming pool and bath house was not desirable as removing open space, as mentioned. However, this was in contravention of the policies and provisions of City Plan encouraging housing development where existing infrastructure, including parks, exists. Thus, while 2 lJL� DEC 0 NOTICE OF APPEAL CITY CL-_r K OF FINAL DECISION OF PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD 1. The action which is the subject of this appeal is the denial by the Planning and Zoning Board of the Appellant's request for approval to eliminate the existing swimming pool and bath house facility at the east end of the Southglen Planned Unit Development, Second Filing Multi -family Residential Development. 2. The action occurred on the evening of December 16, 1999 3. The Appellant is Southglen Partnership, LLC, Building 5 Old Town Square, No. 216, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524. Telephone (970) 221-9332. The Appellant is the owner of the subject real property. 4. The grounds for the appeal consist of the Planning and Zoning Board's failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. Specific allegations of error include: a. The Board's majority apparently felt that removal of the swimming pool would eliminate a valuable and desired recreational amenity. However, all of the evidence indicated that the pool is private and for the benefit only of the PUD's apartment occupants, that none of the apartment occupants object to removal of the swimming pool, that the swimming pool has in fact become a bother, a danger and a liability to the PUD and the neighborhood generally, and that the neighbors desire its removal for the best interests of the neighborhood, as well. The Board lacked authority under the Code and Charter to arrive at its conclusion in the absence of any credible supporting evidence. b. The Board's majority apparently felt that removal of the swimming pool would result in a significant loss of important open space. However, this request is simply for the removal of the swimming pool and bath house, and nothing in this request seeks approval of any alternative use for the land area now occupied by these facilities. In other words, removal of the swimming pool and bath house will not affect the existing amount of open space in any way. The Board has misinterpreted and misapplied open space provisions contained in the Code, and lacked authority under the Code and Charter to decide the matter on that basis. C. The Board's majority apparently felt that the possibility of three single family lots being approved in some of the area now occupied by the swimming pool and bath house was an inappropriate use and, again, significantly abridged the PUD's open City C k City of Fort Collins NOTICE The City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, on Tuesday, February 1, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing in the Council Chambers in the City Hall at 300 LaPorte Avenue, will hold a public hearing on the attached appeal from the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board made on December 16, 1999 regarding the proposed major amendment to the South Glen PUD, Second Filing (#31-99), filed by Ed Stoner, Manager, Southglen Partnership, LLC. You may have received previous notice on this item in connection with hearings held by the Planning and Zoning Board. If you wish to comment on this matter, you are strongly urged to attend the hearing on this appeal. If you have any questions or require further information please feel free to contact the City Clerk's Office (221-6515) or the Planning Department (221-6750). Section 2-56 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins provides that a member of City Council may identify in writing any additional issues related to the appeal by January 25. Agenda materials provided to the City Council, including City staff s response to the Notice of Appeal, and any additional issues identified by City Councilmembers, will be available to the public on Thursday, January 27, after 10:00 a.m. in the City Clerk's Office. The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call the City Clerk's Office (221-6515) for assistance. Wanda M. Krajicek City Clerk Date Notice Mailed: January 13, 2000 cc: City Attorney Planning Department Planning and Zoning Board Chair Appellant/Applicant 300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6515 • FAX (970) 221-6295