HomeMy WebLinkAboutPARK SOUTH PUD - MASTER PLAN - 46-88 - LEGAL DOCS - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCILMEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Board
FROM: Sherry Albertson -Clark, AICP
Senior City Planner
RE: Park South PUD Master Plan Appeal
DATE: September 12, 1988
I wanted to inform you that Marc Middel has filed an appeal to the Planning
and Zoning Board's decision to deny the park South PUD Master Plan.
Attached, you will find a copy of the appeal.
This item has been scheduled for the October 18, 1988 City Council meeting. I
will keep you informed as to the status of this item and if you should havc
any questions, please contact me.
300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6750
PROJECT:
E
r:
Park South PUD Master Plan - #46-88
Fir"
�II j 7 1
i S;= P 0 6 1983
CITY CLc«it
APPLICANTS/APPELLANTS: Middel Enterprises, Inc. and
Park South Venture
OWNERS: Middel Enterprises, Inc. and Park South Venture
1407 S. College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
PROJECT PLANNER: Sherry Albertson -Clerk
NOTICE OF APPEAL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Applicants appeal the
decision of the Planning and Zoning Board denying the Park South
PUD Master Plan. The Master Plan was denied on August 22, 1988.
The Appellants, Middel Enterprises, Inc. and Park South Venture,
1407 S. College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524, (303)
221-2300, were the Applicants at the Planning and Zoning Board
meeting, and are the owners of the subject property.
The grounds for appeal are that the Planning and Zoning
Board abused its discretion, in that its decision was arbitrary and
without the support of competent evidence on the record; failed to
properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code,
including the Land Development Guidance System, and the
Comprehensive Plan and the Land Use Policies Plan; failed to
conduct a fair hearing in that the Board apparently considered
evidence irrelevant to its findings which were substantially false
or grossly misleading, or the Board improperly failed to receive
and consider all relevant evidence offered by the Appellants, as
follows, to -wit:
(a) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in apparently
applying all development criteria of the Land Development Guidance
System in contravention of Section 118-83(F)(2)(b), which provides
that the Master Plan will not be reviewed on the basis of the
specific design standards and criteria outlined in this section,
but rather on the basis of conformance with the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
(b) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in denying the
Master Plan based upon a alleged failure to comply with Land Use
Policy #70, which provides:
j � •
"Regional/Community shopping centers should
locate near transportation facilities that
offer the required access to the center, but
will not be allowed to create demans which
exceed the capacity of the existing and future
transportation network of the City."
(c) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in evaluating
the project as a regional/community shopping center rather than as
a neighborhood/community center, as was warranted by the evidence.
(d) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in establishing
maximum vehicle trip per day criteria of 4,000 vehicle trips per
day on Manhattan Street South of Dennison, and 7,000 vehicle trips
per day on Manhattan Street South of Horsetooth, and North of
Dennison, in contravention of the evidence presented and generally
accepted standards and criteria. Specifically, the Planning and
Zoning Board ignored the evidence presented by the traffic
engineers for the Applicants, and apparently based its decision
upon maximum criteria suggested by Rick Ensdorf, Traffic Engineer,
which is without any basis in evidence or theory.
(e) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in defining
Manhattan as a collector street, in contravention of the evidence.
(f) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in ignoring the
undisputed evidence produced by Applicants' traffic engineers with
respect to the current and future vehicle trips per day, all as
more specifically set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
(g) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in developing a
"community view" of collector street capacity, and ignoring
textbook definition and expert opinions.
(h) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in effectively
condemning Applicants' property by adopting traffic criteria that
cannot be met by a developer with any use. The Planning and Zoning
Board erred in simply denying rather than proposing reasonable
limitations or restrictions or conditions to mitigage adverse
traffic impacts.
(i) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in refusing to
approve any developer proposal to mitigate adverse traffic
impacts.
(j) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in finding that
the project had significant adverse traffic impacts, in
contravention of the evidence, when in fact, there are no
significant traffic impacts in excess of those impacts which will
exist in the event the project is developed as currently platted.
i
r , 0
0
(k) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in determining
that the proposed Master Plan will create traffic demands which
will exceed the capacity of existing and future transportation
network of the City, in contravention of the evidence presented.
Record for appeal:
(a) verbatim transcript (attached)
(b) minutes (will be provided upon their completion by
City on or after September 8, 1988)
(c) exhibits received by the Board (will be provided
upon compilation by City on or after September 8,
1988)
DATED this 6th day of September, 1988.
SORENSEN AND KONKEL
e IL"2:2�
Greg/ R Remmenga #1. 0
Attorneys for Appellants
1405 S. College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
(303) 493-8484