Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCROWNE AT OLD TOWN NORTH - PDP170007 - LEGAL DOCS - PUBLIC NOTICEReforms have been requested in the past. Council direction in this area has been given. Still, the process and the relationships and the uneven playing field persist. Most notably, the function of the city government that purports to advise citizen participants in the process is ineffective to the point it might as well not exist at all. 4 allegation and who was making it, one or more members may have pursued the issue I had raised. Furthermore, the entire notion that an interested party needs to present evidence is flawed. The process does not require that citizens prove anything. Rather, the burden of proof lies upon the applicant. In fact, it is not even necessary that an interested party provide an allegation of deficiency in a hearing in order to appeal a deficient PDP. The entire process is flawed in that the adversarial meeting of the minds is not required or fostered at a hearing. I am likely simply wasting my time explaining this now, even though I have managed to actually create circumstance in which an observation I have shared for years is made real with negative results. The system and its actors are simply unyielding to suggestions for change. Close relationship interfered with decision maker's iudement As mentioned in previous summaries attached to this Notice of Appeal, the P& Z Board relied upon staff to determine if the PDP complied with the LUC. Staff made a recommendation. P & Z never went any deeper, despite the proper introduction of an allegation that the PDP was deficient. This situation and others evidence a relationship between the Board and staff that improperly influences decisions. This situation is not atypical. Evidence gleaned from the recent approval of the Landmark expansion PDP and subsequent denial of an appeal of the same is relevant to this situation. The result is that staff and decision makers may simply ignore the requirements of the LUC at any time. Citizens are wrong. Staff is right. The objectivity that is required to judge allegations of deficiencies based upon reasonable interpretations of duly adopted code provisions does not exist. In its stead, a relationship between staff decision makers has developed that permits for outcomes that are contrary to law. Further, the discipline of procedure that would need to exist even if judicious review of development applications were the norm, and it is not, does not exist. As an alternative to discipline of procedure, a confusing and grotesquely biased process is followed. 3 Substantially false or grossly misleading Following the hearing, I began making inquiries as to the deficiency I had noted in my email. Public record requests returned prima facia evidence that the development was not in compliance with 3.2.2(c) (4) (b) of the LUC and that the applicant had attempted to evade the requirement. Further requests for public records returned evidence that staff had not attempted due diligence pertaining to adequate bike parking until after the hearing and then only upon my inquiries and announcement that I would appeal. These later findings go directly to the staff recommendation that this PDP be approved and the reliance by the P & Z board upon this recommendation. Such recommendation can easily be seen to be grossly misleading. There can be no dispute that the P & Z Board relied on this grossly misleading recommendation with the presumption that due diligence had been pursued by staff prior to its issuance and that this reliance led the Board to approve a deficient PDP. Failed to receive all evidence The email I had sent to staff prior to the hearing was not heavy on evidence. However, the email did contain a clearly made allegation that had been informed by all the information I had available to me at the time I made the allegation. The information I had available included the AIS for the hearing, LUC citations and the history of the application of 3.2.2 (C)(4)(b) in other PDPs and applications for amendments. The Board was only provided with cursory notice that an email had been received dealing with bike parking. The author of the email was not identified nor was was the rather obvious inference that I would be appealing anything but satisfactory compliance with the bike parking standard. I am checking off the box for 'failed to receive all evidence' in this appeal because I believe that if the P & Z board had been given more information about my 2 SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS UPON APPEAL In the appeal of PDP170007 by Eric Sutherland Failure to comDIv with LUC. At approximately 4:30 on June 15,1 sent an email to city officials noting what appeared to be a deficiency in the PDP appealed here. The receipt of this email was acknowledged by the Board Secretary upon inquiry as to recent correspondence made by the Board chair during the hearing. This email is partof the public record. I attended as much of the hearing as I could. However, these hearings tend to be dominated by -lengthy descriptions that dwell on the most elementary aspects of the proposed development. Citizen comments at such hearings tend to be pointless wastes of time anyway. At the time that this appeal is being prepared, it appears that staff is now in agreement with me. The PDP is deficient and should not have been approved due to inadequate bike parking. The applicant had proposed counting apartment balconies toward the requirements for enclosed bike parking spaces. Balconies would not meet the definition of an enclosed bicycle parking space pursuant to LUC 5.1.2. (ref: telephone conversation with C. Gloss, planning director) This agreement was only reached after 12 days, a dozen emails and 3 public records requests more or less guaranteed that I would prevail upon appeal. However, staff has proposed that a non-existent application for a minor amendment will be approved by administrative action in order to cure the deficiency. This plan to cure the deficiency, even if it were not a speculative hypothetical at this time, would not be an appropriate action in accord with relevant sections of the city code and LUC. P & Z abused their discretion by ignoring my allegation that the PDP was deficient. The only cure for this abuse of discretion is a finding to that effect by Council. A remand or other action at Council's pleasure may further advance the interests of the community. 1 APPELLANTS Name: Date: Eric Sutherland June29,2017 Signature: i� � C' C/ U Email: sutheris®yahoo.mm Address: Phone #: 3520 Golden Currant (970)224 4509 Please describe the nature of the relationship of appellant to the subject of the action of the Board, Commission or other Decision Maker: Interested part by virtue of submission of comments prior to hearing and attendance at heartng. Name: Date: Signature: Email: Address: Phone N: Please describe the nature of the relationship of appellant to the subject of the action of the Board, Commission or other Decision Maker: Name: Date: Signature: Email: Address: Phone #: Please describe the nature of the relationship of appellant to the subject of the action of the Board, Commission or other Decision Maker: Name: Date: Signature: Email: Address: Phone ft: Please describe the nature of the relationship of appellant to the subject of the action of the Board, Commission or other Decision Maker: ATTACH ADDITIONAL SIGNATURE SHEETS AS NECESSARY For City Clerk's Use Only: Date Filed&QlU')/ imc ia,sc�� NOTICEOF APPEAL Action Being Appealed: Date of Action: PDP170007 JUNE 15 Decision Maker (Board, Commission or Other): ZONING PIJfNNING d Appellant/Appellant Representative (if more than one appellant): Name, address, telephone number(s), and email address of an individual appellant authorized to receive, on behalf of all appellants, any notice required to be mailed by the City to the appellants Name: Eric Sutherland Phone#' 9702244509 Address: Email: 3530 Golden Currant sulharlxayahoo.mm The Decision Maker committed one (1) or more of the following errors (check all that apply): QFailure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City Code, the Land Use Code, and Charter. List relevant Code and/or Charter provision(s) here, by specific Section and subsection/subparagraph: LUC 322 (CI(a)(b) was not compiled with. This project was nol designed to provide adequate bicycle perldr -__ __ (Attach additional sheets as necessary) QFailure to conduct a fair hearing in that: ❑ The Board, Commission, or Other Decision Maker exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code or Charter, aThe Board, Commission, or Other Decision Maker substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure; ]The Board, Commission, or Other Decision Maker considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading. Describe any new evidence the appellant intends to submit at the hearing on the appeal in support of these allegations': Preliminary review documwrl prepared by [felt. A ficanfs response 'apreliminary review tlocumenL Ernaaa proving dolt Or nThe Board, Commission, or Other Decision Maker improperly failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant. The Board, Commission, or Other Decision Maker was biased against the appellant by reason of a conflict of interest or other close business, person or social relationship that interfered with the decision maker's independence of judgment. Describe any new evidence the appellant intends to submit at the hearing on the appeal in support of these allegations': Evidence that proves that P t1 Z Is predisposed lo baliwe anything that staff putsIn front of it as oppo to approac ing applications de novo may be submited. Evidence supporb09 the conclusion that tho on0rs process, submitted. Instructions: 1. For each allegation marked above, please attach a separate summary of the facts contained in the record which support the allegation. Each summary is limited to two pages, Times New Roman 12 point font. Please restate allegation at top of first page of each summary. 2. No new evidence will be received at the hearing in support of these allegations unless it is either described above or offered in response to questions presented by Councilmembers at the hearing.